Advertisement

Three Fictions of Transatlantic Relations

  • Daniel N. Nelson

Abstract

Three fictions persist both in official documents and in pronouncements about transatlantic relations. The first of these, believed on both sides of the Atlantic, is in the existence of a post-Cold War American primacy and unparalleled global dominance. A second, dating from 1949, is that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) operates by consensus and exhibits unity of purpose and efficacy in action. A third and more recent fiction, derived from the halcyon days of 1989–91, is an image of one Europe, ‘whole and free’. From the Western shores of the Atlantic, much of this is comforting, and all of it is wrong.

Keywords

Foreign Policy North Atlantic Treaty Organization European Security International Herald Tribune Warsaw Pact 
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. 1.
    D. N. Nelson, ‘Transatlantic Transmutations,’ The Washington Quarterly No. 25(4) (Autumn 2002) 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. S. Nye, Jr, ‘U.S. Power and Strategy After Iraq,’ Foreign Affairs (July/August 2003) 60.Google Scholar
  3. 6.
    M. Billig, Banal Nationalism (London: Sage, 1995), p.21.Google Scholar
  4. 7.
    S. M. Lipset, American Exceptionalism (New York: Norton, 1996).Google Scholar
  5. 9.
    M. Billig, ‘Language as Forms of Death,’ Preface to M. Dedaic and D. N. Nelson, eds At War With Words (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003), pp.xi–xii.Google Scholar
  6. 10.
    C. Johnson, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2000). Note that Johnson wrote this book two or more years before 9/11.Google Scholar
  7. 12.
    W. D. Hartnung, How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy? A Quick and Dirty Guide to War Profiteering in the Bush Administration (New York: Nation Books, 2004).Google Scholar
  8. 13.
    Kevin Phillips in his American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush (New York: Viking, 2003)Google Scholar
  9. 14.
    International Institute of Strategic Studies, The Military Balance 2003–2004 (London: 2003).Google Scholar
  10. Heinrich Borchert and Roland Eggenberger, Rollenspezialisierung und Ressourcenzusammenlegung: Wie Europas sicherheitspolitische Fahigkeiten gestarkt werden können, in H.G. Ehrhardt and B. Schmitt, eds, EU-Sicherheitspolitik im 21. Jahrhundert (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2004).Google Scholar
  11. 15.
    Congressional Budget Office, Options for Changing the Army’s Overseas Basing (Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, May 2004), pp.1–4.Google Scholar
  12. 16.
    R. A. Millen (LTC, US Army), Reconfiguring the American Military Presence in Europe (Carisle, PA: US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, February 2004).Google Scholar
  13. 20.
    H. Binnendijk and R. L. Kugler, ‘Dual-Track Transformation for the Atlantic Alliance’, Defense Horizons No. 35 (Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, November 2003).Google Scholar
  14. 21.
    E. Pond used the death metaphor in her Friendly Fire: The Near Death of the Transatlantic Alliance (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2004).Google Scholar
  15. 22.
    E. Schmitt, ‘Rumsfeld Fervently Defends Iraq War to European Critics,’ The New York Times (8 February 2004) 11.Google Scholar
  16. 29.
    E. Sciolino’s report, ‘NATO Role Expanding at Urging of the U.S.,’ International Herald Tribune (21 February 2004), 1.Google Scholar
  17. 30.
    L. G. Michel, ‘NATO Decisionmaking: Au Revoir to the Consensus Rule?’, Strategic Forum No. 202 (Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, August 2003).Google Scholar
  18. 32.
    D. N. Nelson, ‘American Jihad’, Information (Copenhagen), 21 February 2003Google Scholar
  19. 33.
    E. Hankiss, ‘The East-West Divide in Europe: Does it Exist’, East European Studies (Newsletter of the Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington, DC, January 2004), 5–7.Google Scholar
  20. 34.
    Eurostat, Key Structural Data for the 10 Acceding Countries (Brussels: 5 December 2002).Google Scholar
  21. 35.
    European Commission, Economic Forecasts (Brussels: Autumn 2002 and 2003).Google Scholar
  22. 36.
    I. Black, ‘Two-speed EU Will Create Splits, Ahern tells Prodi,’ The Guardian (5 January 2004), http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1116258,00.htmlGoogle Scholar
  23. J. Dempsey, ‘Support for two-speed Europe Gathers Momentum,’ Financial Times (15 December 2003).Google Scholar
  24. 37.
    Economic and Social Research Council, Newsletter, Issue Eight’One Europe or Several?’ (Autumn-Winter 2002)Google Scholar
  25. 39.
    Craig Parsons, A Certain Idea of Europe (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003).Google Scholar
  26. 40.
    Paul Meller, ‘Report Says Europe is Behind on Single-Economy Goal,’, The New York Times (22 January 2004)Google Scholar
  27. John Burgess, ‘Rising Euro Tests European Unity,’ The Washington Post (24 January 2004)Google Scholar
  28. William Pfaff, ‘Expansion Jeopardizes EU’s Founding Vision,’ International Herald Tribune (21–22 February 2004), 7.Google Scholar
  29. 45.
    J. Vinocur, ‘Europe’s Old Axis has Lost Its Luster’, International Herald Tribune (February 19 2004), 8.Google Scholar
  30. 46.
    G. J. Ikenberry, ‘American Power and the Empire of Capitalist Democracy,’ in M. Cox, etal., eds, Empires, Systems and States (London: Cambridge, 2001), p.212.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel N. Nelson

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations