Well-written comment that you have here. 
 
But this is a problem when an article is published in piecemeal where the reader cannot capture the entire thought of the author.  
 
This is one just one segment (Collective Security) of the whole article. For the entire article, I did not detail the procedural and non-procedural matters voting in the UNSC under Yalta Formula where procedural matters needs only 9 votes regardless of the veto of the 5 members unlike non-procedural matters (this involves those matter that requires UNSC duty to impose coercive or preventive measures among others) because the article is about Balance of Power and Collective Security and also between consensus and unilateralism.  
 
The representation in the Big Five is fictional there is no equality it is based on military not economic strength when it was crafted half a century ago. This is the concept first adopted by US Pres Wilson in the League of Nations which collapsed after the WW II. It has been my argument that the world politics is anarchical sharing the view of Thomas Hobbes on this. 
 
The Afghanistan in 2001 is legitimate inasmuch as the Charter of UN as it was legitimized by process of vote and consensus albeit the real intentions of the Great Powers is for there national interests.  
 
There is somehow rule of law meaning the UN Charter prevailed because there was consensus by the UNSC to use coercive power in the Iraq 1991 and Afghanistan 2001. Although I agree to a certain extent your about the real intention of the powers behind Afghanistan. But this piece of statement in my article is just a premise and a progression on the succeeding part of the entire articles which I do not know why it was not publish in whore or in part (indicating that the above article is just part of an article so that readers may be guided.) 
 
Well the entirety of the article is below: 
 
 
Iraq Invasion, Revisited: The Irrelevancy of Security Council and the Emergence of New Balance of Power 
 
A Fragile World  
 
 
 
Contrary to Samuel Huntington’s thesis of clash of civilizations, we did not witness a “clash” between the West and the Muslim word, at least, on the Denmark’s caricatures. At most, it caused outraged in the streets and economic boycott of Danish products. In recent time, we rather witness a “quarrel” within the West, an antagonism between the Coalition of the Wiling led by United States along with United Kingdom, Spanish, Italy, Australia and dozens states, on one hand, against the France-Germany’s informal alliance, on the other hand, during the Iraq Invasion in the early part of 2003. The former espoused war while the latter insisted diplomacy. The opposing coalitions were driven not for the love of peace neither freedom but of their insatiable competing material and strategic gains in Iraq.  
 
Whereas the West was then antipathetical for being protectionist of their opposing national interests, the Arabs and the Muslim World are more disunited by sheer jealousy or hypocrisy or by plain selfishness. The Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Conference, devoid of security component, have not played any major role in recent world affairs. While the 116 countries of the Non-Aligned Nations and the 52 countries in Africa condemned any invasion of Iraq, seven Arab countries—Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Oman—joined the US-led coalition that attacked their neighboring Iraq.  
 
The end of the Cold War and the world’s swift shift to globalization seemingly brought us a sustainable peace. But a closer look of recent events, a contrary conclusion would surface. The United Nations under the system of collective security in the preservation of world peace has became an inutile by sheer inaction. This was shown in US’s unilateral military action in Iraq 2003 where UN had displayed its utmost timidity.  
 
The Bush Doctrine 
 
Two years ago, US’s Pres. George W. Bush described UN as “ineffective and irrelevant debating society” when it became apparent that UN will reach no resolution to take military action in Iraq in the early part of 2003. This declaration is a mere reverberation of Prince Otto Von Bismarck statement in 1862 that “Not by speeches and majority decision will the greatest problem of the time be decided… but by Blood and Iron.”  
 
Pres. Bush’s declaration is not a mere sound bite rather it firmly rests on a declared foreign policy. In September 2002, he declared that “America will implement its strategies by organizing coalitions—as broad as practicable—of states able and willing to promote a balance of power that favors freedom” that can augment permanent institution like the United Nations or North Atlantic Treaty Organizations. This has later became known as the “Bush Doctrine” which is backed by actual force. Thus, despite the strong opposition by France, Germany, China, Russia and substantial numbers of the international community, US with its Coalition of the Willing transgressed the territorial boundary of Iraq by invading it without a UN resolution. 
 
A Tale of Two Traditions 
 
 
Collective security was enshrined in the League of Nations in 1919 upon the insistence of Pres. Wilson after the end of World War I. This system was reaffirmed in the 1946 Charter of the UN which for 60 years had saved the world from the brink of nuclear war in the Cold War era, it also prevented a major war among Great Powers. In abandoning collective security in furtherance of its national interest, the US had returned to Pres. Theodore Roosevelt statecraft of “speak louder and carry a big stick”. 
 
As applied, the Bush Doctrine tends towards “realism” which considered morality and ethics have no place in state’s relations with other states. In his “Politics Among Nations”, Hans Morgenthau, opined that the world order is in an anarchic system where “International Politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power. Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is always the immediate aim” and the pursuit of national interest determines the conduct of the state, it is its “end”. Corollarily, Bismarck’s “realpolitik” which, according to Henry Kissinger, is synonymous to Cardinal Richelieu’s “raison’ de’ etat” is a policy that asserts that national interest of the state justified whatever means were employed to pursue it. Force, therefore, is justified as the “means” to attain state’s national goal.  
 
This is what Pres. Theodore Roosevelt practiced and this is precisely what the Bush Doctrine embraced. In practice, Pres. Roosevelt during his incumbency, the US intervened in Haiti. Likewise, because of US’ interest in building the Panama Canal, it became the architect of Panama’s secession from Colombia. He also authorized the invasion of Cuba.  
 
Conversely, Pres. Roosevelt’s practice of “realpolitik” is contrary Wilson’s advocacy of collective security in which “Power would yield to morality and the force of arms to the dictates of public opinion” as described by Henry Kissinger. While Wilson pushed for a collective security after WW I, in the approach of the new century, Pres. Bush clings to the Wilsonian idealism albeit pursuing a self-imposed messianic obligation to spread liberal democracy around the globe. 
 
The Old Balance of Power 
 
US will “promote a balance of power that favors freedom”, as declared in the Bush Doctrine, is a resuscitation of a system of “balance of power” which is ostensibly similar to the system existing in the 17th, 18th and 19th century in Europe following the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 which ended the Thirty Years of War (1618 to 164. Westphalia had things in motion towards nationalism that ultimately lead to the emergence of nation-states in Europe. These states became protective of their self-interests that eventually caused the decline of the Vatican over the kings of European. The nation-states became the active actors in the world affairs. What followed were formation of alliances among and between nation-states in Europe for self-preservation and to create an equilibrium of forces against a rising a hegemonic neighbor.  
 
In 17th to 18th century alone, UK had organized at least four alliances against France which then was the domineering power in the Continent of Europe. The last one was during the reign of King William of Orange, where the Grand Alliance (UK, Spain, Sweden, Savoy, Saxony, Austria, and The Netherlands) successfully quashed France’s King Louise XIV. This balance of power was reaffirmed in 1814 by the Quadruple Alliance (UK, Prussia, Russia, and Austria) to defeat Napoleon Bonaparte’s advancing armies.  
 
Balance of power is characterized by lack of permanency of alliances since they were formed at moment’s national interest. In the Crimean War in 1852, France and UK were allies against Russia but 30 years before that France was at war with UK, Russia as UK’s ally during Napoleonic Wars in 1814.  
 
In those centuries, series of alliances were formed, thus, creating a balance of power on different occasions and by various states since there were no fixed demarcation of territorial boundaries among states as they constantly shrink or expand through bloody wars. Every state is a prey by the predatory military might of its neighboring states, a Darwinism norms where “survival of the fittest and elimination of the unfit” is the conduct of state’s competing interests. 
 
The New Balance of Power 
 
The system of balance of power was first recognized in the Utrecht Treaty in 1713 that ended the 12-year War on Spanish Succession. Utrecht agreed “To confirm the peace and tranquility of the Christian world to a just equilibrium of power” while the Bush Doctrine put forward “a balance of power that favors freedom.” Almost a century ago, Pres. Wilson expressed his abhorrence to this system declaring that “There must be not a balance of power, but community of power; nor organized rivalries, but an organized common peace”. While the Bush Doctrine’s pretext is to promote democracy; Utrecht was a genuine affirmation of maintaining peace. Peculiarly, Utrecht ended a war while the Bush Doctrine was declared as a prelude to a war (Iraq was invaded by the Coalition of the Willing 6 months after the declaration of the Bush Doctrine). Thus, making incorrect Pres. Franklin Roosevelt prediction 60 years ago when he said that the end of WW II would “end the system of unilateral action, exclusive alliances, the balances of power, and all other expedients that have been tried for centuries—and have failed.” 
 
The only gratuity that can be said of balance of power is that it prevented domination of a single power in Europe (France, UK, Austria, and Russia). At present, however, US does not need balance of power as there is no other state attempting or threatening to dominate the globe. On the contrary, other Great Powers, who are now threatened by US unilateralism, should be the ones organizing alliance to prevent further unilateral acts if we follow the format of history during the 18th and 19th century. 
 
The military alliance of the Coalition of the Willing is a superfluity because US can single handedly take Iraq even without the helping hands of its allies. The only lucid explanation that we could offer on the reason on why US organized a superfluous coalition is that the US’s intent is to make it appear that the Iraq War is a multilateral efforts of various states and to imbibe its military action with degree of legitimacy. That it is supported by 40 countries albeit considerably minority compared to the more than 200 countries of UN. Curiously, however, a study entitled “Coalition of the Willing or Coalition of the Coerced?” released on February 26, 2003 by the Institute of Policy Studies based in Washington has found that the rationale of most of the countries who joined the coalition, including the Philippines, was because of their dependency for US’ protection, economic, developmental and military aids.  
 
In sum, the balance of power mentioned in the Bush Doctrine and as applied in the Iraq Invasion in 2003 is not the balance of power of the Old of Europe. We did not see a conglomeration of opposing powers rather the coalition had been utilized as the “legitimizing entity” that seeks to rival the Security Council. The “new” balance of power is an organized rivalry not of powers but of “legitimacy”.  
 
On the other hand, another conclusion can be had. On the theory submitted by Kenneth K. Waltz in his “Theory of International Politics” (1979) where he wrote that in balance of power the States are regarded as “unitary actors who, at a minimum, seek their preservation and, at a maximum, drive for universal domination.” By relating Waltz’s thesis we could deduced that US’ adoption of balance of power is manifestly not motivated by “self-preservation” but provoked by its “drive for universal domination”.  
 
 
Locke’s “Social Contract” and Hobbes’ “State of Nature” 
 
It is ironical that while “Social Contract” of John Locke is fully accepted by the West as the foundation of democracy where equality and liberty are protected and promoted there is no corresponding “Social Contract” among liberal democratic nations where equality and justice are upheld and compulsory among them.  
 
The UN, thru Security Council, could have been the body to provide teeth to enforce of International Law. The essence of law is that it is “obligatory” and must be “enforced” objectively, impartially and equally in order to attain the justice imbued in the law but which the Security Council is incapable of applying as it is still succumbed to the “rule of might” not to the “rule of law”.  
 
As earlier discussed, Soviet’s subjugation of Afghanistan, US’s invasion of Granada, UK’s invasion of Falklands, Israel’s disregard of numerous Security Council’s Resolutions, among others, had left UN sitting at bay, irrelevant. UN inherent limitation has recently become patent in the light of Iraq Invasion. This is further shown by UN’s irrelevance in the world peace because US, alone, can address international conflict based on its standard, under its terms and always on the basis of its national interest.  
 
If the Security Council is not capable of applying its Charter justly, then there is no rule of law after all as justice is now defined by those who have powers. Consequently, our chaotic world falls within Thomas Hobbes’s description of “state of nature” a situation where “The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no justice. Force, and fraud, are in war the cardinal virtues.” At least Hobbes has recognized that “common power” could temper the misuse and abuse of power. Necessarily, the collapse of “common power” (collective security) vested in the Security Council has put “force and fraud” in the words of Hobbes the “cardinal virtues”. 
 
The US’s Paradox of Idealism and Realism 
 
Wilsonian tradition seeks to pursue two kinds of rule of law: intra-state and inter-states. The first is to promote rule of law within state and, second, to promote rule of law among nations under the system of collective security. Both are in adherence to democratic precepts of representation, consensus, and equality. Both despise anarchy and selfishness as opposed to “realism”. It is ironical that while US objective of spreading democracy is on the belief that democratic states do not wage wars between or among themselves, a paradox lies with the fact that US has put forward a policy of “realism” guided by national interest and which war is the ultimate means to attain it.  
 
We are “one people, one world” and not as “one people, one nation”. US’s universalism and realist tendency to impose its values to the world by force will not give a healthy international relations. Realism which operates in an anarchic system has no place in our relatively peaceful world. This is a good opportunity for US to reaffirm and reassert its leadership under the Wilsonian tradition that “power would yield to morality and the force of arms to the dictates of public opinion”. 
 
Unilateralism is devoid of democratic values of representation, legitimacy, consensus, and rule of majority which are core principles of collective security. After the end of the Cold War, we do not feel a threat of war of great magnitude among nations. In fact 60 years was the longest peace the Europe has ever experienced since the 16th century. It has been instrumental in the maintenance of tranquility in the world but now its efficacy has been receding.  
 
There exist threats to humankind. The global warming will decay our environment, terrorism and pandemic brought us terrible fears, poverty that kills millions, among others, are issues that requires strong cooperation among the community of nations. Unilateralism is a system that splits the spirit of cooperation.  
 
Unfortunately, this is not the case, at least, at present.  
 
 
 
 
[B]A Fragile World[/B]