Collective security
Political scientists, who study international relations, attempt to develop mechanisms that can minimise the risk of military conflicts between or among states. Collective security can be viewed as one of such mechanisms. Overall, this concept is based on the assumption that states are not likely to act as aggressors if they know that this attack can evoke the collective response of cooperating members that form a certain alliance. One should mention that the foreign policies of many countries have been affected by the ideas of researchers who examined various aspects of international relations. Among such impacts, one can mention the formation of the North Atlantic Alliance. To some degree, this military cooperation has been regarded as one of the main mechanisms that eliminate the possibility of wars.
Nevertheless, one should also consider the cases when this approach does not work. This is why some researchers speak about the false promise of collective security. Political scientists, especially those ones, who adopt the liberal approach to the preservation of peace, may believe that countries are fully committed to the protection of other states that have joined a certain alliance1. However, there are exceptions that can refute this assumption. For instance, one can mention the Falklands War between the United Kingdom of Argentina. At that time, other NATO countries did not intervene in this conflict, either military or diplomatically.
Therefore, international relations as a field of political science can play several roles. In particular, it can contribute to the creation of safeguards that can reduce the possibility of armed conflicts between the states. Nevertheless, researchers can misguide the policies of a country, especially if they do not consider the reasons why countries may not fulfil their previous obligations.
Perception and Misperception
The relations between the two countries are often dependent on the ability of political leaders to establish relations with one another. Sometimes, these people can misinterpret each other’s intentions; as a result, there is a significant risk of conflicts between these countries. In some case, these communication problems can result in military confrontations.
This argument can be partly applied to such a conflict as World War I. To a large extent, it was caused by the failure of various European monarchs to discuss the conflicting interests of their states. These policy-makers perceived each other only as enemies. This argument is particularly relevant if one speaks about Wilhelm II and Nicholas II, who did not consider the potential impacts of this war on their countries and the very existence of monarchy in Russia and Germany. Both of them were unwilling to stop the mobilisation of their armies since they were afraid of the potential attack. Apart from that, Wilhelm II believed that France and Russia would inevitably wage war against Germany2.
This is why he preferred to take the first step and attack France. He did not consider the possibility that these two countries did not have sufficient resources for attacking Germany. This is one of the points that should be taken into account.
The main problem is that these political leaders did not discuss the potential risks that can be entailed by this war. Yet, one should keep in mind that misperception and miscommunication are more likely to play an important role if conflicting countries are not democratic. As a rule, they are governed by autocratic or totalitarian regimes. Nevertheless, communication is critical for political leaders representing democratic countries.
Liberalism and democratic peace
There are several factors that are critical for reducing the possibility of conflicts between democratic states. They are mostly associated with the peculiarities of liberal societies and liberal ideology, in general. In particular, one should consider such an issue as the accountability of leaders who are supposed to take responsibility for military losses. Provided that these losses are not justified in any way, political leaders of a country may not be re-elected.
This argument is not applicable to totalitarian or autocratic societies. Apart from that, countries, in which liberalism is a dominant political ideology, are more likely to achieve greater levels of prosperity. In turn, the citizens of these countries may not accept the idea of a military conflict because it can adversely affect their prosperity. Moreover, there are social institutions that can veto the decisions of military leaders. For instance, one can refer to the role of parliaments. Apart from that, citizens can form pressure groups that can make political leaders look for a peaceful solution to various international conflicts. Thus, there is a system of checks and balances that can prevent countries from going to wars3.
This model can be supported by examining Western states that do not enter into military conflicts with one another. This is one of the details that should be distinguished.
These peculiarities of liberalism have been important for political scientists who study international relations. In particular, they have been used for the development of the democratic peace theory. Additionally, these issues have been important for explaining the formation of various alliances between or among countries. Moreover, their details are vital for discussing the ways in which democratic countries can resolve conflicts that affect their relations.
Statecraft and realism
Such a notion as statecraft can be described as the use of power in order to influence international relations. From the perspective of political realism, this concept can be viewed as the use of power in order to promote the geopolitical interests of a certain state. Furthermore, one can argue that statecraft is not necessarily aimed at achieving objectives that can benefit other countries. It is possible to provide several examples illustrating statecraft. For instance, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia can use its influence in the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council in order to limit the influence of Iran in this region, especially in Iraq.
The government of Saudi Arabia does not fully believe the allegations of Iranian leaders who say that their nuclear program will be used only for self-defence. Moreover, they do not think that Iranian policy in the Middle East is only aimed at the preservation of peace in this region4. This is why they try to block various initiatives that Iranian leaders want to promote. This is one of the details that should be taken into account. To some degree, the opposition between these states can be illustrated by looking at the recent war that has broken out in Yemen because Saudi Arabia and Iran support conflicting sides.
The relations between these states should be considered because they show that in many cases, states can significantly distrust one another. Moreover, their actions are based on the assumptions that the promises or allegations of political leaders cannot be relied on. So, this case exemplifies statecraft which is driven by the principles of political realism. These are the main details that can be singled out.
Collective deterrence
The notion of collective deterrence is based on the premise that there is a certain group of states that take actions against aggressors. These states have significant military and economic capabilities. For instance, it is possible to speak about the role of the Security Council, which is supposed to make decisions that eliminate the risk of military conflicts. For instance, this goal can be achieved by imposing sanctions on those states that act aggressively against other countries5. In particular, one can speak about the resolution of the Security Council according to which the imports and exports from Iraq were significantly restricted after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. This case illustrates the benefits of collective deterrence.
It is important to remember that in some cases, collective deterrence is not effective, especially in those cases, when one of the great powers chooses to enter a military conflict. Under such circumstances, even the Security Council cannot function properly. One should keep in mind that some countries can to use their veto power to block the resolutions of the Security Council. Furthermore, most advanced countries can have conflicting interests, and they may not respond to various threats as soon as possible. Collective deterrence mechanisms can sometimes be too bureaucratic. This limitation proved to be crucial at the time when it was necessary to avert the genocide in Rwanda.
Overall, collective deterrence is vital for the preservation of peace. Nevertheless, at the same time, this mechanism is far for perfect because there are bureaucratic problems that can dramatically impair the time-efficiency of the response. Moreover, one should not overlook the role of conflicts between and among the most advanced countries. These are the main factors that can affect the efficiency of collective deterrence.
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia
The government of Pakistan has refused to support the Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen. To some degree, this choice can be explained from the viewpoint of neo-realism. In particular, Pakistani policy-makers do not want to come into conflict with Iran which supports one of the sides in the civil war which has broken out in Yemen6. In addition to that, they may believe that in case of their confrontation with Iran, they may not be supported by other countries. It is possible to refer to one of the positions included in neo-realism. According to this model, the policies of different states are not predictable. Moreover, the promises given by political leaders may not be fulfilled. In turn, the political leaders of Pakistan may distrust the promises given by Saudi or American diplomats. It should also be noted that Iran and Pakistan have established various forms of partnerships, and Pakistani leaders may not want to disrupt these relations.
Apart from that, the government of this country may decide that this intervention can lead to social instability within the country. The problem is that Pakistani citizens may not support the participation of their country in the Yemen Civil War. The supporters of neo-realism argue that the primary duty of policy-makers is to ensure the internal stability of the country. Therefore, they may disregard their international obligations.
This discussion shows that neo-realism can be useful for understanding the decisions that military and political leaders can take. This framework lays stress that in many cases, states do not want to take part in various military alliances because they may believe that the promises given to them may not be fulfilled. These are the main arguments that can be put forward.
Bibliography
Balcı, F, ‘Do democracies promote peace in the lights of democratic peace theory?’, International Journal Of Human Sciences, vol. 8, no. 1, 2011, pp. 728-739. Web.
Bederman, D, ‘Collective Security, Demilitarization and ‘Pariah’ States’, European Journal of International Law, vol. 13, no. 1, 2002, pp. 121-138. Web.
Ersoy, E, ‘Saudi Arabia and Iran in the New Middle East’, Middle Eastern Analysis vol. 5, no. 51, 2013, pp. 47-54. Web.
Levinson, M, ‘Mapping The Causes Of World War I To Avoid Armageddon Today’, ETC: A Review Of General Semantics, vol. 62, no. 2, 2005, pp. 157-164. Web.
Mearsheimer, J, ‘The false promise of international institutions’, International Security, vol. 19, no. 3, 1994, pp. 5-51. Web.
Sohlman, E, ‘Yemen Fractures on the Brink of Civil War as Al-Qaeda Gains Ground’, American Foreign Policy Interests, vol. 33, no. 5, 2011, pp. 236-240. Web.
Footnotes
- J Mearsheimer, ‘The false promise of international institutions’, International Security, vol. 19, no. 3, 1994, p. 10.
- M Levinson, ‘Mapping The Causes Of World War I To Avoid Armageddon Today’, ETC: A Review Of General Semantics, vol. 62, no. 2, 2005, p. 162.
- F Balcı, ‘Do democracies promote peace in the lights of democratic peace theory?’, International Journal Of Human Sciences, vol. 8, no. 1, 2011, p. 731.
- E Ersoy, ‘Saudi Arabia and Iran in the New Middle East’, Middle Eastern Analysis vol. 5, no. 51, 2013, p. 48.
- D Bederman, ‘Collective Security, Demilitarisation and ‘Pariah’ States’, European Journal of International Law, vol. 13, no. 1, 2002, pp. 121.
- E Sohlman, ‘Yemen Fractures on the Brink of Civil War as Al-Qaeda Gains Ground’, American Foreign Policy Interests, vol. 33, no. 5, 2011, p. 236.