(Course/Major)
(Professor/Instructor)
(University/Institute)
(Location)
Introduction
Assessing whether the Cold War can be defined as a “security dilemma” highlights both historical and hypothetical issues. Jervis (2001, pp. 36-37) avers that the main premise of the security issue is in the absence of a supranational agency that can implement international agreements, the policies of states to strengthen their security has the effect of weakening the security of others in the global community. The interplay of these actions tends to generate hostility compared to conflicts resulting from the digressions in objectives. (This is where maximization of security and uncertainty is discussed).
The interactions of the US and Russia can be considered as a classic case of “security dilemma.” Mutual disrespect and mistrust between the United States and Russia extend over the concerns of arms control and hegemony of the two states. Moscow and Washington treats the expansion of each other’s defensive capabilities with great suspicion.
For example, Troitskiy (2011, p. 1) notes that the Russians are apprehensive regarding the “ballistic defensive military initiative” of the US as an effective counter against their nuclear deterrence capacity, while the US believes that Russian military exercises are in preparation for launching massive attacks against NATO as well as non-aligned allies. This is nowhere better evinced in the engagement of the two former Cold War rivals in the Middle East tensions in Syria.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is supportive of the plan to destroy the Islamic State terrorists fighting against Syrian President Bashar-al-Assad but supports the Syrian strongman; the West, led by US President Barack Obama, has called on the United Nations to force Assad to step down from power, even calling the Syrian strongman a “child killing tyrant” whose brutality has fuelled the actions of the ISIS extremists. News Limited (2015) reports that Washington has heavily castigated Moscow’s involvement in Syria, stating that Russian engagement in the crisis will only serve to worsen the tensions and conflicts in the region.
Dannenberg, Cilluffo, and Cardash (2015, p. 2) averred that Russian military incursions are designed to incapacitate the Sunni groups, worsening the exodus of refugees from Syria and journeying to Europe. For its part, Russia accused the United States for the growing violent fundamentalism targeting the United States on American military action in countries such as Iraq and Libya, which Putin avers is the main driver behind the tumult in the Middle East.
Research Question
Does there exist a possibility that this dilemma result in the generation of a new era of détente?
Can the international community hope to avert another Cold War?
Are there reasons to evince the resiliency of security dilemma concept?
Can realism and constructivism be seen in the present order?
Background of the Problem
Koshkin (2015) avers that if left unchecked, the two former superpowers during the Cold War are progressing towards another stage in a new era of détente, an era that anticipates renewed hostility and acrimony between the two nations. According to Columbia University professor emeritus Robert Levgold, the international community is adapting to what is being termed as a “new Cold War” and one that is not expected to wind down in the near future. What is disturbing in this new era of détente is that, compared to the original Cold War, the United States and Russia are not following the guidelines that were set in the first Cold War; in essence, the two are creating new “rules of the game.” Furthermore, the two sides showed a measure of respect to each other during the first era of détente; now, there is nothing but animosity.
In his work, Gray (2009, p. 6) has measured the resiliency of its security issues in its relationship with Russia in the arena of global politics. Gray avers that rising and past international powers will acquiesce and even allow a disparate “balance of power” until such time that these states find a suitable alternative. China, Russia and other rising emerging powers, in this light, will not ally themselves with a “hegemonic” US agenda to “order” international political affairs; rather, these view themselves as contenders for the position of a new “global superpower.”
Methodology
In the course of the original Cold War, “realism” was the prevailing theoretical holding. Walt (1998, p. 1) posits that the theory frames the conduct of international politics as a continuing battle for power and is traditionally fatalistic with regards to abrogating or even reducing the potential for strife. “Classical” realists such as Morgenthau and Niebhur proffer that like humans, states have a propensity to bestride others; the “neorealist” theory posited by Waltz removed the human nature from the conduct of global affairs; as the international system is chaotic, without any superpower in the global system, every state must fend for itself.
Souza (2016) proffers that the concept of “security dilemma” is fueled by the anxieties of the opposing forces in the international arena; with each state viewing the strengthening efforts of its neighbors as a defensive stance, these states will regard these as immediate threats that must be responded to immediately as well. The dissolution of the USSR has created a number of distinct but serious challenges, particularly in the arena of the re-ordering of the global political operation. According to Cuny (2014), China, Russia and ISIS are in a way helping the United States strengthen its position as the global superpower, the guiding and implementing force to balance the political fluctuations in the world. In this light, it can be said that the argument of the parties in the global arena are competing to dislodge the US is weak since the opposite is being evinced.
Schmah (2012) points to the work of Adler and Barnett in applying a wide-reaching constructivist methodology in international relations. Adler and Barnett hold that chaos is a social construct and allows more space for engaging channels to resolve any conflicts. In this light, those of the constructivists change the center of activity from set processes to those of interplay between nations. The two state that security begins when states move to seek improved relations in the belief that cooperation in matters of security will boost their interests.
Conclusions
Though the possibility of a nuclear conflict between the two powers is very small, the security dilemma between the two is inching the two closer to one that can foresee such a possibility. Putin wants NATO to implode believing that the organization is a direct threat to Russian schemes in the region; for the part of NATO, Souza (2016) avers that the aggression being evinced by Russia warrants the immediate implementation of “containment policies” to hedge off the region from Russian advances.
Though there is a growing international collaboration regarding lessening the threat of a global conflict, the use of the concept of “security dilemma” is an integral guiding principle is still valid. Winkworth (2012) believes that arbitration is a crucial factor in the resolution of conflicts. Nonetheless, there is a dearth of verifiable to evince the scope and range of this concept. Withal, Schmah (2012) avers that though constructivism is primarily geared to develop mechanisms geared to resolve issues, it is also designed to generate avenues or forums where states can arbitrate and discuss concerns as well as share principles and ideas. It is hoped that in this stage, neutrality among the states is shifted into “mutual accountability.”
Compared to the previous era of détente, Putin is now inviting international cooperation with regards to ISIS. With calls for a wider global coalition to fight and ultimately defeat the terrorist group, Russia is speculating that the international coalition will be formed with Russia being given at least an influencing position in the alliance; Putin is foreseeing that the West will acquiesce with Moscow’s position. Yaffa (2015) states that Putin’s gamble is producing positive results; Secretary Kerry has echoed this change Putin is hoping for in that the former has declared that Assad’s ouster is not an immediate concern for the United States. This shift in the line of the United States is integral for Putin’s gambit. Formerly, the United States actively called for the immediate ouster of the Syrian dictator as a prerequisite for any negotiation to take place.
Spalding and Lowther (2015) must adhere to its commitments to international accords and at the same time provide the guiding voice in conflict situations. When hostile states look to change the status quo to undermine American interests, then the US must adhere to its commitment to its colleagues and partners if Washington seeks to retain the “mantle of leadership” in the international community.
Unfortunately, Schmah (2012), citing Jervis and Glaser, avers that the security dilemma, with regards to the international community, cannot avert the effects of the security dilemma in the arena of international politics. Mearsheimer avers that the only certain entity in international relations is ironically, speculation. If nations seek to survive the uncertainty in the global arena, then these must prepare for the worst and strive to enlarge themselves to fend off the dangers that come with the operation of a discordant, power driven international political order.
Bibliography
Cuny, F., 2014, Humanitarian assistance in the post-Cold War era [online] Available at:<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cuny/laptop/coldwar.html [accessed 24 February 2016]
Dannenberg, R.M., Cilluffo, F.J., Cardash, S. L., 2015, Time for the United States and Russia to take on ISIS together in Syria [online] Available at :<https://cchs.gwu.edu/sites/cchs.gwu.edu/files/downloads/WorkwithRussiaAgainstISIS-CCHSCommentary.pdf [accessed 24 February 2016]
Gray, C.S., 2009, National security dilemmas: challenges and opportunities. Lincoln: Potomac Books
Jervis, R., 2001, Was the Cold War a security dilemma? Journal of Cold War Studies 30(1) pp. 36-60
Koshkin, P., 2015, Syria is now in the middle of a new, more dangerous Cold War [online] Available at :<http://www.russia-direct.org/qa/syria-now-middle-new-more-dangerous-cold-war [accessed 24 February 2016]
News Limited, 2015, Vladimir Putin says America has made an ‘enormous mistake’ in Syria [online] Available at:<http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/vladimir-putin-says-america-has-made-an-enormous-mistake-in-syria/news-story/d25f49208fbe064bf8657406c853e5bd?sv=f3ec34093403e76984d323e530df360f [accessed 24 February 2016]
Schmah, L., 2012, Can the security dilemma be escaped [online] Available at:<http://www.e-ir.info/2012/11/23/can-the-security-dilemma-ever-be-escaped/ [accessed 24 February 2016]
Souza, R., 2016, NATO, Russia, and the security dilemma [online] Available at :<http://www.ia-forum.org/Content/ViewInternalDocument.cfm?ContentID=8376 [accessed 26 February 2016]
Spalding, R., Lowther, A., 2015, How Russia, China, and IS have made the US popular again [online] Available at:<http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/how-russia-china-and-is-have-made-the-us-popular-again/ [accessed 24 February 2016]
Troitskiy, M., 2011, The security dilemma and ‘two-level games’ in US-Russia relations [online] Available at :<http://www.gwu.edu/~ieresgwu/assets/docs/ponars/pepm_176.pdf [accessed 24 February 2016]
Walt, S.M., 1998, International relations: one world, many theories. Foreign Policy pp. 1-6
Winkworth, A., 2012, Is the security dilemma still relevant in international relations? [online] Available at:<http://www.e-ir.info/2012/12/21/is-the-security-dilemma-still-relevant-in-international-relations/[accessed 24 February 2016]
Yaffa, J., 2015, Can Putin get his way on Syria [online] Available at:<http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/putin-returns-to-the-u-n [accessed 24 February 2016]
