Creating a Rapid Reaction Force for Eastern Europe: Necessary But Not Sufficient

The events that we have witnessed in the Ukraine over the past several months cry out for the global community of nations to rise to a new level of collective maturity and to agree upon a unified and robust response.  World events keep providing us with opportunities to learn how to come together as a community of nations and agree upon some foundational principles that will guide us in our international relations and which we will refuse to compromise regardless of our perceived short-term interests, especially our economic interests.

To allow any nation to provoke instability in another without consequence, especially if it leads to the death of innocent people as occurred when 298 passengers on board a Malaysian civilian airplane were killed when their plane was shot down over rebel-held territory of Ukraine, or to the illegal annexation of foreign territory as occurred when Russia annexed Crimea in the spring of this year, is to sow the seeds of international anarchy and lawlessness that bodes ill for the welfare of the global community.

The fact that NATO has chosen to respond to these events and others that are tearing at the fabric of Ukrainian society -- such as the continued unrest in Ukraine caused by separatists apparently backed by Russia that are claiming independence for the cities of Luhansk and Donetsk -- while certainly a positive movement, is alas not sufficient.  NATO's decision taken at its recent summit in Wales to create a Rapid Reaction Force consisting of 4.000 troops to safeguard the integrity of the Eastern European nations that border Russia, while a step in the right direction does not go far enough for a number of reasons.

First, we must be wary about unwittingly slipping back into old patterns of international behavior that have not served us well in the past, namely a Cold War mentality in which the "West" is pitted against  Russia.  It is time to leave these old patterns of international relations behind and to work on a collective global solution to problems of this kind.  Second, such half-measures are merely palliative and do not solve the underlying problems.  Third, because the solution is not one based on the international community speaking with one voice, it does not have the desired effect of forcing the bully on the international playground to back down and to think twice about his behavior.

The real question that we need to ask and answer as a global community is what should we do when any nation or terrorist network threatens the peace and stability of the international order?  Such a threat can be brought about by a range of behaviors that include for instance territorial aggression, unlawful nuclear proliferation (such as have occurred in North Korea and Iran), genocide (e.g. in Rwanda and Kosovo), other forms of gross human rights abuses against a population (e.g. Syria) or terrorist activities. The answer must surely incorporate the following elements:  it must be based on universal agreement of all nations; all nations must take ownership of the solution by contributing both financially and in the form of troops and equipment; it cannot take into account perceived short-term national interests such as the need for natural gas, or the desire to maintain a nation's status as a seller of international arms, both of which factors are apparently in play in the Ukrainian situation.

The decision by NATO to create a Rapid Reaction Force for Eastern Europe is to be lauded for the fact that it demonstrates the will of the member states of NATO to look past the dictates of expediency.  It further demonstrates that nations can be persuaded to do the right thing and look beyond their national self-interest to uphold higher international standards and that the nations are gradually demonstrating that there is a limit to the kinds of behavior they are willing to tolerate.  However, it is time for the international community to take the next step and come to collective agreement upon the establishment of a Rapid Reaction Force that is international in nature rather than purely regional, one that is there to serve the needs of the international community as a whole and to preserve the peace regardless of where it is threatened or breached.  Such a force would likely have regional components such as the one currently proposed by NATO for Eastern Europe but all of these regional components should be coordinated by and serve under the auspices of an international structure overseen by a central international institution (perhaps a much-improved and reformed Security Council) tasked with preserving the peace.

Although there is much work to be done to identify and agree upon the principles and policies that can serve the collective security needs of today as well as to carefully build a new institutional framework capable of embodying these collectively agreed-upon principles, there is no time to begin like the present!

The Case of Syria: Need Proof? Support the Creation of An International Intelligence Agency

Reports have it that on August 21st,  chemical weapons were used in an the Ghouta suburb of Damascus, Syria in contravention of international law and accepted international norms.  One would have thought that in the 21st century the international community would have reached a stage of maturity in which it would be able to react with appropriate outrage to such an incident while also having the necessary tools at its disposal to speedily punish the perpetrators, thereby deterring them and others from ever again using such outlawed and heinous weapons of mass destruction.

Alas, this is not the case.  A critical prerequisite for punitive action by the international community is solid proof establishing that such weapons have indeed been used and equally importantly, identifying those who ordered such use -- in this case the government and its agents or the rebels?  Although United Nations inspectors were eventually allowed access into the area -- albeit after a five-day delay during the course of which evidence might well have been destroyed --  their mandate was restricted to determining whether chemical weapons had been used at all, leaving open the crucial question of who had ordered their use.  

As various nations have debated whether or not they or anyone else should take action against the government of Syria, they have referred to and relied upon their own intelligence reports to convince their own people one way or the other:  David Cameron tried and failed to convince the British Parliament to vote in favor of Britain participating in punitive strikes against Syria.  The British legislators were apparently unconvinced that the chemical weapons attack had been perpetrated by Mr. Assad's forces.  Francois Hollande referred to the "a body of evidence" that pointed to Syria's culpability on the basis of which he was willing to commit himself and France to the use of force against Syria,. Turkey's foreign minister said Turkey had "healthy evidence" to implicate the Assad regime.  President Obama is in the process of presenting intelligence reports to various Congressional committees and members of Congress as he seeks Congressional authorization to use force against Syria.  Russia, on the other hand, says that she is not been shown proof that the Assad regime was behind the use of chemical weapons and that she doesn't believe that Syria has used them.

In an age in which we have access to such sophisticated technologies, it can't be that hard to determine the facts and to answer the simple questions:  Were chemical weapons used and if so, who is responsible for any such use?  Is it not time for us to start behaving responsibly and collaborate on establishing an international intelligence agency which would be structured so as to represent all nations and peoples of the world, and to act in their collective interest?  Such an agency should be granted the authority to send its inspectors into any area of the world where it is suspected that weapons of mass destruction are being used, without advance notice, in order to investigate.  The agency would thus be able to produce timely and speedy information that would be equally available to all nations, thereby providing the transparency and a shared basis upon which they can make decisions about how to respond.   Such an approach would serve many purposes:  it would eliminate suspicion and resulting accusations that any one nation was trying to doctor evidence in order to justify an attack that would serve some other nefarious agenda and would provide common information and evidence which could form the basis for meaningful consultation and decision-making as to whether such evidence warranted punitive action by the international community.  

In the event that the evidence did point to a serious breach of international law such as the use of outlawed chemical weapons, the international community would then need to take swift action to punish the country in question.  For this to happen, we also need to ensure that the international community has at its disposal a standing force made up of of troops from all nations of the world -- a truly collective force that is representative of the nations of the world and that acts in the collective interest of them all in accordance with pre-determined and agreed-upon rules of international law. 

The Dueling Forces of Integration and Fragmentation

That the world is being buffeted by storms of severe crises is not news even to the most casual observer of the international scene.  Chief among these are the financial crisis in Europe, which threatens to slow down economic growth worldwide, the environmental crisis as reflected in global warming and climate change, the looming food and water crises and the crisis of international security which encompasses issues of nuclear proliferation, human rights atrocities and acts of terror to name but a few.

What is more interesting and worth examining is the increasingly common reaction to these crises by peoples across the globe as reflected in their drive to separate and take refuge in fragmentation, all in the mistaken belief that independence will afford them more control of their own destinies, and will save them of the dangers of going down with the sinking ship of a larger country or region to which they belong. 

Looking at Europe alone, one is struck by the increasingly strident movement towards separatism as witnessed by the desire of the people of Flanders for further autonomy, the movement by the Catalans to gain independence from Spain and the drive by segments of the Scottish population to break away from the United Kingdom as reflected in the Edinburgh Agreement just signed between British Prime Minister David Cameron and Alex Salmond, the Scottish First Minister setting the terms for a Scottish referendum on the subject of independence to be held in 2014.  

The arguments that are offered in all three cases center on two main themes.  The first theme stems from the resentment of people in these regions who are relatively wealthy compared with the rest of their respective countries and who perceive themselves to be more hard-working, that their wealth and hard work are being exploited to support their poorer and/or lazier compatriots.  They resent being required to pay more in the form of taxes,  to give up revenues from their natural resources and to carry a large share in the debt of the larger countries to which they belong. 

The second theme rests on a strong desire to have decisions on fundamental policy questions be made by the people who are closest to and most affected by the decisions, rather than by distant institutions that are perceived as being out of touch with the needs of a particular group of people and that tend to apply a uniform policy to all without taking important differences into account.

One can see that what seems to lie at the root of these arguments is a genuine and legitimate desire on the part of people everywhere to have a reasonable say in the crafting of their own destinies.  This is a theme our times as reflected in the wave of nations participating in what has become known as the Arab Spring.  The sensible question to ask then is: in what instances is centralization a boon and when does it become out of touch with the grass roots and therefore oppressive and unfair?  The next question is: how can we craft a system of government that allows people to consult upon their legitimate needs while at the same time working towards unification?  For we face a real danger that in our rush towards fragmentation as a perceived panacea for solving all difficulties, we will set off a chain reaction of increasing fragmentation into smaller and smaller parts without a well-designed link between the parts.  How much fragmentation is enough?  How small must the units be for people to feel secure and feel that they have a voice in their own destiny?  One can see that if left unchecked, this process can easily degenerate into an avalanche of greater and greater fragmentation and balkanization generated and fed by fear.  In a world in which interdependence is a fixed reality, this will only lead to conflict and despair.

Might not the real solution lie in deeper integration both in Europe and indeed in the world?  Such integration would signal a further step in the process of maturation of humanity as a whole.  Having evolved from a societal system comprising small but increasingly growing loyalties to clan, tribe, city-state and nation, isn't the next natural step in our societal evolution the creation of a federated superstate in which each individual embraces a larger loyalty that is entirely compatible with the lesser loyalty to her nation state?  Such a federated state can and should be designed to meet the legitimate needs of individual populations, granting them autonomy over many issues of particular concern to them while also guaranteeing the good of the whole by requiring that the federated parts cede certain rights to decision making to the federal government.  These latter rights should sensibly include the right of individual nations to make war on each other, relying on a central army serving the whole to maintain the peace, the right to manage critical natural resources including energy resources for the benefit of all the people of the world, thereby eliminating conflict and inequality of access to sources of energy, and certain rights to taxation in order to raise funds to tackle global problems such as global warming.

If we need a model or blueprint to guide us in undertaking such a vital and bold experiment, it is worth examining the federal system of the United States, which appears to have been relatively successful both in balancing the needs of the whole with the needs of the individual parts and in inculcating the principle of unity in diversity in its workings.

Building A World Federation -- An Idea Whose Time Has Come

The solution to many of our collective global problems lies in a closer integration and union of our diverse nations ultimately resulting in a world federation of states.  For a deeper exploration of this proposition,  I invite you to see my webinar entitled "Building A World Federation -- An Idea Whose Time Has Come" by clicking on the following link:  http://bahai-studies.ca/building-a-world-federation-an-idea-whose-time-has-come/

What Should We Do When A Nation Threatens The Peace?

This evening, the world's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), released a press statement saying that its mission to Iran had failed (yet again). Once again it appears that Iran is obstructing the international community's efforts to get to the bottom of Iran's nuclear activities and determine once and for all whether Iran is working towards building nuclear weapons or whether its nuclear program is, as it has repeatedly claimed, solely intended to meet the peaceful energy needs of its population. One would think that if the purpose was peaceful, Iran would be eager to have inspectors examine all its nuclear sites and produce satisfactory responses to the questions posed by the IAEA inspectors.

Iran's reasons for obfuscation and obstruction could be many and without solid facts, it is futile to speculate. What is abundantly evident and must be the center of our focus is the catastrophic course on which we are all embarked: If the international community continues down the path of making shrill demands unsupported by unified, decisive action, (other than incrementally broader sanctions) and if Iran continues to behave provocatively and meets the demands of the international community by turning a deaf ear, the risks of an all-out conflagration in the Middle East which no body wants, will continue to escalate until we reach the point of no return. A Middle East war has the potential to drag the entire international community into its orbit with all the devastation that such a world war would entail. Is this really the result we want? If not, then we must get off this path immediately and seek a safer and more sensible alternative.

We need to be very clear about the costs of inaction: What happens when we, the international community and the community of nations, abdicate our collective responsibility to act in unity to devise a collective system of security that ensures the safety of one and all? At this stage in our collective evolution, nothing short of a global collective security pact in which all nations (yes, all without exception) agree to eliminate nuclear weapons, to keep their conventional weapons to a the minimum required to preserve the peace within their borders and to rise against a nation that brazenly threatens the peace of the world will suffice to keep global peace. Such a pact must be backed by an international standing force that we have put off establishing for too long and must be based on a set of internationally agreed rules clearly delineating the circumstances in which it can be used.

What makes this alternative path, our only hope for salvation is the parity of treatment that is accorded all nations, as determined by international rules arrived at by consensus of the international community. We must let go of all our double standards and systems of "haves" and have nots". If one nation has nuclear weapons, others will want them and eventually someone will use them either deliberately or accidentally. Therefore no one can be allowed to have them. The other element that makes this alternative path viable and effective is the unity of action it requires. There is tremendous power in speaking with one voice and acting as one, especially in the face of would-be bullies on the playground of international affairs.

If we had not wasted past opportunities to put such a system in place, chances are Iran would not be making so bold as to play cat and mouse games with the IAEA and to make aggressive statements that merely serve to raise the levels of suspicion and mistrust. Then again, were such a system in place, the response of the global community in the face of such statements would be a unified and decisive one based on the rule of law. As it is now, individual nations who feel threatened by Iran's nuclear program may feel the need to respond aggressively based on the momentary requirements of expediency to defend themselves. Alas, any unilateral or coalition action is fraught with dangers for one and all and is likely to so the seeds of new problems as we have already seen in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So let us take up the challenge of our times and begin the painstaking but immeasurably rewarding work of building a collective system of security that will ensure the safety of our children and the generations to come.

The Security Council Veto Must Go!

The Security Council is the organ of the United Nations tasked with the duty of maintaining peace and security. Why then does it appear to be failing so miserably and is there anything that can be done to restore its credibility in the eyes of an increasingly cynical world?

Restoring the Security Council's credibility is possible but only if it is seen to be taking decisive action where it is most needed: for instance in putting an end to the brutal acts of the regime in Syria or eliminating the threat to world peace posed by Iran's unwillingness to come clean on its nuclear program. For such decisive action to be even possible requires the international community to take the following minimal steps:

First, we must we must revamp the Security Council to make it more representative of our world as it is today -- not as it was in the middle of the last century. Part of this process of modernizing the Security Council requires that we sweep away that relic of our past, namely the veto power granted to the five permanent members of the Security Council. This relic, far from being a quaint reminder of our history, has become a solid barrier to world peace, paralyzing the Security Council at those critical moments when it needs to act quickly and decisively, and encouraging countries to act solely in their narrowly-perceived self-interest rather than in the interests of the global community.

Secondly, the Council needs to be given the proper tools with which to discharge its responsibility. It must have an international standing force at its disposal with which to enforce its decisions to maintain peace and security. Without such a force, it will continue to remain largely impotent, falling back on shrill and repeated watered-down resolutions calling for actions that recalcitrant nations feel free to ignore.

Thirdly, the mandate of the Security Council to act to restore the peace must be clearly delineated, especially regarding the circumstances in which it may use force. The mandate must be based on international rules rather than fuzzy policies and must be applied even-handedly to all nations.

How much more suffering does our world need to witness, before we are willing to take these steps to bring it some measure of peace and security?

Keeping the United Nations Relevant in the 21st Century

For thoughts on this topic based on her book "Collective Security Within Reach", please go to the following link of an NPR interview of Sovaida Ma'ani Ewing broadcast live with call-in questions on October 14, 2011:

http://www.wuft.org/conner-calling/