After a grueling day at work, one of my favorite things to do is to relax on the chair with a cup of hot cocoa while watching international news stations. With the help of my wonderful chair, which lifts and leans forward to make it easier for me to sit down and get up without straining my muscles, the hot chocolate makes for the most pleasant experience ever. This pleasant feeling does not last long as reports on security problems destroying the world break my heart.
The security dilemma is a vital issue in the educational context of worldwide politics and foreign affairs. This uncertainty illustrates how actions adopted by one country to boost its safety, such as developing defense capabilities, mobilizing military forces, and creating strategic partnerships, are likely to jeopardize the safety of other nations and force them to take comparable actions (Akchurina and Della Sala 1638). The end effect is a vicious cycle of hatred where no party appears ahead. Think about the video the NATO command tweeted in response to several Russian thoughts about the group (“Setting the Record Straight”). The video describes the NATO alliance as solely defensive and having no aggressive plans toward Russia (“Setting the Record Straight”). The security problem explains why Russia is unlikely to accept these guarantees at a total price and may have reasonable cause to see NATO’s territorial expansion to the East as a worry, even though these claims may be factually accurate.
Although some of those countries may have felt that joining NATO would increase their security, it should be clear why Russia may well not approve and why it might act in ways that are unpleasant in return, such as invading Ukraine. NATO leaders may view Russia’s concerns as misconceptions, but it does not always mean that the Russian people do not share those concerns (Della Sala 266). Surprisingly, many intelligent, well-educated Westerners, notably some well-known former diplomats, cannot understand that their noble intentions are not immediately apparent to others.
In Asia, a similar dynamic is in play. It should be no surprise that China sees America’s long-standing position of regional influence—particularly it’s extensive military infrastructure and marine and aviation presence—as a possible danger (Jie 184). Interestingly, while increasing its military budget, the George W. Bush government once attempted to convince China that, “Seeking more military power is just an outdated route that would impede your own goal of national greatness (Jie 184).” The tension between the two nations has been ongoing for a while.
Every party’s attempts to address what it sees as a prospective security issue in each of these situations only amplify the other side’s safety concerns, leading to a reaction that only confirms the former’s initial worries. The most important realization is that aggression, including the use of pressure and muscle, does not always result from bad or antagonistic intentions, such as the purely selfish desire for money, notoriety, or dominance (Della Sala 266). The mentioned NATO video implies that figureheads genuinely think their motivations are primarily strategic and that this fact should be apparent to everyone else (“Setting the Record Straight”). On that thought, they are more likely to interpret an adversary’s hostile response as proof of their inherent antagonism, avarice, or a vicious foreign leader’s nefarious and unappealing ambitions (Della Sala 266). Diplomacy quickly turns into a name-calling contest when sensibility is abandoned.
Could the security dilemma’s logic thus call for accommodating policies instead? The answer strongly stands as a no. Since governments cannot ensure their safety by withdrawing arbitrarily or making frequent compromises to an antagonist, the security puzzle is, as its name suggests, a problem. While the root of most antagonistic partnerships is shared insecurity, agreements that shifted the scale in one side’s favor may have caused that side to act aggressively to secure an unbeatable position and permanent security (Della Sala 266). States must attempt to overcome these issues through statesmanship, humanism, and wise military strategies.
Works Cited
Akchurina, Viktoria, and Vincent Della Sala. “Russia, Europe and the Ontological Security Dilemma: Narrating the Emerging Eurasian Space.” Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 70, no. 10, 2018, pp. 1638–1655.
Della Sala, Vincent. “Narrating Europe: The EU’s Ontological Security Dilemma.” European Security, vol. 27, no. 3, 2018, pp. 266–279.
Jie, Dalei. “The Emerging Ideological Security Dilemma between China and the U.S.” China International Strategy Review, vol. 2, no. 2, 2020, pp. 184–196.
“Setting the Record Straight.” Twitter, uploaded by NATO, 2022.