Economie et société – Anglais
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Anglo-American relations mainly from WWI to the present time.
What does that mean? It was raised by the national for their self-interest. There’s more than a relation of crude national interest. The culture of classiness is also good points: common language, common culture trades, and ties during WWII, the 2 countries supporting each other in an unusual way.
Have there been such a thing as a special relationship between the US and GB, or is it just a segment of British imagination? If it actually exists, to what extent it has been significant?
We have a hypothesis that there’s a special relationship. Our task is to approve/disapprove it.
The expression Special relationship:
- It was coined by the British, usually attributed to Winston Churchill
- Important point: more often used by the British than by the Americans because they needed it more than them.
- Common language, common cultural traits, emotional ties dating back to WWII leading to some diplomatic friendship
So goes the special relationship hypothesis.
1. Theories of international relations and special relationship hypothesis
The 3 main theories of international relations are: realism and new-realism, pluralism, structuralism.
a) Realism and new-realism
Realism: The states are the most important actors, they are much more important than anything else. So, the states pursue power and nothing else.
Their goal is to dominate rivals, to increase their power and to sit to preserve their security. In the realism scheme of things international relations are highly confrontational and throat with danger. Realism is dominated by real politic, power politics and pragmatism. The main goal to maintain balance of power this is seen as the best way to avoid conflict and achieve stability. Concerning realism theory, there is no cultural or emotional preferences, promotion our crude interest rules supreme. We can say that alliances rest upon interest only.
New-realism: It’s same assumption but more emphasis on non-state actors (such as multinational corporations).
What would a proponent of realism in international relations have to say about the special relationship?
If there is such a thing as a special relationship between the USA and Great Britain, it can be rooted in national interest. From the WWII it has been in the best interest of the USA and Great Britain (especially Great Britain) to establish very close diplomatic ties with each other.
Concerning realism and new-realism, the cultural closeness, the common languages, personal interaction or the shared memories of war have nothing to do with. The special relationship is purely a matter of national interest for countries.
b) Pluralism
Concerning pluralism, the emphasis is upon complex interdependence. States are not purely independent and self-interested entities. States can’t entirely separate their own interest from those with whom they interact. And beside states, other actors (out of states) can be regarded as major actors (multinational corporations, religious movements, national movements, cyber society movements…). This seems to be especially relevant in the American context because pressure groups have access to many entries of power (example with, isolationism, pro-Israel lobby, and pro-Arab lobby). Complex picture in which foreign policy can deviate from a purely rational approach dominated by self-interest only.
What would a proponent of pluralism in international relations have to say about the special relation?
As far as we are concerned it’s interesting because one make posit that pure national interest among the whole story on the count of multiple influences upon foreign policy. But it’s a complex that real politic rational can be exclude or modified. It makes a case for a special relationship between the USA and Great Britain resting upon more than just national interest only.
c) Structuralism
It’s a structures matter much more than actors. Examples of structures: relative wealth, population trends, trade patterns or sociological data. The emphasis is upon long term trends affecting a county and its inhabitants. The major trends in foreign affairs said to be beyond the control of individuals and organizations.
The consequences can be defined in 2 points:
- Skeptical of the influence of organizations outside structural constrains
- Skeptical of the influence of individuals outside structural constrains.
There is no much leeway for actors to act freely. Proponents of structuralism oppose it a diplomatic determinism. The major trends in foreign affairs are said to be beyond the controls of individuals and organizations. In other words, events and historical developments occur because of long-term economic, cultural, demographic and geographic trends.
What would a proponent of structuralism in international relations have to say about the special relationship?
There is no denying that it’s surely undermined the case for special relationship since it downplays the ability of individual actors to actually shake the course of events. It means that emotions, feelings of closeness and personal interaction can only purport a negative role. If there is such a thing that the special relationship between the USA and Great Britain it would be the result of structures, of international relations and long-term trends in the history of both countries . The example is the inevitable decline of the British Empire, of British Economy slot, and at the same time, the rise of the USA as the most powerful country in the world. So the special relationship is no more than an alliance derived from historical circumstances. If series of international relations have anything to go by, they don’t seem to go a strong case for a special relationship in full sense trend. Several historians have argued that there might well be some truth to the special relationship hypothesis.
Our task will to put their claim to the test of historical analysis. To sum up 3 main questions need to be asked:
- Why have Great Britain and the USA frequently stuck together since the WWII? (Why not France and the USA for example).
- To what extent was this alliance useful and necessary to both countries?
- Have their common language and their shared cultural traits had an impact on the Anglo-American relations? Have they been significant?
Do personal relationships between statesmen of both countries and between the high-ranking officials of both counties matter at all? In other words, whether they are involved in military, diplomatic or intelligence fields? And if so, to what extent?
2. A brief chronological overview
a) Anglo-American relations from the American independence and the WWII.
In 1776, parting of waste to the war, between 1776 and 1781, there were frequent friction after. Example of the war of 1812, the economic competition and especially for the second half of the 19th century. Of course, all this can’t be denied. It would be outlandish to state that there was a special relationship between the USA and Great Britain before the WWII. The cultural links that have always existed between the two countries concerning language, the Common Law (Not in the continental Europe and Scotland è Roman law), lingering influence of British political, constitutional, philosophical thoughts in the USA. The USA and Great Britain are closer to each other culturally than they are to France or Germany.
b) The WWII is the birth of the special relationship
Great Britain in desperate need to survive, establishes genuine links about politics, diplomacy, intelligence, military …) so the post war trends were already apparent at that time. At the same time, the USA was clearly emerging as the strongest part.
c) After the WWII: The Anglo-American relations from 1945 to 1956
The Anglo-American relations from 1945 to 1956: it’s the beginning of the Cold War and Great Britain struggle to remain a global power.
Why did the special relationship outlay the WWII?
Despite of its difficulties, Great Britain willing to remain a global power. And in the year that followed 1945, it was still a world power. But not strong enough to stay on their feet alone so the special relationship was a means to maintain their status. Using the American connection to do that, and at the same time the USA needed support to police the world and only Great Britain could still do it after the 1945.
d) The Anglo-American relations from 1956 to 1979
The special relationship and the Britain decline with the Suez crisis in 1956 that made the special relationship less relevant to the USA and Great Britain became a less crucial ally.
e) The Anglo-American relationship in the 1980s
Spectacular revival of a very close relationship between Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Interestingly, personal intercourse seems to have performed a role. One of the highlights in the history of the Anglo-American relations.
f) The Anglo-American relations from 1991 to 2010
Post-War and Globalization: To many people Cold War was the raison d’être of special relationship and to globalized economy and post-Cold War period create that the special relationships became obviously was less relevant. And yet, spectacularly revive with the war on terror after 2001 (was a revived moment), with the fact that Great Britain followed the USA in Iraq (not France, not Germany)
g) Impact on personalities and public opinion in Anglo-American relations
The Anglo-American relations: relative’s issues like Cold War, the Middle East conflict, the European Union, the nuclear diplomacy and globalization. All those issues need to be treated to understand Anglo-American special relationships.
The key questions :
- Has there been such a thing as a special relationship between the USA and GB.
- Or is it just a figment of British imagination?
- If it actually exists: to what extent has it been significant?
Related issues: Cold War, Decolonization, Middle East conflict, European Union, Nuclear diplomacy, Globalization.
CHAPTER 2: ANGLO AMERICAN RELATIONS FROM AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE TO 1939
It’s important to understand that there is a possibility of a close alliance emerging one day between countries building on share values and cultural common ground.
I. Anglo-American common ground
A common ground has always existed between the counties even to this day but we have to be careful about the degree of common ground between the USA and Great Britain. British and American cultures are not identical but there are some fundamental differences between the two and a the same time we would argue that in some aspects American and British people share some values and intellectual habits. Great Britain and the USA are very different but at the same time much closer to each other than if we compare to European countries, and especially the continental European countries, for example France, Spain and Italy.
There is an Anglo-American common ground but in what way?
a) History and culture
The history of the United States began with a break from Great Britain with the American War of Independence: 1776 to 1781. This 5 yearlong military clash which ended in defeat and humiliation for Great Britain and independence for American colonists. The 2 countries where at odds with each other (very different). On further examination it becomes apparent that the American Revolution came to pass because the American colonists were being too British. To explain that, we have to compare the American Revolution to the French revolution.
The French Revolution can be singular as a sharp and radical break. The French Revolution put an end to “Ancien Régime”. French revolutionaries and most notably the so-called “sans culottes” were rejecting the state’s scale and were attempting to build something completely new. It means that the French revolution was a radical innovation.
The American Revolution: The American colonist rebelled because they couldn’t no enjoy their long cherished British liberties any longer. They prided themselves on being free British subjects in their own rights. They were proud of being part of British Empire but they were contemptuous (méprisant) about Roman Catholic Slaves (people who didn’t enjoyed British freedom).
The problem was that from the mid-1760’s, the British Crown started to treat them not as free British subjects but as mere colonists and this is part of a backlash in America. The American colonists complain that the British had stopped being British so what they were asking for was continuity (so it was the opposite France). Some of their slogans were British, for example “No taxation without representation”. Another example is the division of power, the rejection of absolutism (Founding Fathers with the ideas of Common Place in Great Britain). So the justification of the American declaration of Independence was partly be founded in British political philosophy with John Locke, andJohnLockenaturalphilosophyis:
“When natural rights of the governed are infringed by the government, the governed have the right and the duty to rebel against the government”.
In addition, it can hardly be deny that the American colonists thought of themselves as heirs to English Parliamentary tradition (we can speak about that with Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights of 1869). Some 10 years before the American Declaration of Independence, a huge majority of American colonist would never have dreamt of breaking with Great Britain most of them were British descendent and proud of it. Interestingly, concerning this Declaration of Independence, this declaration was a list of grievances against British Crown but at one point mention is made on it of British Brethren. The American independence amounted to a break but not a rejection of British values and culture.
Consequences: The Founding Fathers relied upon British ideas, especially when they drafted the American Constitution (adopted in 1789). The British model is an unwritten constitution, but an American Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, the notion of limited government made central and the emphasis upon division of power was upheld.
Conclusion: Of course British and American form of government are far from identical, but to be sure, in the 19 century, American often took exception to would-be British Monarchical tendencies but only to heard back to vast sections of British philosophical tradition in the same breath. So an intellectual connection survived albeit (bien que, encore que) in an ambivalent fashion.
b) Legal common ground : Common Law
A legacy of the British presence in America: All American states have opted to a common law legal system (except for Louisiana which opted for Roman law system). The common law is widespread throughout the English speak world: Great Britain (except Scotland), Canada, Australia, New-Zealand and the USA.