Suchergebnisse

This book explores the psychological-cultural dimension of the United States-Canada relationship by analyzing how each country has viewed the other. Drawing on a wide range of data, including primary sources, secondary literature, and survey research, the methodology is historical/analytical, seeking to explicate and understand how Americans and Canadians, and their elites, have viewed one another from the moment they were launched on separate trajectories, why they developed and held such ideas, and what consequences these images had for the bilateral relationship between the countries. American and Canadian images of the other have deep roots and are, in many respects, recognizably the same today as they were many decades ago. Moreover, even when anchored to important realities of the other, such images influence the perception and interpretation of events, and actions taken by the other. How Americans and Canadians have viewed each other, the sources of these ideas, the way they have been influenced by each country's domestic politics and place within the international system, and the consequences for their bilateral relationship are among the questions examined. Interdisciplinary in approach, the book will appeal to scholars and students of political science, international relations, and history

Occasional Paper #10 ; Media/military relations in the United State have been frequently strained. In time of war, especially, communication between the two institutions often becomes aggravated and adversarial. The basic reason is that the nature and goals of the two institutions virtually decree a tension. To this, one may add the increasing tendency to formulate U.S. foreign policy with little or no formal debate. The media rushes to fill a vacuum left by the absence of argument between the Administration and Congress. In this way, the military complains that the media often drives the mission, forcing deployments to places where the United States has scant national interests. Like most bureaucracies, the military prefers to do its business behind closed doors, all the more so because the nature of its business is so often shocking to public sensibilities. It also relies on public support for its missions, and too often sees the media as a subversive, rather than a positive, element in that process. Although media/military tension may be endemic, the two institutions need to work together. The nature of democracy itself requires a free press to expose the actions of political and military leaders to public scrutiny. The press has a responsibility to question the policy/strategy match in military operations. Furthermore, the process is beneficial for the military, for it allows the two institutions to work in a symbiotic relationship to build support for policy and to tell the military's story.