Advertisement

Transatlantic Relations after 9/11 and Iraq: Continuities and Discontinuities

  • Regina Karp

Abstract

There is a palpable sense amongst Europeans that major questions on the future of international politics no longer involve them. European opinions and preferences do not seem to matter, as the United States appears determined to define its interests nationally, assertively, and unilaterally. Long- established practices of consultation are pushed aside, replaced with calls for cooperation that do not appear to be issued with any serious desire that they will be heeded or acted upon. There is no doubt that an assertive, unilateral America challenges the basis of the relationship with its closest allies. Transatlantic relations are as much about shared vision as they are about joint policies. In the absence of one, the other inevitably atrophies.

Keywords

Foreign Policy International Relation Crisis Management Bush Administration International Peace 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    J. Chace, ‘The Complex Metamorphosis of American Foreign Policy’, The New York Times (16 December 2003).Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    M. Trachtenberg, ‘A “Wasting Asset”’, International Security 13 (Winter 1988/89) 5–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 5.
    I. H. Daalder and J. M. Lindsay, America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2003).Google Scholar
  4. 7.
    M. P. Leffler, ‘9/11 and the past and future of American Foreign Policy,’ International Affairs 79, 5 (2003) 1045–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 9.
    C. Krauthammer, ‘The Unipolar Moment Revisited,’ The National Interest 70 (Winter 2002/03) 5–17.Google Scholar
  6. 10.
    G. J. Ikenberry, ed. America Unrivaled — The Future of the Balance of Power (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2002), p.3.Google Scholar
  7. 11.
    S. G. Brooks and W. C. Wohlforth, ‘American Primacy in Perspective,’ Foreign Affairs 81, 4 (July/August 2002) 21.Google Scholar
  8. 13.
    R. Jervis, ‘Understanding the Bush Doctrine,’ Political Science Quarterly 118, 3 (Fall 2003) 383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 16.
    J. S. Nye, The Paradox of American Power, Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t go it Alone (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), p.xvi.Google Scholar
  10. 17.
    S. Hoffmann, ‘US-European relations: past and future,’ International Affairs 79, 5 (2003) 1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 18.
    N. Gnesotto, ‘EU, US: visions of the world, visions of the other,’ in G. Lindstrom, ed., Shift or Rift — Assessing US-EU relations after Iraq (Paris: WEU-ISS, 2003), p.41.Google Scholar
  12. 19.
    J. Howorth, European Integration and Defence: The Ultimate Challenge? (Paris: WEU-ISS, 2000), Chaillot Paper 43Google Scholar
  13. J. Howorth and J. T. S. Keeler, eds, Defending Europe: The EU, NATO and the Quest for European Autonomy (New York: Palgrave, 2003), pp.3–21.Google Scholar
  14. 20.
    H. Ojanen, Theories at a loss? EU-NATO fusion and the ‘low-politicisation’ of security and defense in European integration (Helsinki: Finnish Institutue of International Affairs, 2003) http.upi-fiia.fi/julkaisut/UPI_WP/wp/wp35.pdfGoogle Scholar
  15. 24.
    H. Hubel and B. May, Ein ‘normales’ Deutschland? Die Souveraene Bundesrepublik in der auslaendischen Wahrnehmung (Bonn: Forschungsinstitut der Deutschen Gesellschaft fuer Auswaertige Politik e.V., 1995), pp.107–11.Google Scholar
  16. 25.
    C. Bertram and F. Heisbourg, ‘Europe’s role: A new trans-Atlantic relationship’, IHT, 18 March 2003, http://www.iht.com/articles/90058.htmlGoogle Scholar
  17. 26.
    W. Weidenfeld, Europa’s Alternativen, Aufgaben und Perspektiven der grossen Europaeischen Union, Vorlage zum Internationalen Bertelsmann Forum (Berlin: January 2004), p. 8.Google Scholar
  18. 29.
    W. T. R. Fox, The Super-Powers, The United States, Britain and the Soviet Union — Their Responsibility for Peace (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1944), p.3.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Regina Karp

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations