European Security Treaty will be an another example of failed collective security

In last week's edition of the Embassy the head of the Russian Embassy to Canada's political section, Dimitry Trofimov, has an article attempting to glorify Russian President Dimitry Medvedev's proposal for a European Security Treaty (EST), claiming that"it could provide equal and indivisible security for all states, both members and non-members of any given bloc, and create a common set of co-ordinates agreed by all 56 states in the Euro-Atlantic area." He goes on to suggest "such a treaty should create in the Euro-Atlantic area a reliable collective security system on the basis of principles of polycentrism, rule of international law and the central role of the United Nations, unified and indivisible security of all states, inadmissibility of isolation of any state, and the creation of zones with different levels of security."

The problem with collective security is that it has never worked as it is supposed to function. The idea behind collective security is that it is an alternative to the balance of power. Its principle, as Earnest Claude puts it, is "that in the relation of nations, everyone is his brother's keeper." All states guarantee to secure, collectively, each and every state that is party to the system. Any threat to the peace by any state to any other state must be seen as a threat to the security of all states and they must respond accordingly. The problem with CS is that when threats to the peace are identified, the call to respond has never been recognized and responded to by all the member states of the security organization.

Now advocates of this treaty might argue that in smaller numbers, collective security is more likely to work but given the fact that on the UN Security Council, Russia has been a regular roadblock to proposals for humanitarian and other types of intervention as have other European powers, France and Germany. Furthermore, France has only just rejoined the integrated command structure of NATO, with domestic protest, after many years. With this in mind, what are the chances that these "reluctant" powers will act more often and with greater effect when history has shown them not to be.

Rather than building another toothless security organization that will only further clutter the international community, the European community might be better served to work to make the United Nation's collective security mechanisms more effective.

There are also problems with how the EST would be structured. One of the themes that Mr. Trofimov identifies is that all members would be guaranteed equal security and that no member would seek to provide for their own security at the cost of the security of another state. The problem is that this theme also "respects the right of any state to maintain neutrality." This means that if it is not in the best interests of a state to become involved in a conflict then it is not required to participate. Therefore, the same problem of participation that is faced by the UN is again confronted in this treaty. There is also the inherent conflict, routinely found in collective security, that the treaty guarantees that the other member states will come to the rescue of an embattled member, but then weakens this guarantee by allowing states to opt out of any missions it does not want to participate in. This is the same design that the UN's security mechanisms employ thus making this agreement unnecessary and possibly even make it less likely for the UN's mechanisms to work when needed.

I wonder why Russia is proposing this now when one year ago, if this agreement had been in place, Russia would likely have been confronted by the organization's members over the conflict in Georgia (not to mention Georgia's ally, the United States). But therein may lay the answer; Russia might be proposing this new security organism in response to the US presence currently found in Europe's predominant security structures. This proposal could very well be Russia's newest response to NATO eastward expansion and have no real concern for an effective security organization in Europe.

- blenCOWe

Russia Maybe Misfires

In expelling two Canadian diplomats working with the NATO office in Moscow, Russia may have misfired in expressing its anger over the ongoing military exercises taking place in neighbouring Georgia.

Russia has informed the Canadian Ambassador to Russia, Ralph Lysyshyn, that it would be expelling Isabelle Francois, Director of NATO information, and her deputy. It seems, though, that Russia could have made a wiser, more targeted decision to show its displeasure. It is no real secret that the United States is a major ally of Georgia and is pretty much the central cog in the NATO machine. If Russia wanted to make a truely strong statement about what it deems to be "muscle flexing" then it should have flexed its muscles and expelled an American diplomat, or someone from one of the other world powers.

On the other hand, Canada has become more vocal, recently, on Russia's activities. By choosing to expel Canadian diplomats it could be Russia's version of "killing two birds with one stone." The problem with this being Russia's intent would be that it would be an unclear message to Canada, especially after this much time. Sending mixed messages is not the way to conduct international diplomacy and one would hope that Russia would understand that.

The result, then, is essentially that in the best case scenario Russia has misfired in directing its displeasure and the worst case being that it is sending mixed messages concerning Canada.

- blenCOWe

Some Good News for the Afghan Mission

In the debates between John McCain and Barack Obama in the lead up to this November's presidential election we have heard how the United States must re-commit to the mission in Afghanistan. Typically, this has involved a surge of US troops that is supposed to help combat the ongoing insurgency, especially in the troublesome Kandahar region.

I have commented in the past how I believe that the last thing the Afghan mission needs is more US troops involved. The tactics and mentality of the United States is hampering the good work that the other contingents' troops are doing. Dropping bombs on innocent Afghan people and the other slopping tactics employed by the US forces create enemies from those people who lose family members and loved ones from these tactics. Battling the insurgency requires, to use the popular phrase, winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. The US and their tactics are killing the people whose minds we're trying to win over and/or turning them against the work that NATO forces are trying to do.

With this in mind, I was happy to see that the US Department of Defense has determined that the desired three additional brigade combat teams will not be deployed any time soon. Apparently the United States does not have the manpower to fulfill this further commitment without changing soldiers' deployment or lengths of tours.

Finally some good news for the Afghan mission!

Of late, the Afghan mission has suffered in its support from recent announcements from the Canadian government that their forces will be withdrawn from the mission in 2011. Then there is the current debate going on in the French government on the future of their deployed troops.

Despite this trouble in support for the mission, I truely believe that the more that the United States can be limited in its role and influence in the Afghan mission, the greater the chance for success. Therefore, this revelation that the US will not be sending the proposed 3 brigades is a good thing.

- blenCOWe

Russia's already won

According to the BBC, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been able to broker a deal between Russia and Georgia to come to a peaceful resolution to the recent fighting in and around South Ossetia.

This sounds all and good but Russia has already achieved what it wanted in sending troops into Georgia. The ensuing peace process will take a long time to complete and until then, Georgia will be prevented from gaining full membership into the NATO alliance. Russia will likely drag its feet in completing the peace process just to prolong the time before Georgia can become a member. Furthermore, it doesn't matter to Russia if the peace process is ever completed because Georgia alone does not present a threat to the large federation and having already achieved its aims it has nothing really to gain from the process. Thus Russia wins.

I predict a long a fruitless negotiation coupled with a stalled NATO membership campaign.

- blenCOWe

Cold War Memories

I realize I wasn't really around for the Cold War, I was born in the mid 80's so technically I was alive for the last couple years but I was a toddler so that doesn't really count. That said, I have become a big fan of studying Cold War history and politics and I am beginning to see some things in the news that lead me to think that the United States and Russia are tangled in a Cold War-styled struggle right now in international relations.

There are the little disputes between the two powers over topics like certain independence movements (Kosovo, Abkhazia, etc.), arctic sovereignty and UN Security Council sanctions for Zimbabwe. These are not really devastating to US-Russian diplomacy, but it still adds to the tension between the two.

Then last week Russia announced the possible deployment of some of its strategic bombers in Cuba. This re-surfaced memories of the crisis surrounding Russia's placement of nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962. Cuba is notoriously anti-American and it doesn't matter that Fidel Castro has retired because the person now in charge is his brother Raul. These bombers would easily be able to reach targets in the United States (Florida is 90 miles away) and are intended to be a Russian response to the United State's move to introduce a missile shield in central Europe.

The missile shield is intended to be a defense against terrorism and rogue states not as a move against the Russia Federation. The missiles would be located in NATO member states and as of the last time that I checked Russia and NATO are not at war with each other. Like the missiles did 46 years ago, the strategic bombers and their placement in an opponent's backyard poses a credible threat to the United States security. If a situation of war was to arise, the bombers create a risk of attack that the homeland of the United States is unused to (one of the reasons 9/11 was so profound in its impact on US security).

Russia's move to re-introduce a Russian threat to US homeland security is an intentional threat to the US. Following the 1962 crisis, President Kennedy pledged that the United States would never invade Cuba. This means that Cuba has no need to defend itself against the US and thus would not need the added arsenal. In addition, in the months since the retirement of Fidel Castro, US tension towards Cuba has softened a bit, thus making the escalation poorly timed.

Adding more fuel to the fire, today it was reported that Russia will be selling $2 billion worth of arms to Venezuela at the request of, US opponent and president,Hugo Chavez. The deal includes the sale of submarines and the necessary equipment for missile defense systems. This is the latest of deals that Chavez and Russia have had, which have already totaled $4 billion. This presents a possible threat to the US because Hugo Chavez is quite possibly the biggest and loudest opponent of George W. Bush and the United States of America that currently exists.

These latest moves are of strategic concern because it would appear that Russia is building alliances with those states that can be classified as the enemies of the United States. Russia is uniting together a new sphere of influence targeted against the United States. This time, however, it is not communism that binds its members but their opposition to the United States of America. This reality is potentially more dangerous than the previous one because the target is not just the economic system or infrastructure but the citizens and culture of the United States. Dangerous means costly and the price that would be paid would be the lives of innocent American civilians.

The chance for a new conflict, especially one in the western hemisphere, is troubling but the worst part about it is the escalation factor that would be involved. If something were to happen, the alliances and partnerships that exist in this hemisphere would likely bring the entire hemisphere to war. Add in NATO and Russia and this regional conflict now spreads out across the world. Welcome to World War 3!

This all stinks like the many little proxy disputes the littered the Cold War era. As a citizen of a western hemisphere nation, this growing situation and the chance for escalation worries me. The world need not return to the shadow of a war between great powers. Small scale conflicts are giving everyone enough trouble as is, in this case bigger is not better.

- blenCOWe