Back to the future – Mearsheimer

With the end of the cold war it is said that harmony can reign among the states of Europe. Central Europe can convert its military bases into industrial parks, playground and condominiums.

The article assesses this positive view. The absence of war in Europe since 1945 has been a consequence of 3 factors:

Bipolar distribution of military power on the continent. The rough military equality between the two states comprising the two poles in Europe. Each superpower was armed with a large nuclear arsenal.

There were also domestic factors: hyper nationalism helped the two world wars to break out and the declining of nationalism in Europe since 1945 has contributed to the peace.

The departure of the superpowers from central Europe would transform Europe from bipolar to a multipolar system. Germany, France, UK and Italy would assume a major power status. Soviet Union would remain a major European major power and it would suffer the problems of a multipolar system, therefore being more prone to instability. Furthermore, the departure of the superpowers from Europe could also remove the large nuclear arsenal.

Mearsheimer imagines four scenarios:

1. Europe would become nuclear free2. European states don’t expand their arsenals3. Nuclear proliferation mismanaged 4. Nuclear proliferation well-managed by the current nuclear powers

To Mearsheimer the first three scenarios are the most likely having serious risks of war. The fourth scenario, on the other hand, probably provides the best hope for maintaining peace in Europe. The current nuclear powers would take steps to settle preventive strikes on emerging nuclear powers, by setting boundaries on the proliferation process and extending security umbrella over the neighbours of nuclear emerging powers.

Against this pessimistic set there are three counterarguments

1. The peace will be preserved by the effect of the liberal international economic order that has evolved since WWII – economic liberalism

2. Liberal democracies seldom (not often) fight wars against each other democratic peace theory

3. European countries have learnt from their disastrous experience obsolescence of war

The theories behind these arguments are flamed (difettose)

3 policy prescriptions follow from this analysis

1. The US should encourage a process of limited proliferation in Europe2. The US should not withdraw fully from Europe

3. The US should take steps to forestall (prevenire) the re-emerging of hyper nationalism in Europe

How should we think about Europe’s future?

Predictions on the future general theories. Our task is to find which theory best explain the past and will most directly apply to the future.

The long peace

Since 1945 in Europe there were only two minor conflicts: 1956 Soviet intervention in Hungary, 1974 Greco-Turkish war in Cyprus. During the early years of cold war (145-63) there were lots of crises

Causes of the long peace

The wars before 1945 were characterised by the multipolar nature of Europe – this is the crucial permissive condition that allowed war.

Peacefulness of the post-war era arose for 3 reasons

1. The bipolarity distribution of power in the continent2. The rough equality in military power between the two poles 3. The appearance of nuclear weapons

The keys to war and peace lie more in the structure of the international system than in the nature of individual states. (domestic factors were less important than international factors). Conflict is common among the states because the international system creates powerful incentives to aggression. The root (origine) of the problem is the anarchic nature of the international system – there is no higher body that protect states from one other. For this reason each state living under anarchy faces the ever-present possibility that another state will use the force.

Anarchy has two consequences:

There is a little room for trust among states because a state may be unable to recover if its trust is betrayed.

Each state must guarantee its own survival since no other actor will provide its security.

No international institution is capable of enforcing order or punishing powerful aggressors. States seek to survive under anarchy by maximizing their power relative to other states self-defence.

States seek opportunities to weaken potential adversaries and improve their relative power position. Sometimes they see aggression as the best way to accumulate more power. This world is peaceful when it’s obvious that the costs and the risks of going to war are high and benefits are low. Two aspects of military structure are at the heart of this incentive structure:

The distribution of power between the states – how well-positioned states are to commit aggression. Distribution is a function of the number of poles in the system and their relative power.

Nature of the military power available to them – directly affects the costs, the risks and the benefits of going to war.

One can say that peace in Europe during the cold war has resulted from bipolarity, the military balance between the superpowers and the presence of large number of nuclear weapons.

Bipolarity

More peaceful for 3 reasons:

The number of conflicts is fewer Deterrence is easier The prospects for deterrence are greater

Two major powers dominate; demand allegiance from lesser states system is rigid. It has only one dyad across which war might break out.

Multipolarity

Minor powers have considerable flexibility regarding alliance partners. It has many potential conflict situations. The dyads are more numerous. The dyads between minor powers could also lead to war more; conflicts in multipolar world are not likely to be as devasting as a conflict between two major powers. Deterrence is more difficult because powers imbalanced are commonplace and when power is imbalanced, the stronger become harder to deter. Imbalanced power leads to conflicts in two ways: 2 states going up and attack a third, or a major power might simply bully a weaker power.

Balancing in a multipolar world has difficulties. 4 phenomena make coordination difficult

1. Alliances provide collective goods2. A state faced with two potential adversaries might conclude that a protracted war would

weaken both3. Some states may opt out of the balancing process4. Diplomacy is an uncertain process

Anyway, both systems are more peaceful when equality is greatest among the poles. Power inequalities invert war.

In bipolarity equality is function of the balance of power between the two poles

In multipolar systems the focus is on the balance of power between the two leading states in the system.

Bipolar system tends more toward equality. The states are compelled to balance by internal method (by mobilizing its own resources to reduce the gap between the two) : they are more efficient than external balancing (through alliances).

Nuclear weapons favour peace

They bolster peace by moving power relations among states toward equality. Furthermore, they bolster peace by clarifying the relative power of the states and coalitions.

Predicting the future

1. Europe as nuclear free. This is the most dangerous scenario. The pacifying effect of nuclear weapons would be lost. Peace would then depend on the other dimensions of the new order: number of poles, distribution of power. The new order would be multipolar and it may be unequal: the two most powerful states would be Germany and USSR. Therefore, there would be many dyads across which war could break out. The problem of containing Germany would arise once again: a reunified Germany would be surrounded by weaker states that would find it difficult to balance against a German aggression.

2. The current ownership pattern continues. Britain, France and USSR keep their nuclear weapons but no nuclear power emerges in Europe – nuclear free zone in Central Europe. Germany would probably not need nuclear weapons, since neither France nor any of the eastern states would be capable of defeating a reunified Germany in a conventional war. The minor powers of Eastern Europe would have strong incentives to acquire nuclear weapons. How stable would this order be? The presence of nuclear weapons in Europe would have some pacifying effect BUT for four reasons benefits would be limited

o Caution and security would be missing from central Europe – nuclear-free zoneo Asymmetrical power relations between nuclear and non-nuclear stateo Risk of miscalculation reflecting multipolar character of this system o Incentive to infuse the societies with nationalism in order to maintain public support

for national defence effort. 3. Nuclear proliferation well managed or otherwise . It is laden with dangers but also might

provide the best hope for maintaining stability on the continent. Its effects depend on how is managed. There are four principal dangers

o Strong incentives to use the force to prevent their non-nuclear neighbours.o A stable nuclear competition might not emerge between the new nuclear states.

(the lesser European powers might lack the resources needed)o Elites and publics of the emerging nuclear European states might not quickly

develop doctrines and attitudes that reflect a grasp of the devastating consequences of nuclear war.

o It would increases the number of fingers on the nuclear trigger.

But nuclear powers can take steps to reduce these dangers ex. By extending security guarantees. It would be best if proliferation were extended to Germany but not beyond. Even if proliferation were well-managed, significant dangers would remain. If all the major powers in Europe possessed nuclear weapons, they would still compete for influence among the lesser powers. Furthermore, the possibility of ganging up would remain. Proliferation can be more easily managed if it occurs during a period of relative international calm.

Critique to the other theories

1. Economic liberalism cannot explain peace because there has been little economic exchange between Soviet Union and the rest.

2. Peace loving democracies – democracies do not go to war against other democracies. It cannot account for the second post-war. The Soviet Union was not a democracy.

3. Obsolescence of war – it was no longer possible to think of war as a sensible mean to achieve national goals. This argument is not convincing because it misses one crucial difference between nuclear and conventional war. It is still possible to score a quick and decisive victory in a conventional war.

1. Economic liberalism – it rejects the notion that the prospects for peace are linked to calculations about military power. To this theory, stability is mainly a function of international economic considerations. Modern states are primarily motivated by the desire to achieve prosperity. An order works to dampen (scoraggiare) conflict in 3 ways:

o It makes states more prosperous – economically satisfied – peaceful, by promoting international institutions that encourage greater liberalism. International institutions (such as European community, General agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT), international monetary fund) help states to verify that partners keep their cooperative commitments and provide resources to governments experiencing short-term problems

o Liberal economic order foster economic interdependence among states o Some theorists argue that with ever-increasing political cooperation international

regimes will become a super-state.

Main flaw of this theory is that the principal assumption (states are primarily motivates by the desire to achieve prosperity) is wrong. Proponents ignore the effects of anarchy on state behaviour. The argument collapse for 2 reasons:

o Competition for security makes it very difficult for states to cooperateo Interdependence leads to conflicts as cooperation

States will struggle to escape the vulnerability that interdependence creates. Furthermore:

o Economic interactions between states often cause serious frictions. There will be invariably winners and losers.

o There will be opportunities to blackmail and for brinkmanship

There were 2 periods in 20th century in which europe witnessed a liberal economic order

1890-1914 – contradicts the theory yet WWI broke out

Cold war – much interdependence among the EC states. It does not mean that interdependence has caused cooperation among western democracies. It is more likely that the prime cause was the cold war. 2 ways

o A powerful and potentially dangerous Soviet Union forced the western democracies to cooperate

o America’s hegemonic position in the NATO mitigated the effects of anarchy on the w.d. and guaranteed that no EC states would aggress against another.

Without a common soviet threat and without the American night watchman, western European states will begin viewing each other with greater suspicious.

2. Peace loving democracies – the theory holds that domestic political factors (not calculation about military power or international economic system) are the determinant of the peace. The claim is not that democracies go to war less often than authoritarian states, but it is that they do not go to war against other democracies.

Some claim that authoritarian leaders are more prone to go to war than leaders of democracies – they do not hat to face elections, for example

Citizens of liberal democracies respect popular democratic rights

The first argument is flawed – impossible to sustain the claim that people in democracy are especially sensitive to the costs of war. Mass public can become deeply involved with nationalistic or religious fervour both in authoritarianism and democracy.

The second argument rests on a weaker factor that is usually overridden by other factors.

Another problem with the argument is the possibility that democracy will revert in an authoritarian state.

3 problems:

Democracies have been in a few number over the past 2 centuries Relations between USA and UK during the 19th century were hardly free of conflict, during

the 20th century were harmonious. That harmony can be explained by the presence of a common threat: Germany first, then Soviet Union. (the same arguments works for France and UK relations)

Several democracies have come closely to fighting one other:France and Britain – fashoda crisis 1898France and Germany – during the 20s for RhinelandUSA during cold war with Chile and Guatemala

Critiche da fare a Mersheimer:1. Critica la teoria della pace democratica, ma non in modo convincente2. URSS collassa. Tutti gli scenati che aveva in mente erano con l’unione sovietica3. Sottovaluta la sopravvivenza della NATO e la persistenza degli stati uniti nel ruolo di night

watchman.

Perche’ ha cosi’ tanto torto? Perche’ cerca di applicare un modello astratto a una realta’ empirica. Mersheimer ha preso la teoria di Waltz – che parla in generale di sistemi multipolari – e la applica al sottosistema europeo che comunque puo’ essere, ed e’, multipolare con elementi non previsti dal modello che evidentemente hanno un grande peso. –vedi l’integrazione economica.