|
3.3 The need for a new international security paradigm
|
Failing war on terror policies have illustrated the need for a new global security structure.
In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the evolution of responsible methods of direct
intervention was abandoned. The US substituted this progress with the prioritising of high
impact assaults on the new enemy.
Shared democratic values and willingness for collective responsibility were overtaken by
rhetoric. Broad terms were introduced by the US to generalise multi-faceted threats.
Complex layers of security challenges became ‘global jihadist terrorism’, ‘axis of evil,’ ‘with
us or against us’ and most famously ‘the War on Terror.’
Many states have been excluded from global security and state-building efforts. Those
sidelined are now extremely reluctant to become involved in the crucial post-conflict
reconstruction phases in Afghanistan and Iraq, and are less likely to participate in future
interventions. Moreover, states with Muslim majorities have largely fallen well outside of
this new order. Given the extent of its military and might, there is a clear need for the US
to be included in the leaders of global security interventions.
The ineffective, costly and unsustainable management of the conflicts in the three main
War on Terror theatres has undermined the US position on the world stage and has indeed
exacerbated the conflicts it meant to resolve. Creating and implementing a new effective
approach for Iraq (and Afghanistan and Somalia) would effectively mean struggling against
the current architecture.
The gap between the official War on Terror rhetoric and the implications of such strategy
on the ground is so wide that only a comprehensive and re-invigorated commitment to
change the way the international community deals with major crises can hope to redress
the entrenched grievances and rising mistrust.
The critical situation in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia demonstrates the need for a new
international paradigm that can cope with existing crises and prevent future ones. The
current tools available for conflict prevention and resolution are clearly insufficient and
ineffective. Proposing policy changes is not sufficient; a completely re-designed New
Architecture of dealing with global security threats is needed.
Global Security Objectives
Resolution of the multi-faceted problems thrown up by conflicts in the current War on
Terror theatres requires nuanced policies aligned with defined measures of success:
stability; prosperity; and a politically and economically friendly member of the
international community.
- Stability: The first measure of success in any conflict is stable government. Winning
the hearts and minds of locals and helping them to achieve sustainable peace will
provide a stable platform from which to re-orientate the international community’s
interventions.
- Prosperity (Employment, Development and achievement of Millennium
Development Goals): Field research shows that unemployment and limited livelihood
opportunities represent two of the biggest drivers of conflict among young,
disenfranchised populations. Employment development and achievement of Millennium
Development Goals must be viewed as security instruments.
- Friendly political and economic climate: A third measure of success is that the
population in conflict theatres actively opting in to the international community as a
politically and economically friendly member.
Door Number 3: In search of an alternative approach in Iraq
Current debate in the War on Terror and the intervention in Iraq assume two military
options – to stay, or to leave. This bipolar policy choice is not an accurate reflection of the
true range of options. Furthermore, the present approach is indicative of a more general
fatigue in strategic innovation, with policymaking inertia preventing the full conquest of
credible threats. The first step in ensuring a coherent and effective response to the growing
global security threats is to recognise the failure of the current system to deal with conflict
and security challenges. In the interests of moving forward, a Door Number Three must be
seriously considered.
Current social, economic and political conditions in Iraq must in fact dictate the actions to
be taken in order to promote the overall global security objectives of stability, prosperity
and ensuring a politically friendly partner. With sectarianism and unemployment emerging
as pressing security threats in Iraq, a job surge and bottom-up approach which empowers
the grassroots level should become priorities. Moving beyond purely military and
intelligence means, it is vital to overcome the “us against them” divide and, instead, build
a close partnership between the Iraqis and the international community at large.
Towards a New Global Security Architecture
The process of developing the New Global Security Architecture is as important as the
outcome; it must be inclusive and representative, and should strive to strengthen and
spread universally-accepted democratic and humanitarian values. An open and allencompassing
debate recognising the failure of the current system to deal with global
security threats is the first and essential step in consensually defining the new security
paradigm, which must uphold the highest ideals and respect for human rights.
The enemy of militant extremism is not one that can be ‘defeated’ in the classic military
and intelligence sense. Against a background of ever-changing threat conditions, the
system in place is stale and unable to take on modern challenges. There is a pressing need
for a reordering and broadening of interventionist strategies. Faced with a growing number
of global security threats, it is imperative that the new global security paradigm
encompasses employment, capital investment, human rights, foreign investment, the
Millennium Development Goals, a positive counter-narcotics policy, media and civil society
development as vital security instruments.