Advertisement

All Roads Don’t Lead to Brussels (But Most Do): European Integration and Transatlantic Relations

  • John Peterson
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics book series (PSEUP)

Abstract

Peterson argues that America’s attitude toward European integration often reflects a mixture of ambivalence and ineffectuality. The USA has at times viewed the emergence of what is now the European Union (EU) with suspicion and even hostility, although it has mostly supported European integration. His chapter develops two arguments. First, transatlantic relations in the twenty-first century are primarily—by no means exclusively—conducted through the US-EU channel. On issues from counterterrorism to financial regulation to cybersecurity, the USA mainly engages Europe via Brussels. Second, the progress of European integration over time has had the effect of focusing USA attention on the EU itself. By accident or design, by extolling or opposing it, the USA has been an important regulator of European integration.

Keywords

European integration Transatlantic relations 

References

  1. Anderson, J. J., Ikenberry, G. J., & Risse, T. (Eds.). (2008). The end of the West? Crisis and change in the Atlantic order. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, D. M. (Ed.). (2005). The Atlantic alliance under stress: US-European relations after Iraq. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Asmus, R. D. (2002). Opening NATO’s door: How the alliance remade itself for a new era. New York/London: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baldwin, P. (2009). The narcissism of minor differences how America and Europe are alike: An essay in numbers. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, U. (2013). German Europe. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
  6. Bickerton, C., Hodson, D., & Puetter, U. (Eds.). (2015). The new intergovernmentalism: European integration in the post-Maastricht era. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Buonanno, L., Nugent, N., & Cugleşan, N. (2015a). Transatlantic governance. In L. Buonanno, N. Cugleşan, & K. Henderson (Eds.), The new and changing transatlanticism: Politics and policy perspectives (pp. 85–108). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Buonanno, L., Cugleşan, N., & Henderson, K. (Eds.). (2015b). The new and changing transatlanticism: Politics and policy perspectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Cottey, A. (2013) (2nd edn.). Security in 21st century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Dinan, D. (2004). Europe recast. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  11. Eichengreen, B. (2015, April 14). Europe’s poisoned chalice of growth. In Project syndicate: The World’s opinion page. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/europe-growth-reform-by-barry-eichengreen-2015-04
  12. Feldstein, M. (1992). Europe’s Monetary Union: The case against EMU. The Economist, 323(7763), 19–22.Google Scholar
  13. Feldstein, M. (1997). The political economy of the European Economic and Monetary Union: Political sources of an economic liability. The Journal of Economic Perspectives: A Journal of the American Economic Association, 11(4), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gardner, A. (1997). A new era in US-EU relations? The Clinton administration and the new transatlantic agenda. Aldershot/Brookfield: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  15. Gebhard, C., & Smith, S. J. (2015). The two faces of EU-NATO cooperation: Counter-piracy operations off the Somali coast. Cooperation and Conflict, 50(1), 107–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. German Marshall Fund. (2014). Transatlantic trends. Key findings 2014. Washington, DC: The German Marshall Fund of the United States.Google Scholar
  17. Gordon, P. H., & Shapiro, J. (2004). Allies at war: America, Europe and the crisis over Iraq. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  18. Hamilton, D. S., & Quinlan, J. P. (2015). The transatlantic economy 2015: Annual survey of jobs, trade and investment between the United States and Europe. Washington, DC: Center for Transatlantic Relations.Google Scholar
  19. Hanhimäki, J. M., Zanchetta, B., & Schoenborn, B. (2012). Transatlantic relations since 1945: An introduction. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Howorth, J. (2007). Security and Defence Policy in the European Union. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Ikenberry, G. J. (2014a). The illusion of geopolitics: The enduring power of the liberal order. Foreign Affairs, 93(3), 80–90.Google Scholar
  22. Ikenberry, G. J. (2014b). Power, order, and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jonung, L., Drea, E., & European Commission. (2009). The euro—It can’t happen, it’s a bad idea, it won’t last. US economists on the EMU, 1989–2002. Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs.Google Scholar
  24. Kagan, R. (2003). Of paradise and power: America and Europe in the new world order. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  25. Katzenstein, P. J., & Keohane, R. O. (Eds.). (2007). Anti-Americanism in world politics. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kearney, A. T. (2015). Global economic output 2015–20. Beyond the new mediocre? Global Business Policy Council. January; http://www.atkearney.co.uk/documents/10192/5498252/Global+Economic+Outlook+2015-2020–Beyond+the+New+Mediocre.pdf/5c5c8945-00cc-4a4f-a04f-adef094e90b8 (accessed 29 April 2016).Google Scholar
  27. Keohane, R. O. (2003). Ironies of sovereignty: The European Union and the United States. In J. H. Weiler, I. Begg, & J. Peterson (Eds.), Integration in an expanding European Union: Reassessing the fundamentals. Oxford/Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  28. Koenig, N. (2011). The EU and the Libyan crisis: In quest of coherence?. The International Spectator, 46(4), 11–30.Google Scholar
  29. Kolko, G. (1968). The politics of war: The world and United States foreign policy, 1943–1945. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  30. Kolko, G. (1969). The roots of American foreign policy: An analysis of power and purpose. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kopstein, J., & Steinmo, S. (2008). Growing apart? America and Europe in the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kupchan, C. A. (2012). No one’s world. The West, the rising rest, and the coming global turn. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lagadec, E. (2012). Transatlantic relations in the 21st century. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Mackinder, H. (1904). The geographical pivot of history. Geographical Journal, 23, 418–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mackinder, H. (1943). The round world and the winning of peace. Foreign Affairs, 21, 595–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Matthijs, M., & Kelemen, R. D. (2015). Europe reborn: How to save the European Union from irrelevance. Foreign Affairs, 94(1), 96–107.Google Scholar
  37. Merkl, P. H. (2005). The rift between America and Old Europe: The distracted eagle. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Messenger, D. A. (2014). Dividing Europe: The Cold War and European integration. In D. Dinan (Ed.), Origins and evolution of the European Union (2nd ed.). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Monti, M. (2015, April 25). The bold ‘Eurocrats’ who command the world’s respect. Financial Times.Google Scholar
  40. Nugent, N. (Ed.). (2004). European Union enlargement. Houndmills/Basingshire/Hapshire/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. Nye, J. S., Jr. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  42. Nye, J. S., & Keohane, R. O. (1993). The United States and international institutions in Europe after the Cold War. In R. O. Keohane, J. S. Nye, & S. Hoffmann (Eds.), After the Cold War. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Obama, B. (2013). Remarks by the president in the 2013 state of the union address. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/remarks-president-state-union-address
  44. Pawlak, P. (2011). Conclusion: Transatlantic integration and the practice of cooperation. In Á. de Vasconcelos (Ed.), The agenda for the EU-US strategic partnership (pp. 65–76). Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies.Google Scholar
  45. Peterson, J. (1996). Europe and America: The prospects for partnership (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Peterson, J. (2004). Europe, America, Iraq: Worst ever and ever-worsening? The European Union: Annual Review (Journal of Common Market Studies), 42(6), 9–26.Google Scholar
  47. Peterson, J. (2015). The commission and the new intergovernmentalism: Calm within the storm? In C. Bickerton, D. Hodson, & U. Puetter (Eds.), The new intergovernmentalism: States and supranational actors in the post-Maastricht period. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Peterson, J. (2017). Juncker’s political commission and an EU in crisis, Journal of Common Market Studies, 55.Google Scholar
  49. Peterson, J., & Bomberg, E. (1999). Decision-making in the European Union. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Peterson, J., & Geddes, A. (2015). The EU as a security actor. In D. Kenealy, J. Peterson & R. Corbett (Eds.), The European Union: How does it work? (4th ed.). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Peterson, J., & Steffenson, R. (2009). Transatlantic institutions. Can partnership be engineered? British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 11(1), 25–45.Google Scholar
  52. Peterson, J., Doherty, R., Van Cutsem, M., Wallace, H., Epstein, R., Burwell, F., & Quinlan, J. P. (2005). Review of the framework for relations between the European Union and the United States—An independent study. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  53. Pitman, P. M. (2003). ‘A general named Eisenhower’: Atlantic crisis and the origins of the European Economic Community. In M. Trachtenberg (Ed.), Between empire and alliance: America and Europe during the Cold War. Boulder/Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  54. Pollack, M. A. (2005). The new transatlantic agenda at ten: Reflections on an experiment in international governance. Journal of Common Market Studies, 43(5), 899–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Puetter, U. (2014). The European Council and the Council: New intergovernmentalism and institutional change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rice, C. (2011). No higher honor: A memoir of my years in Washington. New York: Crown Publishers.Google Scholar
  57. Serfaty, S. (2012). A world recast: An American moment in a post-Western order. Lanham/Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  58. Slaughter, A. M. (2004). A new world order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Smith, K. E. (2014). European Union foreign policy in a changing world (3rd ed.). Oxford/New York: Polity.Google Scholar
  60. US Department of Defense. (2011). The security and defense agenda (the Future of NATO) Washington DC.Google Scholar
  61. Zaborowski, M. (2006). Friends again?: EU-US relations after the crisis. Paris: European Union Institute for Security Studies.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Peterson
    • 1
  1. 1.University of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations