Interstate rivalries are not surprising at all. According to multiple sources including the BBC and CNN, there are many countries around the world that have rivalries with other countries including Israel and Iran and the United States and Russia. Rivalries lead to various negative outcomes — often avoidable — but when rivalries go hand in hand with the perception of security threats, they turn out to be dangerous. These perceptions can lead to increased military spending, alliances and even armed conflict. Different countries are sometimes destroyed and many individuals are killed because of the perception of security threats and related interstate rivalries. But the vital aspect is whether and how much it is possible to address rivalries from security threat perception.
There are geopolitical interests and other reasons for security threats perception and interstate rivalries that are often difficult to address. Competition for resources, conflicting national goals, historical conflicts or traditional interstate conflicts and military build-up are crucial causes. Among others, espionage, terrorism and cyberattacks are also vital causes that lead to security threat perception. But the states differ in their perception of security threats. The differing national interests often make a difference in the security threat perception of states. While some countries perceive the spread of weapons of mass destruction as a security threat, some other countries do not. The perception of security threats has led to many wars including the Ukraine war and the continuation of the Gaza war for a long, despite a significant weakening of Hamas in Gaza.
But — hopefully saying — there are multilateral treaty-based and other efforts that help address threat perception-related rivalries and minimize the destructive actions of nations states. These encompass diplomacy, economic cooperation, arms control and confidence-building measures. There are also interstate organizations and international laws that help mitigate rivalries, protect sovereignty and prevent the destruction of countries. But international efforts fail to bring the desired outcomes in mitigating threat perception-oriented rivalries and destructive actions many times. There are the inherent limitations of international laws including international humanitarian laws and institutions and limitations in their implementations amidst the complex dynamics of rivalries involving powerful countries.
Photo credit: https://edition.cnn.com/.
But, importantly, there is also a lack of intention among the parties especially powerful parties to respect the rights of enemies including weaker enemies, a tendency to put emphasis on military options and a lack of inter-state tolerance that prevents effective solutions and can even exacerbate tensions. Pertinently saying, rival countries put emphasis on military actions and aims to eliminate the parties or enemies many times as the most viable option to reduce security threats. Attacking several countries including Iraq reflects the priority of military actions over non-military actions. Among others, there is a lack of intention of the parties to put a limit to rivalries and harmful actions at a certain point.
Addressing challenges is vital to prevent escalation and destructive actions from security perception-based rivalries. It is possible to avoid military escalation and destruction between rival parties many times. For this, strengthening international law and their implementation, strengthening multilateral conflict mitigation mechanisms and promoting dialogue between rival countries amidst escalation and promoting interstate tolerance are vital. Along with the commitment of international organizations, the commitment and role of individual states are vital. But the role of powerful states is more important since eliminating or completely destroying actions are carried out by powerful states — most often over weaker states.
But it is vital for individual states to put emphasis on peaceful initiatives rather than military actions, establishing transparent communication channels between the parties and developing bilateral conflict-mitigating mechanisms. But putting a limit to one’s destructive actions is vital, even if threats are perceived on real grounds. Without it, it is difficult to address avoidable destructions. If any country puts ultimate emphasis on eliminating all enemies, there will be no peace since this will drive for actions including military actions to completely destroy enemies, which are unreasonable and infeasible.
