EnglishThe Post-Cold-War Era
The structure of the current global security system, by contrast, is somewhat asymmetrical. One remaining superpower. One military alliance of note — NATO, its membership expanded to include many countries of the former East Bloc. In terms of the "protection" afforded by nuclear weapons, States continue to fall into two camps, of ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’. The ‘insiders’ are those States that either possess nuclear weapons or are protected by a nuclear weapons holder. The ‘outsiders’ are everyone else. For some regions, the post-Cold-War security landscape has improved. In Europe, for example, a process of rejuvenation and democratization has continued to develop and expand eastwards, and a generally improved security system is being built based on integration and cooperation. For many other regions, however, the security situation has deteriorated — driven by a number of factors. First, the re-emergence and escalation of old conflicts. Since the end of the Cold War, ethnic and other conflicts that were once held in check have erupted to the surface. The recent wars in the former Yugoslavia are but one example. And longstanding regional conflicts, most notably in the Middle East, in South Asia and on the Korean Peninsula have continued to fester, and at times seem on the verge of yet another eruption. Second, for the developing countries of the world, poverty and associated problems of lack of good governance — ranging from ineptness to tyranny — continue to influence the security environment. Standards of living are low. The resources are scarce to support development and the required institutions and infrastructure are lacking. The results in some cases are the stifling of civil rights and human rights abuses; and in other cases, civil wars and ethnic cleansing. Third, the gap between North and South, rather than narrowing, is becoming more visible. Not only is there a continuing reliance on nuclear weapons for the protection of a limited few, but the global distribution of wealth and consumption also continues to be far from equitable. The ‘upper class’ of the world — the wealthiest 20% — consume 80% of the resources. Over $1 trillion is spent annually on armaments, but less than 10 per cent of that amount — a mere $80 billion — on official development assistance to the developing parts of the world. Meanwhile, two-fifths of the world’s population lives on less than $2 per day. And 850 million people go to bed hungry every night. These factors appear in different combinations in different countries and regions. In some cases, the local population bears a double burden: the ‘internal’ hardships brought about by poverty, poor governance and repression; and the ‘external’ hardships driven by the unwillingness or inability of the international community to engage fully to help resolve decades-long conflicts. Naturally, a pervading sense of humiliation, injustice and despair exists in these regions. Responses: Sub-National, National and International This post-Cold-War environment has produced a number of responses — at the sub-national and national level — which, in turn, influence the evolving security situation. At the sub-national level, terrorism has planted its footprint on the new landscape. The conditions I have just described have made various countries and regions a fertile breeding ground for recruitment of disaffected youth by extremist groups. Violence perpetrated by such groups has risen to appalling levels, resulting in horrific tragedies from New York to Madrid, Istanbul to Bali. Extremist groups have grown increasingly sophisticated, both in their approach to technology and their ability to carry out complex missions — and have expressed a clear desire to acquire nuclear weapons. At the national level, a number of countries have taken strategic steps towards becoming members of the ‘insider’ club of those relying on nuclear weapons — as a means of reducing their vulnerability or projecting their power. India, Pakistan and Israel have succeeded, while remaining outside the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Other countries, such as North Korea, Iraq and Libya, have made clandestine efforts while being members of the regime, and North Korea seems to have succeeded. Iran continues to assert that its nuclear programme is entirely for peaceful purposes, but the fact that the programme was conducted so long in secret, and particularly that important aspects of it have not been clarified, has created a confidence deficit regarding its nature and its direction. In the face of this changing security landscape and its varied security threats, the response by the international community has been ad hoc. Rather than a systematic collective effort to adapt to new threats and challenges, the actions of both States and multilateral institutions have tended to be uneven and uncoordinated.
Newsfeed