UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Date:___________________ I, _________________________________________________________, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in: It is entitled: This work and its defense approved by: Chair: _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ NATO’s Transformation in an Imbalanced International System A Dissertation Submitted to The Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in the Department of Political Science in the McMicken College of Arts and Science 2008 By Ivan Dinev Ivanov B.A. University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria 2000 M.A. Central European University, Budapest, Hungary 2001 Master of Advanced International Studies, Diplomatic Academy, Vienna, Austria 2002 Committee Chair: Dr. Richard Harknett Abstract The dissertation studies the functioning and management of NATO in the post-Cold War distribution of power. The core purpose is the articulation of a framework that enables coherent explanation of NATO’s transformation while at the same time binding together the invitation to new allies, the expansion of allied missions, and advancement of new capabilities. I explain these three aspects of NATO’s transformation through club goods theory and the concept of complementarities. The club goods framework originates from collective goods literature and is consistent with the theory of intergovernmental bargaining in integration studies. It suggests that NATO has features similar to heterogeneous clubs: voluntarism, sharing, cost-benefit analysis and exclusion mechanisms. Based on club good theory, I conceptualize complementarities as a relationship between military resources and transformational allied capabilities. The military resources considered include military personnel, army, navy, air force and defense spending. The alliance missions in terms of peacekeeping, crisis management and non-proliferation are key intervening variables in my model that shape the development of allied capabilities. Combined Joint Task Forces, NATO Response Force and different non-proliferation teams illustrate the advancement of new capabilities. This framework distinguishes between three groups of nations: the core NATO allies, the new members and the non-NATO nations that are members of the European Union (Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden). The study indicated that a strong relationship between resources and allied capabilities for the old NATO members, while for the new NATO allies this relationship is much less powerful and none of the observed variables is significant in the case of the ii non-NATO nations. Based on these findings the dissertation makes the argument that the United States as a hegemon has a key role in managing allied relations, while at same time influencing the decision to invite new allies and pushing forward NATO’s transformational agenda. The theoretical contributions of this research are twofold: First, it rests on a novel approach to study imbalance in international affairs from the perspective of military power. Second, it expands club goods theory as an analytical framework of studying contemporary alliance politics through the development of the concept of complementarities. iii Copyright @ 2008 Ivan Dinev Ivanov iv Acknowledgements This project would never have been completed without the advising, encouragement and support of several key persons and institutions. First of all, I am particularly grateful to Professor Richard J. Harknett who was not only the “driving force” behind my arrival to Cincinnati to pursue doctoral studies, but also advised me academically and supervised my research throughout last five years. I owe him a lifetime of gratitude for guiding my intellectual and professional development, for his dedication to this project and for fuelling me with stimulating ideas, thoughtful feedback and encouraging criticism. I need to emphasize the institutional support that I received from the Charles Phelps Taft Research Center which included Advanced Graduate Fellowship and various travel and research awards that made it possible for me to conduct interviews in Brussels, Belgium and Washington, DC and present different stages of my research at major professional meetings in the United States and Europe. Professors Dinshaw Mistry, Joel Wolfe and Steve Mockabee provided a great deal of feedback on the content and research methods that was instrumental for the completion of the project. Also, I would like to express my gratitude to the Department of Political Science and the University of Cincinnati for providing me various forms of intellectual and financial assistance in order to complete my dissertation, especially the support that I enjoyed from the graduate program directors Dr. Michael Margolis and Dr. Barbara Bardes, as well as the department’s Senior Business Assistant Joe Waddle. Writing a dissertation is a lonely struggle, and yet the input of colleagues and friends is a vital part of the process. I have benefited immeasurably from my colleagues Tolga Turker, Jim Masterson, Christiane Haberl and Lisa Stinnett. I am similarly grateful v to my Bulgarian professors and colleagues at the University of National and World Economy in Sofia, Bulgaria who in one form or another provided their feedback and take and on this research -- Atanas Gotchev, Georgi Genov, Dinko Dinkov, Elena Simeonova and Evgenia Vassileva. Others like Jeremy Shapiro, Samuel Wells, Dieter Dettke, Emily Goldman, Velizar Shalamanov and Todor Tagarev that I had an opportunity to meet and interview helped me with suggestions and ideas to improve and refine the argument. I am also thankful to Walter Huber and Brian King, who hired me at the position of Visiting Assistant Professor in International and Comparative Politics at Muskingum College. Lastly, would like to thank my parents Margarita and Dinio Dinevi, as well as my girlfriend Kris for their endless support and belief in my success. For those that I have missed in my acknowledgements, I sincerely apologize. Needless to emphasize that I, alone, am responsible for any shortcomings or errors in this work. vi List of Most Frequent Abbreviations ACUS -- The Atlantic Council of the United States BALTBAT – Baltic Battalion; also see BALTNET and BALTRON CBRN -- Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear threats/ weapons CEE – Central and Eastern Europe CFSP –Common Foreign and Security Policy CI – Complex Interdependence CJTFs –Combined Joint Task Forces CPI -- Counter Proliferation Initiative DCI –Defense Capabilities Initiative DGP – NATO’s Senior Defense Group on Proliferation DPC – NATO’s Defense Planning Committee DPT –Democratic Peace Theory EAPC -- Еuro-Atlantic Partnership Council EGF -- European Gendarmerie Force ESDP -- European Security and Defense Policy EU – European Union HR for CFSP -- High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy IFOR -- Implementation Force for Bosnia and Herzegovina ISAF -- International Stabilization and Assistance Force MAP -- Membership Action Plan MNB RC South -- Multinational Brigade - Regional Command South NPT -- Nuclear non-proliferation treaty NRF –NATO Response Force OOTW -- Operations other than war OSCE – Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe PARP -- PfP Planning and Review Process PCC - Prague Capabilities Commitment PfP – Partnership for Peace SACEUR –Supreme Allied Commander -- Europe vii SEE – Southeastern Europe SEE BRIG – Southeast European Brigade SGP – NATO’s Senior Political-Military Group on Proliferation TA diplomacy/ relations – transatlantic diplomacy/ relations UNPROFOR –United Nations Protection Force WMD – Weapons of Mass Destruction viii Contents Introduction....................................................................................................................... 4 Theory............................................................................................................................. 9 Method and Scope......................................................................................................... 13 Structure of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 14 Chapter 1. Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to Studying Alliance Politics ........................................................................................................................................... 18 Conceptual Definitions ................................................................................................. 22 ALLIANCES ...................................................................................................................................... 22 HEGEMONY AND EMPIRE............................................................................................................. 23 A Look at Alliance Literature....................................................................................... 26 ALLIANCE FORMATION................................................................................................................ 26 ALLIANCE FUNCTIONING AND MANAGEMENT ..................................................................... 29 Major Theoretical Traditions Studying Alliance Politics............................................. 31 REALISM ..........................................................................................................................................