เรื่อง: Civil Unrest In Southern Thailand: Roles and Challenges of Malaysia
|
|
หมวดหมู่:
|
งานวิจัย
|
มิติ:
|
มิติการทูต/Diplomacy
|
พื้นที่/ขอบเขต:
|
ภายในประเทศ/Domestic/Local
|
ผู้เขียน:
|
วิทยาลัยป้องกันราชอาณาจักร, Radm. Syed Zahul Putra bin Syed Abdullah (Malaysia)
|
หน่วยงานเจ้าของ:
|
วิทยาลัยป้องกันราชอาณาจักร
|
ปีที่พิมพ์:
|
2560
|
จำนวนหน้า:
|
|
การเปิดเผยข้อมูล:
|
สาธารณะ
|
|
บทคัดย่อ:
-
abstract:
1
U.S - ASIA ALLIANCES
Rear Admiral Syed Zahrul Putra
Course : NDC Class 60
Abstract
…………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Key word : …………………………………………………………………………….
INTRODUCTION
The strategic situation in Asia remains as an undesirable situation with old
stabilities and new risks which has become increasingly dangerous and uncertain place
due to the region interconnections. At the same time, the region also provides fresh
opportunities to build peace and stability. Asia’s strategic outlook with regards to the
contemporary international relations is fundamentally defines by the region
geographical and geopolitics aspect. Geographically Asian region is encompasses of
great distances and variations in culture and civilization. Meanwhile geopolitically it
can be observed through the struggle for power and influence among the region’s great
powers (Dibb, 2000, p. 3). Based on the geopolitical activity in the 21st century and
the growing U.S.-China security rivalry, Asia will become the epicenter which can be
conditioned by deep economic interdependence at the same time shape the region’s
future (Blumenthal, Schriver, Stokes, Hsio, & Maza, 2011).
The United States has played a major role in this ongoing geopolitical shift.
Based on the Washington’s post-World War II Asia policy has enabled majority of
Asian nations to economically develop and transition from closed to relatively open and
stable societies. The United States has been the center of security structures in both
Asian and European region along the different paths since 1945. The factors that
explain the different paths of security is based on geography, levels of economic 2
development, decolonization, cultural diversity, diversity of threats, and initial choices
made by the United States. However, relatively less attention has been paid to the postcold war evolution of alliances in the Asian region.
In Asia it is observed that the alliances of U.S-Japan, U.S.-Korea, U.S.-
Philippines and U.S.-Thailand have adequately prepared to deal with recent events
within the region. Among the likely events expected to create insecurity within the
region are the financial crisis, Taiwan Strait crisis, North Korean missile and nuclear
threat, The direction of such alliances is more towards strengthening, revitalizing, and
boosting cooperation in each alliance. In addition, the United States has maintained to
be the central focus within the Asian region which extends to a network of bilateral
alliances. The continuing threats from North Korea and uncertainties regarding China's
intentions have effectively postponed wider analyses of alliance resiliency in the
twenty-first century (Dibb, 2000).
AIM
The aim of this paper is to highlight several definitions with regards to
alliance. This paper will then discuss the concept and theories in relations to alliance
and further explain on the elements of alliance. In order to further understand the
alliances in Asia, further explanation will be given based on the Asian states that have
an alliance with the United States.
DEFINITION
Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary (1995) defines an alliance as the state
of being allied, an association by treaty of two or more nations to further their common
interests. Meanwhile, the Penguin Dictionary of International Relations (1998) defines
alliance as a formal agreement between two or more actors usually states to collaborate
together on perceived security issues of mutual importance. The alliances is anticipated
to increase the security, established or strengthen deterrence, operate in defence pact in
event of war and members will be precluded from joining other alliances. Meanwhile
Walt (1987) defined an alliance as “a formal or informal arrangement of security 3
cooperation between two or more sovereign states”. It includes both formal treaties and
informal commitments because states may be willing to cooperate but unwilling to sign
a formal treaty. The presence or absence of a formal treaty often says relatively little
about the actual level of commitment between the parties or states involved (Walt,
1987, pp. 12-13).
Other literatures in turn defined alliance as a formal association between
two or more states against the threat of a third, more powerful state. By being bound
into an alliance, states perceive that their security is enhanced through deterrence and
the alliance is sealed by way of the instrument of a defense pact (Liska, 1968). In
addition it is also stressed that in order for an association to be deemed an alliance, it
should contain the elements of a formal treaty (be it open or secret); the matter of
association must be related or concerned with national security issues and that parties
in such an association must be states (Holsti, Hopmann, & Sullivan, 1984).
Meanwhile the forming of alliances is driven by two principal imperatives.
First is idealistic, whereby nations commit themselves into an alliance due to shared
values and ideas, whilst secondly, it is due to realistic considerations that principally
rests on the notion that such an alliance would have the advantage of cost savings and
multiplicity of benefits by way of appropriate division of tasks, commonality of assets
and ultimately, the umbrella of protection afforded by a powerful ally (Walt, 1990).
CONCEPT AND THEORIES RELATED TO ALLIANCES
The concept of structural realist can be adopted with regards to alliances.
It can be observed that the structure of the international system that forces states to
pursue power and create the basic incentives for all great power. Structural realists
concerned more on how much power states should aim to control and divided into
offensive realists and defensive realists. Offensive realists argue that states should
always be looking for opportunities to gain more power and should do so whenever it
seems feasible. States should maximize power, and their ultimate goal should be
hegemony, because that is the best way to guarantee survival. While defensive realists 4
recognize that the international system creates strong incentives to gain additional
increments of power (Mearsheimer, 2007).
A range of theories has been advanced to explain alliance formation,
alliance performance and their nature. Alliance differ in many ways such as the
circumstances which alliances became operative based on the type of commitment, the
degree of cooperation and the scope of the alliance. It also includes the ideology, size,
capabilities, and leadership of a state. In order to understand the discipline of
international relations with regards to alliances between states the theory of balance of
power will be the main tool used (Dwivedi, 2012, pp. 227-228). This theory will
explain on the formation and duration of alliances. In addition, the theory of balance
of threat which is in contrast to the balance of power theory will also be used to explain
how states will react on the increase of other states capabilities.
Balance of Power
The balance of power is one of the Realist approaches in managing
insecurity (Mingst, 2011). The core logic behind the balance of power is when there is
unbalance in power, the stronger actor will be predisposed or tempted to secure more
power. Therefore, where there is a situation of greater imbalance, the greater is the
predisposition. This attributed to the fact that the costs and risk of war seem low in
relation to potential gains, therefore making war a rational strategy. Therefore when
aggressive, insecure and stronger actors face others with relatively equal power, they
are likely to be deterred by the possibility of the war would be unaffordable (Mingst,
2011).
Liska (1968) considers that an alliance is an alignment of states in the
situation of a conflict situation, conflict being a primary determinant of alliances (and
alignment), with the inherent threat or power potential used in balance of power. The
balance of power imperative appears to be the key explanation as to the reason why do
states enter into alliances. In addition, the balance of power theory is an alternative for
nations to form alliances in order to offset growing powers and restore the balance
(Morgenthau, 1993). 5
Walt (1987) mentioned that the idea that states join in alliances in order to
prevent stronger powers from dominating them which forms the central argument
behind the balance of power theory. Within this realm, states conduct themselves into
an alliance relationship in order to protect themselves from other states or coalitions
whose superior resources could pose a clear and present threat. States adopt this
balancing of power option mainly for survival, or even existence would be in question
should they fail to curb a hegemony that is becoming too strong. Therefore by joining
into an alliance with ally/allies who do not dominate others, in order to avoid being
dominated by the states that can or are already on a path of power.
In the pursuit for balance of power, states in alliance are seeking for
objectives for which on their own they do not possess the resources and capabilities
necessary to achieve those said objectives or in order to deal with aggressive pressures.
Alliances therefore are the most important tool for enhancing a state’s own power and
dealing with the perceived power potential of the adversary. If a state is threatening to
achieve a dominant position, the threatened state in turn will join with others to deal
with the threat (Mingst, 2011).
Balance of Threat
The balance of threat theory represents an important contribution to
neorealist thought which emphasize on state’s desire to balance against security threats.
Walt (1987) accepts the concept of balance of power in regards to alliances, but
elaborates further by enumerating that power by itself is one thing, but cannot disregard
the level of threat one state or coalition could have over other states. This level of threat
is affected by geographic proximity, offensive capability and aggressive intentions.
Therefore the power of other states can either be a liability or an asset depending on its
geographical location, what it is capable of doing and how such a capability is
exercised. When dealing with this threat, the most viable portions of response would
by entering into alliances to balance the power of the threat state or coalition (Walt,
1987). 6
The notion of this alliance perception has made the shift from balance of
power to balance of threat. Based on this perception, states will form alliances or
increase their internal efforts in order to reduce vulnerability in the event of an
imbalance of threat (Walt, 1997). Walt finds that it is the general tendency of states to
balance against the most threatening state or coalition which states are balance against
the strongest state or coalition. In fact, the balance against the state that poses the
greatest threat. The level of threat a state poses to others is a function of its power,
geographical location, offensive military capabilities and perceived aggressiveness,
though the precise weight attached to each factor will vary across cases.
The greater a state’s total resource such as population, industrial and
military capability, and technological expertise, the greater a potential threat it can pose
to others. Offensive power is the ability to threaten the sovereignty or territorial
integrity of another state. States with large offensive capabilities are more likely to
provoke an alliance than are those that are incapable of attacking. States that are viewed
as aggressive are likely to provoke others to balance against them.
ELEMENTS OF ALLIANCE
In Concept of Military Alliance, Bergmanns listed eight elements which
contributed in an alliance. The conclusion made after making an in-depth study of
alliances throughout history and the elements are as follows:
Alliances are arrangements between States. The first element is the state
must possess the inherent capability of a central authority having the power to rule over
a population within defined territorial jurisdiction. With this inherent capability, only
then such a state can exercise the ability to mobilize and exercise state power capacities,
a condition precedent for an alliance partner (Bergsmann, 2001).
Alliances are explicit agreements. The participating states are party to an
agreement that they are explicitly aware of whether it is conducted by a hand-shake or
a formal treaty. This criteria will distinguishes the alliances from alignments which are
only informal groupings of states based upon interests that give rise to mere embedded7
expectations. By this explicitness, the state is can make calculations and form their
own expectations accordingly (Bergsmann, 2001).
Alliances deal with a certain behaviour for a certain contingency in the
future. The alliance in the main is focused on a specific behaviour that shall be
exercised in the event of a certain condition occurring. This element distinguishes
alliances from security cooperation or non-aggression pacts which promise a certain
behavior for the full period of duration of the agreement (Bergsmann, 2001).
Essential that the event for which the specified behaviour is promised
is uncertain. Within the realm of this element, the alliance partners do not know when
this condition will arise or whether it will occur at all. This separates alliances from
actual coalitions, which are formed in anticipation of a decision that will take place for
certain at a more or less known point of time. This uncertainty is crucial in alliance,
for such an uncertainty would incur considerations that would be lengthy by the states
in an alliance given the uncertainty of an occurrence (Bergsmann, 2001).
An alliance is a promise. This has to be distinguished from the actual
behavior shown by the state. This element together with above the element follows the
inherent insecurity of alliances and perspective of the allying partners (Bergsmann,
2001).
The promise comprises an assistance in the event specified in the treaty
(usually an attack on one of the partners). This promise will be based on the form of
employing the state’s resources in the aid of another state. The alliance partner in this
regard can calculate to commit a substantial external contribution of its own resources
to the defense of another alliance partner in the occurrence of a certain occasion. This
element distinguishes alliances from neutrality pacts and neutrality pacts promise only
not to augment the adversary’s resources, the promise comprises only the vague
commitment of consultations in case of a crisis (Bergsmann, 2001).
This promise is mutual amongst the alliance partners. It means that the
alliance partner not only needs to calculate the advantages of external assistance in the
advent of a serious threat but at the same time need to consider the disadvantages of the 8
risk of getting entangled into the conflicts of the alliance partner state, which might
inflict a high cost to the partner concerned should this risk is undertaken (Bergsmann,
2001).
The agreement falls into the realm of national security. This element is
fundamental in an alliance, since states undertake risk that might eventually post an
existential risk to the relevant state as a sovereign entity. In such a risk, it is not
pertaining as to the issue of cost but also in matters of life and death (Bergsmann, 2001).
ASIAN COUNTRIES ALLIANCE WITH THE UNITED STATES (U.S)
The US policies towards Asia have been clear for a very long time based
on conception of order in Asia especially Northeast Asia. The US presents the countries
of Asia since 1900 with the combination of interest, power and distance which no other
countries have the same opinion. Therefore some of the Asian countries tend to accept
the US concern as legitimate and useful. In addition the US interest in Asia has included
the willingness to spend political capital and committed their armed forces within the
region. This can be observed through the involvement in the internal politics and
military development of the Philippines, South Korea, Thailand and Taiwan.
Nevertheless, the US conception of order in Asia has excludes the hegemonic
dominance of Japan and China. The involvements in Asia open economies and open
trading opportunities observed to be successful due to political compromise (Zelikow,
2000). The Asian countries that have an alliance with the US are Japan, Republic of
Korea (ROK), The Philippines and Thailand.
The US-Japan Alliance
Japan has been the most capable alliance of the US in Northeast Asia based on
the history, economic development and technological capacities. Japan
emerging capabilities will serve the US core objective to preserve a favorable
regional balance of power. In addition, Japan contribution to the production of
global public goods and future coalition of the willing within the region. Based 9
on the consistent foreign policy, Japan will remain committed to the alliance
with the US for the advancement of its political aims (Tellis, 2014, pp. 25-26).
The US-ROK Alliance
The US-ROK alliance currently is slowly changing in the direction of greater
equality and more wide ranging partnership. ROK economic achievement and
steady consolidation in term of democracy have made the evolution possible.
This has lead to ROK’s growing desire for more responsibilities for its defence
at the same time play a bigger role in the region. The alliance with US has
created greater opportunities towards contribution of regional and global
stability (Tellis, 2014, p. 26).
The US Alliance with the Philippines
The alliance is observed to be unique based on the colonial ties between the two
nations. Since its independence in 1946, Philippines remained strong but
dependent ally with the US throughout the Cold War. As its domestic politic
took a decisive turn towards democracy, the Philippines finally rejected the US
military presence there. Currently the US-Philippines alliance is observed to be
in a discomfort situation with the US military presence slowly subordinated to
the growing fear of China on the claims over offshore islands in the South China
Sea. Unlike the other US allies, the Philippines remain a military weak state
and will continue to persist as a consumer to US security product in the region.
As a whole the need to broaden the security cooperation is essential in order to
satisfy the aspiration of the people (Tellis, 2014, p. 27).
The US-Thailand Alliance
Often hailed as the “oldest treaty ally of the U.S. in Asia” by virtue of the Treaty
of Amity and Cooperation signed in 1833 (2014 The National Bureau of Asian
Research). Thailand has been a steady and enduring partner of the U.S. in
Southeast Asia. Nevertheless Thailand’s quality of state observed to be 10
inconsistently increased as Southeast Asia gradually grew more prosperous,
new forms of engagement with China and its location as land bridge for
increased connectivity through the continental Southeast Asia. However in
future, Thailand’s future with regard to permit the US an excess through the
region will protect its significance. The sudden change in Thailand domestic
politics have stressed the bilateral relations with the recurring coups in the
country. Nevertheless, Thailand will remain as the US important ally in
providing an access for the US military movements and hosting major regional
training exercises which contributes towards preserving peace and stability in
the wider region (Tellis, 2014, pp. 27-28).
ADVANTAGE AND LIMITATION OF ALLIANCES
Advantage
The principal advantage offered by alliances can only be appreciated
through the viewpoint of Realists, it is the institutional tool that enhances a states own
power and meeting the perceived power potential of a threatening adversary. This will
enables member states to leverage on the inherent capabilities of the powerful member
states without the need to outstrip their economic capabilities. Being alliance members,
the militaries of the weaker states could access to advanced weaponry and training and
in the case of Japan, posses all the means necessary to deal with emerging security
issues at the global level.
Limitation
One major limitation to the balance of power approach as observed within
an alliance is that its inability to manage security during periods of rapid change. In
addition, the downfall of the main threat would see a divergence of threat perceptions
amongst alliance members (Mingst, 20011). Instead of downsizing by the United States
as the balance of power, the Realists consider it as potential to be invalid due to fears
of a resurgence of an opponent, opposition from domestic political considerations to
maintain defense spending and employment. All of these factors making policy
decisions difficult.
CONCLUSION 11
Many scholars and analysts argue that in the twenty-first century, international
instability is more likely to be in East Asia rather than in Western Europe. It is observed
that East Asia appears to be more dangerous and the region is characterized by major
shifts in the balance of power, twisted distributions of economic and political power
within and between countries. The consistent growing but still relatively low levels of
intraregional economic interdependence, security institutionalization, and widespread
territorial disputes that combine natural resource issues with post-colonial nationalism
(Christensen, 1999).
Alliances play a central role in international relations theory. The forming
of alliance fulfils a Realist imperative to achieve security in the face of an anarchical
international environment. In the face of a threat of a stronger opponent, states would
enter into alliances to achieve a balance of power position against the threatening
adversary. It is indeed to be very costly for the threatening adversary to go to war and
derive whatever benefits that might achieve. If all states maintain this balance, then the
possibility of war would be minimal. However, alliances in the long term would be
subject to challenges especially when there is a change in threat perceptions and as such
the alliance may suffer from lack of cohesiveness and unity of action (Niou &
Ordeshook, 1994).
The United States has played a major role in this ongoing geopolitical shift.
Washington’s post-World War II Asia policy enabled a majority of Asian nations to
economically develop and transition from closed to relatively open and stable societies.
Asian countries achieved these goals by embracing the “liberal order,” characterized by
democratic capitalism, built and maintained by the United States. The challenges faced
by the U.S alliances with Asian countries will be the rapid changes in the global scene,
challenging global economic climate, emergence of centric defense architecture and
differences in threat perceptions. All the aspects mentioned will serve to reduce the
cohesion and utility of the longest serving multilateral security alliance in the world
today. 12
References:
Bergsmann, S. (2001). The Concept of Military Alliances. In E. Ritner, & H. Grtner,
Small States and Alliances (p. 28). New York: Physica Verlaq Heidelberg.
Blumenthal, D., Schriver, R., Stokes, M., Hsio, L. R., & Maza, M. (2011). Asian
Alliances in the 21st Century. Project 2049 , 1.
Christensen, T. J. (1999). China, The US-Japan Alliance and the Security Delimma in
East Asia. Interntional Security Vol. 23 No. 4 , 49-80.
Dibb, P. (2000). The Straegic Environment in the Asia-Pacific Region. In R. D.
Blackwill, & P. Dibb, America's Asian Alliances (pp. 1-3). Massachusetts: The
MIT Press.
Dwivedi, S. S. (2012). Alliances in International Theory. Interational Journal of
Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research , 224-237.
Holsti, O. R., Hopmann, P. T., & Sullivan, J. D. (1984). Unity and Disintegration in
International Alliances. New York: University Press of America.
Liska, G. (1968). Nations in Alliance: The Limits of Interdependence. Baltimore:
Cambridge University Press.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2007). Structural Realism. In T. Dunne, M. Kurki, & S. Smith,
International Relations Theories:Discipline and Diversity (p. 83). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Mingst, K. A. (2011). Essentials of International Relations Fifth Edition. New York:
W.W Norton & Company.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1993). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace
5th Edition. New York: McGraw Hill.
Niou, E. M., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1994). Alliances in Anarchic International System.
International Studies Quarterly Vol. 38 No. 2 , 167-191.
Tellis, A. J. (2014). Seeking Alliances and Partnerships: The Long Road to
Confederationism in US Grand Strategy. In A. J. Tellis, A. M. Denmark, & G.
Chaffin, US Alliances and Partnerships at the Center of Global Power (pp. 3-
34). Seattle: The National Bureau of Asian Research.
Walt, S. M. (1987). Origin of Aliances. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Walt, S. M. (1990). The Origin of Alliance. Cornell: Cornell Unversity Press.13
Walt, S. M. (1997). Why Alliances Endure or Collapse. Survival Volume 39 Issue 1 ,
168.
Zelikow, P. (2000). Amerrican Engagement in Asia. In R. D. Blackwill, & P. Dibb,
America's Asian Alliances (pp. 19-30). Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Catharin Dalpino (2014). The United States – Thailand Alliance. Issues for a New
Dialoque. The National Bureau of Asian Research
