Since centuries, formal alliances had been a part of international relations reflecting absolute intentions of states to partners as well as adversaries. To critically address the “why” factor of alliances in the geopolitical orbit, there are two theories that complement each other. One is the “Theory of Balance of Threat” which is presented by Stephen M.Walt and the other one is Band wagoning (Balance of Power) presented by Keneth Waltz.
Theory of Balance of Threat:
In-depth analysis of Stephen Waltz Theory of Balance of Threat declares that the formation of alliances is mainly subject to external threat. States get involved in alliances not to balance power but to balance threat essentially. Threat is an essential factor to be decoded. To analyze how a state is perceived as a threat by any other state, there are various factors to be noted. A state does exhibit certain features like population, economy, military capabilities and industrial might but characteristics such as geographic proximity, offensive capabilities, aggregate power and perceived intentions defines the “Threat” perception of one state for another. Geographic proximity tends to be the state’s ability to project its power with respect to the distance taken into consideration, offensive capabilities mean a state’s ability to interfere in the sovereignty and territorial integrity of any other state at a calculated cost and, perceived intentions refer to some states which could be problematic to the other states as per realist school of thought.
In short, Stephen Walt in his theory declares that the states appear as a black box which he tries to unlock and assess its internal capacity. Hence, it is evident that Walt measures the act of alliance by the states to combat threat not power.
Theory of Balance of Power (Band-wagoning):
Moving towards the second theory i.e. Band-wagoning presented by Keneth Waltz. He doesn’t contradict, instead contrasts the state’s behavior of balancing as well as band wagoning. Band wagoning refers to joining stronger coalition, being opposite to balancing where the real motive is to balance power in face of the threat posed by the stronger or dominant state by aligning with the weaker side. Now Stephen Waltz redefines the concept of band-wagoning and describes as aligning with the stronger one or to be precise “alignment with the source of danger” because the powerful or the dominant one is always posing threat and to join that entity from a state’s perspective it is securing itself for the future but making that threat stronger in the international arena broadly.
This theory of Keneth Waltz is explained by Stephen Walt from a different dimension. He argues that the phenomena of Band wagoning can be undertaken by the states for two reasons i.e. for defensive as well as offensive purposes. In defensive prospect it is to appease the dominant entity and in offensive prospect, it defines to get profit directly or indirectly from the victory of the powerful State or a combination of both can be the perception of a weaker state while aligning with the stronger one. Stephen Walt argues that balancing the threat and not band-wagoning is the right approach to respond to any external threat whereas band-wagoning is most of the time undertaken by the weaker and isolated states.
Band-wagoning is a limited approach because it requires trust and eventually increases the power of an already stronger state. In the International Arena, there is no permanent friend or enemy; only permanent interests prevail. Today’s friend can always turn into tomorrow’s enemy. The right approach is balancing the threat even if it required joining many weaker states at the end, it shall prevent the emergence of a single hegemon that could risk the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of all states in the longer run.
Reasons for Alliance Formation:
Stephen Walt explains the following reasons for states’ alliance formation in general. Firstly, when their survival is at risk, keeping in view the aggressive behavior of the opponent. Secondly, when their involvement in the group is making them stronger and more efficient and they are in a position to dominate the group as well. Stephen very sharply emphasizes on the fact that state does align with each other in the face of perceived threat but in some exceptional cases states bandwagon as well. He says “the greater aggregate capabilities of the state, greater are the chance for the others to get aligned with it”. He tries to define the intention of the states behind balancing as well as band wagoning. Walt quite intelligently express that although the formation of alliances by the states is undertaken in the face of power but actually it is not the sole reason behind; it is the threat that makes the states align with each other.
Furthermore, states also form alliances for internal as well as external security reasons. External security tends to be connected to realism in a broader sense where the relations between the major powers are tended to be drawn. Internal security tends to scrutinize alliance formation undertaken by the smaller entities(states). Alliances are made to complement each other in certain domains. For instance, it is the objective that defines the shared obligation of the alliance partners. Secondly, it requires a common strategy through which missions and subsequent role and responsibilities are disseminated. Thirdly, a collective agreement on the types and levels of forces required to execute a common strategy. And finally, a range of more specialized agreements on command relations and burden sharing by all the participants.
Also, states involve themselves into partnerships for ground collaborations in the economic terms. Economy is undoubtedly the most important ingredient of a state’s aggregate power. It defines where an entity stands in the international arena which consequently defines the weightage of a certain entity’s say in international matters. This reflects how it is not only the realism that guides alliance formation but liberalism is also an important factor that causes interdependency paving off the road towards peace.
AUKUS; A Practical Implication:
AUKUS Pact (a trilateral defense alliance signed by Australia, UK and U.S.) essentially exhibits the practical implication of both of the above explained theories in one way or the other. ‘Theory of Balance of Threat” presented by Stephen M.Walt is applicable as Australia signed AUKUS due to the perceived threat of China in the Indo-Pacific. Australia has already good relations with China but the recent aggressive approach of China in the Indo-Pacific Region has compelled Australia to prioritize U.S. over it. In face of the fact that geographic proximity of China is a threat to Australia being the most vulnerable as compared to the other two partners i.e. the U.S. and UK as well as the perceived intentions of China to become a hegemon in the longer run, Australia decided to join AUKUS. It is very much evident that the U.S. and China are competing for the hegemony in the international arena but saying so, the threat parameter posed by China in terms of security as well as economy of Australia are very much the reason of why Australia tilted towards the U.S.
Band-wagoning used in the Theory of International Politics presented by Keneth Waltz is equally evident in AUKUS. Australia alliance with U.S. despite the fact that it is already a strong entity means providing this state with more resources paving the way towards the U.S. becoming hegemon one day, Australia took the chance because of defensive as well as offensive reasons. For Australia the biggest threat it face is Chinese rise in the Indo-Pacific region and hence, along with its partners Australia has to behave exceptionally for their collective survival.
The phenomena of external security also come into play while examining AUKUS. Defense and security are important features of the foreign policy of a state. AUKUS is going to provide Australia with state-of-the-art technologies and intelligence facilities that are necessary to their survival as well as that shall guarantee their part of play in the Indo-Pacific Region. This region exhibits major flash points and not being cooperative rather aggressive behavior of China is the major reason why Australia signed AUKUS because joining the U.S. is the need of the hour in terms of security. Undeniably, state’s intentions are not visible to be measured in the parameters of good or bad but U.S.’s willingness to share its sensitive technology with its allies i.e. Australia in current times is enough to captivate its attention.
Finally, states form alliances in the international arena to maximize security, promote economic aspirations, and project larger political affluence. These partnerships enable nations to pool resources, deter threats, and navigate complex global challenges more effectively. Hence, alliances foster stability and cooperation, reflecting a strategic response to the evolving nature of modern international relations.
