Into the shadow of the domestic? Shifting the focus of studying the transatlantic relationship
Submitted by Maastricht University on Mon, 09/24/2018 - 18:21
NORTIA Blogpost in reflection of the UACES 48thAnnual conference 2018 in Bath
Coming to UACES in Bath 2018 with two presentations with a clear transatlantic (or at least EU-US comparative) topic will have skewed my perception of the conference proceedings, but it left me with the impression that the transatlantic angle to European studies is on a roll. The transatlantic element has been part of EU studies, either as a comparative benchmark, or as a specific relationship unwritten by common norms, history, institutional structure etc, depending on the focus of your research. But domestic developments have a habit of bringing it back to the front of the queue. It has been visible throughout this year’s conference: in the second plenary session on “Transatlanticism in the Times of Trump and the UK’s Withdrawal from the EU”, but also in the panel sessions.
With two explicitly transatlantic panels in Krakow and two panels in Bath, academic engagement has been stable, but once we include Brexit, NATO and transatlantic relations, numbers in 2018 are on the up. In the plenary session, Mike Smith (Warwick) gave the audience a taste of the longue duree, highlighting the many crises in transatlantic relations that have come before the ‘age of Trump and Brexit’. And while there may be a new element to the latest crisis, what that new element is, and whether it is qualitatively different, still needs answering. Natalie Tocci (IAI) highlighted some internal effects of the crisis in transatlanticism, not all of them negative from an integration perspective. And Amelia Hadfield (Canterbury Christ Church) from a Canadian-European perspective presented some of the fundamental challenges Trump has posed to the European Union and other Western partners.
I was curious whether this rise in engagement with the ‘transatlantic’ could be seen elsewhere, too. Unfortunately, the n-gram viewer only uses data to 2008, when there is a small drop off in use of the term. But the long-term trajectory seemed upwards here, too, and that is before the global financial crisis, before TTIP, and before the election of Donald Trump and the many discussions around NATO that ensued from it.
While clearly, the peak of 1955 is still a good way away in 2008, if the trajectory held, it may have been recovered. ‘Transatlantic relations’ as a term also has a long-term growth trajectory between 1950 and 2008, but again with a clear fall off in 2007-2008. [1]
Another observation for those of us interested in the transatlantic part of EU studies is the link to other phenomena. Going beyond the usual trade and security, Brexit, populism and radical right politics have established themselves as factors to be reckoned with. Domestic politics is back with a vengeance and many of the current arguments spilling into our research are about the nature of the influence of the domestic on international relations (e.g. Panel 306: External Consequences of Brexit: EU, Foreign Policy and the Brexit Challenge; Panel 709: NATO and the EU in the Age of Brexit & Trump and more). And this was reflected explicitly in the contributions to the panel I participated in (The EU-Transatlantic Relationship in the Age of Trump and Brexit): The contributions by Geoffrey Harris and Joris Larik focused on the EU and its options in global politics where the transatlantic relationship is perceived to be under strain, but both motivated by two domestic developments: Trump’s ‘America First’ and Brexit. The third presentation by Anna Dimitrova looked at Risks and Opportunities for the EU during a ‘Jacksonian’ Trump presidency. My own presentation of comparing what elements of an administration (and by extension transatlantic relations) are ‘up for grabs’ with political change in the EU and the US and which ones ought to be insulated or retained regardless of political agenda, added a domestic dimension to this transatlantic problem-solving panel. As we often discuss politico-administrative relations in terms of responsiveness, is there a limit where we would like administration to not to follow the politicians’ agenda?[2]It was then interesting to see an EU transatlantic panel discuss historic US presidencies in order to try to understand the current US foreign policy and its impact on transatlantic relations. At the same time, it was clear that domestic developments in European member states also needed attention.
This is a development quite fitting to the UACES community, in which the inside out and outside in of relationships in international politics have been the driving force behind so much creative research. And as for research into transatlantic relations, it will have to reassess a number of classic issues: what do domestic (populist and radical) politics and polarisation do to institutionalized international relationships and what does this mean for the EU, which prides itself on these relationships more than other actors? This is FPA with a twist of populism, or the reverse if you’re approaching from the domestic politics side.
It’s a good conference that you leave with more questions and project ideas.