Hi Pavol,

I'm from Australia and we have our own big brother/sister little brother/sister in the form of New Zealand.

I work in social security in Australia and can confirm the closeness of the relationship certainly complicates co-operation insofar as finding a way to manage equitable treatment of those in need or retired who have spent time in either Australia or New Zealand.  Australia has a number of social security agreements to assist those in need who come from countries with whom we have an agreement and to enable those agreement countries to assist Australians whilst they are in foreign countries (known in Aus as 'overseas' because we are of course, an island).

Mostly, they are simple affairs and the agreements work well.

Our agreement with New Zealand is very very complex, mostly resulting from efforts to ensure absolute equity whilst balancing the problems (for both countries) in provision of assistance without encouraging movement between countries because of it. 

So here, I must point out that in Australia and New Zealand, social assistance is provided not from contributions while working, but solely on length of time as a resident.

You can find more information (should it help) below.

Broadly, the flow of people back and forth creates difficulties in public policy in managing social expenditure, in implementing new laws (because a law that creates employment or opportunities in one country can impact on the other).

In terms of rivalry, I am not sure we really have a rivalry, but I do personally reflect more positively on my home country than the other.

I found a thesis on the web which touches on what you're talking about (link below) but regarding Australia and New Zealand.

There's also an excellent article in Australian Policy online regarding rivalry in this region.

Hope you find them to be of use!

regards,

Brigette

https://www.dss.gov.au/about-the-department/international/international-social-security-agreements/current-international-social-security-agreements/social-security-agreement-between-australia-and-new-zealand

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1049&context=theses

http://apo.org.au/research/responding-indo-pacific-rivalry-australia-india-and-middle-power-coalitions

Dear Pavol, very interesting issue, mainly for us (Czech-Slovaks).

I will have to investigate this subject in more detail, but one of the points that comes immediately in mind is that each pair you mention has different historical origins. As you well know, the Czech-Slovak "big/small brother" situation was the result of the forming of Czechoslovakia after WWI in which case Masaryk (a Moravian) lead the process and conceived the new republic in which the Czechs (Bohemians), culturally and economically much more advanced then the Slovaks took on the "big brother" role. In case of Spain-Portugal, actually Portugal was a province of Spain (Visigothic Hispania) and so remained during the Umayyad Caliphate and even after the Reconquista. It only separated around 1380 CE. Again, afterwards, the  geographical size, and cultural/economical differences made Portugal become Spain's "small brother."

I will love to read new comments.

Maj se dobře

Tom

Dear Pavol,

I found this on the internet (Google Books). A quick look gave me the impression that this work could be of interest to you.

Czecho/Slovakia: Ethnic Conflict, Constitutional Fissure, Negotiated Breakup

Stein, Eric

University of Michigan Press, Jan 1, 2000

ISBN 978-0472086283

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Czecho-Slovakia-Conflict-Constitutional-Negotiated/dp/0472086286

Will continue searching.

Enjoy

Tom

We can amongst others analytically differentiate between a politico-cultural and a (theoretically extrapolated) economic field. I would suspect that although popular-cultural rivalry (or rivalry acted out in popular culture) can be strong, more or less serious. And economic exchange can still be flourishing/do business as usual. In other cases such rivalry may be instrumentalised to hamper certain developments or introduce or prevent policies of (non-)cooperation and opening towards another country or region (constructed as rival).

The smaller state will forge strategies of resistance of dominant power of the larger state, via alliances with enemies of the larger state. The smaller state, however, tread very carefully as it makes such alliances, ensuring it does not alienate the larger state excessively. The smaller state, thus, practices very active diplomacy.

Dear Paval,

Much of what your question revolves around is, I would argue a reaction to being dominated. The most recent examples would be found in Eastern Europe after the break up of the Soviet Union and religious domination. In Africa we have seen many breakaway nation states the most recent being Sudan as South Sudan has emerged in 2011. 

I would suggest you look deeply into the theories of colonization and decolonization. Much of the work of Franz Fanonn and Albert Memmi  will be very useful. 

The true problem from a social justice point of view is not the political relationship from the big brother but the little brothers political domination of a smaller group located within its newly created borders. Any truly reliable and creditable research will demonstrate this point. 

Little brother continues what big brother has taught him. Politics is about power and how that newly gained power can be held on too. The model they look at is the model that dominated them so therefore to remain in power domination is included.

I hope this helps,

Douglas

Dear all,

thank your for your answers and, at the same time, apologies for belated reaction. I have been sick and then busy for some time (a logical sequence).

Pardon me saying that I was not looking for answers as hegemon-like as “Big Brother gets his will through”. This may well be true at times. However, for one, the more powerful partner may not be powerful enough (note Sweden´s failure to win the Danes and the Norwegians for neutrality in the later 1940s, for example) and, for two, even if this pattern works for the moment, it is risky, for it is likely to make the emotional gulf between the partners grow and when power relationships change somewhat, the junior partner will be even less inclined to do business with the senior one. Remember how often small parties decide about cohesion of coalitions.

@Brigette: many interesting points, the Lowy Institute analysis goes, to a certain degree, in my direction.

@Gregory: sports rivalries are a thrilling phenommenon in contemporary history. Though my question aimed at international politics, sports history may help me a bit, too. Besides, thanks for making me aware of that interesting journal (luckily, I menage to read French and Italian, and – at least to a certain degree – Spanish).

@Tom: yes, you are right, this is an interesting topic for us “Czechoslovaks”. I have Stein´s book (in Czech) and I remember I was thrilled, as a contemporary to all that, to read it – however, it appeared to me back than (2004?) that it is not quite easy, for a history student, to digest Stein´s law-professorial style. However, with this question I was hoping to address international, not domestic politics.

@Harish: this is the point, can you recommend some reading on strategies of resistence?

@Douglas: thanks, theories of colonization and decolonization might help. As a Europeanist, I failed to come up with this perspective. It would be interesting to see how much of such theorizing can be employed in a (Western) European setting. I am not concerned about social justice here but what you wrote seems to be a reasonable hypothesis in the terms of political culture. I will have to give some thought as far as foreign policy-making is concerned.

Dear Pavol,

Sometime is is difficult to separate international from domestic politics. In the case of the first Czechoslovak Republic, what initially appeared to be a skirmish between Prague and Hlinka's group, from 1936 on, with Hitler using Konrad Heinlein and Jozef Tiso as his pawns, the Sudetes and Slovaks secessions attempts turned into a huge international affair that climaxed with the shameful Munich Pact, destroying Czechoslovakia, the finest democracy that the European continent ever had.

Although history books claim that WWII started with Germany's invasion of Poland, in my opinion it started with England's and France's treason of the Czechoslovaks.

Both countries paid bitterly for that, having to endure the bloodshed that Hitler provoked.. History would certainly have had been different if Chamberlain and Daladier would not lick Hitler's boots, instead telling him bluntly that the invasion of Czechoslovakia would precipitate their attack on Germany. Such attack could have been successful because the German General Staff was agonizing and fearing Hitler's plan to invade Czechoslovakia. In 1937-38 Germany was not yet fully ready for a full-scale war with the Western countries. Furthermore, it is quite possible that Mussolini would have turned coats if England and France would have been energetic.

I know this is all speculation, but I just wished to stress that it is difficult to separate domestic divergences between the bigs and littles and eventual international implications, be they political and/or military.

Tom

Dr. Mathias Maass at Yonsei University in South Korea is an expert on the international relations of small states. His work might offer some answers to your very interesting question. 

Dear Linda,

thank you, I know some of his writings - but maybe should take a closer look.

There are other example  like  Egypt and Sudan  until 1955,Egypt and Syria 1958-1961 .Oman and the Eastern states in  Africa like Zanzibar  55 year ago   .Jordan and Iraq  FEB -July 1958