Cited in Robert Jervis, "Cooperation under the Security Dilemma,"
Download 27.86 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Normative force of law and practice also matter
                                                        
Security! The term signifies more indeed than the maintenance of a people's homeland, or even of their territories beyond the seas. It also means the maintenance of the world's respect for them, the maintenance of their economic interests, everything in a word, which goes to make up the grandeur, the life itself, of the nation. --cited in Robert Jervis, "Cooperation under the Security Dilemma," p. 185 Is interstate war obsolete? New technologies have consistently made war more deadly and destructive
There have been attempts to: Ban certain weapons, e.g. crossbow Limit war, e.g., just war theory Manage war, e.g., laws of war This is not a new suggestion Prior to WWI, Noman Angell argued that war would be too costly Today’s arguments rest on (i) the great destructiveness of armaments and (ii) the force of custom, practice, and law This point is captured in the “(in)security dilemma” May only serve to make others uncertain, fearful, and less secure Weapons, capabilities, and deployments meant to make one secure… Yet how can one tell what is “offensive” and what is “defensive?” But weapons that are clearly defensive do not do this Systems that hold each other “hostage” Situations in which parties can build trust Defenses that are immobile, such as tank traps Weapons of mass destruction may offer this WMD in sufficient numbers can destroy a society There are no political objectives that are worth such a cost But WMD possessed by only one party creates an unstable situation. And WMD possessed by two opposing parties may create an incentive to strike first in a crisis Reliable and survivable retaliatory systems eliminate this possibility of winning through a first strike
International borders are fixed except in the case of referendum Crossing borders in the absence of a justified provocation is frowned upon and may be opposed by force Hence, the material benefits of offensive war may not be worth the political costs We can find support for this (invasion of Kuwait) as well as contrary evidence (Israel’s occupation of Gaza and West Bank). But intrastate war appears to be on the rise… Civil wars Secessionist wars “Resource” wars Ethnic conflicts Power struggles Class warfare Insurgencies There may be as many as 40 such wars currently underway, depending on how you count Have the numbers really increased since the end of the Cold War, or are these wars more visible than in the past? 1. Loss of CW “containment” 2. Ancient hatreds 3. Ethnic incompatibilities 4. Struggles for resources 5. Wars of liberalization 6. Loss of power and status
Elite manipulation seems to play a central role Economic and political elites can take special advantage of access to power and resources to increase their status Changes in political and economic conditions, via capitalism and democratization result in shifts in wealth, influence and control Formerly subordinate groups may benefit from these changes and acquire increased income and recognition
Elites can cultivate popular resentment of such shifts through rhetoric, violence, war and even genocide Serbian wars in Yugoslavia—1990s U.S. “culture war” —1992-present Genocide by Hutu in Rwanda--1994
Politics 160A (W06): 2/2/06 Directory: ~rlipsch -> pol160A ~rlipsch -> Competing for Green Neoliberalism and the rise of sustainable cities Share with your friends:
|