11.07.2019 in Exploratory

A Singular Global Security Network


In recent times, the issue of terrorism has become one of the most debated and is surrounded with mysteries and misunderstandings. Moreover, terroristic attacks are terrifying the entire population of the Earth by appearing on the screens of mobiles and TVs almost every day. It has a detrimental impact on ordinary lives and sets everything on fire for undiscovered reasons. Experts assert that severity and aggression among terrorists have risen over the course of the few years and nowadays it is high time to develop new strategies to start fighting this global threat to the humanity. The effects of terrorism are disastrous and it could be easily traced on the example of recent events that have occurred in France. One of the ways that are suggested for fighting terrorism provides for the establishment of a singular collective security network that would detect terroristic actions and prevent them on the global level in the way the CIA nowadays performs it within the USA. This paper will specifically focus on the causes of terrorism and determine whether this tool would be effective in addressing this global challenge. Additionally, it would determine who might benefit from such network in case of its creation and what prototypes of it exist, as well as key drawbacks associated with such model.

The Reasons of Terrorism

In order to conclude whether the means of collective security systems are appropriate for fighting and ending the war on terrorism, it is important first to understand what the roots of terrorism are and why these actions occur in the XXI century and could not be resolved in the diplomatic way.
The most inherent issue in this regard is the recent history of terroristic attacks on Paris. The reasons for choosing France are still a matter of debate. There were certain threats, yet no one took them seriously. However, in order to understand the features of terrorism, one needs to consider details of this case study.
For the record, Islamic terrorists attacked Paris residents in many locations and killed at least 129 people during one night only. The terrorists used bombs and guns to hit their victims. The Islamic State proclaimed Paris to be the ‘capital of the prostitution and vice’ and then took the responsibility for the attack. Additionally, the representatives of the ISIL claimed that all the countries that would follow the path of France were on the target lists of the ISIL. Experts state that France has been chosen as a site for the attack in order to cease strikes in Syria. In other words, it has been a direct message sent to the French officials that in case they go on with bombing of ISIL positions in Syria, the ISIL will continue attacking civil residents of France.
From another point of view, it should be stated that the primary enemy of the ISIL state is the USA. On the contrary to France, the country has established the strictest procedures that indeed work out and prevent terrorists from penetrating into the state. In any case, it is harder for them to launch an attack on the USA. At the same time, the ISIL realizes that the international politics is extremely interconnected and the Western world is nowadays acting as the whole. Therefore, the launch of the attack on one of the elements would immediately cause reactions of others.
France is inhabited by different kinds of immigrants and all of them frequently live in the suburbs of the city. A rapid increase in their quantity is indeed quite surprising and testifies once more about France’s negligent policy in regards to the integration of newcomers and discrimination issues. Tensions with the Muslim community are longstanding in the French capital and today they are viewed as a possible cause for attacks as well.
The causes of terrorism are well articulated in case of France. However, not all of them are mentioned. The enthrone-nationalistic aspirations might also be regarded as stimulators of terroristic actions. This cause applies to the population that is willing to break away from the ruling country or the government and establishes its own state. The XX century is full of such examples. Bruce Hoffman in his “Inside Terrorism” notes that the enthrone-nationalistic terrorism was inherent for the European continent long before the First World War started. Campos and Gassebner state that the present-day Hamas is one of the most active ethno-nationalist groups that aim to gain independence and cease the forms of dependence on other countries. It frequently carries out suicide bombings on the state of Israel, attempting to create the Palestinian state. Chechen terrorist organizations are threatening the peace in the Russian Federation by frequent attacks on the civilian population. Due to the globalization and disintegration processes, more nations and groups would wage the war on independence and turn to use violence and terrorism as the means of reaching their goals.
Alienation and discrimination serve as other reasons causing terrorism all over the world. Often, diasporas and minority groups face discrimination or unequal treatment in countries of their residence and it, of course, makes them respond to such treatment. These immigrants usually move from poor countries to Europe, seeking increased life standards and safety. Frequently, they come from Muslim countries and establish Muslim ghettoes in places of their residence. As a result, these ghettoes might then be used for the organization of terroristic attacks, for recruiting of new members from the inside, etc. Growing sentiments of discrimination might even lead these groups to more fundamentalist  and extremist ideologies. Therefore, terroristic attacks will continue and even increase in number in case discrimination policies remain unrevised.
Religion, however, is considered to be the most urgent and common reason for terrorism all over the globe. Fundamentalists that launch attacks on the European and American states always claim that they have been performed in the name of Allah. Religion is viewed as a key reason for conflicts in the book “The Clash of Civilizations” written by Samuel Huntington. In the book, he claims that religion would serve as the factor that would differentiate civilizations and play the role of a reason for conflicts at points where civilizations will clash. As a driver of terrorism, the true danger of religion lies in the fact that it encourages the most severe and bloody attacks. It promises rewards in the afterlife and people blinded by it are ready to destroy everything and everyone in the name of God they believe in.
There are also other motivators for turning to the use of terroristic attacks as the means for the conflicts resolution. One of them is the socio-economic status of states that are not located within the European continent. Globalization raises everyone’s awareness of opportunities that exist beyond the country and it, of course, cultivates the feelings of hate and jealousy towards more developed states. Unfortunately, to address this challenge, the international community has to foster economic development of less fortunate countries and encourage investment in emerging markets. Political grievances as well as zones of influence are still not in the past. The terroristic attacks launched on France support this thesis. The ISIL attacked French citizens in order to prevent its involvement in the conflicts in Syria. The ISIL still tries to exercise its influence over these territories and is ready to wage war to preserve the status quo. The same applies to the Russian Federation that nowadays finances terrorism in Ukraine and recognizes existence and legitimacy of illegal creations on the Ukrainian territory. In such a way, the Russian Federation attempts to retain influence over the Ukrainian territory and prevent the spread of the ideas of American democracy and European values.
To conclude, there are many reasons that serve as motivators for the advance of terroristic attacks and states should elaborate the system that would be capable of fighting all these challenges simultaneously to ensure a comprehensive approach to dealing with the situation.

The Establishment of the Singular Global Security Network

Collective security as a system includes a number of states that commit to be involved in collective efforts on behalf of each other’s security. Chaturvedi identifies collective security system as the arrangement at which countries arrive in order to protect their vital interests, integrity, or safety against the threat over a certain period of time by applying the means of collective powers. He also refers to collective security, defining it as the ideal state of affairs that prevents hostilities through the formation of a powerful military force used to deter aggression.
Definitions provided above let one arrive at certain conclusions. First of all, the singular collective security network, if formed, would involve several states, as many as possible, which would grant some extent of their sovereignty for the sake of the preservation of peace within a certain area over a determined period of time. These states would, however, share the vital interest in preserving peace and would use tools of the collective security system that would prevent terrorism and maintain peace. This network could also be considered as a plan for preserving peace through the organization of sovereign states.
In order to be effective, such collective security network should be capable of coping with aggression coming from an outside power or combination of powers. The collective system should include willingness to apply international sanctions and even go to war if necessary. The collective security system, therefore, would not work out in case states are not prepared to employ sanctions against terrorists, their organizations, and groups and to fight with them. Finally, the network should be open to states that are willing to accept responsibilities regarding security and association with the network should be based on the good faith of the applicant only.
Creation of the singular global security network could be considered as a temporary method for addressing threats associated with the international terrorism. The network could be established by following the formula for respectful international organizations such as the NATO, the OPEC, or the UN. At the same time, the network should have its own particularities attributive to the goal it has to reach.
The key benefits of such a network include the following ones. First of all, the collective security system is created to address the issue of terrorism more systematically and comprehensively. There is no doubt that almost each country has been involved in terrorism-related activities and some of them have been victims of terroristic attacks. Therefore, each country has established the strategy for dealing with these issues; almost all countries have provided legal measures that establish severe responsibility for collaborative efforts facilitating terrorism and for other terrorism-related activities. Therefore, this system would provide them all with the opportunity to share their experience and synergize the ideas they have. Moreover, the collective approach towards the shared problem would be more systematic and influential. For example, economic sanctions that are nowadays executed by all states belonging to the European Union against the Russian Federation have significantly lowered its economic potential. The country is in crisis and such unfavorable economic conditions might prevent the country from financing terrorists in Ukraine and other countries that belong to the zone of Russian influence.

The Overview of the Central Intelligence Agency as the Prototype of the Singular Global Security Network

The Central Intelligence Agency that was established in the United States over 60 years ago has served the purpose of providing American policymakers with the intelligence they need to make informed decisions. The agency is the successor of the Office of Strategic Services that collected, analyzed, and provided information on wartime actions and carried out counterintelligence operations. However, after the Second World War the OSS was shut down and the USA found it necessary to establish a new agency that would perform similar duties.
Nonetheless, the role of the CIA has not evolved. Its primary obligation is to supply country leaders with information that is critical for the existence of the American nation and the USA. It has four directorates: the National Clandestine Service, the Directorate of Intelligence, the Directorate of Science & Technology, and the Directorate of Support. Experts that are employed by this agency have expertise in all subjects, ranging from chemistry to computer science, mechanical theory, and nanotechnology.
As could be noted from the overview, the agency itself does not make decisions. In fact, it has no influence over policies in the USA. Appropriate agencies and people who are responsible for certain areas make decisions. However, in order to be effective, the singular global security network should have capacities and powers to pass decisions that would provide for concrete steps that would prevent terrorism and attempt to deteriorate the impact and effects of reasons that cause terrorism globally. Only in such a case the network would be effective. Currently, all information has already been gathered, yet it has been gathered by different agencies in different countries so that there is no connection between them and the response to terrorism is rather weak.
The current Director of the Central Intelligence Agency asserts that the war on terrorism will never end. In fact, recently he has had a press conference where he openly expressed his opinions on the terror in the USA and stressed that the America’s sons and daughters would continue to die under the ill-conceived foreign policy that is currently implemented by the USA. In fact, it means that the CIA is incapable of solving the problem of terrorism without proper actions and policies of respective ministries. This proves that the response to the terrorism should be comprehensive and that it should not always involve military actions and the use of violence. More should be done out of battlefields and terroristic zones. Additionally, the Director stressed the importance of collaborative efforts of all agencies, including the military, homeland security, diplomacy, law enforcement, etc. He mentioned, however, that the USA agencies, services, etc. are quite well-engaged in the war on terrorism. Otherwise, they would face a horrendous environment.

Key Beneficiaries of the Singular Global Security Network

The issue under consideration is rather complicated and is debated in scientific circles. On the one hand, creation of the international system that would systematically fight with terrorism is a demand of time. Indeed, the number of terroristic attacks has increased significantly over the last few years. Moreover, fundamentalist views and doctrines have risen like a phoenix and today represent a threat for the entire international community. The attacks have also become bloodier. They are exact and sudden, thus being difficult to foresee and prevent. Hence, it seems that the entire world community would benefit from the establishment of the organization that would prevent terroristic attacks and clean the Earth from human-haters.
On the other hand, some scholars and experts in the field of international law raise certain concerns as to the influence and role of all members in activities of the network. For example, Ebegbulem notes that some of the biggest states that have power and resources might assume the power, become arrogant, and disregard attacks made on small countries. Additionally, some of them might seek revenge through the use of shared tools and resources. Such a behavior would be non-favorable for the rest of states. Due to the fact that now there are several organizations that are fighting against the terrorism, it is more beneficial to use the example of the UN. The UN has been established to ensure peace and security in the world. Some privileges have been assigned to superpowers that comprised the Security Council. The United States and Great Britain have arbitrarily used their powers and invaded Iraq.
Eke claims that members of the regional organization usually demonstrate more concern to other regional organizations than to the international ones. Reflecting on the UN experience, members of regional collective security systems frequently refuse to implement and follow decisions of the UN and, instead, prefer policies of regional organizations. Butler notes that at times  when decisions on Iraq were passed by the Security Council, the regime of collective security was extremely abused and bypassed by the USA and Great Britain.
In any case, one should recognize that power and influence in the world are not equally distributed among countries and that some countries that are richer, more powerful, and more influential would still affect others. However, existence of the similar organization would help to unite efforts of all states-members and facilitate international cooperation in the field of fighting with terrorism.

Drawbacks of the Singular Global Security Network

In order to approach the issue comprehensively, it is important to discuss possible drawbacks associated with the creation of the singular global security network. Furthermore, reflecting on the significance of these factors, it is important to consider whether it is an effective tool for fighting terrorism and whether it has chances to end the war on terrorism.
First of all, it should be stressed that collective global security systems do not emerge overnight. Usually, it takes years to establish the organization and rules for its operations. However, these steps might be accelerated as a result of a global catastrophe or a disastrous event caused by human beings, which would draw attention of the entire world and would urge politicians to reconsider the way they approach terrorism. Nevertheless, on average, it much time long to create the singular global security network as in such a way countries will realize their international capacity and by doing that they frequently pursue their own interests.
Therefore, the first challenge in establishing the organization would be involvement of states that show low interest in the security issue. Despite the fact that every country nowadays realizes the extent of interconnectedness and interdependence, still some of them decide to preserve their status quo and do not engage in any kind of international unions. It is important to understand undercurrents of such behaviors. For example, certain countries that are influenced by more powerful nations might not join the security network being afraid of reactions of the state they actually depend on and that does not support this idea. In general, it seems that terrorism is a global challenge and it has been born by humans. Therefore, humans have to agree on the eternal peace. However, there have been so many grievances in the history of the humanity that such approach turns out to be ineffective. Therefore, the international community should be more proactive in this direction and launch powerful attacks on terrorism from all possible fronts. Keeping this in mind, in order to fight terrorism, the singular global security network as an organization should involve as many members as possible on different terms and with different levels of integration. At the same time, response to terrorism should be united.
Another drawback is connected with the previous one. States usually do not regard themselves as members of international communities that share the same interests, values, vision and that respect rights of one another. Instead, they act independently and pursue their own interests in dealing with the rest of the world. In fact, small Slovenia is indifferent to wars in Syria or conflicts in the Balkans. It might be concerned about the conflict and terroristic attacks in Ukraine, yet more vital interests and issues of the Slovenian international affairs usually overshadow it. International unions, collective security organizations, and systems usually share one drawback in the form of one suggestion. Indicating it, Dyke noted that “they wanted states to abandon narrow conceptions of self interest as a guide to policy and to regard themselves as units in a world society having an interest in preserving law and order everywhere.” This statement actually reveals the biggest problem and challenge within the singular global security system, which is the lack of motivation to support actions that do not directly affect certain countries. One can suggest that countries might commit themselves to protect certain values and engage in certain operations; however, the principle that members of a certain collective security system or organization do not really always follow is ‘one for all and all for one’. This disunity can actually undermine effectiveness of the organization and question the necessity of its existence. The thing is that the international community is overwhelmed with different kinds of organizations that aim to foster international cooperation in certain areas.
The next challenge that is associated with the creation of the singular global security network against terrorism is the volume of risks taken. Governments of nation-states usually address risks through the means of law enforcement. In most cases, it is rather effective and worth the efforts. Additionally, citizens of the nation are usually tied by certain values. They know the way and obey rules that are set by the state. There are different mechanisms that force people to observe laws and policies. However, in case of international organizations and creations the law enforcement occurs at a very different scale and, thus, risks are greater. It is rather easy for a state with all its resources and power to influence one individual. However, at the international arena things are more complicated and here the collective security network might oppose the entire state, coalition of states, or organizations that are more threatening than all other states combined. Development of nuclear weapons and uncontrolled production and distribution of ordinary weapons make things even more complicated. Founders of the singular global security network should realize that certain states whose interests are threatened by terrorists might neglect the fear and face the challenge with proud defiance and they would not surrender to states whose vital interest is to preserve the status quo. Therefore, the issue of the implementation of decisions passed by the states within the collective security networks is still debated and the way to do that has to be found by the international community.
Perhaps, the best way out for this situation is to establish regional collective security systems, members of which would be more interested in the resolution of conflicts within a certain area. Such resolution would not take long as all parties would have the vital interest in removing the factor that scares investors and shatters positions of the states. On the basis of the regional collective security system, there might appear the global one. Such a synergy might be more beneficial in terms of efficiency and overall effect. Samuel Huntington in his “Clash of Civilizations” suggested that core states of existing civilizations should accept the role of the peacekeeper within certain regions. Therefore, based on that, the singular global collective network might consist of three layers: the core state, the regional collective security network, and the global one. In such a case, the network would be more corresponding to the realities of the modern world and meet recommendations of experts in the field of international law.
The singular global security network also provides for the unification of all efforts of all states and actually leaves no room for operations of similar organizations. This attempt might be viewed as the aspiration to assume control over terrorism and hold it in one hand only. Existence of alternatives might create competition in this area, which might be beneficial for third parties as well. Alternatives are important for keeping the balance and developing new tools for fighting with the international terrorism. Therefore, even in case such an organization emerges, it should not accept the responsibility and occupy the post of the protector of everyone from all terrorists. Instead, it should foster development of similar movements in order to strengthen its positions in general.
There are significant concerns as to the capability of one international network to fight terrorism existing all over the world. Currently available organizations usually focus on the identification of terroristic threats and their prevention. In general, their achievements are rather important. However, the international organization should approach terrorism comprehensively. Therefore, current methods and tools that are used today could not be used in case of the international network. The newly emerging network should consider all the ways that are possible and available to fight terrorism. Thus, at first, it should check the reasons for terrorism that are the most crucial nowadays and consider ways for their addressing. It should be stressed that military operations of the new network should represent only a part of its activities. Instead, the majority of them should be dedicated to solving of such problems as discrimination of minority groups and immigrants; removal of conflicts arising from religious differences; prevention of the spread of fundamentalist Muslim religious streams; balancing of powers in the entire world, etc. In other words, non-violent methods should be primary in dealing with terrorism. The matter is that even if a terroristic attack is prevented or deteriorated, the primary cause that has forced the person to commit these actions does not disappear. States should realize these challenges and adjust the global security networks to the current state of affairs.
Summing it all up, there are many drawbacks of the singular global security network. Overall, it involves the incapability of states to exercise their international capacity in the full scope due to the influence of more powerful states; interests of countries that prevent them from getting involved in the direct fight with terrorism due to the fear of revenge; incomprehensiveness of the approach towards the solution of the problem of terrorism that is practiced nowadays; challenges associated with enforcement of decisions by states-members of the network, etc.


It should be stressed that there are many roots of terrorism. Extremists can be motivated by rewards in the afterlife; hate and grievances acquired as a result of unequal treatment in one of the states; willingness to preserve status quo, etc. All of them need to be addressed to end the war on terrorism. The singular collective security network that would share information regarding terroristic attacks could be defined as a system, which involves nation-states that have committed themselves to preserving peace within a certain region over a certain period of time through the means of collective security. As a system that only collects and distributes information, the network would be rather inefficient as it should be combined with comprehensive efforts that would involve revision of foreign policies of states, discrimination policies, use of the diplomacy tools, etc. At the same time, it should be noted that many countries could benefit from the establishment of such a system despite the fact that powerful nations would most probably abuse collective security tools and powers. Possible drawbacks that can deteriorate effectiveness of the system include unwillingness of states to intervene into terrorism issues; incomprehensiveness in dealing with the situation; and inability to end the war of terrorism and eradicate its roots. However, the system would definitely have a certain effect on the international terrorism, which is why future scientific investigations on this issue are welcome.

Related essays