Alliances and Bargaining POSC 1020 Introduction to International Relations Steven V. Miller Department of Political Science
Puzzle(s) for Today Why do states fight other countries wars? 2/29
Figure 1: A Chinese soldier displays knocked-out U.S. tank of 1st Cavalry Divison 3/29
Alliances Alliances are commitments by states to cooperate on security policy. They form when states have compatible interests in military cooperation. Importantly, alliances can alter the bargaining dynamics in a bilateral dispute. 4/29
Types of Alliances Bilateral or multilateral (e.g. NATO) Asymmetrical a powerful state commits to defending a weaker state (for example, the United States and South Korea) Offensive (e.g. Molotov-Ribbentrop) Defensive (e.g. France-Russia, pre-wwi) 5/29
A Correlates of War Typology Type I: Defense (i.e. A and B promise mutual defense) Type II(a): Neutrality (A and B promise to remain neutral if A/B is in conflict with C) Type II(b): Nonaggression (A and B acknowledge contentious issues, but pledge non-violence to each other) CoW acknowledges substantial overlap, but generally neutrality pacts are more specific. Type III: Entente (A and B pledge cooperation/consultation in a crisis) 6/29
0% Roughly Three-Quarters of the State System Has At Least One Active Alliance The percentage of the state system membership with at least one alliance plummeted after World War I and spiked during World War II. Percentage of the State System Having At Least One Alliance 100% 75% 50% 25% 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year Data: Correlates of War Alliances Data (v 4.1) 7/29
Number of Alliances 100 No Country Has Signed More Alliances in the Post-Napoleon History of the World Than Russia Russia's 105 alliances equals the total of France and the United Kingdom combined. 105 75 57 50 48 46 38 37 36 25 26 26 26 25 21 0 Russia France United Kingdom Germany Turkey Italy Austria- Hungary Bulgaria Poland Romania Yugoslavia United States Country Data: Correlates of War Alliances Data (v. 4.1) 8/29
0 The Number of Active Alliances for the U.S. and Russia, 1816-2012 The U.S. foray into alliance-making starts with the Root Takahira Agreement with Japan. They've been a common part of Russian foreign policy for much longer. Number of Active Alliances in a Year 30 20 10 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year Country Russia United States of America Data: Correlates of War Alliances Data (v. 4.1) 9/29
Almost Half (49.5%) of Alliances Are Primarily Defensive An 1862-66 alliance among Hanover, Bavaria, Saxony, Wuerttemburg, Hesse Grand Ducal, and Austria-Hungary is the only primarily neutrality pact in the data. Number of Alliances in the Data 200 150 205 144 100 64 50 0 1 Defense Entente Neutrality Non-Aggression Type of Alliance (via Singer and Small, 1966) Data: Correlates of War Alliances Data (v 4.1) 10/29
Few Alliances Are Primarily Ententes or Neutrality Pacts, but Those Pledges Appear in Defense and Non-Aggression Pacts Only one alliance was a neutrality pact but 102 alliances contain neutrality pledges. Number of Pledges in the Data 200 205 192 156 150 100 103 50 0 Defense Entente Neutrality Non-Aggression Pledge Type (via Singer and Small, 1966) Data: Correlates of War Alliances Data (v 4.1) 11/29
The Cost of Alliances Alliances are costly. Commitment of blood and treasure to defend another. Must be upheld to be credible, even if defeat is likely. Alliances limit freedom, as consultation with allies is necessary before taking action or making decisions. An emboldened ally may entrap protector in conflict. 12/29
Why Form Alliances? Weak state may gain protection from powerful rivals. Strong state may signal its resolve to defend weak state. Combining resources may economize, allowing greater defense. Can temper conflicts (e.g. Greece and Turkey in NATO). Can formalize a sphere of influence (e.g. the Warsaw Pact). 13/29
Additional Motives Balancing results in roughly equal blocs. Small states seek to avoid domination by alliance leader. Alliance with strong state threatens state freedom. Other explanations of alliance formation Bandwagoning: when states join aggressive/threatening side (for example, Italy in World War II) Affinity: shared culture, ideology, or religion. 14/29
The Alignment of Interests Among A-C and B C supports A, but C's participation in a potential war is an open question. Both A and B are perfectly matched (i.e. p(victory) =.5) and a hypothetical bargaining space still exists. State B's Ideal Outcome <----- State B's Share -----> A C A rejects these deals B rejects these deals B <----- State A's Share -----> Potential Deal (i.e. the Outcome of War) State A and C's Ideal Outcome 15/29
What C's Participation Does to the Bargaining Range C's participation decreases A's cost of war and decreases the bargaining range. State B's Ideal Outcome A A rejects these deals C A always rejects these deals when C is assured to join the war (i.e. A accepts these deals without C's help) B rejects these deals B War Outcome (Without C) War Outcome (With C) State A and C's Ideal Outcome 16/29
How Alliances Establish Credibility Alliance obligations are honored about 70% of the time. Reasons include: Hands-tying Abrogation costs Influencing decision-making calculus of opposing side in multiple ways 17/29
Figure 2: Marriage of John I, King of Portugal and Philippa of Lancaster 18/29
When Alliances Fail The tail wags the dog, raising costs of war for C. Abrogation costs are cheap. 19/29
Figure 3: If we re talking alliances, we re talking Europe 20/29
The Emergence of Germany Germany emerged as a major power after 1870, collecting both friends and enemies. 1879: Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary. A curious alliance, given Seven Weeks War (1866) 1882: Expansion to include Italy, Austria s blood enemy. Italy s rationale: placate nearby states to focus on empire. 21/29
The Counter-Coalition Against Germany This prompted quite a counter-coalition, especially among former rivals. 1894: Franco-Russian Alliance 1904: Entente Cordiale (UK-France) 1907: Anglo-Russian Convention 22/29
Leading to World War I The alliance pattern contributed to the outbreak of World War I: Small conflicts escalated. Alliances created incentives for preventive war. Major powers became dependent on allies. The larger number of states increased chances of miscalculation. 23/29
The Interwar Period The interwar period posed similar problems. Major buck-passing, definitely among UK, France, and Russia/USSR. Hitler successfully defied French commitments to Czechoslovakia and Romania, among others. 24/29
The Interwar Period We can understand why the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact happened in this perspective. No country was more consistent in raising alarms about Hitler than the USSR. However, UK and France had folded on the Ruhr, Sudetenland, and other issues. Thus, the Soviets bailed to placate Germany and leave UK and France to dry. WWII happened as a result of weak alliance commitments. 25/29
The Cold War Clear bifurcation of Europe into West and East. West: NATO countries East: Warsaw Pact 26/29
The Cold War A long, if very problematic, peace followed. U.S. tied its hands to Europe with troops in W. Germany/elsewhere. Both sunk costs into reorganizing entire economic systems in the sphere. 27/29
Conclusion Alliances are institutions that can prevent or facilitate war. Peaceful: influence bargaining by B, settle issues among signatories. Dangerous: tail-wags-the-dog, cheap commitments with small abrogation costs. 28/29
Table of Contents Introduction Alliances and Conflict Alliances and Bargaining Analyzing European Alliance System (1879-1990) Conclusion 29/29