Transatlantic Relations after 9/11 and Iraq: Continuities and Discontinuities
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.
KeywordsForeign Policy International Relation Crisis Management Bush Administration International Peace
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.J. Chace, ‘The Complex Metamorphosis of American Foreign Policy’, The New York Times (16 December 2003).Google Scholar
- 5.I. H. Daalder and J. M. Lindsay, America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2003).Google Scholar
- 9.C. Krauthammer, ‘The Unipolar Moment Revisited,’ The National Interest 70 (Winter 2002/03) 5–17.Google Scholar
- 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
- 11.S. G. Brooks and W. C. Wohlforth, ‘American Primacy in Perspective,’ Foreign Affairs 81, 4 (July/August 2002) 21.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 19.J. Howorth, European Integration and Defence: The Ultimate Challenge? (Paris: WEU-ISS, 2000), Chaillot Paper 43Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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