In John Herz’s Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma, he describes “Security Dilemma” as groups or individuals within a state, being concerned about their security and well-being from being attacked, subjected, dominated, or annihilated from other groups or individuals” (Herz p.157). This in turn can cause surrounding states to monitor their own security in fear of the growing precautions of the other state. This is where the question of whether security and safety of the state is important, or does it cause chaos and worriedness within each state? An example of this would be the United States and Soviet Union during the Cold War. There was major panic within not only both nations but also each of their allied nations over the ideologies of Democracy and Communism, and the constant threatening of nuclear missiles which later translated into the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Herz states in his section on Idealist Internationalism that, “turning against each other had as one of its major reasons the security dilemma of politically unintegrated units, and their ensuing competition for power…Nationalism in the major nation-states now became allied with ideas of national or racial inequality and superiority; liberal- humanitarian nationalism wandered to the East” (Herz 163). Such ideologies in many states and in turn caused a global panic between each state and their respective allies.
Each state and its allies were all concerned about their security and were all ready to risk the entirety of their nations in this tense conflict. Each state raced to build their nuclear stockpiles and made its citizens of the state prepare and practice for a nuclear attack, which became a normal thing to do at the time until the resolution of the cold war. Is putting the health and well-being of your state worth a nuclear disaster on a global scale? Or is it important to be prepared for these situations to help protect your state and allies? Herz state’s, “The theory of the anachronism of state and sovereignty, of wars and power politics, simply overlooks the opposite tendency growing out of the technical interdependence of the sovereign units in the world: Faced with this growing interdependence but also with the security dilemma, their attempted way-out is to expand their individual power, economically (in order to be self-sufficient in war), strategically (in order to safeguard its defense requirements), etc.” (Herz 173). For these exact reasons is why security dilemma is seen as both good and bad. There is benefits economy wise as there is a need for more individuals to help manufacture these weapons of mass destruction, so more factory jobs are created. And looking at strategic wise you know have many spies in both states and its allied states to gain intel to keep your guard up and ready for any offensive tactics by the opposing states.
The opposing states doesn’t know whether the state that has increased its security and weaponry will use its increased military capabilities for an attack in the future. For this reason, they will either choose to increase their own military capabilities in order to reestablish the balance of power or they will launch a preemptive attack to prevent the opposing state from upsetting the balance in power of all states. Herz states, “collective self-defense becomes a pretext, however understandable and justified such regionalism may be, in East or West, from the standpoint of security. For the security dilemma today is perhaps more clear-cut than it ever was before” (Herz 180). There is a question of whether or not the security dilemma plays a role in modern foreign policy. I believe that even today it still does as the US has increased its military power and influence throughout the years and making advancements in security but also Russia and other major states such as China has also increased their military power and influence as well. A modern-day example would be Russia and its invasion into Ukraine. Russia wants to assert their dominance of military power and security, and the US always wanting to be involved has supplied Ukraine with weaponry and support to help fight off the opposing Russian forces which they have succeeded at by pushing Russian soldiers back. Herz’s writing on security dilemma goes into depth over the topic of there still being a want between all states to be the biggest and the best which is why security dilemma is relevant to today with regarding foreign policy making.
Work Cited
John H. Herz. Political Realism and Political Idealism. 1951