BULLETIN
of Udmurt University
Sociology. Political Science. International Relations
udsu-logo

Article


Year
2017
Issue
2
Pages
202-210
<<
>>

Section СОЦИОЛОГИЯ. ПОЛИТОЛОГИЯ. МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЕ ОТНОШЕНИЯ
Title THE CONCEPT OF ATLANTICISM IN TIME PERSPECTIVE: HISTORICAL TRENDS AND MODERN INTERPRETATIONS (in Engl.)
Author(-s) Chernyshev Maxim V.
Abstract Strategic partnership between EU Member States and the United States is one of the central issues in the subject of international relations. The majority of agreements reached as part of EU-US bilateral relations concern trade and foreign policy issues. The realisation of policy initiatives in these fields to the large extent depends on adherence to Atlanticism as a sort of quasi-ideology which implies support for rapprochement between Europe and America. In common mind the power gap between the two strategic actors which represent to Western civilisation, the US and the EU, seems to be the consequence of numerous factors, including their military capabilities, political motivations, regional priorities, different threat perceptions, and security strategies. On the other hand, one needs to explain whether public support for transatlantic partnership is genuinely based on shared values and long-term interests or is contingent and conditional on short-term personal factors (attitude to American presidents), political opportunities and pressures (reaction to certain initiatives of the American administration in doing foreign policy). In this essay the term Atlanticism is used as identified by Graeger and Haugevik (2009) to denote a specific type of policy identity and orientation, anchored in geographical location, historical ties with the US and a wary attitude to European integration. Approaches of several international relations theories related to analysis of the concept of Atlanticism have been reviewed. One of them, grounded in a rationalist style of reasoning, is applicable to see the strategic choices of states as structurally determined. Their long-term interests are exogenously given - meaning that they can largely be explained with reference to external structures such as geopolitics, great-power politics and spheres of interest. While such an approach to studying foreign policy orientations can be fruitful in many cases, it is less so in the context of a more profound research, where the purpose is precisely to trace changes in the seemingly deep-seated Atlanticist identities of European countries such as the UK and Italy or on the contrary, in the countries with strong historical tradition of anti-Americanism like France. Nevertheless, despite the formation of the concept of “new Atlanticism” in the last decade, an evident coherence with the established intellectual tradition existing since the late 19th century can be observed.
Keywords Atlanticism, Atlantic community, Atlantic Union, Western civilisation, Lippmann, Streit, NATO’s enlargement, American foreign policy, international relations, liberal institutionalism, peace theory, realism, constructivism
UDC 316.2
References
  1. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.
  2. Keohane R. International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory. Boulder Co: Westview, 1989.
  3. Lebbink T. Atlanticism: the Rise, Development and Realisation of an Idea. Atlantisch perspectief. Vol. 20, no. 8, 1996. pp. 27-30.
  4. Lippman, W. America’s Road to War: Did President Wilson Make the Right Decision? Roads, April 4, 1917. Accessed online at http://roadstothegreatwar-ww1.blogspot.ru/2017/04/americas-road-to-war-did-president.html.
  5. Lippman, W. The Cold War: a Study in US Foreign Policy. New York: Harper and Row, 1972.
  6. Lippman, W. The Cold War. Foreign Affairs vol. 65, no. 4, 1987. Accessed online at http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/ history/johnson/lippcoldwar.htm.
  7. Streit, C. Union now: A Proposal for an Atlantic Federal Union of the Free. Harper and Brothers, 1939. Accessed online at http://www.constitution.org/aun/union_now.htm.
  8. Williams, J. Atlanticism: The Achilles’ Heel of European Security, Self-Identity and Collective Will, 1997. Accessed online at http://www.redpepper.org.uk/atlanticism/.
  9. Zielonka. J. Paradoxes of European Foreign Policy. Kluwer Law International, 1998.
  10. Hodge, C.C. Atlanticism for a New Century. The rise, Triumph and Decline of NATO. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005.
  11. Mackinder, H.J. (1962). Democratic Ideals and Reality. Baltimore, New York: W.W. Norton.
  12. Sava, I.N. Geopolitical Patterns of Euro-Atlanticism: A Perspective from South Eastern Europe. Central and Eastern Europe series, 2004. Vol. 16. - pp. 1-11.
  13. Layne, C. America as European Hegemon. The National Interest. Vol. 72, 2003. - pp. 17-31.
  14. Graeger, N. & Haugevik, K.V. The Revival of Atlanticism in NATO? Changing Security Identities in Britain, Norway and Denmark. Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. Report to the Norwegian Ministry of Defence. 2008. Accessed online at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280712538_The_revival_of_Atlanticism_in_ NATO_Changing_Security_identities_in_Britain_Norway_and_Denmark.
  15. Straus, I. (2005). Atlanticism as the Core 20th Century US Strategy for Internationalism. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Historians of American foreign relations at the panel on Atlanticism in 20th century US foreign policy. Accessed online at http://streitcouncil.org/index.php?page=atlanticism-in-20th-century-u-s-foreign-policy.
  16. Adler, E. & and Barnett, M. Security Communities. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
  17. Kupchan, C.A. Reconstructing the West: the case for an Atlantic Union. In C.A. Kupchan (ed.) Atlantic Security, New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1998. - pp. 64-91.
  18. Owen, J. Transnational Liberalism and US Primacy. International Security. Vol. 26, no. 3, 2002. - pp. 117-52.
  19. Bailyn, B. Atlantic History: Concept and Contours. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005.
  20. Smith, K.E. Western Actors and the Promotion of Democracy. In A. Pravda, & J. Zielonka (eds.), Democratic Consolidation in Eastern Europe. Oxford University Press, 2001.
  21. Ash, T.G. Free World: America, Europe, and the Surprising Future of the West. Random House, 2004.
  22. Lindberg, T. (2004). “We”: A Community in Agreement on Fundamentals. Policy Review. Vol. 128. Accessed online at http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/7054.
  23. Kissinger, H.A. The Troubled Partnership: A Re-Appraisal of the Atlantic Alliance. McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965.
  24. Ikenberry, G. J. Liberal Order Building. In M.P. Leffler & J.W. Legro (eds.), To Lead the World: American Strategy after the Bush Doctrine. Oxford, 2008.
  25. Lundestad, G. Introduction. In G. Lundestad (ed.), Just Another Major Crisis? The United States and Europe since 2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
  26. Cox, M. Beyond the West: Terrors in Transatlantia. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 11, no. 2, 2005. - pp. 203-233.
  27. Buzan, B. Leader without Followers? The United States in World Politics after Bush. The Global Policy Institute, Policy Paper, 2, 2008.
  28. Lehti, M. American West vs. European West: A Struggle for Ownership and Legitimacy. In C. Browning, & M. Lehti (Eds.), The Struggle for the West: A Divided and Contested Legacy. London: Routledge, 2010. - pp. 90-114.
  29. Walt, S.M. The Precarious Partnership: America and Europe in a New Era. In Kupchan (ed.) Atlantic Security: Contending Visions. New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1998.
  30. Puchala, D.J. The Atlantic Community in the Age of International Terrorism. Journal of Transatlantic Studies. Vol. 3, no. 1, 2005. - pp. 89-105.
  31. Kagan, R. Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003.
  32. Daalder, I. H. The End of Atlanticism. Survival. Vol. 45, no. 2, 2003. -pp. 147-166.
  33. Dunn, D.H. Assessing the Debate, Assessing the Damage: Transatlantic Relations after Bush. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations. Vol. 11, no. 1, 2009. - pp. 4-24.
  34. Menon, A., & Lipkin, J. European Attitudes towards Transatlantic Relations 2000-2003: An Analytical Survey. Paris: Notre Europe, 2003.
  35. Hynek, N., & Střítecký, V. Divided We Stand: Limits of Central European Atlanticism in the New Era. International Issues & Slovak Foreign Policy Affairs. Vol. 4, 2009. - pp. 19-30.
  36. Randall, S.J. The American Foreign Policy Transition: Barack Obama in Power. Journal of Military and Strategic Studies. Vol. 11, no. 1/2, 2009.
  37. Kagan, R. Obama’s Bushian Foreign Policy. The Washington Post. March 9, 2009. Accessed online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/08/.
  38. Indyk, M.S., Lieberthal, K.G., & O'Hanlon, M.E. Bending History: Barack Obama's Foreign Policy. Brookings Institution Press, 2013.
  39. Sakwa, R. The New Atlanticism: An Alternative Atlantic Security System, 2015. Accessed online at http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/number/The-New-Atlanticism-17695.
Full text