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

Former Diplomats See Security Council Seat in Reach For Canada

This week in the Embassy, Michelle Collins reports that some of Canada's former top diplomats believe that Canada's campaign for a UN Security Council Seat in 2011 will be successful. Former Ambassador to the UN, Paul Heinbecker compared the campaign to basketball calling Canada's chances are "kind of a jump shot in traffic, one that we can make but will have to get on the rebound" (Embassy).

A jump shot in traffic? Really? That doesn't sound all that optimistic for those of us that have been paying attention to the campaign. In basketball, a contested jump shot is one of the harder shots and Canada doesn't really strike me as the Kobe Bryant/Lebron James sharpshooter type. Now if Mr. Heinbecker had said that we were in the low-post with the ball but still contested, I would have felt, then, that it could be said that the seat is foreseeable in Canada's future. But there is no point to dwell on what could have been said.

According to the latest UN DPKO releases, Portugal contributes more to UN peackeeping missions than either Canada or Germany but the numbers are not impressive for any of them. In the ISAF force in Afghanistan, Portugal's contribution to the mission is miniscule when compared to the contingents provided by Canada and Germany. While this is a rather narrow comparison of the three candidate states' involvement in peace operations and multilateral efforts, I believe it is possible to draw a couple basic conclusions from this. First, Portugal's greater contribution to UN peackeeping missions is a misleading factor because the difference is minor and when compared to the greater contributions of Canada and Germany on another (UN sanctioned, but not led) mission, becomes practically negligible. It would be hard to deny that Canada and Germany both play larger roles in protecting peace and security in the international community.

But Security Council elections are not just about troop contributions, they are essentially a report card on a state's participation and cooperation with those around it. This means it becomes necessary to look at other indicators like foreign aid. According to OECD statistics, Portugal's foreign aid levels (0.27% of GNI) are below that of Canada (0.32%) and Germany (0.38%). Canada and its competitors cannot use foreign aid levels as a great boost in the campaign as all are well below the international target of 0.7%. So again, Canada remains relatively in league with Germany in terms of influence/participation globally and Portugal comes up yet again short.

These are just a couple of the basic tangible measures that can help to compare states during international elections such as the Security Council ones. Based on these factors so far, it would seem like Canada would be a shoo-in for a Council seat. If that were the case though, Canadian citizens wouldn't keep reading about Canada's long shot chance to win the seat.

There is little wrong with Canada's "substance." I say this with the caveat that I do realize that Canada does have its problems but the bigger picture is that Canada's substance is of such good quality in so many areas that it can afford a few blemishes without tarnishing the whole. This means that there must be something wrong with the "delivery" or, in other words, politics. Canada has made some politically risky decisions since its last term on the Council including a pro-Israel stance, resistance to climate change initiatives, and even more recently its decision to focus the majority of its bilateral aid away from Africa. Often, elections become popularity contests and are not fought on the substance. This is what is causing the fear of losing the election. Canada has the substance to win the election but the popularity is in question after a string of politically risky decisions.

Is it time to go back to school where we all first learned about popularity? Canada needs a quick shot of popularity... time to throw a party! Are the parents going out of town anytime soon?

- blenCOWe

More Than Just Words

This week in the Canadian foreign affairs periodical Embassy, Jeff Davis writes that the Stephen Harper government is building up the perception of a Russian threat for political gains at home. Davis makes reference to a number of different arguments including the the Conservatives' history of strong opposition to communism and the USSR, and opposition claims that the Conservatives are trying to villify the Russians for their recent military endeavours. What the author fails to realize are the current realities in Canada-Russia relations.

First of all, the reality is that Canada does not benefit from any weakening of its relations with the resurgent Russia. One of the major reasons that Russia's international power is growing again is its possession of vast supplies of energy resources. Now while Canada itself is not exactly short in its supply of energy, it does not benefit from making an enemy that could be useful in the future if ever Canada should need to gain access to energy reserves. Oh and the remarks about Conservatives being strict opponents of communism should be irrelevant considering that Russia is now one of the major capitalist economies in the world. With the global economy suffering, Canada cannot afford to isolate itself from a major economic power.

Furthermore, in terms of the upcoming United Nations Security Council elections, it would not be advisable for Canada to provoke a permanent, veto-wielding member. Academics and foreign affairs observers (including the Official Opposition) have routinely noted that Canada's place in the world has suffered from the actions and in-actions of the Harper government, and as such, Canada's path to re-election will be a difficult one. Given this, it would not make sense for the Canadian government to be provoking a giant power that could stand in the way of its re-election.

Secondly, and probably more importantly, Davis fails to acknowledge the bigger picture in his assessment of Canada's recent dialogue regarding a resurgent Russia. Examining the individual events by themselves highlights the politics of the situation; but the politics has not been the driving factor behind Canada's stance on Russia. The real driving force is the threat to the international order and security by the actions of the resurgent power. Many of Russia's recent actions have shown that Russia's unchecked growth may have a destabilizing effect on international politics. The recent war in Georgia, Russia's push for control of the Arctic, the revitalization of a Russian military presence in the Arctic in addition to the growing Russian presence in the western hemisphere (most notably in Latin and South American) shows that Russia is no longer content with its post-Cold War status. Russia appears to be determined to end the unipolar balance of power that is based on American power.

Then, of course, there is the NATO factor to consider. Russia's strong opposition to the expansion of NATO into parts of eastern Europe (including the proposed missile shield) must be accounted for by Canada, who is a founding member of the NATO alliance.

The reality of the situation that Davis and other observers should realize is that the world is heading towards another Cold War. This time, however, the battle will not be over ideological differences like the last one but over power and security. A resurgent Russia is a threat the current status quo (like all resurgent powers are) and that is what is driving this new confrontation.

This means that Mr. Davis and his fellow thinkers should take good note of the current realities of international peace and security when examining Canada's recent relations with Russia. There is no benefit from poor relations with Russia and this is why claims that the Harper government is pushing this agenda for their own benefit are so far off the mark. Political gain is not the driving force, peace and security is and any political points scored are only secondary to the greater issue.

- blenCOWe