World on Brink: Experts Warn of Doomsday Clock Ticking
The world teeters on a precarious edge. In a recent YouTube seminar titled “Security Areas to Avoid World War III,” prominent American thinkers Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer dissected the escalating dangers between major powers and the future of the global order. The discussion, moderated by Norwegian researcher Glen Diesen, highlighted contrasting viewpoints on international relations: Sachs advocating for collaborative ideals, while Mearsheimer champions a hard-line realist approach. The central question remains: can the world acknowledge geographical boundaries and mutual respect to ensure survival, or will the relentless pursuit of power, which has led humanity from Cuba to Ukraine, push us closer to the brink?
Competing Visions of Global Security
Sachs, a professor at Columbia University and a critic of Washington’s foreign policy, began by acknowledging Mearsheimer’s accurate predictions regarding China and Ukraine. However, he emphasized that the logic of past conflicts is no longer viable in the nuclear age. Sachs proposed replacing the concept of imperial “spheres of influence” with “security areas,” built on mutual security interests among major powers. He used the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis as an example, when the United States nearly engaged in nuclear war due to Soviet missiles near its borders. Sachs argued that Russia perceives NATO expansion and its presence in Ukraine as an equivalent threat, stating that “the two positions are similar in terms of security logic.”
Sachs called for recognizing each major power’s right to be concerned about its borders, mirroring America’s “Monroe Doctrine.” His aim isn’t a return to spheres of influence, but the establishment of safe distances to prevent direct clashes among great powers. He cautioned that the world is in an extremely fragile state, referencing the Doomsday Clock, which recently stood at a mere 89 seconds to midnight. He warned that the risk of nuclear war isn’t limited to Europe and could erupt anywhere, from India and Pakistan to East Asia or the Middle East. Sachs also highlighted that the absence of mutual security mechanisms has increased the likelihood of conflict between Israel and Iran, where any incident could trigger a larger crisis in a region plagued by mistrust and military competition.
The Zero-Sum Game of Power
Mearsheimer, a professor of international relations at the University of Chicago and the proponent of “offensive realism,” countered that Sachs’s proposal, though well-intentioned, overlooks the nature of the international system, which is based on a constant struggle for power. He stated, “Security in today’s world is a zero-sum game; every step that increases the security of one state decreases the security of another.” Mearsheimer believes the concept of a “security area” faces significant challenges: difficulty in defining its boundaries, determining who makes decisions, the intrusion of external competition over time, and the lack of an international authority to enforce agreements.
Despite their theoretical differences, Sachs and Mearsheimer agreed that NATO’s eastward expansion was a catastrophic mistake that led to the war in Ukraine. Sachs explained that disregarding “the logic of geography” ignited the crisis, pointing out that “Russia does not want American missiles minutes from Moscow, just as Washington, under Kennedy, rejected Soviet missiles in Cuba.” The discussion then moved to the Middle East, where Sachs used Iran as an example to illustrate his idea of “mutual security areas.” He suggested that the world could avert a regional explosion if major powers agreed not to deploy permanent forces or missile systems there, adding that “the Middle East today is the Ukraine of tomorrow: a point of contact for forces and a potential source of ignition.”
Mearsheimer, however, countered that such an agreement is “theoretically beautiful but practically unfeasible” because major powers will not relinquish their vital interests in areas of energy and influence, noting that “the Gulf will remain the focus of competition between America and China for decades to come.” In conclusion, Diesen summarized the contradiction facing the global security system: “The first principle says that security should not be achieved at the expense of others, and the second gives each country the freedom to choose its allies; NATO ignored the first, and Russia ignored the second, and there was war.” Sachs concluded the discussion with a quote from President John F. Kennedy: “Peace is not a goal, but a way of resolving conflicts,” while Mearsheimer maintained that deterrence alone is the realistic guarantee of peace in a world governed by doubt.
About the Author
