Search

Admiration and resentment of America are deeply rooted in the current international system even among countries that are traditional US allies. This paper distinguishes in its first part between critical opinion, skepticism and prejudice as different lenses through which to view anti-Americanism and then details six different types of anti-Americanism. In the paper's next two parts these categories are confronted with data from Australia and New Zealand and the different historical trajectories in the evolution of anti-Americanism in these two countries. The fourth and final section seeks to identify commonalities, if any, across the two political settings and, in the efort to test for the effect of geographic proximity, makes some comparisons to anti-Americanism in Mexico and Canada. The expected finding is that the paper will point to a plurality ofdifferent types of anti-Americanisms, a condition that reflects the pluralis mof world politics more generally. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Extant accounts of the origins of ANZUS (Australia-New Zealand-United States) Pact have tended to situate it one a half-way point between America’s interest to enlist support in containing communism through regional pacts and (primarily) Australia’s interest to obtain a long-term security guarantee, underwritten by the superpower, against future Japanese and/or communist invasion. This paper considers the pact from the perspective of national identity. If ANZUS is an institutionalization of a set of shared historical, political, and racial/ethnic traits among its members, than the exclusion of Britain from the pact is puzzling. Why was Britain, despite an official request for membership, excluded from the club? To borrow from a venerable puzzle of International Relations (IR) theory, why is there no English-speaking NATO in Asia-Pacific? Neither interest nor identity offers a simple explanation of why an obvious friend and ally with a long-standing and continuing (colonial) presence in the region should be excluded from a multilateral arrangement with claims to collective defense. I will consider this question by analyzing the effect of the content and contestation of Australian and New Zealander identities on the drafting process of the ANZUS Treaty in 1951. My argument is that Australia and New Zealand â€" through contemporary foreign policy debates as well as the drafting process itself â€" clearly signaled that Britain would become a “shadow member” of ANZUS, partaking in anything from information-sharing to collective defense-planning in the region. I will conclude with a reflection on the absence of the identity variable in the institutional design research program in IR. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]