EU and USA Security Relations
EU and US Security Relations and the NEW Transatlantic Agenda
The demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War has lead to some commentators to claim the end of History. A paradigm of homogenised liberal free market democracies has become apparent and is forecast to further evolve. The European Union (EU) and the United States (US) are at the forefront of this development. Suffice to say the shock of the post Cold War era has left the EU and US as the dominant global actors with a tradition of free markets and liberal democracies and therefore, perhaps inevitably, impose this ideology onto the global political landscape. Late 1990 saw both the EU and the US develop a framework for inter-institutional consultation on the most effective and efficient procedures to further enhance global peace and prosperity through bilateral official and technical channels [2]. Jointly, the supra-national EU and the US would embark on a strategy that would produce economic, political and social outcomes in keeping with the inherent liberal democratic mandate of the two institutions.
This strategy and self-imposed mandate would be laid down explicitly in 1995 through the ‘New Trans-Atlantic Agenda’ (NTA). The Madrid Summit of December 1995 was intended to move from consultation to a more proactive stance – entitled the Joint US/EU Action Plan. Thereby after half a century of political and economic cooperation the two institutions acquired a full and equal partnership. Joint Action and NTA has four main strands and will be fully analysed below although it can be briefly outlined as follows [3]: Firstly, bilateral channels will be opened up to multi lateral, where most appropriate, to incorporate the rapidly developing intergovernmental (IGO), nongovernmental (NGO) and supranational organisations who have a vested interest in fostering democracies, development and economic reforms, stability in the Middle East and protecting Human Rights. Secondly, the international fight against organised crime and terrorism, often intrinsically linked, in which all institutions are at the forefront of attempting to tackle both these issues. This would also tackle the roots of complex emergencies whereby the acute problems of refugees and displaced persons and environmental and medical disasters necessitate international assistance. Thirdly, the NTA intends to promote closer economic relations between the two main actors to harmonise the evolution towards globalisation. Finally, the ambition of the agenda would see a full and equal partnership between the EU and US, which would continue to prosper throughout the generations.
Although the two bodies have provided a framework for collaboration cooperation and action – negotiations are conducted through the Madrid framework – it becomes evident that conflict arises, which we will discuss in greater depth later. The incursion into Iraq this year highlighted the potential for disagreement in dialogue and action between the US and EU. Iraq, although undergoing a process of democratisation, continues to be an unstable state and its peoples are also suffering a humanitarian crisis. It is in this instance that international assistance is vital to assist the evolution of a former nominated rogue state. However, the conflicting attitudes surrounding the UK/US led incursion and the EU to security measures in the Middle Eastillustrate the disabling effects of a framework of progress.
Although targeted as a rogue state (as was Afghanistan) and situated on ‘the axis of evil’ along with Iran and North Korea, it seems at this early stage that once the rogue element has been purged, institutional frameworks become obsolete in the ensuing humanitarian emergency. American primacy should not entail the universal bias of the West unless the situation is dire [4]The EU [5] views the Middle East peace process, broadly, as Palestine asserting itself democratically and legitimately without resorting to violence. Once Palestine and Israel can achieve sustainable peace then the final destination of the road map is the entire region attaining and maintaining peace. In the aftermath of the Iraq war, President Bush reiterated his desire to facilitate actions and dialogue to attain a permanent peace resolution in the Israeli Palestinian conflict.The rhetoric illustrates that there should be no divisions between the US and EU. However, the reality is far different. A united diplomatic front is the accepted outsiders view but the internal machinations suggest that this is not the case.
States must necessarily place attention onto security as the international system verges on the anarchical. Perspectives on international relations posit either as realist or neo-liberal. Although not altogether accepting the Hobbesian view of ‘a war of all against all', realists see the lack of a central authority as a security problem. One nation state in search of security can lead to an adversarial insecurity, resulting, in a worst-case scenario, arms races. Instability, therefore, is natural rather than consequential of securing and maintaining statehood. Single unitary states, independent of each other, secure their own peace and prosperity as a single actor. On the other hand, the neo-liberal agenda is again evident in EU – US relations.Neo-liberalism is far from a large homogenised mass but it does possess particular attributes that the two main actors work from. This agenda stresses the importance of inter-dependence and institution building, not only states but of the ever-growing band of NGO’s. International behaviour, further, is caused by a multiplicity of factors. Not merely security as in the case of the realists but factors such as environmental, humanitarian issues and welfare and the smooth and effective exchange of information and technology. Transparency and fairness are also fundamental to the process. Therefore, on a theoretical basis we can see the development of the collaboration and dialogue inherent in EU – US relations.
Elements of the Madrid Framework
The precursor to NTA is the Madrid Framework, which is the result of concentrated diplomatic work undertaken in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. The framework possesses three basic tenets . Firstly, all participants at the initial conference – sponsored by both the US and the then USSR – wished bilateral and multilateral peace negotiating mechanisms to be inaugurated henceforth. The conference can only be reconvened if all participants are present. Secondly, the Bilateral Track whereby resolution of past conflicts would be instigated. A number of bilateral negotiations and meetings were initially hosted by the US State Department. These talks were aimed at finding peace treaties in the Middle East or in the Palestine/Israel case a two-stage strategy – interim self-government, then permanent peace resolutions. However, this process is a long drawn out affair. Chairman of the Palestinians, Yaser Arafat, conceded a number of issues to the process as long ago as 1993[6] These included the right of Israel to exist in peace, commitment to a peaceful resolution of hostilities through denouncing terrorism and violence and that the mandate of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), with regards to accepting violence on Israel as a legitimate political tool is obsolete. In return, Israel accepted the new mandate of the PLO and it as the representative of the Palestinian people in the negotiations. This resulted in the Declaration of the Principles (DOP), which outlined the agreed self-government proposals. The Interim Agreement allowed the provisional Palestine Council to exist for no longer than five years. Negotiations have continued over the last decade on the best way forward with some success although not wholesale triumph. A slow process of the transferring of powers has been evident. This included, initially, the spheres of Education and Culture, Social Welfare, Tourism, Health and Taxation. It is patent that these spheres are fundamental to self-government. Permanent Status Negotiations opened in 1996. The guidelines included resolution of issues surrounding refugees, settlements and security measures, cooperation with neighbours and borders. Talks break down and recommence periodically. Violence and terrorism also recommenced in parallel with the finely balanced nature of the bilateral negotiations. Interventions by Presidents Clinton in 2000 and Bush this year has facilitated to some extent the return to bilateral negotiations. Possibly the most far-sighted initiative is the ‘road map to peace’. President Bush’ speech in April 2003 outlined the plan. A full assessment of the ‘road map’ will be presented below.
The Multilateral Track, thirdly, is concerned with the key issues of Middle Eastern sustainability – water, arms control, environment, refugees and economic development and is run in parallel to the bilateral process [7]The process has two main ambitions and while the bilateral negotiations aim to resolve past conflicts, multilateralism aims for future peace, stability and prosperity in the region. Firstly to resolve and attempt to resolve the key issues in the region affecting all states and secondly acts as a confidence building measure (CBM) to help normalise inter-state relations. The forum helps foster collaboration and confidence amongst the various parties. Patently, the intention is to build a cooperative sustainable peace and economic prosperity not merely brings an end to potential instabilities. Multilateral assistance is necessary in times of complex emergencies. NGO’s, IGO’s, and various other actors necessarily intervene to help the situation from deteriorating and, of course, attempt to improve the situation. Often the situation is so complex assistance can become just as complex. Environmental threats and economic dislocation, displaced persons and the running of regions by warlords are self-evident barriers not only to the development of economies and democracies but also to a stable civil society. A stable civil society is the bulwark to a stable political culture.
In an arid desert region perhaps the single most important issue is that of water. The Working Group on Water Resources (WGWR) established four essential areas to address the water crisis [8] It would seem that water is the fundamental issue to be overcome prior to engaging in other issues. Urgency is required in developing new resources to contribute to sustaining quality of life and future economic development. Enhancing water data availability and water supply and the improvement of water management practices and regional water management and cooperation are the forum’s four basic principles. Major successes have been achieved throughout the region in a number of projects. Most notably, herein, are the desalination, retrieval, storage and conservation projects. A successful joint EU/US led Water Sector Training Program was accepted by the WGWR to help training in the region in scientific and technical knowledge.
The mechanisms in place to conduct arms control and regional security derive from the working group and are initiated through operational and conceptual issues underpinning CBM’s[9]. Of fundamental operational importance in this instance is communication and information exchange. Communication systems were set up to facilitate the process with a view to a permanent network being established. Information, it was agreed, would be exchanged on certain military exercises in the region. Senior military officers CV’s would be exchanged to aid transparency as would the exchange of unclassified military publications, training and education techniques. States would also place invitations to visit security installations. Crucially, it can be seen, the transparency of operational CBM’s is paramount to successful negotiations. The conceptual issues advanced by the working party incorporated a statement and definition of long-term goals for arms control and regional security allied to the demarcation of the Middle East to allow for regional security and arms control and the instruments necessary to conduct the business of negotiations. Much debate has occurred in attempting to define the goals and prescriptive of these issues. The outcome was the establishment of a Regional Security Centre (RSC) in Jordan and commissioned to enhance the stability and security of the region. Again communication and transparency is critical for its success.
Part of the remit of EU/US security relations is to ensure environmental matters are successfully managed in the region. The Environment working party is tasked with enhancing the regions ability to deal with maritime pollution, wastewater treatment, environmental management and desertification [10] The EU has financed the project and training to clear up oil spill in the Gulf. The World Bank (WB) is overseeing the development of arid land degradation in a practical process of desertification. Establishing grazing lands, forestation and vegetation will, it is forecast, supplement sustainable development. A Regional Training Centre has also been established to augment environmental management. The international donor community will finance human resource issues at the training centre. The necessity of IFI funding is patent at this point in the process.
International attitude to the welfare of refugees is well documented. In the case of the Refugee Working Group the delicate issue of displaced persons and refugees centres on Palestine and Israel [11]. The principle underpinning the forum is improving the conditions of refugees in their present position. This is in keeping with the western liberal view of humanitarian issues receiving primacy based on the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Broadly, the negotiations will address social and economic infrastructure, public health, child welfare, family reunification and training and job creation. Israel conceded to thousands of reunifications as a humanitarian act to further the process. Again funding has come from the international donor community to ensure a positive and genuine impact.
The final forum within the multilateral Madrid Framework consists of the Regional Economic Development Working Group. This group consists of assessment and improvements in domestic and trans-national infrastructure, trade, and finance and tourism development [12]. These considerations are taken for granted, in some respects, by the west but need continual evaluation in a region beset by a considerable number of fiscal disparities. Not surprisingly the remit of the Monitoring Committee is to supervise and promote the free flow of people, goods, services, capital and information between partners and the integration into the global market place. Further, the Committee is entrusted with stimulating economic development and reducing disparities alongside capitalising on comparative advantages in the region. Economic activity, in this instance, has become largely institutionalised and mirrors the west’s political neo-liberal and economists’ neoclassical posture on sustainable development. Opening up of markets, transparency, conditionality and Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAP’s) are guidelines laid down by the Bretton Woods institutions (IFI), to further enhance economic development in tandem with political reform.
The EU has committed itself to supporting the Middle East peace process by conceding a number of important issues. Firstly, the continued support for Palestinian self-government and economic development as intrinsic to the process. Secondly, aiding the democratisation process through the promotion of free and open elections is advanced. The EU has also taken an active role in the Conference for Economic Assistance to Palestine, which in turn it is hoped will improve the access of goods and services to and from the Gaza Strip and West Bank areas. Further commitments by the EU derive from encouraging Jordan Israel, Palestine and Egypt to develop free trade agreements, which in turn will assist in the development of the necessary infrastructure to conduct free markets [12a] The EU has also confirmed that they accept their global position and responsibility to act jointly to resolve conflicts through a path of preventative diplomacy as a preferred option. Trade embargoes are anathema to the processing of the EU.
As can be seen much of the dialogue currently taking place in the Middle East, both bilaterally and multilaterally, has been instigated by the EU and US. The neoliberal agenda of the west manifest in institution building and political reform, dialogue and negotiations[13] are perhaps necessary to find a long-term solution to the multifarious problems in the Middle East. America, as the largest global actor, is compelled to do something. However, the ever-present danger is America (or EU) doing too much and facilitation becomes hegemonic [14]. Hegemony on a distrustful audience is a top down construct and is the perceived root of fundamentalism. The benefits of multilateralism are the constraining of the single idea and the dilution of the fanatical. However transposing one normative agenda may present further problems in the recipient region. This paper, however, remains unconvinced of the altruistic motives behind the instigation of much of the dialogue presented through the Madrid framework. The NTA, as stated, was an initiative to further enhance global security and prosperity by enlarging the global democratic base and global markets through dialogue and presented by the relationship of the EU and US. It is to these matters that we now turn by providing an outline and analysis of the NTA since its inception.
New Transatlantic Agenda
European nation states and the US have collaborated on a number of projects since the end of the Second World War. Much of the collaboration rested on the fear of the spread of communism. European and American relationships are not unknown. Neither, unfortunately, is discord between the institutions as to affect the most effective standpoint. It is perhaps not surprising that joint global security issues have become prominent in dialogue since the dissolution of the USSR. The Cold War allowed the EU and US the opportunity to declare, simplistically, who and where the enemy was. Fear of a known enemy was the fundamental issue in security issue. A disaggregation of smaller enemies has become evident in the post-Cold war era. The NTA, broadly, is a challenge to the evolution of the new international political landscape. Stable states value a stable international political culture. Security is paramount in an era where Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), biological and chemical warfare are increasingly simpler to acquire by rogue states. The agenda for the EU and US, therefore, is one of the prevention of states failing, intervening as necessary in rogue states whose citizens are under threat and dialogue on collective security where common interests will allow an international consensus [15].
Agreement on NTA is centred on four aspects. Most of these aspects are a continuation of the Madrid framework or are run in parallel to the bilateral and multilateral processes. Publications on both sides of the Atlantic allude to the principles laid down but develop their own descriptive language[16] [17]. The EU declares that the four main principles are imbedded in the EU legal framework and are outlined as follows: firstly, the promotion of peace, stability, development and democracy not only throughout Europe and Eurasia but also around the world. Peace and stability as an ambition is intrinsically linked to democratisation[18] Democratic states, firstly, are less likely to wage war externally of its boundaries or create dire circumstances for its citizens internally. Economic development, in turn, is easier to secure in a stable political and civil society. This is self evident throughout the world. The strongest democracies have the most developed economic base with a few exceptions such as India. Although in contrast, the Tiger economies of South East Asia often based their development on a strong authoritarian central figure amongst other factors that space precludes an analysis of here. Newly Industrialised Countries (NIC) illustrates that one unifying theory of democratisation and development stemming from stability is not always appropriate. Many factors other than the neoliberal ideology of the west can assist stability and development. The EU further contends that the NTA can and will actively respond to global challenges. At this point it may be worthwhile assessing the EU contribution to complex emergencies throughout the world. Complex Emergencies are a diplomatic led description of areas or territories where war, terrorism or political instability is rife. In addition, the territory may suffer from large numbers of refugees or displaced persons. Problems can be further exacerbated by medical or environmental disasters such as famine or widespread disease. Humanitarian intervention is critical but the international donor community must first begin dialogue with the warring factions to allow aid to reach those most in need. It is clear that instigating negotiations with belligerents is fraught with danger but the EU has accepted its responsibility to assist in global governance. Thirdly, the EU is committed to rolling out the expansion of world trade and developing closer economic relations with all the members of the international economic system. As can be seen the neoliberal agenda is evident in this sphere. The EU is nested on a more social democratic consensus than its Washington counterpart. However, the development of economies, world trade and strong economic relations is given primacy in both institutions as a panacea. The NTA relationship also consists of ‘building bridges across the Atlantic [19]’ Perhaps due to the social democratic nature of the EU and the neoliberal stance of the US discord occurs on a regular basis. The bridge building exercise is intended to iron out differences in the views taken and proposed by both actors. An EU official lays this plain in an interview. He states “the US often cannot define a credible negotiating platform – they cannot think of all the North-South ramifications like we can [20]. Although the interviewers charge the EU with lacking consistency, clarity and coherence in its external policies
The US position runs in parallel with the EU with a subtle difference. First, however, this paper will outline the US vision of the NTA. In tandem the US, through multilateral and bilateral channels, is also committed to the fostering of democracies and economic reform. The IFI’s mirror this development of the neoliberal agenda. Thatcher and Reagan in the 1970’s detected the collapse of the post war settlement of Keynesian economics. Rolling back the state to create a free market was the mainstay of Thatcherite and Reaganite policies throughout the 1980’s. Chile proved to be the testing ground for these reforms. Privatisation was successfully initiated in the early 1980’s by the then President of Chile. Both Thatcher and Reagan noted the success of minimal intervention in the economy and commenced similar reforms. The special relationship of the US and UK was instrumental in developing a consensus across the Atlantic on the new political landscape. Interestingly the IFI headquarters are based in Washington. Inter-institutional dialogue between the US and the IFI’s is conducted regularly. The new settlement, therefore, arose from the Financial Institutions’ discourse with officials from Washington. The outcome was political and economic reforms were conditionally attached to all IFI funding and financing around the globe.
International crime and terrorism is a major concern for international security. The World Trade Centre attack in 2001 highlighted the movement towards a more fanatical element in political violence. General lawlessness in rogue states and a general increase in fanaticism allied to a growth in blood lust concerns some commentators [21]. In addition, the growth of the drug trade in South America and Eurasia is, in no small part, responsible for financing terrorist organisations as diverse as Chechnya and Ireland. It is clear that concerns over terrorism or crime cannot be isolated but needs to be fought as a singular intrinsically linked problem in many cases.
Similar to the publication of the EU vision of the NTA, the US also wishes to promote closer economic relations with the EU and internationally. It should come as no surprise that the US is as concerned with a stable economic climate as the EU. The US is home to most of the worlds major Multi National Corporations (MNC) and often has interests not only in Europe but also in failed and rogue states. It is in the US interests and its commercially minded citizens to maintain strategic economic links around the globe. The international role of the US today, according to one commentator, can be best described as an imperial power pursuing global strategic interests; a power which is ill at ease with the complexities of multilateral institutions [22]. Europe, conversely, he contends, is barely a civilian power with strategic ambitions outside the European rim. Herein lay the contrast and potential for discord and disagreement between the actors.
However, the US concedes in the fourth part of the NTA that the development of a framework for transatlantic security relationships will not be a temporary construct. Through continued negotiations and action the EU and US will iron out differences as they occur. They forecast a lasting security, political and economic relationship that will continue through the generations as a full; and equal partner. As US State Department Official Charles Ries states “ a strong and united Europe is in the US interest”[23]. Therein concluding and highlighting the institutional hope of the US in these relationships with its European partner. He further alludes, in his article, to aspects that will improve the discord found in the relationship. Firstly he outlines that both parties must listen and accommodate legitimate interests. The onus is on both institutions to build confidences between each other in the dialogue process. He further argues that both actors must share the credit of successful initiatives. This will allow the benefits of the relationship to become internationally transparent. However, he criticises the EU for often taking a unilateral take it or leave it stance. Discourse on any or each of the principles of the NTA can be abruptly halted due to EU intransigence, according to Ries. Therefore, he advances; early discussions take place on salient issues that may cause conflict to eradicate the possibility of stalling talks. The EU is also culpable, Ries asserts, of limited success in its lowest common denominator policies. Again EU intransigence is held accountable in global issues that do not suit the US. Mechanisms to eliminate discord are advanced. Allied to procedures and institutional frameworks for consultation are bi-annual consultations between the President of the European Council and the US President and regular consultations between the EU Foreign Ministers and their US counterpart the US Secretary of State. If both actors are resolved to deepen and develop consultations, which in turn will reflect the evolution of the relationship then disharmonies will become less problematic.
Furthermore, although friction between two separate bodies is not surprising the rhetoric emanating from both sides alludes to institutionalising stable consultations. The US declares its commitment to work alongside the EU in the most effective fashion possible [24]. Europe and US has been the main proponent of international peace and prosperity for over half a century. The two markets are heavily reliant upon each other for the transfer of goods, services, capital and investment. Indeed they share the largest two-way trade and investment channel in the world and share the strategic purpose of strong liberal democratic free markets and international security. The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe is strengthening its position to prevent regional destabilisation, most notably in the regions of the Balkans and Eurasia. NATO is regarded as the centrepiece of transatlantic security. , thus highlighting the institutional accord between the two. Moreover, the Framework and the NTA provide explicitly the guidelines for consultation and collaboration. Furthermore, it is argued that the EU should not become a counterweight to the US global balance of power. This may in effect lead the US to a more unilateral standpoint as way of averting a perceived threat. The notion is that the EU and US provide ‘complementarity. That is each other provide its resources and expertise, working in conjunction, to advancing consultations on the issues outlined in the NTA [25].
Therefore, it is not inconceivable that EU and US security relations does not have an inherent disabling effect. Institutional consultations by their very nature are delicate. Proposals and counter proposals are a fact of political life in negotiating and consultation circles. Two mature institutions, evidently, accept the possibility of friction and are attempting to institutionalise the panacea for discord. Indeed, the EU and the US have worked together on the ’Road Map to Peace’. It is to this agreed plan that we now turn our attention to further assess the EU and US in its international security measures and instruments of peace and stability by evaluating the trials of consultation and negotiations in ending at a final destination.
The Road Map to Peace
In addition to the bilateral and multilateral processes of the Madrid Framework to secure Middle East peace and stability an internationally devised action plan has been devised to facilitate the commitment to a just and lasting peace in the region. The EU, the US, Russia and the UN have developed the proposals (commonly and henceforth referred to as the Quartet). Israel and Palestinian consultation has also been fundamental to the process [26]. The US State Department nominates the process as A Performance- Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict [27]. It is clear from the US State Department’s line that responsibility to secure peace rests with the conflicting parties. The Quartet seemingly will act as facilitators to the process but Israel and the Palestine involvement will be paramount. The issues of Palestinian and Israeli conflict date back over half a century and a panacea for decades of conflict should not be expected promptly. Years of disabling negotiations need to be addressed as do the current issues. However, in a road map speech in April 2003 President Bush outlined a timeline of negotiations and consultations, which it is hope the conflict will reach a permanent solution within two years. The principles underpinning the road map are identifiably American, however. The Lockean tenets, present in the American Constitution, of life, liberty, property and tolerance are critical to the accord.
- Fukuyama (1992) The End of History and the Last Man: The theory advanced the empirical disputation of communism. Free markets and liberal democracies are the natural and final evolution of mankind according to Fukuyama.[Return]
- Transatlantic Declaration (1990) @ US Mission to the EU http://www.useu.be[Return]
- http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/new_transatlantic_agenda[Return]
- Haas (1999) What To Do With American Primacy[Return]
- http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00ig0[Return]
- http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00rv0[Return]
- http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00ii0[Return]
- http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00qx0[Return]
- http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00rc0[Return]
- 0 http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00po0[Return]
- http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00rb0[Return]
- http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00qw0[Return]
12a-http://www.europa.eu.int/action_plan[Return] - Holsti (2001) Models of International Relations[Return]
- Haas (1999) What To Do With American Primacy[Return]
- Haas (1999) What To Do With American Primacy[Return]
- http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/new_transatlantic_agenda [Return]
- http://www.useu.be[Return]
- Held et al (1999) Managing the Challenge of Globalisation[Return]
- http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/new_transatlantic_agenda [Return]
- Bretherton & Vogler (1999) The EU as a Global Actor (249-250)[Return]
- Laquer (2001) Terror’s New Face[Return]
- Van Staden (2003) The US and The EU in World Politics. The Case for Complementarity[Return]
- http://useu.be/backforth/Jun03Rres.html[Return]
- http://www.useu.be/transatlantic/nta1295.htm[Return]
- Van Staden (2003) The US and The EU in World Politics. The Case for [Return]
Complementarity - http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/story/0,2763,679444,00.html[Return]
- http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/20062pf.htm[Return]
- Bibliography
Bretherton, C., & Vogler, J., (1999) The EU as a Global Actor London: Routeledge - Haas, R., (1999) ‘What To Do With American Primacy’ in Kegley, C., & Wittkopf, E., (2001) The Global Agenda New York: McGraw Hill pp147-157
- Held et al (1999) ‘Managing the Challenge of Globalisation’ in Kegley, C., & Wittkopf, E., (2001) The Global Agenda New York: McGraw Hill pp134-146
- Holsti, O. R., (2001) ‘Models of International Relations’ in Kegley, C., & Wittkopf, E., (2001) The Global Agenda New York: McGraw Hill pp119-133
- Fukuyama, F., (1992) ‘The End of History and the Last Man’ London:Penguin
- Laquer, W., (2001) Terror’s New Face in Kegley, C., & Wittkopf, E., (2001) The Global Agenda New York: McGraw Hill pp 82-88
- http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/new_transatlantic_agenda
- http://www.europa.eu.int/action_plan
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/story/0,2763,679444,00.html
- http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00ii0
- http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00ig0
- http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00qw0
- http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00qx0
- http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00po0
- http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00rc0
- http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00rb0
- http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/20062pf.htm
- http://www.useu.be/transatlantic/nta1295.htm
- http://www.useu.be/backforth/Jun03Rres.html
- Van Staden (2003) The US and The EU in World Politics. The Case for Complementarity
