|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||
| by
Alyson
J. K. Bailes About the author |
||||||||||||
|
* Chapter
summary from the SIPRI Yearbook 2003: The new security
debate triggered by the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001
remains short of a solution. Heightened awareness of the deadly
threats facing even the most advanced societies has not led to
a new sense of global community—partly because of the lack
of truly global authorities that could combine the necessary
broad competence with the consistent enforcement of remedies.
Carefully considered, the new sense of insecurity does not reflect
a net increase in threats and conflicts, where real progress
has been made since the end of the cold war. It arises rather
from the correct perception that terrorists, weapons of mass
destruction and ‘rogue’ states can pose asymmetric
threats even to the strongest nations—combined with an incorrect
assumption that the sources of these threats are always interlinked. The decision
of the USA to defend its eminence as sole superpower by actively
seeking out, striking and, if necessary, anticipating those who
would threaten it has dominated global security perceptions for
the past 18 months. Concerns about how much further the USA will
go in this direction are felt by friends at least as much as
foes. The EU, the USA’s main counterweight in the economic
field, is not yet (and will not soon be) able to offer a balance
or alternative in the field of security. Attempts to
forge a common security-building agenda even among Western partners
are dogged by real difficulties in defining international terrorism
and the nature of the associated threats and remedies. Regarding
weapons of mass destruction, the goal of non-proliferation is
easier to define, but the establishment of threat hierarchies
and consistent remedies more problematic. (The complications
posed by the existence of both authorized and non-authorized
nuclear weapons states, in the context of the 1968 Non-Proliferation
Treaty, do not help, and a similar mentality must not be adopted
on chemical and biological weapons.) Broader policy
challenges arise from the need to integrate the many non-military,
‘human’ dimensions of security, and from the risk that
certain protective actions may undermine what they are protecting
(e.g., the economy and human rights). A correctly balanced policy
should mobilize all relevant state actors, and also the private
sector. There is a
need to re-balance active and ‘positive’ methods of
security building—naturally more common since the end of
the cold war—with measures of restraint, including a revitalized
arms control agenda. Action alone is risky, uncertain, costly
and potentially discriminatory: restraint needs to shake off
its inflexible, unproductive image. Counter-terrorism is a good
example of the need to match active (preferably transnational)
measures with internationally recognized and universally binding
standards, lest an equation of might with right leaves the world
at the mercy of future emerging powers. Heightened awareness
of terrorism should also be used to refine conflict management
policy. The unique
route taken by European integration to suppress and sublimate
security problems has been much debated this past year, mainly
by its critics. The ‘European way’ is successfully
incorporating Central Europe, taking charge of the Balkans and
even influencing Russia—yet Europe lacks a coherent, collective
response to the US-defined ‘new threats’ and a sense
of its own global mission. The USA cannot seriously want Europe
to ‘re-nationalize’, and the EU cannot ignore US concerns
either if the Atlantic link is to survive. European coping strategies
are currently a mix of band-wagoning, role division, efforts
to create a counter-pole, and hopes that the US storm will blow
over. It is too early to assess the prospects of future rift
or convergence but worth noting how many other regions of the
world have chosen the EU as their model. The year was
a poor one for progress in combating poverty, famine, disease,
pollution and climate change, although the Johannesburg Summit
signalled some rapprochement between leaders and critics of globalization.
Shrinking and sub-optimally distributed world populations are
a problem to watch for the future, warning us to stop short of
counter-terrorist measures which would undermine multicultural
societies. A Polish proposal to look afresh at the UN’s
political principles and instruments for addressing global security
is well worth considering, if only to let other regions and nations
join the debate. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
