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]
Van Staden (2003) The US and The EU in World Politics.
The Case for Complementarity
Please note: The above essays and dissertations were written by students and then submitted to us to display and help others. Thanks to all the students who have submitted their work to us.
LOGIN
