With the ending of the Cold War, the U.S. has failed in coercing far weaker states – such as Serbia,Afghanistan and Iraq – to comply with its demands, despite its overwhelming military superiority. Conventional wisdom holds that a stronger state’s superiority ensures the credibility of its threat, and that the weaker state will accept the demands because the ex-ante uncertainty of any conflict’s outcome (namely,the target’s defeat) almost does not exist. In reality, however, weaker states frequently resist stronger states’ threats, sometimes fighting hopeless wars instead of complying with their demands peacefully. This paper explores this puzzle of asymmetric compellence failure and asymmetric war.
Commonly, asymmetric compellence failures are explained by focusing on other states’ interventions or the domestic factors which reduce or extinguish asymmetry. Alternatively, they are regarded as reassurance failures, in which commitments to future self-restraint are deemed incredible. The weaker state resists the threat to defend its reputation for resolve. In contrast, this paper argues that power asymmetry undermines the credibility of the threat itself.
Why do such counter-intuitive phenomena occur? This paper argues that an asymmetry in relative capability necessarily implies an asymmetry in mutual threat perception. When power is symmetrical,each state’s power represents a serious threat to the other. If conflict occurs, the threat is automatically prioritized by both states. Therefore, in securing their existence (and as the vital interests of both are at stake), they will symmetrically display the maximum levels of resolve and willingness. In the instance of power asymmetry, however, the stronger state’s existence is unquestioned, with lesser conflicts not receiving priority. Contrastingly, the weaker state’s resolve will be stronger, as its existence is at stake. This asymmetry undermines the stronger state’s compellent threat, constructing it as incredible, precisely because the coercer’s resolve is in doubt.
In instances of power symmetry, it is not a balance of resolve but capabilities that affects the conflict’s outcome – the balance of resolve remains symmetrical. Ex-ante uncertainty is chiefly concerned with the competitor’s relative capability, not resolve. However, in instances of power asymmetry, the balance of resolve is uncertain. Ex-ante uncertainty is here principally concerned with relative resolve – capability is materially objective, while resolve is psycho-subjective, and thus less measurable. This variability/flexibility and invisibility leads to mutual misperceptions, which contribute to the failure of negotiations in cases of power asymmetry.
For example, while a stronger state’s increase in resolve – which originates from changes in its perception of the threat presented by a weaker target – may be clear to itself, this may remain unclear to the opponent. Consequently, the coercer may overestimate its own credibility (because it knows its true resolve) while the target underestimates its credibility (because it sees the coercer’s resolve as weak). These differences in credibility perception lead to asymmetric compellence failures. This logic is illustrated with reference to the 2003 Iraq War.
抄録全体を表示