Understanding security dilemma

Traditional literature, based on the realist school of thought in International Relations and Security Studies, holds that the state is the key actor in achieving national security. The foundational principles of this approach emphasise the concept of sovereignty and the use of military force to maintain security in an anarchic international system.

This understanding of the world order directly impacts the definition of security as a feature of that anarchic system. Pioneering realists, such as Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz, highlight the inevitability of conflict in a world lacking a supreme authority.

Morgenthau, in his book 'Politics Among Nations', underscores that states operate based on the rational pursuit of power to advance their interests.

Similarly, Waltz, in his work, explains the theory of structural realism, asserting that the distribution of power within the international system determines the behaviour of states and their security policies. These arguments highlight the importance of the “balance of power” as an essential mechanism to prevent war and ensure stability.

Consequently, security studies focus on the state as the guarantor of security. Thus, the state’s reflexive engagements in international affairs can be interpreted according to its national interests. Henry Kissinger, an academic and former US secretary of state, argues that "how realistically we perceive our national interests is a fundamental security concern."

For realists, "no country will sacrifice its interests to serve the larger society." This explains why states expand at the expense of others, as the security dilemma would otherwise cease to exist.

The term security dilemma has received significant attention from scholars and has been interpreted based on two main factors: positional power and national interest. Central to realist thought in security studies and international relations, the concept was first coined by John Herz in 1950 and later analysed by scholars such as Robert Jervis and Herbert Butterfield.

It refers to a situation where a state, seeking to enhance its security by increasing military power or taking defensive measures, raises concerns among other states that perceive such actions as threats. This dynamic can lead to arms races or heightened tensions, potentially escalating into armed conflict, even in the absence of aggressive intentions.

For instance, the relationship between the United States and Iran exemplifies the exacerbation of the security dilemma in the Arab Gulf and the Middle East.

Despite economic sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies on Iran and the launch of cyberattacks (by Israel) on its nuclear project, such as the US withdrawal from the nuclear agreement on May 8, 2018, under president Donald Trump, Iran perceives these actions as threats to its national security.

In response, Iran transfers the confrontation to other regional domains by supplying weapons, ammunition and drones to allies like Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Ansar Allah in Yemen. These groups confront Israel (a key US ally) on multiple fronts, including targeting ships in the Red Sea.

The escalation of disputes between Russia and Nato due to growing mutual mistrust, the alliance's defence policies and its deliberate eastward expansion is another example of the centrality of the security dilemma in international politics. Similarly, the arms race between India and Pakistan in South Asia highlights how each country bolsters its military capabilities in response to the other's actions, increasing regional tensions.

Additionally, China's naval expansion in the South China Sea has prompted neighbouring countries such as Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam to strengthen their own forces, further exacerbating regional tensions.

To be continued..