Trust is basic to all society. In the words of the political theorist John Dunn, ‘The
question of whom to trust and how far is as central a question of political life as it
is of personal life.’^40 But is the trust that is available in ‘civil life’ possible in world
politics, or is John Mearsheimer correct in arguing that there is ‘little room for trust
among states’.^41 The latter view argues that not only is trust in short supply in world
politics, but, perhaps more tellingly, that to trust can actually be dangerous.
Realists are correct in arguing that uncertainty cannot be eliminated from
international politics, but they are wrong to conclude that this necessarily prevents
political trust between states and societies. Trust and uncertainty are not anti-
thetical.^42 Indeed, trust always develops under the condition of uncertainty, and
never entirely escapes it. If humans had certainty about the motives and intentions
of others, they would not need trust. Trust is one of the mechanisms by which
humans try to cope with life’s risks and uncertainties; states need trust to avoid
becoming trapped in spiralling mistrust triggered by security dilemma dynamics. The
latter come into play when hostility is driven by mutual fear and suspicion, but
decision-makers fail to appreciate that their adversary is acting out of defensive rather
than aggressive intent.^43
The promise of trust-building at the international level is the emergence and
development of regional security communities, and ultimately the achievement of
a global security community.^44 The concept of a security community was developed
by Karl Deutsch and his colleagues in the mid-1950s. They defined a security
community as:
a group of people which has become ‘integrated’. By INTEGRATION we
mean the attainment, within a territory, of a ‘sense of community’ and of
institutions and practices strong enough and widespread enough to assure... dependable expectations of ‘peaceful change’ among its population.
By SENSE OF COMMUNITY we mean a belief... that common social
problems must and can be resolved by processes of ‘peaceful change’.^45
The building of trust between former enemies – and the transformation of identities
that this presupposes – is crucial to the emergence of a security community.
Deutsch’s normative project was the eradication of war and the promoting of
peaceful change, and the litmus test of a security community is that the participants
do not target each other militarily. Nuclear weapons, then, would have no relevance
in relations between the members of a security community, though they may be
kept for a deterrent role vis-à-vis states outside the security community.
An important case of nuclear trust-building was the rapprochement that took
place between Argentina and Brazil in the 1980s.^46 Earlier, there had been growing
concern that the two rivals might develop nuclear weapons, and few (notably
officials in the Carter administration) were optimistic – contra Waltz’s thesis – that
nuclearising their conflictual relationship would have positive consequences for
security. Yet Brazil and Argentina were able to find a different path. Through a
process of mutual reassurance and high levels of transparency, each came to trust
256 Beyond Waltz’s nuclear world