In an era defined by global interdependence, the idea that any one nation can secure peace in isolation is increasingly untenable. Collaborative security, a framework where nations work together to prevent conflict and maintain stability, offers a path forward. It is not a theoretical ideal; it has been tested in practice, with varying degrees of success, in alliances like NATO, regional coalitions in Africa, and coordinated UN peacekeeping missions.
NATO remains one of the most studied examples of collaborative security. Formed in the aftermath of World War II, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization originally focused on countering the Soviet threat. However, its post-Cold War evolution into a security apparatus dealing with crises beyond Europe—such as in Afghanistan, Libya, and the Balkans—highlights its adaptability. While NATO’s intervention in Afghanistan has been critiqued for its long duration and mixed results, the alliance’s operation in Kosovo is often cited as a more successful case. In 1999, after extensive diplomatic efforts failed to stop ethnic cleansing in the region, NATO launched a 78-day air campaign against Yugoslav forces. The intervention forced a withdrawal of Serb troops and paved the way for a UN-administered transitional government. Though the operation was controversial due to the lack of UN Security Council approval, it arguably prevented further atrocities and laid the groundwork for long-term peacekeeping efforts.
In Africa, collaborative security has taken a more regional shape. The African Union (AU), often partnering with the United Nations, has launched missions in Somalia (AMISOM), Darfur (UNAMID), and the Central African Republic (MISCA). AMISOM, in particular, shows the power and limits of regional collaboration. Composed of troops from Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia, and other countries, the mission helped push the extremist group al-Shabaab out of key Somali cities. However, logistical and financial dependence on the UN and external donors has exposed the vulnerability of such efforts. Still, AMISOM’s role in stabilizing parts of Somalia shows that coordinated regional responses can be more agile and culturally attuned than distant interventions.
Collaborative security is also reflected in multilateral peacekeeping. UN missions in countries like Lebanon (UNIFIL), Mali (MINUSMA), and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) bring together soldiers from dozens of nations under a single mandate. These missions face enormous challenges—ranging from limited mandates to underfunding and hostile local actors—but they are often the only international presence standing between conflict and collapse. The effectiveness of these missions varies, but they highlight the principle that shared security responsibilities can reduce the burden on individual nations and increase legitimacy.
One of the lesser-known but highly effective examples of collaborative peace defense is the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) in the Sinai Peninsula. Established to oversee the terms of the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, the MFO operates outside the UN framework but includes personnel from over a dozen countries, including the U.S., Canada, and Colombia. Despite the region’s instability, the MFO has helped maintain peace between Egypt and Israel for over four decades, demonstrating that long-term monitoring by neutral forces can build trust between former adversaries.
These examples show that collaborative security is more than joint exercises or diplomatic statements. It requires sustained commitment, mutual trust, and the infrastructure to coordinate actions across borders. The main obstacles include divergent national interests, unequal resource contributions, and political hesitation. However, these challenges can be mitigated by clear mandates, equitable burden-sharing, and long-term strategic planning.
Perhaps the greatest strength of collaborative security is its preventative potential. The presence of international observers or troops can deter would-be aggressors, while shared intelligence and rapid response capabilities can de-escalate tensions before they erupt. The European Union’s Battlegroup concept, though underused, is designed with this in mind—small, rapidly deployable units ready to respond to crises. Though political will has often limited its application, the concept reflects a shift toward proactive peace defense.
At a time when global conflict is increasingly complex—driven by climate change, cyber threats, and non-state actors—no single nation can address all threats alone. Collaborative security acknowledges this reality and turns it into a strategy. The question is not whether nations can work together to keep peace, but whether they will choose to. History shows they can. The future depends on whether they will.