Collective security movements, organizations, and agencies turn a deaf ear to the pain and plight of mass-murder and ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya Muslims in Burma. Collective security forces are not even doing anything to provide for the displaced Rohingya Muslims in any possible way, what to talk of taking measures to discourage or deter their displacement from the Buddhist majority in Myanmar.
The author says that collective security does not recognize any inveterate enemies or traditional friendships. Collective security also does not allow for any alliances with or against any state. An alliance for collective security purpose proves superfluous as all states are committed to other states’ defense. The importance of confidence for success of collective security system cannot be overemphasized. “Collective security cannot work unless the policies of states are inspired by confidence in the system” (216). The satisfaction of basic conditions that the author has mentioned for the collective security namely the power, legal, and organizational situation cannot be achieved. First of all, it is not possible for all states to command nearly equal resources or for several great powers of nearly same strength to exist. Secondly, in the real world, it is not possible to have substantial universality of membership for collective security.
The author argues that collective security is a plan for unprecedently organizing international police action rather than organizing coalition warfare like it was done in the 20th century. The purpose of collective security is to eliminate international brawls rather than sponsoring the winning team. “It purports to require of participating states not that they should consent to compulsory involvement in major wars, but that they should accept obligatory service in a system for preventing major wars” (218). The author establishes as an essential the existence of such a massive power of the police force for the