laissez-faire to realpolitik: collective - security in a challenging period

March 24, 2019

The Palais de Nations, Geneva

 Abstract

NATO and the UN have been the primary vehicles associated with Collective Security since 1945. The UN has not modified it's governing body to expand the P5, restricting democracies from holding to account those regimes who are supported by one of the P5 members (Russia, France, Great Britain, United States and China.)  The U.S. reached outside this protocol to engage Iraq in an unnecessary war from 2003 - 2011. The UN, in order to reach primacy in international relations, must modernize, particularly, as the global population approaches 10 billion in 2055. 

Keywords: UN Security Council, NATO, Tibet, China, WTO, Collective - Security

 Collective Security in a Globalized Network of Nation - States

Two issues that counter multi- lateralism in the 21st C and have diminished the prospects for a form of Tibetan sovereignty since Chinese troops marched into Tibet on October 7 1950, include the U.N.'s failure to counter China's colonial ambitions under Mao, and the formation of a working solution to appease Israeli's and Palestinian's. Integral to this argument is the failure of the UN as a collective security mechanism to defend Tibet's interests and protect Palestinian territory after the formation of the state of Israel in 1947.  China continues unfettered in 2018 along the South China Sea where Chinese authorities threaten innocent passage of foreign vessels in international waters. Secondly, the notion of a collective security based system of governance that is restricted to five permanent members with veto power, that has existed since it'sinception in 1945, seems disingenuous by today's growth in the developing world and circumstances since the end of the Cold War in 1991.

NATO was founded on April 4, 1949. It was, and is meant as a brawny version of the UN to protect member-states against rogue powers. However, the purpose that NATOfound itself in at the time was to counter the Soviet Union and it's own collective security organ -The Warsaw Pact (1955 - 1991.)

Richard Falk makes a point about UN reform where he recommends exchanging the European Union for the UK and France, however, his paper pre-dates Brexit. Indeed, Falk's "Fork in the Road" refers to then Secretary - General Kofi Annan's suggestion in 2003 that the UN needs to modernize to regain legitimacy among members and non members alike to garner confidence in the collective security sphere.1

The Treaty of Westphalia was significant in 1648 as it provided sovereignty for developed and burgeoning nation states in developing their own foreign policy. Westphalia was important to provide security, however, WW1 changed the dynamics of international affairs where the League of Nations was adopted at the urging of then American President Woodrow Wilson in January 1920, though the U.S. was not a signatory. Wilson used the moment to push theAllied powers (France, Germany, British Empire, Italy & Japan) to adopt the Treaty of Versailles effectively ending WW1. The League of Nations continued to the post WW2 period and proved to be ineffective in reigning in Nazi Germany that was polarized by the sanctions brought against it by Versailles, and was used as a linchpin for Adolf Hitler's quest for an independent Aryan Germany. Post WW2 found Allied Powers facing structural damage to Europe, in particular, and to the west with a hegemonic United States. Ideologically, this demarcation resulted in western Allies pitted against the Soviet Union and a burgeoning Socialist power, with the foundation of the Peoples Republic of China in 1949. Hence, the advent of the Cold War between the SovietUnion and the United States, while China was finding its place and fervently looking to colonize and modernize Chinese society under Mao bore the burden of bi - lateralism until 1991.  Similar to two heavyweight boxers, the Soviet Union & Warsaw Pact countered the Allied Powers and the United Nations, where China and Russia have had veto power since 1945. Without a plan for expansion of the Permanent Members since 1945, the basis for collective security has been muted at times, which was glaringly obvious in 2003 when US President George W Bush circumvented UN auspices to invade Iraq under false pretences because of Iraq's alleged WMD (weapons of mass destruction.) The advent of non state actors to terrorize Allies has it's roots in the modern sphere dating to the Munich Games in 1972 and Al Qaeda's attack on the World Trade Centre in New York during September 2001. That act changed the game of collective security that U.N. members have been unable to adapt to outside of their borders beyond fees to organs such as NATO and the U.N.

Can we apply the notion of Rawl's "Distributive Justice" when considering collective security? In essence, they sound similar, however, when we look under the Rawlsian hood there is an atomistic focus that follows the need for collective security. "For why should rational individuals who have a system of ends they wish to advance agree to a violation of their liberty for the sake of a greater balance of satisfactions enjoyed by others?"2There are conflicting opinions, which involve political ideology at the core and personal freedoms on the periphery. Consider migration.

Migration

Immigration provides nation states with a means to advancing their economies despite an ageing work force and diminishing fertility rates. Immigration is an invaluable tool, yet, it can present challenges to citizenry that prevent an individual towards maximizing their utility. Affirmative Action policies have given priority status to individuals that exhibit a need based on income, risk of harm in their native country, risk of harm in their adopted land that requires emergency housing, educational needs, while talented individuals that live and study abroad offer a diverse opinion and experience to a particular faculty. Prima facie social benefits offer a prima facie "warm glow effect" to the taxpayer. The state provides at each level support services to enable the individual to maximize their utility. The crux of the matter is when some folks get left behind, either established or new migrants that may have special needs beyond what the government agencies can provide. Given the debt levels that most levels of government are carrying, the nationalist zeal that is being felt in the developed world stands to divide these populations further along ideological lines. An American professor and scholar, Chris Hedge, talked recently about the vacuum in American politics that forced the Republican Party far right beyond the Democratic Party (who also moved right) and into the grasp of Donald Trump.  Distributive Justice is best served at the regional level, while collective security is preferable at the national level by those governments that understand the notion of utility exists for the many within the framework of federalism.  Therefore, while interconnected at the spiritual level, collective security and distributive justice remain separate entities at opposing levels of government even when considering the range of the justice system within the scope of abortion, same sex marriage, and capitol punishment to name a few contentious issues with far reaching implications that affect the few.

Collective Security re-imagined

 Samuel Huntington called the next post Cold War conflict a struggle between ideologies,  and that it has occurred between Islamic Fundamentalists and Christian nation -states, predominantly speaking,  and has changed our approach to governing and collective security.  The answer appears to be affirmative in using force to counter acts of terrorism along, with incarceration. See Guantanamo Bay. The approach to war remains to be the tried and true methodology of countering force with force. The modern warfare phenomenon is fairly invisible, though, social - media is a strong point for recruitment, while drones provide a weapon that can strike anywhere for those nation-states that can incorporate that technology into their defence budgets. So, if Huntington was right, what is the responsibility of the international community to modify the behaviour of authoritarian regimes like Assad's Syria, Kim's North Korea, and Islam in the Near East? Currently, the Trump Administration has curried favour to these regimes despite evidence that democracy and diplomacy are not central to their operational standards. Strong evidence implicates Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud in the murder of Washington journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, who had been critical of the Saudi regime. The developed world can continue trading practises without attaching conditions of human rights, look the other way as we do with China, or implement sanctions and accept the consequences of restricted trade as a result. Early Globalization was centred on traders that comprised the period 1500 - 1800, approximately. Colonization grew out of the demand for land and the power contained in those holdings. China, in particular, understands this locus of control through Tibet, their goal to absorb Taiwan, and The Belt & Road Initiative, that, promises infrastructure upgrades to developing economies through Chinese finance, that ultimately holds sway over those nations that are indebted to them. The IMF' Managing Director - Christine Lagarde, spoke at a Belt & Road Forum on April 26, 2019 where she stated that  the program should only go where it is needed and where the debt it generates can be sustained. While she lauds the program for having some positive impacts in certain jurisdictions where infrastructure projects are helping create stronger trade mechanisms, she feels a modified "Belt & Road 2.0" is necessary and must be debt sustainable, while "emphasising low carbon and climate resilient investments."(REUTERS - David Lawder.) Chinese firms have be guilty in the past of creating opportunities in Africa for employment, trade and manufacturing only to abandon the project when profit taking became insignificant, leaving behind environmental waste. China is not alone in leaving e-waste behind in Agbogbloshie,Ghana where many developed nation- states capitalise on cheap labour where employment opportunities are scant. The Truth Behind an e-waste dump in Africa    Therefore, collective security encompasses different layers in a multi - lateral world based on ideology and transparency. (See, Russia and China for large-scale authoritarian regimes that fail to understand human rights and diplomacy at the atomic level.)

In addition, as governments maintain the status quo with regards to collective security - is that notion found on the principle of negative and positive freedom the driving force in international relations regarding immigration, trade, and Jus Ad Bellum (is there a "right war") that Libertarians and others subscribe to in containing conflict before it spreads? If John is simpliciter in travelling where and when he sees fit, he has positive freedom to travel because nothing is holding him back. However, if John is in Bangkok and gets into trouble with the local authorities and is restrained from returning home, this is definitely a case of negative freedom. In the realm of international relations, collective security finds itself in a grey area between negative and positive liberties because nation - states can't seem to get off of the fence. In this sense, the fence may be all out war for the many, or the presence of sanctions, select military strikes or trade tariffs that are in vogue with America and China. Then, if we exercise more tolerance for positive freedoms internationally, as we have done since the end of the Cold War, we open ourselves up to retaliation against our liberal way of life in the west. Conversely, if we expand negative freedoms to those actors who put democracy at risk, the criticism from other governments, and agencies becomes magnified and not necessarily unified in our current multi-lateral orbit. Now, how do we create distinct lines for military, sanctions, or peace keeping with two organs: NATO and the UN providing peace-meal solutions to global issues? One, we can dissolve NATO entirely, which would appease the Russians to no end. Or, we can expand NATO membership aggressively to cover most areas that the UN resides as a military vehicle against authoritarian regimes. In this sense with a majority of votes, military decisions fraught with doubt such as America in Iraq in 2003 cannot be circumvented without serious repercussions. The U.N. can continue to do what it does best in peace making, peace- keeping, climate change, human rights and other issues affecting the well being of humanity.  

Consequently, NATO and the U.N. need to be split between military needs and social requirements. In an indebted world, the crux is how to pay for this expansion of NATO, maintain the current UN level of support, while finding a fair system of patronage that adheres member states towards diplomacy, regardless of scope. Alternatively, NATO can be folded into an arm of the UN - governing sanctions and military measures, leaving the UN to handle peace- keeping and peace making as well as climate change, food - aid, trade, intellectual property rights and "soft law" that includes human rights and labour rights. The key is to expand that P5 with a 60% majority needed to pass Articles that may come against a member state. The need to negotiate with nation-states on membership to a collective security that encompasses 2/3rd of the global population, at least, will require authoritarian regimes giving up their P5 status which is quite idealistic and asks the question: "What are the benefits of an autonomous nation- state with or without a collective security mechanism? The answer now is a fragmented world, replete with terrorism that requires nation-states to work simultaneously towards the good of all.   Yes, nation states can bolster their economies, pay down the deficit, and provide a wider welfare state for their citizens, though, the potential threats to citizens will remain problematic for governments to manage in an area of cyber security, as well as invisible foes operating in sleeper cells. So, as we re-write the rules of collective security and consider an expanded UN that has a NATO grafted onto it, certain rules will require modification, that include negotiating with autocrats for membership will provide serious challenges. A trade-off with North Korea for food seems continual, while Russia and others will want relief from sanctions. 

Sun Tzu said, "He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign." The prospect of non - interference in international relations leads to war and famine. Therefore, Tzu was right. How best to check the abuse of power and constrain that power is an age-old question. A fully developed, sovereign U.N. can provide the apparatus to 1) set quotas on casualties of war before sanctions and military action is taken 2) protocols to work within the international community to avoid genocide 3) determine who is responsible for costs after war (Jus Post Bellum.)

Are human rights and economic matters insoluble?

Recently, U.S. President Donald Trump hewed traditional foreign policy through his allegiance to Saudi leader, Mohammed Bin Salman despite evidence by the intelligence community that Salman directed the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Trump's reasoning is that America needs Saudi Arabia as a partner in the Near East and respects the two countries historical relationship. Trump included a claim about the various business interests that the two countries share, presumably arms sales and energy. Mr. Trump's comments whether through social media or the White House continue to dilute the essence of democracy in diplomatic relationships through key allies with his penchant to make a deal, no matter the issue.

Tibet has been in a repressive state by Chinese occupiers since 1950. America had enlisted the CIA to undermine Chinese authority, to no avail.  It may be quite reasonable to equate China under the guidance of Xi to a Hobbesian mantra that declares that man is in a state of war; therefore the state is as well.  Evidence of this points to the Tiananmen Square incident with the state at war with its citizens, and the occupation of Tibet and the dismemberment of its culture that is reinforced through the curtailment of human rights and freedoms. Recently, evidence points to re-education camps in Xinjiang to circumvent terrorist activities by ethnic Uighur Muslims who are being detained without charge according to rights groups for "...refusing to give a DNA sample, speaking in a minority language or arguing with officials."3 The internment camps have inculcated the detainees with classes that are given on Chinese history; language, culture and attendees were given "an awareness of the nation, citizenship and rule of law" according to the chairman of the government – Shohrat Zakir. Reports of one million detainees validates claims against the PRC for continuing along their authoritarian path, while placating the international community with inexpensive goods through trade, membership in the WTO (World Trade Organization,) hosting the 2008 Summer Olympics and a calm approach to Foreign Policy that disguises their strict approach to domestic policy. Indeed, Canada has fallen victim to Chinese aggression by arresting two Canadians for what appears to be retribution (kidnapping) against Canadian law enforcement officials for the arrest of Meng Wanzhou – Chief Financial Officer of Huawei, who has links to investment in Iran through an affiliated company. The U.S. is seeking her extradition for ignoring Iranian sanctions. For China, it is do as I want or else. Democracies have to measure that against the benefits of trade agreements with China along with security for their foreign nationals, business leaders, and citizens that live in or visit China. China offers much in the way of innovation in health care, technology, and ideas for managing climate change. However, China is not alone in shunting human rights in the East, as Russia, Saudi Arabia and Syria remain mired in another time of Hobbesian ideals.  

Collective Security is a costly deterrent

The prospect of nation-states collaborating in defence of one another seems superfluous in the 21st C. Some may argue the closest to a Nazi reprisal was the terror wrought by Islamic State. The international community cobbled together a pan to oust IS from Iraq and Syria, that, while successful, there still exists a pocket of terrorists in an enclave ion the border of Syria and Iraq where mass assassinations have continued by the group, as reported recently by The Globe and Mail. The advent of regional trade associations seems to reflect collective security presently as the EU is consolidating power while China has few allies outside of North Korea and perhaps, Russia if a major conflict were to erupt in that region. Outside of terror groups operating in cells that propel us to bomb, and disrupt their movements with drones, collective security requires a high cost as a deterrent. In Bosnia, NATO proved effective proving that a global agency may prove most effective in regional matters including the current crisis between Saudi Arabia and the Houthi's. Canada is currently considering cancelling an arms sale to Saudi Arabia because of the Saudi's creating genocidal conditions within Yemen. How do nation-states cross-purposes between trade and war?

Moreover, is it good value as an investment for nation-states that may get more mileage from investing these member ship fees into their own defence budgets?  Do nation – states need a singular authority to manage large-scale conflicts? If not, what is a viable alternative? With technology there are winners and losers. In war, it s a zero sum game. In this instance, Jus Post Bellum through the framework of collective security provides direction to the winners and losers, while they recover from the damages of conflict.   To the victor go the spoils, yet, the responsibility to that nation-state in a rebuilding of the losers infrastructure remains important and acts as a deterrent against future conflicts.  This last notion opens up criticism when the United States is concerned Vis a Vis Viet Nam, Iraq and Japan are considered. Likewise, Russia has proven limited restraint to manage internal conflicts in Georgia, Chechnya, and Crimea and other regions as Russia hopes to cobble together pieces remaining from the U.S.S.R.

Collective security is not intended to correct for the misdeeds of other nation -states toward other nation - states. It is a deterrent based on sanctions, diplomacy, and select use of force to inhibit loss of innocent life. Historically, it has been mis-used by select regimes to further their colonialist ambitions.   At best, it appears that CS is a regional based system that is most effective outside the auspices of the UN and NATO and should be a signal to nation-states to develop their own defence mechanisms with the aid of outside sources, a last resort to counter genocide, structural damage or the defeat of democratically established justice and electoral systems. Until, the UN is re-balanced and NATO takes on a more prominent role, regional apparatus sprinkled in with international directives appears to be the standard in a very fragmented world beset by conflicts within each P5 member of the UN Security Council. The IMF is an organ of the UN since 1945. Similar to the UN Security Council, member states receive votes based on financial contributions. Merging NATO with the UN to replace the P% and General Assembly while expanding the base to include all members with a majority vote can provide CS as a strong deterrent to autocratic regimes and promote democracy and human rights between state actors. 

Conclusion

NATO can provide a useful collective security apparatus along with the UN. The  UN absolutely should have an expanded role  outside of it's limited role of sanctions and a "club" of nation - states that aid in bringing important issues like climate change and gender rights into the public sphere, so that policy adjustments can be altered to bring about positive change.

Foreign Policy is in a free fall among main state actors. Nation – states will   acknowledge that there are two organisations  to manage global affairs: NATO for military purposes and the UN for social issues that threaten humanity. NATO, therefore needs to be expanded and changed to provide conflict resolution, supplying sanctions and military deterrents, while the UN supplies peace-keeping and peace- making duties to coordinate with the international community before armed conflict breaks out. Jus Post Bellum is a further role for the UN when the conflict is over. NATO would serve well to be held accountable in working to restore nation- states that are ravaged by war where their presence has aided in the democratisation process. The UN has been ineffective at subverting proxy wars between nation - states because it was founded on the strength of American hegemony and the aftermath of The Holocaust. The expansion of NATO or integration of NATO inside the UN  tied to majority votes will ameliorate the gridlock on sensitive issues like Israel/Palestine, thereby ensuring that social and political justice is levied, appropriately. Provided the UN can be remodelled, the ICC (International Criminal Court) can operate effectively as it was established to do: prosecute leaders who are guilty of war crimes that it did remarkably well, regarding former Serbian leader, Slobodan Milosevic. Consider the P5 expanding to P15 with some regions comprising a Bloc for voting purposes such as The Arab League and  the African National Congress provide a widespread net for a diverse population that face unique issues. An expanded P5 bringing about a Resolution  to the Security Council  by a member state requiring actors to request permission for passage through international waters or air-space before entry seems to me would be defeated. Therefore, a breakdown of voting behavior within a Bloc may bring financial repercussions against those dissenting members.This would resemble a purer form of multi-lateralism and diplomacy within the UN.  Conversely, member states that dissent may face trade sanctions that promote reciprocal sanctions or uncooperative behavior regarding current or future resolutions that may be of a more urgent matter. Indeed, this may hamstring the resolution process and draw out important time-lines where peoples lives are at risk. A key recommendation is a balanced approach to contributions made by member states so not one member is  contributing an unfair  burden and with that an wieldy influence that inhibits corrective actions.   
Historically, the Nuremberg Trials in 1945- 1946 were temporarily created to prosecute Nazi war criminals.    The strength of a states judiciary provides the means to counter injustices. The developing world fails in this aspect (see Rodrigo Duterte in The Philippines regarding extra judicial killings over drug traffickers,), which leads to established democracies shouldering the cost and responsibility for collective security. Spreading the costs, responsibilities, and accountability in a balanced system may provide the way forward to reduce large-scale conflict. For Tibetans, some relief was found with President Trump signing the 'The Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act' that will deny those Chinese authorities visas to the United States who block Tibetan - American's the right to return home. While America supports Israeli interests, Donald Trump recognizing Israeli occupation and control of the Golan Height's only creates deeper fissures in the Near East and exacerbates unrest among anti American factions. 

Works Cited

1 Falk, Richard. "Where is the Fork in the Road? Over the Horizon! An Inquiry into the Failure of UN Reform." Metaphors of Globalization. Ed. Markus Kornprobst et al. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. 203-220. 

2 Rawls, John. "Distributive Justice."Readings in Social and Political Philosphy. Ed. Robert M. Stewart. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. 197.

3   "Xinjiang official defends 'education centres' for Uighur Muslims. BBC News. 16 October 2018. 12 December 2018.

photos from linked article re. Smithsonian

e-waste dump in Ghana

https://blog.feedspot.com/political_science_blogs/

<img alt="Political Science Blogs" src="https://blog-cdn.feedspot.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Political-Science-transparent_216px.png">