Post Cold War
Customer Inserts His/her Name
Introduction
American security policy and the strategies which it chooses to employ have evolved considerably since the end of the Cold War. The security climate during the Cold War was characterized by two superpowers the US and USSR who possessed a great deal of military and economic power as well as well as extremely destructive nuclear weapons. These factors shaped the basis of American security policy during the Cold War era. Highlights of this policy included an avoidance of direct armed conflict with the USSR due to the mutually assured destruction (MAD) that would result from a nuclear conflict between the two superpowers. The MAD doctrine formed the essence of the balance power between the two superpowers and both nations indulged in an arms race, in order to maintain this balance of power.
The end of the Cold War, which followed the fall of the USSR brought about new security strategies that recognized changing global realities, furthermore, the emergence of a hyper-power in the form of a post Cold War US removed the need for doctrines such as MAD and brought about the need for new and evolved methods and policies to deal with emerging challenges.
The two doctrines favored by the United States in the post-Cold War scenario involved the traditional doctrine of collective security and a newly formulated method known as cooperative security. Collective security is a policy that is called into action after the commencement of a conflict, it was originally conceptualized after the First World War and embraced wholeheartedly by then American President Woodrow Wilson (Emmers, 2012), this doctrine requires the existence of a collective body that seeks to govern the behavior of its member nations and define parameters that nations cannot transgress (Emmers, 2012), any contravention of defined norms such as by displaying aggression or hostile behavior towards another, would result in a collective action by other states within the body (Emmers, 2012). The initial manifestation of this theory was the League of Nations, however, the Second World War severely dented the belief of strategists in this doctrine resulting in the adaptation of the balance of power theory (Emmers, 2012). However, the formation of the United Nations and unreserved American participation in the body’s functioning suggests that strategist harbored some hope in its effectiveness
While the primary focus of this paper will be cooperative security and the implementation of this perspective by the United States in various conflicts following the Cold War, it must be stated that the cooperative security policies have largely been implemented in conjunction with collective security policies as neither is applicable to every situation (Emmers, 2012).
Cooperative Security
According to Cohen and Mihalka (2001), the concept of cooperative security was initially introduced by Kant in the 18th century when he referred to a federation of countries that would govern relationships between states. The term was reintroduced in the US and other Western countries following the end of the Cold War, and was buoyed by the liberal idealism that pervaded during the era (Cohen and Mihalka, 2001). According to Posen and Ross liberalism is the analytical anchor of, the cooperative perspective and its scope is transnational (1997). The view is also largely dependent on interdependence among nations, in order for the nations involved in the agreement to perceive any arrangement as beneficial and for nations realize that conflicts in disparate and remote locations may eventually have an impact on locations many miles away. Furthermore, the cooperative security view applies its perceived mandate globally, where unrest in any region throughout the world is considered relevant to its scope (Posen and Ross, 1997). The inclusion of the cooperative security in America’s policy resulted in shift towards a recognition of the importance of world peace in the American establishment (Posen and Ross, 1997). This view also requires any action to be taken under the auspices and with the approval of an international body and for this international body to coordinate and direct the efforts of member nations, which includes the composition, size and other specifications of forces providing by each nation (Posen and Ross, 1997). The ideal international body according to the cooperative security view would consist of democratic countries (Posen and Ross, 1997). The cooperative security also seeks to control weapons proliferation, with the primary goal being to prevent irresponsible or rogue states from acquiring highly destructive weapons (Posen and Ross, 1997). The cooperative security view also advocates the use of force to counter large scale humanitarian violations, however, the use of force is only recommended once all other options have been exhausted (Posen and Ross, 2007). The principles of cooperative security were embedded into American foreign and security policy in the 1990’s under the presidencies of George Bush and Bill Clinton (Posen and Ross, 1997), respectively and their application was evident in many conflicts until the invasion of Iraq in 2003
Persian Gulf War 1991
The Persian Gulf War in earnest began in August, 1990, after Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait (PBS, 2013). The US immediately criticized this move and warned of dire consequences if Iraqi troops did not withdraw. After repeated failures and refusal of the Iraqi government to abide by UN sponsored declarations to end the war, Kuwait was invaded by a UN created coalition led by the US, culminating in the eventual withdrawal of Iraqi troops from the country (PBS, 2013). This war was considered to be largely successful for several reasons, firstly due to the low level of casualties that US and coalition troops faced (Hammond, 1998) and secondly due to the compliance of many nations with the cooperative security framework established by the UN for the purposes of this conflict and lastly for the successful completion of objectives outlined by the UN.
As mentioned earlier the Gulf War was considered to be a success story for advocates of the cooperative security view due to its careful application of principles of the view. To begin with, the conflict occurred, many miles away from the US in a region which previously had no real linkages with the United States of America. However, analysts and policy makers were quick to realize the adverse impact a prolonged conflict in the region may have had on America particularly in terms of economic interests and oil prices (Bennet and Lepgold, 1993). Secondly, the response towards Iraqi aggression was largely formulated and by an international body which in this instance was the UN. This response began with the enactment of Resolution 661 (fas, n.d.), a resolution which called for the immediate withdrawal of Iraqi troops and the imposition of economic sanctions on Iraq until these conditions were met. This resolution also followed an integral principle of cooperative security, which is war must remain the last resort. The US largely complied with this principle and the official policy of the United Nations by engaging the Iraqi government in constant dialogue until the failure of talks between Iraqi representatives Tariq Aziz and US Secretary of State James Baker in Geneva in 1991 (Friedman, 1991). The result of this was the passage of UN Resolution 678, which outlined a timeframe for Iraqi troops to withdraw from Kuwait, as well as an ultimatum which threatened the use of force, if Iraq were to not comply. Once this period expired, the US exercised its right under Resolution 668 to “use any means necessary” and assembles a coalition of many countries to liberate Kuwait. While the United States commanded the coalition, the UN maintained a supervisory role. The war ended after the liberation of Kuwait and the successful containment of the Iraqi army. The US lead coalition fully complied with UN outlined objectives, which were to liberate Kuwait and did not make an attempt to occupy Iraq or overthrow its government.
Balkan’s Conflict
The conflict in the Balkan’s was brought about by the rapid deterioration in the relationship between the t various units that comprised the Federation of Yugoslavia, these rising tensions turned into a military conflict in 1991 after Croatia and Slovenia declared independence, the conflict spread to Bosnia by 1992 (Vetschera, 2007). This war much like the Gulf War also displayed evidence that principles of cooperative security were adhered to by the international community and the United States.
Invasion of Iraq 2003
The security structure of the United States and the world changed considerably once again after the attacks of September 11, 2001. These lead to the identification of a new threat which was unlike other previously seen. The Cold War had a clearly defined nation as an enemy with identifiable borders weaponry and ideology while the era immediately following the Cold War was dominated by US efforts to maintain global harmony and prevent regional conflicts. The events of 9/11 however, introduced a new threat which was not posed by nation states but by non-state actors that operated in groups and without accountability, this latest security threat was labeled as asymmetrical warfare (Gu, 2003). The American government at the time presided over by George W Bush and the Republican party responded by immediately altering the security policy of the nation and introduced the concepts of primacy (Posen and Ross, 1997) and pre-emptive action (Gu, 2003). The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was representative of this shift in policy from cooperative security to primacy and pre-emptive action.
The doctrine of primacy is largely based on the ideal that the maintenance of US economic and military might is necessary to ensure global peace. Unlike other theories it does not require cooperation between states or an international body to supervise peace keeping efforts and instead relies on American hegemony and a uni-polar world (Posen and Ross, 1997). The strategy of pre-emption is in a way an extension of this policy as it seeks to annihilate any threats before they begin to harm US interests (Gu, 2003.
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 occurred due to allegation by the US and British Governments that the President of Iraq Saddam Hussein and his Ba’athist Government were attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction and distribute them to non-state terrorists that would use these weapons to adversely affect US national interests. The US initially complied with UN resolutions which required weapons inspectors to be granted complete access to any and all Iraqi facilities suspected of being involved in the production of weapons of mass destruction The US initially agreed that no military action would be taken until the weapons inspectors completed their investigation and found conclusive proof of weapons of mass destruction developed and or non-compliance by Iraqi authorities. However, the reports of the weapons inspectors indicated that Iraq was not currently actively developing weapons of mass destruction. The United States and its ally he UK presented evidence to the contrary to the United Nations General Assembly in a bid to generate a case for the invasion of Iraq and the passage of a resolution that would give UN approval for the invasion. This move was however rejected by the UN Security Council and was vetoed by other superpowers within the Security Council which included Russia and France. In response, the US in alliance with Britain disregarded basic principles of cooperative security and invaded Iraq in 2003. This marked a clear shift in American security policy by disregarding the mandate of the United Nations, principles of building alliances and interdependence among countries as well as failure to use the option of war as the last resort.
References
Bennett, A., and Lepgold, J. (1993). Reinventing Collective Security after the Cold War and Gulf Conflict. Political Science Quarterly, 108 (2), pp.213-237.
Cohen, R., and Mihalka, M. (2001). Cooperative Security: New Horizons for International Order. [report] The Marshall Center.
Emmers, R. (2003). Cooperative security and the balance of power in ASEAN and ARF. London: RoutledgeCurzon.
Fas.org (2008). Security Council resolution 661 (1990) on the situation between Iraq and Kuwait. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0661.htm [Accessed: 15 May 2013].
Friedman, T. (1991). CONFRONTATION IN THE GULF; As U.S. Officials See It, Hands of Aziz Were Tied. New York Times, [online] 11 Jan. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/11/world/confrontation-in-the-gulf-as-us-officials-see-it-hands-of-aziz-were-tied.html?scp=151&sq=Iraq&st=nyt [Accessed: 15 May 2013].
Gu, G. (2003). Redefine Cooperative Security, Not Preemption. Washington Quarterly, 26 (2), pp.133-145.
Hammond, G. (1998). Myths of the Gulf War Some “Lessons” Not to Learn . [online] Retrieved from: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj98/fal98/hammond.html [Accessed: 15 May 2013].
Pbs.org (1995). Chronology | The Gulf War | FRONTLINE | PBS. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/cron/ [Accessed: 15 May 2013].
Posen, B., and Ross, A. (1997). Competing Visions for US Grand Strategy. International Security, 21 (3), pp.5-53.
Vetschera, H. (2007). Cooperative Security – the Concept and its Application in South Eastern Europe. Approaching or Avoiding Cooperative Security?. [report] Vienna: National Defence Academy and Bureau for Security Policy at the Austrian Ministry of Defence, pp.33-56.
