University of Negros Occidental Recoletos

Recoletos de Bacolod Graduate School

Bacolod City

REGIONAL
SECURITY

REGIONAL
SECURITY

POINRE030REGIONAL SECURITY
Prepared By: Shyrell A. Alcontin
Master of Arts in Education Major in Social Science

Table of Contents
Content

Page #

Introduction

Definition of Terms

Regional Security Cooperation in the early 21st century

Conceptualizing Regional Security Cooperation

NATO

NATO in Different Perspective

Bibliography

POINRE030REGIONAL SECURITY
Prepared By: Shyrell A. Alcontin
Master of Arts in Education Major in Social Science

Introduction
The failure of United Nations collective security during the Cold War and after can be
attributed, in part, to ideological divisions and to the diversity of government types in the UN and
on the Security Council. Absent an effective UN collective security arrangement, government have
created regional alliances and organizations to augment their power and to deter potential
aggressors.
As the world divided politically and ideologically during the Cold War, several military
alliances formed: the Rio Pact (1947), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (1949), the ANZUS
(Australia, New Zealand, and the US) Treaty (1951), the US-Japanese Security Treaty (1951), and
the Warsaw Pact (1955).

Definition of Terms:

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Alliance a union between people, groups, countries, etc
Deterrence the art of convincing someone not to do something. In international relations, this
is accomplished through the use of threats to inflict great harm in the event of a military attack.
Coalition a group of people, groups, or countries who have joined together for a common
purpose

Regional Security Cooperation in the early 21st century

Regional and sub-regional organizations have proliferated since 1945, with a fresh surge
in the 1990s, and many of them have had the overt or existential mission of security building. There
has, however, been little new generic analysis of the role of the region (itself clearly a subjective
construct) in relation to security, while the established analytical modelsthe alliance, the collective
security system, the security regime and the security communityoften fail to capture either the
discourse actually used, or the work done, by todays real-life groupings.
A new analysis in terms of security functionality points to at least four sets of purposes that
a regional security group can perform (often concurrently).

The most basic is security dialogue and conflict management, aimed at establishing or
maintaining peace within the region. European, African and Latin American organizations
all have explicit conflict prevention and management instruments to this end, and the EU
is the most ambitious in seeking to extend its influence for the purpose worldwide.
Second, groups can develop systems of military cooperation based on mutual
restraintto reduce dangers from military activity (like the confidence-building measures
developed by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, CSCE)or on
shared capacity building for older-style defense and new-style peace missions, which is
now a key ambition for the African Union as well as NATO and the EU.
Third, regional organizations can intrinsically and expressly promote democratic
standards in government, and respect for human rights, as ways of bolstering peaceful
and secure conditions as well as being ends in themselves. This ambition has been a
feature of European organizations (since the creation of the Council of Europe), of the
Organization of American States and of the African Union, among others, but has faced
greater cultural and practical obstacles in Asia and the Middle East.
Fourth, regional cooperation can promote security by advances in purely economic
fields (improving both prosperity and interdependence), and by cooperative approaches to
functional risks and challenges including those presented by the new threats of terrorism
and proliferation.

Conceptualizing Regional Security Cooperation

There are at least four models of regional security cooperation have prima facie relevance for the
21st century: alliances, collective security, security regimes and security communities.

Alliances are one of the oldest forms of international cooperation, designed for both
defense and attack (typically by military means) against a common external, or even
internal, threat or opponent. They use cooperation as a means to an end rather than a
good in itself, and an alliances membership necessarily excludes the enemy.
The concept of collective security emerged in the 20th century in response to the
ambivalent effects of older-style balance-of-power politics and alliances. First attempted in
the framework of the League of Nations and again in the United Nations (UN), a collective
security system aims to prevent or contain war by assuring a response to any act of
aggression or threat to peace among its members. To work as intended, any such system

POINRE030REGIONAL SECURITY
Prepared By: Shyrell A. Alcontin
Master of Arts in Education Major in Social Science

must include all states in a region or the world, and it directs its attention inwardly at their
actions.
A third type of regional security cooperation is a security regime. Regimes are a common
phenomenon in such non-security dimensions of international relations as the regulation
of international trade and transport. They define normsof a cooperative and generally
positive naturefor states behavior and often provide ways to implement, support and
verify these norms. A security-related regime may cover broad prescripts for behavior such
as the non-use of force and respect for existing international borders, or may more
concretely regulate certain types and uses of weapons or activities like military movements
and transparency.
A security community has been defined as a group of states among which there is a real
assurance that the members of that community will not fight each other physically, but will
settle their disputes in some other way. The concept was developed by Karl Deutsch in
the late 1950s to reflect the particularly far-reaching goals of post-World War II European
integration, which in turn placed Europe in a larger security community of the worlds
industrialized democracies.

The following are factors that may contribute in the emergence of regional security cooperation:
State size and balance of power
Intra-region relations
History and culture.

NATO:
NATO was created on April 4, 1949, and its stated purpose was to safeguard the security
and freedom of its members. While NATO Charter does not explicitly identify the USSR as the
target of the alliance, it was implicit in the politics of the day. NATO was designed to provide
immediate security to Western Europe in the face of territorial and ideological threat.
The original members of NATO are Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Then,
in 1952, Greece and Turkey joined the alliance. Both of these states were symbolic targets of the
Truman Doctrine. Truman Doctrine is President Truman's policy of providing economic and military
aid to any country threatened by communism or totalitarian ideology. West Germany and Spain
joined NATO in 1955 and 1982, respectively.
Many saw the inclusion of West Germany as a provocative act on NATOs part because of
Germanys history of aggression against the USSR. The formation of NATO itself and its inclusion
of West Germany 9n 1955 thus confirmed well-established and well-founded Soviet fears of
Western intervention in its affairs. The USSR and the Eastern Bloc states formed their alliances.
The Warsaw Treaty Organization and the Warsaw Pact, shortly after the announcement of West
German membership in NATO.
The Warsaw was patterned after NATO. The following is from the Article 14 of the Warsaw
Treaty:
In the event of an armed attack in European one or more of the States Parties to
the Treaty, each state party to the treaty shall, in accordance with Article 51 of the United
Nations Charter afford the State or States so attacked immediate assistance, by all means
it considers necessary, including the use of armed force.
The sixteen allied members of NATO were able to avoid the war with the USSR, the
Warsaw Pact, and each other in fifty years. Many credit NATO with this remarkable feat. It was
able to stabilize the European continent after centuries of violent conflict and build a lasting peace
between such historical adversaries as France and Germany.
Several incidents have threatened to disrupt NATOs unity. Examples are, France and UK
during the Suez Crisis in 1956, Cuban Missile Crisis in 1961, Turkey and Greece almost came to
blow over the fate of Cyrus. In 1966, France withdraw from NATOs integrated military command
and demanded the prompt withdrawal of all foreign troops from French soil. NATO Supreme Allied
Headquarters was forced to move from Paris to its present location in Brussels, Belgium.
NATO remained intact and focused on its principal goal containing the Soviet Union both
geographically and ideologically. NATOs longevity is due to its transparency and long-range
strategic planning, which build confidence among members.
The North Atlantic Council (NAC) provides the highest level of political leadership for
NATO. The NAC is normally staffed by the permanent representatives of member states. Through
NAC, members can consult and make decisions regarding security issues.

POINRE030REGIONAL SECURITY
Prepared By: Shyrell A. Alcontin
Master of Arts in Education Major in Social Science

The Defense Planning Committee and the Nuclear Planning Group are responsible for
developing conventional and nuclear collective defense strategies, respectively.
The Secretary General is the senior diplomat representing the NATO organization. The
secretary general facilitates external and internal relations among member states and with other
international organizations. This individual is responsible for directing decision making and may
use his good offices to settle disputes among member states or disagreements between decisionmaking bodies.
The Military Committee is the highest military authority within the NATO organization. The
military officers are responsible for recommending to political authorities strategies and
requirements for the successful defense of member states. It is also responsible for drafting
exercise plans and developing military operations.
Is NATO a success? Its very difficult to judge. The fact is, deterrent value can be measured
only by failure an enemy attack. Furthermore, the ability of NATO member states to fight together
has never been really tested.
Theoretically, the effectiveness of an alliance is related to two factors: Alliance cohesion
and Alliance goals.
Alliance cohesion refers to factors that contribute to alliance solidarity. (enemy, longevity,
cultural or historical ties, similar government type, or civilian control)
High alliance cohesion results from institutionalized cooperation among like-minded governments.
Alliance goals the simpler the goals the easier they are to affect. Alliance that seeks to
maintain a territorial status quo are likely to be more successful than those that are more aggressive
and ambitious.

NATO in Different Perspective

A Realist Cut
Many realists tend to oppose NATO expansion for four interrelated reasons:
1. They argue that the raison dtre for NATO no longer exists; thus expansion serves only to
facilitate NATOs inevitable decline. States from alliances in response to a common enemy
or threat (Stuart and Tow 1990; Walt 1987). The usefulness of an alliance declines when
the common enemy or threat no longer exist. The collapse of USSR and the
Russian adoption of democratic and market reforms suggest that Soviet and communist
expansionism are artifacts of the past.
2. From the perspective of US realists, the expansion of NATO stretches US security
commitments so far that they are not credible; hence, they are dangerous. The US could
find itself engaged in conflict with a still powerful Russia over places in which it has no
compelling national interest. The political and economic future for Russia is far from certain.
An ultranationalist Russia may wish to reassert itself in its traditional sphere of influence,
prompting a military confrontation with NATO. If the US chooses to respond militarily, it
runs the risk of nuclear war. And if it stands aside while an ally is attacked, then the
credibility of NATO would irretrievably shatter, thereby threatening the stability of all
Europe. NATO expansion serves only to antagonize Russia, strengthen Russias
nationalist sentiment, and destabilize its political and economic reforms. Relations with
Russia should have priority over those with minor powers in Central and Eastern Europe.
3. Rational states do not commit themselves and their resources to rhetorical, fuzzy goals.
NATOs post-Cold War goals are purportedly the same as its Cold War goals to protect
the territorial integrity and the political stability of its members. However, during the Cold
War, those goals were clear-certain the USSR and counter Soviet-led communism. After
Cold War, the threat itself lost its unidimensionality, and goals became complex. Realists,
then, stress that states should limit their alliance commitments to tangible, achievable
objectives.
NATO membership commits the allies to defending each others territorial integrity and
political stability. But threats to territorial integrity and political stability are just as likely to
come from within, inflamed ethnic and religious conflict. Security in central corridor of
Europe involves too many unknowns to be addressed successfully by a traditional alliance.
NATO involvement could easily turn a local conflict into a regional or even a global one.
Alliances have been known to escalate conflicts rather than contain them (Siverson and
Tennefoss 1984).
4. The expansion of NATO effectively transforms it from a traditional alliance to a
multipurpose political IGO. The confusion over NATOs new mission has raised serious

POINRE030REGIONAL SECURITY
Prepared By: Shyrell A. Alcontin
Master of Arts in Education Major in Social Science

doubts about its effectiveness as a military alliance and as a political institution. Expansion
weakens alliance credibility. During the Cold War, allies wondered if the US would risk itself
in the vent of a Soviet attack. The transformation of NATO into a political institution also
raises the quandary of attempting to find military solutions for essentially political problems
in Central Europe. For Realist, NATOs attempts to be an alliance and political institution
make it ineffective at both (Kamp 1998).

A Liberal Cut
Liberals argue that NATO expansions provides the best opportunity for stability in post
Cold War Europe. NATOs success in keeping the peace must be understood in the context of the
overall political environment of Western Europe. It helped France and Germany become reconciled,
making the European integration possible. With other institutions, it brought Italy, then Germany,
and eventually Spain back into the family of European democracies. It denationalized allied defense
policies and stabilized relations between Greece and Turkey all without firing a shot.
The increase in transnational ties reinforces security in Europe because the cost of
violence becomes too high. The initial costs associated with NATO expansion are an investment
in the future.
The requirements of NATO membership promote the peaceful settlement of disputes.
States are required to have democratic institutions that foster norms of compromise, cooperation,
and nonviolence. NATO expansion can help rehabilitate former totalitarian states and promote and
protect human rights within those societies.
Liberals see the costs of NATO expansion as an investment in the future. The continued
engagement of the US ensures that Europe and US remain military partners and not military
competitors. It also limits the chances of a competitive and dangerous arm race. NATOs expansion
means, in fact, expanding the area of stability and democracy, thus expanding peace.

A Marxist Cut
For Marxist, the formation of NATO after WWII is better understood as the establishment
of a capitalist economic empire in Europe, not as the result of a power vacuum in Europe. The US
and its WWII allies were not peaceful democracies so bewildered by the Soviet Unions Eastern
European Policies that they were forced to create NATO to defend themselves. Rather, the US and
its allies wanted to impose a liberal world order where they and their firms would dominate free
markets. At the time, the Soviet Union was the only state with the capability to stand in their way.
NATO was created to stabilize capitalism in Western Europe and to threaten the USSR and its
allies. The USSR was perceived as a threat to those markets and the capitalist way of life because
it represented a viable alternative to the war and poverty caused by capitalist competition.

A Feminist Cut
Feminist views on NATO transformation and expansion are quite diverse, sometimes even
opposed. Most traditional liberal feminists applaud the idea of an alliance over unilateral security
policies. Alliance emphasize the collective while unilateral policies center on self and autonomy.
The idea that the security of one is directly related to the security of others reflects the feminine
experience and feminine priorities. Liberal feminists also applaud decision making based on
cooperation and consensus.
Feminist of all stripes recognize that all alliances also involve military institutions. While
some militaries are more progressive than others, these institutions epitomize what it means to be
masculine. Hence, many essentialist feminists oppose NATO as masculine structure; thus. They
oppose its expansion. Militaries are authoritative and hierarchical; moreover, their culture degrades
and dehumanizes women. Drill instructors degrade new (male) recruits during basic training by
calling them women, girls, or faggots. The military, as an institution, uses language and encourages
behavior that emasculates the enemy.
Currently, NATO has a Committee on Women, which serves as a consultative body
concerning women in uniform and assists members with integration initiatives. However, committee
recommendations are not binding, and the inclusion of women in the armed forces remains a low
priority.
NATO as a political organization is characterized by the virtual absence of women in key
decision-making positions. Women comprise more than 80% of the secretarial and support staff.
Women serve as protocol and public relations officers. The high-ranking political and bureaucratic
staff is still very much a mans club.

POINRE030REGIONAL SECURITY
Prepared By: Shyrell A. Alcontin
Master of Arts in Education Major in Social Science

Bibliography:
Internet Sources:
http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2006/04
http://www.nato.int/docu/update/60-69/1966e.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7938191.stm
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deterrence
http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2006/files/SIPRIYB0604.pdf
Book:
Pease, Kelly-Kate S. International Organization: Perspectives on Governance in the Twenty-First
Century. 3rd Edition. 2007

POINRE030REGIONAL SECURITY
Prepared By: Shyrell A. Alcontin
Master of Arts in Education Major in Social Science