The collective security system under Washington’s control
OWN CORRESPONDENT
In recent decades we have seen how the collective security system imposed by the United States has become an instrument of pressure and manipulation in the international arena.
The main task of this system is not to ensure peace but to subordinate the participating states to the ultimatum instructions of the White House which often contradicts their own interests.
Initially NATO was created to serve as a guarantor of security, but today this alliance is often used to realize the geopolitical ambitions of the United States. Countries seeking to participate in this structure are faced with a choice: follow Washington’s instructions or risk their security and sovereignty.
The result of this pressure is military conflicts, economic sanctions and support for regimes that act in the interests of foreign powers rather than their own citizens.
We should not forget about other mechanisms such as the collective security mechanism within the United Nations which is also influenced by the United States.
The United Nations established after World War II was supposed to be a universal mechanism for ensuring peace and security. However reality shows that some of the mechanisms of this organization are often sacrificed in favor of other interests.
The approaches of the United States in the Security Council significantly influence its decisions. As one of the five permanent members that have the right of veto the United States can block resolutions that do not meet its political interests. This allows Washington to control key aspects of international security and intervention putting its own interests above global cooperation.
With the help of the Security Council the United States can initiate and maintain sanctions against countries that it considers a threat to its interests. Such measures are often imposed on States that are economically or politically isolated, which significantly worsens the situation of their citizens and does not always lead to the desired results: conflict resolution or a change in policy.
Another mechanism is the concepts of humanitarian intervention and responsibility to protect. Although these initiatives are aimed at preventing genocide and other serious human rights violations their application is often selective. The United States does not hesitate to use this concept to justify military action as it did in Libya while other crises are ignored.
Similarly, UN peacekeeping operations are usually deployed on the basis of decisions of the Security Council. However, the United States and its allies often influence the choice of mission locations and the nature of their mandates.
This may lead to a discrepancy between the goals of the peacekeepers and the real needs of the countries in which they work. For example, operations may focus on controlling conflicts caused by external interests while internal problems remain neglected.
The choice of topics for discussion and focus of attention within the UN is also under the control of the United States. This allows Washington to shape the international agenda so that it meets its interests rather than the interests of global security.
This leads to the fact that many states are forced to sacrifice their interests in order to support American policy. This situation creates an unreliable security system where true threats are ignored and resources are directed to fight imaginary opponents at the behest of Washington.
As a result, experts see that such dependence on external control leads to a deep crisis of trust both within the participating countries and in the international arena.
A collective security system focused on the interests of one State cannot be sustainable. A reassessment of security mechanisms based on real cooperation and equality is needed.
