Collective Security

War, children
It's just a shot away
It's just a shot away
--The Rolling Stones

Whenever a 'crisis' comes along, it is tempting to assume that this time is different--that we're at a unique point in history never before contemplated. With a little digging, however, one finds that this is rarely the case.

Murray Rothbard provides useful historical context (penned in 1982) for the present Ukraine situation, particularly as it relates to the notion of 'collective security' and interventionism. Collective security is the philosophy upon which the United Nations and NATO were founded. Each nation state is viewed as an 'individual.' When one state 'aggresses against' an individual state, then it is the duty of the collective to punish the 'aggressor.' No declaration of war is necessary because the collective response is a 'police action.' All nations in the collective, including their media organs, are expected to fall in line.

The left warmly embraced the collective security concept--so much so that they were ardent supporters of US entry into the Korean and Vietnam wars. 

Opposition to war was instead a characteristic of the 'old right.' From the 1930s to the 1950s, the old right was regarded as 'isolationist,' objecting American entry into WWII, the Marshall Plan, NATO, conscription of troops, and Korea. Among the politicians in this group were Robert Taft and Howard Buffett (Warren's dad). Garet Garrett and John T. Flynn were among the author/analysts.

The old right isolationists saw grave flaws in the collective security concept. One was that, in reality, there is no single world government or police force. Instead, there are hundreds of nation states, each with their own war-making capacity. In some cases, this capacity is quite formidable. Consequently, when gangs of states wade into a conflict, they invariably widen it. Every controversy invites the gang to decide who is the 'aggressor,' and then attach to the side considered virtuous.

It stands to reason, then, that collective security systems have the potential to turn local squabbles into global conflagrations.

Another problem with the collective security notion is that it can be difficult if not impossible to accurately identify the uniquely guilty parties in conflicts between states. Although the property rights of individuals make actions by an aggressor relatively easy to finger, the legitimate boundary lines of each state are more difficult to discern. This is because state borders are rarely demarcated by just and proper means. Instead, states generally exist through coercion over citizens and subjects; state boundaries are invariably determined by conquest and violence. 

Consequently, by condemning one state for crossing the borders of another, collective security systems implicitly recognize the validity of existing boundaries. Why should boundaries of a state be any more legitimate now than they were one hundred years ago? Why should borders be enshrined such that crossing them leads all members of the security collective to wage war, and to force their citizens to kill and die?

It is straightforward to apply the limitations of collective security to the Ukraine situation. Indeed, one can find both of the above problems raised by Vladimir Putin in his address explaining the rationale behind his country's action in Ukraine.

Once again, it seems that we have failed to learn from history.