REGIONS, POWERS AND SECONDARY STATE BANDWAGONING UNDER UNIPOLARITY: THE CASE OF TURKISH-AMERICAN RELATIONS by aban Karda A dissertation submitted to the faculty of The University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science University of Utah August 2010 Copyright © aban Karda 2010 All Rights Reserved The University of Utah Grad uate School STATEMENT OF DISSERTATION APPROVAL The dissertation of Saban Kardas has been approved by the following supervisory committee members: Steven Lobell , Chair 4/1312010 bate Approved Howard Lehman , Member 4/1312010 DateApproved Adam Luedtke , Member 4/1312010 Date Approved John Francis , Member 4/1312010 bate Approved Hasan Kosebalaban , Member 4/1312010 Date Approved _______ atthe rban and by _ _ w u k _______ ' :.:..:;:M "' "':..;:..;.;....=:B.= =.=. ==-- _ Chair of the Department of Political Science and by Charles A. Wight, Dean of The Graduate School. ABSTRACT Why do secondary powers cooperate with the United States in the post-Cold War unipolar international system and what factors determine their level and type of cooperation? Why did the United States have difficulties enlisting Turkey, a steadfast US ally, behind its military-political agenda in some cases, while it obtained Turkey’s support successfully in others? To answer these questions, this dissertation examined the boundary conditions of when secondary powers are likely to engage in bandwagoning strategies, i.e., follow the stronger side in a militarized international dispute taking place in a regional security complex (RSC). The central claim of this dissertation is that what determines whether a secondary power will bandwagon is not the distribution of power at the global systemic level, i.e., independent variable, but the dynamics of the regional and domestic environments within which the foreign policy executive (FPE) operates to execute its country’s foreign policy, which this study treated as intervening variables, mediating systemic influences. I developed a multilevel foreign policy model that delineates the independent and intervening variables at different levels and identifies elaborate causal linkages between the systemic incentives and the dependent variable, i.e., different foreign policy outcomes in the form of secondary state bandwagoning. This model has been tested through a closer examination of Turkey’s alliance behavior in the context of two conflicts, with a particular focus on how Turkey conducted its relations with the United States: US invasion of Iraq (2003) and Russian-Georgian conflict (2008). These cases were chosen as most-likely candidates for defensive bandwagoning, a subtype of the overall bandwagoning strategy, because the primary motivation driving Turkish FPE was the perceived indirect threats from US actions. The two case studies provide evidence that the intervening variables at the domestic and regional environments influenced state behavior, through the causal mechanisms identified in the model. I therefore conclude that although structural distribution of power exerts a major causal influence on state behavior, i.e., the systemic imperative of bandwagoning, the boundary conditions of the bandwagoning argument are set by the causal forces located at the domestic and regional environments. iv To My Family TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................iii ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................................................... xii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... xiv CHAPTERS 1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 1 Statement of the Question and the Scope of my Argument............................................ 4 Alliances: Balancing vs. Bandwagoning .................................................................... 4 Alliances Under Unipolarity....................................................................................... 5 Indirect Threats and Defensive Bandwagoning.......................................................... 7 Regionally-differentiated Foreign Policy Model........................................................ 8 Introduction of the Hypotheses................................................................................. 10 Relevant Literature........................................................................................................ 13 Why the Proposed Research?........................................................................................ 14 Methodology................................................................................................................. 20 Case Study Method................................................................................................... 20 Process Tracing Method ...................................................................................... 21 Case Selection: Most-likely Research Design and the Logic of Inference.......... 22 Introduction of Cases ................................................................................................ 24 Specification of Key Concepts and the Coding and Measurement of Variables...... 28 Independent Variable: Polarity ............................................................................ 28 Dependent Variable: Bandwagoning ................................................................... 29 Intervening Variables: Permissiveness of Relevant Environments ................... 30 Alliance Stimulant: Indirect Threats.................................................................... 30 Secondary Power Motivation: Security-seeking ................................................. 31 Foreign Policy Executive (FPE) .......................................................................... 31 Regional Security Complex (RSC)...................................................................... 32 Case Analysis and Hypothesis Testing..................................................................... 33 Structure of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 34 2. ALIGNMENT BEHAVIOR IN RESPONSE TO SYSTEMIC CONDITIONS.... 35 Review of Balancing vs. Bandwagoning Literature ..................................................... 36 Balancing Hypothesis ............................................................................................... 37 Bandwagoning .......................................................................................................... 38 Defensive Bandwagoning ......................................................................................... 39 Balancing Predominates............................................................................................ 40 Balancing Hypothesis Challenged ............................................................................ 41 Offensive Bandwagoning.......................................................................................... 43 Hegemonic Stability.................................................................................................. 44 Alignment Patterns Under Unipolarity: Responses to U.S. Power............................... 46 Scope of My Approach: The Argument for Secondary State Bandwagoning Under Unipolarity .................................................................................................................... 52 Types of Bandwagoning Strategies in Response to Alliance Stimulant................... 53 Defensive vs. Offensive Strategies: Going Beyond the Rigid Division .............. 55 Bringing in Unipolarity............................................................................................. 57 Established ‘Hegemony’ Eases Concerns Over Bandwagoning ......................... 58 Distribution of Power Induces Bandwagoning.................................................... 60 Interest Compatibility Under Unipolarity: Offensive Bandwagoning................. 61 Indirect Threats as a Stimulant of Alignment Behavior Under Unipolarity........ 62 Responses to Indirect Threats: Soft Balancing vs. Defensive Bandwagoning .... 65 Defensive Bandwagoning: Causal Mechanism ............................................................ 66 Summary....................................................................................................................... 71 3. REGIONS AS A DISTINCT LEVEL OF ANALYSIS ........................................... 72 Developments in Levels of Analysis Literature............................................................ 73 Why Study Regions as a Distinct Level of Analysis? .................................................. 77 Approaches to the Study of Regions............................................................................. 79 The Ebb and Flows in the Comparative Study of Regions....................................... 81 Place of the Present Study in the Literature on Regions............................................... 85 Regions as Independent Variable.............................................................................. 87 Definition of a Region: Borrowing from Regional Security Complexes ..................... 88 Systemic vs. Ideational Definitions of Regions........................................................ 89 Proximate Interactions