Ever since late-eighteenth century French peasants rebelled against their monarch and proclaimed allegiance instead to the “fatherland,” the rousing of national sentiment has been a frequent precursor to war. Political leaders from wide-ranging settings – drawing on supposedly deep-rooted cultural and ethnic ties – have leveraged the lure of nationalism to mobilize citizens willing to not only kill, but die for their cause. The factors that stoke these collective passions are oft debated – with one theory positing a “security dilemma” as the chief stimulus.
A Diplomatic Catch-22
The security dilemma thesis, which developed out of the realist tradition of international relations theory, is most readily employed to understand the particular state of affairs following the breakup of a multi-national power. Fundamentally, it holds that fear is the central motivation for the outbreak of violence between newly freed peoples.
The backdrop for this scenario is a condition of relative anarchy in which proximate groups are left to fend for themselves following the imperial power’s departure. In this milieu of uncertainty, factions will naturally tend to prioritize their security viz. their neighbors. However, since relative power is difficult to assess (and is often subjective) an action that one party presumes to be a necessary safety measure may be perceived by surrounding blocs as an offensive gesture.
The resulting quandary gives rise to the “dilemma” portion of this theory’s title: what one group does to enhance their defenses may prompt retaliation that ultimately makes them less secure.
Stockpiling Nationalism
In this volatile setting, nationalism plays a potentially vital role in the decisions of state actors. Following the French Revolution, strong national identity has been understood by both scholars and practitioners to be a key ingredient of an army’s combat power. Put differently, a group’s cohesiveness can itself be a military asset. Thus, the already murky line between offensive and defensive posturing becomes all the more hazy as state actors are forced to appraise their neighbor’s solidarity viz. their own.
Unfortunately, the conditions under which this assessment occurs suggest that these groups are more likely than not to conclude that their neighbors pose a threat. Therefore, a group may seek to reinforce its own cohesion primarily as a response to the perceived malevolence of their neighbors. Thus, under this scenario, nationalist sentiment develops in light of proximate threats, whether real or imagined, and is nurtured by leaders bent on maximizing their group’s military capabilities – in the process fanning the flames of war.
Applying the Theory to Recent Geopolitical Turmoil
Though on its face the security dilemma thesis may appear to be narrowly applicable, the past two decades have unfortunately supplied scholars with quite a few test cases for the theory.
Among the most notable academic papers on the topic is Barry Posen’s study of the disparate reactions of various East European national groups in the wake of Soviet collapse. Focusing primarily on the Balkan crisis, Posen’s analysis highlights both the value of a security dilemma lens as well as one of the theory’s shortcomings – namely, the relative glossing over of historical considerations (in this case, the evolution of Balkan nationalisms in general and that of Bosnian Muslims in particular). On balance, however, the theory remains a pertinent frame of reference for understanding many recent (and, likely, future) outbreaks of violence.
Sources
Barry Posen, “The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict,” Survival 35:1 (1993), 27-28.
Youssef Chouhoud - I’m a young(ish) Muslim-American from Brooklyn, New York by way of Alexandria, Egypt. Part consultant, part freelance writer, my ...
Join the Conversation