Conflict Escalation, Signaling and Screening
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
power bent on economic warfare against the Conflict Escalation, Arab world. Washington, however, sent ineffective signals that increased Saddam’s Signaling and Screening suspicion of the United States’ intention3. As a Compatibility or Competition? result, the United States failed to reassure Kazumichi Uchida Saddam and encouraged him to invade Kuwait. In this sense, the war was caused by their failure of reassurance. hat is the cause of war under Today, states have developed a conditions of asymmetric variety of techniques to overcome asymmetric information? Some argue that information. Some might declare their war is caused by states’ failure in W determination by taking costly actions such as deterrence of preemptive attacks, while others arms buildups, while some might test their argue that it is caused by states’ fear of other neighbors’ limits by making proposals. The states’ intention. By focusing on how states most important point of those techniques is exchange their resolves to resort to military to interchange their resolution with each other forces designed to prevent preemptive attacks, in a proper manner. This paper seeks to this study explores the causes of war under clarify under what condition states can conditions of asymmetric information. transmit their resolves effectively and address States need to deter its neighbors the problem, and under what condition they from aggressive actions; however, they also fail in transmission and war is likely. need to relieve them at the same time. If a This article proceeds as follows. state puts too much stress on deterrence, it First, I review previous studies and their may frighten the neighbors, which encourages deficiencies, and propose ways of correcting them to attack preemptively. Thus, it is these defects. Second, I present a basic model difficult for all states to declare their that makes it possible to consider the intentions in a proper manner under compatibility of both signaling and screening. conditions of asymmetric information. Based on this model, I clarify several findings The Gulf War in 1990-91 provides a regarding when war is more likely and when it good example of the central issues. Before is less likely. invading Kuwait, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein made a variety of demands of Kuwait.1 However, neither Kuwait nor the THEORETICAL BACKGROUND United States ever tried to determine the Prevention of the Preemptive Attacks concession point at which Saddam would In existing literatures on the causes have been satisfied by making increasingly of war, many have argued that the main cause generous offers.2 As a result, they failed to of war is the gap between distribution of deter Saddam’s invasion. In this sense, the war power and distribution of benefit, meaning was caused by their failure of deterrence. that the greater the disparity between distribution of power and distribution of In the meantime, Washington also 4 failed to reassure Saddam through the benefit, the more likely war will occur. If a signaling of benign intentions. In those days, Saddam regarded America as an imperialist 3 Ibid, 161-65. 4 Robert Powell, In the Shadow of Power: States 1 Janice Gross Stein, “Deterrence and and Strategies in International Politics Compellence in the Gulf, 1990-91: – A Failed or (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 6; Impossible Task?,” International Security, 17 Suzanne Werner, “The Precarious Nature of (1992): 147-7. Peace: Resolving the Issues, Enforcing the 2 Ibid, 159-60. Settlement, and Renegotiation the Terms,” JPI: Fall 2015 Issue 21 state feels that it is not getting its fair share of concessions that states make to other states is benefits, it has an incentive to change the the decisive cause of war. If states succeed in status quo, and that includes use of force. making concessions to other states properly, The relevant diplomatic policies for they can settle disputes. In other words, the the prevention of such calamities combine failure of reassurance could cause a war. Deterrence and Reassurance.5 Deterrence here is defined as the use of threats to dissuade an Asymmetric information opponent from undertaking damaging actions Then, why do states fail to take those in the future.6 The origin of bargaining theory measures against preemptive attacks? The in international relations can be found in main reason is that every state has an James Fearon’s Rationalist Explanations for incentive to misrepresent its resolve under War.7 Assuming that a state’s resolve is based conditions of asymmetric information.11 in asymmetric information, Fearon has Hence, every state questions the credibility of attempted to elaborate the causes of war by other states’ discourses, and needs a way to observing whether it can send proper signals make their messages credible in order to reach to deter other states.8 Thus, war could be agreements with other states and avoid regarded as the failure of deterrence. unnecessary wars becomes paramount. There In contrast, Reassurance is defined as are two potential means of making messages the communication of benign and credible: Signaling and Screening. Signaling is unaggressive intentions by the defender to the defined as taking action to make threats to use 9 prospective challenger. Hence, deterrence is force credible.12 For example, if a state leader designed to use aggressive intentions to decides to expand troop numbers or to dissuade the opponent from preemptive declare publicly that the state will resist if attack, while reassurance relies on the attacked, it can declare its resolution more demonstration of benign intentions. Robert strongly to other states.13 Powell’s In the Shadow of Power developed the Screening is defined as the theory by starting with the rigid assumption identification of how much degree an that the gap between the distribution of opponent is resolved through the use of benefits and the distribution of power causes increasingly generous proposals that facilitate 10 war. Powell thus argued that the failure of settling early with the weakly resolved types.14 For example, if a state suggests a rigorous American Journal of Political Science, 43 (1999): 929. 11 Fearon, “Rationalist Explanations for War,” 5 Richard Lebow, “Deterrence and Reassurance: International Organization, 379- 414. Recent Lessons from the Cold War,” Global Dialogue, 3 studies have tended to emphasize the (2001): 128. Commitment Problem as an explanatory cause 6 Alexander George, Forceful Persuasion: of war. However, the analysis of that factor Coercive Diplomacy as an Alternative to War requires a firm basis in Fearon’s first explanatory (Washington, DC: United States Institute of variable, Asymmetric Information, which I thus Peace Press, 1991), 5. focus on as the cause of war in this study. 7 James D. Fearon, “Rationalist Explanations for 12 Fearon, “Signaling Foreign Policy Interests: War,” International Organization 49 (3), 379-414. Tying Hands Versus Sinking Costs,” 69. 8 James D. Fearon, “Signaling Foreign Policy 13 James D. Fearon, “Domestic Political Interests: Tying Hands versus Sinking Costs,” Audiences and the Escalation of International Journal of Conflict Resolution 41 (1), 68-90. Disputes,” American Political Science Review, 9 Lebow, “Deterrence and Reassurance: 88 (1994), 577- 92. Lessons from the Cold War,” 432. 14 Scott Wolford, Dan Reiter, and Clifford 10 Powell, In the Shadow of Power: States and Carrubba, “Information, Commitment, and War,” Strategies in International Politics, 86 – 104. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 55 (2011), 567. JPI: Fall 2015 Issue 22 proposal on some issue to an opponent and states, in order to prevent preemptive attacks the opponent accepts it quickly, it can be from weaker actors. assumed that an opponent is not resolved so The next section will examine how much to fight over the issue. and under what conditions states’ Therefore, in this section, two main expectations about both the distribution of points could be drawn: First, states fail either power and the resolve of states converge. And in deterrence or reassurance due to this convergence is necessary in order to asymmetric information. Second, states prevent preemptive attacks. overcome asymmetric information by means of signaling and screening. THEORETICAL ANALYSIS Assume that two states in Table 1. Diplomatic Policy and its Techniques international system argue over strategic resources such as oil, coal, or territory. The In previous studies, many scholars total amount of resources is normalized as 1. Signaling Screening In addition, let us assume that state 1 is a Deterrence Fearon (1997) × defending state, while state 2 is a challenging Reassurance × Powell (1999) state. have looked into conditions and success factors for either signaling or screening Let �! be the expected utility of state 1, let p separately, but not together. However, wars (0 ≤ � < 1) be the probability of winning of have occurred because these two techniques state 1, let �! be the war value of state 1, and have not been compatible.15 This study let c be the cost of war. To put it simply, I assumes that it is important to examine the assume that if they win, they gain everything, 17 compatibility of signaling and screening and to while if they lose, they lose everything. find the conditions under which we can �! = �! ∙ � ∙ 1 + 1 − � ∙ 0 − � achieve both at the same time, and thus clarify = � ∙ �! − � the cause of war. In the same fashion, we can express the utility of state 2 as, Convergence of States’ Beliefs �! = � ∙ �! − � (where � + � = 1). How can previous research be Note that p also stands for the modified in order to address the problem? As balance of power in this international system mentioned, signaling and screening need to be or how resources are shared among states. examined in combination in order to analyze This is because the distribution of resources the causes of war. In addition to Powell’s, among states is determined by the probability Slantchev argues that even though there is a of winning wars.