Anglo-American Policymaking, 1819-1834

2008 ◽  
pp. 49-72
Author(s):  
Mark C. Hunter
Keyword(s):  
South America ◽  
Gulf Of Mexico ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Slave Trade ◽  
Trade Policies ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
The Us ◽  
British Policy ◽  
American Policy ◽  
Anglo American

This chapter explores Anglo-American policy-making between 1891 and 1834, with a particular focus on policies concerning piracy, privateering, and slavery. It examines British policy concerning the Gulf of Mexico and territories under Spanish control; American policy regarding piracy and privateering; the effect of the Monroe Doctrine on international relations - as it declared the Americas as part of the US economic and strategic sphere, and warned European colonisers from interfering with South America; Monroe’s eventual compromise; slave trade policies; and the 1819 Anti-Slave Trade Act. American and British policy-making differed in many of these regards, particularly concerning slavery, but it concludes that they continued to maintain a co-operative relationship as it furthered their own economic interests to do so.

Détente, Human Rights and Anglo-American Relations

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas K. Robb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Carter Administration ◽  
British Policy ◽  
Anglo American

This chapter contextualizes Jimmy Carter’s promotion of a human rights agenda coupled to efforts to maintain superpower détente. By doing so, this chapter highlights how London often fought to restrain the president’s promotion of human rights for a mixture of reasons predicated upon geopolitical assumptions and the need to maintain British commercial interests. All told, the advent of the Carter administration created considerable unease in British policy making circles.

The 1970s: A Decline in Anglo-American Specialness and US–UK Relations with Latin America

2015 ◽  
pp. 18-39
Author(s):  
Sally-Ann Treharne
Keyword(s):  
Latin American ◽  
Augusto Pinochet Ugarte ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
Latin American Region ◽  
The Us ◽  
Augusto Pinochet ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Relationship

Anglo-American relations could not be termed as particularly ‘special’ during the 1970s. This was a decade of overall decline in the Special Relationship. The relationship ebbed and flowed and experienced moments of improved cooperation and development, but these were largely overshadowed by diverging political and economic interests, growing US isolationism and a decline in British influence in world affairs.1 It can come as no surprise that the Latin American region held little importance to wider Anglo-American relations at this time. In fact, the region was marginalised by both the US and the UK governments in the 1970s as various domestic issues came to the fore. There was one exception, and that was Chile; US–UK relations with Chile were predicated upon a desire to closely monitor the regime of General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte. This chapter will examine the tone of Anglo-American relations in the 1970s as a benchmark from which to appreciate the importance of the subsequent Reagan–Thatcher relationship. It will also briefly examine relations between Thatcher and Carter from 1979 to 1981 as a period of indifferent quality in bilateral relations.

Reagan and Thatcher's Special Relationship

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sally-Ann Treharne
Keyword(s):  
Latin American ◽  
Special Relationship ◽  
Pivotal Moments ◽  
Political Relationships ◽  
Latin American Region ◽  
The Us ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
Elite Interviews ◽  
Personal Diplomacy ◽  
The Cold War

Reagan and Thatcher’s Special Relationship offers a unique insight into one of the most controversial political relationships in recent history. An insightful and original study, it provides a new regionally focused approach to the study of Anglo-American relations. The Falklands War, the US invasion of Grenada, the Anglo-Guatemalan dispute over Belize and the US involvement in Nicaragua are vividly reconstructed as Latin American crises that threatened to overwhelm a renewal in US-UK relations in the 1980s. Reagan and Thatcher’s efforts to normalise relations, both during and after the crises, reveal a mutual desire to strengthen Anglo-American ties and to safeguard individual foreign policy objectives whilst cultivating a close personal and political bond that was to last well beyond their terms in office. This ground-breaking reappraisal analyses pivotal moments in their shared history by drawing on the extensive analysis of recently declassified documents while elite interviews reveal candid recollections by key protagonists providing an alternative vantage point from which to assess the contentious ‘Special Relationship’. Sally-Ann Treharne offers a compelling look into the role personal diplomacy played in overcoming obstacles to Anglo-American relations emanating from the turbulent Latin American region in the final years of the Cold War.

The Slave Trade and the Negro in South America

1944 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando Romero
Keyword(s):  
South America ◽  
Slave Trade

Developing High-Resolution Channel to Basin-Scale Unstructured Grid Hydrodynamic Models for Tide/Storm Predictions in the US East and Gulf of Mexico Coasts

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
María Teresa Contreras Vargas ◽  
Joannes Westerink ◽  
Damrongsak Wirasaet ◽  
William Pringle ◽  
Edward Myers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Resolution ◽  
Gulf Of Mexico ◽  
Unstructured Grid ◽  
Hydrodynamic Models ◽  
Basin Scale ◽  
The Us

The Impact of In-group Favoritism on Trade Preferences

2017 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
pp. 827-850 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana C. Mutz ◽  
Eunji Kim
Keyword(s):  
Well Being ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Trading Partner ◽  
Relative Advantage ◽  
Trade Policies ◽  
Partner Country ◽  
The Us ◽  
Trade Preferences ◽  
The Impact

AbstractUsing a population-based survey experiment, this study evaluates the role of in-group favoritism in influencing American attitudes toward international trade. By systematically altering which countries gain or lose from a given trade policy (Americans and/or people in trading partner countries), we vary the role that in-group favoritism should play in influencing preferences.Our results provide evidence of two distinct forms of in-group favoritism. The first, and least surprising, is that Americans value the well-being of other Americans more than that of people outside their own country. Rather than maximize total gains, Americans choose policies that maximize in-group well-being. This tendency is exacerbated by a sense of national superiority; Americans favor their national in-group to a greater extent if they perceive Americans to be more deserving.Second, high levels of perceived intergroup competition lead some Americans to prefer trade policies that benefit the in-group and hurt the out-group over policies that help both their own country and the trading partner country. For a policy to elicit support, it is important not only that the US benefits, but also that the trading partner country loses so that the US achieves a greater relative advantage. We discuss the implications of these findings for understanding bipartisan public opposition to trade.

The Anti-Aryan Moment: Decolonization, Diplomacy, and Race in Late Pahlavi Iran

2021 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 691-702
Author(s):  
Firoozeh Kashani-Sabet
Keyword(s):  
South Carolina ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
World War ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Us ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
The Cold War

In 1946, the entertainer and activist Paul Robeson pondered America's intentions in Iran. In what was to become one of the first major crises of the Cold War, Iran was fighting a Soviet aggressor that did not want to leave. Robeson posed the question, “Is our State Department concerned with protecting the rights of Iran and the welfare of the Iranian people, or is it concerned with protecting Anglo-American oil in that country and the Middle East in general?” This was a loaded question. The US was pressuring the Soviet Union to withdraw its troops after its occupation of the country during World War II. Robeson wondered why America cared so much about Soviet forces in Iranian territory, when it made no mention of Anglo-American troops “in countries far removed from the United States or Great Britain.” An editorial writer for a Black journal in St. Louis posed a different variant of the question: Why did the American secretary of state, James F. Byrnes, concern himself with elections in Iran, Arabia or Azerbaijan and yet not “interfere in his home state, South Carolina, which has not had a free election since Reconstruction?”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document