A Farewell to Arms Control

The first half of Richard Betts' article, Systems for Peace or Causes of War? Collective Security, Arms Control, and the New (International Security, Vol. 17, No. 1, [Summer 1992], pp. 5-43), makes a major contribution to clarifying the ongoing debate over international security systems. Betts soundly refutes the strict model of collective security, and his suggestion of an Unorganized Pacified (UPE) makes sense. Indeed, one wonders these days whether the United States needs a grand strategy at all, or whether we would be better served by a series of more ad-hoc regional strategies. In my opinion, however, the second half of the Betts article, his critique of arms control, fails to make its case. Even if Betts is right and we need a UPE rather than collective security, arms control can help preserve peace and stability in Europe in important ways. This is particularly true if arms control is conceived, as it should be, more broadly than simply as exercises in weapons reduction. Arms control is important today primarily to build trust and to reinforce the current trend of integration and reform on the Continent. If Europe is truly to become single, whole, and free, its nations must continue to build mutual trust and delegitimize the use of force as a solution to international disputes. Arms control treaties can signal peaceful intent and symbolize a rejection of military adventurism. Betts does not agree. He contends that arms control will not help, and may imperil, security in Europe. His critiques, however, are off the mark. Betts makes a host of arguments, but I have grouped them for convenience into three primary categories: crisis realignment, offense dominance, and mobilization instability. I will consider his arguments individually, but they suffer from a number of common flaws. First, Betts discusses theoretical dangers outside the context of the real world, the new Europe as it is developing. Second, he ignores the ability of nuclear weapons to help stabilize situations of conventional imbalance, as they have done so reliably since 1950. Third, he blames arms control for problems actually created by the collapse of communism; that collapse, and not the Treaty on Conven

Arms control · Control (management · Economics · Gun control · Management · Political economy · Political science · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Law · Post-Soviet Geopolitical Dynamics

• Systems for Peace or Causes of War? Collective Security, Arms Control, and the New Europe

  Richard K Betts•International Security•1992

  Añadir item

• Alternative defence

  Jonathan Dean•International Affairs•1987

  Añadir item