The purpose of this article is to capture one of the key features of the political thought that developed in the United States of America. Assuming that the USA's political culture is indeed exceptional, the author attempts to find the common denominator that would reflect the singularity of the American political mind. The author states that such a feature is the radical anti-historicality of the American mode of thinking about politics. It is a phenomenon that is deeply-rooted in the political and spiritual past of the United States and seems to be crucial because it never developed to such an extent in other traditions. Furthermore, even today to a large extent it defines both the American left and right. It is also very much present in academic discussion as well as in ordinary political activities. By anti-historicality the author means the rejection of the thesis that politics within a given society depends on that society's past experience. The phenomenon defies simple normative assessments. On the one hand, it protects American politics from the perils of radical historicism; on the other hand, it hinders the USA's contacts with other political bodies. However, the author concludes that understanding American anti-historicality is crucial when entering into any relations with the USA. Celem artykułu jest porównanie i przeciwstawienie brytyjskiej polityki wobec kryzysu w Libii i w Syrii odpowiednio w 2011 i w 2013 roku. Szuka się w nim odpowiedzi na pytanie, dlaczego parlament brytyjski, który w 2011 roku tak zdecydowanie poparł użycie siły przeciwko Libii, wstrzymał swoje poparcie dla akcji militarnej w Syrii w sierpniu 2013 roku. Autor wskazuje, że perspektywa masakry w libańskim mieście Benghazi przekonała brytyjskiego premiera, że akcja międzynarodowa była pilną koniecznością. Rezolucja Rady Bezpieczeństwa ONZ pozwalająca na akcję militarną w celu ochrony libijskiej ludności cywilnej oraz fakt, iż interwencję poparło kilka rządów na Bliskim Wschodzie, również przyczyniły się do uznania jej przez rząd brytyjski za w pełni uprawnioną. Jednakże dwa lata później brytyjski parlament skutecznie zawetował udział Wielkiej Brytanii w atakach powietrznych przeciwko Syrii. Było to skutkiem, jak argumentuje autor, braku rezolucji ONZ w tej kwestii i wsparcia rządów w regionie dla Syrii oraz wątpliwości co do skuteczności akcji militarnej. W artykule podejmowane jest również pytanie, czy brak brytyjskiej interwencji w Syrii oznacza początek zwrotu w brytyjskiej polityce zagranicznej.
The article describes the analysis of the modern British party system in the age of changes and transformations. In particular, it analyzes the changes in the electorate as well as the legal-institutional conditions which, in consequence, led to a shift in the balance of power between the political parties on the parliamentary level that occurred after the 2010 general election. Forming a coalition in the Parliament and the Cabinet marked the beginning of an ideologically and politically difficult rule of two parties which both politicians and voters alike had to learn. I argue that the above circumstances led to a certain "crisis" not only in the way administration is handled but also in the society's political participation. Simultaneously, it relates to what I view as a change in the British party system. The present article largely focuses on the transformations within the British party system that occurred in the early 21st century, on the genesis of the processes which affects the transformations in the above system, as well as on the causes and effects of these phenomena.
The article describes the analysis of the modern British party system in the age of changes and transformations. In particular, it analyzes the changes in the electorate as well as the legal-institutional conditions which, in consequence, led to a shift in the balance of power between the political parties on the parliamentary level that occurred after the 2010 general election. Forming a coalition in the Parliament and the Cabinet marked the beginning of an ideologically and politically difficult rule of two parties which both politicians and voters alike had to learn. I argue that the above circumstances led to a certain "crisis" not only in the way administration is handled but also in the society's political participation. Simultaneously, it relates to what I view as a change in the British party system. The present article largely focuses on the transformations within the British party system that occurred in the early 21st century, on the genesis of the processes which affects the transformations in the above system, as well as on the causes and effects of these phenomena.
The aim of the article is to illustrate the attitude of British diplomacy during the negotiations on the Fiume issue during the Supreme Council of the Peace Conference in Paris, where the most important decisions concerning the fate of post-war Europe were made. Prime Minister Lloyd George's behavior towards the general problem of the Adriatic and the Italian-American dispute was analyzed. The most important interests of Great Britain, which determined the course taken in this matter, were presented. The attitude of the heads of British diplomacy towards the most important events in Fiume in 1919 was also outlined. ; Celem artykułu jest zobrazowanie postawy brytyjskiej dyplomacji podczas negocjacji na temat kwestii Fiume w czasie obrad Rady Najwyższej Konferencji Pokojowej w Paryżu, na której zapadały najważniejsze decyzje dotyczące losów powojennej Europy. Analizie poddano zachowanie premiera Lloyda George'a wobec ogółu problemu kwestii adriatyckiej oraz sporu włosko-amerykańskiego. Zaprezentowano najważniejsze interesy Wielkiej Brytanii, które determinowały obrany kurs wobec tej sprawy. Zarysowano także stosunek szefów dyplomacji brytyjskiej do najważniejszych wydarzeń w Fiume w 1919 r.
The aim of the article is to illustrate the attitude of British diplomacy during the negotiations on the Fiume issue during the Supreme Council of the Peace Conference in Paris, where the most important decisions concerning the fate of post-war Europe were made. Prime Minister Lloyd George's behavior towards the general problem of the Adriatic and the Italian-American dispute was analyzed. The most important interests of Great Britain, which determined the course taken in this matter, were presented. The attitude of the heads of British diplomacy towards the most important events in Fiume in 1919 was also outlined. ; Celem artykułu jest zobrazowanie postawy brytyjskiej dyplomacji podczas negocjacji na temat kwestii Fiume w czasie obrad Rady Najwyższej Konferencji Pokojowej w Paryżu, na której zapadały najważniejsze decyzje dotyczące losów powojennej Europy. Analizie poddano zachowanie premiera Lloyda George'a wobec ogółu problemu kwestii adriatyckiej oraz sporu włosko-amerykańskiego. Zaprezentowano najważniejsze interesy Wielkiej Brytanii, które determinowały obrany kurs wobec tej sprawy. Zarysowano także stosunek szefów dyplomacji brytyjskiej do najważniejszych wydarzeń w Fiume w 1919 r.
For a growing group of voters the UKIP party ceases to be a second choice, and it becomes a main party. But, contrary to popular belief, its electoral success is only partly due to its Eurosceptic program. Its growing support is rather the result of disappointment in policies of the main parties and a sense of alienation of a growing social group, failing to find its way in a liberal, multicultural society. Note, however, that the UK electoral system rewards parties that have geographically concentrated support, yet in case of UKIP it is distributed fairly evenly. For this reason, even a significant popular support will translate only in a small degree into the seats in the House of Commons. UKIP electoral successes has forced the major political parties to modify their policies, which manifested mainly in radicalization of their programs in the area of immigration and asylum policy, as well as their attitude towards the UK's membership in the European Union.
For a growing group of voters the UKIP party ceases to be a second choice, and it becomes a main party. But, contrary to popular belief, its electoral success is only partly due to its Eurosceptic program. Its growing support is rather the result of disappointment in policies of the main parties and a sense of alienation of a growing social group, failing to find its way in a liberal, multicultural society. Note, however, that the UK electoral system rewards parties that have geographically concentrated support, yet in case of UKIP it is distributed fairly evenly. For this reason, even a significant popular support will translate only in a small degree into the seats in the House of Commons. UKIP electoral successes has forced the major political parties to modify their policies, which manifested mainly in radicalization of their programs in the area of immigration and asylum policy, as well as their attitude towards the UK's membership in the European Union.
Region Bliskiego Wschodu jest znany z antyzachodnich nastrojów. Mimo to wiele rządów arabskich prowadzi prozachodnią politykę. Jednym z państw współpracujących z Europą i USA jest Jordania. Taka opcja polityczna monarchii haszymidzkiej ma jednak głębokie przyczyny historyczne i wynika z nietypowych uwarunkowań tego państwa. Należy przypomnieć, że samo powstanie Jordanii wynikało ze współpracy władz brytyjskich z Haszymidami. Państwo to utworzono w 1921 r. początkowo pod nazwą Transjordania, w wyniku decyzji politycznych Londynu. Od tego czasu do 1956 r. trwała współpraca Ammanu z Wielką Brytanią. Fakt, że w 1946 r. Jordania uzyskała niepodległość niewiele zmienił – państwo Haszymidów pozostawało zależne od Brytyjczyków. Symbolem tej nierównorzędnej współpracy była osoba Johna Bagota Glubba. Ten brytyjski ofi cer stał się głównodowodzącym armii jordańskiej. Arabowie uważali go za przedstawiciela imperium, on sam jednak był przekonany, że służy interesom arabskim. Mimo, że rozwój Jordanii zależał od dotacji Londynu, władze w Ammanie zachowały swobodę decyzji. W 1956 r. król Husajn I usunął z kraju J.B. Glubba i zerwał sojusz z Wielką Brytanią. Dynastia haszymidzka odrzuciła związek z Londynem, by pozyskać nacjonalistów arabskich. Jednocześnie król Husajn I nawiązał ścisły, choć nieformalny, sojusz z USA. To Waszyngton zaczął dotować skarb Jordanii i jego siły zbrojne. Współpraca ta trwa do dziś. Jednocześnie Amman potrafi ł w pewnych momentach przeciwstawić się polityce USA. Tak było w 1967 r. i w latach 1990–1991 w czasie pierwszego konfl iktu USA z Irakiem, podczas którego Amman popierał Bagdad. Generalnie jednak reżim jordański utrzymywał opcję prozachodnią. Rząd haszymidzki dąży przede wszystkim do utrzymania stabilności ustroju monarchicznego. Współpraca z USA, a wcześniej z Brytyjczykami, nie wynika z założeń ideowych, lecz służy temu podstawowemu celowi. Jednocześnie współpraca z Anglosasami ma w przypadku Haszymidów długą tradycję i dobrze służy ich założeniom politycznym. ; The Middle East is known for its anti-western attitudes. Despite that, many Arab governments pursue pro-western policy. One of the countries that cooperates with Europe and the USA is Jordan. The specifi c political stance of the Hashemite monarchy has, however, strong historical reasons and results from untypical conditions of this state. One should mention that the very formation of Jordan resulted from the cooperation of British authorities with the Hashemite. The state was formed in 1921, at fi rst under the name of Transjordan, in result of political decisions of London. In 1921–1956 Amman cooperated with Great Britain. The fact that in 1946 Jordan gained independence did not change a lot. The country of the Hashemite remained dependant on the British. The symbol of this unequal cooperation was the person of John Bagot Glubb. This British officer became the commander of the Jordan army. The Arabs considered him as a representative of the empire, but he himself was convinced that he was serving the Arab interests. Despite the fact that the development of Jordan depended on donations of London, the authorities in Amman maintained freedom of decision making. In 1956 king Hussein removed J.B. Glubb from the country and broke the alliance with the Great Britain. The Hashemite dynasty rejected the relations with London so as to win over the Arab nationalists. At the same time king Hussein I established a strict but informal alliance with the USA. It was Washington that started to donate the state treasury and its armed forces. This cooperation has continued until today. Simultaneously, Amman was able at moments to oppose the policy of the USA. It happened in 1967 and in 1990–1991 during the fi rst confl ict of the USA with Iraq, when Amman supported Baghdad. Generally speaking, however, the Jordan regime maintained its prowestern option. The Hashemite government strives fi rst and foremost to maintain stability of the monarchy system. Cooperation with the USA, and previously with the British did not result, however, from ideological reasons, but serving the basic aim. At the same time, in case of the Hashemite, cooperation with Anglo-Saxons has long tradition and serves well their political assumptions.
The chief purpose of BBC World Service, Radio France Internationale, and Voice of America in the Context of International Communication: From Propaganda to Public Diplomacy is to analyse the role radio stations fulfil for international communication nowadays in the light of the roles they served in the past (that is, the times when radio dominated). During the interwar period and right before World War II, new radio stations came to being that aimed at broadcasting content targeted at the listeners abroad. Initially, these radio stations were transmitting mostly official messages or functioning as private point-to-point communication; in both cases, they functioned similarly to telegraphs (assuming one addresser and one addressee). Along with not only the development of the transmitting and receiving devices but also the widening of our knowledge on radio waves, radio turned into a mass medium, thanks to various "freaks," including investors and other radio lovers. Having access to the network of correspondents and a powerful radio signal, radio stations back then were able to provide live coverage of the events that interested listeners all around the globe. The capacities of radio were significant during World War II as well; precisely, it ceased to serve communication purposes exclusively, and was included into military arsenal (used not only in operations and diversion actions, but also for jamming and scouting). This military conflict showed that the possibility of reaching listeners abroad – that is, the citizens of adversary, allied, and neutral states – had been of enormous importance, whereas the ability of shaping the opinions of foreign citizens had become a crucial part of contemporary warfare. The relevance of radio for international communication was indisputable also during the Cold War. Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, Voice of America, BBC World Service, Radio France Internationale, Deutsche Welle, Radio Madrid, Radio Moskwa, and Radio China International were fundamentally engaged in both ideological war and public diplomacy. Simultaneously, various international processes changed the position radio occupied among other media; the "Golden Age of Radio" reached a significant decline in the 1950s, when the dominance of radio gave way to the advent of television, whereas from late 1990s on the situation of all media was revolutionised by the birth of the Internet. As a result, digitalisation, convergence, shifts in reception and use of media – not to mention other broader phenomena, including the dominance of audiovisual culture – affected not only listeners and their preferences (inclining to fragmented radio programmes), but also ratings and marketability of radio stations. Finally, since political communication has privileged the audiovisual paradigm, and domestic policy has gradually become a media issue, radio has withdrawn in this area as well, giving primacy to television and new media. Because of the aforementioned factors and shifts, it becomes vital to carefully reconsider the contemporary and international status of radio. After all, one might be tempted to think that radio is no longer in its heyday, whereas both governments and individual listeners do not deem it as a genuine informative medium or a means capable of reaching the foreign public opinion. This book, therefore, explores how Radio France Internationale, Voice of America, and BBC World Service changed diachronically in reference to other radio stations alike, points to rules they follow and formats their programmes take, and analyses their recent activity in international communication between 2014 and 2018. Chapter 1 introduces theoretical vocabulary international communication relies on, and juxtaposes its various definitions with related cultural phenomena, including transcultural communication, political communication, propaganda, public diplomacy, cultural diplomacy, media diplomacy, and soft power. Aside from analysing these concepts, this chapter also proposes an innovative definition of international communication and its graphic model. Chapter 2 is diachronic, and it focuses on the discovery of radio waves and the invention of radio read from the technical perspective, which determines the position of radio for international communication. Moreover, the early forms of radio are recalled with regard to their significance for foreign communication. Finally, the development of radio and broadcasting in France, United Kingdom, and the USA is presented with an emphasis put on the differences between their broadcasting models. Chapter 3 is devoted to the development of international broadcasting, dividing it into three stages: 1) the early 20th century (until the 1930s), when radio waves were being tested, the first experimental stations came to being, and first international radio stations were founded, including those in Nauen and Zessen (Germany), Sainte-Assise and Le Post Colonial (France), Eindhoven and Heuzen (Netherlands), Chelmsford (United Kingdom); 2) the World War II period, in which the uses of radio for international military communication are analysed in reference to propaganda radio stations (Radio Berlin, Radio Hamburg, Radio Stuttgart, Radio Tokio) and its prominent figures (William Joyce ("Lord Haw-Haw"), Paul Ferdonnet ("the Stuttgart Traitor"), Mildred Gillars ("Axis Sally"), Ive Togure ("Tokyo Rose")), British pirate radio stations functioning in response to the Axis propaganda (for instance, Gustav Siegfried Eins), the radio stations of French Resistance with a special emphasis put on Radio Brazzaville, that is, Charles de Gaulle's chief means of international communication, and, finally, Voice of America serving for public diplomacy purposes; 3) the Cold War period, in which the objectives, assumptions, and strategies of international broadcasting posed by France, United Kingdom, the United States of America between 1945 and late 1980s are examined. The last chapter is entirely dedicated to BBC World Service, Radio France Internationale and Voice of America nowadays, paying attention to their regulations, structures, and broadcasting services. These radio stations are understood as means used for public diplomacy of their countries, and their institutional and formal connections to government institutions are discussed. Consequently, this comparative chapter refers to the legal contexts, supported by acts and regulations of a given country, presents the principles and levels of funding, reconstructs the institutional positions of radio among other media, and characterises broadcasting in terms of services, directions, and programmes. The analysis of contemporary strategies and activities of the discussed radio stations makes it possible to claim that the use of radio for international communication has not lost its relevance, and currently is supported with television and the Internet, that is, the media that were invented later in the course of historical progress. Radio stations, therefore, are not held in media bubbles; rather, they are still significant means of foreign communication because of their specificities. Furthermore, radio communication complies with strategic foreign policies, which affects various parts of the world where levels of technological development diverge whilst the access to television or the Internet connection is not available. In the countries stricken with military conflicts or poverty, radio is still the predominant means of communication that serves numerous purposes; not only is it a source of information on military operations, epidemiological situations, climate and natural disasters, but also it educates its listeners on civil and human rights, especially women's rights. Finally, Voice of America, BBC World Service, and Radio France Internationale support policies against extremism and propaganda (for instance, fake news). The services of the discussed radio stations are related to the policies the United States of America, United Kingdom, and France put forward against ISIL and international terrorism, but also to those actions that support democratic changes in the countries affected by war and political unrest.
Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: British diplomacy towards Germany's policy in the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference in Geneva (1926 - 1930)