A-Z of IR: S is for the 'Security Dilemma' and T is for 'Trust'
Inspired by the British Academy’s focus on Engaging the Public with Humanities and the Social Sciences (2023), in October 2024, Adrian Gallagher (Leeds) launched an A-Z in International Politics online and free of charge. This 26 part series over 26 weeks introduces key concepts such as A is for Anarchy, B for Balance of Power, C for Cooperation and so forth. They are released on Instagram (Prof_Politics), TikTok (Professor_Politics), LinkedIn, and YouTube (@ProfessorGallagher).
In the first few months alone, Instagram generated more than 38,000 views, 2000 interactions and 1200 followers, TikTok 22,243 views, YouTube over 1000 views, and LinkedIn around 10,000 views.
This week we look at the letters 'S' and 'T'.
S is for the 'Security Dilemma'.
The security dilemma is one of the most important concepts in international politics and is used by academics to help explain why events like World War I occurred.
The security dilemma helps us understand why governments who may not even want to go to war with each other, end up doing just that. To make sense of this we have to understand two levels of dilemma within in. The first is interpretation. The second is response
Imagine two strangers on a small island. If the first stranger sees the other pick up a stick, they might worry why. Here we have the first dilemma of interpretation. One stranger cannot see into the mind of the other, and can therefore cannot know the other's true intensions or motives. This is the 'other minds' problem in international politics. Has the stranger picked up a stick out of boredom, self-defence, or to attack? This leads to the second dilemma of response. The first stranger could engage in dialogue to try to understand the motives of the stick-wielder. They could pick up a bigger stick of their own. In the case of the latter, now the second stranger faces an interpretation dilemma! This creates uncertainty, fear, and paranoia. Each might keep reaching for an ever-bigger stick.
This is an arms race.
Some argue that this is exactly how World War I began. Perhaps no party wanted to go to war, but via the security dilemma, they sleepwalked into it.
In international politics, billions is spent on defence. To other countries, this might look like preparation for attack. How states interpret this spending is critical, and they have to decide on how to respond. Some argue that this dilemma cannot be resolved, and we live in a tragic perpetual cycle of mistrust and fear that pushed states into war. Others argue we can mitigate the impact of the security dilemma and build bonds of trust, even between enemies.
T is for 'Trust'.
During the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union were ideologically opposed to each other. They were fundamental enemies. Despite this, Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikael Gorbachev began to develop bonds of trust that enabled them to bring about an end to the Cold War.
Trust can be defined as the expectation of no harm being done in contexts where harm is always a possibility. For example, you may marry someone you love because you trust them. You expect them to do no harm to you even though you know betrayal is a possibility. It's also important to recognise the value of distrust in that it can act as a form of protection. If you love someone but you think that they will betray you, then you will not or should not marry them.
In his book 'Trusting Enemies', Nicholas Wheeler asks us to consider the role that face to face interactions play in international politics, even between enemies. US President Ronald Reagan explained himself that when he met Mikhail Gorbachev, shook his hand, and looked into his eyes, he knew that progress could be made. Their interpersonal relationship therefore, helped eliminate suspicions, warmed relations, and end the Cold War.
Think about a first date. You engage in face to face interaction as you attempt to establish the true motives of the other person involved. What are they looking for? You can never know for certain what is happening in their minds and what their motives are. But you do this as a way of trying to eliminate suspicions and decide if you want a second date.
Face to face interaction allows opportunities to establish trust and distrust. Neville Chamberlain met Adolf Hitler three times face to face in the lead up to signing the Munich Agreement (1938). It could be argued he should have read his motives better. It was only after Hitler broke the Munich Agreement that a consensus was forged that Hitler could no longer be trusted.
Recently, Vladimir Putin said a phone call he had with Donald Trump was needed to build trust between states so they can end the war in Ukraine. But since Putin invaded Ukraine in the first place, we might be skeptical whether he can be trusted.
Creating platforms and windows of opportunity for world leaders to have these face to face interactions is extremely important. Remember this the next time you hear that the United Nations is useless, or nothing but a talking shop.
Photo by Robert Stump on Unsplash
