As we approach another major anniversary of the end of the Second World War (VE80), the international institutions built to prevent such a cataclysmic conflict reoccurring have never seemed so challenged. Amidst the anxiety about where we are headed, politically and diplomatically, it is essential that we communicate the successes of cooperation and sustainable security. Joanna Frew summarises some of the critiques of the post-1945 order and begins to look at successes achieved since then. RS will be sharing more such stories of cooperation, success and progress in developing sustainable security in a webinar on 21 May and a series of Blog articles over this year.
The undoing of the post-1945 international order
In the aftermath of World War II, leaders of the prevailing military powers committed themselves to establishing a more effective system of international peace and security, institutionalising dialogue and cooperation. But current leaders are retreating from the ideals and commitments to these institutions and rules. Trump is openly hostile to multilateralism and much of the work of the UN, which relies heavily on US funding and leadership. Brexit has also given way to hostility to norms created in the European Court of Human Rights. Concurrently, global spending on weapons has reached new record highs.
Moreover, the system of international aid or Official Development Assistance (ODA) that has been in place since the end of the Second World War (both bilateral aid and institutions such as the World Bank and IMF) to support many communities suffering the impacts of war, poverty and natural disasters is crumbling. The effective closure of by far the biggest donor organisation, USAID, was swiftly followed by the UK government’s announcement to further cut international aid in order to increase defence spending to 2.5% by 2027, based on the assumption that Europe is again contending with big power rivalry and possible inter-state war. Other European nations have carried out similar cuts over the last few years. All this amidst a rising tide of far-right rhetoric.
However, these systems and institutions were built in a world order dominated by nations of the global north that have continued to wield power and privilege within that order. It says something about that privilege that many in the global north are only now worried about war, weapons and an international system that is taking a battering. For much of the rest of the world, this has always been the case and the upending of a system that has not made good its foundational promises to truly build peace or security, nor lifted millions out of poverty, does not mean the drastic change it does for the “geopolitical west”. On the other hand, many of those with less power have been active in using the international system to work towards an inclusive, just and sustainable security that centres people and planet.
The myth and reality of international cooperation and security
Despite the aims of the United Nations to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and uphold human rights and international law and rights, the permanent members of the Security Council, who first ratified the founding Charter, did not apply these standards to their colonies. The UK’s use of violence to hang on to its colonies, while helping to draft the European Convention on Human Rights, was in fact a way to avoid adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which it was feared, colonial subjects might use against it.
Moreover, when it came to economic organisation, the Bretton Woods institutions that had helped European reconstruction after the war were transformed into lenders and donors for the global south after decolonisation, in a system that was dollar-dominated and extracted concessions (such as liberalisation of markets and Structural Adjustment Programmes) from the fledgling economies of decolonised nations.
During the Cold War, this organisation of the global order for and by the ‘geopolitical west’ and Soviet Union created further insecurity for many new and less powerful nations as the dominant powers sought their own precarious security in a divided world.
More recently, international rules on the prohibition of the use or threat of force, as well as international humanitarian law (IHL), have been flouted by the US, UK, Russia and Israel.
Plus, the feeble commitments on climate change from the world’s biggest polluters in the COP process are decried by those nations suffering the worst effects and who have contributed least to global heating. On top of that, the more militarised security becomes, the more harm is done to the climate, as well as diverting efforts away from climate justice.
Progress for sustainable and human security
None of the above, however, negates the way in which formal spaces for international cooperation have allowed less dominant or less militarised states, or civil society organisations, to bring their security concerns to these spaces for dialogue, and in some cases extract agreements that better serve the security of people and planet.
There have been some specific international agreements, such as the Mine Ban Treaty (1997), initiated by an international coalition of civil society organisations, as well as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (1996) and various other arms control agreements, such as the current TPNW (2017). Some of the world’s biggest military powers have refused to sign them but they go a long way to shaping opinion and acceptance of certain weapons. On the other hand, the United States was active in developing the CFC ban (Montreal Protocol of 1987). This ban and other specific nature and climate agreements have helped halt or reverse some ecological damage.
Individual agreements are not the only sustainable security initiatives that have seen success. There have been some more structural changes within the UN like the development of the concept of Human Security itself and the Gender, Women, Peace and Security agenda. The Human Security Unit was set up in the late 1990s after UNDP adopted the concept in 1994. A group of 13 foreign ministers make up the ‘Human Security Network’ to promote the concept of human security as a feature of national and international policies and the Human Security Trust Fund disperses funding to projects aimed at enhancing human security. In 2000 the UNSC adopted the landmark Resolution 1325, specifically to “increase the full, equal and meaningful participation of women in peacemaking, conflict prevention and peacebuilding efforts”
What now?
In a recent RS discussion online, members and supporters identified three key ways in which sharing positive stories of cooperation can address some of our fears about what is happening now in the international order and promote alternative approaches to security. It may seem like a drop in the ocean but building sustainable security requires us all to contribute. It is our security too, after all.
Firstly, we can be clear that positive stories that we have to share about international cooperation are not those that come from the centre of the international order but from the margins, often in spite of the wishes of dominant states. We can support efforts for international institutions to be reformed to be more inclusive of these voices and concerns.
Secondly, we must challenge the way increases in military spending are communicated as an immediate ‘solution’ to the uncertainty in the world. They are not, and higher spending carries risks of arms racing, miscalculation and greater insecurity. Moreover, it diverts resources and effort away from welfare, ODA and tackling the climate crisis. The patient practice of building cooperative and inclusive security takes time, but not much longer than producing new weapons. It also has the advantage of moving us away from militarism and the default assumption that militarism is the best or only option for security.
Thirdly, we are faced with the new phenomenon of social media, tech barons and the globalised far-right. Deep concerns around the rhetoric from government and media outlets were raised. Countering this rhetoric is becoming increasingly difficult amidst the noise. But, again, the importance of patient, local conversations, sticking power, and clear messages were raised as antidotes.
After the Second World War, initiatives were set up among diplomats, politicians and communities all across Europe to create meaningful dialogue and discussion about how to do things differently. Whilst it was not a perfect nor just idea of global security that was advocated, we need to stand in this tradition of cooperation and keep the dialogue of alternatives alive.
Join us on 21 May to hear some stories of successful sustainable security and look out for more articles over the next few months.
The views and opinions expressed in posts on the Rethinking Security blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the network and its broader membership.
Image credit: ‘Let us beat swords into ploughshares’, sculpture by Evgeny Vuchetich, UN Headquarters, UN library photo ID: UN767263
