PROMOTING REGIONAL AND GLOBAL SECURITY
(Text of the Talk at FSI on 07 Sep 2011 to the 52nd Professional Course for Foreign Diplomats)
The world today presents an interesting paradox : while the world is getting more interconnected, conflicts are becoming localised and there is no talk of a World War III or a war between Military alliances or pacts. However, even localised conflicts have regional and global ramifications. I don’t have to tell you the role technology plays in all this. So we see today a great overlap between regional and global security – however, the overlap between national security on the one hand and regional / global security on the other is much less and more difficult to achieve. If we dream of a stable world then there must be stability at all three levels i.e. national, regional and global levels. While national instability may or may not affect global stability, regional instability can quickly lead to global instability. The other challenge is for powerful nations to be careful so as not to jeopardize global and regional security because of their differing domestic / national concerns.
In the aftermath of World War II a new security architecture was designed to keep peace as well as advance prosperity. While this architecture, despite its flaws, prevented World War III, today it does not effectively represent the world of the 21st Century. They, neither take into account the role of the emerging powers nor do they take into account the current security challenge posed by States as well as non – State actors. We have grandiose global institutions far exceeding their capabilities. We need to modernize and strengthen these institutions to reflect the current realities. New challenges hold out the prespects of opportunities but only if, we breakdown our old habits of running this world and realise that it cannot be done either by one super-power or just one or two rising powers.
Today we are faced with a multitude of Challenges – terrorism is only one of the many threats that we face today. The threat to global security which can today emanate from a small group or a State or non-State actors can range from trans-national terrorism to proliferation of WMD, to space and cyber-attacks, to climate change, pandemics, failing States, global criminal networks and of course global fiscal melt-down. Today there are new centres of powers who have to play an important role in shaping regional and global security. The challenge is to promote a just and sustainable international order which will work for the next 50 to 60 years. For this to happen we will have to be clear headed about the factors that are impeding our progress today – the existing polarisation needs to be replaced by a new sense of shared destiny possibly beginning at the regional level.
Today we live in a more globally inter-connected world where all nations now increasingly depend on each other. The threats that we face are no longer isolated or national – they occur simultaneously and affect the globe. The global security situation today is both tense and fragile and the global economic situation only adds to this instability. We have to work together to bring about a new, stable architecture for peace, prosperity and durable stability. While we all agree that we need new global agreements or architecture, we are still not clear how to achieve it. Should we tinker with the existing architecture or break it down all together and start afresh? Or should we look at new regional and global security arrangements to manage our shared global heritage or global commons? I think we need to look at five major themes for evolving a new architecture and these are :-
(1) A new global security strategy which better plugs in with new regional security models.
(2) A new, more fair and sustainable model to manage the world economy.
(3) A global energy security strategy which will cater for both – renewable and non-renewable energy sources.
(4) A new global environmental and climate strategy which brings about change that will help humanity specially those who were deprived of its benefits earlier.
(5) A global strategy to alleviate poverty and bridge to gap between the rich and poor nations. Only then can we proceed to bridge the gap between the poor and rich residing in various nations.
There is a need to build a new strategic architecture that deals squarely with the difficult issues faced by each nation. We need to realise that countries which are dependent on external sources for their security, food, energy etc. must have guarantees before we ask them to relax the security architecture they have built to protect themselves. For the last 65 years we have put in place a model at the global level and asked nations to plug into it. While this has worked well for some countries it has not worked so well for others and the wars and loss of lives over the last 65 years prove it. While regionalism was tried out it was more in the form of military alliances like the NATO and Warsaw Pact which were prisoners of the Cold War. I think it is time now to take a fresh look at regional strategic interests to fill the void between national interests and global interests.
How should we go about building this new architecture? First and foremost, we must realise the importance of national interests – unfortunately the biggger powers assume that national interests of smaller powers do not matter or should I say matter in a very insignificant manner. What we need to realise is that no country, big or small, poor or rich, would agree to new re-alignments or new security models unless its national interests were first protected. It is only after we have clearly identified what matters to each nation within the region that we can make incremental progress towards regional security.
Having seen the importance of national interests and where they fit in a regional regime, we need to see how to divide the world into regions which will have a shared regional strategic perspective and also have countries which know each other best. While many possibilities exist, I would like to throw up one for discussion today. The five regions that I propose are :-
(a) The Indo-Pacific Region that will comprise of South Asia, South East Asia, East Asia, Australia and New Zealand. To my mind this will be the most challenging region of the world for the next 100 years and will possibly shape the world events of the future due to its economic, demographic and military power.
(b) The Greater Middle East to include the Middle East as we know today as well as certain countries in Africa. The CARs could be grouped in this region.
(c) Europe including Russia.
(d) The Americas.
(e) Africa.
Next is to see how to build a regional security structure in these regions which will connect the nations to the global security architecture. The challenge will be to make these regional organisations effective at the regional level without disenfranchising the smaller nations. Another challenge will be to reconcile various national interests with the regional interest.
Now we need to look at how these regional partnerships should be organised – yes, I am not calling it an alliance because an alliance invariably looks for an adversary to counter. I have also looked at the existing global and regional organisations for a model. I would therefore like to put before you a model which needs to be discussed further :-
- At the Apex of Regional Partnership Organisation (RPO) we need a Regional Partnership Council (RPC) which should have a permanent Secretariat.
- Diplomacy must be accepted as the primary means fo resolving all disputes.
- Every nation in the Region must be a member of the RPO and have an equal vote in the RPC. No nation should have a Veto power. For a motion to be passed, specially these requiring use of force or sanctions at least a 2/3 majority must vote for it.
- Each RPO must have its own Standing Regional Force (SRF) both for disaster management as well as humanitarian intervention. If this is formed by combining forces from member countries then there should be no national caveats.
- Advanced Regional Training Institutes for various disciplines should be set up.
Yes, what I am suggesting is moving the UN Security Council or at least its powers to various RPOs. The advantages are obvious – countries of the Region will be the lead players for issues pertaining to their region. Of course, I am not recommending regional isolation but I am talking of a greater role for all RPOs in the global architecture which is presently missing.
Before we move on to the global level, let us spend some time on discussing the discords which may not be resolved at the Regional level or what if there are discords between the Regions themselves?
We need to discuss the limits of authority of the RPCs. No RPC can be given the right to challenge the existence of a state or change its boundaries. Similarly intervention, which must be in the rarest of cases, undertaken within the national boundaries must only be to vacate aggression or to assist in natural disasters or to prevent genocide. No RPC can vote to intervene in the affairs of another Region. In other words we have to think of adequate safeguards to protect the nations even while we empower the RPCs.
Now we need to look at scenarios where one country in the Region is so strong that it challenges the authority of the RPC or should the Regional response to a crisis be ineffective or should there be conflict involving either countries in two different regions or between two different regions. In any such eventuality we will have to have an Apex Body which could either be called the Inter – Regional Security Council or simply Global Security Council. From the suggested nomenclature for this body, you can understand that I am referring to something akin the UN Security Council. The UNSC is neither representative nor effective and the veto further makes a mockery of the system.
The Global Security Council must comprise of an equal number of members from the five RPCs, each having an equal vote but no veto. The other mechanisms for discussion, voting, use of military force, sanctions, new global Laws / Agreements can be worked out. Due to paucity of time we will not be able to discuss these or for that matters what changes need to brought into the working of the General Assembly or other monetary, economic, social and peacekeeping organisations. Having RPOs will hopefully also divide responsibilities and costs in a fairer manner.
Conclusion
This world does not need relics of a bygone era. It needs a robust security model capable of confronting the unique challenges of different regions keeping the regional perspective in mind. It is time to not only look but adopt new Regional Security Models.
During the next 30 minutes we can discuss the issues thrown up. I would also like to hear your views on any other connected issues.
- DIRECTOR's PAGE