The Anglosphere: a Genealogy of an Identity in International Relations
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE ANGLOSPHERE: A GENEALOGY OF AN IDENTITY IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Srdjan Vucetic, M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2008 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Ted Hopf, Adviser _____________________________ Professor Jennifer Mitzen Adviser Professor Alexander Wendt Political Science Graduate Program © Copyright by Srdjan Vucetic (2008) ABSTRACT The Anglosphere refers to a grouping of English-speaking states, whose core is said to consist of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. In international relations, the term is usually used to describe and/or prescribe civilization, empire, military coalitions, customs union or even a political association. The Anglosphere is a neologism, but one rooted and reflected in long-standing international phenomena such as the Anglo-American Special Relationship, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the Australia-New Zealand-United States Pact (ANZUS) Pact and the Commonwealth of Nations. In addition, quantitative research on the sources of international security cooperation clearly shows a pattern of behavior particular to the Anglosphere. While it offers no shortage of explanations of international conflict and cooperation across different groupings of states, the field of International Relations (IR) is silent on the subject of the Anglosphere. This dissertation seeks to open up the research agenda by investigating two basic questions: how did the Anglosphere become possible and what effects does it have on international politics? The dissertation considers these questions in parallel, via two complementary analytical tasks. The first task is to provide a genealogy of the Anglosphere as a grouping of states characterized by shared identity. To second is to develop and evaluate a theoretical framework which links state/national identity to foreign policies generative of the Anglosphere. ii The genealogical account shows how the relations between and among the states of the Anglosphere came to be seen as exempt from the standard rules that govern international conflict and cooperation, such as those on the use of force, appeasement, reciprocity, face-saving, institution-building, defection or punishment. While the identities constitutive of the Anglosphere varied in their content and contestation, the five states at the putative core of this community have managed to continually sustain it for more than a century. Far from being natural or inevitable, this genealogy concludes, the Anglosphere is contingent on the past interactions and is likely to be subject to contestation and re-construction in the future. In positing state/national identity as a cause, the theoretical framework developed in this dissertation proposes that collective identity at the level of the state will have made one state action more likely over others, thus leading to differentiated outcomes in international conflict and cooperation. The empirically testable proposition is twofold: first, identity shapes state action by making some cooperative policies more likely than others. Second, foreign policy debates on the fit between identity and the perceived reality influence the continuity and change of state action. The test proceeds in four sets of case studies of security cooperation between and among the states of the Anglosphere core: the turn of the twentieth century Anglo-American “great rapprochement”; the negotiations over the Pacific Pact in 1950-1; alliance politics over the Suez crisis (1956) and the Vietnam escalation (1964-5); and the politics of the “coalition of the willing” in the run-up to the Iraq War (2002-3). The empirical findings support the first proposition; the empirical record is mixed with the second proposition. The contestability of iii state/national identity seems to increase with the perceived misfit between identity at home and the perceived reality abroad. The dissertation represents the first attempt to explain and understand the Anglosphere as a phenomenon of major significance in international relations. The dissertation also has the potential to achieve a broader impact on the research agenda on identity and international cooperation, particularly within the constructivist research program in IR. Last, the relatively new methodology in this project could be used across subfields in IR and in other disciplines. iv To my family v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank my committee for helping me bring this dissertation to a close. No three people had a greater influence on my professional and intellectual development. Ted Hopf, my advisor and chair, was the main reason I came to Ohio State to study political science. I owe innumerable debts of gratitude to Ted for his continued guidance and insight during the years I labored under his direction. The arrival of Jennifer Mitzen and Alexander Wendt to our department in 2004 was a boon for me, particularly once they agreed to supervise my dissertation. Jennifer has been invaluable for her incisive criticisms, enthusiastic support and cheerful disposition. As for Alex, his dedication and kindness to students is legendary in my field of study. With me, he has been a constant source of ideas, feedback and encouragement. Without the help of my committee this would be a lesser dissertation. That it is not better is entirely my doing. The entire political science department—its faculty members, members of the staff, and graduate students—has been incredibly supportive. The same goes for the Mershon Center for International Studies. Among the faculty, Clarissa Rile Hayward, Richard Herrmann, Dorothy Noyes, Don Sylvan, Alex Thompson and, especially, Brian Pollins helped me with my dissertation project, at various stages. I also thank David Lincove for his guidance on how to do archival research in the wireless age. For their stimulating criticism, encouragement and friendship, I am grateful to my fellow graduate students, doubly so to those who took the time to read parts of my vi dissertation: Bentley Allan, Richard Arnold, Richard Bowmans, Zoltán Búzás, Bridget Coggins, Aldous Cheung, Milena and Branislav Cobanov, Mike Cohen, Daniel Blake, Delton Daigle, Danel Draguljic, Jim Delaet, Tom Dolan, Delia Dumitrescu, Dinissa Duvanova, Lili Djuraskovic, Paul Fritz, Caleb Gallemore, Seth Goldstein, Eric Grynaviski, Yoram Haftel, Nanaho Hanada, Dane Imerman, Nacka and Igor Karacha, Tahseen Kazi, Jason Keiber, Ryan Kennedy, Josh Kertzer, Daniel Kinderman, TongFi Kim, Danijela Konforte, Danielle Langfield, Justin Lance, Anh Ly, Tim Luecke, Eleonora Mattiacci, Jeff Martenson, Erin McAdams, Amanda Metskas, Katja Michalak, Däg Mossige, Autumn Lockwood Payton, Ryan Phillips, Shonali Raney, Eleonora Redaelli, Mark Rice, Amanda Rosen, Sunnie Rucker-Chang, John Oates, Hiram Osorio, Anita Saha, Lisya and Yusuf Sarfati, Sarah and Anand Sokhey, Christina Xydias, Konstantin Voessing, Byungwon Woo and Clément Wyplosz. Among all of them, I owe the greatest debt to my great love, Emilie Bécault, pour la porte qui s’ouvre. I also subjected my ideas to the criticisms at various conferences and workshops. For written comments and correspondence, thanks are due to Tarak Barkawi, Duncan Bell, Elizabeth Dauphinee, Andrew Gamble, Anja Jeschke, Markus Kornprobst, Ronald Krebs, Sarah Kreps, Janice Bially Mattern, Michelle Murray, Lene Hansen, Kim Richard Nossal, Inderjeet Parmar, Thomas Risse, James Rosenau and Stéphane Roussel. Thanks also go Atushi Tago for the generous sharing of his dataset on military interventions. Special mention must be made of Brendon O’Connor, who facilitated my research in Australia in every conceivable way. It would impossible to adequately credit the importance of advice I received over the years from my former Toronto and York mentors, David Dewitt and Arthur Rubinoff. vii The financial burden for researching and writing this dissertation has been shared by several institutions. At Ohio State, I remain grateful to the Graduate School of the Presidential Fellowship and Alumni Graduate Student Research Grant, the Office of International Affairs for a research grant, to the Department of Political Science for the Aumann Writing Fellowship and to the Mershon Centre for International Security for two research grants. I also thank the Social Science Research Council of Canada for awarding me a fellowship in the early stages of my doctoral studies. My family in Ottawa deserves sincere gratitude, especially Maša and Thomas who read the entire dissertation. Your love and support over the years made it all possible and to you I dedicate this work, with appreciation and fondness. viii VITA October 2, 1976..............................................Born, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina 2000................................................................Hon. B.A., Int’l Relations and German, University of Toronto (Toronto, Canada) 2002................................................................M.A., Political Science, York University (Toronto, Canada) 2002-2005................................................Graduate Research and Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University 2007-2008 ......................................................Presidential Fellow The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS 1. Vucetic, Srdjan, “Democracies and International Human Rights: Why is There No Place for Migrant Workers?” The International Journal of Human