How to Prevent World War III

Nation states have been warring against each other for as long as they have been in existence. As weapons and transportation have become more advanced, wars have become larger and more devastating. We have yet to have a large conflict in the nuclear age, but it will come. The time has arrived to set up a structure to deal with this eventuality.

Collective security--an arrangement that punishes aggression against a sovereign state by unified action of member states, either in the form of sanctions or military measures--represents that chance.

At its best this kind of arrangement can function much like the U.N. coalition against Iraq did, with individual nations uniting to cut off the aggressor and forcing the return of captured land. Unlike the gulf coalition, however, real collective security will work even when there is no oil in sight--it works to cut off aggression early, before it can grow into a wider conflict.

There are few periods in history when the world has been stable enough for a serious attempt at collective security. Rivalries and instability usually conspire to destroy the motivation and trust necessary.

We are living in one of those rare times when collective security is possible because the world is a relatively stable place right now. All the "great powers" are at peace and seem to have accepted that war is not in their interest for the time being. The United States is the undisputed military power in the world, and there seems to be little competition for that role.

But security never lasts. Beneath the surface stability lie fierce passions and unrest that could explode and return the world to the tense place it has been for the last 45 years. Internal changes in Russia or China could jerk the world back into turmoil overnight. Situations in other areas, such as Yugoslavia, could more slowly drag nearby countries into war.

People who think peace has broken out for good haven't read their history. We will surely face another period of world instability and a collective security plan administered through the United Nations offers the chance to control future conflicts when they break out.

The United States would have to play a major part in any world coalition. We are the world's remaining superpower and the only country that has the power and influence to marshal the forces necessary for an attempt at real collective security. The U.S. must take the lead, or else another chance to fundamentally change the world for the better will slide by.

Unfortunately, President-elect Bill Clinton is giving signs that he is not up to the task. His campaign focused almost solely on the economy, an understandable move considering the interests of the American people this year. Yet, so far his transition team also seems to be concentrating almost exclusively on the economy. This narrow focus must broaden when Gov. Bill Clinton assumes the presidency. Clinton must have the foresight to look up from his immediate needs to improve the economy, and see the opportunity that is dancing on the horizon, because it may not be there for long.

The obvious mechanism for establishing collective security, should our leaders make the effort, is the United Nations. Unfortunately, after years of neglect the U.N. has degenerated into a body whose inefficiency and waste makes Congress look parsimonious. Fraud and abuse seem to grow on whatever the U.N. touches.

Even more problematic is the wide rift between the industrialized and the developing nations. This dispute had been lurking under the more visible East-West division. With the end of the Cold War, it has emerged as the biggest single problem facing the U.N.

Therefore, before collective security can work, the U.N. must work. The U.S. and other western powers need to agree to a restructuring of the Security Council to give smaller nations a louder voice. The world has changed too much to pretend that five permanent members are adequate.

Third world countries, for their part, cannot view the U.N. as only a glorified relief agency, but rather as a cooperative body that requires give and take. Arranging a compromise agreement on U.N. restructuring will require diplomatic efforts that will dwarf Jim Baker's Middle Eastern diplomacy.

But we must start somewhere. Previous attempts at collective security failed because world events got out of control before an effective structure could be arranged. Since we can not know when the next major destabilization will occur, moving quickly to set up collective security through the U.N. makes sense. For once let's be ahead of history.

Many pundits still view collective security as nothing but a fantasy. They see no long-term alternative to the current world system. It should be remembered though, that not too long ago democracy was considered a fantasy. Now it is the accepted form of government through out the world, and the number of countries actually practicing it is increasing each year. The skeptics have been proven wrong before, and they can be again.

Every once in a while humanity gets the opportunity to radically improve its situation. So far these chances have been missed, sometimes because of ignorance, sometimes because of bad lack. After nearly 100 years though, the chance has come again. Let us not miss this one.