ESSAY OUTLINE

 

PLANNING THE ESSAY

 

Student: Yiannis Iordanous___________                    Achievement: Application                 Total: ___ Marks

 

 

Paragraph 1 (Introductory Paragraph)

 

Background Information: At the end of World War 1, idealists around the world were optimistic about the outlook for humankind. Believing that the political structure of the time had caused such conflict, idealists created collective security. The theory was that if all nations could agree upon an item and work together there would be no conflict. In theory this idea had great merits; in practice however, the shortcomings of collective security were seen. Hitler’s rise to power came because of idealists who naively believed that appeasement could solve conflicts. The League of Nations stood by idle as Hitler remilitarized and was conquering parts of Europe. Collective security was not effective in the 1940’s not is it feasible today.

 

Controversial Question:

Can collective security work?

 

Thesis Statement: Collective security cannot work, because the fundamental purpose of collective security (multilateralism) is being undermined by the United States’ hegemonic power, the European Union’s creation of a defense system, and a lack of cooperation from middle powers that are emerging as nuclear threats.

 

Sub-Topics:

  1. The United States’ position of hegemony allows the nation to act unilaterally when it deems the situation appropriate. This causes tension at the international level, and makes one question the viability or usefulness of collective security organs. Some question whether the United States will be replaced as the world’s hegemon any time soon. In my opinion, the United States is at its finest hour, demonstrating its military prowess and its capability to react to a crisis (i.e. war on terrorism).
  2. The European Union is trying to gain a foothold as a major power in the world by creating a unified Europe. This involves common markets, free trade and interdependent military systems. However, this makes collective security units (such as NATO), almost superfluous. In addition, the nation state is being put at risk, as many European nations may be strong as a part of the Union, but individually they can no longer sustain themselves.
  3. Emerging nuclear states, and rogue nations, are causing discourse at an international scale. Their lack of cooperation (with other nations) makes them a threat to international security. Nations like North Korea, Syria and most recently Iraq, are all potential threats to international threats. Not only do they threaten other nations (i.e. North Korea and its nuclear arsenal), but also they create a rift between other nations that are trying to deal with the problem.

 

Paragraph 2 (Background Paragraph)

 

Major Idea: Throughout the twentieth century, collective security has consistently proven to be useless and a futile attempt at creating world peace.  Collective security is based on idealistic views, and the belief that it could solve conflicts is simply naïve.

 

Evidence:

  1. Collective security was fully implemented after World War one, at a time where idealism reigned supreme.  It was the product of idealists such as Dickinson, Zimmern, Angell and Woodrow Wilson. They believed it could work because of their idealistic beliefs of mankind. “They thought that human nature is good; evil is not innate to humanity; international cooperation will promote peace” (Sens, 44). It was this idealistic belief that allowed Hitler to rise to power as the rest of the world took a stance of appeasement. Idealism led the world’s leaders to believe that appeasing Hitler would avoid conflict; however, the result was World War 2.
  2. During the twentieth century collective security organs have found themselves at odds with each other. The cold war, which many believed involved only the United States and the USSR, involved many more nations in the world. As countries sought protection they allied with either the US or USSR, rather than bringing peace this created much more tension. NATO and WTO (Warsaw Pact) were the main collective security units, which were at odds with each other. Rather than ensuring peace for many nations, these organizations brought more nations into conflict with each other. Security Dilemma was formed “this action reaction cycle occurs when states increasingly spend resources on military capabilities but make no real gains in the way of security” (Sens, 55).
  3. If any major powers are in disagreement, collective security units can be crippled. During the cold war, the USSR and the US consistently used their veto power preventing the Security Council from acting. Ex. “When Iran demanded that the Soviet Union withdraw the troops it had stationed there during World War II, the Soviet delegate walked out of the Council. In December 1946 Greece complained that Communist states on its borders were supporting the guerrillas that had plunged Greece into civil war. The Soviet veto again kept the Council from acting” (Compton’s). To date the USSR/Russia has used its veto power 121 times (80 times between 1946-1955). The US has used it 76 times (Global Policy forum). All of this essentially led to the cold war.

 

Concluding Sentence:

The implementation, and subsequent failures, of collective security is a testament to the naivety of mankind and the impractical political thinking of idealists.

 

 

Paragraph 3 (Sub-Topic 1)

 

Major Idea: The United States’ hegemonic power is undermining collective security, as it has the ability to render these collective security units powerless.

 

Evidence:

  1. The United States has become a world “police force.” They do not abide by international law unless it is for their own benefit (Global Policy forum). With war in Iraq, the US took unilateral action against Iraq, which goes against everything collective security stands for. The UN will undoubtedly serve as a clean up crew. “The difficult task of rebuilding Iraq can be dumped in the lap of something called the ‘international community’” (Foreign Affairs, 02/20/02). The legitimacy of the UN comes into question when member states no longer abide by international law. “The United States… possess unlimited authority and is subject to no external control to carry out military interventions (Pfaff)
  2. International organizations cannot fight the new threat facing the world, terrorism. The structure of the UN itself makes decision making difficult. “The UN’s complex system of rotating Security Council memberships and permanent member vetoes has more often ensured paralysis in the face of violence than it has curtailed it” (Morgan, 499). The United States is forced to take action into its own hands. As the world’s hegemon, they try to ensure the worlds stability (with or without collective security). With terrorism, individuals are threatening security rather than states, so traditional collective security may not be the solution.
  3. The United States is intent on remaining the world hegemon for years to come. To ensure that position they must take the stance as a world leader, and have global authority. Most countries fear the repercussions of upsetting the US, however, they show little respect towards organizations such as the UN. The US is leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the world, in terms of military capacity and technology (Global Policy Forum).  It can be argued that this force is needed to ensure peace in the world. “Every village needs a police man, and the only one on hand may be America” (Foreign Affairs, 02/20/02).  

 

Concluding Sentence: The position of hegemony that the United States’ is currently in calls for decisive action to be taken, as they have the power (and arguably the duty) to act as a world authority.

 

Paragraph 4 (Sub-Topic 2)

 

Major Idea: The European Union is attempting to gain a place in the world as a super power; however, in its quest for this position it has created international tension and put the sovereignty of its member states at risk.

Evidence:

  1. Some argue that the EU will surpass the United States, in terms of strength, and become the new global hegemony. In my opinion this is unlikely to occur. However, this collective security unit is causing more international tension, especially with the United States. Many EU states were vocal in renouncing war on Iraq (i.e. France, Germany). This tension could potentially lead to conflict between the US and the EU. “A European foreign minister remarked that all his EU colleagues regarded there most serious foreign relations problem as that of dealing with the US” (Pfaff). The members of the EU know the consequences of disagreeing with the US as one stated “It’s appalling that America has put us in this position over Iraq, but in the end we’ll have to go along with them because the consequences of a breach with the US would be even worse” (Foreign Affairs 09/19/02).
  2. The European Union could soon see its end from internal conflict. In 1999, EU proposed making a common foreign policy (Foreign Affairs 09/19/02). This idea has essentially been abandoned as the members of the EU have different perspectives on world affairs (i.e. Iraq- Blair was for the war, Schroeder and Chirac were against it). Disagreement could threaten to tear the European Union apart. As the EU expands, more diverse opinions begin to exist in the Union, which could eventually cause more tension.
  3. The European Union is also putting the nation member’s sovereignty at risk. Together the nations have “pooled sovereignty” (Sens, 253), but alone the nations are becoming weaker. The interdependence is making each country have less control over its own people. Also, not all members benefit equally. Countries like Spain and Portugal are struggling to meet the economic restraints placed on them as a provision for entering the EU. EU members have little control over their economy as the power to set interest rates is out of the individuals states hands. Under the Maastricht treaty, EU members must: ensure their national debt does not exceed 60 percent of GDP; must keep inflation rates with 1.5% of the average of the lowest three members (Sens, 253). Many countries are losing their sovereignty as a result of joining the EU.

 

Concluding Sentence:

            In an attempt to become a super power, the European Union has created much tension with the United States at an international level, and it is putting the sovereignty of many of its member states at risk.

 

Paragraph 5 (Sub-Topic 3)

 

Major Idea: A lack of cooperation from middle powers emerging as nuclear threats makes collective security difficult.

Evidence:

  1. North Korea is the newest problem for collective security. It is threatening the world with nuclear war, yet the international community cannot solve this conflict. This shows how collective security is failing, as North Korea is proving a difficult task to deal with. The United States and China are in a fingerpointing battle, as each one expects the other to handle the Korean issue. “Its China’s responsibility, not ours, to keep North Korea from going nuclear” (Daalder).
  2. Some argue that these rogue states do not pose a real threat to the world, and that they would never use any weapons of mass destruction. Countries like Iran, Syria, North Korea, may not be a real threat, but they must be treated as if they are (Gould). It would be a grave catastrophe if a rogue nation were to release nuclear weapons on other states. Dealing with these nations requires a great deal of military spending, and in the meantime, real threats, such as terrorism are being forgotten.
  3. International law calls for no interference in the running of another nation (Daalder), but the world may be left with no other choice. In North Korea, an estimated 2 million people have died from famine since 1994 (Daalder). Intervention may be the only feasible plan for a nation like North Korea. The United States made an example of Iraq, and Kim Jong Il may suffer the same fate as Hussein if he does not comply. North Korea does not respect international law, as it has broken three major international agreements in recent years.

 

Concluding Sentence:

            Rogue states, such as Syria and North Korea are proving to be difficult to deal with for collective security organs, as they disobey international law and continue to threaten the rest of the world.

 

(Conclusion)

 

Summary of Sub-Topics: The United States has emerged as the worlds hegemon since the last great war. With this power has come the criticism of action and inaction around the world. The United States has the power to act unilaterally, and it does so when threatened. This in turn marks collective security units appear almost useless, as they have no power of the US. To counterbalance the US, many nations of Europe have come together to form the European Union. However, conflicts of interest between member states are holding the EU back from becoming a super power. In addition, the states that belong to the EU are seeing their sovereignty being threatened, as they have become dependent on each other. Further complicating the idea of collective security and rogue states that are emerging as global threats. These nations have no respect for international law, which essentially makes collective security units powerless (i.e. diplomatically).

 

Restate the Thesis: Collective security is no longer viable, because the fundamental purpose of collective security (multilateralism) is being undermined by the United States’ hegemonic power, the European Union’s creation of a defense system, and a lack of cooperation from middle powers that are emerging as nuclear threats.

 

Positive, moral, lesson learned sentence: Collective security was born in an era of idealism, when individuals thought that they had just fought the war to end all wars. Since that time however, the world has seen another great war, and has witnessed the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of collective security units. Collective security is the product of archaic thinking, and is no longer feasible today.

 

 

Working Bibliography: (Write down at least 4 sources)

 

 

1) “Dangerous and Nuclear.” The Economist Online. www.economist.com. April 28, 2003.

2) “Target: America.” The Economist Online. www.economist.com. August 13, 1998.

3) “What Common Foreign Policy.” The Economist Online. www.economist.com. September 19, 2002.

4) Irrelevant, Illegitimate, or Indispensable. The Economist Online. www.economist.com. February 20, 2003.

5) Karon, Tony. “Behind the UN’s Iraq Showdown: Who’s in Charge?” Time Online Edition. October 24, 2002.

6) Ivo H. Daalder and James M Lindsay. “Where are the hawks on North Korea?”.The American Prospect,     
Feb 2003                                                                              
7) “The politics of European enlargement: NATO, the EU and the new U.S. European relationship.” World Affairs, Spring 2002.
8) Robert M. Gould and Patrice Sutton.  “Global security: beyond gated communities and bunker vision.” Social Justice. Fall 2002.
9) Sens, Allen and Stoet, Peter. Global Politics: Origins, Currents, Directions. Nelson Thompson Learning, Canada: 2002.
10) “Abusing the Veto Power.” Global Policy Forum. www.globalpolicy.org (accessed May 2,2003.
11) “The United Nations.” Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia. CD-rom. Available: SoftKey Multimedia. 1999.
12) Morgan, Ed. “International Law is Not Up to the Task.” The National Post. September 27, 2001.
13)  Pfaff, William. “The question of Hegemony.” Foreign Affairs. January/ February 2001.