1

Collective security

Customers name Grade/Course Tutors name

(Date)

2 Outline Introduction Collective Security Concept Problem Facing Collective Security Using League to Enforce peace Problems in Implementing Peace: the League and the UN Conclusion Reference List

3 Collective security Introduction Collective security is an arrangement or a policy that brings together countries agreeing to a regional or global stand that security was a very important issues requiring great attention. As such, these countries agree to get into a collective role of responding to security threats and breaches of peace. These countries would defend each other against invasion from others. The countries under collective security do not attack each other. The main assumption here is that attacking one of their own was like attacking all of them. Collective security seeks to unite regional and global perspectives. This idea has a long history and over time, its implementation has been a problem. This has been so because, there are some prerequisites that needed to make collective security work. Collective Security Concept Those in support of collective security idea consider it a more effective approach to ensuring peace than when individual nations act independently (Walters 1952, p. 817). The weaker states cannot possibly defend themselves. However, the pooling together of many nations for this goal causes competition and conflict hence attaining the goal becomes problematic (Brierly 1958. p.47). There is also possible distraction by states that like the never-ending arms competition. The main advantage of the theme of an organization is that international cooperation is easier to achieve. Problem Facing Collective Security To many countries in the world, the United Nations has served to embody the accomplishment of a very venerable vision: which was to replace a dubious and dangerous system of balances by setting up an organization that could actually foster

4 peace. There were some emerging leaders whose interests and schemes of devious ambitions did not care for their subjects welfare. Philosopher Woodrow Wilson instigated the formation of a body that could offer security. The collective security concept effected as a reality in the League of Nations (Manning 1970, p. 107). The goal of the collective security was to institute peace and stability whereas system of balance of power helped to maintain status quo particularly that of the great powers (Brierly 1958. p.47). Rationally, the concept of collective security was seen as perpetrating the eighteenth century perception when idea of progress was dominant while balance of powers was seen as unsatisfactory and old. The United Nations was born just in time when people were losing faith in idea of progress because of the first and second world wars (Armstrong, Lloyd, & Redmond 2004, p.67). The current structure of the UN, especially the Security Council supports the idea that the UN was formed because rationalistic viewpoint failed. This stance had been exemplified by the League of Nations (Manning 1970, p. 109). The US, Russia and other permanent members of the UNs Security Council still exercised politics of balance of powers while still serving the newly formed UN. This was despite the fact that UNs raison dtre was specifically designed to end those practices. Currently countries often refuse to defend each other when there is a threat simply because the act is not in their best interests yet they pledged to do so. At times, they turn down because the act could be too costly or too risky. Due to the many numbers of countries that are drawn into a conflict, sometimes, small struggles are turned into large conflicts therefore non-violent problem solving strategies cannot apply (Nicholas 1970, p.89). Countries resort to military confrontation, which is more

5 expensive. In the event that there is an act requiring intervention of collective security, alliances often emerge and sometimes they serve as basis for aggressive coalition The failure of the UN and League of Nations is not because of the notion that the modern politics are very different from the 1945 politics (Manning 1970, p. 115). Besides, it cannot be argued that the UN has failed to adapt to new world but rather, the dice was already set with UNs fate determined. The UN can be argued to have adapted more strongly in 2008/9 as it has been able to sidestep decisions of great powers from America and Europe (Armstrong, Lloyd, & Redmond 2004, p.67).. Using League to Enforce peace Veale characterized civilized warfare as an outcome of overdue common sense. Humanity then came to understand that probably, warfare could benefit all people if it were to happen under tacit rules (Walters 1952, p. 816). As such, human sufferings, losses and damaging of property, which is inevitable during war, can be reduced as much as possible. However, this was not the case in the First World War as the powers, which supported the idea of civilized war departed from it. There was British starvation, blockade of Germany, use poison gases, genocide on western front and air strike experimentations. The League of Nations was hatched then to enforce peace, and use military force when necessary (Abbott, & Snidal 1998, p.7). The leagues formation was apparently based on lesions learnt from the First World War. However when the Second World War came, the hope of using the league surged down. The league was discredited by the Soviet Union, which had been expelled in 1940 after attacking Finland (Northedge 1986, p.27). There was need to have a strong organization. With Americas support, the United Nations was established

6 officially in 1945 after several conferences. To make it effective, more power was given to five major powers. These powers (US, China, UK, France and Russia) had veto powers and permanent representation in the upper chamber the Security Council (David 2004, p.8). The council had exclusive jurisdiction on matters pertaining security. The SC had a primary role of maintaining international peace and security and therefore could charge other members with duty to accept and execute council decisions. Problems in Implementing Peace: the League and the UN The Security Council was accused of some failures in the implementation of collective security. They assume that many countries are naturally peaceful and war only comes up because of occasional misunderstandings. In 1950, the US was very active lobbying other members of the UN security council to condemn aggression of North Korea on its neighbor south Korea (Johnson, & Niemeyer 1954, p. 23). The SC was not in place then so vetoing of resolutions was not possible. The UN forces mostly Americans backed North Korea only to run into Chinese militia. This was evidently not a simple policing action. Not all the nations in the UN were convinced that N. Korea was aggressive against S. Korea. China and Russia were of the contrary opinion. The US has been very active and dominant in such provocations that it appears it has more interest than that of the United Nations. This war greatly discredited the goal of collective security even after armistice of 1953 negotiations (Johnson, & Niemeyer 1954, p. 33). The leagues problem in implementing peace heightened during the Ethiopian crisis. Collective security failed hence exposing some weaknesses (Miller 1999, p. 308). One was lack of trust as the great powers appeared to support the new ideas but still

7 believed in old ways of balance of power (Parsons 1993, p.187). During the crisis, France and Britain did not oppose Italys invasion strongly because they felt they would need Italys support as an ally in future conflicts, like fighting Germany. This notion was in vain, as Germany and Italy fought on one in the Second World War. In Manchurian crisis, preparation of defense against Germany was of special interest to Britain and France than for the abstract principle of collective security by the league. Since their own peace was threatened, the states had to fall back and use the strategies of balance of powers, which the league wanted to leave abort (Nicholas 1970, p.89). Another serious problem of implementing collective security has been the circumstances in which the league had to operate in - The Versailles peace deal and ambiguous definitions in the charter (Gareis, Bernhard, & Varwick 2005, p.87). The definition of aggression was ambiguous and a vague criteria for action. This was almost the same as balance of powers concept where mere suspicion of intent to attack was justifiable for initiating preventive war (Miller 1999, p. 317). Legal definition caused the collective security to focus on overt actions like when a country sends uniformed troops over a demarcated border. This was the case in 1935 even as Haile Selassie was aware of Italian preparation to invade he could not call the league to intervene as had not violated the covenant of the league. Similarly, collective security could have prevented the second world war if it had acted upon German rearmament which begun in 1935. However, at that point in time, any league action could have been interference in the internal activities of a sovereign country. Therefore, as the league adhered to legal definitions wars erupted in ways that are more violent and with stronger aggressors (Miller 1999, p. 328). With states unable

8 to find unambiguous definition of aggression, the criterion that focuses on violation of territorial integrity and encroachment of political independence is not sufficient. Such loopholes allowed Hitler to occupy demilitarized zone in Rhineland in 1936 even though it violated Versailles and Locarno treaties. Rhineland was still German territory. Hitler also annexed Austria in 1938 hence breaching its political independence but that was apparently a request by Austria government itself (Stromberg 1956, p. 254). Recent incidences of security problems have been even more ambiguous. For instance, in 1967, Egypt blocked the Strait of Tiran hence ships going to port Elat in Israel could not pass and Israels trade with Asia was impeded (Stromberg 1956, p. 254). In reaction, Israel attacked Egypt. Defining which country was aggressor became tricky. A blockade of waterway is traditionally an act of war. Nonetheless, Egypt claims were that it was simply prohibiting ships from using its territorial waters, which on the other hand is not an act of war (Stromberg 1956, p. 254). The first criterion means Egypt begun the war while the second, it was not aggression since Strait of Tiran was Egypts territorial waters. For years, the definition has been improved to include many types of bombardments of territory, port blockade, attacking military forces, and supporting terrorism. There are still some serious loopholes. The acts listed are not exhaustible hence; the Security Council can determine that other acts are aggression where the charter states that aggression is what the SC says it is (Stromberg 1956, p. 258). The second loophole is a contradiction of the first. This states that the definition cannot discriminate the right of self-determination, freedom and autonomy of people deprived of their right by force especially those under colonial rule, racist government or other

9 types of alien domination (Abbott, & Snidal 1998, p.9). The right of these people to struggle and find support according to the charter cannot be violated as well. The Indian troops crossed a demarcated frontier in 1961 into Goa and based on the above definition, they were into violating the charter or committing act of war. Apparently, the people were deprived of their self-determination rights by force and they were in search for support and struggle. This definition could as well justify the actions of North Korea in 1950 as being of self-determination and not aggression. Another problem has been that all other states have to participate in the action against the aggressor. Even if two minor states refuse in the action against aggressor, it does not matter as only major states are take seriously (Abbott, & Snidal 1998, p.9). Refusal by one or two major states because of unevenly distributed power in collective security, the operation could be doomed. In 1935, Albania was not ready to oppose Italy since it was its powerful protector. In the same way, the Soviet Union could not oppose North Korea, as they are ideological allies (Stromberg 1956, p. 259). Israels invasion of Egypt opposed as many countries had close friendship with Israel. Conclusion Theory and practice have proven that collective security cannot work on international level. However, it could have a chance in limited geographical locations where there are not so much differences in ideologies. Some analysts advocate for organization with limited members in certain regional blocks. These smaller security systems would be able to preserve peace with ease because of few memberships.

10 Reference List Abbott, K., W & Snidal, D., 1998. Why States Act Through Formal International Organizations, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 42, No. 1, Pp. 3-32 Armstrong, P., Lloyd, D.L., & Redmond, J. 2004. International Organization In World Politics. London: Palgrave Brierly, J.,1958. The Covenant and The Charter In Brierly: The Basis Of Obligation In International Law And Other Papers. Oxford: Clarendon Press. David, M.M., 2004. The UN Security Council: From The Cold War To The 21st Century. Boulder: Lynne Reinner Gareis, P., Bernhard, S., & Varwick, J. 2005. The United Nations. An Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan Johnson, H.C., & Niemeyer, G. 1954. Collective Security: The Validity Of An Ideal? International Organization, Vol. 8, No. 1. pp. 19-35 Manning, C.A. 1970. The Failure Of The League Of Nations (1942). Reprinted In Cosgrove, C.A. & Twitchett, K. J. (Eds.), The New International Actors: The United Nations And The European Economic Community. London: MacMillan Miller, L.H., 1999. The Idea And The Reality Of Collective Security, Global Governance, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 303-32. Nicholas, H.G. 1970. From League To UN International Affairs, 46(5), 88-100 Northedge, F.S., 1986. The League Of Nations, Its Life And Times 1920- 1946 Leicester: Leicester University Press

11 Parsons, A., 1993. The United Nations And The National Interests Of States, In Adam Roberts & Benedict Kingsbury, United Nations, Divided World. Oxford: Clarendon Press Stromberg, R.N., 1956. The Idea Of Collective Security In Journal Of The History Of Ideas, Vol. 27, No. 2. pp. 250-63 Walters, F.P. 1952. A History Of The League Of Nations, Death And Rebirth. London: Oxford University Press