One way of reassessing the West’s collective security would be a return to the Cold War format based on tensions between states. But it would be a historical nonsense to dream of Cold War times and their relative stability. That would also mean the West seeing itself in conflict with emerging powers like China and newly-assertive Russia. It would be a tremendous waste of effort and money by the West to create what would amount to a polarised world, thus worsening rather than improving global security. It would hardly be in the West’s own interests.
Today’s security problems differ vastly from those at the time of the Cold War. Tension these days is more likely to rise around the world as a result of imbalances between well-run states and failing ones. So the question is how should we deal with these tensions? How can we reconcile the imposition of stability, perhaps by military means, on a country where we are also trying to promote social, political and economic progress? And what should be done about potentially powerful countries that pursue ideas and policies rejected by the west as they seek to catch-up in terms of living standards? How can stability be established in such cases that can ensure the globalisation process is a positive one?
Globalisation has brought new advantages to many, but in some cases it has not necessarily made the world a better place. That sort of global security provided by the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council has been a disappointment. Even over Kosovo’s future, a seemingly minor problem in the Balkans, the five permanent powers and presumed moral leaders of the world were unable to agree, and with the United States and Russia diametrically opposed over Kosovo’s independence.
Yet the UN Security Council has to remain the indispensable institution committed to global stability. With its permanent members sharing a common interest in protecting the planet and working for the progress of humankind. Whatever their disagreements, they are united in such areas as fighting terrorism and environmental protection. But the West needs to design additional forms of cooperation and integration based on universal values – all implemented in practical ways in the standards of NATO and the European Union, as well as in treaties with their closest global partners.
One way doing this could be an inter-locking of the European Union and the United States. They already have a close working relationship through NATO and other organisations, and both have security systems that might be pooled. They could be joined by like-minded countries to form a “coalition of the willing”, even though it has to be said that past coalitions have tended to be short-lived. As to multilateral institutions, few have reached a level of ripeness needed to deal with practical contingencies. It would be hard to conceive of a meaningful new coalition of willing to cope with security problems without American leadership and strong EU participation.
Such a system of international relations, if armed with such good governance tools as diplomacy, defence, economic exchange and trade, democracy promotion projects and private-public partnerships, would be in a strong position to promote in a practical manner universal ideas and values, and of course global interests. The West has to close ranks and produce a single approach both to anticipating threats and overcoming them. Not to do so could mean that states, peoples and territories, could fall unchecked into anarchy, allowing corruption, poverty, disorder and criminality to dominate, thus paving the way for international conflict.
A joint EU-US-NATO security governance system could encourage regional bodies to take responsibility for their own stability. Such grave matters as the future of Afghanistan are an example of what’s needed. As well as helping the Afghan people to create their own long-term security, other problems that might best be resolved by a new international governance system include ensuring Iraq will have a peaceful and democratic future; neutralising any efforts by Iran to use nuclear energy for military purposes; and encouraging the European future of Serbia.
Unless some sort of global security governance vehicle can start to deliver results on a regular basis, all the talk of an “ignored UN system” and the “violation of international law” will remain empty phrases that lead nowhere. Of course international law and UN institutions matter, but only if the West can lead the way towards making them truly effective.