| In this dissertation I present and evaluate a theory of how diplomacy affects intra-alliance politics by reducing uncertainty. This analysis examines two key questions simultaneously. First, do theories built around threat and national power explain alliance politics better or do theories based on uncertainty? The first of these is the standard realist view of alliance politics, the second is one based on theories of strategic choice. I find that uncertainty is indeed a more useful tool in understanding alliance politics, and theories of threat can lead to dangerous misinterpretations. Second, what, if any, is the role of diplomacy in reducing uncertainty? Proponents of strategic choice argue that it has none while constructivist scholars argue that it is paramount. I find that the efficacy of diplomacy in changing behavior depends on the context in which communication takes place---in certain contexts it is highly effective, in others essentially meaningless---and produce a generalizable theory based on these results.; To provide a concrete application of this theory, I will show how two forms of discourse have been influential in shaping the evolution of bilateral relations between the US and Japan and the US and Korea. On one hand, US negotiations with potential adversaries---China and North Korea---have changed Japan's and Korea's understandings of American interests, leading to their asserting independence from American leadership. On the other, the process of security consultation between Washington and Tokyo/Seoul has reduced the two Asian allies' uncertainty about US intentions, making them more willing to accept US leadership.; In the process of analyzing historical US-Japan and US-R.O.K. security consultation over American engagement policies, I demonstrate that consultation is an effective mechanism for reducing present and future uncertainty when and if it occurs---contrary to strategic choice assumptions---during the policy formation process rather than afterwards. By doing so, I refute this realist challenge and show that strategic choice and constructivist theories of alliance politics can not only coexist, but prosper together. |
