Lecture 3: Alliances, Coercion and Diplomacy Flashcards
Definition: Alliance
A formal or informal relationship of security cooperation between two or more sovereign states - Waltz
5 types of alliances/pacts/agreements covered by definition of alliance
Defensive, offensive, non-aggression pacts, neutrality pacts, consultation agreements
The autonomy-security tradeoff regarding alliances
Alliances produce additional security quickly (and without having to divert resources to military), but with less reliability than investing in own military and at the political cost of moderating conflicting interests with the ally
When entering into an alliance, what do powerful and weak states get and sacrifice
Powerful states gain autonomy at the expense of security, while weak states gain security at the expense of autonomy
Asymmetric alliance
All allies are better off than without the alliance, but gain in different areas; some achieve security gains, other autonomy -> more stable
Symmetric alliances
Allies gain on the same dimension -> less stable
3 strategies that alliances are useful for
- Total war
- Containment
- Deterrence
3 dangers of alliances
- Chain-ganging: states get dragged into war to save reckless allies (e.g. WW1; possibly Russia-Ukraine)
- Buck-passing: states let others bear the burden of halting the rise of a state that threatens hegemony by shifting the responsibility/blame onto them
- Autonomy-security trade-off
3 reasons to enter into an alliance despite the risks
- To affect the balance of power; to aggregate power to contrast a more powerful state or if not possible, “bandwagon” with the powerful state
- States ally to balance against threats (geographic, ideological etc.) rather than material power per se
- Domestic affinity with ally (cultural, ideological, political)
5 reasons why some alliances last longer than others
- Shifts in the distribution of power can end/create alliances
- Changes in the threat posed by states (or the perception thereof)
- Regime type -> alliances among liberal democracies are esp. strong and resilient
- Institutionalization; e.g. creation of organizations, buraucracies etc., and institutional capacity to allow for alliance shift when original threat is no longer present
- Socialization between elites to reinforce shared understanding of the world
Can you evaluate the success of alliances?
No, because of selection bias: if an alliance is successful, it will deter attacks, and then we are less likely to observe an effect
3 Definitions: Coercion
- The activity of causing someone to do something against his will, or of bringing about his doing what he does against his will - Held
- The latent use of force (the threat)
- A coercive strategy involves the deliberate and purposive use of overt threats of force to influence another’s strategic choices
2 possible goals of coercion
- Deterrence: to persuade an opponent not to initiate action; aims to preserve the status quo
- Compellence: to persuade an opponent to change its behavior (don’t complete, undo, change); aims to change the status quo
2 strategies/methods of coercion
- Punishment: impose costs to deter
- Denial: take actions that create difficulty for target to successfully undertake the action you want to deter
2 Coercion costs faced by the target state
- Resistance costs: costs due to punishment imposed by the coercer and/or steps taken to prevent the punishment
- Compliance costs: costs due to giving in to the coercer (what are you giving up, e.g. the thing you wanted to do?)
Coercion costs faced by the coercer
Enforcement costs: costs of punishing the target or implementing denial strategy
The efficacy of coercion depends on
- Clarify of communication (how concrete is the threat, how do you communicate it?)
- Credibility of threats and reputation
Internalized deterrence
Given international institutions, alliances, and expected costs of doing something, the threat might not even have to be issued -> states can pre-modify their actions to avoid it
Geneva Interim Agreement (November 2012)
Restrictions placed on Iran to get them to stop stockpiling enriched uranium
JCPOA (October 2015)
Restrictions of Iran’s program and an inspections system, for 15 years in exchange for relieving sanctions
What was influential in signing the Iran nuclear deal?
The costs of being disconnected from SWIFT
Paradox of power
Targets of a powerful state’s coercion can find strategies to resist the powerful, even if they are weak
3 functions of diplomacy
- Communication
- Representation (explaining intentions to lower uncertainty)
- Reproduction of international society
5 concrete examples of what diplomacy is good for
- Conveying messages
- Provides framework for “normal” relationships to communicate better
- Creates and maintains relationships between countries/leaders/bureaucracies
- Face-to-face interaction has more positive impact than other communication
- Form of intelligence collection
Definition: soft power
When one country gets other countries to want what it wants, instead of ordering them to do it
Reading: Coercive diplomacy and the Iranian nuclear crisis - Benjamin Harris
Coercive diplomacy was used by US, UK, FR, RU, CH and DE to negotiate end to Iranian nuclear crisis 2002-2013 - used a mix of impactful sanctions and incentives (sanctions relief, enrichment capabilities) for compliance to hit Iranian economy (they could not have done so alone). SWIFT ban influential in this. Coercive diplomacy pressured Iran to the point where the cost of continued resistance was too high to endure
But what was paramount in winning Iranian compliance (incentives) would eventually result in US withdrawal from the agreement
Many factors impact a coercer’s ability to conduct coercive diplomacy successfully, and target regimes are often unpredictable and willing to endure costs beyond rationality
