Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper considers the puzzle of the turn-of-the-twentieth-century "great rapprochement." The research question under investigation is not simply why did “peace break out" between the United States and the British Empire, but how did the war between the two powers became illegitimate and cooperation dependable. In the attempt to answer this question, this study subjects the politics of the Anglo-American rapprochement to both constitutive and causal analysis. The empirical focus is on the Venezuela crises of 1895-6 and 1902-3.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Taking a gender sensitive approach to Social Identity Theory in Anglo-American, Chinese and Russian negotiating contexts suggests that gendered social identities significantly correspond to “ideal type” diplomatic negotiators across cultural contexts. In the US, the identities of the “ideal man” and the “ideal negotiator” converge as an individualistic, self controlled, rational, male actor who seeks to “expand the pie” through problem-solving negotiation in order to maximize the benefits available. In China, the “junzi” (ideal man) and “ideal negotiator” are male actors who are tightly in control of their relationships, and consequently able to use the relationship games of guanxi and paradigms of wen / “joint quest” or wu / “mobile warfare” to promote the achievement of their “principled” goals. In Russia, both masculine ideal types and typical negotiators are strong members of fraternal communities, who utilize position-appropriate tactics to achieve group goals at the expense of subordinated and feminized opponents. In all three, gendered structures on individual, state and global levels reinforce each other in perpetuating diplomatic demographics, goals, and institutions which privilege dichotomous, and primarily masculine- over feminine-typical social identity roles. This critical interrogation of the intercultural diplomatic negotiation literature suggests that investigating other key social identities may also provide models which can be selectively drawn on in order to both understand the sources of potential conflict or cooperation, and provide a tool to improve negotiation processes and outcomes.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Taking a gender sensitive approach to Social Identity Theory in Anglo-American, Chinese and Russian negotiating contexts suggests that gendered social identities significantly correspond to “ideal type” diplomatic negotiators across cultural contexts. In the US, the identities of the “ideal man” and the “ideal negotiator” converge as an individualistic, self controlled, rational, male actor who seeks to “expand the pie” through problem-solving negotiation in order to maximize the benefits available. In China, the “junzi” (ideal man) and “ideal negotiator” are male actors who are tightly in control of their relationships, and consequently able to use the relationship games of guanxi and paradigms of wen / “joint quest” or wu / “mobile warfare” to promote the achievement of their “principled” goals. In Russia, both masculine ideal types and typical negotiators are strong members of fraternal communities, who utilize position-appropriate tactics to achieve group goals at the expense of subordinated and feminized opponents. In all three, gendered structures on individual, state and global levels reinforce each other in perpetuating diplomatic demographics, goals, and institutions which privilege dichotomous, and primarily masculine- over feminine-typical social identity roles. This critical interrogation of the intercultural diplomatic negotiation literature suggests that investigating other key social identities may also provide models which can be selectively drawn on in order to both understand the sources of potential conflict or cooperation, and provide a tool to improve negotiation processes and outcomes.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper explores the underlying assumptions, leadership, aims and activities of the Princeton Project on National Security, a network of scholars and past and current public officials that has been working to produce an alternative (non-Bush doctrinal) national security strategy for the United States. The paper locates the major funding sources behind the Project in two major philanthropic foundations ? the German Marshall Fund of the US and the Ford Foundation ? both of which have long supported and fostered foreign and security policy research in universities, policy research institutes, and think tanks. The Project is large-scale, well funded, linked with scores of leading American scholars such as Anne-Marie Slaughter, G. John Ikenberry and Joseph Nye, as well as former state officials such as Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, Zbigniew Brzinski, James Woolsey, and James A. Baker III. Its study groups have investigated and reported upon all aspects of US national security ? including threat-assessment, democracy-promotion, and anti-Americanism. Its reports have been submitted to Condoleeza Rice.From a cursory examination of a sample of their voluminous documents and reports, it is clear that the PPNS, broadly-speaking, adheres a belief in American primacy and the necessities of American global leadership, robustly pursuing US core interests, aggressively conducting the war on terror and constructing alliances to that end, better long-term planning for nation-building and war-making, and pursuing public diplomacy strategies to convince ?anti-Americans? to be neutral or ?pro-US? where possible, without hindering the pursuit of non-negotiable US core interests. The ?golden age? of US foreign policy for the PPNS was 1945-52, the age of Truman during which the Cold War mindset was firmly established and the apparatus of American expansionism constructed. How is the Princeton Project to be evaluated? Are their ideas and ?alternative? national security strategy fundamentally different to that promulgated by President George W. Bush? If so, what are the main differences? Have the Project?s scholars become ?state intellectuals?? Are they in danger of becoming instruments of US state power? Or are they the ?only viable alternative? to a neo-conservative militarism that animates existing policy? In Gramscian terms, the PPNS appears to have become part of the US hegemonic project, albeit one that offers some criticisms and alternatives to preventive war and unilateralism. The Project appears to be a manifestation of the relative resurgence of realist liberal-internationalism, and of the elements of the US foreign policy establishment that are its main sponsors, in the wake of intense criticism ? from all quarters - of Bush?s illegal war on Iraq.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Many explanations have been advanced in the face of the obvious failures of the official British and U.S. explanations to account for the war being waged on Iraq. In the U.K., discussion has tended to focus almost exclusively on the United States, with British involvement treated as tangential or at most supplemental, and explained largely with reference to aspects of Prime Minister Tony Blair’s personality or some broadly conceived U.K. national interest in maintaining close political relations with the United States. Missing from the discussion is recognition of recurrent features of U.K. foreign policy towards the Middle East and their relation to fundamental aspects of British political-economy, the increasing integration of British and U.S. capital, and the largely Anglo-American-led project of global economic re-structuring currently taking place. This paper focuses on British and U.S. interests in Iraq and larger Anglo-American ambitions that divide the U.K. and U.S. from France, Germany, and other EU and non-EU countries. Part I of the paper briefly reviews the history of British and U.S. foreign policies towards Iraq and the culmination of these policies in the invasion and take-over of the country. Part II places these events in the context of the political-economy of U.K.-U.S. relations and an on-going Anglo-American project of global reconstruction.