Cooperation under the security dilemma

 Cooperation under the security dilemma

Topic four reading of Cooperation under the security dilemma talks about Anarchy and the security dilemma that makes cooperation seemingly impossible. Asking “Why would states cooperate anyway? Presumably, there must be some mechanism which allows states to bind themselves do not “defect,” or at least some mechanism by which to detect defection early enough to respond appropriately. Jervis identifies two main variables, the offense/defense balance and the ability to distinguish between offensive/defensive postures. Using these two variables he creates a mental simulation four possible strategic environments:

1/2 Offensive/Defensive posture indistinguishable – Countries who take offense measures are often playing a very dangerous card because their neighbors, enemies, and allies start to develop a mistrust to the intentions of these offensive measures the state is taking.

3/4The Security dilemma is distinguishable between offensive and defensive advantages. countries will have an incentive to use offensive action to protect themselves. Status-quo states can differentiate themselves from aggressors and there will likely be a warning of an aggressors’ intentions. However, from a Defensive standpoint, the advantage is given to defense is that greater investment into defense will not frighten neighbors and cause mistrust.

To what extent each state takes its steps depends on how much the security dilemma is at play, previous interactions between states that would lead to trust or mistrust. In a perfect world, the best way to avoid the security dilemma would be for countries to have the ability to look at other nations and see intentions, but that is not an option, so the next best ideas are up for conversation. The best idea mentioned in the article would be to make it so that each country was benefiting so well that there would be no reason for one to defect, simply not biting the hand that feeds them. So far ​there is no organization or authority that makes and enforce international laws. There are no rules and the only thing keeping the world out of war or paranoia is the understanding that the common goal of prosperity will bring mutual rewards and if others do not cooperate may bring disaster if they do not. States are aware of that as anarchy encourages behavior that leaves every player worse off than they could be, even in the extreme case in which all states would like to freeze the status quo.

TOPIC 7

In Chapter 3 of World order Kissenger discusses the muslim religion and the struggles the islamic governments go through. He keys in on the points that the main two focuses of conflict for muslims the first being muslims who believe in the principles of westphalia versus the muslims who believe states and the building of world order violate the Quran. An example of this is in Egypt when Mohammed Mosri being elected and his extreme views caused the military revolting against his government. The second main conflict is the Shia muslims against the Suni muslims. The obvious example of that being the intense rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Kissenger states that itll be difficult for the US to be able to defuse the situation between the Saudis and Iran but they can condemn extremists like Al-Queda and Al-Assad. I personally agree with Kissenger that the US should condemn the extremist groups but I don’t believe theyll be able to solve the issues between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Chapter 4 focuses in on the recent political history of Iran. Iran’s leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei strongly believed that the Arab Spring was the beginning of an Islamic World Order. Iran also supported the spread of radical islam. Iran has harboured many different terrorist groups within their borders. Khamenei sees the influence of the US as the spread of pure evil throughout the world. Iran’s nuclear program also

makes them extremely hard to negotiate with for other nations. I believe that if there is still disruptive nations like Iran that there will never be true World Order.

TOPIC 8

Chapter 5 of World order focuses on the recent political history of Asia but specifically Japan and India. Japan went from isolation to learning to be like their counterparts. After World War 2 Japan tried modernize like America they also took up the values of democracy. Japan then became an ally of the US joining their world order. After India became a single empire the british came and took over. After rebellions Britain deemed India as a whole country and helped in modernizing the country. The Indian’s main focus was independence for their country. They were not apart of the Cold War but they were in wars with China and Pakistan. After the Cold War the country experienced economic and military reforms. Kissenger believed that India will be an important nation in Asia for America to keep good relations with. I agree with Kissenger I believe that the US will need a country like India as a close ally with a common enemy in India. Chapter 6 is focused on China’s recent history. For a large portion of China’s recent history China has had one ruler and believed they were superior to the rest of the world. Mao brought the rise of industry in China and tried to halt the apparent institutionalization of Chinese leadership by sending educated youth to the countryside. After Mao’s death Xiaoping came into power and reformed both the economy and social freedoms. With Xiaoping in charge china’s economy is arguably the largest in the world. In Kissenger’s opinion China and US need to band together to stop the North Korean crisis. I personally believe that either one could solve issue as long as other didn’t intervene.

TOPIC 9

In topic 9 we looked at the United States, Liberal Internationalism and World Order. How the USA believes that it is obligated to spread freedom and all of its beckoning ideologies around the world after the years of American Isolationism. President Woodrow Wilson believed that America was destined for greatness. Wilson tried to implement a concept called “collective security” where states who share common interests would come together to collectively secure each other against aggression from other states in or out of the alliance. This is a very international liberal ideology that seems to play out rather favorably most of the time. Despite this collective security aimed to help prevent aggression, when and when not to use force is something that America has struggled with in the past. Truman said that America’s actions in the Korean war proved that the end goal was peace in Asia. It caused people uncomfort as there was no clear winner in this war. Then America got involved in Asia again when it tried to install democracy in Vietnam. This was a hopeless task as Vietnam was not ready to support itself as a democracy. The whole endeavor was a waste, the American public caught word of US soldiers killing civilians and then America withdrew troops in exchange for Prisoners of War. Kissinger talks about the next couple decades of American policy and how its a mix of ups and downs, ducking and dodging, then eventually getting involved in international squabbles. All in an effort to most efficiently spread Liberal democracy wherever they could.