تأثیر برگزیت بر سه اصل کلیدی در سیاست خارجی بریتانیا

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار، مطالعات اروپا، دانشکده مطالعات جهان، دانشگاه تهران

2 دانشجوی دکتری، مطالعات اروپا، دانشکده مطالعات جهان، دانشگاه تهران

10.22059/jpq.2022.300215.1007567

چکیده

همه‌پرسی 23 ژوئن 2016 در بریتانیا، خروج این پادشاهی از اتحادیه اروپا را رقم زد؛ که در ادبیات سیاسی با عنوان برگزیت شناخته می‌شود. بسیاری از پژوهشگران بر این باورند که برگزیت ‌تأثیر چشمگیری بر اصول کلی سیاست خارجی بریتانیا و همچنین معادلات قدرت در اروپا و جهان خواهد داشت. با توجه به اهمیت این پدیده، در این نوشتار با تبیین مواضع دو حزب اصلی این پادشاهی در مورد سه اصل ‌تأثیرگذار در سیاستگذاری خارجی بریتانیا (رابطه ویژه با ایالات متحده، مسئولیت حمایت، و ‌چندجانبه‌گرایی) و با بهره‌گیری از نظریه‌ امنیت هستی‌شناختی در روابط بین‌الملل، ‌تأثیر برگزیت بر این اصول تجزیه‌وتحلیل خواهد شد. پرسش اصلی پژوهش این است که چگونه برگزیت بر این سه اصل مهم در سیاست خارجی بریتانیا تاثیر خواهد گذاشت؟ در فرضیه بیان می‌شود که در سیاست خارجی این کشور، برگزیت به حفظ و استمرار رابطه ویژه امریکا-بریتانیا کمک خواهد کرد، در حوزه اصل مسئولیت حمایت، برگزیت فضای محدودتری را برای استفاده از ظرفیت‌های اقتصادی و نظامی بریتانیا ایجاد خواهد کرد، و در زمینه اصل چندجانبه‌گرایی، سبب خواهد شد که بریتانیا به‌دنبال ائتلاف‌هایی باشد که برخلاف اتحادیه اروپا، نهاد حاکمیت و استقلال سیاست خارجی این پادشاهی را تضعیف نکند. انجام این پژوهش با رویکردی توصیفی-تحلیلی و با استفاده از روش موردپژوهی چندگانه، به شناسایی چالش‌ها و فرصت‌هایی که برگزیت برای اصول کلیدی سیاست خارجی بریتانیا به ارمغان آورده است، کمک می‌کند تا تصویری مناسب از رفتار سیاست خارجی این پادشاهی در دوران پسابرگزیت ترسیم شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Impact of Brexit on Three Key Principles in British Foreign Policy

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Reza Saeid Abadi 1
  • Sam Mohammadpour 2
1 Associate Professor, European Studies, Faculty of World Studies, University of Tehran, Iran
2 A PhD Candidate in British Studies, Faculty of World Studies, University of Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

The Britons' referendum of 23 June 2016, known as Brexit has led to the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union (EU). Within the context of ontological security theory, Brexit can be seen as a campaign by British people and politicians who have never been willing to see their country which was once at the center of world politics, in an alliance with 27 different European countries. For Britons, the EU is a federation aimed at  regional integration of sovereignty and foreign policy of the member states, and consequently it might limit the ability of British government to conduct an independent foreign policy. Half a century of British membership in the EU and its recent withdrawal have raised doubts about the Kingdom’s post-Brexit foreign policy. The potential for changes in the three key principles of British foreign policy (i.e., the Anglo-American special relationship, responsibility to protect, and multilateralism) are at the top of the ambiguities in the post-Brexit British foreign policy. In the research hypothesis, it is argued that Brexit  will have a positive impact on the US-British special relationship, but it will create a more limited space for the use of British economic and military capabilities based on the principle of protection responsibility,, and it will  lead Britain to upholding the principle of multilateralism by seeking alliances that unlike its membership in the EU will not undermine its institution of sovereignty and independent foreign policy.
In this paper, the authors use a descriptive-analytical approach and a multi-case study method to analyze the impact of Brexit on these three principles. By using this method, an attempt is made to examine these three key principles on a case-by-case basis and analyze the effect of Brexit on them separately. A key objective is to scrutinize the attitudes and preferred policies of the two British major parties (i.e., Conservative Party and Labour Party) concerning these principles and the expected impact of Brexit on them. For the theoretical framework of the present study, the theory of ontological security is selected. An important theoretical assumption is that the identity of a state is not necessarily formed only by an external factor, as an ‘other’. Identity is also constructed through the development of autobiographical narratives that rely on a state’s history and experience, which bring about the continuity of the state's existence and its perception of self-identity and its raison d'être. Through these narratives, the individuals in the state and society recognize who they are and how they should act in international politics.
In connection with the Anglo-American special relationship, concepts such as Anglo-Saxonism and Englishness have become powerful narratives that have historically strengthened British-American bonds. Regarding the responsibility to protect, the two main British parties, especially the Conservatives, fully endorse this principle. In this sense, one of the main narratives among British politicians has been the Kingdom’s glorious past in defense of democratic values. They view their country as committed to promoting human freedoms, democracy, and anti-terrorism activities, which they call liberal interventionism. Furthermore, one of the characteristics of British foreign policy over the centuries has been the independence of its foreign policy. With the growing integration of the EU, the independence of British foreign policy as a dominant autobiographical narrative has been threatened. After the Britain’s withdrawal from the EU, the British politicians need to establish an efficient multilateral system, to redefine the country’s raison d'être and to create alternative narratives that justify their behaviour and actions, especially in the face of challenges from the emerging powers. Concerning these ontological issues, some scholars argue that the presence of a major power such as Britain in the EU as a tight alliance has been confronted with challenges from the beginning. In other words, it is far-fetched for a country like Britain, once at the top of the international power structure to merge its national sovereignty and foreign policy independence into a quasi-federation like the EU, and acquire no exceptional superiority over other members. However, the withdrawal from the EU in which Britain has been a key member state for half a century will undoubtedly change the main principles of British foreign policy (Anglo-American special relationship, responsibility to protect, and multilateralism). Our findings are summarized as follows:
After Brexit, the capacity to safeguard the special relationship will depend on Britain's willingness and ability to resolve US suspicions. In connection with the Britons’ intentions to maintain and strengthen the special relationship, the two factors of mutual guarantee of the relationship and the approval and acceptance of a lesser role by Britain will be essential. However, the type and extent of bilateral assurances, particularly from the UK will help the Kingdom to reaffirm its commitment to US policies. Concerning the issue of British less significant role in the special relationship, it is clear that the US expects to play the dominant role and its policy of giving a secondary and subordinate role to Britain will be pursued more prominently in post-Brexit foreign policy. Regarding the responsibility to protect, there are many concerns in post-Brexit Britain, and most of them are due to the fact that Britain will be in a weaker position, both economically and militarily. Therefore, many in Britain believe that intervention to fulfill their country’s responsibilities, especially in the form of military intervention, even for humanitarian purposes, should be the last resort. Others believe that Britain will increasingly have to rely on its soft power capacities to fulfill its responsibility to support liberal interventionism. Finally, with regard to the third principle, it should be noted that due to its inability to pursue a unilateral foreign policy in the post-Brexit period, the UK is likely to continue to pursue the policy of multilateralism in its foreign policy, and to participate in coalitions that do not limit British national sovereignty and foreign policy independence, as shown in the case of NATO. The present study helps identify the challenges and opportunities that the phenomenon of Brexit has created for the key principles of British foreign policy and better evaluate its foreign policy behaviors in the post-Brexit period.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Brexit
  • Anglo-American Special Relationship
  • responsibility to protect
  • Multilateralism
  • European Union
  1.  

    1. Azubuike, Samuel. (2005) "The Poodle Theory and the Anglo-American Special Relationship,” International Studies 42, 2: 123-139, <DOI/10.1177/ 002088170404200202>.
    2. Bew, John; and Gabriel Elefteriu. (2016) "Making Sense of British Foreign Policy after Brexit,” Policy Exchange Think Tank. PDF e-book. Available at: https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/british-foreign-policy-after-brexit-policy-exchange-briefing-july-2016.pdf (Accessed 11 March 2019).
    3. Blair, Tony. (2002, September) “Britain will Pay Blood Price,” (co.uk). Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2239887.stm (Accessed 17 January 2020).
    4. Blair, Tony. (May, 2009) Doctrine of the International Community. PDF e-book. Available at: http://yalejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/094201blair.pdf (Accessed 11 March 2019).
    5. R. Theodore. (2008) "British Defense Cuts Threaten the Anglo-American Special Relationship,” The Heritage Foundation. PDF e-book. Available at: http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2008/pdf/bg2210.pdf (Accessed 17 January 2020).
    6. Cameron, David. (2006, September) “Conservative Party Leader's Speech on Foreign Policy and National Security,” Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/sep/11/conservatives.speeches (Accessed 11 March 2020).
    7. Cameron, David. (2009, October) “Leader's Speech: Conservative Party Conference,” (britishpoliticalspeeorg). Available at: http://www.britishpoliticalspeech.org/speech-archive.htm?speech=154 (Accessed 24 March 2020).
    8. Danchev, Alex. (2006) "The Cold War Special Relationship (Revisited),” Diplomacy & Statecraft 17, 3: 579-595, <DOI/ 10.1080/09592290600867651>.
    9. Danchev, Alex; and John MacMillan. (2005) The Iraq War and Democratic Politics. London: Routledge.
    10. Douglas, Alexander. (2015, March) “Labor won't let David Cameron turn the UK into Little Britain,” Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/ commentisfree/ 2015/mar/09/labour-david-cameron-britain-isolationist-foreign-policy (Accessed 24 March 2020).
    11. Goodman, Helen. (2019, July) “FPC Briefing: in Defence of Multilateralism,” (org.uk). Available at: https://fpc.org.uk/fpc-briefing-in-defence-of-multilateralism/ (Accessed 24 March 2020).
    12. Hackmann, Rolf. (2005) Globalization: Myth, Miracle, Mirage. Lanham: University Press of America.
    13. Hardy, Sam; and James Denselow. (2011) The Future of Labour’s Foreign Policy, London: Progress.
    14. Harrois, Thibaud. (2015) "Little Britain? The Debate on Britain’s Foreign and Defence Policy,”French Journal of British Studies 20, 3: 1-17, <DOI:10.4000/rfcb.580>.
    15. Harvey, Michael. (2011) Perspectives on UKs Place in the World. London: Chatham House, PDF e-book. Available at: http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Research/Europe/1211pp_harvey.pdf (Accessed 17 January 2020).
    16. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). (2001, December) Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Ottawa, CA: International Development Research Center. PDF e-book Available at: https://walterdorn.net/pdf/ Responsibility- to-Protect_ICISS-Report_Dec2001.pdf (Accessed 24 March 2020).
    17. Jones, Peter. (1997) America and the British Labour Party. London: I.B Tauris.
    18. Kahler, Miles. (1992) "Multilateralism with Small and Large Numbers,” International Organization 46, 3: 681-708, <DOI:10.1017/ S0020818300027867>.
    19. Kant, Immanuel. (1795) Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Königsberg: F. Nicolovius.
    20. Kinnvall, ‪ (2004) “Globalization and Religious Nationalism: Self, Identity and the Search for Ontological Security,” Political Psychology 25, 5: 741-767, <DOI/ 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00396.x>.
    21. Kümmel, Gerhard; and Bastian Giegerich. (2013) The Armed Forces: Towards a Post-interventionist Era? Wiesbaden: Springer.
    22. Lequesne, Christian. (2019, March) “Brexit: Evolution or Revolution?” (fr). Available at: https://www.sciencespo.fr/en/news/news/brexit-evolution-or-revolution/4015 (Accessed 26 March 2020).
    23. Lister, Sam. (2012, May) “£38 billion Defence Black Hole Filled,” Independent. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/38-billion-defence-black-hole-filled-7746401.html. (Accessed 24 March 2020).
    24. Mason, Rowena. (2014, May) “David Cameron: in-out Referendum on EU by 2017 is Cast-iron Pledge,” Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/11/david-cameron-european-union-referendum-pledge (Accessed 28 March 2020).
    25. McGregor, Richard. (2013, August) “Cameron loses Commons Syria Vote,” Financial Times. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/b16c699c-1096-11e3-b291-00144feabdc0 (Accessed 4 December 2019).
    26. Morris, Justin. (2011) "How Great is Britain? Power, Responsibility and Britain’s Future Global Role,” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 13, 3: 326-347, <DOI/ 10.1111/j.1467-856X.2011.00450.x>.
    27. Oliver, Tim; and John M. Williams. (2016) "Special Relationships in Flux: Brexit and the Future of the US-EU and US-UK Relationships,”International Affairs 92, 3: 547-567, <DOI/10.1111/1468-2346.12606>.
    28. Oppermann, Kai. (2019) "Brexit and the Politics of Resilience in the U.S.-UK Special Relationship," in Gordon Friedrichs, et al., eds. The Politics of Resilience and Transatlantic Order. London: Routledge.
    29. Otte, G. Thomas. (2002) The Makers of British Foreign Policy: From Pitt to Thatcher. London: Palgrave.
    30. Peksen, Dursun. (2012) Liberal Interventionism and Democracy Promotion. Plymouth: Lexington Books.
    31. Rathmell, Andrew. (2009, October) "Multilateral Approaches to Security: Choices for Defence,"RUSI-Future Defence Review, Working Paper 3. Available at: https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/FDR3.pdf (Accessed 2 May 2018).
    32. Reynolds, David. (1991) Britannia Overruled: British Policy and World Power in the 20th Century. London: Longman.
    33. Shaikh, Adam. (2019, May) “Has Brexit Challenged Global Justice? The UK and the Responsibility to Protect,” (co.uk) Available at: https://bfpg.co.uk/ 2019/05/event-summary-has-brexit-challenged-global-justice/ (Accessed 27 March 2019).
    34. Smout, Alistair. (2018, July) “From Churchill to Trump: Key Moments in the UK-U.S. Special Relationship,” Reuters. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-britain-moments/from-churchill-to-trump-key-moments-in-the-uk-u-s-special-relationship-idUSKBN1JW0IM (Accessed 23 March 2020).
    35. United Nations General Assembly. (2009) Ban Ki-moon Report: Implementing the Responsibility to Protect. New York: United Nations.
    36. Watts, Duncan; and Colin Pilkington. (2005) Britain in the European Union Today. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
    37. Whitman, G. Richard. (2016) "Brexit or Bremain: What Future for the UK’s European Diplomatic Strategy,” International Affairs 92, 3: 509-529, <DOI/10.1111/1468-2346.12607 >