Non-Subscriber Extract
2010 - The Challenges to Global Security: Lawrence FREEDMAN
- Article Tools
22/12/99
Lawrence
FREEDMAN PROFESSOR OF WAR STUDIES, KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON
Western countries have now moved well beyond the great power confrontations
and colonial wars that once dominated their security policies. They do not
expect to have to fight to hold on to sovereign territory or to sustain
a cherished way of life. Thinking has therefore moved on to wider questions of international stability. To what extent should they use their military muscle, along with their political and economic strength, to promote human rights, protect the victims of violence or terminate conflicts? Over the past decades this question has had to be faced in a number of situations where violence has flared as the result of deep social cleavages or just crude aggression.
The argument that western countries should not bother assumes that their societies will no longer support such efforts and this is probably just as well because intervention normally just makes matters worse. The evidence, however, that we have entered a post-heroic age is flimsy. Past ages were not always that heroic, except in an involuntary sense. We have seen recently a number of western countries prepared to accept substantial casualties in order to reverse aggression or stop the slaughter of innocents.
What is unacceptable is making sacrifices to no purpose or to a level completely out of proportion to the stakes in the conflict. Such limits are rarely approached these days and, when the risk of the combination of casualty and futility appears high, governments have been quick to extricate themselves.
Dabbling in other peoples' conflicts in an indecisive and confused way, as in Lebanon or Somalia, certainly can aggravate them. Outside military intervention works best when it is based on an honest understanding of the local political situation and balance of forces, clear goals and a proper strategy. In such cases much can be achieved.
If western political leaders had sat on their hands over the past decade, content to be spectators to upheavals in the Balkans, East Asia and the Middle East, the world would appear now to be a much more dangerous and unruly place. Confidence in overall security and prosperity would be much lower. To be sure there has been a cost in increased tensions with China and Russia, but these need not be critical so long as there is sensitivity to their core security concerns.
Nonetheless there is still much to be done not only in designing improved strategies and tactics for more effective intervention but also in developing policy instruments better able to address conflicts before they boil over. It also must be recognised that these interventions invariably turn into long-term commitments. It is not possible to walk into a vicious local conflict, forcefully altering the local power structure, and then just walk away again and assume everything will stay settled.
If western countries have come to accept that they have interests in and responsibilities to parts of the world which are susceptible to political turbulence then they need to accept that this will require a prolonged effort from all concerned. It was also require major changes in the attitudes and behaviour of international organisations as well as individual states.
| |
Lawrence FREEDMAN
Click to enlarge picture |
2010
- The Challenges To Global Security | Foreword:
Cliff Beal | King
Abdullah II | Kofi
Annan | Ehud Barak
| Tony Blair | Jacques
Chirac | Bill
Clinton | Sadako
Ogato | James
Orbinski | Romano
Prodi | Lord
Robertson Of Port Ellen | Mary
Robinson | Javier
Solana | Cornelio
Sommaruga | James
Wolfensohn | Postscript:
Edward N. Luttwak | Postscript:
Lawrence Freedman