L5 - Alliances Flashcards
intro shit
usually main goal alliance is deterrence (same for nukes, which we discuss thursday)
Auld Alliance (1295) = alliance between French and Scottish, mutual defense pact if England attacked either France or Scotland
“We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with meShall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition: And gentlemen in England now a-bed Shall think themselves accursed they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.”
- England outmanned 5:1
- French army stronger
- band of brothers speech Shakespear
- old alliance ->most of Henry V’s army was in England bc they were afraid of the Scots invading bc the treaty
the political science focus on alliances
Alliance formation
- under what conditions do state form alliances?
- who aligns with whom?
Alliance dynamics
- how are alliance policies and strategies determined?
- How are burdens shared among alliance members?
Alliances and States Behavior
- Do alliances influence the behavior of their members?
- Do states honor their alliance commitments when called upon to do so?
- Do alliances influence/impede the sovereignty of members?
Alliances and War
- Do alliances make war more or less likely?
- In particular do alliances deter aggression against their members?
- Do alliances embolden their members to act with less restraint?
- When war occurs, do alliances improve their members’ prospects of victory?
3 essential components of alliance DEFINITION
“An alliance is a formal agreement among independent states to cooperate militarily in the face of potential or realized military conflict.”
diff definitions, but consensus on 3 elements:
(will be on exam)
- alliances need to be FORMAL AGREEMENTS
- i.e. written agreements with legal force – mostly associated with treaties but can also include conventions, executive agreements and joint policy declarations
- something that carries some weight between states - alliances are agreements among INDEPENDENT STATES.
- At least two states must sign the agreement, and each member must retain its sovereignty and independence (empires and colonies do not qualify)
- colony -> can’t be part of alliance - alliances promise cooperation in addressing MILITARY THREATS (must be a commitment for cooperative action in the event of conflict)
- military or defense component
alliances - related terminology
(just for you to be aware about with diff terminology)
- idk if need to memorize
- Defensive Pact: Intervene militarily on the side of any treaty partner that is attacked militarily
- Offensive Pact: Commitment to engage in coordinated military action outside the territory of any alliance member and in the absence of a direct attack
- Alignments: states that share policy positions and coordinate their actions might be called aligned, but only those who have formalized their commitments with a written agreement may be called allied
(coordinate policy positions, really vague, DOESN’T HAVE TO BE MILITARY ISSUE) - Entente: usually involves consultation/cooperation in a crisis/war rather than specify conditions of military support (doesn’t specify conditions)
- Collective security agreements: support internal stability rather than directed externally
- Neutrality: remain neutral if any co-signatory is attacked
- Non-aggression: two or more states won’t use force against each other … but this does not make them allies, e.g. Soviet Union/West Germany after 1970
ad hoc alliances vs permanent/indefinite alliances
ad hoc = coalitions formed for a specific and immediate purpose
- usually not a formal treaty
- not expected to last for long period
permanent = ‘indefinite’: formed to counter longer term threats … but nothing is forever
- indefinite better name bc there is no such thing as permanent
why alliances - realist
Effort by states to maximize their capabilities to counterbalance the overwhelming power of another individual state or group of states (balancing)
If states unable to balance they are obliged to accommodate rather than become a victim (bandwagoning)
Generally, states prefer to balance
Other, power-maximizing states, choose to ally with revisionist power (small state sees opportunity and joins)
alliances, the balance of power and deterrence
Balancing
- State A and State B balance each other
- State A and State B equally powerful but State C holds the winning balance if it allies with A or B -> C holds balance of power in their hands
- State A forms alliance with State B against adversary State C so State C forms alliance with D against A and B
(e.g. NATO vs the Warsaw pact
Capabilities Aggregation: states form alliances to combine their military capabilities and thereby improve their security position
bandwagoning
Strategy of aligning with stronger revisionist power to avoid becoming its victim
always drawbacks/risks
- Accept subordinate status
- Accept risk of domination by strong power
(bc these drawbacks/risks, balancing is preferred over bandwagoning + they avoid bandwagoning)
why alliances - liberal/constructivist
- states create alliances in expectation their members can achieve a certain degree of cooperation (liberal IR) = cooperative security
- bigger external threat -> greater alliance cohesion
- benefits must outweigh costs (e.g. potential restrictions on sovereignty)
- when you join an alliance your sovereignty is a bit restrained - external threat can trigger alliance formation but other common interests can ensure sustainability (constructivist IR)
- e.g. NATO why does it endure? shared value maybe
Contact Group
e.g. Ukraine Contant Group
countries trying to contribute, to coordinate activities
Global Coalition Against Daesh
= not a NATO coalition, bunch of countries coming together coordinating their policies as bes as they can bc they have common interest
keeps going bc there is residual threat
intra-alliance relations
burden-sharing: do some states bear disproportionate share of the costs while other members free ride?
- decision-making: do all states have equal voice?
NATO: US seen as hegemon, often thought of leading NATO, but all countries have an equal vote (still US has large influence in the system) - fear of abandonment: will allies desert a member requiring help?
- fear of entrapment: prospect of being dragged into misguided wars due to alliance commitments
perceived imbalance NATO: US more military spending -> tries to force others to also spend more so there is more burdensharing
e.g. lot of NATO members help US in Afghanistan not bc they have interest in Afghanistan, but bc they want to promote alliance cohesion and they want to get something else back later
key military aspects
from highest to lowest
strategic level = political cohesion
- NATO e.g. some countries contribute almost no troops, still strategic to include them for legitimacy
operational level = unity of command
- who is in charge of the alliance on the ground
tactical level = interoperability
- e.g. two countries working together, do they use the same weapons etc.
offensive vs defensive pacts
Defensive Pact: Promise to militarily assist an ally in the event of attack on the ally’s territory
Offensive Pact: Commitment to engage in coordinated military action outside the territory of any alliance member and in the absence of a direct attack
alliance types continued - egalitarian and hierachical
hierarchical = power imbalance among members
- hegemonic: large state leads with consent of smaller state(s)
- imperial: large state coerces smaller states (e.g. Warsaw Pact)
e.g. 1956 troops to Budapest when they wanted out
egalitarian = power balance among members
three types of alliances (secrecy)
open = treaty terms publicized (deterrence value maximum)
- everything is published, we know exactly what the terms are
- to maximize deterrence you need to know under what circumstances one country will come to the help of the other, otherwise you are just guessing, impedes deterrence
partially open / partially secret = existence of alliance is publicly acknowledged but some terms of agreement (e.g. triggers for common military action) remain secret
secret = existence of alliance + terms are secret (deterrence value minimal)
- Woodrow Wilson point 1: open covenants of peace, openly arrived at (bc WW1 was result secret alliances)
- no deterrence bc no one knows it exists
intelligence alliances
(not really a military element)
formal agreement between intelligence agencies to share intelligence, conduct operations with
diff countries sharing informations
alliance duration
how long do they last + why do some last longer than others? are there any trends here?
databases important: try to look at patterns in treaty commitments
- Between 1815-2003, approximately 263 defensive alliances: mean average duration 13.4 years
- From 1815-1865, mean average duration of 8.7 years
- From 1945-1995, mean average duration of 17.7 years
What factors cause alliances to persist or collapse?
example alliance: Franco-Russian Alliance Military Convention
1892
treaty text explains what alliance involves in practical/explicit terms
how many troops, what type of attack, idea two front war to deter Germany (but all kept secret)
1.If France is attacked by Germany, or by Italy supported by Germany, Russia shall employ all her available forces to attack Germany.
If Russia is attacked by Germany, or by Austria supported by Germany, France shall employ all her available forces to attack Germany.
2.In case the forces of the Triple Alliance, or of any one of the Powers belonging to it, should be mobilized, France and Russia, at the first news of this event and without previous agreement being necessary, shall mobilize immediately and simultaneously the whole of their forces, and shall transport them as far as possible to their frontiers.
3.The available forces to be employed against Germany shall be, on the part of France, 1,300,000 men, on the part of Russia, 700,000 or 800,000 men.
These forces shall engage to the full with such speed that Germany will have to fight simultaneously on the East and on the West.
7.All the clauses enumerated above shall be kept absolutely secret.
how all can go wrong badly and quick - WW1
alliances failed + secrecy -> misperceptions
- Germans didn’t understand British would come in the war
why should Britain come in the war?
“I can say this with the most absolute confidence – no government and no country has less desire to be involved in war over a dispute with Austria than the country of France. They are involved in it because of their obligation of honour under a definite alliance with Russia. Well, it is only fair to say to the House that that obligation of honour cannot apply in the same way to us. We are not parties to the Franco-Russian alliance. We do not even know the terms of the alliance.”
- British Foreign Minister Sir Edward Grey (July 1914 Crisis)
- guarantor of Belgian neutrality + duty bound to France bc had agreements with France to guard the Northern Coast of France
- feeling obliged: if you don’t go you sacrifice honor, reputation, eco consequences -> no one is ever gonna trust us again (entrapment: if you agree with alliances, you might have to actually do something in conflict)
“There is but one way in which the Government could make certain at the present moment of keeping outside this war, and that would be that it should immediately issue a proclamation of unconditional neutrality. We cannot do that. [Cheers.] We have made the commitment to France that I have read to the House which prevents us doing that. We have got the consideration of Belgium which prevents us also from any unconditional neutrality, and, without these conditions absolutely satisfied and satisfactory, we are bound not to shrink from proceeding to the use of all the forces in our power. If we did take that line by saying, “We will have nothing whatever to do with this matter” under no conditions – the Belgian treaty obligations, the possible position in the Mediterranean, with damage to British interests, and what may happen to France from our failure to support France – if we were to say that all those things matter nothing, were as nothing, and to say we would stand aside, we should, I believe, sacrifice our respect and good name and reputation before the world, and should not escape the most serious and grave economic consequences.”
why do alliances collapse?
- Members do not have sufficiently common interests to keep them aligned for an extended time
- Lack of ideological affinity
- Lack of incentive to cooperate militarily
-> can fall apart
dead alliances from the cold war
- CENTO: Bagdad pact
- SEATO:
- Warsaw Pact:
CENTO+ SEATO fell apart in the 1970s (existed ~20 years)
survivor: NATO
Sino-Soviet treaty 1950
valentines day 1950: Stalin and Mao signing mutual defense pact SU-China. was supposed to last ~30y, but:
- Ideological disputes within Communist bloc
- Chinese adventurism (Taiwan) and risks of entangling USSR in a war with the US (issue of entrapment)
- Lack of burden-sharing (e.g. Korean war)
- Soviet fears of Chinese nuclear power
Russia and China do not have a similar defense treaty today. why?
- Russia and North Korea do (nov 2024) -> that’s why North Koreans fight in Ukraine for Russia now
- China and North Korea do (July 1961)
- neither really trusts the other + wants to go to war for the other (with either NATO or US)
1940 Tripartite Pact
Germany, Japan, Italy (later joined by Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia/Independent State of Croatia
defensive alliance that actually is an aggressive alliance:
‘assist one another with all political, economic, and military means when one of the three contracting parties is attacked by a power at present not involved in the European war or in the Sino-Japanese conflict’
Purpose: to serve as a warning to the United States not to enter the wars in Europe and China; also an indirect warning to the Soviet Union
problems:
- Geographic separation limits military support between Germany/Italy and Japan
- Different adversaries in same alliance (Germany fights USSR but not Japan)
- Some alliance commitments lead to overextension (Germany supports failed Italian aggression in North Africa; Germany declares war on US after Pearl Harbor despite no legal obligation to do so)
- No strategic command structure (compared to Allies)
US - Treaty of Alliance with France 1778
by 1790s after French revo Americans are reluctant to go to war with England
-> alliance dies
Washington’s Farewell Address (1796) + Jefferson inaugural address
W: “it is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world”
J: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling allianceswith none.”
UN - first time US becomes ally
Jan 1, 1942, US, UK, USSR and China sign a document which later came to be known asthe United Nations Declaration.
Jan 2, 1942, representatives of twenty-two other nations added their signatures.
This document pledged the signatory governments to the maximum war effort and bound them against making a separate peace.
“Each Government pledges itself to employ its full resources, military or economic, against those members of the Tripartite Pact: and its adherents with which such government is at war”
pledge of military support
US hegemony/superpower and alliances
evolving from period where they didn’t want alliances, where they didn’t want to be entangled
but later ‘Pactomania’
- US as associate power in WW1
- US as allied power in WW2
- ‘pactomania’: Rio Treaty, NATO, US-Taiwan, US-Japan, US-S.Korea, US-Philippines, ANZUS, SEATO)
US-Taiwan now no longer mutual defense clause (gave it up in the 70s) - majority of alliances have continued long after original threat disappeared
- no defense treaties with Saudi Arabia/Israel, but nevertheless US …
why NATO endures
- NATO crises
lot of sensationalism around NATO: always talking about some crisis, going back to the 60s, not everyone always has the same position
-> no end of crises
NATO ostensibly in a constant state of internal crises (e.g. Suez crisis, Vietnam war, French withdrawal from military command, Greece-Turkey (Cyprus), end of Cold War, Balkans, Iraq War, Trump, etc.)
Yet no NATO state has fully withdrawn from the Alliance
- How to explain endurance?
- How bad would crisis have to get?
- What does dissolution of NATO alliance entail? all but 1 or all would have to withdraw
- Can alliance exist in name only but otherwise toothless? when big members withdraw
e.g. if Hungary/Turkey is so opposed to other members, why doesn’t it withdraw? no one wants to necessarily keep them in, but they stay
why NATO persists
- common interest
Ideological (democratic norms)
- few exceptions to the rule that everyone is democratic (Portugal was dictatorship when it joined + various coups in some countries + Turkey today)
- pushed democratic discourse esp. from the 1990s onward
Threat perception (Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact/post-Soviet Russia/general instability)
- early 1990s: Balkland conflicts + fear democratic reforms Russia wouldn’t last (so keep NATO to be sure)
- external crises: Soviet invasion Czecho-Slovakia + US-Vietnam + invasion Afghanistan -> every time the alliance seems to fall apart, something brings them together again
Internal stability (members don’t fight each other)
Financial (collective security reduces national defense burden)
- if you join NATO, lot of functions army performs not really necessary -> can reduce defense spending
NATO and North Korea vs South Korea
when NATO was formed there was no formal organization, no integrated military command structure
all of that came after the Korean war: change in mentality: seems the communist mentality is aggressive
+ that Europe is vulnerable
-> military command structure
one thing that makes NATO unique + sets the threat
big headquarters in shape of an A (alliance) Paris, then moved to Brussels
there are buildings, people working there, international staff, diplomats
‘keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down’
NATO treaty pledge
negotiations 1948-49
“The firmer the pledge, the greater the effect the Treaty may be expected to have in deterring the Soviet Union”
Canadian diplomat Escott Reid
- art. 5 needs to be really strong, doesn’t really turn out that way
“understatement in the language of the Treaty might cause the Treaty to fail in its object of showing the world where we stand.”
Sir Oliver Franks, UK Ambassador to the US
“if the countries concerned in the present talks form a weak association it undoubtedly will have a provocative effect upon the Russians, whereas a strong pact should have the opposite, or a deterrent, effect upon them.”
Dutch Minister in Washington, J. O. Reuchli
options for phrasing:
- Rio Treaty 1947: vague language = each party undertakes to assist in meeting the attack (doesn’t say how)
- Brussels Treaty 1948: afford the Party so attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their power = strong language
NATO art. 5 = not that strong
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, SUCH ACTION AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY, INCLUDING THE USE OF ARMED FORCE, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
ART 5 NATO vs ART 4 Warsaw Treaty
they are virtually identical
-> don’t know why
Nato:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Warsaw:
In the event of an armed attack in Europe on one or several states that are signatories of the treaty by any state or group of states, each state that is a party to this treaty shall, in the exercise of the right to individual or collective self-defence in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations Organisation, render the state or states so attacked immediate assistance, individually and in agreement with other states that are parties to this treaty, by all the means it may consider necessary, including the use of armed force
European Union
if NATO falls apart, what may replace it?
EU not often seen as alliance, but has mutual defense clause
art 42.7
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power*, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
*means military usually
- invoked only once in nov 2015: Paris terrorist attacks
- EU states reluctant to deal with collective defense (CSDP preference for out-of-area)
- will this change? will it emerge as a more viable military actor given common defense clause
