Filling the Void?: Anglo-American Strategic Relations,Philippine Independence,and the Containment of Japan, 1932–1937

The declaration in 1932 of the United States to allow Philippine independence in March 1934 was an act that had a number of unintended consequences for the stability of the Far Eastern balance of power system. Given the state of tension existing in the international system between the major actors in the region: Japan, China, the Soviet Union, Great Britain and the United States, any movement in the existing boundaries of the international spheres of influence between them could generate a significant destabilizing reaction. The American proposal to allow Philippine independence was such an act. If America surrendered its position and interests in the Philippines, who would replace it? What would happen if it was not replaced? Was it realistic, given the nature of the international competition for resources and strategic position, all linked to the creation and use of maritime power, that the Philippines could exist ‘on its own..’. This essay will analyse how the United States and Great Britain dealt with this instability, as well as how those interactions allowed a closer and more harmonious Anglo-American informal strategic relationship to be developed. That relationship would thereafter evolve into a collaborative alliance aimed at deterring further Japanese expansion.     

布雷顿森林体系与"特里芬难题"

布雷顿森林体系是国际货币体系发展的一个重要阶段.布雷顿森林体系的建立,对战后世界经济的恢复和发展起了重要的作用.但是,布雷顿森林体系是英美为争夺战后国际货币体系控制权进行斗争和达成妥协的产物,它具有难以克服的内在矛盾和弱点.早在20世纪60年代出现的"特里芬难题",揭示了这些矛盾与弱点.20世纪70年代初,布雷顿森林体系爆发危机,西方国家相继实行浮动汇率制.在浮动汇率下,布雷顿森林体系的改革迈出了缓慢而艰难的步伐.几十年来,改革并没有取得决定性的成果.在当今金融危机加重的时刻,如何改革和重建布雷顿森林体系,又成为世界经济发展最重要的话题.     

Chinese strategies in a US-hegemonic global order: accommodating and hedging

China's economic, political and military influence has been increasing at a time when the United States, as sole superpower, dominates the international order. This article outlines Chinese elite perspectives on the current global order and shows not only how these perceptions have affected China's policies towards the United States, but also how they have influenced China's regional and global policies more broadly. It argues that variants of realist logic that interpret Chinese behaviour as a form of balancing are not particularly helpful, and do not capture the essence of Chinese strategies that are underpinned by an overwhelming focus on its domestic development needs. The article posits that Chinese leaders have accepted that they operate in a unipolar order and have chosen not to stick out for negotiating positions that the United States would see as seriously detrimental to its interests. However, Beijing couples this accommodating approach with policies designed to ensure that, were relations seriously to deteriorate with Washington, China could draw on deepened regional and global ties to thwart any US effort to interrupt its domestic objectives. China's hope is that a more 'democratic' international order will emerge, which means not multipolarity as such but a 'concert of great powers system' that will operate to forge multilateral cooperation among the major states.     

跨域视角下的美国铁路华工研究述评

论文分别梳理了美国和中国关于铁路华工研究的学术史,并进行了比较与思考。认为美国横贯大陆铁路的通车,保障美国实现了真正的国家统一,开拓了美国的太平洋贸易时代。华工是铁路西段的建设主力,铸造了历史的丰碑。目前,对铁路华工的研究成果主要是"美国视角"下的学术实践:美国学界的研究起步早;研究资料主要来自美国;学术话题主要是美国学界在引领;中国的铁路华工研究仍处于边缘地位。这种状况既具有时代特点,也具有学术的时代局限。需要从地理和学术两个层面去突破"美国视角",深化铁路华工研究。     

跨国教育流动中的刻板印象与身份建构——以在美中国留学生为例

伴随在美中国留学生群体的不断扩大，中国留学生在美国社会中的体验和经历备受关注。本文主要通过深度访谈，了解在美中国留学生与美国本土社会及国内社会的互动，及互动对其塑造社会认同的影响。研究发现，来自美国社会的刻板印象一方面阻碍了该群体的深度融入，另一方面造成了中国留学生群体的“自我规训”，使该群体对于美国社会产生一定的疏离感。此外，在教育流动的过程中，留学生增强了其国家认同，中国人身份和留学生身份处于共生共荣的关系。然而，来自“群体内”的刻板印象增加了留学生群体社会认同建构的不确定性。因此，在美中国留学生群体的身份建构是一个动态的过程，并在“人-人”和“人-地”的互动不断发展和变化。     

冷战期间美国文化外交的演变

冷战开始后随着美苏两大阵营的对峙加剧,美国政府通过采取创建新闻署、组建和平队、成立国际交流署等手段,逐步将文化外交融入对外宣传范畴,演变为一种冷战工具,其间政治文化和领袖的国家使命感起到关键作用。这种文化外交在为美国赢得冷战的胜利发挥重要作用的同时,也使其国际信任度和软权力下降。     

International Harvester,the U.S. South,and the makings of international development in the early 20th century

This article draws on insights into the making of an American empire and the formative nature of the early 20th century in order to interrogate the international imaginations and national practices of International Harvester Corporation, one of the United States' largest international corporations. Based on archival research, it documents how International Harvester imagined its new international markets as the inevitable extension of their national expansion, and the transformations that their products would bring to their new consumers similar to the transformations that those products were bringing to farmers living in the United States, particularly African-Americans in the American South. In addition, this article explores how International Harvester's interventions in the American South deployed tactics of governance that contributed to what became a dominant set of practices of postwar international development, in particular, the problematizing of a space/region, and the rendering of its solution as a technical one. This case study suggests that some of the practices that characterize American international development have their roots in the early 20th century, particularly in the American South.     

Wilsonianism: the dynamics of a conflicted concept

Americans have generally seen the principles and objectives proclaimed by President Woodrow Wilson during the First World War as having continued relevance for United States foreign policy. However, they have often differed over their application to specific situations, particularly because there is likely to be a tension between a drive to establish democratic values across the globe and commitment to a universal system of collective security. Rather than seeking a pure, abstract definition of 'Wilsonianism', it is more illuminating to examine its origins and evolution in relation to the development of American foreign policy over the years. Tracing this historical process reveals that Wilson committed himself to a postwar league of nations during the period of American neutrality, but it was only as the United States became a belligerent that the spread of democratic government became a policy objective, and then only in a partial and qualified way. A similar pattern has been discernible in subsequent decades. It has been during conflicts, or the run-up to them, that the more ideological and revisionist aspects of Wilsonian principles have come to the fore, whereas it has been in the aftermath of conflicts that there has been the greatest interest in the potentialities of a universal collective security organization. There has also been a broad shift of emphasis over time. As confidence in America's power position has grown, the core of Wilson's legacy has more often come to be seen as the promotion of democracy rather than the strengthening of international institutions. The persistence of both themes may be seen as reflecting basic and enduring elements of the policy-making context—on the one hand, the interests of the United States as a status quo power, and on the other, the demands of domestic American opinion.     

The New World and the ‘New Turks’: the American-Turkish Claims Commission and Armenian-Americans’ contested citizenship in the interwar period

The flourishing of nativist political sentiments during the recent United States presidential election has resulted in popular speculation about who is, and who is not, a ‘real’ American. Foreign-born citizens’ struggles to forge a sense of civic belonging amid fears of national disloyalty have significant precedent. This article examines one such historical episode, which centres on a claims commission established between the United States and Turkey during the interwar period. The American-Turkish Claims Commission was intended to aid the resumption of diplomatic relations between the two nations through the resolution of private claims. For the hundreds of Armenian-Americans who filed claims, the Commission provided an unparalleled opportunity to seek their new government’s assistance in claiming compensation from the Republic of Turkey for losses incurred during the Armenian genocide. However, such faith was unwarranted, as the United States excluded from consideration all of the claims made by American citizens who were former Ottoman subjects. This article examines the reasons behind the exclusion of these claims and raises questions as to how immigrant communities can overcome the narrowing of what it means to be American both on the world stage and at home.     

The texted and textured construction of Irish identity in the theatrical world of Charleston,South Carolina

On the eve of the American Civil War, the Irish who had immigrated to the United States as a result of the Great Famine were in the process of constructing an Irish working-class identity in Charleston, South Carolina. A “legacy” for such construction had been created in the previous century: those who had come from Ireland then had used public displays of celebration and concomitant rhetorical devices to create the impression that they were willing and eager to assimilate. Their rituals at banquets and other public occasions “set the stage”, so to speak, for the next century's generation of immigrant Irish who also found it necessary to articulate publicly their claim to an ethnic American identity. Theatrical venues and staged performances served the Famine Irish well in this endeavour.     

The United States, The United Nations and Iraq: 'Multilateralism of a kind'

Much is made of the need for any second war against Iraq (following Desert Storm of 1991) to be sanctioned by a resolution of the UN Security Council, approved necessarily by all five Permanent Members. Yet only two of the five, the USA and the UK, show any enthusiasm for renewed war in the Persian Gulf; and British policy is undeniably following rather than leading American actions on the diplomatic and military fronts. What are the sources of this American policy? Some critics say oil; the latest arguments of proponents invoke humanitarian concerns; somewhere between the two are those who desire ‘regime change’ to create the economic and political conditions in which so‐called western political, economic and social values can flourish. To understand the present crisis and its likely evolution this article examines American relations with Iraq in particular, the Persian Gulf more generally and the Middle East as a region since the Second World War. A study of these international relations combined with a critical approach to the history of American actions and attitudes towards the United Nations shows that the United States continues to pursue a diplomacy blending, as occasion suits, the traditional binaries of multilateralism and unilateralism—yet in the new world‐wide ‘war on terrorism’. The question remains whether the chosen means of fighting this war will inevitably lead to a pyrrhic victory for the United States and its ad hoc allies in the looming confrontation with Iraq.     

Final Strategy: The Post-War Grand Strategic Designs of Henry L. Stimson

Few men arguably shaped the trajectory of American foreign policy in the twentieth century as durably and profoundly as Henry L. Stimson. After all, Stimson was not only directly involved in many consequential decisions dealing with highly important matters of war and peace, but was also a major influence in the United States’ more proactive involvement in extra-territorial affairs. For Stimson, it was simply wishful thinking to presume that the United States could forever disengage itself from far-reaching occurrences in other parts of the globe. Accordingly, he thought it just as critical to anticipate international problems as it was to successfully resolve them afterwards, with the result that he became an ardent and early proponent of a much more sophisticated global strategy after the Second World War. In that context, however, most historians have primarily focused on Stimson's role in the development and use of the atomic bomb against Imperial Japan, though arguably less on his more sweeping grand strategic designs. Consequently, the present article will attempt to offer a more comprehensive analysis of Stimson's grand strategic designs, particularly as they related to his vision and reflections on the necessary ingredients of a more peaceful, stable and secure interstate system.     

Science as propaganda: Swedish scientists and the co-production of American hegemony in Sweden during the cold war, 1953–68

This article takes a close look at how the United States used the funding of scientific research in Sweden as a hegemonic and propaganda tool in the 1950s and 1960s. It shows that non-aligned Sweden functioned just as much as a node in the international science network set up by the Americans after the Second World War as did the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries. These funds were awarded mainly to an elite network of prominent Swedish scientists. The article sheds interesting light on the controversies of such funding in Sweden during the cold war and adds important knowledge about Swedish–American relations during the cold war. The article argues that this Swedish scientific elite co-produced US hegemony in Sweden by actively seeking out American military funding and by making use of it. It also argues that US funding was intended to portray the United States as an altruistic patron of science in the world and thus serve American propagandistic purposes as well.     

George W. Bush,Barack Obama and the future of US global leadership

The foreign policy world views of George W. Bush and Barack Obama differ dramatically. Bush made terrorism the focal point of his foreign policy and dismissed the idea that either allies or international institutions should constrain America's freedom of action. Obama sees terrorism as one of many transnational problems that require the cooperation of other countries to combat and, as a result, the United States must invest more in diplomatic efforts to build partnerships. Despite these differences, both presidents share one common conviction: that other countries long for US leadership. Bush believed that friends and allies would eventually rally to the side of the United States, even if they bristled at its actions, because they shared America's goals and had faith in its motives. Obama believed that a United States that listened more to others, stressed common interests and favored multinational action would command followers. In practice, however, both visions of American global leadership faltered. Bush discovered that many countries rejected his style of leadership as well as his strategies. Obama discovered that in a globalized world, where power has been more widely dispersed, many countries are not looking to Washington for direction. The future success of US foreign policy depends on the ability of policy‐makers to recognize and adapt to a changing geopolitical environment in which the US remains the most significant military, diplomatic and economic power but finds it, nonetheless, increasingly difficult to drive the global agenda.     

The World Food Programme: a case of benign US policy?1

The World Food Programme (WFP) is currently the largest and arguably one of the most successful of the United Nations Special Agencies, yet there has been little examination of it by international relations scholars since the early 1990s. This article seeks to analyse the normative and political characteristics of the WFP which have contributed to its effectiveness. Among its most significant findings is that American agricultural interests, interpreted through the prism of domestic political norms, have dovetailed with ‘feed-the-hungry’ norms that are projected and implemented by the WFP, resulting in the strong support of the United States for the WFP. This support undermines the perception, promoted by some critics, that the UN is incapable of acting in ways that are compatible with the national interests of the United States and other significant member-states who inherently pursue ‘national interests’ in institutional environments.     

Major foreign policy challenges for the next US President

President Obama has been elected to office in the United States during a crisis of confidence in America's capacity to exercise effective leadership in world afairs. National self-indulgence, greedy financial irresponsibility and an unnecessary war have discredited that leadership, a situation that has been compounded by the current global economic crisis. Added to these self-inflicted wounds, this article suggests, are two transformational developments on the world political scene. First, the 'global political awakening' to issues such as climate change, health and social inequality; and second, a shift in the distribution of global power from the West to the East. However, although this shift is occurring, it is a slow process and in the foreseeable future there is no state, or combination of states, that can replace the role America plays on the international scene. What is also clear is that without an American recovery, there will be no global recovery. The American recovery will be a monumental task. But four small, telling words—unify, enlarge, engage and pacify—summarize the essence of the needed response. There needs to be an effort to re-establish a sense of unity between America and Europe; an enlarged coalition of principal players is necessary to promote more effective global management; dialogue engaging a wider circle of partners key to global geopolitical stability should be promoted and maintained; and a deliberate effort not to get bogged down politically and militarily in the Middle East is essential.     

The apostle of internationalism: Stephen Duggan and the geopolitics of international education

Stephen Duggan, the educator and director of the Institute of International Education (IIE) between 1919 and 1946, has been described as an ‘apostle of internationalism’. Duggan's work as the director of a new international agency in the co-ordination of educational exchange sought to position the United States of America as the centre of international education. Duggan's writings during this period reflect the articulation of a geographical vocabulary which positioned the United States as a steward of an ‘international’ space of education despite Duggan's continual disparagement of cultural imperialism. This paper explores the geographies of Duggan's discursive rendering of American responsibilities for the security of ‘the international’, the potential for America to act as a beacon of educational exchanges, and as the ‘rational’ space to counteract threats to an imagined American educational hegemony. This outline was shot through with the anxiety of alternative internationalisms and the possibility for education to be used in opposition to the ‘virtuous’ international education proposed by Duggan and his contemporaries. An exploration of Duggan's writing provides a backdrop to the development of international educational agencies in the interwar period as critical technologies of an American geopolitical power.     

后冷战时期马来西亚对美政策评析

后冷战时期,马来西亚与美国展开一连串激烈交锋,两国关系一度非常紧张。马来西亚对美采取强硬政策的原因,包括冷战后国际政治格局变化,美国东南亚政策的改变,以及金融危机后马来西亚的政治和经济安全面临的严重威胁等。但马美经贸关系继续发展,美国还跃升为马来西亚最大的出口市场和外资来源,这与马来西亚成功的外交谋略不无关系。对美政策有效地捍卫了马来西亚的政治和经济利益,提高了马来西亚的国际地位,基本体现了马来西亚当时的国家利益,充分显示了小国外交的智慧。     

美国政府与中日甲午战争

在1894—1895年的中日甲午战争中,美国表面声称中立,实际却偏袒日本。战前一再拒绝中、朝两国的调停请求和英国的联合调停建议,默认或怂恿日本发动战争。战争期间,美国外交官作为中日两国侨民的战时保护人,一再逸出国际法合理范围,曲意保护在华日本间谍。作为中日两国的唯一调停者,美国一方面拒绝与欧洲国家联合调停,为日本继续发动战争减轻国际压力,另一方面又单方面劝说清朝政府接受日本的各项侵略要求,帮助日本实现发动战争的目的。美国偏袒日本的原因,主要是希望借日本之手废除中朝宗藩关系,进一步打开中国大门,同时利用日本削弱英国、俄国等在东亚的影响力。     

Advocating the rules-based order in an era of multipolarity

Faced with eroding United States hegemony and the rise of a more multipolar distribution of global power, Australia has embraced a new foreign policy platform built around advocacy for a ‘rules-based global order’. In this essay I first argue that the emerging characterisation of multipolarity overemphasises the centrality of the United States and overlooks the legacies of Asian colonisation, decolonisation, state-building and local norm development. I then consider the reasons for the embrace of the rules-based global order construct, locating it as an instinctive reaction to issues arising from the South China Sea dispute, the raw use of power, and the inclination to share the ideas of a close ally. I note, however, that linking Australia closely with the United States approach to global rules has drawbacks, given the United States’ explicit attempts to reserve a right to use force outside the UN Charter. I suggest that Australia would be better served by clearly delineating a separation between its military alliance with a United States, a policy for worst-case scenarios, from its support for international law and institutions, which should form the mainstay and leading edge of its foreign policy.