Collective security in the interwar period was oxymoronic in that specific national security interests proved irreconcilable with the idea of security for all by all. Additionally, it was empty, as when perceived national security aims did not openly contradict the principle of collective security the two often did not coincide, a gap that translated into a powerful disincentive to embrace collective security as an ideal, and enforce it as a practice.

In light of the War on Terror, conceptions of security are evolving. Focus on national security is, and has been, waning as the sovereign state begins to lose some of its pre-eminence. Many security analysts claim the process of globalisation and it’s associated ‘risks’ are largely outside the control of nation states and that only the development of a global community can deal with this adequately.

Using an approach that is as much anthropological as it is historical or political, Anatol Lieven’s ‘Pakistan: A Hard Country’ provides a more intimate portrait of the country than other recent publications. It also lends a fresh perspective on a country that is often misunderstood by Western observers. The book’s central message is that Pakistan is cohesive and dysfunctional all at once.

The new Chinese stance against Pakistan-based terror is significant for Asia, because it strengthens claims in the region alleging Pakistan’s affiliation with terrorists. However, is China’s addition to the list of states fighting terror enough to goad Pakistan into putting an end to supporting terrorism?

Despite its initial success, the Palestine Liberation Organisation was never able to achieve its ultimate political objective by using terrorist tactics. The PLO’s turn to global terror tactics, and the immense amount of media exposure that move generated, only magnified their inability to move away from their formerly violent agenda.