The United States stands as a superpower, arguably the most secure great power in history. It dominates the Western Hemisphere, bordered by vast oceans east and west and by relatively weak neighbors north and south. The only serious threat comes from nuclear-tipped missiles, but the U.S. is capable of destroying any country that attacks. Americans should feel confident and safe.
Most other nations are advancing in important ways. In general, the world is more prosperous, fewer people are in poverty, and technology continues to transform our lives. Members of the Global South are sharing in this bounty. Long the least secure states on the planet, they are now demanding the same liberties and guarantees as other countries. They also want to be safe.
Traditionally, developed states had the grandest expectations. The greater their power, the more they typically demanded. However, none could match the U.S. once it achieved primacy after the end of the Cold War. For Washington, security is supposed to be absolute, unchallenged by anyone, friend or foe.
Today, other industrialized nations are enjoying more wealth and power and demanding more security. So are the historically oppressed. Which leads to a paradox: the more security each nation seeks, the less secure the world becomes. The seeds of future conflicts are being sown today.
The issue isn’t only the competing demands for security; it's also that the very definition of security is expanding. For American officials, security requires not just the world’s most powerful military, but almost total hegemony, including in economics, technology, politics, and culture. The objective is not just to dominate some fields of human endeavor. The preferred outcome is for Americans to dominate them all.
What does this mean? Protecting against an invasion does not make other states more vulnerable to invasion. However, controlling the production of semiconductor chips, ruling research on Artificial Intelligence, and topping trade in manufacturing leaves everyone else behind. Preserving a nation’s independence is an existential interest worthy of extreme measures in defense. How about having the world’s most advanced green technology? Precisely what is necessary for security, and how great must one’s domination be to suffice?
All these might be reasonable goals, but only a handful of nations have the capacity to dominate. As more states battle for supremacy, the search for security will become more intense and challenging. The ultimate impact of this process will be widespread and destabilizing.
Competition is most intense among major powers, which often take a zero-sum view of international relations. They are likely to be skeptical of even beneficial international cooperation, often preferring confrontation, especially when their greatest strength is force of arms.
Smaller nations then find themselves under pressure to join a bloc, especially if already dependent on other states through a defense treaty or other similar arrangement, which can spread conflict across regions. Members of the Global South often become unintended victims of the resulting international struggle, punished for failing to line up as instructed. As fears rise, great powers frequently reach for military and other coercive powers, such as economic sanctions. At the extreme, if peace appears to lead to insecurity, war may be seen as a necessary evil.
What then is to be done? To start, great powers should seek closer if not friendlier bilateral relations. It is critical for potential rivals to confront their fears, assess their capabilities, and attempt to limit potential confrontation. Nations from top to bottom should promote multilateral forums that emphasize inclusion and thereby reduce feelings of isolation and danger. These could be both global and regional. The goal should be to expand cooperative organizations rather than contending alliances.
Countries of all sizes should work to narrow the field of essential security. There is a difference between that which is existential and that which is merely desirable. Other ends still may be pursued, but at a lower level of intensity. As more nations seek greater security, they need to develop additional avenues of cooperation.
Equally important, smaller nations must better manage their own affairs, improving bilateral relations, increasing international cooperation, avoiding hostile and provocative behavior, and seeking diplomatic resolution of, or at least peaceful accommodation involving, contested issues. Conflicts among them create an opportunity and justification for great powers to intervene.
Moreover, nations capable of taking on more responsibility must act. For instance, much of the world has long relied on the U.S. for military defense. That has only magnified the underlying imbalance that has turned security into such a difficult issue. An important aspect of this duty is to confront the major powers when they are wrong. The obligation is highest for Washington’s allies and friends, given the harm that results when the U.S. acts carelessly or maliciously, such as in Iraq. Indeed, the worst, most abusive expansions of the concept of security could not occur without other countries aiding and abetting such practices. Getting this message across requires other nations to address the American people as well as the American government and treat them as the well-intentioned friends they imagine themselves to be.
In addressing international problems, governments should look for creative ways to bring new parties, especially members of the Global South, into both the political and economic realms. This objective would be advanced by creating effective new international organizations, which would be likely to vary by continent, country, and region. Enhanced bilateral and multilateral cooperation would reduce disproportionate great power influence over global life.
Finally, it is essential to expand international dialogue. First among the major powers, which are most at risk of devastating conflict. However, no nation stands entirely alone. Confrontations among small, even peripheral players can spark larger wars, drawing in other participants. Better understanding all around—especially of other governments’ interests and fears—would make it easier to address challenges, resolve problems, and contain crises.
Unfortunately, even these are insufficient for a true solution, but they would be a good place to start. After all, everyone wants security. Unfortunately, when individual nations seek to maximize their own security, they leave others less secure. Only by working together can we resolve this paradox.
