ULUSLARARASI GÜVENLİK

In international politics, balance of power refers to a condition in which no one state predominates over others, tending to create general equilibrium and curb the hegemonic ambitions of all states. Therefore, the correct option is C

Omni-balancing is a more suitable strategy to explain the balancing behavior of the leaders of the third world states. This concept suggests that omnibalancing explains Third World alignments as a consequence of leaders seeking to counter internal and external threats to their rule. Therefore, the correct option is B.

A Nonaggression pact is an alliance whose signatories pledge not to resort to military action against other pact signatories. An example of a non-aggression treaty is the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany during World War II. Therefore, the correct option is A.

In an entente, the signatories merely agree to consult one another in the event of a security-military threat. An example of an entente is the British-French Entente Cordiale of 1904. No firm commitment exists between the partners. Entente agreements are relatively flexible associations, and they make sense only if they serve the common interests of the partners. Secrecy, ideological issues etc. are well delineated in alliance treaties but not in ententes. Therefore, the correct option is D.

Waltz suggests that states behave in such a way that results in forming a balance. This tendency, in fact, owes much to the security dilemma. For Waltz, security is the most essential goal for states; however, increasing the national power, paradoxically, may not achieve this goal. It is basically a zero-sum game, the gain of one country is the loss of another. The division of gains may favor certain countries even in winning coalitions and, therefore, pose security challenges for other countries. Therefore, the correct option is D.

Soon after the Second World War had ended, several disagreements emerged among the allied powers of the war, namely the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union. Especially, they failed to reach an agreement on the post-war international order. The Soviet Union started to dominate Eastern Europe by imposing socialist ideology on the regional powers and expanded its sphere of influence. This was opposed, however, by the Western powers, including the US. As a result, the US decided to form an alliance to minimize the Soviet influence in Europe and get prepared for a possible attack by the socialist/communist states. Therefore, the correct option is E.

After the foundation of the alliance in 1949, new allies joined NATO. Greece and Turkey became full members in 1952, and West Germany followed suit in 1955. In reaction to West Germany’s becoming a NATO member, the Soviet Union and its East European allies formed the Warsaw Pact in 1955. Therefore, the correct option is B.

In 1989, with the end of the Cold War, we witnessed a paradigm shift in the theories of international relations. For example, Francis Fukuyama considered the end of the Cold War as the end of history and the end of ideologies, except liberalism. Therefore, the correct option is B.

NATO aims at guaranteeing the freedom and security of its members through political and military means. The rationale of NATO is to provide security for its members. Moreover, NATO works to promote democratic values and enables members to consult and cooperate on defense and security-related issues to solve problems, build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict. NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. If diplomatic efforts fail, it has the military power to undertake crisis-management operations. These are carried out under the collective defense clause of NATO’s founding treaty - Article 5 of the Washington Treaty or under a United-Nations mandate, alone or in cooperation with other countries and international organizations. Therefore, the correct option is C.

Each member country has a permanent delegation at NATO’s political headquarters in Brussels. Each delegation is headed by an “ambassador,” who represents his/her government in the Alliance’s consultation and decision-making process. Therefore, the correct option is A.

Security dilemma is another key feature of the competitive international system. Security dilemma refers to a condition in which actions taken by one actor to improve its national security are interpreted as aggressive/offensive by other actors, thereby provoking military counter-moves (Griffiths, O’Callaghan, and Roach, 2008: 295; Heywood, 2011: 19).

When states attempt to balance threats by an increase of their national capabilities, this is called internal balancing. Alternatively, when they try to balance against a prevailing threat by the establishment of informal or formal alliances with other states, this is known as external balancing (Grieco, 1997: 160).

Through internal and external efforts, a state can either increase its own capacity or impair that of its rival. While the former is called positive balancing, the latter is negative balancing (Steff and Khoo, 2014: 2227-228). One can make
another distinction between hard balancing and soft balancing. States use mainly their military and economic capacities in hard balancing, whereas soft balancing suggests the use of diplomatic and cultural means, which are the soft power resources (Fortmann, Paul and Wirtz, 2004: 362-365; Paul, 2004: 3; Pape, 2005: 9-10).

An alignment is considered as any general commitment between states in order to achieve mutual security goals. Its objectives are cooperation and collaboration that are broad and vague rather than narrow and explicit (Krause and Singer, 2001: 16; Snyder, 1990: 105). A coalition is characterized by the commitment of two or more states to coordinate their behavior and policies in order to perform particular functions or pursue specific goals. It is often formed during a war (Snyder, 1990: 106).

Within the balance of power politics, there is another strategy employed by states; bandwagoning. Bandwagoning refers to aligning with or joining the powerful actor toward protecting itself from fear and attack, even if this means insecurity and a certain sacrifice from its independence. In fact one can differentiate between two types of bandwagoning: defensive and offensive. In defensive bandwagoning, which is a form of appeasement, a state aligns with a threatening power to avoid being attacked. Offensive bandwagoning is alignment with a dominant state for the payoffs.

Alliances are arrangements between states and, in some cases, independent authorities other than states.

Alliances are explicit agreements. Nevertheless, explicitness of an alliance agreement does not necessarily mean that the agreement is made by a formal treaty and declared to other states and registered with the United Nations.

General commitments such as the League of Nations, the United Nations, or their affiliated specialized agencies and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) are not considered formal military alliances.

The arrangements for mutual security and general defense cooperation like the US-Turkey Defense and Economic Cooperation, which deals exclusively with bases, military aid, financial aid, and training programs, are not considered as alliances (Krause
and Singer, 2001).

Alliances contribute to the national security of states. Alliances provide states an air of seriousness that clearly distinguishes them from agreements in other areas of foreign policy, such as finance or commerce.

Wartime alliances are, in fact, generally established in peacetime to prevent, or prevail in, a possible future war.

Peacetime alliances are just formal or informal agreements between two or more states intended to further the national security of the participating states, operating when the signatories are not at war. If war begins and the alliance does not dissolve, it turns into a wartime alliance.

A defense pact requires its signatories to intervene with military force on behalf of any alliance partner(s) engaged in armed hostilities.

A Nonaggression pact is an alliance whose signatories pledge not to resort to military action against other pact signatories.

A neutrality pact includes a promise to avoid supporting another country, which may act against the interests of any of the pact signatories.

First of all, an alliance contributes to the balance of power in a given setting. Defensive alliances deter aggressive states from using military force.

A formal military alliance such as NATO usually has the purpose of collective defense, where its members pool their capabilities and launch a collective effort to protect one another against a potential outside aggressor.

Moreover, alliances help contain potential rivals. For example, the US has benefited from the alliances to contain the Soviet Union (later Russia), China, Iran, and other states that are perceived to be threatening the American political, military, and economic interests. Alliances also provide the means to keep the allies under control through restricting their interaction with potential rivals.

Furthermore, alliances enhance the military power of its members. The military strength of an alliance naturally enhances the national power in terms of personnel, military equipment, defense spending, high technology, intelligence sharing, and financial resources.

Finally, alliances provide the members with cost-effective options in pursuing national security interests through pooling the military capabilities and sharing the financial burdens. Otherwise, the members would be forced to extensively increase their defense spending and conscript many people that may ultimately strain the workforce. For minor powers, alliances have increasingly become a means not only to acquire essential military benefits but also to achieve various nonmilitary objectives such as diplomatic support, technology transfer, economic aid, and trade privileges.

During the heyday of the Cold War (roughly between 1949 and 1962), NATO followed the strategic doctrine of Massive Retaliation. According to which, if a power (read it as the Soviet Union) launches an attack on the alliance members, NATO would respond with nuclear weapons, no matter what the nature of the first attack was. Scholars and NATO officials claimed that the strategy of Massive Retaliation allowed the members of the alliance to focus their energies on economic growth rather than on maintaining large conventional armies.

NATO aims at guaranteeing the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. If diplomatic efforts fail, it has the military power to undertake crisis-management operations.

NATO is committed to the principle that an attack against one or several of its members is considered as an attack against all. This is the principle of collective defense

A “NATO decision” is the expression of the collective will of all 29 member countries since all decisions are taken by consensus.

Members can bring any issue of concern, especially related to the security of a member country.

The Secretary General is the Alliance’s top international civil servant. He/she is responsible for steering the process of consultation and decisionmaking within the Alliance and ensuring that decisions are implemented.

“The Science for Peace and Security (SPS) Programme promotes dialogue and practical cooperation between NATO member states and partner nations based on scientific research, technological innovation and knowledge exchange. The SPS offers funding, expert advice and support to tailor-made, security-relevant activities that respond to NATO’s strategic objectives”.