Alliances Balancing and Bandwagoning

Stephen M. Walts main pur pound in his work is to preserve his explanations for the exercises done by secernates in the international arena with regard to their partnerships as a response to a certain factor or configuration that affects or deviates the very well being and situation of a bring up.The spotless plosive consonant of Stephen M. Walt revolves around the reaction of deposits when engaged or met with extraneous menace. His analytic thinking illustrates the potential behavioural patterns of solid grounds by explaining what kind of actions these subjects make and why.He thus caters twain concepts balancing and bandwagoning, stating that countrys tend to either balance or bandwagon depending on where these put ins apprehend that they best fit or whitethorn benefit from. Therefore, he develops his analysis by proposing that the responsibilitys 2 primary options or actions are to either colleague in opposition of an international threat or to ally with the orthogonal threat itself. Stephen M. Walt holds that these two concepts are dependent upon the type and take aim of external threat manifested to them.This is not to discount the fact that the states influence, advocator or how the international community perceives it must also be taken into consideration whether a state is considered as a strong state or a wobbly state.In a nutshell, Stephen M. Walt submits that a state may ally with opposite states in the face of an existing threat or it may arrange itself with this threat. He thus primarily asserts that as reference of the natural behavioural pattern of a state, early(a)(a) theorists may swear that balancing shall be the more convenient or expected action by a state rather than bandwagoning.It is fundamental to hypothesize that a strong state shall have the automatic tendency to balance. while the weak states may also choose to balance but this is only as a response to other weak states. When the conflict is between a weak and a strong state, it is other story.It is but natural in such a situation for a weak state to bandwagon when responding to a threat posed by a strong state. Stephen M. Walts federation theory explains that a states action when responding to an external threat is the phenomenon of knowing when result such a state trend an conjunction and what go forth influence the states choice in making an alliance.This phenomenon is an expected behavioural pattern and a normal reaction. The focal subject of concern with regard to this phenomenon is focused mainly on the each states duty and responsibility to protect itself. As a way of security, the state will be expected to put its safety as the first priority when an external threat is lurking around.The decision that follows shall take in consideration the state as a whole and how it is perceived by the international community. Primarily, the argument that pushes the theory of Stephen M. Walt falls largely on the shoulders of t he two concepts of balancing and bandwagoning.As mentioned earlier, balancing is about allying with other states against the external threat. In other words, states form an alliance against another state or group of states that pose the dominant and great threat.This is simply a way for a state to deal with another state which is a threat because of its greater union creator. A determining factor here is hinged on a states qualification, particularly its military cogency. However, the type of military content that is in question is on a states wretched capability which poses the threat to other states.The defensive military capability is not frequently given attention due to the fact that such capability will not be a threat unless provoked or initiated by another state. But having a strong and heavy(p) offensive capability is not the only distress and apprehension of other states.The level or aggressiveness of a particular state is definitely taken into account. to each one state regardless of their capabilities has their own way of responding and not responding to threats and issues they encounter. Moreover, alliances formed downstairs the concept of balancing are somewhat situational or circumstantial.Although alliances are tough heavily to answer the call of threat, these alliances change dramatically when that threat is conquered or disposed of. Wars seem to be the common cause of most states to form an alliance but the moment the war ends, the alliance breaks as well. As frequently as alliance through balancing is very much evident and supported by past occurrences, the opposite concept of bandwagoning is as much evident and present as seen during the Cold War. It is therefore insist that bandwagoning is most likely to happen than balancing.Stephen M. Walt even stresses that any need for a legitimate justification to be involved in international territories or issues thunder mug be covered by bandwagoning. Furthermore, bandwagoning is als o used as a means of increasing a states military capacity.Proponents of bandwagoning see the logic in this concept by simply knowing that the greater a states aggregate capability and offensive capability the more likely it is for other states to form an alliance with it. regular the geographical location is taken into consideration.The states that are located near a powerful state shall have a greater tendency of forming an alliance with the powerful state. The location of states geographically in relation to another state particularly with the stronger state is very important especially in clock of conflict.This because the issues on borders and the time it takes to send help and information to an ally will largely depend of their positions. And being the opposite of balancing, the states will not ordinate against the powerful state because of its aggressive perceived intentions.And also, the alliances formed against the greater state will disintegrate as a response to a somb er obstacle that they realize is already beyond them. Stephen M. Walt states his theory by deducing it from clear-sighted and diachronicly based assumptions and behavioural patterns which states have already done to point out that what states will most possibly be doing. The past shows quantify of numerous instances in international dealing which act as an modeling or as a guide in predicting not needfully the end result but the processes of interactions between states.Stephen M. Walt cites numerous occasions and incidents in the World War and the Cold War as an example for proving his theory. He thus bases his conclusions and hypotheses knowing that there are only limited possible steps or actions that a state can actually make.The assurance of Stephen M. Walts theory by quantifying and qualifying a states action to form an alliance as a response to an external threat through balancing and bandwagoning as supported by historical bases makes it logically sound.The argument tha t is proposed takes root in the rational and natural sound judgment of how exactly a state will respond to the situation presented. In other words, the theory is an anticipation of an expected probable outcome.The explanation is concerned in the concepts of balancing and bandwagoning which are two polar manifestations that show that for every action taken or not taken, there is also another option which is the alternative or opposite action taken or not taken.For example, as stated earlier in balancing, the greater the threatening states aggregate power, the greater the tendency of others to align against it. While in bandwagoning, the greater the threatening states aggregate power, the greater the tendency of others to align with it.The cause and deed implication is simply relate to the relationship between one states relation with another, a states capability and the other states capability and most importantly, ones external threat confronted by a state as manifested by anothe r state.The threat is the absolute index number or the absolute cause of how a state will react. The level of threat will influence every consideration that a state will take into. Technically speaking, in consideration of the cause and effect analysis, it becomes quite obvious that this theory of Stephen M. Walt is a primary response or a better description and explanation of the forming of alliances of states. It is asserted by other theorists that the overlying source for the alliances formed by states is founded on the power relations between states.Thus, the balancing or bandwagoning of states are simply actions to balance the power in the prevailing status quo of the international sphere. But Stephen M. Walt sees that the states do not seek security from power but rather, states seek security from threat.Power can be threat but it can also not be threat. Power is a neutral factor and cannot be seen as a threat unless used as one. While threat on the other hand is a concept th at poses danger and concern to a state making it more definite and ideal to thoroughly and greatly influence the states actions.