ISIS PHENOMENA and COLLECTIVE SECURITY

Analytical Study of

The World Collective Security and the War Against the Islamic State Organization

By: Ziad Jaser Durra

27-May-2015

Supervision: Dr. Ahmad Hamad

Collective Security Page 2

ISIS PHENOMENA and COLLECTIVE SECURITY

1. Introduction

Collective Security is a notion based on the principle that “an attack against one is an attack against all.”1 States join together and pledge to react collectively to face those threats. Terrorism facing the world today recognize no national boundaries, they are connected and should be addressed at the global, regional and national levels.2

No state, no matter how powerful, can on its own secure itself against terrorism. It is difficult to reach a consensus among the world about the meaning and responsibilities of collective security and which groups pose a threat to the world community. Differences of power, wealth and geography determine what people perceive as the most dangerous threats to their survival and well-being.3

The consequence of the new non-state terrorism which is caused by the emergence of ‘‘religious terrorists’’ in contrast to the ‘‘political terrorists,’’ is greater fatality. These new type of terrorists, are increasingly ‘‘stateless,’’ which remove territorial restraints. Neo-terrorists seeking greater lethality to obtain not only greater news coverage, but to increase fear, and thus increase the impact of their action.4

Doubts have been poised on the international community’s ability to counter Islamic State Organization’s (ISO also know as ISIS) influence. It is a well managed organization that has become a serious threat to regional and international security. It continues to attract recruits from all over the world. Intense turmoil in Syria and Iraq in recent years has created a socio-political environment in which terrorist organizations such as ISIS have been able to thrive on. ISIS maintains ambitious objectives in the Middle East and it encourages attacks all over the world by its members and supporters. Continuing pledges of allegiance from existing Islamic extremist factions around the world underline the influence ISIS exerts.5

Few studies were written about the use of the world collective security system against non-state actors. This paper aims to discuss the concept, application and current trends of collective security and provide experts’ views on what should be done to enhance the world collective security system. It provide an assessment of the threat imposed by ISIS, as representing a more advanced non-state actor than just a simple terrorist organization. It provide analysis of non-state terrorism and the collective strategy to combat its threat. It look

1 Nte Timothy Ubelejit, “Operation UNIFIED Protector: Collective security or Collective Defense,” Global Journal of Political

Science and Administration, Vol.2,No.2, (June 2014), pp.24-32, http://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/Operation-Unified-Protector-Collective-Security-or-Collective-Defense.pdf 2 United Nations, “A more secure world: Our shared responsibility,” (UN Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges

and Change, 2004), http://www.un.org/en/peacebuilding/pdf/historical/hlp_more_secure_world.pdf 3 Ibid.

4 Victor Asal and Jonathan Wilkenfeld, “Nonstate Actors, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction,” International Studies

Review (2005, 133–170, http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/publications/articles/Nonstate%20Actors_Terrorism_and%20WMD.pdf 5 Charles Lister, “Profiling the Islamic State,” (Brookings Institution, 2014),

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2014/11/profiling%20islamic%20state%20lister/en_web_lister.pdf

Collective Security Page 3

into the fundamental principles and requirements needed to deal with security threats from non-state actors.

The research examine the hypotheses that “Understanding and addressing non-state actors’ motives and grievances is key to combating their terrorist threats.” It illustrate the need for a preemptive collective security strategy designed to prevent the formation of terrorist groups. A strategy that takes into consideration individual motives and social incentives that generate terrorists and the measures required to alleviate these decisive circumstances.6 While there is a need to “eradicate exciting terrorist organizations and to contain the autoimmune effect caused by fear.”7 According to the UN High-level Panel on threats, challenges and change, the overreliance on military responses to terror threats has fueled a great deal of resentment among many in the developing world, especially in the Arabic and Islamic countries.8

2. Collective security

Collective Security is a formation whereby states, under the auspices of an international

organization such as the United Nations, agree to prevent war and maintain international peace

and security by opposing violence collectively. According to Inis Claude, collective security is

“addressed to any state, friend or foe that commits an act of international aggression.”

Collective security may also mean an understanding by which all member states agree, as a

collective, to overturn any threat posed against any of its member states.9

Modern concepts of collective security has started in 1914, but it has its roots to old ages

with the collective security alliance formed by ancient Creek City-States. Utopian Philosophers

have seen collective security as a Universal alliance of peace. Important contributions were

made to the concept of collective security by Cardinal Richelieu. In 1629, he proposed a scheme

for collective security, which was partially reflected in the peace treaty of Westphalia.10

Several philosophers, such as Michael Joseph Savage, Martin Wight and Immanuel Kant

have contributed to the development of the concept of collective security. Immanuel Kant

discussed in 1795 the concept of a league of nations in his book “Perpetual Peace.” He

advocated for a peaceful international system that would “control conflict and promote peace

between states.”11 The appearance of Collective Security in the 20th century came from

Woodrow Wilson, who sought to maintain international peace after World War I. He advocated

for International institutions to reduce the threat of wars and achieve world peace. The League

6 Asal, “Nonstate Actors.”

7 Ibid.

8 United Nations, “A more secure world.”

9 Ubelejit, “Operation UNIFIED.”

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

Collective Security Page 4

of Nations was the forerunner of the United Nations that adopted the collective security

initiative in 1919.12

2.1. Theoretical Overview

liberal-democratic principles is said to provide the best prospect for a peaceful world since a world made up of liberal democracies would have less incentives for war. Liberals concluded that the prospects for the elimination of war lay with a preference for democracy and free trade.13 Liberals believe democracy extends its sway among nations, interdependence between state is on the rise, and International institutions smoothing the way to peace. They believe in creating and developing international institutions such as the United Nations to preserve peace and security.14 Institutions that over time act with a measure of autonomy, becoming less dependent on the wills of their sponsors and members.15

Constructivism theory focus on the role of identity, norms, and the social basis in global politics. It introduced the concept of security communities, where a group of sovereign states agreeing on political, economic, social and moral values consistent with democracy, the rule of law and economic reform.16 Constructivism believes in institutionalizing of the notion of all against one through collective security organizations, which will contributes to the creation of an international system in which strength materializes through cooperation.17

Realism states that International relations are shaped by nation-states, states acts rationally while trying to maximize their interests. National desires are infinite, whereas the resources for obtaining them are strictly limited. Therefore, states could minimize costs and maximize gain by pursuing their national interests in accordance with their power capabilities in the international system.18

One of the charges hurled at realist theory is that it depreciates the importance of institutions. Realists believe that international institutions are shaped and limited by the states that found and sustain them. International institutions are created by the more powerful states, and the institutions survive in their original form as long as they serve the major interests of their creators. Susan Strange, observes that “international organization is above all a tool of national government, an instrument for the pursuit of national interest by other means.”19

Realist recognize collective security as the relevance of power in international politics, which should be balanced. According to Morgenthau the important manifestation of the balance of power is to be found in the relations between alliance nations. He added that alliances are a “necessary function of the balance of power,” where Nations dispense with an alliance when their interests of a situation call for concerted policies and actions that an explicit formulation of these interests, policies and actions in the form of a treaty of alliance. He added that, “not every community of interest, calling for common policies and actions also calls for

12

Ibid. 13

Scott Burchill, Andrew Linklater, etl, Theories of International Relations, Palgrave Machmillan (New York, 3rd

ed.,2005), p57 14

Kenneth Waltz, “Structural Realism after the Cold War,” (International Security, Vol. 25, No. 1 Summer 2000), pp. 5–41 15

Ibid. 16

Hasan, Ulusoy, “Revisiting Security Communities after the cold war: the Constructivist perspective.” 17

Ulusoy, “Revisiting Security Communities.” 18

Ibid. 19

Waltz, “Structural Realism.”

Collective Security Page 5

legal codification in an explicit alliance.” Alliance adds precision, and they are not limited to geographic region.20

2.2. Collective Security Systems

Institutionalized Collective Security: Neo-liberal institutionalism advocate for constructing institutions to encourage cooperation among nations to further their mutual interest in survival and to preserve peace. There are two types Institutionalized collective security one is global in scope like United Nations Security Council, which is mandated for maintaining peace and security around the world. Collective Security is predicated on Chapter VII – Articles 39-51 of the UN Charter.

The other type of institutionalized collective security takes the form of a regional

alliance like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Members of such coalitions agree

to mutually protect each other against outside attack by collectively declaring war on the

aggressor. Article 5 of NATO’s Pact, states that “The parties agree that an armed attack against

one or more of them in Europe and North America shall be considered an attack against them

all.”21 Realist see Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO) and NATO as treaties of guarantee rather

than old-style military alliances. Waltz see NATO as an illustration on how international

institutions are created and maintained by stronger states to serve their perceived or

misperceived interests.22

Community of Interest Collective Security Alliances: Morgenthau called for community of interest to be the foundation for collective security alliances. He stated that in general alliances are typical short lived. The dependence of alliances upon the underlying community of interests.23 The US led collection against ISIS provide a good example of “community of interest” alliance. Realists believe that alliances have no meaning apart from the adversary threat to which they are a response to. For the alliance to be operative it should be able to coordinate the general policies and tangible measures of its members.24

3. The International Collective Security System

Changes of weaponry and changes of polarity have affected the international security system. States rely for their security both on their own internal efforts and on alliances they may make with others.25 The increasing strategic focus of the United States and much of the developed

20

Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, (New York: Mc Grow Hill, 7th

ed.). 21

Ubelejit, “Operation UNIFIED.” 22

Waltz, “Structural Realism.” 23

Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations. 24

Ibid 25

Waltz, “Structural Realism.”

Collective Security Page 6

world on the Middle East and the wider Islamic world represents a fundamentally new shift in the world collective security concerns.26

According to the UN panel of experts, many people especially in the developing world, believe what is considered collective security today is simply a system for protecting the rich and powerful countries. Such perceptions pose a fundamental challenge to building collective security system to fight terrorism. The expert panel added that without mutual recognition among world community of the threats there can be no collective security.27

3.1. United States Role

According to Stanley Foundation panel of experts the world collective security framework for combating terrorism is too “America-centric.”28 The centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. The unwavering U.S. support for Israel has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security in the region. The United States has “been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of Israel.”29 The US supports maintaining Israel’s regional qualitative military edge.30 It has given Israel broad latitude in dealing with the Palestinian, even when its actions were at conflicts with stated U.S. policy.31

There are different political ideologies involved in the American foreign policy decision making process, including Neoconservative, Realist, Liberal internationalists and Jacksonian’s American nationalists.32The United States has a divided government that offers many ways to influence the policy making process. The Israel Zionists lobby have great influence on the decision making process and US Policies. The Lobby’s power flows from its unmatched ability to play interest group politics. It has been very effective in utilizing Jews and their Christian allies to bend U.S. policy towards Israel.33

The US have overestimated and mischaracterized the threat facing the US from radical Islamic groups. The US argued that the September-11 attack on the US in 2001, made preventive war necessary without correctly identifying the characteristics of the real enemy.34 American policy was generated by internal political pressure and national ambition not by external security interests.

According to Fukuyama the US should take a different approach to relate to the world, which is filled with anti-American sentiments. The US should promote political and economic development instead of preemptive wars.35 The structural theory declares that, unipolarity is

26

The Stanley Foundation, “Capturing the 21st Century Security Agenda: Prospects for Collective Responses,” (October 2004), http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/publications/report/C21CSA04.pdf. 27

United Nations, “A more secure world.” 28

The Stanley Foundation, “Capturing the 21st Century Security Agenda.” 29

John J. Mearsheimer, and Stephen M. Walt, “The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy,” London Review of Books, (March 2006), http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0040.pdf 30

US Department of State, “Congressional Budget Justification: Regional Perspectives,” Foreign Operations, P502-511, (2015), http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/224070.pdf. 31

Ibid. 32

Francis Fukuyama, “’Principle and Prudence ,’ in America at the Crossroads,” (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2006), 1-11, http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/excerpts/fukuyama_america.pdf 33

Mearsheimer, etl, “The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy.” 34

Fukuyama, America at the Crossroads. 35

Fukuyama, “America at the Crossroads Fukuyama, America at the Crossroads.”

Collective Security Page 7

the least durable of international configurations. The most powerful state usually think of itself as acting for the sake of peace, justice, and well-being of the world. The effect is heightened when one democratic state becomes dominant, as the United States is now. Peace is the noblest cause of war. If the conditions of peace are lacking, then the country with a capability of creating them may be tempted to do so.36

3.2. United Nation Role

The world share responsibility for each other’s security. The United Nations was created in 1945 “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.”37 The security threats we face now, are from non-state actors as well as states.38 Stanly foundation expert panel declared that the tense relationship between the Arab and Muslim world, which amount to a quarter of the world’s population, and the Western powers presents a serious challenge that must be addressed by the United Nations. This require new strategies to address the “rage” felt in many parts of the Islamic world.39

It is important for the International community to address the root causes of the problems in the Middle East, instead of just delaying the outbreak of violent conflicts in the future.40 The Stanley Foundation panel of expert recommended that in order to root out terrorist networks wherever they operate, multinational coordination is essential. The United Nations is well positioned to help establish norms and standards to guide this effort and thus legitimize an appropriate counterterrorism strategy.41

A study by Yale Center for the Study of Globalization stated that the UN Security Council is the ultimate enforcement instrument of the international community, it enforces peace and security in the world. They Yale experts panel recommended that the UN Security Council should continue to play the role of pursuing peace and security around the world, where it is empowered to impose economic sanctions and grant the use of force. The Yale study added that the Security Council has continued to be deadlocked when trying to prevent or solve serious crises, which created the need to reform the Council through enlargement, to increase its effectiveness and credibility to address crucial issues of peace and security.42 The UN experts panel pointed out that the “Security Council needs greater credibility, legitimacy and representation to be able to address the world security issues.”43

36

Waltz, “Structural Realism.” 37

United Nations, “A more secure world.” 38

Ibid 39

The Stanley Foundation, “Capturing the 21st Century Security” 40

Ibid. 41

Ibid. 42

Ernesto Zedillo, “Reforming the United Nations for Peace and Security,” Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, (March 2005), http://www.ycsg.yale.edu/core/forms/Reforming_un.pdf. 43

Ibid.

Collective Security Page 8

4. ISIS Phenomenon

ISIS represent a more advanced non-state actor than just a simple terrorist organization. ISIS is not simply another manifestation of violent non-state actor. It controls a large territory with more than six million people, it has conventional as well as nonconventional military capabilities, with radical worship of violence.44

4.1. Non-State Actors’ Terrorism

Terrorism is a term that is widely used and poorly defined. According to Center for International

and Security Studies at University of Maryland, “Terrorism is a form of psychological warfare in

which a localized incident is intended to spread fear and anxiety throughout the wider society.”

Terrorists fundamental concerns are to deliberately initiate violence that have broad social

consequence. Terrorism is violence done for the strategic purpose of provoking self-destructive

reactions in a society. This type of violence depends fundamentally on inducing an influential

societal “autoimmune” effect.45

Non-state terrorism is an essentially vibrant phenomenon formed by energetic innovative non-

state actors. The behavior of non-state actors is influenced by the oldest alliance patterns

adopted by states within the international system, which is based on the concept ‘‘the enemy

of my enemy is my friend.’’ Non-state actors adopt this collaborative approach to avoid security

actions taken against them, by appealing to their supporters to carry out attacks on their

behalf. Non-State terrorism involves the potential for and consequences of collaboration

between terrorist groups around the world. There are indications that new patterns of

ideological “cross-fertilization” and partnerships are emerging among non-state terrorist

organizations. Any type of cooperation between separate terrorist organizations is a potentially

troublesome development, especially in an era in which terrorist attacks are becoming very

deadly.46

Collective incentives for non-state actors may come from anger about victims, fear of future

losses, or hopes for relative gains. The greater their collective sense of loss, and the greater

their hope for gains, the stronger their motivations to support radical actions. What’s important

is their belief that justice or vengeance can only be reached through destroying or hurting your

adversaries. Leaders of ideologically driven, religious, non-state identity groups are willing to

use lethal terror against any targets associated with their enemies.47

Non-state radical religious fundamentalist such as ISIS, are hierarchical in structure. The radical

cleric provides interpretation of the religious text justifying violence, which is accepted without

44

Jeffrey, “Assessing the Strategic Threat from ISIS.” 45 Asal etl, “Nonstate Actors.” 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid.

Collective Security Page 9

criticism by the followers. In contrast to non-state social revolutionaries and nationalist groups,

the constraints against mass destructive terrorism are not present, which makes this type of

terrorist group very dangerous. This is especially true when considering their spread, network-

centric, and extremely adaptive set of groups and individuals as today’s non-state terrorist

groups.48

4.2. ISIS Threat to World Security

The principal threat to world security is a result of the increasing instability in the Middle East, which Jihadi groups have exploited in order to emerge, develop and strengthen its operations. ISIS remarkable advances across large areas of Iraq and Syria since 2013, has made it a more successful organization than Al-Qaeda. ISIS has become an impressively versatile organization, operating simultaneously as a terrorist, insurgent and light infantry force. It has proven itself as military force capable of defeating national armies and rival insurgent groups.

ISIS has developed multiple sources of income including oil, gas, agriculture, taxation, extortion, kidnapping, selling of antique and human organs and other illegal trades. ISIS represents now a frightening militant organization that worth close to 2 billion Dollars and commands as many as 31,000 ideologically loyal fighters.49 ISIS successfully gained military power, a multiplying international membership, and unprecedented financial resources. key to undermining ISIS’s long-term sustainability, is to solve the socio-political problems that contributed to its creation and strength.50

4.3. ISIS Use of Social Media for Identity Building

Interstate and transnational interactions can alter individuals identities and interests. Social learning, especially coupled with effective functional processes, contributes to the emergence of communities. individuals tend to behave according to others who they share norms, values and identities with.51 Non-state Islamic terrorists groups identity is shaped by “Manichean” worldview by which their opponents are “irremediably evil” and should be opposed by all means available.52

Collective identities, shared values and shared threat perceptions have significant importance for the creation of non-state actors groups. Identification is accepted as a social concept. The process of identity formation is of a kind that develops within a social virtual unit. Identification building is effective with non-identified individuals, such as some Muslim youth around the world. Common identities lays the ground for the creation of terrorist community, it help to establish a force whose existence proves that members share one common identity.

48

Ibid. 49

Charles Lister, “Profiling the Islamic State,” (Brookings Institution, 2014), http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2014/11/profiling%20islamic%20state%20lister/en_web_lister.pdf. 50

Lister, “Profiling the Islamic State.” 51

Ulusoy, “Revisiting Security Communities.” 52

Asal etl, “Nonstate Actors.”

Collective Security Page 10

Communities forged through shared identities are more bind together than those formed through interests and agreements.53

Globalization has increased the volume, velocity, and importance of cross-border flows of just about everything including information and weapons. Many cross-border flows take place outside the control of governments and without their knowledge. As a result, globalization has weaken the influence of the major powers and strengthen the capacities of non-state actors, such as terrorist groups.54

ISIS is using Social Media to recruit fighters, spread its propaganda and gather financial support. Attempts by governments to block ISIS from using social media have failed.55 ISIS utilized Twitter applications such as “Fajr al-Bashaer,” to broadcast produced propaganda and military updates. ISIS affiliated Twitter accounts are engaged in Twitter “Hashtag” campaigns, where thousands of ISIS supporters are tweeting ISIS “Hashtags,” in order to get them to appear on a Twitter account that tweets the most trending “Hashtags” of the day.56

ISIS have targeted Western Muslims through Social media propaganda. To promote its agenda, ISIS is relying on advanced media production techniques. It have produced and posted high-quality videos and articles on Social Media to recruit fighters from around the world and to spread fear. The group ensures that most of its media productions are translated and posted in Western languages. ISIS broadcasted videos over Social Media get broadcast by local and International news channels, which increased ISIS propaganda outreach and its influence on people around the world.57

4.4. Analysis of the Collective Security Efforts Against ISIS

In 2014, through the unanimous adoption of resolution 2170 , under the binding Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the Council condemned in the strongest terms what it called “gross, systematic and widespread abuse” of human rights by the Islamic State Organization. The Security Council called on “all United Nations Member States to act to suppress the flow of foreign fighters, financing and other support to Islamist extremist groups.”58

The rise of extremist violence in the Middle-east has pushed the United States’ President’s Obama to announce a strategy to combat ISIS. The strategy, intended to weaken and eventually destroy it. The US strategy to destroy ISIS, is to train and arm Arab forces such as the Iraqi Shea government army, Kurdish Beshmarqa, tribal Iraqi Sunni militias and moderate

53

Ulusoy, Revisiting Security Communities. 54

Richard N. Haass, “The Age of Nonpolarity: What Will Follow U.S. Dominance,” Council on Foreign Relations, (May 2008), https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2008-05-03/age-nonpolarity. 55

Mustapha Ajbaili, “How ISIS conquered social media,” Al Arabiya News, (24 June 2014), http://english.alarabiya.net/en/media/digital/2014/06/24/How-has-ISIS-conquered-social-media-.html 56

Ajbaili, “How ISIS conquered social media.” 57

Ibid. 58

UN Security Council, “Security Council Adopts Resolution 2170 (2014) Condemning Gross, Widespread Abuse of Human Rights by Extremist Groups in Iraq, Syria,” (UNITED NATIONS, 15 AUGUST 2014), http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/sc11520.doc.htm

Collective Security Page 11

Syrian Sunni opposition groups, and encourage them to launch ground offensives directed at ISIS territory, and to support those ground campaigns with targeted airstrikes.59

Morgenthau called for “community of interest” to be the foundation for collective security alliances. Realists believe that alliances have no meaning apart from the adversary threat to which they are a response.60 The United State have formed a “Partners Nations” coalition to compact the rise of ISIS. The alliance consist of Western European countries and some Arab countries. The extend of contributions for each partner depends greatly on each country. Some countries have participated in the Air strikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, such as Jordan, UAE and France while others will provide intelligence and material support.61

According to Morgenthau for the collective security to be effective “Those nations,

whose combined strength would be used for deterrence they should have identical beliefs

about the security of the world order that the collective is defending.”He added that “Nations

must be willing to subordinate their conflicting interests to the common good defined in terms

of the common defense of all member-states.”62

Use of Force: Effective collective security may entail the backing of military force. For the use of power to effective it must be seen as legitimate.63According to Stanly foundation expert panel, there is a need for the International community to improve its understanding of the complex issues surrounding the use of force in a post-9/11 world. Article 42 of the UN Charter put down a series of steps that should be taken to resolve disputes includes in the most extreme cases the use of force. The United Nations consider any action that leads to large scale death, reduction of the quality of life and undermines states sovereignty is a threat to international security.64

ISIS and affiliates, have put great deal of countries on the defense. According to James Jeffrey, ISIS is a “resilient and uniquely dangerous foe to world security.” ISIS, represent the latest of a long series of pan regional, non-state movements with Islamic background, that advocate violence. ISIS is so dangerous because of its unique characteristics and its reflection of longer term trends and dangers.65

Conclusion

Fukuyama believes emerging institutionalization across nations will meet the security needs of the world.66 Collective security, depend on the political will of UN member states that own the

59

The White House, “Remarks by the President on Request to Congress for Authorization of Force Against ISIL,” Office of the Press Secretary, (February 2015), https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/11/remarks-president-request-

congress-authorization-force-against-isil. 60

Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations 61

The White House, “Force Against ISIL.” 62

Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, (New York: 5th ed., 1973), exerted from Ubelejit, “Operation UNIFIED.” 63

United Nations, “A more secure world.” 64

Ibid. 65

James F. Jeffrey, “Assessing the Strategic Threat from ISIS,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy, (March 2015), http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/assessing-the-strategic-threat-from-isis 66

Fukuyama, America at the Crossroads.

Collective Security Page 12

decision to intervene and to provide funds, troops and military equipment.67 Liberals see institutionalized collective security makes for more forceful deterrence by ensuring that aggressors will be faced by much stronger force than merely equivalent power. They believe this balancing mechanism that operate under institutionalized collective security should be able to prevent war and stop aggression more effectively than the anarchic balance of power system.68

Realists such as Waltz, believe in the limited role of international institutions and they believe institutions have only marginal effects in world security. The US led collation falls under Morgenthau definition of collective security, where he called for community of interest to be the foundation for collective security alliances.69

The Charter of the United Nations provided the most powerful states with permanent membership on the Security Council with the veto power. In exchange, these countries are expected to use their power for the common good and promote and obey international law. The UN expert panel concluded that the Security Council needs greater credibility, legitimacy and representation to be able to address the world security issues. The expert panel added that there must be new institutional arrangements to address the economic and social threats to international security. These institutions of collective security must not just assert that a threat to one is truly a threat to all, but they should perform accordingly.70

The Stanly Foundation expert panel have concluded that the US-led war on terrorism was inciting a larger level of violent conflicts, especially in the greater Middle East instead of eliminating exciting ones. Many of the current counterterrorism strategies “are actually creating more, rather than fewer terrorists.”71

ISIS massage appeals to Muslim youth around the world. ISIS has a resilience nature and anticipated drive to inflict harm. Either directly or by inspiring supporters around the world, who identify with its cause and have similar grievances and motives. These elements render ISIS uniqueness and difficulty to combat its threat. Addressing these grievances and motives that drive ISIS and other non-state extremist movements growth, will depend primarily on the world’s collective political well to undertake serious political steps to root-out injustice felt by these groups, and dry-up the enabling environment they strive on. Jeffry stressed that ISIS defeat depends on political developments to address the injustice felt by Muslims and remove the motivation that these groups thrive on.72

67

United Nations, “A more secure world.” 68

Waltz, “Structural Realism.” 69

69

Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations. 70

United Nations, “A more secure world.”. 71

The Stanley Foundation, “Capturing the 21st Century Security Agenda.” 72

Jeffrey, “Assessing the Strategic Threat from ISIS.”

Collective Security Page 13

5. List of References

Ajbaili, Mustapha. “How ISIS conquered social media,” Al Arabiya News, (24 June 2014), http://english.alarabiya.net/en/media/digital/2014/06/24/How-has-ISIS-conquered-social-media-.html Asal, Victor and Jonathan Wilkenfeld. “Nonstate Actors, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction,” International Studies Review (2005, 133–170, http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/publications/articles/Nonstate%20Actors_Terrorism_and%20WMD.pdf Burchill, Scott and Andrew Linklater, etl, Theories of International Relations, Palgrave Machmillan (New York, 3

rd

ed.,2005), p57 Fukuyama, Francis. “’Principle and Prudence ,’ in America at the Crossroads,” (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2006), 1-11, http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/excerpts/fukuyama_america.pdf Haass, Richard N. “The Age of Nonpolarity: What Will Follow U.S. Dominance,” Council on Foreign Relations, (May 2008), https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2008-05-03/age-nonpolarity Jeffrey, James F. “Assessing the Strategic Threat from ISIS,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy, (March 2015), http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/assessing-the-strategic-threat-from-isis Lister, Charles. “Profiling the Islamic State,” (Brookings Institution, 2014), http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2014/11/profiling%20islamic%20state%20lister/en_web_lister.pdf. Mearsheimer, John J. and Stephen M. Walt, “The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy,” (London Review of Books Vol. 28, No. 6, March 23, 2006), http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0040.pdf Morgenthau, Hans J. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, (New York: Mc Grow Hill, 7

th ed.).

The Stanley Foundation, “Capturing the 21st Century Security Agenda: Prospects for Collective Responses,” (October 2004), http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/publications/report/C21CSA04.pdf The White House, “Remarks by the President on Request to Congress for Authorization of Force Against ISIL,” Office of the Press Secretary, (February 2015), https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/11/remarks-president-request-congress-authorization-force-against-isil Ubelejit, Nte Timothy. “Operation UNIFIED Protector: Collective security or Collective Defense,” Global Journal of Political Science and Administration, Vol.2,No.2, (June 2014), pp.24-32, http://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/Operation-Unified-Protector-Collective-Security-or-Collective-Defense.pdf Ulusoy, Hasan. “Collective Security in Europe,” (Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2012), http://sam.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Hasan-Ulusoy2.pdf Ulusoy. “Revisiting Security Communities after the cold war: the Constructivist perspective.” UN Security Council, “Security Council Adopts Resolution 2170 (2014) Condemning Gross, Widespread Abuse of Human Rights by Extremist Groups in Iraq, Syria,” (UNITED NATIONS, 15 AUGUST 2014), http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/sc11520.doc.htm United Nations, “A more secure world: Our shared responsibility,” (UN Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, 2004), http://www.un.org/en/peacebuilding/pdf/historical/hlp_more_secure_world.pdf US Department of State, “Congressional Budget Justification: Regional Perspectives,” Foreign Operations, P502-511, (2015), http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/224070.pdf. Waltz, Kenneth. “Structural Realism after the Cold War,” (International Security, Vol. 25, No. 1 Summer 2000), pp. 5–41 Zedillo, Ernesto “Reforming the United Nations for Peace and Security,” Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, (March 2005), http://www.ycsg.yale.edu/core/forms/Reforming_un.pdf