International relations: key concepts and frameworks

Albania and Croatia are the latest nations to join the world's biggest military alliance -- NATO.

Discuss the concept of "collective security" (alliance politics)." The concept of collective security is as ancient as mankind. Indeed, ever since humans first banded together in ever-larger groups for their mutual protection from a hostile world, collective security has been the means by which people have managed to survive and prosper. The concept of collective security was what fueled the emergence of early tribes to city-states to countries to enormous empires and the concept remains firmly in place in human affairs today -- and for good reason: the world is still a hostile place. It was not that long ago that many of the new members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) were members of the Warsaw Pact, NATO's former counterpart led by the collapsed Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union crumbled in the 1990s, though, the need for collective security for the former members of the Warsaw Pact did not evaporate and it is apparent that the leadership of these countries believes that membership in some type of collective security alliance is in their best interests.

Although the United States remains at the forefront of the NATO alliance, it is apparent that the organization is assuming an increasingly European collective identity, due in large part to the burgeoning European Union as well as the increasing membership in NATO. According to Moens, Cohen and Sens (2003), "Collective identity' is a relatively new addition to the vocabulary of international security to refer to positive identification with the welfare of another, such that the other is seen as a cognitive extension of the Self rather than as independent" (13). Merging a country's identity and security interests with those of other like-minded nations is a political solution to a common problem, but there are alternatives available. For instance, Lake (2000) notes that, "The primary alternative to collective security is unilateralism -- going at it alone in foreign affairs. Unilateralism is seductively simple, promising foreign policy success without constraints. But like all illusions, independence crumbles on closer inspection. No state, not even the United States today, can achieve its objectives alone. The United States requires the support, if not the active aid, of other countries. U.S. power unbound is more likely to breed resistance than acquiescence" (48).

B.

Pros and cons of alliances? Whether they are economic and political alliances such as the European Union alliance or the North American Free Trade Agreement, or military alliances such as NATO or the former Warsaw Pact, alliances provide member states with a number of reassurances that are not available in a unilateralist approach. It is unlikely that the members states of the European Union, for example, would stand idly by and watch one of their fellow members become economically destitute without making an effort to support them with financial aid of various sorts, and certainly the member states of NATO would come to the military assistance of a fellow member nation that had been attacked by a hostile country. Even when these benefits are never required, the mental reassurance they provide their members allows them to conduct business as usual knowing that their interests are protected by the alliance. Notwithstanding these benefits, many observers believe that alliances tend to force the will of the collective onto the independent will of the nation in ways that may not be congruent or beneficial with the country's values and goals. In this regard, Senator William Borah (R-Idaho) made the following comments concerning his opposition to United States joining the League of Nations in 1919: "God pity the ideals of this Republic if they shall have no defenders save the gathered scum of nations organized into a conglomerate international police force. I am opposed to any league of nations. The League of Nations makes it necessary for America to give back to George V what it took away from George III" (quoted in Mcmanus at 32). Likewise, some critics of America's membership in NATO suggest that the country is subjugating its fundamental economic, political and military interests to the nations of Europe in ways that are not necessarily beneficial for the United States. For instance, Moens and his colleagues advise, "It bears recalling that NATO for Canada and other allies, has always made sense as a vehicle for providing at least some access into the shaping of the U.S. national interest. NATO has been good not only because it kept the Russians out and the Germans down, but because it got the Americans mixed up in the security affairs of other, reasonably like-minded, states" (13).

2.

Discuss President George W. Bush's doctrine of preemptive war?

A.

Include in your discussion, its basic assumptions. The term "preemptive war" is used to describe a nation's use of military force to attack a belligerent before it can attack the attacker. The basic assumptions of this doctrine follow those of the "Just War" tradition wherein a nation is permitted to protect itself from threats that are posed by other countries in its own self-interests (Wester 2004:20).

B.

How did this theory manifest itself in American foreign policy? Preemptive war is not a new doctrine in U.S. Or other countries' foreign policy by any measure, but its most recent use has been the source of more criticism, perhaps, that previous efforts. According to Tiefer (2004), "Even among conservatives, few if any could imagine how the terrible shock of 9/11 would create the opportunity for unilateralism in full war gear by providing the president the political strength to unleash the legal doctrines of preemptive war even against the Middle Eastern country without funding or nationals involved in September 11, 2001" (24).

C.

What criticisms are leveled against this theory? In an increasingly globalized environment, nations no longer enjoy the ability to prosecute wars -- no matter how well justified perhaps -- without the support of their allies and even nonaligned nations that will both resent and reject this use of unilateral military force without apparent provocation. In this regard, Lake (2000) noted even prior to September 11, 2001 and the subsequent U.S. invasion of Iraq that, "Unilateralism is a dangerous doctrine precisely because it ignores the likely reactions of others to American policy. Despite its newfound power, the United States has little choice but to continue working within alliances and collective-security institutions to make American power safe for the world" (48).