| This dissertation uses the literature of comparative politics to answer an international relations question: what causes state alignment? It assesses the significance of ethnic divisiveness, as well as the international system, as states engage in omnibalancing. The thesis focuses on the presupposition that an ethnically divided state suffers from a low level of state legitimacy, causing it to be more unstable than a homogeneous state. This instability threatens the regime, and leaders of such regimes must view this internal threat as carefully as external threats posed by other states. This dissertation examines state alignment behavior of an ethnically divided state versus that of an ethnically homogeneous state and measures this behavior using Steven M. Walt's terms of balancing and bandwagoning.; The dissertation uses two Cold War era cases and two post-Cold War era cases: Egypt's decision to realign with the United States in the late 1970s, Syria's decision to sign the 1980 Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with the Soviet Union, and both Egypt and Syria's Persian Gulf War alignments. The author modifies Ole R. Holsti and James D. Sullivan's model to assess the significance of ethnic divisiveness, as a motivation and/or constraint for a particular alignment decision. The research includes scholarly opinion, speeches, polls, FBIS reports, government documents, journals, and trade yearbooks.; The dissertation reveals that an ethnically divided state will have different alignment behavior than that of an ethnically homgeneous state. Second, it appears that the post-Cold War era promotes bandwagoning with internal enemies because there is a degree of uncertainty in the international system, concerning a superpower's support. Finally, in this post-Cold War era, it appears that the region has become more significant than in the Cold War era. Theoretically, this dissertation supports Randall L. Schweller's critique of Steven Walt's alignment theory, that is that balancing and bandwagoning behaviors are not polar opposites; bandwagoning is for profit, while balancing is for security purposes. This project reveals that the absence vice presence of internal bandwagoning/balancing determines bold, purposive state alignment behavior and cautious, incremental alignment behavior, respectively. |
