Abhijeet PimparkarCollective security is the principle that an attack on one member of the international community is considered an attack on all, and all members agree to act collectively to respond to aggression. It is based on the idea of cooperative action for peace rather than balance of power or military alliances. The goal is to maintain international order and deter wars through joint commitment.
For example, when North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, the United Nations Security Council authorised a collective military response. Led by the USA but under the UN flag, 16 countries contributed troops to repel the aggression. This is considered the clearest example of collective security in action.
1] Collective Security vs Balance of Power
Collective security is an alternative to BoP. It is a liberal approach to security.
Both balance of power and collective security are the methods of management of power. Both the concepts are based on the view that Greater power is antidote to power. In both the concepts, sovereignty of the states is treated as sacred and war is seen as a means to ensure the sovereignty. We can say, collective security as ‘institutionalized form of ‘balance of power’.
Balance of power acts in the state of anarchy whereas collective security can come into existence only when some international organization exists. It is operated through international organization like League of Nations or United Nations.
Balance of power is an Ad-hoc concept whereas collective security is an institutionalized concept. There is an uncertainty in balance of power but there is a theoretical certainty in collective security. e.g. When Napoleon was destroying the Westphalian world order, Balance of power as a principle did not emerge automatically, it took long time for countries to check the rise of Napoleon. Hence there is uncertainty as to whether Balance of Power will emerge or will not emerge.
Balance of Power may be more relevant for great powers but collective security is highly useful for smaller and poor countries. They can get escape from Arms Race or the necessity to form alliances.
Collective security is conducive for peace because it reduces arms race. Collective security as a concept continues to be seen as too idealistic. Neither under League of Nations nor under United Nations it could be operationalized successfully. It has not been successful in ending the arms race. Lack of faith in collective security led the countries go for acquiring nuclear weapons.
2] Collective Security and Collective Defence
Collective defence is a security arrangement where a group of countries agree that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all, and they pledge to defend each other in case of aggression. NATO is a clearest example of collective defence. NATO’s Article 5 states that an armed attack against one or more members shall be considered an attack against them all. This was invoked for the first time after the 9/11 attacks on the USA, leading NATO members to support the US.
Thus, the concept of collective defence is similar to collective security but more limited in scope, usually restricted to members of a formal military alliance. Collective security is universal, enemy is not predefined. Any country can approach UN. Collective defence is regional, it is meant only for the members and enemy is known in Advance.
India always opposed collective defence pacts but India always supported collective security. For India, collective defence pacts undermines the faith in collective security.
Whereas for USA, there is no contradiction because collective defence is practical way to operationalize collective security. It does not contradict UN charter, which allows countries right of self-defence.
3] Working of Collective Security
A] Under League of Nations
The idea of collective security could not be operationalized under League of Nations (LoN). Following reasons can be attributed for it
- USA and Russia were not part of it.
- Britain and France had no faith in LoN.
- USA led countries followed the policy of appeasement of fascist powers as they considered communism as a bigger threat.
- Collective security was a new concept and there were flaws in the way it was conceptualized. In League of Nations, all countries had veto powers. It was practically not possible to get consensus of all countries.
- Collective security as such is based on false assumptions. It assumes as if international peace is the aim of the states. It forgets that national interest is the aim of states. Just because one state committed aggression, on the other state, it does not mean that all countries will commit their forces or forget their long term interest.
B] Under United Nations
UN Charter does make some improvement in the procedure of operationalization. Under UN consent of only 5 states, P5 is needed. However the practical experience show that even that is not possible.
The collective security under UN remained paralyzed because of ‘east west conflict’. Also, countries continue to give primacy to the national interest over justice, peace or order.
There are only two occasions when collective security could get operationalized under UN –
1) 1950 Korean Crisis. However, even in Korean crisis, it was not operationalized in ideal sense. North Korea was supported by China and Russia. South Korea was under the influence of USA. USA was successful in getting the permission of collective security action from UN only because Russian representative was absent. Russia was boycotting the UNSC on the issue of the permanent seat for Communist China. The moment Russian representatives came to know about the resolution, it came back and used Veto.
2) Gulf War I of 1989, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. More than 30 countries participated in UN operation under leadership of US.
To circumvent UNSC consensus, USA innovated a new concept. Acheson Plan aka Uniting for Peace resolution (UPR). It suggest that in case there is a deadlock in UNSC, general assembly can authorize collective security by 2/3 majority. Russia never accepted the legality of UPR because it has not been the part of UN charter. Later on USA could not get support for most of the resolutions and hence even this route could not work.
It was the failure of collective security that the then secretary general Dag Hammarskjold proposed the concept of peacekeeping to keep the role of UN relevant in its primary purpose. However, peacekeeping is not a part of UN Charter. It is an extra constitutional growth.
C] Collective security vs Peacekeeping
Peacekeepers are sent only with the consent of the parties in conflict, there is no such requirement in case of collective security operations. Peacekeepers can use force only in self-defence.
The main objective of United Nations is to prevent wars, UNSC could not fulfil the obligation, hence the only way UN’s role remained relevant was through peacekeeping. It is to be noted that India has made unparalleled contribution towards peacekeeping under UN. India’s contribution in peacekeeping efforts is one of the strongest basis to demand permanent seat for India in UNSC. It needs to be emphasized that if there is any country whose actions kept UN relevant in its core objectives, it is India. Hence it is a paradox if India is not a permanent member at UNSC.
