collective security PDF

Preview

Summary

collective security...

Description

Collective Security

Question: What is “collective security”? Account for the reasons why China is reluctant to embrace this concept. Support your arguments with concrete examples. What is “collective security”? The representative man to seriously conceptualize the collective security was an American president Thomas Woodrow Wilson. After the World War I, most of the countries proposed collective security mechanisms to prevent the war again. In the post–Cold War, rapidly globalization and post 911 attack, the G8 conference system has become more effective global security organization than the collective security based United Nations system. China was making lot of effort in order to avoid the international conflict and maintain the peaceful condition. But in the last few years, China has promoted “Multipolar World” and promulgated a “New Security Concept” (NSC) that is different from collective security. China argues the new security concept promotes peace and prosperity better than the current situation, which is based on a “Cold War mentality”. It obviously reflects the contradiction between two concepts. The article briefly considers what factors and reasons China not willing to accept the collective security after Cold War era. Before analysis the reasons, the collective security as followed; The principle of collective security is found in Article of the United Nations which states that, “the action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine; such decisions shall be carried out by the members of the United Nations directly or through their action in the appropriate international

agencies of which they are members” (Ebegbulem, 2011). The idea behind system is that members of the organization advancing the collective security system are bound to arise to each other’s defense in case of attack. The basic principle of collective security is that an attack on one is an attack on all. Any state contemplating aggression would face the sure prospect of struggle not simply with the prospective victim, but with all other members of the system, who would make any necessary sacrifice to save the state attacked. “In a hypothetical world of collective security, the assumption is that the members of the system will have such an overwhelming preponderance of power and will be so unreservedly committed to the principles they have endorsed that aggression will become quite irrational; presumably, it will thus not occur, or if it should occur, it will be defeated (Dyke, 1957).” The first reason is the contradiction between collective security concept and new security concept. There are some background information about the new security concept, promoting the NSC serves several Chinese foreign policy goals, including countering the U.S. “containment” and prepare the regional ground for expanded Chinese influence. Also Beijing had to improve China’s international image as a responsible, principled leader and change the view of China as a growing “threat” to its Asian neighbors. The NSC includes several details. The first is China reluctant to embrace the present security environment or collective security, which is based on the “Cold War mentality”. Small and medium powers feel left out in the Collective Security arrangement as they can only benefit from the system only the superpower especially the United States. In contrast, China indicate security in the post-Cold War era should be considered broad, not just only the military; and all countries should carry equal benefit and

rights. Second, the NSC point out international relations should base on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, which are “mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual non-aggression, noninterference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence.” Elaborating on the Five Principles, “Each country has the right to choose its own social system, development strategy and way of life, and no country should interfere in the internal affairs” In the economic side “equality and mutual benefit” explains that “all countries should strengthen mutually beneficial cooperation, eliminate inequalities and discriminatory policies in economic and trade relations, gradually reduce the development gaps between countries and seek common prosperity.” Third, the NSC analysis “cooperative security”. Chinese explanations of the NSC that “security is interdependence”, it through on negotiation, cooperation, economic interaction and building trust rather than by confronting. Moreover, the NSC advocate for multilateral dialogue, building confidence and arms control, and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (Roy, 2003). As I mentioned at the beginning, it obviously shows the nature of collective security is making contradiction with China NSC. First, the collective security as a new format of containment in post-Cold War era. In contrast, the NSC serves Chinese foreign policy goals of countering the U.S. “containment”. In fact, China doubt that U.S. arms are increasingly arranged against a peaceful rise of China, and the US government who are trying to image China as the new primary threat after the collapse of Soviet Union. China believes this reasoning allows the U.S. to justify some of its nuclear arms against China, with the continued maintenance of military in Japan and Korea as evidence of an emerging containment strategy against China

(Shambaugh, 1994). It was main contradiction between two concept. Second, the collective security assume each state in the system accepts that the security of one is the concern of all, against a country as a hostile force and therefore through to a collective to response the threats. In contrast, the concept is different from the China NSC, which point out each country has the right to choose its own social system, development strategy and way of life, and no country should interfere in the internal affairs. In other words, Chinese foreign policy which not to against any countries for hostile. It was also the principle of peaceful rise of China. In short, China advocated sovereignty for security-based rather than current situation and collective security means using coalition to against the hostile countries. It is an opposite to NSC non-interference internal affairs of other countries. So China is reluctant to embrace the collective security. The second reason is the tension relations between the neighbors. Since 1979, China turns the foreign policy from independence to interdependence and through on negotiation, cooperation, economic interaction and building trust. China seeks to actively engage in the regional international regimes, such as ASEAN Regional Forum, the APEC and Boao Forum for Asia, it program is to maintain the peace and stability of the region. However, China is bound to challenge the national security of its neighbors, it has a stronger desire to gain control of those islands with sovereignty dispute as they are potential sources of natural resources, in particular oil, posts a threat to the national security of its neighbors. Moreover, against China's rising threat and the ASEAN countries will continue to expand its national interests and security space, this change will impact the existing status of international structures and stability. The principles of collective security are unfavorable for China during the conflict with its

neighbors. In the following, I will illustrate China’s relations with its neighbors in some countries. Firstly, China and Vietnam, Philippines, Brunei as well as Malaysia have a long-term border struggle on the sovereignty of South China Sea. There was an alleviation of the tension in the late 1990s to the 2000s, particularly after the signature of the South China Sea Code of Conduct in 2002. However, the tension has increased since 2009 due to the following happening, part of the South China Sea sovereignty countries was a tough stance on the South China Sea issue, making China into a dilemma. In March 2009, the Malaysia Prime Minister Abdullah bin Haji Ahmad Badawi declared Swallow Reef sovereignty is owned by Malaysia. In the same year, the Vietnamese government to appoint the Chairman of the Paracel Islands to declare the sovereignty. Moreover, the President of the Philippine signed the “Territorial Sea Baselines Bill”, part of the China's Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal were included to the Philippines territory. In April 2012, the Philippines arrested Chinese fishermen near Scarborough Shoal, and these happening caused a tension relation on the sovereignty of South China Sea between China and Philippine. On the other hand, China and Japan have heated sea border conflict especially of The Diaoyu Islands. Sino-Japanese conflict is particularly tension because those islands are the strategic position of those regions and they are potential sources of natural resources, also the conflict is fuelled by domestic nationalism. Philippine, Vietnam is committed to promoting the South China Sea issue to ASEAN and hope that through ASEAN "collective action" to give some pressure on China. The collective security mechanism is reflected in these

international organizations and containment. It was unfavorable and unequal for China during the border conflict with its neighbors, so China will not willing to solve the conflict through in ASEAN. Another important factor is the involvement of US. With the support of the US, states in the South East Asia dared to take a more assertive approach in handling the border conflict. In fact, US are still the most influential actor in the Asia Pacific region. Sometimes US is a destabilizer as countries may tend to take a more assertive stance towards China if they are backed by the US. It is noticed that China’s relations with its neighbors deteriorates when US actively involves in affairs of the region, like after the launch of “Pivot to Asia” by the Obama. In the above cases show that China is reluctant to embrace the collective security. It is because US, Japan and South East Asia countries would the same side and through collective security to against China. The third reason is countering the U.S. unilateralism. After the Cold War, the U.S. became the unique superpower in the world, with superior strength in military, economic and political aspects. After the 911 attack, the U.S. government proposed preemptive strategy. At the end of the Cold War the U. S. launched the Gulf War, the Kosovo War, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, those are completed in unilateralist foreign policy. It has clearly stated its strategic must continue to play a "leading role" in the world, and to maintain its supremacy position. In order to maintain its supremacy position, U.S. government often follow their own way by its foreign policy in some international issues. And ignored the view by its allies and the United Nations. In the last few years, Kosovo war has occurred, the war in Afghanistan, Iraq and other large-scale war also initiated or led by the U.S. American unilateralism under the policy of preemptive strategy, it obviously show the failure of the collective security

mechanism. And it was a serious challenge of multilateralism proposed by China. So China is reluctant to embrace the concept of collective security.

Conflict prevention is a concept that supports a number of strategic policy actions that seek to prevent an outbreak, escalation or return to violent conflict. Preventive diplomacy and preventive military deployment are the two major areas of purposeful action and in each category there are variations. Preventive diplomacy can include the dispatch of high level envoys from a regional or international organization or state to a conflict zone in order to assist the conflict parties to change perceptions and take de-escalatory actions in the conflict they are engaged in. States and IOs are not the only actors; NGOs, religious organizations and eminent persons acting on their own but in coordination with others can have the same purpose. Regardless of the actor or level of engagement, the principal tool is negotiation or mediation. Preventive military deployments also have a range of possible configurations ranging from humanitarian protection, observation and monitoring of demilitarization, reporting on human rights violations, accompaniment in 4 the return of displaced populations, as well as robust deployments of combat troops for the purpose of deterring an armed conflict or enforcing the terms of a peace settlement or other mandate. Up until 2001, a whole decade after the demise of Yugoslavia, Macedonia was considered a model for the relatively harmonious coexistence of two ethnic communities, Macedonian and Albanian. Likewise, Macedonia was considered the only country to have gained its independence from the former Yugoslavia without armed conflict. This chapter analyzes the circumstances that led to ethnic tension

transforming into armed conflict between the Macedonian security forces and ethnic Albanian insurgents in 2001. The analysis also discusses how the conflict was resolved and the post-conflict approach to the problem in the context of the emerging international security environment that the new state of Macedonia found itself in. From the end of the Second World War to the early 1990s, Macedonia formed one of the constituent Republics of President Tito’s Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia(SFRY) alongside the present-day states of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia and Kosovo. But as Communism fell throughout Eastern Europe and the SFRY began to dissolve, Macedonia gained its independence, becoming a sovereign state in September 1991. As mentioned above, Macedonia was the only country to secede peacefully from the Yugoslav federation and although tensions between the country’s ethnic Macedonian majority and ethnic Albanian minority were ever-present during the 1990s, such tensions did not manifest themselves violently during this period, despite the volatile regional situation. In early 2001, however, the National Liberation Army (NLA), an Albanian rebel group motivated by ethnic minority grievances, launched an attack on Macedonian security forces, which resulted in a six-month armed conflict. An internationallybrokered peace deal – the Ohrid Framework Agreement (OFA) – brought the fighting to an end in August 2001. Since this point Macedonia has focused on implementing the reforms laid out in the OFA as well as moving towards both EU and NATO integration. Macedonia is a small, land-locked country with an area of 25,333 square kilometers and a population of just under 2,067,000 . It borders Serbia and Kosovo to the north, Greece to the south, Albania to the west, and Bulgaria to the east. Macedonia has a diverse ethnic population with a substantial

Albanian minority. Figure below shows the country’s ethnic makeup as recorded in its most recent census carried out in 2002. Ethnic conflict in Macedonia did not begin with the country’s independence. Its roots reach far into history and it is in this light that that we should understand the words of former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the conflict between the Macedonian and Albanian ethnic communities, which is, as with most contemporary internal conflicts, of a structural nature. The phases of conflict prevention in Macedonia are considered: • The preventive initiatives of the 1990s, following Macedonia’s independence from the SFRY • The preventive initiatives surrounding the 2001 crisis Each section surveys the preventive tools that were adopted by key international actors and considers the impact of international activities in averting the eruption of protracted armed conflict in Macedonia. Conflict prevention in the 1990s After gaining independence, Macedonia faced two major challenges during the 1990s: • Preserving its territorial integrity in the face of external threats and the potential spillover of violence from other Balkan conflicts • Addressing the inter-ethnic tensions that existed within the country, between ethnic Macedonians and the ethnic Albanian minority. Both were potential conflict risk factors for the nascent state, which emerged from the break-up of the SFRY with a weak economy and fragile state institutions. The political challenges

facing the country were very similar to those that led to Bosnia’s downward spiral into violent conflict in the 1990s. Yet in Macedonia conflict was avoided and the concerted activities of a number of international actors played an important role in ensuring that peace prevailed during this period. The three key international actors engaged in Macedonia during the 1990s were the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia (ICFY) Working Group on Ethnic and National Communities and Minorities (the ICFY Working Group), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) including the High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM) and the United Nations (UN). All of these players had specifically preventive mandates and between them employed a variety of military, monitoring, diplomatic, and confidence-building and development tools in order to prevent the outbreak of violent conflict. Military and monitoring tools The task of preventing the spill-over of other regional conflicts and deterring acts of aggression from Macedonia’s neighbors was primarily undertaken by the United Nations. Potential Serbian aggression was the main concern in this regard and although, with the benefit of hindsight, some might draw the conclusion that President Milosevic did not have territorial aspirations that included Macedonia, at the time the regional security situation was sufficiently volatile as to make a Serbian incursion a viable possibility. On numerous occasions prior to the 1996 accord between Serbia and Macedonia, small contingents of Serbian army troops crossed the Macedonian border occupying territory and sparking fears of a larger confrontation, before retreating following negotiations. The UN’s first (and only) preventive force, the Preventive Deployment in Macedonia (UNPREDEP) was established in December 1992, following a request from the country’s then

President, Kiro Gligorov. It remained in Macedonia until March 1999. Initially, UNPREDEP in Macedonia was a part of UNPROFOR (the United Nations Protection Force in Croatia). However, it became an independent mission in 1995. A relatively small mission, UNPREDEP had a military contingent of just 1,049 and also incorporated 35 military observers and 26 civilian police. The ‘military pillar’ of the mission had responsibility for monitoring and reporting to the Secretary General any developments in the border areas with Albania and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) that could pose a threat to the country, and was also tasked with deterring any such threats and preventing clashes between external elements and Macedonian forces. However, UNPREDEP’s deterrent capability was not based on its military strength; rather, it came from what the force represented, namely the support of the Western powers and particularly of the United States. Indeed, UNPREDEP had a component of approximately 500 US troops and this physical presence – as well as the fact that the force had Security Council backing – sent a clear message to Belgrade, and other neighbouring capitals, that the international community supported the territorial integrity of Macedonia and that any act of aggression would have severe consequences. The OSCE Spillover Monitor Mission to Skopje, established in September 1992, was the first organization tasked with preventing the spill-over of conflict in the former Yugoslavia. To this end it was initially concerned with monitoring the border areas with Serbia and Albania. However, given the mission’s small size – it consisted of just six to eight monitors – when UNPREDEP arrived in December 1992, the UN assumed the main border monitoring role. Nonetheless, in its early phases ...