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.
2.
3.
4.

Europe would become nuclear free

European states dont expand their arsenals
Nuclear proliferation mismanaged
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 Europe

2. 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 Europes 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 continent
2. 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 its 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 goods
2. A state faced with two potential adversaries might conclude that a
protracted war would weaken both
3. Some states may opt out of the balancing process
4. 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 zone
o Asymmetrical power relations between nuclear and non-nuclear
state
o 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.

A stable nuclear competition might not emerge between the new

nuclear states. (the lesser European powers might lack the
resources needed)
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.
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

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
o

Competition for security makes it very difficult for states to cooperate

Interdependence leads to conflicts as cooperation

States will struggle to escape the vulnerability that interdependence creates.

Furthermore:
o
o

Economic interactions between states often cause serious frictions. There

will be invariably winners and losers.
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
o

A powerful and potentially dangerous Soviet Union forced the western

democracies to cooperate
Americas 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 19 th 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 1898
France and Germany during the 20s for Rhineland
USA during cold war with Chile and Guatemala

Critiche da fare a Mersheimer:

1. Critica la teoria della pace democratica, ma non in modo convincente
2. URSS collassa. Tutti gli scenati che aveva in mente erano con lunione
sovietica
3. 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 lintegrazione economica.