Morton Halperin's Collective Security: A Plan for the Post-9/11 World

In his article, "Collective Security", Morton H. Halperin proposes a plan of action for the United States after the attacks of September 11^th, 2001. He argues that the U.S. must adopt a strategy of collective security in order to effectively combat terrorism. Halperin emphasizes the importance of including all nations in the fight against terrorism by utilizing the United Nations (UN) (Halperin).

Collective security is a system under which several nations cooperate in order to preserve peace. It is often referred to as a "balance of power", though true equality of power among nations is not a necessary condition for collective security (Nye 85-86). Halperin argues that the U.S. should adopt policies that promote collective security because such a standpoint would, in reality, be the most effective in achieving the U.S. agenda. Further, he explains that collective security should be pursued though the UN Security Council. Halperin believes that were the U.S. to involve the UN in the fight against terrorism, this would give other nations three reasons to support U.S. policies towards terrorism (Halperin).

First, nations would be more inclined to join the fight because the U.S. would be seen as acting in accordance with accepted international policies and procedures. Secondly, this would in turn create a context from which nations could justify their involvement in U.S. efforts against terrorism. Finally, using the UN as a forum, other nations would feel confident in their ability to have a say in what actions the U.S. takes instead of committing to an effort in which they are at the mercy of U.S. policy makers (Halperin).

A U.S. effort to include other nations by utilizing the UN is not unprecedented. During the administration of George H.W. Bush, the UN Charter's Chapter VII was called upon to support the actions of the U.S. in Somalia and the Gulf War. Under Chapter VII, the UN determines if a threat exists, and in turn what actions should be taken to combat the threat. These actions can include appealing to member nations to engage in economic sanctions, ending diplomatic relations, and/or interrupting many forms of communication. If the UN still feels a threat exists they may request member nations to hold demonstrations, enforce blockades, and/or carry out air, land, or sea operations (Halperin).

Today the Bush administration is apprehensive about seeking collective security through the UN Security Council. Halperin speculates that the administration avoids making an attempt to include other nations through this avenue because they do not want to surrender decision-making power to other nations. This puts the administration in a catch-22; nations will not join anti-terrorism efforts if they do not have a say in what actions are taken, but the U.S. is unwilling to allow those nations any decision-making power (Halperin).

Halperin makes a very compelling argument that I am inclined to agree with. The U.S. must realize that since our actions impact others, we should allow other countries, especially those who are gracious enough to join the fight, to have a say. It is unfair to ask nations to open themselves up to an attack or commit resources to decisions they have not had a hand in making. The greatest safety occurs when there is peace, and peace cannot be achieved without a balance of power. If the U.S. desires greater security for itself, it must adopt a policy of collective security.

Works Cited

Halperin, Morton H. "Collective Security." The American Prospect. Vol. 12 No. 18. 22

October 2001. 26 October 2006. m.html>.

Nye, Joseph S., Jr. Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and

History. 12^th ed. Dubuque, Iowa: McGraw-Hill, 2005.