Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma

How a statesman interprets the other’s past behavior and how he projects it into the future is influenced by his understanding of the security dilemma and his ability to place himself in the other’s shoes. The dilemma will operate much more strongly if statesmen do not understand it, and do not see that their arms-sought only to secure the status quo-may alarm others and that others may arm, not because they are contemplating aggression, but because they fear attack from the first state. These two failures of empathy are linked. A state which thinks that the other knows that it wants only to preserve the status quo and that its arms are meant only for self-preservation will conclude that the other side will react to its arms by increasing its own capability only if it is aggressive itself. Since the other side is not menaced, there is no legitimate reason for it to object to the first state’s arms; therefore, objection proves that the other is aggressive. Thus, the following exchange between Senator Tom Connally and Secretary of State Acheson concerning the ratification of the NATO treaty: Secretary Acheson: [The treaty] is aimed solely at armed aggression. Senator Connally: In other words, unless a nation . . . contemplates, meditates, or makes plans looking toward aggression or armed attack on another nation, it has no cause to fear this treaty.