Introduction
Collective security and its viability have been widely debated in the international relations literature. The need for security enabling alliances has been said to be absolutely necessary even in the contemporary world (Shen, 2004, p.165). The notion follows the same belief of united we rise and divided we fall – a collective force is believed to be more effective in combating aggression rather than that of its parts. The advocates of collective security feel that it is the advocates of collective security feel that this is the only mean to keep the raising aggression and terrorism at bay. This view is not shared by the non-believers of collective security who think that the collective security efforts are absolute failures (Joffe, 1992, p.37). It is believed that traditional alliances are not enough to combat the present terror. But it cannot be forgotten that even though there has been a decline in autocratic governments and democratic governments outnumber the former, and there are fewer wars being fought as compared to the nineties, the need to establish constructive defence strategies is paramount (Carment, 2001, p.54). The failure of the collective security in helping international relations has been shown otherwise through the widening gap between the administration of President Bush and France and Germany over the issue of war on terror (Krause, 2004, p.43). Similar instances have been observed in the history of collective security which points a strong figure at the success of collective security.
Given this wedge between the supporters and critics of collective security, I stand by the latter arguers who believe that collective security is not successful in maintaining peace. In this essay I discuss the problem areas which affect the performance of the collective security systems and the means by which these issues can be solved.
Collective Security
Collective security is argued to be a weak link of multilateralism (Krause, 2004, p.44). Multilateralism means cooperation among nations to solve global issues and conflicts with the aim to do away with actual or perceived anarchy. It originated in the post World War era with the establishment of the League of Nations. But mostly it failed in its aim throughout the twentieth century. But collective security was reborn during the East-West conflict and finds clear mention in the UN Security Council Summit Meeting of 1992 (UN, 1992). The main principles of collective security are upheld by Charter 6 and 7 of the UN Charter. The former contains the systems that can be used to reach peace solution of conflicts while the latter demonstrates the ways to proceed when a nation violates international peace and order.
Now the question arises why are they formed. They are formed for various purposes. As in case of alliances formed during the World War II’s Axis power was formed for aggressive fascist reason, while the Allies were formed for a more defensive purpose. Today when a nation state faces an external threat to their nation’s security, alliances to combat the threat are formed in form of collective security. Here it must be noted that a military arrangement the prerequisite to an alignment is not military as it can be an informally codified diplomatic alignment among states that are willing. Further, the aim of these alliances is to provide collective security to all parties involved and are formed for defensive purposes. Such alliances are formed to primarily deter from potential hostile acts, as was seen in case of NATO which was formed to align the Western European countries with the United States and Canada to deter from the threat posed by the erstwhile Soviet Union’s expansionary and communist policies. Similarly, the Warsaw Pact was formed among the eastern European countries and Soviet Union against the US-led alliance. Similarly, US formed alliance with Japan and South Korea to protect the Pacific belt from Soviet Union and Red-China. But the form of these alliances altered with the 9/11 attacks and has redefined the security issues for all states. as presently international terrorism has no name or destination, security issues has to be altered and the nature of collective security also need a changed definition. With the new range of threats from international terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and rising states’ perceived power hunger it is important to understand the shortcoming or problems related to collective security systems and the means by which these problems can removed is essential to understand.
Problems Of Collective Security
Today collective security is administered by the United Nation’s Security Council. The Security Council has been widely criticised by the analysts for failing to maintain its basic responsibilities during major international crisis of the twentieth century as was seen in the Arab-Israeli clash, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Africa as well as in North Korea (Krause, 2004, p.45). The Security Council failed to act decisively in each of these case resulting is disastrous consequences. This shows that the collective security administered by the United Nations (UN) was highly flawed and led to failure to all these collective security measures. So it can be stated that the reason for failure of collective security system is UN’s inability to administer the system.
Further today in the present light of transnational terrorism and WMD proliferation, countries like the US face an extreme insecurity (Shen, 2004; Krause, 2004). As was seen in case of the US led attack on US and subsequent ousting of Saddam Hussein was based on suspicion of terrorist links of the country, especially Al Qaida. But when no such link was found, the US and its willing international allies did not retreat. So analysts believe that the US breached the fundamental principle of collective security where it was argued that the US’s stance was largely offensive rather than defensive act against hostile threat (Shen, 2004, p.168). This clearly shows that one of the main problem with collective security today is the breaching the boundary of the definition as lay by the UN. So it must be noted that the collective security is aimed to provide security to a nation states or states or to put up a defensive act against hostility. But some are breaching the definition and creating offensive forces. So the problem with such actions is that they undermine the collective goal and in the long-run the cost outweighs the benefits.
Another problem that can be observed in case of collective security is the policies various states have regarding aggression. For instance the United Sates is actively concerned about terrorism, WMD proliferation and rising powerful states. The US believes in using force against these threats and eliminates any form of aggression. While countries like Germany believe that force is to be used only when the Security Council explicitly mentions the need to do so (Krause, 2004, p.49). Further Germany believes in a broader sense of security which includes ecology, climate change and environment. But this view is again not shared by France, who unlike Germany believes that the force should be used when there is a threat to international security (Krause, 2004, p.50). This demonstrates that different states have different viewpoints regarding security and this creates a problem in the formation of a collective security system when need be. This was observed in case of the United States trying to form collective security while attacking Iraq. Thus collective security becomes a problem due to the difference in views regarding security and use of force between nations. So one hindrance as has been observed in dream of collective security in a politically and ideologically fragmented world (Goetschel, 2000). This was seen in the European country’s propagation of multiculturalism and the US frustration and neglect of the same (Krause, 2004).
Global politics is also a source of terror and regional politics also leads to need for security. This can be observed in case of Pakistan and India, where the rampant terrorism is based on regional politics but has assumed an international colour. This insists that the political hindrances to establishment of collective security are a problem. As in case of terrorism in Pakistan and India is no more a regional problem as the Al Qaida and Taliban are assumed to be stationed in Pakistan. But collective security in this region is difficult due to the differing political interests of the two countries. Thus, regional political interests hinder formation of a system of collective security.
Solutions
The problems discussed in the previous section need serious attention to combat aggression in the twenty-first century. Shen (2004) believes that the traditional collective security system is inadequate to combat the aggressive forces of the present day, namely transnational terrorism, WMD proliferation, and rise of state autocratic powers. The first thing that needs to be considered for collective security is that they are for “defensive purposes” and cannot be used to become offensive (Shen, 2004, p.176). Shen points out that a partner of the alliance should not instigate a fight because it is confident of the partner’s support (Shen, 2004, p.176). So Shen states: “Alliance members must also accept the responsibility to preserve the status quo.” (2004, p. 176) the success of the collective security system will be based on their intention of solely providing collective security.
The next solution is that due to the changed nature of aggression since the cold war, the way the new aggression is handled has changed. During the cold war the alliances were aimed to keep the aggressor at bay, but today the aim is to eliminate the aggressor. So the success measuring gauge for the collective security must also change. Further the negotiating platform for collective bargaining has to be clear and transparent. This will ensure the mission of the security force common.
Further there need to be a clear articulation of the share of the security burden between the members of collective security system. This is to ensure that the parties are aware of their functions, powers, and obligations.
Conclusion
Nations are constantly at war with the dynamic nature of terror. They try to thwart the party which is perceived to commit genocide or an act of aggression against common good. Collective security systems are formed to stop such acts. Traditional collective security systems are becoming more and more inadequate to deal with the new form of aggression. So a new and modified definition of the problem needs to be devised so that the latter does not affect international peace keeping process. As international law and order has become increasingly important it is important to understand the new security system’s prerogatives. Are they to give security or be defensive or act offensively against terror? In conclusion it can be said that to make collective security more effective there must be developed a universal understanding of multiculturalism.
Bibliography
Carment, D., 2001. The Struggle for Peace., Harvard International Review Vol. 23 No. 2, p. 54-58.
Goetschel, L., 2000. Globalisation and Security: The Challenge of Collective Action in a Politically Fragmented World., Global Society, Vol. 14 No. 2, p. 259-77.
Joffe, J., 1992. Collective Security and the Future of Europe: Failed Dreams and Dead Ends., Survival 34(1), p. 37.
Krause, J., 2004. Multilateralism: Behind European Views., The Washington Quarterly 27(2) , p. 43–59.
Shen, D., 2004. Can Alliances Combat Contemporary Threats?, The Washington Quarterly 27(2) , p. 165–179.
UN, 1992. Statement of the UN Security Council Summit Meeting Read Out by the President, UN Document S/PV.3046. Web.