Does the us president seek a war to end all war in the Middle East? Apocalyptic thinking is hardly a novelty when it comes to the United States, or to diplomacy. A look back at the 17th century, and the evolution of international thinking since, reminds us how durable such thinking can be.
The British decision to leave the European Union has created a number of challenges in the security and defense realms. The difficulties with implementing the decision are compounded by the unusual apparatus and haphazard manner by which the so-called Brexit negotiations have been handled on the uk side.
The much-praised “special relationship” between the US and the UK has had little, if any, relevance for President Donald Trump. After the Brexit referendum of June 2016 Prime Minister Theresa May and many of the “Brexiteers” in the Conservative Party hoped that a rejuvenation of relations with the U.S., perhaps by means of free trade treaty, would counter-balance any loss of political and economic influence due to the UK’s departure from the European Union. Some of Trump’s rhetoric seemed to indicate this. He repeatedly praised the country for its desire to get back “its sovereignty” and “control over its borders.” In reality Trump was so focused on the realization of his “America First” policy that it was unlikely that he would be inclined to grant any special favors or generous trade terms to the UK, “special relationship” or not.
The Brexit Negotiations and What They Say about Britain’s Misunderstanding of the eu
N. Piers Ludlow
One of the stranger aspects of the Brexit saga has been the ignorance of eu norms, rules, history, and institutional practices appearing throughout the public debate in the United Kingdom. This has led to several predictable and rather basic errors of diplomacy, and a far more arduous “negotiation” than some on both sides –uk and eu – may have wanted or intended.
Because of Pierre Renouvin’s key role in defining the history of international relations, French historians have long nurtured a complex relationship with this academic field. Since the early 2000s, there has been a new commitment in this field, marked by both a sociological and cultural approach.
The social history of diplomacy includes many elements, one of which is assemblage, or the material spaces of diplomatic activity and the various bodies they include. Another is the state effect – the documents and objects of diplomacy – as well as the state affect – the more intangible understandings and beliefs that condition diplomacy and lay well outside the state itself. Assemblage, effects, and affects, taken together, must form the basis of a deeper understanding of diplomatic relations and a new diplomatic history.