The European Union-the United States Transatlantic Relations post the Invasion of

Iraq in 2003: A Comparative Analysis of Political Actors’ Roles in the Global Arena*

By Nofia Fitri

“Europe needs the US and the US needs Europe. When we speak with a common voice, no challenge is too great. When we speak with a common voice,

we are truly an indispensable partnership.”(José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission)

“We want strong allies. We are not looking to be patrons of Europe we are looking to be partners of Europe.”

(Barack Obama, President of United States of America)

Table of Content

I. Introduction

II. Review of Literatures

III. Understanding the Transatlantic Relations

IV. The Disagreement of the Invasion of Iraq in 2003

V. “The Way of Respond” of EU and US as Global Actors

VI. Balance of Power: Political Roles in the Global Arena

VII. The Future of the Transatlantic Relations

VIII.Conclusion

IX. Bibliography

* I would like to say thank you for Korede Akinyemi my discussant, for her positive critiques and for my wise instructor, Dr. Wojciech Forysinski who has introduced me with this interesting issue and helped me much for write a qualify paper.

I. Introduction

“Nous Sommes Tous Americain’s” or “We are all Americans now” was written as

a headline of liberal France daily Le Monde. Jean Marie Colombany, the editor in

chief who published it two days after the terrorist attacked the World Trade Centre

(WTC) and Pentagon in 2001 reminded the readers with the former American

president John F. Kennedy’s Speech in Berlin at 1962 when he declared himself

to be a “Berliner.” The headline wrote by Colombany could reflected a meaning

that might say “we are all the New Yorkers.” As a respond on it, Kroes noted

there was a “historical resonance” among those statements. Yes it was, those

statement are an interesting nuance among the European Union (EU) and the

United States of America (USA/US) relations.1

The relations between the EU and the US was begun based on the US interest in

response of the communism power post World War, which spread up from Uni

Soviet to other countries. Besides of this political aspect, the economic factor was

also important considered that the EU’s economic had been raised post World

War I. The US commitment to a Western Market system was thus paralleled by

the desire to promote the strengthening of liberal democracies in Europe. At that

time, there was also a problem of Europe, that is the inflation and crisis post

World War II which Germany lose and had much debt, in economic even in moral

responsibility. Thus through the Marshall Plan, Europe got much helps from

America, and this relation continue to the established of Transatlantic agreement. I

would give a brief explanation of the building of transatlantic agreement at the

next part, but previously let me provide several arguments about the complexity

of this relation.

Through his testimony for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs of

Subcommittee of Europe, Hamilton spoke that “EU-US relationship is among the

most complex and multi-layered economic, diplomatic, societal and security

1 Merkl, Peter H. (2005). The Rift between America and Old Europe, the Distracted Eagle. London: Routledge, p. 25.

relationship that either partner has, especially if it is seen to encompass the

relationships the US maintains with the EU’s 27 member states as well as its

Brussels-based institutions.”2 He emphasized that the networks of

interdependence across the Atlantic have become so dense, in fact, that they

transcend “foreign” relations and reach deeply into EU societies.

Fabrini noted for unilateralist America, global terrorism constitutes a challenge to

liberty and democracy, and particularly to the ways in which these are represented

in America,3 thus as Kagan stated for that reason “America must recover its

freedom to act that is to say its decisional autonomy, if it does want to surrender

to anti western-fundamentalist.”4 While that point a view different from European

multilateralist which on contrary argues that “global terrorism has to be

considered as the outcome of a global context crippled by injustice and

resentment, so terrorism cannot be defeated military but only through a concerted

and complex array of international policies carried out by a plurality of nations

within the frame of the United Nation.”5

Need to be note that several issues have been strengthened that relation which one

of them is the military forces. The growing of military gap between Europe and

US had already become a major issue prior the 9/11 attacked to WTC and

Pentagon. As Dockrill argued Washington initially regarded post Cold War

conflict in Bosnia and Kosovo as being within Europe’s sphere of responsibility,

but as it turned out, US military power and leadership became essential to

defusing of these crises.6 But the most crucial was the disagreement of the US

invasion to Iraq in 2003 which had broken up their relation into the established

statement of ‘Old Europe.’

2 Daniel S. Hamilton, The Lisbon Treaty: Implications for Future Relations between the European Union and the United States (Testimony to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe), December 15, 2009. 3 Burwell, Frances G, & Daalder, Ivo H (Ed). (1999). The United States an Europe in the Global Arena. London: Macmillan Press Ltd, p.224 Kagan R (2003) of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order, New York: Alfred A. Knof.5 Burwell, Frances G, & Daalder, Ivo H, op.cit.6 Saki Ruth Dockrill (2006) the Transatlantic Alliance in the Iraq Crisis, within the United States and Europe, p. 122

The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 has been marked as a crisis level of the EU-the

US relations. Post the invasion of Iraq, most of the current debates deal with the

question, whether the case of the Invasion of Iraq which caused the tension

between the EU and the US gives mark as the end of the transatlantic relations.

One of the effects was the emergent of anti-American in Europe and the desire to

give a limit for the US’s hegemony behavior. According to The Transatlantic

Trends 2004, this report had considered that on the European sides got result from

their research that 71 per cent of Europeans believed that UE should become a

super power like the US.7

Based of those stuffs that I mentioned above, I’m interesting on the future of EU-

US relations after the Iraq crisis. Thus the research questions of this paper could

be described as:

1. What would be the relations of the EU and US under the transatlantic

relations as its umbrella post the invasion of Iraq in 2003, does the

disagreement over Iraq bring many effects for the future of that relation?

2. Base on the world system today, considering many international issues,

what would be the relations model of them as political actors in global

arena?

I argued that the EU-the US relation which is base on the transatlantic agreement

would maintain as partnership with the shape of balance of power. Even the

invasion of Iraq had threatened both relations, at the future it will seem as a

synergy partnership and would show that there is a strong interdependency

between them as important actors in the global arena.

This paper will describe the comparative ways that have been taken by the EU and

the US as their roles within the global arena. By describing the naturally actions

of both actors and considering their relations through the transatlantic relations

post US Invasion to Iraq in 2003 perhaps I could measure how significant EU and

the US have been giving a shape for the international system. The methodology

7 Transatlantic Trends 2004, A Project of the German Marshall Fund of the United States and the Compagnia di San Paulo of Turin, Italy.

that I use is comparative analysis by using historical approach through mention

cases study. I would not focus as deeply to the cases study, but to the role that

have been taken by them towards those issues.

II. Review of Literatures

According to Dougherty, theory is a systematic reflection of phenomena. It was

designed to explain that phenomenon and to show they are related to each other.8

As he noted social science theories can usually be categorized as historical

descriptive seek factual generalizations about post and present reality. Within this

paper I used three important theories that would help me to build my analysis:

realist paradigm, balance of power theory which deals with bipolar and multipolar

system and alliances.

Kenneth Waltz argued that states are unitary actors that seek at minimum to

preserve themselves and at a maximum to dominate others if possible.9 He

explained that those states strive to achieve their objectives through internal

efforts and external efforts, strengthening their own alliance and weakening that

of the adversary. All those perspectives he has been explain through theory of

structural realism. Within his lattes article, Waltz suggested that “Europe will not

become a great power in the absence of radical change.” He explains integration

could only alter the distribution of power among different units, but it could not

alter the basic characteristics of the international system as the fusion of several

states into one does not alter the anarchic relationship between the unit and all the

other one which have not participated in the Union. Then he mentioned example

that is “United States of Europe would become a world superpower.”

Through the realist approach, the grand strategy of the US could be open a

relevant question with regard to Europe as what Rivera noted: what must be the

role of US in European affairs. The argument of John Mearsheimer might answer

8 Dougherty, James E. and Platzgraff, Robert L. Jr., (2001). Contending Theories of International Relations: A Comprehensive Survey (5th Ed). New York: Longman.9 Ibid.

the question that “the US should maximize relative power to gain security in order

to avoid the instability resulting from multipolar system.“10 Robert Gilpin stated

that “international cooperation is impossible only when a state is capable of

imposing order in the international system by virtue of it s super power.” He

explained that there are few or no clashes of interest if there is a clear hierarchy of

power because the stronger state can impose its will and weaker ones have to

conform to its wishes.

The balance of power is the oldest, most persistent and must controversial of all

theories of international politics according to Dougherty. As Hume noted this

theory was associated with the system of Europe. The naturally theories of

international social reality employ balance as a central organizing for the power

relations of nation states as Dougherty mentions. He then explained that the

traditional methods and techniques of maintaining or restoring the balance were

“(1) the policy of divide and rule; (2) territorial compensations after a war; (3)

creation of buffer states; (4) formation of alliances; (5) sphere of influence; (6)

intervention; (7) diplomatic bargaining; (8) legal and peaceful settlement of

disputes; (9) reduction of armaments; (10) armament competition or races and

(11) war itself.”11

As we can focus on the international system, the theory of Joanne Gowa (1989)

would be useful as he explained in bipolar system agreements between states are

stable and durable because alignments are structurally determined, allowing for

higher degree of cooperation and trust. Use the regime theory of Krasner, he

argues that international institutions or regimes affect the behaviors of states (or

either international actors). This theory assumes that cooperation is possible in the

anarchic system of states so regimes by definition are the instances of

international cooperation.

10 John J. Marsheimer (Summer 1990), Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War, International Security, 15, No.1. 11 Ibid, p 15.

According to Smith, to understanding the EU as an international actor we have to

divide into two terms: exclusive identities which EU as singular actor and

exclusive identities which the EU as fortress. However she mentioned that based

on valued based actor she suggested three important boards. First is the EU as a

model which the EU is an ideal model of international organization, second is the

EU as promoter of its internal values. This second board means that the EU has

been built by common values, as Manners have mentioned: peace, democracy,

liberty, the rule of law, human right, good government, sustainable development

and so on. Third is the EU as a counterweight to the US. This board has answered

this analysis which I have found that the balance of power among the EU and the

US.12

III. Understanding the Transatlantic Relations

There is no relationship that more significant as the EU enhances its global role

than the Transatlantic Alliance as Sbragia argued.13 Since the end of Cold War, he

noted the frameworks of transatlantic relations had been changing overtime. This

relation based on two pillars: NATO and the bilateral relations between the

European Union and the countries of North America (the US, Canada, and, with

regard to NAFTA, Mexico), with the EU-US partnership occupying a pivotal role.

Frellesen and Ginsberg have pointed out “the opportunities for transatlantic

cooperation in term of meetings and other consultants are extensive”14 The

transatlantic relations are typically thought of the terms of security, trade,

diplomacy while Burwell stated that the transatlantic alliance is to remain truly

relevant to the challenge and opportunities of a new century

Historically the US has had its most important bilateral political relationship with

European national governments (most Western Europe) rather that the community

(the EU). The EU has gradually become a more important institution actor in the

12 K.E. Smith (2002) European Union Foreign Policy in a Changing World, p. 56-57.13 Alberta Sbragia, The Transatlantic Relationship: A Case of Deepening and Broadening within the European in the World Community, p. 14714 Frances Burwell, G, & Ivo H Daalder, (Ed). (1999). The United States and Europe in the Global Arena. London: Macmillan Press Ltd, p. 7.

international arena generally and this is increase of influence has been reflected

and reinforced by the way in which the EU-US relations have involved. Since the

end of the Cold War, Europe and the US have strengthened to find a new basis for

partnership. As Burwell mentioned that in one direction the alliance would remain

focus on the security and prosperity, especially for Western Europe and in the

other direction, however the US and Europe would expand the scope of their Cold

War partnership and work together to address a new set of threats.15

A much greater role of the EU within the European-US relations have given

through the Clinton administration, that was the New Transatlantic Agenda on

1995 which Waren Christopher, the secretary of state addressed “called for a

major transatlantic effort to define a framework for broad US-EU cooperation

extending beyond trade.” The efforts of the transatlantic relations partner to

bolster political and economic stability and the CEE countries.

Table 1

The Historical Building of Transatlantic Relations

The thing that has become an important part of the transatlantic relations is the

existence of North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO, as an important

15 Ibid, p. 277.

1950s

The US Imagination on the creation of West European Association of state

for global battle against communism.

Trade-political partner between European Community and the US

government.

(more geo-political factor)

1968-1979The established of the Bretton Wood

Early 1970s-1980sMonetary, Trade and Political Issues

Yom Kippur War

1973 NATO

1975-1980

- Helsinki Conference and the 1980 Belgrade

- Iranian revolution

- Afghanistan Invasion

-Soviet union 1979

1980-1988 Community Relationship

1989-1995 The New Transatlantic Agenda

alliance in security and defense. Within the NATO, Europe usually refers to the

West European Allies but when the topic turns to the international economic

policy, the relevant ‘Europe’ is usually the EU. But however on many issues

‘Europe’ refers to a still-involving international action in which the EU provides a

forum for discussion and coordination and the implementing institution which the

members remain the primary decision makers.

This organization is often viewed as the “center piece of transatlantic relations.”

However as Howard states “as the security becoming a key actor in Europe, was

not an immediate post war goal of the US, only within the context of global

communism” was this role defined as in the US national interest. He saw that post

the end of the Cold War “yet given that traditionally NATO has been viewed as

central to the transatlantic relationship. It is strikingly at least one important

economic relationship would have been left relatively unchanged if US troops had

been repatriated.”16 Nowadays NATO becomes the instrument of choice for

stabilizing central and Eastern Europe.

During the establishment period of the transatlantic relations, NATO has been the

institutional expression of the transatlantic link. There is no equivalent U.S. link,

however, with the EU, even though the EU is increasingly the institution that

European governments use to coordinate their policies and actions, and will be

America’s essential partner in many areas that are beyond NATO’s purview and

capacities. Thus by the existence of NATO, the urgency of relations that the

United States forge a more effective strategic partnership with the EU, in ways

that support and complement the transatlantic link expressed through NATO.

IV. The Disagreement of the Invasion of Iraq in 2003

16 John Petterson, and A. Max (2003). Europe, America, Bush: Transatlantic Relations in the Twenty years Century. London: Routledge.

Henry Kissinger noted that the differences over Iraq have produced the greater

crisis in the Atlantic alliance. This crisis was started from the White House, when

the US was announcing the Invasion of Iraq in 2003, in Paris French President

Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder stood together with

Russian President Vladimir Putin in an unsettling new coalition of the unwilling.

That was not only expression to rejected the invasion but also attitude to gives US

‘a warning’ of its hegemony ambitions.

Many scholars acted very fast to response this important momentum, one of the

most important statement stated by Robert Kagan. He stated “Americans and

Europeans no longer occupied the same planet when it came to the use of military

force; that Americans were from Mars and Europeans from Venus” within his

new book Paradise and Power.17 To portray the European Union members in the

position of Invasion of Iraq can be seem, the Anglo-US position on Iraq was

viewed sympathetically by the pro-Atlanticist governments of Spain, Italy, the

Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal and Ireland while the anti war-Euro opposition

group were France, Germany, and Belgium.

During the Iraq War as Fabricini suggested, the contrast between the EU and the

principle continent countries of the EU and the US was anything but accidental

which in fact it was not the expression of national rivalries such as one between

France and the US.18 However both France and Germany began to oppose the

American policy regarding “a regime change” in Iraq and the New American

doctrines pointing towards unilateralism and superpower hegemony because they

did not believe that Saddam Hussein had relations with the terrorism attacked to

US.

For Moravscick, the Iraq Crisis offered two basic lessons:

17 Robert Kagan (2003), Paradise and Power: American and Europe in the New World Order, New York: Alfred A. Knop, p.21.18 Fabbricini, Sergio (Ed). (2006). The United States Contested, American Unilateralism and European Discontent. London: Routledge.

1. For Europeans, is that American Hawks were right, unilateral intervention to coerce regime change can be a cost-effective way to deal with the Rouge state. In military matters, there is only one superpower, the US and it can go alone if it has to.

2. For American, is that moderate skeptics on both sides of the Atlantic were also right winning a peace is much harder than winning a war, intervention is cheap in the short run but expensive in the long run.19

V. “The Way of Respond” of EU and US as Global Actors

We could agree that the most of the emerging issues which is need a concern from

the Transatlantic Relations are: the spread of WMD, democracy values and in

practice in central Europe and the former Soviet Union countries, regional

conflicts and instabilities and transitional economic system to liberalism. Those

issues however have shaped different actions of both, the EU and the US. To

analyze the different actions that have been taken by the EU and the US, I like to

use Burwell’s assumptions. As she mentioned they are three main differences of

the EU and the US’ ways over identifying a problem and how to respond:

1. The US is more likely to assume a global perspective while the Europe

countries primarily regard themselves as regional powers.

2. The US tends to act unilaterally, while the Europeans look for ways to act

in concert first with each other and then with international organizations.

3. The US tends to emphasize military solutions while the Europeans are

often slower tracts and when they do more likely to stress policy options.20

Robert Kagan on his own capture of the EU-US relations stated that “Americans

generally see the world divided between good and evil…favor policies of coercion

rather than persuasion while Europeans insist they approach problems with greater

nuance and sophistications. They generally favor peaceful responses to problems

preferring negotiating, diplomacy, and persuasion than coercions.”21 For Smith

while the EU places more emphasis on ideas and processes of conflict prevention

19 Andrew Moravscick, Foreign Affairs, Vol 82, No.4 (July-August 2003) p.1ç20 Frances Burwell, G, loc.cit., p. 2321 Robert Kagan, Power and Weakness, Policy Review, 113 (June-July 2002).

in global politics, the US more coercion or even preemption as preached and

practiced.

From those several arguments I could reached that the main focus is how to see

both actors with the different angles. This is the ways that dividing both actors.

While the US involves itself in issues and countries the European governments are

often reluctant to act unless the issues concern a region in close. Through the table

below I list my analysis finding as well.

Table 2The Ways of Response to Global Issues

This argument based on the Kupchan conclusion which he noted that the

“European strategy of promoting an international system based on norms, rules,

agreements and formalized procedures represent an important counter-weight to

the military tendencies present in the international system.”22 After focused on the

different taking action I would to provide in here 10 several cases that can show as

clearly how the EU and the US differently. These cases are have been filtered by

many sources.23

Table 3

22 Kupchan C.A. (2002) The End of the American Era: US Foreign Policy and the Geo-politics of the Twentieth –first Century, New York: Alfred A. Knof.23 Major sources, check Francis Burwell, Walter B. Slocimbe. Transatlantic Transformation: Building a NATO-EU Security Architecture. Policy Paper, March 2006. Washington: the Atlantic Council of the United States.

The United States of America The European Union

The US Global Perspective on

Hegemonic Desire

The European Regional Focus

(Enlargement)

Unilaterally Coordination

Hard Powers Soft Power

Military Options Negotiation

Political Development

(Democracy)

Economy Development

(Prosperity)

Comparative Political Actors’ Roles in 10 Important Cases

Global IssuesMain Actors

The European Union The United States

The Middle East

Iraq Invasion 2003Some members rejected some

members supportedMilitary Invasion

Iran Nuclear Program Economic sanctionPolitical Pressure and

international Lobbying

Israel-Palestinian Conflict Negotiations Intervention

Afghanistan War Negotiations Military Invasion

Asia

Myanmar (Military Junta) Economic Sanction

Economic and Military

Sanction, International

Pressure

Aceh (Indonesia)Monitoring Mission and

NegotiationsPolitical Pressure

Europe

Russia-Czech Negotiation and sanction Political Pressure

Cyprus Conflict Active Negotiations Negotiations

Serbia-Yugoslavia Negotiation and sanction Political Pressure

Africa

Democracy and Economic

DevelopmentEconomic Aid Intervention

VI. Balance of Power: Political Roles in the Global Arena

From the description of the ‘way of respond’, considering that both actors are

bounding by one regional alliance, I would like to argue that among their relation

through the transatlantic relations has been emerging the conception of balance of

power of realist views. Use the Rivera research, he saw that the transatlantic

relationship relies on liberal-realist worldviews which realist emphasizes the

enduring prosperity for conflict between the states, liberalist identifies several

ways to mitigate these conflictive tendencies. The figure below shows my

argument which has been built base on my finding after several descriptive

explanations and aims to answer the research question.

Persuasive-negotiation preventive-intervention

Within the Living of a New Europe, Brzezinski argued that the US does not fear of

the emergent of the EU because of several different reasons, as he mentioned: “1)

integration has not reflected unification as the ultimate goal of the European

process, 2) Europe will grow horizontally rather than vertically, 3) the Creation of

the ESDP does not represent a threat to NATO and, 4) NATO and the EU should

enlarge at the same time.”24 But today, Brzezinski’s argument is not relevant

anymore, however during the Euro Crisis and the tendencies of the US anxiety has

24 Zbigniew Brzezinski, Living with the Europe, the National Interests (Summer 2000) pp. 13-33.

EU

T R R EA LN AS TA IT OL NA NTİC

(NATO)

US

Political Actor and its Roles

Political actor and its role

Security and defense, economic, world development, democracy, human rights, peace and Stability, and so on.

(BALANCE OF POWER)

been showed. Another argument had been built in 1980, by Bull (1983, 151)

which he concluded that the European Community is not an actor in international

politics and does not seem likely to become one. Nevertheless after the wider

enlargement, the EU has showing itself as an important actor even it could be a

counterbalance of the US.

What are the obstacles and disincentive facing by Europe and US? Burwell argued

that the basic EU and US interest are diverging and in facts becoming unite

distinct. She concludes that the Europe and the US are more rivals than partner in

economic arena and increasing at odds in the security and realm as well. Most of

the scholars who have been concerned on the external roles of the EU used the

Thucydides conception to explain the EU strategy. About 2500 years ago he made

observation as modern experimental and historical studies have substantiated,

“mutual fear is the most solid basis upon which to organize an alliance” and one

of the alliance model is geographical scope. Thus the relation between EU and US

under the umbrella of transatlantic relations is interdependency relation as mutual.

Both of them depend of each other nowadays as their position in balance of

power.

Hamilton argued that if Europe had become a strong as the US military and

economically the current transatlantic rift would have been minimized. He

emphasized that meaningful EU-US consultations should precede and, wherever

possible, be followed by joint action based on the complementarity of US and

European 'tool boxes' combining hard and soft power. That is what I am trying to

explain through the figures above which showed that between EU which is

persuasive-negotiation model could cover the lacks (or the negative) of the US

which is preventive-intervention model. Let me quote a statement from Powel

which he said that “there would be no America without Europe and there would

be no free, prosperous and united Europe without America. Together, Europe and

America can achieve almost anything; divided, they risk failing in many things:

"When we quarrel we make headlines, when we work together, we make

progress!"25

Base on my finding I can see that there is a balance of power of realist view

among both actors. This balance of power condition also can be means that both

of them deep on interdependency relations. The US needs the EU because without

their alliance, the US would be alone in charge to pay the cost for maintaining the

global stability, to establish democracy in all over the world. On contrary, the EU

needs the US power for apply the principles of peaceful that has been a common

value of its.

VII. The Future of the Transatlantic Relations

During the Invasion of Iraq, there was a growth of a global perspective which

stated that while America is on honeymoon, Europe has a nightmare. This

perspective emerging as an effect of US presidential transisition, the era of Bush

administration would be difficult than the Clinton who had contributed much for

the shape of transatlantic relation through new transatlantic agenda. This

perspective exactly right, as been proved through the disagreement over Iraq

between those leader, Bush, Schroeder and Chirac.

Let me close my analysis by going back to the new transatlantic agenda under of

Clinton administration. There are several points: promoting peace and stability,

democracy and development around the world, responding to global challenges,

expansion of world trade and economic relations, parliamentary links and the

important one is building the bridges across the Atlantic. The last agenda shows

that there would be classes among them, because of variant interests, that is why

to found the bridge between them is so much important. Then base on those

agendas, how the relations would be goes.

25 Former Secretary of State Colin Powell during the EU-US Ministerial meeting at the Department of State on 18 December 2002.

Many arguments have been built to predicted the future of transatlantic relations, I

would started from scholar and combine it with my own. For Epstein, which

focused on the economic as she mentioned with the framework of industry and

globalization, the transatlantic relation will continue almost by default.26 She

argued that the reason was simply because Europe lacks the capacity to develop

weaponry of the same technological sophistication as the US while other countries

are likely to close the gap in relations to Europe when it comes to their own arms

industries.

I suppose the assumption of Epstein just focused on industry as economic part.

That is right that use economic factors between the EU and the US would face

more difficulties then relation in other aspects because the competition of poverty

development and the level of Foreign Direct Investment. This reason simply could

be explained, because the other countries as the rest would choose which place

that suitable for their economic interest while when the political and economic

level of both the EU and the US balance as same power there would be no

pressure for tend to one of them. Thus by considering many aspects most

countries would choose European as the level of anti-American has increase.

Nevertheless use realist perspective either in economic or in politics both of them

would stabile by interdependency relation, this is what the realist Waltz sees as

“United States of Europe would become a world superpower.”

After the prediction I would like to move my intention to the challenge of the

relations. As commonly the global world could see the structural problems on

both sides of the Atlantic are: the US has become the world’s sole hegemonic

power, while Europeans have become inward-looking, less militant, and les

decisive. This is the most fundamental different thing among them. Explained by

Kagan, the US believes that Europe’s clamor for multilateralism is a recent

phenomenon to cover up their military weakness, as it lacks the capacity to

undertake unilateral military actions, either individually or collectively as

26 Mathew Evangelista and Vittorio Emanuele Parsi (Eds), Partners or Rivals: European-American Relations After İraq? (Milano: Vita e Pensiora, 2005).

Europe.27 Thus the commitment between them has been built by the same

perspective on future of world security, this relation not as same as sensitive with

economic relations. For realist view this is explained as international cooperation

would pressure more clashes while the world shape by anarchic system.

However the history of transatlantic relations is a history of crises as what Thimm

argued.28 But as he mentioned the disagreement over Iraq had appeared to be the

worst crisis in transatlantic relations. From the history clearly that case such as the

Kyoto Protocol might threaten the relation but did not bring it to the rift as what

Iraq case. Finally I suggest that the relations among them better to focus on the

share of interests rather than shares of values. Share of interests would stresses the

possibility to have a different perspective like what had been faced by them

through their believed on terrorism and how to built democracy. Last, need to be

mentioning here that Lisbon Treaty is important for the future of transatlantic

relations, as I quoted from Hamilton:

“The more immediate impact of the Lisbon Treaty for the United States is likely to be in the area of justice and home affairs. The Treaty of Lisbon puts freedom, justice and security at the center of EU priorities. Under the Treaty the EU should be more effective in tackling human trafficking, fighting crime, building resilience and combating terrorism, and to be a more effective partner with the United States in these areas.”29

VIII. Conclusion

The EU now is working in progress. It will continue to evolve, including in some

ways unforeseen. As we can see the EU external relations which focus on the

global arena has showed that this institution becomes a very important political

actor for counterbalancing the power of the US. As the conclusion my finding has

showed that within the global arena both the EU and the US are important

political actors with their different roles.

27 Robert Kagan, loc.cit, p. 38.28 Johannes Thimm, What really Matters in Transatlantic Relations, discukussionspapier der FG4, 2005/03, September 2005, SWP Berlin, p. 4.29 Daniel Hamilton, loc.cit, p. 6.

But however towards their relations post the invasion of Iraq in 2003, within the

global arena by considering the transatlantic relations, the US needs a strong, self-

confident that is the EU as a partner that can bring its political, economic, and

military weight to bear in addressing threats to common interests in Europe and

beyond the world. That is why the relation among them very important to keep the

stability of the world politics.

President Obama would not have so much homework because the relation has

already passed the crisis period post Iraq War. He just needs to apply the

commitment written as a new agenda of transatlantic relations, but Barroso have

to learn much how to take an action from the other prior leaders of EU.

IX. Bibliography

.

Andrews, David M. (Ed). The Atlantic Alliance under Stress: US-European

Relations after Iraq. Cambridge University Press.

Baylis, John., & Roper, John (Ed). (2006). The United States and Europe, Beyond

the Neo-Conservative Divide? London: Routledge.

Bretherton, Charlotte., & Vogler, John. (2000). The European Union as a Global

Actor. London: Routledge.

Burghardt, Gunter (2006), The European Union’s Transatlantic Relations, EU

Diplomacy Papers, Department of European International Relations and

Diplomacy Studies. Belgium.

Burwell, Frances G, & Daalder, Ivo H (Ed). (1999). The United States and Europe

in the Global Arena. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.

Burwell, Frances G., Gompert, David C., Leslie S. Lebl, Jan M. Lodal, Slocombe,

Walter B. Transatlantic Transformation: Building a NATO-EU Security

Architecture, Policy Paper, March 2006, The Atlantic Council of the United

States, p1-32.

Cannizzaro, Enzo. (2002). The European Union as an Actor in International

Relations. The Hague: Aspen Publisher.

Chomsky, Noam (2003), Hegemony or Survival: America Quest for Global

Dominance. New York: Metropolitan Book.

Coppieters, Bruno., Emerson, Michael., Huysseune, Michel. (1997).

Europeanization and Conflict Resolution, Case Study from the European

Periphery. Gent: Academia Press.

Crowe, Brian. (May, 2003), A Common European Foreign Policy after Iraq?

International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol.

79, No. 3, pp. 533-546. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3569361

Accessed: 12/06/2010 07:23

Duffield, John S. (2001), Transatlantic Relations after the Cold War: Theory,

Evidence, and the Future, International Studies Perspectives No. 2,

Blackwell Publishers p 93–115.

Fabbricini, Sergio (Ed). (2006). The United States Contested, American

Unilateralism and European Discontent. London: Routledge.

Higgott, Richard (April 2010) Multi-Polarity and Trans-Atlantic Relations:

Normative Aspirations and Practical Limits of EU, Univeristy of Warwick,

GARNET Working Paper No. 76/10, p1-33.

Ivo H. Daalder, Are the United States and Europe Heading for Divorce?

International Affairs, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Vol. 77, No. 3,

Changing Patterns of European Security and Defense (Jul., 2001), pp. 553-

567, available on http://www.jstor.org/stable/3095437 Accessed: 05/06/2010

07:30

Levy, Daniel., Pensk, Max., & Torpey, John. (2005). Old Europe, New Europe,

Core Europe: Transatlantic Relations after the Iraq War. New York: Verso.

Matthew Evangelista and Vittorio Emanuele Parsi (eds.), Partners or Rivals?

European-American Relations After Iraq? (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 2005).

Merkl, Peter H. (2005). The Rift between America and Old Europe, the Distracted

Eagle. London: Routledge.

Møller, Bjørn, (2008) European Security: the Role of the European Union.

Working Paper 29, Regional and Global Axes of Conflict, Danish Institute

for International Studies February, Crisis States Working Papers Series

No.2, p. 1-26.

Nicol, Sir William., & Salmon, Trevor C. (2001). Understanding the European

Union. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.

Peterson, John. (2006) In Defense of Inelegance: IR Theory and Transatlantic

Practice University of Edinburgh, UK International Relations Copyright

SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi), Vol

20(1): 5–25, Available at: http://ire.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/20/1/5

Petterson, John and A. Max (2003). Europe, America, Bush: Transatlantic

Relations in the Twenty years Century. London: Routledge.

Rhodes, Carolyn (Ed). 1998. The European Union in the World Community.

London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

The European Union and the United States Global Partners: Global

Responsibilities, EUROPEAN UNION publication Delegation of the

European Commission to the United States, p.1-42. Available on

http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/us/intro/index.htm