PI5501 European Security since 1945

Security dilemma across Europe Ideological divide Cold War games The Rise and Fall of Détente

The beginning of the End USSR? Yugoslavia? Would the fall of the USSR and Yugoslavia represent the back to the future laid out by Mearsheimer in 1990?

Mearsheimers argument: was an essentially peaceful time for Europe. The end of the Cold War means a transition from a bipolar system to a multipolar system. The distribution and character of military power are the root causes of war and peace

Mearsheimer argues that peace in Europe is the result of three factors: 1. The bipolar distribution of military power across the continent. 2. The rough military equality between the two states comprising the two poles in Europe (the importance of parity). 3. That each superpower was equipped with nuclear weapons.

Domestic Factors: Important in generating conflict, such as the two world wars (and the dissolution of two federal states). Fall of hyper-nationalism in the Cold War International Factors: However, military power continues to remain an important factor in the peace and stability of Europe.

With the withdrawal of forces from Central Europe, a multipolar system would arise. No more nuclear weapons In particular, the UK, France, Germany, Italy and USSR would vie for position (Institutions?) the resulting system would suffer the problems common to multipolar systems, and would therefore be more prone to instability.

Mearsheimer sees four possible scenarios: 1. Europe would become nuclear free, eliminating a central pillar of order in the Cold War era. 2. European arsenals remain constant, not replacing the withdrawing superpowers. 3. Nuclear proliferation takes off, unmanaged. 4. Nuclear proliferation, but well managed.

Argues that: US should encourage German nuclear armament but limit further proliferation US should remain in a limited way in Europe US should intervene in cases of hypernationalism Looking back, how many make sense now?

Mearsheimer argues that a peace post-Cold War era, must rely on the stable mechanisms of the Cold War Anarchy Bipolarity Credible threat Power Parity

Stanley Hoffman (Primacy or World Order: American Foreign Policy since the Cold War (1978)) Argues that there is no evidence that the bipolarity is a causal factor for stability. Suggest nuclear weapons or internal structures One ought ask about the goals of states and the stakes that might lead to war, at a minimum.

Robert Keohane (Power and Interdependence (1978)) Underestimates the role of international institutions institutions allow governments to emphasise absolute rather than relative gains, and therefore maintain the conditions for their own existence. Anarchy is a disappointing analytical category because it is not a variable; we must look elsewhere to explain variations in the incidence of military conflict.

Bruce Russett (Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World (1993)) Argument is self-fulfilling: the world is nasty, brutish and short, thus we need more guns. Argues that institutions and ideologies are important (democracies and peace)

Thomas Risse-Kappen (Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-State Actors, Domestic Structures, and International Institutions (1995)) Argues détente underplayed for reducing tensions Concentrates on overlapping institutions

What can we take from this debate to talk about the post-Cold War order? The State of Bi/Multipolarity US Engagement in Europe The Soviet/Russian Engagement in Europe Nuclear Weapons in Europe The State of Institutions

The rise of multipolarity in Europe? What of Germany? Enlargement Domestic factors Franco-German alliance, thus… The EU as a pole? (vis-à-vis who?) The rise of regionalisation in the face of globalization

The end of empire Russian troops abroad Ex. East Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania Russian troops as peacekeepers Former Yugoslavia (SFOR and KFOR) Moldova (Transdniestria) Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) Azerbaijan (Nagorno-Karabakh)

The CFE Treaty Set armaments limits on each bloc

SALT I 1971 START I (SALT II) – 1979 (never ratified) 1991 START II 1993 (never implemented, in 2002 Russia withdrew) START III (?)

NATO and the London Declaration Yugoslavia EC to EU, from 12 to 27 CFSP/ESDP CSCE to OSCE Frozen conflicts Council of Europe Democracy, Human Rights and Security

What can we make of Mearsheimers comments today? Why has Europe remained peaceful? Where does the future of European security lie? As a pole, between poles or made of many poles?