amalgamated security communities

471 Pages·2011·1.63 MB·English

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 that shared identities and a high degree of trust will
produce a desire for the pooling of military resources; this will be particularly true if there was
military cooperation in earlier phases of the emerging security community. We expect that if
there was no military cooperation in earlier phases, then the emergence of a common threat at this
stage would produce the desire for it. This indicator reflects not only high trust but also that
security is viewed as interdependent.”7
In order to create the conceptual space needed for examining the process of creating Amalgamated
Security Communities, it is necessary to modify this description of tightly coupled security communities
by replacing - A high level of military integration with A high level of military cooperation. Adler and
Barnet’s description of tightly coupled security communities uses the term military cooperation but seems
to use the terms integration and cooperation interchangeably. This is not precise and is unfortunate
because military cooperation is not the same as military integration. Cooperation by definition implies
more than one actor working together to achieve a common end. Integration on the other hand indicates a
process of unification by making a composite or combination of parts into a whole entity. This whole
entity is a single actor and cannot be the same as cooperation between multiple actors. Substituting
military cooperation in lieu of military integration in the description of tightly coupled security
communities makes the description more precise and corresponds better with multiple actors in a
pluralistic security community.

6 Emmanuel Adler and Michael Barnett, eds., Security Communities, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1998).
7 Ibid., 56
3
What this paper proposes with both the description of tightly coupled security communities and
the definition of Amalgamated Security Communities is to make the definitions more precise. This is
done in order to “increase the conceptual differentiation”8 between tightly coupled security communities
and Amalgamated Security Communities. This is critical in order to provide a basis for understanding the
process of Amalgamated Security Community formation and the main argument of this paper.
1-2. Vignette
Why have I chosen to examine the topic of Amalgamated Security Communities and how does
this rarely mentioned subject relate to anything of current interest? The answer is that in the fall of 1994
I made a trip to Brussels. Living in Europe in 1994 was quite different than when I had last lived there in
the late 1980s. I no longer needed a visa to travel to other countries, although I did have to process
through customs in lines for “non-EU” travelers. I was extremely interested to visit the US Embassy to
the EU and to learn that EU law superseded national law in those areas in which it had jurisdiction. I also
visited the Western European Union (WEU) Planning Cell; a type of Military Coordination Headquarters
that I also did not know existed previously. There I found that the WEU had some nascent capabilities,
and had conducted several limited operations in the past few years.9 I of course knew about NATO but
was fascinated by the presentation given to me by a very kind British Officer assigned to the WEU
Planning Cell that not only opened my eyes to an organization older than NATO but one that intended to
increase its capabilities and conduct more operations. Other U.S. military officers interested in European
affairs tended to focus on NATO and denigrate the WEU as not being a “real” defense organization. I on
the other hand thought I had seen a glimpse of something important for the future of Europe. The
development of a European capability outside of NATO (now under the aegis of the EU) has held my
attention for 17 years as it has slowly evolved and developed to the point where today it is a topic that

8 David Collier and Steven Levitsky, “Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative
Research,” World Politics, 49, no. 3 (1977): 442.
9 These operations were: "Operation Cleansweep"1988 - Strait of Hormuz; "Operation Sharp Guard" 1993 -
enforcing the embargo against Yugoslavia in the Adriatic along with an operation to enforce sanctions along the
Danube; as well as a WEU police contingent assisting the EU administration of Mostar.
4
deserves serious investigation. My study of the topic led me to Amalgamated Security Communities as
the best fit for the problem I encountered years ago in Brussels.
1-3. The Problem
A common thread that runs through Post-World War II Western European history is one of
increasing integration across national boundaries in almost all aspects of life from the mundane to the
core elements of national sovereignty. The increase in European Security and Defense Cooperation that
is shifting toward integration under the aegis of the EU is a critical yet puzzling development. Some
scholars (and military professionals) dismiss the idea of European Security Cooperation much less any
type of integration as amounting to nothing more than talk. Recent research however, has demonstrated as
an empirical fact that there has been an increase in security cooperation within the EU.10 This paper will
examine any empirical evidence regarding a shift toward EU military integration as well.11 Current
research describes what is happening regarding increased European security cooperation, but what has yet
to be adequately addressed is the cause for the shift towards integration. To date the official explanation
and various alternative theoretical approaches do not give a satisfactory explanation as to why the EU is
developing its own defense capability and why increased security cooperation and the shift towards
integration of defense is continuing to broaden and deepen in scope. There is no military threat to the
states of Europe that would explain this trend. NATO is a necessary precondition that habituated the
Europeans to close cooperation in the area of collective defense, but it is not sufficient to explain why the
EU is developing defense structures known as the European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI). This is
particularly interesting given the fact that all of the EU members of NATO view NATO as the primary
collective defense organization that guarantees their security and that in an era of little conventional
military threat, defense spending by the EU states has declined sharply. This follows what would be
expected by a Public Goods approach to alliance formation in which overall defense spending declines as
various states free ride and divert resources into non-defense areas. Given the deficiencies of current

10 Seth Jones, The Rise of European Security Cooperation. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
11 (e.g. EU Satellite Centre, SALIS initiative, European Air Transport Center (EATC), EU Institute for Security
Studies, Synchronized Armed Forces Europe (SAFE) etc…)
5