The Transatlantic Partnership in Crisis?
Alice Coulter
Recent reports in the European media seem to signal an emerging split in transatlantic relations, ostensibly over diverging visions for the promotion of international peace and security. This has become particularly pronounced in the wake of President Bush’s State of the Union address, which presented a hawkish US stance on international terrorism. Increasingly vocal European actors, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin and European Commissioner for External Affairs Chris Patten, have distanced themselves from this approach, preferring instead to adopt the ‘softer’ tack of targeting root causes of terrorism, such as state failure and global poverty. In order to establish whether these recent developments signal a real split in transatlantic co-operation, it is necessary to place them within a broader context of the dynamics of transatlantic relations in recent history. This history includes many examples of strong inter-regional co-operation and economic, political and cultural convergence, but also specific areas of divergence.
In Europe concerns have been raised about the perception of increasing US unilateralism. The US refusal to sign both the 1997 Land Mine Treaty and the Bio-Weapons Protocol, the refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the refusal to sign the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court in 1998, the 1999 vote against the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the announced withdrawal from the ABM treaty, and the disregard of the Chemical Weapons Convention all show signs of a US government with a deep suspicion of multilateral treaties.
More recently, in the post-11 September period, US foreign policy has made a further shift from the above passive unilateralism into a more aggressive projection of military security. The shocking nature of the horrific terrorist attacks on US soil understandably provoked public demands for retribution. In this mindset, the ‘softer’ approaches are seen to have failed the American people, providing encouragement for those who have long campaigned for a tougher line on national security.[1] President Bush’s attack on the so-called ‘axis of evil’, demonstrated this shift within the current US administration, away from diplomatic engagement as a method for promoting international security and towards military solutions. European claims that a militaristic approach to international terrorism is ‘absolutist and simplistic’, illustrates the growing gulf between the two regions.[2]
Linked to this debate of weak vs. strong conceptions of security, are repeated US complaints of unfair burden-sharing. In light of European prosperity, its ‘disunited weakness looks increasingly disgraceful’.[3] The slow and inadequate European response to the crises in the Balkans, for example, adequately justified US complaints of unequal international responsibility. Indeed, the temptation in Europe to criticise US foreign policy, whilst providing inadequate partnership in the international arena, is a policy which could actively drive a "disenchanted" US congress into isolationism.[4]
At this point it must be noted that simplistic divisions of transatlantic positions - such as ‘soft’ vs. ‘hard’ perceptions of security; multilateral vs. unilateral action in the realm of international security; and, NATO as the defining mechanism for inter-regional co-operation vs. shifting and opportunistic alliances - mask the complexity and depth of the relationship. Indeed, the assumption of a united European stance belies the internal dynamics of the region, as does the similar assumption of unanimity within the US government. This tendency to simplify the situation is something media on both sides of the Atlantic finds hard to resist.
The fundamental question that needs to be asked is whether this current stream of criticism and counter-criticism marks the beginning of a real split in transatlantic relations, or is merely part of the dynamic and fluid relationship.
[1] Robert Kagan and Gary Schmitt, "Now may we please defend ourselves?" in the New American Century (July 1998) at http://www.newamericancentury.org/def_natl_sec_pdf_013.pdf
[2] Chris Patten, as quoted in Jonathan Freedland, "Breaking the silence," The Guardian (9 February 2002)
[3] Polly Toynbee, "Bush’s global piracy can be the spur for Europe’s cause," in The Guardian, (18 July 2001).
[4] Christopher Patten, "Towards a common European Foreign Policy - How is the EU doing?" Challenge Europe (19 October 2000) Issue 3: A common European foreign and security policy: Values and priorities.
Druckversion
Seite empfehlenbookmarken bei...
