1. The Capabilities-based Analysis of Divergence in Alliance Transformation Divergent Evolution of US Alliances in Asia and the Pacific: A Comparative Perspective By Ji Yun Kih Comment Presentation by Linda Pratiwi Darmadi/ I36015

2. Questions (1) Restating the author’s major research question and theories (or hypotheses) in “if, then” type of generalization (assess the author's IVs and DV); (2) Assessing the definitions the author had adopted for his independent and dependent variables and whether they are adequately used; (3) Evaluating the procedures used in measuring variables and the tests devised to show causal relationship between the author's IVs and DV (critique the author's selection of the cases.) Where the author’s method has shortcomings, show how it might have been improved

3. Introduction Bilateral Security alliance between U.S in other states in Asia and Pacific. “Hub and Spokes system” Hub: America Spokes: States in Asia and Pacific.

4. Puzzle America Japan South Korea Australia Philippines Thailand

5. Research Question “Why have the security alliances of the United States with Japan, South Korea, and Australia expanded in scope beyond the specific requirements outlined in the mutual defense treaties to include a broader range of security issues and threats, while the security alliances of the United States with the Philippines and Thailand have failed to move beyond the confines of the Cold War interpretations of the mutual defense treaties that formed the basis for their respective bilateral alliance with Washington?”

6. Theories (Hypotheses) “Divergence in alliance transformation in the Asia-Pacific has largely resulted from the capabilities gap among US allies in responding to the US request for the expansion of alliance functions and development of cooperative ties among its allies and partners in areas of common security interests. The answer lay in our understanding of the effects of the US foreign policy which has evolved a great deal over the last several decades after the end of the Cold War. US declared its shift from "threat-based" to "capabilities-based“. that some allies are ready to do so while others aren't. Some allies meet or exceed the expectations of the United States, while others fall short of meeting them. US foreign policy, reformulated in ways conducive to broadening and deepening its ties with selected, 'capable' allies across the diverse fields of security, has almost inevitably resulted in two widely divergent paths facing the United States' five alliances in the Asia-Pacific region”.

7. (1) Restatement of Research Question Why America's security alliances with its five formal allies in the Asia-Pacific diverged into separate paths? Why the security alliances of United States with Japan, South Korea and Australia keep maintained, even strengthen into security issues and threat. But, security alliances of United States with Philippines and Thailand after Cold War more loosen and seemed failed?.

8. (1) Restatement of Theories (Hypotheses) United States changed its foreign policy from “threat-based” into “capabilities-based” towards it’s five alliances. If not all allies are ready to accept thus condition and there is different capabilities between them, then United States' five alliances had to face widely divergent path in alliance transformation.

9. (2) Assessment definition of IV and DV Independent Variable (causal onference) Gap capabilities between security alliances on facing the changes of United States expectation toward them Dependent Variable Divergence path in alliance transformation of five US-led alliances To avoid selection bias, allow variation on dependent variable as much as possible. Is actually the expectation equal? Does United States really have expectation toward two failed alliances (maybe alliance is only “tittle” that is using for other political meaning? Is U.S really considered ASEAN states could become his “alliance”? Is there other state actor who’s become United States’ hidden “association”? Is alliances remain as useful strategic concept especially toward ASEAN? )

10. (3) Evaluating procedures of measuring the variables and test. Comparative analysis framework  “Most similar system design”  Detailed description as constitution of independent variable Standard Measurement : capabilities and Interoperability as constitution of IV What kind of capabilities? military, economic, diplomatic–political and regional order- building Comparative Case Analysis I: US-Philippines Alliance vs. US-South Korea Alliance Comparative Case Analysis II: US-Thailand Alliance vs. US-Australia Alliance Case Study: US-Japan Alliance Transformation: A Resurgent Japan and Its Role in US-dominated Regional Power Configuration

11. (3) Evaluating procedures of measuring the variables and test. Both of Philippines and Thailand are ASEAN member and failed. If U.S considering another useful strategy compared to alliance, seeking more information about US relationship with other Asia states or ASEAN member: America – India/ America – Vietnam/ America – Singapore/ America – Indonesia The relative importance of systemic versus domestic factors contributing to divergence in alliance transformation  Systematic & domestic factors as alternative observable implication. Capabilities allies between NATO, EU and Asia Pacific alliances Using critical review of theoretical approaches to find more observable implication; For instance 

12. Why United States does not have strength alliances with or in ASEAN?

13. (3) Evaluating procedures of measuring the variables and test. Find similar pattern of alliance between US-Philippines with US-Thailand which make the relationship declining and Is there any common interest or same strategic perception between US and those two states?. (US joint doctrine defines an alliance as a “relationship that results from a formal agreement between two or more nations for broad, long-term objectives that further the common interests of the members.” The Joint Staff, Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (Washington, D.C., Nov. 8, 2010), p. 13, quoted in James L. Cook, “Military Alliances in the 21st Century: Still Relevant After All These Years?,” Orbis, Vol. 57, No. 4 (2013), p. 559.)

14. (3) Evaluating procedures of measuring the variables and test. Are those five alliance equally have similar commitment to fight alongside with US? (Bruno Tertrais offers another definition of the alliance focusing on two main factors that drive the formation of alliances: the first is “idealism,” describing a situation in which states commit themselves to fight alongside others because of shared values and ideas such as freedom, democracy, etc.,) What is causing the gap of capability? Commitment?

15. Bilateral Security Alliances

16. (3) Evaluating procedures of measuring the variables and test. “Transformation in the Asia-Pacific has largely resulted from the capabilities gap among US allies to be valid, its contra-positive argument that convergence in alliance transformation has largely resulted from the absence of the capabilities gap among US allies should also be persuasive.” Using combination of qualitative and quantitative data in comparative study.

17. Conclusion More variation of dependent variable can be added to avoid selection bias Even though there are factors that is being denied to be relevant could be posed more to find more observable implication (“dog did not bark”) and more skepticism. Could increases more cases as comparative study (constant effect assumption “unit hegemony”) to improve the hypotheses. Maximizing the combination of qualitative and quantitative data.