Security Council, Essay Example

The aspect of globalization has brought numerous concerns to international matters especially in the 21’TH century. These new issues include economic imbalances, international security, health, and environmental concerns among others. With respect to globalization, integration of social and economic elements of societies calls for efforts meant to ensure establishment of equilibrium within these newly formed multicultural social settings. Such integrated social settings include trade partnerships characterized by liberalized movement of goods and people across national boundaries. Globalization brings positive economic development to involved parties, and on the other hand, presents negative effects to social equilibrium between nations involved. One such negative effect is security. Economic interconnectedness has developed an avenue for proliferation of arms across trading partners. These arms are used for purposes of fighting domestic and international conflicts relating to cultural and political intolerance among members of conflicting cultures. Because of this, nations and regions having economic partnerships continually devise mechanisms meant to counteract insecurity.

Collective security is the most profound mechanism developed to address issues of insecurity at an international level. Collective security involves arrangement made by nations or regional blocks, in which each member acknowledges that the security of one member nation is the concern of all involved nations. In addition, collective security bodies calls for a collective response in addressing matters of threats and breach of peace[i]. In order to apply the aspect of collective security in an objective manner, there was a need to stipulate rules and regulations of operations relating to threat response and peace establishment. In this regard, the United Nations Security Council stands in the middle of overseeing operations attributed to the numerous collective security organizations around the globe. In an event of conflict, the Security Council committee deliberates over the matter by analyzing elements of justification and legitimacy of such armed confrontations. Upon consideration, the Council will respond in a manner that discourages an involved member nation from employing practices with a potential of threatening peace. Despite presence of this collective government, sovereign and powerful nations within collective security teams seem to exercise hard power towards their aggressors. This context questions the effectiveness of collective security in addressing the need for peace and justified use of power.

The aspect of collective security traces its roots to two integral theories; Liberalism and Realism. Realism scholars like Mearsheimer argues that the collective security institutions like the United Nations Security Council reflects proportional distribution of power to member states. In this regard, the scholar acknowledges the influence of great power in engineering mechanisms meant to address matters of international security. According to some political analysts, the purpose of collective security as defined in the Security Council does not reflect in practical application of the concept in the field. Principles that dominate in insecurity operations result from the influence of great powers in manipulating situations to serve their national interests[1]. In reality, Security Council seems to approach application of collective security using principles contained in the theories of Realism and Liberalism.

In the context of collective security, liberalism maintains that there is an inbred goodness of people to execute peacekeeping exercises within the society. This theory emphasizes that sovereign nations around the globe have a mutual corporation in addressing matters of international concerns. In this regard, the element of security falls squarely on the list of current international matters. Therefore, Liberalism advocates for bargaining of peace through application of collective security. In the current case insecurity in Syria, principles of Liberalism seem to apply in collective security efforts. Liberalism asserts for the need of restrain by aggressors during conflict resolutions. Based on this principle, unified nations are always rational in their judgment, while aggressor states are wrong. Therefore, it is the responsibility of unified nations to correct the wrongs of aggressors through a call for restrain[ii]. In Syria, numerous efforts have been made to pursue the Syrian government to restrain from unjustified use of power towards its citizens. On December 15, 2011, the Russian diplomatic committee presented drafts to the Security Council condemning the violence in Syria. Resolutions contained in the draft required the parties involved in the violence to desist from destabilizing security in Syria. In addition, Liberalism requires aggressors to deter from committing criminal acts. Collective security organizations usually make the aggressors aware of the fact that the international community disapproves of their actions, and imposing regulations meant to the perceived aggressive behavior. Based on this principle, the EU announced that it would impose trade and travel sanctions to Syria if acts or aggression persists. In May 9, 2011, EU imposed asset freeze and visa bans to more than 13 individuals believed to be behind the violence.

Collective security also attributes some of its principles in the theory of Realism. Unlike Liberalism, Realism advocate for individual role in addressing matters of insecurity. This theory asserts that humans are inherently selfish and greedy. In this regard, nations will always seek to address their own selfish interests. On the issue of tackling insecurity, Realism bestows the responsibility to individual sovereign states rather than approaching it through collective efforts. In application, Realism executes this principle through balance of power and deterrence[iii]. Balance of power addresses the issue by establishing equilibrium between involved states. States take the opportunity to ensure dominance of their interests while undermining the interests of other nations. In the case of Syria, Syrian government works towards creating dominance of its interests[iv]. On the other hand, individual states like the US seek to push forward their interests while undermining the interests of Syrian officials. This means that the continued lack of balance in the power system facilitates persistence of war. On the aspect of deterrence, Realists believes that conflicts can be resolved by threatening to use force on the perceived aggressors. This method only works when the aggressor is fully aware of the threats posed by the opposing state. In the recent past, Obama has commented negatively on the perceived use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government. In his statement directed to the Syrian President Bashar Assad, Obama warns Syria against the use of chemical weapons saying that such actions would result in serious consequences.

[1] D’Anieri, Paul. International Politics: Power and Purpose in Global Affairs. New York: Cengage Learning, 2011.

[i] Thakur Ramesh. The United Nations, Peace and Security: From Collective Security to the Responsibility to Protect. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

[ii] Wessels, Walter, J. Economics. New Jersey, NJ: Barron’s Educational Series, 2006.

[iii] Martin Greg. “Commentary: Globalization and the epidemiology of HIV/AIDS”. International Journal of Epidemiology. 30 (2009): 126-131.

[iv] Lawson, Tony.”The current economic crisis: Its nature and the course of academic economics”. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33 (2011): 759-762.