Old Europe New Europe And The Transatlantic Security Agenda

The post-September 11th security policies of Poland, the UK, France, the US and Germany presented in this new book illustrate how and why the Atlantic community ruptured over Iraq, a result in part, it is argued, of the existence of particular national strategic cultures. Whilst the longer term effects of Iraq for the transatlantic security agenda have yet to fully transpire, what is certain is that the EU's ambitions to become a credible security actor have been seriously questioned, as has the notion of multilateralism as an international norm, as has the function of international law. The book addresses these issues by considering the evolution of the EU's role in the world and the development of American perspectives on the transatlantic security agenda. This volume was previously published as a special issue of the journal European Security.

Iraq can be considered the 'perfect storm' which brought out the stark differences between the US and Europe. The disagreement over the role of the United Nations continues and the bitterness in the United States against its betrayal by allies like France is not diminishing. Meanwhile, the standing of the United States among the European public has plummeted. Within Europe, political tensions between what US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld euphemistically called the 'Old' Europe and the 'New' Europe continue to divide. To fully comprehend these rifts, this volume takes a specific look at the core security priorities of each European state and whether these interests are best served through closer security collaboration with the US or with emerging European structures such as the European Rapid Reaction Force. It analyzes the contribution each state would make to transatlantic security, the role they envisage for existing security structures such as NATO, and the role the US would play in transatlantic security.

"Iraq can be considered the 'perfect storm' which brought out the stark differences between the US and Europe. The disagreement over the role of the United Nations continues and the bitterness in the United States against its betrayal by allies like France is not diminishing. Meanwhile, the standing of the United States among the European public has plummeted. Within Europe, political tensions between what US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld euphemistically called the 'Old' Europe and the 'New' Europe continue to divide. To fully comprehend these rifts, this volume takes a specific look at the core security priorities of each European state and whether these interests are best served through closer security collaboration with the US or with emerging European structures such as the European Rapid Reaction Force. It analyzes the contribution each state would make to transatlantic security, the role they envisage for existing security structures such as NATO, and the role the US would play in transatlantic security."--Provided by publisher.

Many of the US criticisms of Western European reluctance to engage in the 2004 war in Iraq stem from a perception that these governments are 'weak on defence' or unwilling to 'pull their own weight' in the international system. Secretary Rumsfeld pejoratively designated traditional Atlantic Alliance allies as 'Old Europe', to distinguish them from the freshly minted, cooperative states of 'New Europe'. In doing so, Rumsfeld accused 'Old Europe' of yet again relying on the United States to solve shared security problems. This volume critically evaluates the validity of this view of Western European choices and policies. Rather than a primary reliance on military force as first line defence, it proposes that Western European governments are expanding the set of tools they have to apply to the post-Cold War array of security and defence problems. The volume examines the emergent European security approach from multiple perspectives, in multiple institutions and identities, and in different geographic contexts.

Long the main pillar holding up the transatlantic relationship, the security of Europe seems to have turned into an accessory element in the transatlantic security agenda. In recent years, the United States and European countries have often been unable to find enduring convergence over how to deal with issues related to Europe's security, such as NATO's role, relations with Russia and other former Soviet republics, and the European Union's ambition to develop an autonomous military arm. Concerns, however, about trends inexorably leading to the drifting apart of the transatlantic partners seem exaggerated. In fact, under the Obama administration, the United States and its European partners have found some new common ground. An effort to transform occasional convergences into a shared vision of Europe's long-term security would contribute considerably to re-energizing the Euro-Atlantic bond. Though not on the same scale as in the past, Europe's security can still be a significant component of the transatlantic relationship.

Long the main pillar holding up the transatlantic relationship, the security of Europe seems to have turned into an accessory element in the transatlantic security agenda. In recent years, the United States and European countries have often been unable to find enduring convergence over how to deal with issues related to Europe's security, such as NATO's role, relations with Russia and other former Soviet republics, and the European Union's ambition to develop an autonomous military arm. Concerns, however, about trends inexorably leading to the drifting apart of the transatlantic partners seem exaggerated. In fact, under the Obama administration, the United States and its European partners have found some new common ground. An effort to transform occasional convergences into a shared vision of Europe's long-term security would contribute considerably to re-energizing the Euro-Atlantic bond. Though not on the same scale as in the past, Europe's security can still be a significant component of the transatlantic relationship. Proceedings of the third edition of the Transatlantic Security Symposium, jointly organized by the Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI) and the Bologna Center of the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) and held in Rome, 8 November 2010.

The end of the 20th century finds the Atlantic Alliance partners in evolution toward a new relationship in the key policy arenas of regional and international security, international trade and competition, and the need to deal effectively with environmental and public health problems associated with an expanding global marketplace. In response to this situation, the Clinton Administration and the European Union initiated a series of efforts under the framework of a 'New Transatlantic Agenda'. The purpose of these efforts was to strengthen the communication and ties between the EU and the United States in a variety of functional areas. Security, Trade, and Environmental Policy: A US/European Union Transatlantic Agenda contributes to this dialogue. The volume focuses on a European and American perspective of the issues of international security, world trade, and the globalization/environmental policy interface. It includes contributions from public officials and scholars from both Europe and the United States, and as such provides valuable insights into the mind set of these individuals and their views on desirable policy directions f

Numerous media accounts give the impression that the Atlantic Alliance is collapsing or in danger of doing so. Certainly unhappiness and concern over American policies enjoy public popularity in Europe at the moment. In fact, these fears are vastly overdrawn; although Europeans allegedly regard America (and President Bush) as a rogue, cowboy state that mindlessly executes people, pollutes the environment, disregards arms control and international treaties, and is generally destroying Western civilization as we know it. More precisely, the disparities between the U.S. and European approaches to international security represent what one report called both sides' sense of mutual grievance. And similar complaints about America have surfaced in every post-war decade. Moreover, often these complaints are as much salvos in each state's domestic politics, as they are presentations of their foreign and defense policies. Thus Pierre Moscovici, France's Minister for Europe, commented that Prime Minister Anthony Blair's reelection in Great Britain was good for Europe because "In the final analysis, Europe is the natural place for the expression of the progressive values that the left, whether Labour, Socialist, or Social Democrat all cherish."1 Obviously the Bush administration and nonleftist parties across Europe reject this partisan analysis, but it helps explain some of the current mood. Finally, to some degree, these complaints also represent the price of American leadership in Europe. Nonetheless, serious issues are at stake in the transatlantic dialogue over European security. Consequently, we must overcome the real and serious disputes that affect this dialogue. Therefore as we approach a new period of European enlargement-i.e., the enlargement of both the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU)-repairing the often fractious interallied dialogue is an essential precondition of progress in securing Europe, our most important alliance. With this concern in mind, the Strategic Studies Institute, with Harvard University's Belfer Center for the Study of Science and International Affairs, cosponsored a conference on the future of the alliance with prominent European elites. This conference took place at the Belfer Center at Harvard in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on March 26-27, 2001. While everyone spoke off the record to encourage an open, candid discussion, this monograph summarizes the issues they raised and analyzes the conference's significance. The issues discussed included NATO and EU enlargement, these organizations' mutual relationship now that the EU is creating its own defense arm, the European Security and Defense program (ESDP), defense spending and interoperability among the NATO allies, and engagement with Russia on a wide range of issues. Obviously most, if not all, of these issues share a common subtext, i.e., the question of adjusting the transatlantic alliance to changing realities stemming from the enlargement of Europe. Reaching a functioning consensus on all or most of the key issues that comprise the European and transatlantic security agenda is a vital American interest. The transatlantic alliance enables the United States and Europe securely to project shared power, values, and interests even beyond NATO's borders.2 U.S. statesmen have always known that, if any one undemocratic power dominated Europe and isolated America from other democracies or if Europe collapsed into constant wars for lack of a legitimate and durable political