AMALGAMATED SECURITY COMMUNITIES BY C2011 Andrew S. Harvey Submitted to the graduate degree program in Political Science and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Brent J. Steele Chairperson Philip A. Schrodt Co-chair Mariya Omelicheva Theodore A. Wilson Bruce W. Menning Date Defended: 28 June, 2011 The Dissertation Committee for Andrew S. Harvey certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: AMALGAMATED SECURITY COMMUNITIES Brent J. Steele Chairperson Philip A. Schrodt Co-chair Date approved: 28 June, 2011 ii Abstract AMALGAMATED SECURITY COMMUNITIES By Andrew S. Harvey This dissertation examines the process of the formation and dissolution of Amalgamated Security Communities, a topic that has been ignored by the academic community except as a side note when the origins of Pluralistic Security Communities are examined. Amalgamated Security Communities (ASC) must have some level of military integration. A multiple case study design examines the process of integrating military forces and capabilities to generate military power in the context of the formation of an ASC. The cases chosen were restricted to those in which the various previously independent political entities voluntarily and formally merged. Once a decision is made to integrate military capabilities, especially the integration of the capacity to produce military capability, an ASC will form as a result; this process is the mirror image of state dissolution. The degree of integration of military capabilities and the capacity to produce military capability is the independent variable which has been divided into a number of categories used to compare cases. This study argues that it is the decision to become “brothers-in- arms” that is crucial to the development of an “us” vs. “others” identity. It is military integration that creates and reinforces a new identity among and between amalgamated political entities rather than being a byproduct of an identity. This connection between military integration and identity formation is a critical foundation of this study. Findings include, that how military forces are created, controlled, organized, equipped, and by whom, has a political impact on the formation of an ASC. Multiple jurisdictions with control over military capabilities and the capacity to produce military capabilities creates a politically unstable ASC. This study permits prediction of how stable an ASC is and the likelihood of its violent fracture as well as providing methods to prevent violent conflict regardless of the geographic, cultural, and economic context of the ASC and whether it is an authoritarian political regime or not. Finally, this study places Constructivism as an approach at the heart of the creation of military forces, as well as at the forefront of military fracture and civil war. iii Acknowledgements I would like to thank the members of my committee for their patience and assistance during the process of producing this work. My chair, Brent Steele, and co-chair, Phil Schrodt, have been very encouraging and kind throughout. I am also grateful for the support of the KU Political Science Department Staff as well as other faculty; particularly Paul D'Anieri. I owe a debt of gratitude to many people who assisted me over many years particularly while in the Army. Most of all, I want to thank my wife and sons, who were always supportive and loving, for putting up with the “never-ending student.” iv Table of contents Chapter 1. Amalgamated Security Communities page 1 and the Process of State Formation. Chapter 2 Cases of Strong Amalgamated Security Communities page 55 Chapter 3. Cases of Weak or Partially Integrated Amalgamated page 151 Security Communities Chapter 4. Cases of Amalgamated Security Community failures; page 264 failure to form and failure by disintegration. Chapter 5: The case of EU: movement towards defense integration page 357 leading to an Amalgamated Security Community Chapter 6. Analysis of Amalgamated Security Communities cases page 414 Appendices page 462 v Chapter 1. Amalgamated Security Communities and the Process of State Formation. 1-1. Introduction – defining Amalgamated Security Communities p. 1 1-2 Vignette, Why Amalgamated Security Communities? p. 4 1-3. The Problem p.5 1-4. Alternative Explanations and Theories p. 6 1-4 (a). Official Explanation and Public goods p. 6 1-4 (b). Theories of European Integration p. 10 1-4 (c). Realism and Neo-Realism p. 16 1-4 (d). Neo-Liberalism p. 21 1-4 (e). Constructivism p. 24 1-5. The Argument p. 31 1-6. Research Design p. 46 1-6. (a) Categories of the Independent Variable p. 47 1-6. (b) Selection of Cases p. 53 1-1. Introduction Unlike Pluralistic Security Communities which have been the object of significant academic interest since 1998, the concept of Amalgamated Security Communities (ASCs) has received scant attention from the academic community since it was first proposed by Karl Deutsch in 1957.1 This paper seeks to correct this omission and proposes that Amalgamated Security Communities are in fact very important and have significant ramifications for both the academic community and policy makers. Although this paper will expound in greater detail the particulars of the argument for Amalgamated Security Communities, it is necessary first to outline the basis for the paper and establish some definitions to thereby create the framework needed to discuss the concept. The start point is the definition of Amalgamation as proposed by Karl Deutsch. “By Amalgamation we mean the formal merger of two or more previously independent units into a single larger unit, with some type of common government after amalgamation. This common government may be unitary or federal. The United States today is an example of the amalgamated type. It became a single governmental unit by the formal merger of several formerly independent units. It has one supreme decision-making center.”2 Integration according to Deutsch is “…the attainment, within a territory, of a “sense of community” and of institutions and practices strong enough and widespread enough to assure for a “long” time, dependable 1 Karl Deutsch et al., eds., Political Community and the North Atlantic Area, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957) 2 Ibid., 6 1 expectations of “peaceful change” among its population.”3 According to Deutsch amalgamation and integration do not completely overlap, so that there can be amalgamation without integration and vice versa. The distinction is diagrammed in such a way as to illustrate that amalgamation without integration leads to entities such as the Hapsburg Empire, while amalgamation with integration leads to Amalgamated Security Communities such as the United States.4 Deutsch provides definitions for; “security communities”, “integration”, “sense of community”, “peaceful change”, “amalgamation ”,“ pluralistic” and what constitutes a successful and unsuccessful security community, but he does not provide a direct definition of an Amalgamated Security Community. He does indicate however that there are certain conditions that should exist for the formation of an Amalgamated Security Community. These conditions include: mutual compatibility of main values (political, and religious); a distinctive way of life and the formation of a common sense of “us”; positive expectations of stronger economic ties and gains and noneconomic gains; an increase in political and administrative capabilities; superior economic growth; unbroken links of social communication as well as multiplicity of mutual institutions and common transactions; a broadening of the political, social, and economic elites as well as links among the elites of different states; geographical mobility of the population; a not infrequent change of group roles; and considerable mutual predictability of behavior. 5 Another implicit factor must be security relationships and military structures within a ‘security community.’ Considering these conditions as implicit parts of the definition of Amalgamated Security Communities, and combining them with the explicit definition of Amalgamation, should give a workable definition that is in line with Deutsch’s intent. The operational definition for Amalgamated Security Communities proposed by this paper therefore is that; Amalgamated Security Communities are states (de facto or de jure) composed of two or more previously independent political entities that have integrated a portion of their respective militaries and that have voluntarily and formally merged so that they are subject to some form of common government. 3 Ibid., 5 4 Ibid., Diagram. p.7 5 Ibid., 46-58 2 The next step is to acknowledge and incorporate the seminal work done by Adler and Barnet in Security Communities.6 In this work, building on and adapting concepts from Deutsch, they were able to establish the concept of pluralistic security communities as a viable research program using a constructivist approach. Their work is at the conceptual heart of this paper and is wholeheartedly accepted; except for one key item. Adler and Barnet describe two types of “mature” security communities that can emerge; these are loosely coupled and tightly coupled security communities. They describe indicators for the existence of each type. One indicator for tightly coupled security communities is: “A high level of military integration. Although a security community does not require that there be military integration, it is quite likely