The world is in a dangerous place. Powerful countries are polarized into two hostile camps, nationalism is on the rise, and anti-foreigner rhetoric masquerades as patriotism. In response, alliances are strengthened and expenditures on armaments have increased. The logic behind this is that we are safer if the perceived enemy knows the strength both of our defensive alliances and our military capacity. Together, these two pillars of our security act as a strong deterrent, making war less likely.
I am describing here the early years not of the 21st century but of the 20th century, immediately before the outbreak of World War I. If you see similarities with the current state of the world, you are not alone. The history of the early 20th century provides an important warning for our nuclear age. Parallels between the buildup to World War I and the current geopolitical landscape are worryingly all too clear. We need to remind ourselves why the world erupted into war in 1914 and learn the lessons of history.
Most historians regard false patriotism or nationalism as a prime underlying cause of war in 1914. British, German, French and Serbian nationalism typified the European trend of “my country right or wrong”. Nationalist tensions between Britain and Germany, France and Germany, and Serbia and Austria-Hungary all played their part in creating the preconditions for conflict. This is echoed today in the rise of right-wing, nationalistic political parties and leaders across the world, most recently in Europe and the United States. These so-called “patriots” focus on national identity and hostility toward other nations and races. A recent example of this has been US hostility toward China, mirroring the propaganda employed by competing European powers against one another in the years before 1914.
Even more worrying is the parallel with military alliances and spending on armaments. In the lead-up to World War I, these twin developments were seen as maintaining the balance of power in Europe and thereby guaranteeing peace. In 1907, Britain, France and Russia signed the Triple Entente, an alliance intended to counter the powerful Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy. The intention of both sets of alliances was to act as a deterrent, as any aggressor would know that military action would be met by an immediate response from all members of the opposing alliance. The deterrence was strengthened by the fact that both sides were armed to the teeth. Increased military spending, including an Anglo-German naval arms race, meant that no country would dare risk war.
This illusion was tragically exposed by a random event in 1914, when Serbian nationalists seeking independence assassinated the heir to Austria-Hungary, Archduke Franz Ferdinand. When Austria-Hungary retaliated by invading Serbia, Russia backed Serbia and the whole alliance system kicked in like clockwork. Germany, as the most powerful member of the Triple Alliance, declared war on Russia in support of its Austrian ally. France and Britain were obliged by the Triple Entente to support Russia. Within days, the alliance system designed to keep the peace had led Europe into all-out war.
A century later, the lessons of World War I seem to have been forgotten by those who blithely assume that having a strong arsenal and a powerful military alliance will guarantee peace. The current proliferation of arms, both conventional and nuclear, and the eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the world’s most powerful military alliance, are invariably portrayed as mechanisms to deter aggression and prevent a third world war. The history of 1914 clearly reveals the fallacy of this thinking. Far from guaranteeing peace, the escalation in military spending and the existence of military alliances can pose a real threat to world stability.
The rise of nationalism, perceived threats from supposed enemies, the proliferation of arms, and the expansion of NATO are all too reminiscent of the events leading up to 1914. History has taught us that the strengthening of defenses, although intended to act as a deterrent to war, can easily have the exact opposite effect
The dominance of the military-industrial complex in the US and the power of NATO are especially destabilizing. This was highlighted in a recent Guardian article by defense editor Dan Sabbagh. He writes: “The US and its allies are capable of threatening and destroying all of Russia and China’s nuclear launch sites with conventional weapons, creating what two experts describe as a potentially unstable geopolitical situation.” He quotes two academics from SOAS University of London, Professor Dan Plesch and military analyst Manuel Galileo, who believe that a “quiet revolution in military affairs” is taking place, reflecting increased US military power relative to Moscow and Beijing, particularly in missile technology. Sabbagh summarizes their concerns as follows: “They argue that this could create the conditions for a fresh arms race as China and Russia try to respond — and even create a risk of miscalculation in a major crisis as either country could resort to launching nuclear weapons to get ahead of the US.” Plesch and Galileo go on to warn that the strength of US conventional missile capabilities is such that it “pressures Russia and China to put their missiles on hair trigger”, ready to be launched immediately, thus increasing the risk of a “mistaken launch”.
Their analysis should be heeded. A renewed arms race in a nuclear age is plainly something that all nations must try to avoid. The United Nations clearly has a role here, but the US, as the world’s strongest military power, must surely take the lead in this. The rise of nationalism, perceived threats from supposed enemies, the proliferation of arms, and the expansion of NATO are all too reminiscent of the events leading up to 1914. History has taught us that the strengthening of defenses, although intended to act as a deterrent to war, can easily have the exact opposite effect. Whoever is elected this year as the new US president would do well to refresh their knowledge of why war erupted in Europe in 1914.
The author is a British historian and former principal of Sha Tin College, an international secondary school in Hong Kong.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
