Alliance

Last updated
Allies Day, May 1917, National Gallery of Art Childe Hassam - Allies Day.jpg
Allies Day, May 1917, National Gallery of Art
Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery decorates Soviet Marshals and generals at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, 12 July 1945. Allies at the Brandenburg Gate, 1945.jpg
Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery decorates Soviet Marshals and generals at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, 12 July 1945.

An alliance is a relationship among people, groups, or states that have joined together for mutual benefit or to achieve some common purpose, whether or not an explicit agreement has been worked out among them. [1] Members of an alliance are called allies. Alliances form in many settings, including political alliances, military alliances, and business alliances. When the term is used in the context of war or armed struggle, such associations may also be called allied powers, especially when discussing World War I or World War II.

Contents

A formal military alliance is not required for being perceived as an ally—co-belligerence, fighting alongside someone, is enough. According to this usage, allies become so not when concluding an alliance treaty but when struck by war.

When spelled with a capital "A", "Allies" usually denotes the countries who fought together against the Central Powers in World War I (the Allies of World War I), or those who fought against the Axis Powers in World War II (the Allies of World War II). The term has also been used by the United States Army to describe the countries that gave assistance to South Vietnam during the Vietnam War. [2]

The Allied Powers in World War I (also known as the Entente Powers) were initially the United Kingdom, France, the Russian Empire, Belgium, Serbia, Montenegro and Japan, joined later by Italy, Portugal, Romania, the United States, Greece and Brazil. Some, such as the Russian Empire, withdrew from the war before the armistice due to revolution or defeat.

After the end of World War II and during the Cold War, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed as a political and military alliance that promotes anti-communist values. [3]

More recently, the term "Allied forces" has also been used to describe the coalition of the Gulf War, as opposed to forces the Multi-National Forces in Iraq which are commonly referred to as "Coalition forces" or, as by the George W. Bush administration, "the coalition of the willing".

Effects

Scholars are divided as to the impact of alliances. Several studies find that defensive alliances deter conflict. [4] [5] [6] [7] One study questions these findings, showing that alliance commitments deterred conflict in the prenuclear era but has no statistically meaningful impact on war in the postnuclear era. [8] [9] Another study finds that while alliance commitments deter conflict between sides with a recent history of conflict, alliances tend to provoke conflicts between states without such a history. [10]

A 2000 study in the Journal of Conflict Resolution found that allies fulfill their alliance commitments approximately 75% of the time. [11] Most research suggests that democracies are more reliable allies than non-democracies. [12] [13] [14] A 2004 study did however question whether alliance commitments by democracies are more durable. [15] A 2018 study updated and extended the data from the 2000 Journal of Conflict Resolution study and found that allies only fulfill their commitments about 50% of the time from 1816 to 2003. [16] According to the study, "States honored their alliance commitments 66% of the time prior to 1945 but the compliance rate drops to 22% from 1945 to 2003. Moreover, the rates of fulfillment for defense pacts (41%) and nonaggression pacts (37%) are dramatically lower than offensive alliances (74%) and neutrality agreements (78%)." [16]

One of the most profound effects of alliances can be seen in technological innovation, due to conduits of knowledge flows that are open between allies but closed between rivals. [17]

International opinion

Map indicating international preferences for principal ally in the case a country were attacked, as of 2017. BlankMap-World-large-limited-recognition (1).png
Map indicating international preferences for principal ally in the case a country were attacked, as of 2017.

According to a 2017 poll by WIN/GIA, the United States was the most preferred ally internationally. Russia and China, who preferred one another, both trailed America globally. Four countries, Bulgaria, Greece, Slovenia and Turkey, preferred Russia, despite being members of NATO. [18]

In Pakistan, 72% of respondents preferred ties to China, the largest margin of any country surveyed, while 46% of Bangladesh preferred India. A total of 22 countries indicated a preference for the United Kingdom at a rate of 10% or more, but the United States was the only country to prefer Britain over any other, at a rate of 43%. Five countries preferred France at a rate of 10% or more, led by Belgium at a rate of 25%. A single country, Iraq, expressed no preference, while three other countries, Lebanon, Palestine, and Slovenia, expressed no preference at a rate of 11% or more, although at a smaller rate than their preference for Russia on the part of Lebanon and Slovenia, and China on the part of Palestine. Kosovo reported the most unified opinion, preferring the United States at a rate of 92%, while Russia's most unified supporters were Mongolia (71%), Armenia (67%) and Serbia (56%). In total, 21 countries expressed a preference for America at a rate of 50% or more. [18]

Results of 2017 poll by WIN/GIA.
Most preferred ally in case of military threat [18] [19]
figures of United States lower than 30%, Russia (<14%), of United Kingdom (<10%), France (<6%), none (<12%) and China (<10%) may be hidden
Country polledRussiaUnited StatesUnited KingdomChinaIndiaFrancenone
Flag of Mongolia.svg  Mongolia
71%
Flag of Armenia.svg  Armenia
67%
Flag of Serbia.svg  Serbia
56%
16%
Flag of Greece.svg  Greece
48%
Flag of the People's Republic of China.svg  China
47%
Flag of Bulgaria.svg  Bulgaria
42%
17%
4%
Flag of Ukraine.svg  Ukraine
33%
35%
11%
Flag of Slovenia.svg  Slovenia
30%
8%
15%
Flag of Latvia.svg  Latvia
27%
11%
14%
Flag of Lebanon.svg  Lebanon
25%
15%
23%
Flag of Turkey.svg  Turkey
23%
9%
31%
Flag of North Macedonia.svg  North Macedonia
23%
33%
17%
Flag of Mexico.svg  Mexico
22%
42%
11%
9%
Flag of Peru.svg  Peru
21%
44%
14%
Flag of Iran.svg  Iran
20%
30%
Flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina.svg  Bosnia and Herzegovina
19%
12%
43%
Flag of Vietnam.svg  Vietnam
18%
Flag of India.svg  India
16%
50%
Flag of Finland.svg  Finland
15%
37%
16%
Flag of Romania.svg  Romania
15%
51%
7%
Flag of South Africa.svg  South Africa
15%
45%
21%
Flag of Albania.svg  Albania
14%
66%
10%
Flag of Kosovo.svg  Kosovo
92%
Flag of South Korea.svg  South Korea
49%
10%
32%
Flag of Papua New Guinea.svg  Papua New Guinea
70%
13%
Flag of Israel.svg  Israel
68%
10%
Flag of the Philippines.svg  Philippines
67%
16%
Flag of Japan.svg  Japan
64%
Flag of Canada (Pantone).svg  Canada
62%
12%
Flag of Ghana.svg  Ghana
62%
10%
Flag of the United Kingdom.svg  United Kingdom
58%
8%
Flag of Ecuador.svg  Ecuador
58%
Flag of Lithuania.svg  Lithuania
58%
10%
Flag of Paraguay.svg  Paraguay
57%
Flag of Brazil.svg  Brazil
55%
10%
Flag of France.svg  France
54%
13%
Flag of Spain.svg  Spain
52%
12%
Flag of Denmark.svg  Denmark
52%
23%
Flag of Fiji.svg  Fiji
52%
15%
12%
Flag of Norway.svg  Norway
51%
23%
Flag of Australia (converted).svg  Australia
49%
16%
Flag of Poland.svg  Poland
49%
10%
Flag of Germany.svg  Germany
41%
19%
Flag of Italy.svg  Italy
41%
11%
Flag of Nigeria.svg  Nigeria
41%
Flag of Portugal.svg  Portugal
40%
21%
Flag of the Taliban.svg  Afghanistan
39%
22%
17%
Flag of Iceland.svg  Iceland
38%
27%
Flag of Thailand.svg  Thailand
38%
11%
29%
Flag of Argentina.svg  Argentina
36%
13%
22%
Flag of Ireland.svg  Ireland
34%
25%
Flag of Indonesia.svg  Indonesia
32%
10%
21%
Flag of the Czech Republic.svg  Czech Republic
32%
15%
6%
Flag of Sweden.svg  Sweden
31%
29%
6%
Flag of Estonia.svg  Estonia
31%
16%
Flag of Belgium (civil).svg  Belgium
30%
12%
25%
Flag of Austria.svg  Austria
16%
Flag of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg  DR Congo
16%
8%
Flag of Palestine.svg  Palestine
17%
8%
12%
Flag of the United States.svg  United States
43%
7%
Flag of Iraq.svg  Iraq
6%
27%
Flag of Pakistan.svg  Pakistan
72%
Flag of Bangladesh.svg  Bangladesh
16%
46%
Flag of Russia.svg  Russia
44%
4%

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign policy</span> Governments strategy in relating with other nations

A state's foreign policy or external policy is its objectives and activities in relation to its interactions with other states, unions, and other political entities, whether bilaterally or through multilateral platforms. The Encyclopedia Britannica notes that a government's foreign policy may be influenced by "domestic considerations, the policies or behaviour of other states, or plans to advance specific geopolitical designs."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Military alliance</span> Alliance between different states with the purpose to cooperate militarily

A military alliance is a formal agreement between nations that specifies mutual obligations regarding national security. In the event a nation is attacked, members of the alliance are often obligated to come to their defense regardless if attacked directly. Since the end of the Second World War, military alliances have usually behaved less aggressively and act more as a deterrent.

Bilateralism is the conduct of political, economic, or cultural relations between two sovereign states. It is in contrast to unilateralism or multilateralism, which is activity by a single state or jointly by multiple states, respectively. When states recognize one another as sovereign states and agree to diplomatic relations, they create a bilateral relationship. States with bilateral ties will exchange diplomatic agents such as ambassadors to facilitate dialogues and cooperations.

Political polarization is the divergence of political attitudes away from the center, towards ideological extremes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Insurgency</span> Revolt or uprising by irregular forces, especially one that is prolonged

An insurgency is a violent, armed rebellion by small, lightly armed bands who practice guerrilla warfare from primarily rural base areas against a larger authority. The key descriptive feature of insurgency is its asymmetric nature: small irregular forces face a large, well-equipped, regular military force state adversary. Due to this asymmetry, insurgents avoid large-scale direct battles, opting instead to blend in with the civilian population where they gradually expand territorial control and military forces. Insurgency frequently hinges on control of and collaboration with local populations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Atlanticism</span> Political ideology

Atlanticism, also known as Transatlanticism, is the ideological belief in support of closer relationships between the peoples and governments in Northern America and in Europe on political, economic, and defense issues for the purpose of maintaining the security and prosperity of the participating countries and protect liberal democracy and the progressive values of an open society that unite them under multiculturalism. The term derives from the Atlantic Ocean, which is bordered by North America and Europe.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deterrence theory</span> Military strategy during the Cold War with regard to the use of nuclear weapons

Deterrence theory refers to the scholarship and practice of how threats or limited force by one party can convince another party to refrain from initiating some other course of action. The topic gained increased prominence as a military strategy during the Cold War with regard to the use of nuclear weapons and is related to but distinct from the concept of mutual assured destruction, according to which a full-scale nuclear attack on a power with second-strike capability would devastate both parties. The central problem of deterrence revolves around how to credibly threaten military action or nuclear punishment on the adversary despite its costs to the deterrer.

A non-aggression pact or neutrality pact is a treaty between two or more states/countries that includes a promise by the signatories not to engage in military action against each other. Such treaties may be described by other names, such as a treaty of friendship or non-belligerency, etc. Leeds, Ritter, Mitchell, & Long (2002) distinguish between a non-aggression pact and a neutrality pact. They posit that a non-aggression pact includes the promise not to attack the other pact signatories, whereas a neutrality pact includes a promise to avoid support of any entity that acts against the interests of any of the pact signatories. The most readily recognized example of the aforementioned entity is another country, nation-state, or sovereign organization that represents a negative consequence towards the advantages held by one or more of the signatory parties.

Decapitation is a military strategy aimed at removing the leadership or command and control of a hostile government or group. The strategy of shattering or defeating an enemy by eliminating its military and political leadership has long been utilized in warfare.

Collective security can be understood as a security arrangement, political, regional, or global, in which each state in the system accepts that the security of one is the concern of all, and therefore commits to a collective response to threats to, and breaches of peace. Collective security is more ambitious than systems of alliance security or collective defense in that it seeks to encompass the totality of states within a region or indeed globally, and to address a wide range of possible threats. While collective security is an idea with a long history, its implementation in practice has proved problematic. Several prerequisites have to be met for it to have a chance of working. It is the theory or practice of states pledging to defend one another in order to deter aggression or to target a transgressor if international order has been breached.

Liberal institutionalism is a theory of international relations that holds that international cooperation between states is feasible and sustainable, and that such cooperation can reduce conflict and competition. Neoliberalism is a revised version of liberalism. Alongside neorealism, liberal institutionalism is one of the two most influential contemporary approaches to international relations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Coup d'état</span> A sudden, unlawful, and often violent seizure of power from a government

A coup d'état, or simply a coup, is an illegal and overt attempt by the military or other government elites to unseat the incumbent leader by force. A self-coup is when a leader, having come to power through legal means, tries to stay in power through illegal means.

The capitalist peace, or capitalist peace theory, or commercial peace, posits that market openness contributes to more peaceful behavior among states, and that developed market-oriented economies are less likely to engage in conflict with one another. Along with the democratic peace theory and institutionalist arguments for peace, the commercial peace forms part of the Kantian tripod for peace. Prominent mechanisms for the commercial peace revolve around how capitalism, trade interdependence, and capital interdependence raise the costs of warfare, incentivize groups to lobby against war, make it harder for leaders to go to war, and reduce the economic benefits of conquest.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Western Union (alliance)</span> European military alliance

The Western Union (WU), also referred to as the Brussels Treaty Organisation (BTO), was the European military alliance established between France, the United Kingdom (UK) and the three Benelux countries in September 1948 in order to implement the Treaty of Brussels signed in March the same year. Under this treaty the signatories, referred to as the five powers, agreed to collaborate in the defence field as well as in the political, economic and cultural fields.

An audience cost, in international relations theory, is the domestic political cost that leaders incur from their constituency if they escalate a foreign policy crisis and are then seen as backing down. It is considered to be one of the potential mechanisms for democratic peace theory. It is associated with rational choice scholarship in international relations.

Sexism in American political elections refers to how sexism impacts elections in the United States, ranging from influences on the supply, demand, and selection of candidates to electoral outcomes. Sexism is inherently a product of culture, as culture instills a certain set of beliefs or expectations for what constitutes appropriate behavior, appearance, or mannerisms based on a person's sex. Sexism in American political elections is generally cited as a socially-driven obstacle to female political candidates, especially for non-incumbents, raising concerns about the representation of women in the politics of the United States. Such prejudice can take varying forms, such as benevolent or hostile sexism—the latter stemming from fears of women threatening the power or leadership of men.

Brett Ashley Leeds is an American political scientist. She is a professor of political science at Rice University, where she has also been the chair of the department. She studies how domestic politics affect international conflict and cooperation, as well as international institutions. She specializes in how alliances between countries function, and how they help countries prevent wars.

Constructivism presumes that ethnic identities are shapeable and affected by politics. Through this framework, constructivist theories reassesses conventional political science dogmas. Research indicates that institutionalized cleavages and a multiparty system discourage ethnic outbidding and identification with tribal, localized groups. In addition, constructivism questions the widespread belief that ethnicity inherently inhibits national, macro-scale identification. To prove this point, constructivist findings suggest that modernization, language consolidation, and border-drawing, weakened the tendency to identify with micro-scale identity categories. One manifestation of ethnic politics gone awry, ethnic violence, is itself not seen as necessarily ethnic, since it attains its ethnic meaning as a conflict progresses.

Rational choice is a prominent framework in international relations scholarship. Rational choice is not a substantive theory of international politics, but rather a methodological approach that focuses on certain types of social explanation for phenomena. In that sense, it is similar to constructivism, and differs from liberalism and realism, which are substantive theories of world politics. Rationalist analyses have been used to substantiate realist theories, as well as liberal theories of international relations.

In international relations, credibility is the perceived likelihood that a leader or a state follows through on threats and promises that have been made. Credibility is a key component of coercion, as well as the functioning of military alliances. Credibility is related to concepts such as reputation and resolve. Reputation for resolve may be a key component of credibility, but credibility is also highly context-dependent.

References

  1. "Define Alliance". Dictionary.com.
  2. Larsen, Stanley; Collins, James (1975). Allied Participation in Vietnam. Vietnam Studies. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Army. OCLC   1119579. Archived from the original on January 27, 2013. Retrieved January 15, 2013.
  3. "What is NATO?". NATO.
  4. Fang, Songying; Johnson, Jesse C.; Leeds, Brett Ashley (2014-10-01). "To Concede or to Resist? The Restraining Effect of Military Alliances". International Organization. 68 (4): 775–809. doi:10.1017/S0020818314000137. ISSN   0020-8183. S2CID   49250140.
  5. Leeds, Brett Ashley; Johnson, Jesse C. (2016-11-10). "Theory, Data, and Deterrence: A Response to Kenwick, Vasquez, and Powers". The Journal of Politics. 79: 335–340. doi:10.1086/687285. ISSN   0022-3816. S2CID   55385304.
  6. Johnson, Jesse C.; Leeds, Brett Ashley (2011-01-01). "Defense Pacts: A Prescription for Peace?1". Foreign Policy Analysis. 7 (1): 45–65. doi:10.1111/j.1743-8594.2010.00122.x. ISSN   1743-8594.
  7. Leeds, Brett Ashley (2003-07-01). "Do Alliances Deter Aggression? The Influence of Military Alliances on the Initiation of Militarized Interstate Disputes". American Journal of Political Science. 47 (3): 427–439. doi:10.1111/1540-5907.00031. ISSN   1540-5907.
  8. Kenwick, Michael R.; Vasquez, John A.; Powers, Matthew A. (2015-10-01). "Do Alliances Really Deter?". The Journal of Politics. 77 (4): 943–954. doi:10.1086/681958. ISSN   0022-3816. S2CID   9921552.
  9. Kenwick, Michael R.; Vasquez, John A. (2016-11-10). "Defense Pacts and Deterrence: Caveat Emptor". The Journal of Politics. 79: 329–334. doi:10.1086/686700. ISSN   0022-3816. S2CID   157263860.
  10. Morrow, James D. (2016-11-10). "When Do Defensive Alliances Provoke Rather than Deter?". The Journal of Politics. 79: 341–345. doi:10.1086/686973. ISSN   0022-3816. S2CID   157788422.
  11. Leeds, Brett Ashley (2003-01-01). "Alliance Reliability in Times of War: Explaining State Decisions to Violate Treaties". International Organization. 57 (4): 801–827. doi:10.1017/s0020818303574057. JSTOR   3594847. S2CID   154260997.
  12. "Analysis | Allies can't rely on America like they used to. And not just because of Trump". Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-05-31.
  13. Gaubatz, Kurt Taylor (1996-01-01). "Democratic states and commitment in international relations". International Organization. 50 (1): 109–139. doi:10.1017/S0020818300001685. ISSN   1531-5088. S2CID   154562172.
  14. Leeds, Brett Ashley; Mattes, Michaela; Vogel, Jeremy S. (2009-04-01). "Interests, Institutions, and the Reliability of International Commitments". American Journal of Political Science. 53 (2): 461–476. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00381.x. ISSN   1540-5907.
  15. Gartzke, Erik; Gleditsch, Kristian Skrede (2004-10-01). "Why Democracies May Actually Be Less Reliable Allies". American Journal of Political Science. 48 (4): 775–795. doi:10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00101.x. ISSN   1540-5907.
  16. 1 2 Berkemeier, Molly; Fuhrmann, Matthew (2018). "Reassessing the fulfillment of alliance commitments in war". Research & Politics. 5 (2): 205316801877969. doi: 10.1177/2053168018779697 .
  17. Schmid, Jon; Brummer, Matthew; Taylor, Mark Zachary (2017). "Innovation and Alliances". Review of Policy Research. 34 (5): 588–616. doi:10.1111/ropr.12244. ISSN   1541-1338.
  18. 1 2 3 "Four NATO Nations Would Pick Russia to Defend Them If Threatened". Bloomberg.com. 17 February 2017.
  19. "42% от българите искат Русия да ги защитава, 17% - САЩ". www.24chasa.bg.

Bibliography