The Collapse of Collective Security, The Rise of New

Balance of Power
By : Algamar A. Latiph (April 2006)
 
A  Fragile  World    
 
Contrary  to  Samuel  Huntington’s  thesis  of  clash  of  civilizations,  we  did  not  witness  a  
“clash”  between  the  West  and  the  Muslim  Word,  at  least,  on  Denmark’s  caricature.  At  
most,  it  caused  outraged  in  the  streets,  economic  boycott  of  Danish  products.  Rather  it  
is  a  “clash”  within  the  West  Civilization.  In  the  Iraq  Invasion  in  2003,  the  divided  West  
respectively  formed  their  alliances  against  one  another  for  war  and  for  diplomacy.  
Antagonism  occurred  between  the  Coalition  of  the  Wiling  led  by  United  States  along  
with  United  Kingdom,  Spanish,  Italy,  Australia  and  dozens  states,  on  one  hand,  against  
the  France-­‐Germany’s  mini-­‐alliance,  on  the  other  hand.  The  former  espouses  war  
while  the  latter  advocates  diplomacy.  The  opposing  coalitions  were  driven  not  for  the  
love  of  peace  neither  freedom  but  of  their  insatiable  competing  material  and  strategic  
gains  in  Iraq.    
 
Whereas  the  West  is  divided  for  being  protectionist  of  their  national  interests,  the  
Arabs  and  the  Muslim  World  are  more  divided  by  sheer  jealousy  or  hypocrisy  or  by  
plain  selfishness.  The  Arab  League  and  the  Organisation  of  Islamic  Conference,  devoid  
of  security  component,  have  not  played  any  major  role  in  recent  world  affairs.  While  
the  116  countries  of  the  Non-­‐Aligned  Nations  and  the  52  countries  in  Africa  had  
explicitly  opposed  and  denounced  the  use  of  military  in  Iraq;  seven  Arab  countries,  
Saudi  Arabia,  Kuwait,  Bahrain  Saudi,  Jordan,  United  Arab  Emirates,  Qatar,  and  Oman  
joined  the  US-­‐led  coalition  that  attacked  their  neighbor,  Iraq.  And  further  invalidate  
Huntington’s  “clash”  between  Civilizations.  
 
  We  are  now  in  an  era  where  the  most  powerful  nation,  the  US,  wield  its  power  
upon  Iraq,  unilaterally,  in  pursuit  of  a  national  goal  and  in  rejection  of  collective  
security.  Despite  of  the  confident  and  crouching  giant  China,  India’s  raising  economy  
and  military  power,  Russia’s  reassertion  of  its  former  position,  and  Japan’s  increasing  
militarism  are  fragmented  powers  which  have  not  raise  serious  challenge  to  US’  
provocation  of  unilateralism  in  Iraq.  This  holds  in  the  case  of  France-­‐Germany’s  
informal  coalition  in  Iraq  War.    
 
The  end  of  the  Cold  War  and  its  swift  shift  to  globalization  paradigm  has  seemingly  
brought  the  world  a  sustainable  peace.  But  a  closer  look  of  recent  events,  a  contrary  
conclusion  would  surface.  We  will  see  a  fragile  and  uncertain  world  resulting  from  US  
unilateralism  and  its  willingness  to  abandon  collective  security.    
 
The  Bush  Doctrine    
 
Built  on  a  shared  principle  of  collective  security,  the  United  Nations’  Security  
  
Pres.  Bush’s  pronouncement  is  not  a  mere  sound  bite  rather  it  firmly  rests  on  a  
declared  foreign  policy.  “America  will  implement  its  strategies  by  organizing  
coalitions—as  broad  as  practicable—of  states  able  and  willing  to  promote  a  balance  of  
power  that  favors  freedom”  that  can  augment  permanent  institutions  (United  Nations  
and  North  Atlantic  Treaty  Organizations),  Pres.  Bush  had  declared,  among  others,  on  
September  2002.  This  has  become  known  as  the  “Bush  Doctrine”.    
 
After  six  months,  the  theoretical  doctrine  was  put  into  action.  When  it  became  
evident  that  no  military  action  will  be  authorized  in  Iraq,  in  view  of  France’s  expected  
“veto”,  Non-­‐Permanent  Member  Germany  and  Syria’s  “no”  votes     and  Russia  and  
China’s  anticipated  abstention,  US  organized  the  Coalition  of  the  Willing  that  invaded  
Iraq  in  March  2003  thereby  rejecting  multilateral  efforts  under  the  system  of  
collective  security  as  a  means  of  enforcing  peace.    
 
The  Bush  Doctrine  and  its  actual  application  had  put  forward  a  two-­‐fold  foreign  
policy.  First,  US  will  seek  Security  Council,  at  first  opportunity,  on  issues  affecting  
world  peace  and  security,  and,  second,  should  no  military  action  is  authorized,  it  will  
organize  a  coalition  to  perform  the  duty  legitimately  vested  in  the  Security  Council.    
 
A  Tale  of  Two  Traditions    
 
Collective  security  was  enshrined  in  the  League  of  Nations  in  1919  upon  the  
insistence  of  Pres.  Wilson  after  the  end  of  World  War  I.  This  system  was  reaffirmed  in  
the  1946  Charter  of  the  UN  which  for  60  years  had  saved  the  world  from  the  brink  of  
nuclear  war  in  the  Cold  War  era,  it  also  prevented  a  major  war  among  Great  Powers.  In  
abandoning  collective  security  in  furtherance  of  its  national  interest,  the  US  had  
returned  to  Pres.  Theodore  Roosevelt  statecraft  of  “speak  louder  and  carry  a  big  stick”  
and  “blood  and  iron”  foreign  policy  advocated  by  Bismarck.    
 
As  applied,  the  Doctrine  is  tending  toward  “realism”  which  considered  morality  and  
ethics  have  no  place  in  state’s  relations  with  other  states.  In  his  “Politics  Among  
Nations”,  Hans  Morgenthau,  opined  an  anarchic  world  order  where  “International  
Politics,  like  all  politics,  is  a  struggle  for  power.  Whatever  the  ultimate  aims  of  
international  politics,  power  is  always  the  immediate  aim”  and  the  pursuit  of  national  
interest  determines  the  conduct  of  the  state,  it  is  its  “end”.  Corollarily,  Bismarck’s  
“realpolitik”  which,  according  to  Henry  Kissinger,  is  synonymous  to  Cardinal  
Richelieu’s  “raison’  de’  etat”  is  a  policy  that  asserts  that  national  interest  of  the  state  
justified  whatever  means  were  employed  to  pursue  it.  Force,  therefore,  is  justified  as  
the  “means”  to  attain  state’s  national  goal.    
 
This  is  what  Pres.  Theodore  Roosevelt  practiced  and  this  is  precisely  what  the  Bush  
Doctrine  embraced.  In  application,  during  the  incumbency  of  Pres.  Roosevelt,  the  US  
intervened  in  Haiti.  Likewise,  because  of  US’  interest  in  building  the  Panama  Canal,  it  
became  the  architect  of  Panama’s  secession  from  Colombia.  He  also  authorized  the  
invasion  of  Cuba.  Conversely,  Pres.  Roosevelt’s  practice  of  “realpolitik”  is  contrary  to  
 Multilateralism  and  Unilateralism    
 
When  there  is  a  threat  to  peace,  the  Big  Five  of  the  Security  Council  (US,  UK,  Russia,  
France,  and  China)  must  be  in  agreement  with  the  support  of  at  least  four  out  of  the  
ten  Non-­‐Permanent  Members  to  authorize  the  use  of  force  for  the  maintenance  of  
peace.  Like  democracy,  the  essence  of  Security  Council  is  representation.  In  the  case  of  
the  Non-­‐Permanent  Members,  their  membership  is  based  on  regional  representation  
from  the  Seven  Continents  and  are  duly  elected  by  the  General  Assembly  for  a  term.  
The  Big  Five’s  representation,  however,  emanates  from  their  ability  and  commitment  
to  carry  out  peace  owing  to  their  military  strength.    
 
Collective  security  recognizes  no  superiority  of  any  state  neither  subordination  of  
interest  by  one  or  more  states.  The  use  of  force  is  totally  discarded  as  a  means  to  
pursue  one’s  national  interest  as  opposed  to  what  “realpolitik”  advocates.  Only  thru  a  
shared  sense  of  justice  and  common  interest  by  the  “represented  world”  and  thru  the  
process  of  debates  and  consensus  can  a  military  action  be  carried  out.  When  the  
Security  Council  authorized  the  US-­‐led  Gulf  War  in  Iraq  (because  of  its  aggression  in  
Kuwait)  in  1991  and  in  2002  Afghanistan  (because  of  its  Al-­‐Qaeda  and  terrorist  
sponsorship  of  911)  the  use  of  force  was  justified  and  was  a  legitimate  exercised  for  
the  preservation  of  world  peace,  rule  of  law  prevailed.    
 
Unfortunately,  this  is  not  what  happened  in  Iraq  in  2003  as  US,  in  pursuit  of  
national  interest,  acted  unilaterally  after  organizing  the  Coalition  of  the  Willing  
thereby  deserting  the  multilateral  efforts  in  the  Security  Council.  This  is  not  the  first  
US’  deviation  from  Security  Council’s  consensus,  as  wrote  by  Merlin  M.  Magallona  that  
“The  more  obvious  departure  of  US  policy  form  the  concept  of  international  law  is  well  
known.  The  open  invasion  of  Granada,  the  bombing  of  Libya,  and  the  aggression  
against  Nicaragua  are  acts  of  depravity  which  have  no  place  in  a  civilized  world.”    
 
Henry  Kissinger  12  years  ago  pointed  out  that:  “The  weakness  of  collective  security  
is  that  the  interests  are  rarely  uniform,  and  that  security  is  rarely  seamless.  Members  
of  a  general  system  of  collective  security  are  therefore  more  likely  to  agree  on  inaction  
than  on  joint  action;  they  either  be  held  together  by  glittering  generalities;  or  may  
witness  the  defection  of  the  most  powerful  member,  who  feels  the  most  secure  and  
therefore  least  needs  the  system.”    
 
Unilateralism  is  devoid  of  democratic  values  of  representation,  legitimacy,  
consensus,  and  rule  of  majority  which  are  core  principles  of  collective  security.  After  
the  end  of  the  Cold  War,  we  do  not  feel  a  threat  of  war  of  great  magnitude  among  
nations.  In  fact  60  years  was  the  longest  peace  the  Europe  has  ever  experienced  since  
th
the  16  century.  It  has  been  instrumental  in  the  maintenance  of  tranquility  in  the  
world  but  now  its  efficacy  has  been  receding.    
 
The  Old  Balance  of  Power    
 
over  the  kings  of  European.  The  nation-­‐states  became  the  active  actors  in  the  world  
affairs.  What  followed  were  formation  of  alliances  among  and  between  nation-­‐states  
in  Europe  for  self-­‐preservation  and  to  create  an  equilibrium  of  forces  against  a  rising  a  
hegemonic  neighbor.    
 
th th
In  17  to  18  century  alone,  UK  had  organized  at  least  four  alliances  against  France  
which  then  was  the  domineering  power  in  the  Continent  of  Europe.  The  last  one  was  
during  the  reign  of  King  William  III,  where  the  Grand  Alliance  (UK,  Spain,  Sweden,  
Savoy,  Saxony,  Austria,  and  The  Netherlands)  successfully  quashed  France’s  King  
Louise  XIV.  This  balance  of  power  was  reaffirmed  in  1814  by  the  Quadruple  Alliance  
(UK,  Prussia,  Russia,  and  Austria)  to  defeat  Napoleon  Bonaparte’s  advancing  armies.  
Balance  of  power  is  characterized  by  lack  of  permanency  of  alliances  since  they  were  
formed  at  moment’s  national  interest.  In  the  Crimean  War  in  1852,  France  and  UK  
were  allies  against  Russia  but  30  years  before  that  France  was  at  war  with  UK,  Russia  
as  UK’s  ally  during  Napoleonic  Wars  in  1814.    
 
In  those  centuries,  series  of  alliances  were  formed,  thus,  creating  a  balance  of  power  
on  different  occasions  and  by  various  states  since  national  interests  had  never  been  
uniform.  There  were  no  fixed  demarcation  of  territorial  boundaries  among  states  as  
they  constantly  shrink  or  expand  through  bloody  wars.  Every  state  is  a  prey  by  the  
predatory  military  might  of  its  neighboring  states,  a  Darwinism  norms  where  “survival  
of  the  fittest  and  elimination  of  the  unfit”  is  the  conduct  of  state’s  competing  interests.  
But  why  summon  a  chaotic  international  system  in  a  world  which  is  on  the  apex  of  
peace  and  economic  harmony,  where  boundaries  among  states  are  more  or  less  
attained  their  permanency,  and  where  almost  all  states  are  established  by  the  
sovereign  people.    
 
The  New  Balance  of  Power    
 
The  system  of  balance  of  power  was  first  recognized  in  the  Utrecht  Treaty  in  1713  
that  ended  the  12-­‐year  War  on  Spanish  Succession.  Utrecht  agreed  “To  confirm  the  
peace  and  tranquility  of  the  Christian  world  to  a  just  equilibrium  of  power”  while  the  
Bush  Doctrine  put  forward  “a  balance  of  power  that  favors  freedom.”  Almost  a  century  
ago,  Pres.  Wilson  expressed  his  abhorrence  to  this  system  declaring  that  “There  must  
be  not  a  balance  of  power,  but  community  of  power;  nor  organized  rivalries,  but  an  
organized  common  peace”.  While  the  Bush  Doctrine’s  pretext  is  to  promote  
democracy;  Utrecht  was  a  genuine  affirmation  of  maintaining  peace.  Peculiarly,  
Utrecht  ended  a  war  while  the  Bush  Doctrine  was  declared  as  a  prelude  to  a  war  (Iraq  
was  invaded  by  the  Coalition  of  the  Willing  6  months  after  the  declaration  of  the  Bush  
Doctrine).    
 
The  only  gratuity  that  can  be  said  of  balance  of  power  is  that  it  prevented  
domination  of  a  single  power  in  Europe  (France,  UK,  Austria,  and  Russia).  At  present,  
however,  US  does  not  need  balance  of  power  as  there  is  no  other  state  attempting  or  
threatening  to  dominate  the  globe.  On  the  contrary,  other  Great  Powers  who  are  now  
coalition  is  to  make  it  appear  that  the  Iraq  War  is  a  multilateral  efforts  of  various  
states  and  to  imbibe  its  military  action  with  degree  of  legitimacy.  That  it  is  supported  
by  40  countries  albeit  considerably  minority  compared  to  the  more  than  200  
countries  of  UN.  Curiously,  however,  a  study  entitled     “Coalition  of  the  Willing  or  
Coalition  of  the  Coerced?”  released  on  February  26,  2003  by  the  Institute  of  Policy  
Studies  based  in  Washington  has  found  that  the  rationale  of  most  of  the  countries  who  
joined  the  coalition,  including  the  Philippines,  was  because  of  their  dependency  for  US’  
protection,  economic,  developmental  and  military  aids.  In  this  light,  it  would  appear  
that  the  coalition  is  a  mere  superficial  as  it  is  not  consists  of  “willing  states”  but  
“compelled  states”.    
 
In  sum,  the  balance  of  power  mentioned  in  the  Bush  Doctrine  and  as  applied  in  the  
Iraq  Invasion  in  2003  is  not  the  balance  of  power  of  the  Old  of  Europe.  We  did  not  see  
conglomeration  of  opposing  forces,  rather  the  coalition  had  been  utilized  as  the  
legitimizing  entity  that  seeks  to  rival  the  Security  Council.  The  “new”  balance  of  power  
is  an  organized  rivalry  not  of  powers  but  of  “legitimacy”.    
 
The  Security  Council  is  the  institution  that  “legitimize”  the  use  of  force  against  other  
states  to  which  the  US  must  submit  should  it  use  force  upon  other  state  for  the  
preservation  and  especially  for  the  enforcement  of  its  Resolution.  This  is  its  
international  obligation  but  seen  by  it  as  an  imposition  and  a  limitation  of  its  freedom  
to  act,  freedom  to  pursue  its  national  interest.  This  might  be  the  cause  of  its  
abandonment  of  Security  Council.    
 
On  the  other  hand,  another  conclusion  can  be  had.  On  the  theory  submitted  by  
Kenneth  K.  Waltz  in  his  “Theory  of  International  Politics”  (1979)  where  he  wrote  that  
in  balance  of  power  the  States  are  regarded  as  “unitary  actors  who,  at  a  minimum,  
seek  their  preservation  and,  at  a  maximum,  drive  for  universal  domination.”  By  
relating  Waltz’s  thesis  we  could  deduced  that  US’  adoption  of  balance  of  power  is  
manifestly  not  motivated  by  “self-­‐preservation”  but     provoked  by  its  “drive  for  
universal  domination”.    
 
The  Looming  Confrontation    
 
The  Iraq  Invasion  in  2003  might  not  be  the  last  unilateral  action.  The  nuclear  row  
between  Iran  and  US  is  a  tension  that  might  end  up  in  military  confrontation.  US  is  
firm  that  it  will  not  allow  Iran  to  pursue  its  nuclear  ambition  arguing  that  it  is  a  threat  
to  its  security.  However,  either  by  design  or  natural  cause,  Iran  is  now  sharing  its  
boundaries  with  hostile  territories:  Iraq  and  on  the  east,  Afghanistan,  both  under  US’s  
effective  military  control.  Despite  of  these  odds,  however,  Iran  has  not  indicated  that  it  
will  back  down.    
 
While  invasion  is  remote,  military  strike  is  probable.  In  fact  when  Iran  announced    
on  April  11,  2006  that  it  had  completed  enriching  Uranium,  US  Defense  Secretary  
Donald  Rumsfeld,  was  quick  to  announce  that  US  is  seriously  considering  military  
preventive  strike.  Iran  is  not  Iraq.  It  has  no  Saddam.  It  is  one  of  the  few  countries  in  
the  Arab  League  and  the  OIC  would  remained  the  same  inutile  entity  on  this  issue  
situated  within  their  backyards.  It  will  surely  destabilize  the  region  and  might  possibly  
involve  a  military  tension  within  the  Middle  East  countries.  We  do  not  see,  however,  
that  it  will  only  affect  the  regional  security  of  the  Middle  East.  It  will  scare  the  
globalize  world  on  its  insatiable  oil  needs.  As  of  2000,  Iran  with  its  813.3  trillion  cubic  
feet  of  natural  gas  reserve  is  the  largest  in  the  region  and  fifth  with  its  reserve  of  crude  
oil  of  89.7  billion  barrels.    
 
Locke’s  “Social  Contract”,  Hobbes’  “State  of  Nature”    
 
It  is  ironical  that  while  “Social  Contract”  of  John  Locke  is  fully  accepted  by  the  West  
as  the  foundation  of  democracy  where  equality  and  liberty  are  protected  and  
promoted  there  is  no  corresponding  “Social  Contract”  among  nations  where  equality  
and  justice  are  upheld  and  compulsory.  The  UN,  thru  Security  Council,  could  have  been  
the  body  to  provide  teeth  for  enforcement  of  International  Law.  The  essence  of  law  is  
that  it  must  be  “enforced”  objectively,  impartially  and  equally  in  order  to  attain  the  
justice  imbued  in  the  law  but  which  the  Security  Council  is  incapable  of  applying  as  it  
is  still  succumbed  to  the  “rule  of  might”  not  to  the  “rule  of  law”.      
 
Soviet’s  subjugation  of  Afghanistan,  US  invasion  of  Granada,  UK  invasion  of  
Falklands,  Israel  disregard  of  numerous  Security  Council’s  Resolutions,  among  others,  
had  left  UN  sitting  at  bay,  irrelevant.  UN  inherent  limitation  has     recently  become  
patent—that  US’s  big  and  hard  stick  is  stronger  than  the  democratic  collective  
security.  This  further  showed  UN’s  irrelevance  in  the  world  peace  because  US,  alone,  
can  address  international  conflict  based  on  its  standard,  under  its  terms  and  always  on  
the  basis  of  its  national  interest.    
 
If  the  Security  Council  is  not  capable  of  applying  its  Charter  justly,  then  there  is  no  
rule  of  law  after  all  as  justice  is  now  defined  by  those  who  have  powers.  Consequently,  
our  chaotic  world  falls  within  Thomas  Hobbes’s  description  of  “state  of  nature”  a  
situation  where  “The  notions  of  right  and  wrong,  justice  and  injustice  have  there  no  
place.  Where  there  is  no  common  power,  there  is  no  law,  where  no  law,  no  justice.  
Force,  and  fraud,  are  in  war  the  cardinal  virtues.”  At  least  Hobbes  has  recognized  that  
“common  power”  could  temper  the  misuse  and  abuse  of  power.  Necessarily,  the  
collapse  of  “common  power”  (collective  security)  vested  in  the  Security  Council  has  
put  “force  and  fraud”  in  the  words  of  Hobbes  the  “cardinal  virtues”.    
 
The  US’  Paradox  of  Idealism  and  Realism    
 
Wilsonian  tradition  seeks  to  promote  and  pursue  two  kinds  of  rule  of  law:  intrastate  
and  inter-­‐state.  The  first  is  to  promote  rule  of  law  within  state  and,  second,  to  promote  
rule  of  law  among  nations  by  virtue  of  collective  security.  Both  are  in  adherence  to  
democratic  precepts  of  representation,  consensus,  and  equality.  Both  despise  anarchy  
and  selfishness  as  opposed  to  “realism”.  It  is  ironical  that  while  US  objective  of  
spreading  democracy  is  on  the  belief  that  democratic  states  do  not  wage  wars  
between  or  among  themselves,  a  paradox  lies  with  the  fact  that  US  has  put  forward  a  
has  no  place  in  the  relatively  peaceful  world,  this  is  the  time  where  the  US  has  to  
reaffirm  and  reassert  its  leadership  under  the  Wilsonian  tradition  that  “power  would  
yield  to  morality  and  the  force  of  arms  to  the  dictates  of  public  opinion”.    
 
There  exist  threats  to  the  humankind.  The  global  warming  will  decay  our  
environment,  terrorism  and  pandemic  brought  us  terrible  fears,  poverty  that  kills  
millions,  among  others,  are  issues  that  requires  strong  cooperation  among  the  
community  of  nations.  Unilateralism  is  a  system  that  will  further  split  the  spirit  of  
cooperation  and  further  distance  harmonious  relations  within  the  international  
community.  Unfortunately,  this  is  not  the  case,  at  least  at  present.  The     IBM  
advertisement  can  best  described  US’  foreign  policy,  thus,  “I’m  not  like  everybody  
else…  unusual,  unrivalled,  unexpected,  uncommon,”  or  the  movie  “Matilda”  where  
Danny  de  Vito  threatened  his  daughter  “I’m  big,  you’re  small;  I’m  smart,  you’re  dumb;  
and  you  cannot  do  anything  about  it.”