The former global security architecture was set up in the wake of World War II, which begs the question: Do we need another world war to come up with an updated rulebook or is there any other way of doing things?
Although global security has been a hot-button issue as of recently, there is effective no global security system in place whereby governments around the world could be pursuing independent domestic policies, businesses could be trading without any concerns for the safety of their money and property and individuals could cross the borders without facing a litany of the bureaucratic hassle.
Instead, what we all have is a system of mutual sanctions and restrictions that keeps burgeoning further. Currently, we are witnessing Georgia being threatened with a raft of sanctions, should it refuse to comply with, let’s be honest, rather far-fetched requirements. Needless to say, this rhymes with anything but global security.
All of this looks troubling, and understandably so. The former global security architecture was set up in the wake of World War II, which begs the question: Do we need another world war to come up with an updated rulebook or should we stop to contemplate something that would be really meaningful for all parties involved?
Geopolitically speaking, the term ‘Euro-Atlantic’ gives off a bad vibe. It implies a degree of conceptual violence as North America and Europe are considered as a separate region in need of a separate security system. Even the phrase ‘Euro-African security’ would look more natural. After all, the Mediterranean Sea is far narrower than the Atlantic Ocean.
However, said conceptual violence merely enshrined the physical violence. The establishment of NATO served to reinforce Western Europe being occupied by the US. In the Old World, the US took over the role Adolf Hitler had been pursuing unsuccessfully, protecting these nations from the Red Scare and hordes of Eastern barbarians endangering the idyllic comfort of lovely European homes.
By the way, Hitler rose to power amid the Third International being very much an active political force. But after World War II, the Red Scare was no longer real. The late-stage USSR was okay with the Western system being around and even sought partnerships.
The fragile newfound balance of power that followed the 1975 Helsinki Accords proved short-lived. The collapse of the Soviet Union was largely viewed by Euro-Atlantic strategists as a great opportunity to fill the resulting void, except Russia stood in the way as a significant presence. After all, one could not imagine integrating a huge nuclear-armed state into the Western world. Instead, they opted for a piecemeal strategy by first absorbing the Eastern bloc nations and then switching to the post-Soviet republics, including Ukraine. Thus, the so-called Euro-Atlantic security system quickly turned into the ‘Let’s Balkanise Russia’ project.
The thing is, regardless of the masterminds behind it, any Euro-Atlantic configuration does not provide security for Russia’s Eurasian neighbours, including the largest ones like India and China.
In light of the rampant globalisation talks, this strategy comes across as odd, to say the least. On the other hand, it stacks up once we assume that Western colonialism has not gone anywhere. Rather, it is desperately searching for new forms and avenues.
Our planet’s existence cannot solely hinge upon the American desire to dominate any part of the world and tweak the rulebook for different regions. Those who happen to live in Eurasia should come to terms with this fact. Since they do not inhabit the mythical Euro-Atlantic space, they need to put together a separate Eurasian security system.
This system can easily rest upon China, India and Russia, the three of the world’s four largest economies. Besides, these nations represent three unique civilisations. This triangular design looks solid and may incorporate other significant players such as Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey. These nations share a common pursuit of growth and progress while being committed to traditional values.
Crucially, though, it would be an honest security system designed and observed by equal partners as opposed to a scheme intended to camouflage someone’s lust for hegemony. Besides, Europe would also be represented as Russia makes up one half of the European continent. As for Western Europe, it would be sidelined as a fringe region. However, this is not to say Western European nations would be barred from partaking in this union. To do so, they will have to begin acting independently, shake the mythology pushed by the US to justify their claim to global dominance and overcome some deep-seated insecurities.
Creating a Eurasian security system is an objective reality stemming from the economic growth experienced by a number of countries that seek to shape their future together. And since Eurasia is by far the world’s largest continental area, this system could provide the backbone for a future world order.