Defense diplomacy is the cooperative use of military forces through activities like officer exchanges and training exercises. Although individual practices have long existed, strikingly little scholarly attention has yet been paid to either defense diplomacy as a feature of international relations or its uses as a tool of statecraft. This study critically examines the concept of defense diplomacy and the underlying mechanisms that empower it. I argue that defense diplomacy functions as a military variant of soft power which relies on the processes of norm diffusion and state socialization to influence the strategic thinking of foreign governments. Specifically, by bringing soldiers from different countries into contact with one another in collaborative environments, defense diplomacy allows for the cultivation of transnational links capable of shaping worldviews. As with similar networks in civil society, the ties fostered by defense diplomacy form pathways which allow for the rapid diffusion of geopolitical norms, practices and priorities across borders. The key with defense diplomacy is that these networks span governing elites allowing for the direct translation of shared ideas into policy. This dissertation uses two case studies to illustrate how defense diplomacy has been employed by the United States as a foreign policy tool. The first case examines the use of defense diplomacy by the United States to rebuild its alliances with Australia and the Philippines in the immediate aftermath of the Vietnam War. Though initially envisioned as temporary measure to help restore trust after that divisive conflict, defense diplomacy emerged the basis for America’s regional engagement strategy. The second case concerns how defense diplomacy was employed by the United States in the Philippines during the Global War on Terror. Uniquely, the Philippine government restricted American forces operating within its territory to non-combat missions. This compelled Washington to rely on defense diplomacy as the primary means of combating groups like Abu Sayyaf. The ensuing focus on strengthening local institutions ultimately proved successful in helping to mitigate the militant threat within the archipelago. / 2020-09-29T00:00:00Z

The United States military is more than a tool of hard power. It provides the United States with a suite of diplomatic tools and is itself an important producer of American soft power. Though the many repertoires of American defense diplomacy have been carefully studied and the overall phenomenon has been theoretically investigated, their origins have not received similar attention. This research aims to uncover the causes of American defense diplomacy through an account of the American military's institutional development. It is common for defense diplomacy to be presented either as an outgrowth of 9/11 when the United States was engaged in globe-spanning irregular warfare or as part of a drive for global hegemony after the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, this research finds otherwise. A key factor in the development of contemporary defense diplomacy was the suite of institutional changes in the American national security apparatus in the 1980s. In particular, the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 reconfigured the power relationships and interests of key elements of the US military thereby overdetermining the development of defense diplomacy. With this finding, this research centers Congress as a key driver of American foreign policy and highlights the sub-state institutional dynamics within the foreign policy apparatus that produced, and reproduce, defense diplomacy as an enduring habit of American statecraft. / Doctor of Philosophy / Using a broad array of archival documents, interviews, and other sources, this research investigated the (unintended) consequences of the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. Those reforms reconfigured the power relationships, incentives, and preferences of the US foreign policy apparatus which in turn yielded new habits of American statecraft. Foremost among these new habits was "defense diplomacy" which, beginning in the late 1980s, became a common, enduring, and popular American foreign policy repertoire. This dissertation focuses on Goldwater-Nichols, the emergence of defense diplomacy, and its institutionalization. This project places special emphasis on the US military's central and eastern European state-building and democratization efforts during the twilight of the Cold War and the dawn of the New World Order. This is a historical institutionalist account contributing to the literature on both the "militarization" of foreign policy as well as the "civilianization" of the military.

La coopération structurelle et opérationnelle de défense et de sécurité entre la France et les Etats francophones de la CEDEAO est caractérisée par des configurations différenciées observées d’un Etat à un autre et par la prévalence d’une interdépendance stratégique entre la France et ses partenaires. Depuis 2007, outre le renouvellement des accords instituant un partenariat de défense entre la France et certains de ces partenaires, cette coopération s’insère dans un contexte marqué par la régionalisation des enjeux et des solutions de sécurité ainsi que l’intérêt de nouveaux acteurs favorisant un afflux d’offres d’assistance et de coopération. On sort donc du « huis-clos » bilatéral des accords post-indépendances et des pratiques qui en ont résulté, pour analyser la relation Afrique-France à l’aune de plusieurs paramètres déterminés par ses évolutions récentes. Cette étude ambitionne dans une perspective postcolonialiste, de déconstruire les oppositions binaires et la généralisation en apportant des outils de mesure et de comparaison de la coopération, dans le temps et dans l’espace ; en mettant en exergue les nuances ; en proposant une typologie et surtout en relevant les bénéfices que procure la coopération à chaque catégorie d’acteur. A partir de la théorie du comportement coopératif de Robert Axelrod, notamment sa variante « donnant-donnant », il est démontré que la pérennisation de la coopération réside dans l’intérêt des parties à coopérer qui surpasse l’abstention. En raison de ce dépassement du « fait » et de « l’héritage colonial », le postcolonialisme pourrait alors représenter un modèle d’analyse des relations internationales contemporaines et la Francophonie, un espace empreint de « profondeur stratégique ». / Structural and operational defense and security cooperation between France and Francophone states of ECOWAS is characterized by different configurations depending on the perspectives of each stakeholder. They are also characterized by strategic interdependence between France and its partners. Since 2007, besides the renewal of agreements setting up a defence partnership between France and its partners, this cooperation is taking place in a context marked by the regionalization of stakes and security responses in the West African region and the increasing interest of non-traditional actors providing increasing flows of assistance and cooperation. These new parameters breaking the traditional behind “closed-doors” of bilateral post-independance agreements, practices and interpretations that were traditionally mobilized to analyse Africa-France relations. By using a postcolonial perspective, this study aims at deconstructing conventional binary oppositions and generalizations by bringing in new tools of comparison of cooperation, in time and space and by highlighting the nuances. It also aims at suggesting a typology of the benefits that different categories of actors gain from this cooperation. Building on Robert Axelrod’s theory of cooperative attitude, and its ”win-win” component, this study demonstrates that the lasting of cooperation resides in the interests each party finds in cooperating beyond abstaining. Due to this capacity to rise above the "fact" and "colonial legacy", the postcolonialism could then be a model of analysis of contemporary international relations and “Francophonie”, a space marked of "strategic depth".

[pt] Esta tese, fundamentada, principalmente, na Escola Inglesa, analisa o papel na sociedade internacional das práticas sociais relacionadas com o uso não coercitivo dos recursos do âmbito da Defesa entre os Estados e outras entidades que atuam na política internacional. As características, institucionalização, internacionalização, os fatores culturais e as críticas e tensões concernentes com essas práticas são descritas e examinadas, permitindo concluir-se que o fenômeno se constitui um tipo específico de diplomacia: a diplomacia de defesa, considerada como uma instituição da sociedade internacional. / [en] This doctoral dissertation, based, mainly, on the English School, analyzes the role in international society of the social practices related to non-coercive use of Defense s resources between states and other entities with standing in international politics. The features, institutionalization, globalization, cultural factors and criticisms and tensions related to these practices are described and discussed, allowing to conclude that the phenomenon is a particular kind of diplomacy: defense diplomacy, regarded as an institution of international society.