We Need Collective Security

Nations have been invading and conquering other nations (or trying to conquer them), since antiquity. History is replete with examples, like WWI and WWII to name the big ones. But those wars changed something: nations joined other nations to fight the aggressor. Desert Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, are all coalitions that worked and are modern day examples. By extension, U.N. Peacekeeping Forces, although seemingly ineffective at present in stopping wars, have the seeds of an ideal protective force, and will certainly become one in the future.

The concept is sound and workable. Many countries' forces combining to put down the aggressor. It's called "collective security."

And that's what mankind and decent countries need, an international protective force and collective security. The U.N. is the ideal model for this force, because their "soldiers," and "advisors," who come from different countries "on loan," all don the U.N. uniform when deployed. According to their own current world map, they are currently deployed in sixteen hotspots. Like Sudan, Darfur, and Lebanon. Also Haiti, Western Africa and Timor-Leste. They range from 11 peacekeepers in Zimbabwe, to 8,425 in Pakistan.

You can find out more at https://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/

These peacekeeping forces can't currently be 100% effective because the U.N. member states restrict their operations both politically and physically. This is collective security in principal, but not in practice. It will never be effective as presently constituted.

In the mid 1800's, the Persian Prophet and Messenger of God, Baha'u'llah, made startling pronouncements about the concept of world unity which mankind is desperately seeking today. Baha'u'llah's son, 'Abdu'l-Baha, said in 1912, "About fifty years ago in the Book of Aqdas, Bahá’u’lláh commanded people to establish universal peace and summoned all the nations to the divine banquet of international arbitration, so that the questions of boundaries, of national honor and property, and of vital interests between nations might be settled by an arbitral court of justice, and that no nation would dare to refuse to abide by the decisions thus arrived at."

So the first step to world peace, is international arbitration. We are well on our way there, what with our many ambassadors, the International Criminal Court, people like Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State, and also Kofi Annan (U.N. General Secretary, 1997-2006),  and his recent trips to Syria to broker a peace (which did not succeed).

The second related step is a formal International Court to adjudicate disputes between nations. 

This second step will certainly insure world peace between invading armies and peaceful countries.   'Abdu'l-Baha, in Paris in 1911, spoke more on this theme, "If any quarrel between two nations should arise, it must be adjudicated by this international court and be arbitrated and decided upon like the judgment rendered by the Judge between two individuals." In other words, words are to be used before force when possible. In the Baha'i Faith we call this great principle of arriving at the truth of the matter objectively, consultation.

It should be obvious to any unbiased reader, that if the countries of Europe had followed this and other advice in 1911, it may have avoided the gore and death of WWI.

The third step is what is critical to success: "If at any time any nation dares to break such a decision, all the other nations  must arise to put down this rebellion." If a leader, or a country's military generals etc., know that any invasion will quickly and harshly be put down, it will become, in itself, an effective deterrent to such invasions. This is meaningful collective security. This concept was useful during the 1950's Cold War.

In other words, as in any policy, enforcement has to be a part of it, or it cannot be effective. Baha'u'llah called this the two pillars of human society: "Reward and Punishment." Remain peaceful, and your people will be rewarded; become aggressive, and you (the perpetrator), will be punished. This is one of mankind's simplest laws to understand, from parent and child, to educator and student, to citizen and government.

Is there anything in these statements that doesn't make sense? Let me know what you think.