"THE FUTURE OF EUROPE: USA vs. EU"
One of the main characteristics of the cold war era was delaying the remaining or possible problems between United States of America (USA) and Europe. It is certain that, during the cold war era the singleness and appearance of the ‘hostile’ brought many reacceptances together. Thus, the conflicts between USA and Europe were abandoned or it can be said that the relations between USA and EU were in a deep winter sleep. But first, the deconstruction of the Berlin wall and second the collapse of the Soviet Union triggered awareness not only for USA but also for Europe after a small surprise. From the point of USA’s view, end of cold war created many advantages and also disadvantages of being the only superpower of the world. During the cold war many states, especially the ones which were under the security threat of the Soviet Union, including Turkey, were based their foreign policy to the USA and even, they had to take approval from USA when they wanted to constitute new policy or undertake an action. It is obvious that this was a great advantage for USA. Being the unique ‘big brother’ of the Western block and overlapping its own foreign policy with the policy of the Western block was a significant advantage at all. But, the end of cold war made multidimensional foreign policy vital contrary to the single dimensional foreign policy of the cold war era. And also, post cold war era created confusing relations between the states. The states of Western block started to differentiate their foreign policy and started to disengage from USA and its policies like the disintegration of the Soviet Union and this was a disadvantage for USA indeed. Maybe the happenings that are observed today in Iraq are the striking output of this statement. Although it was not considered as a part of the Western block, during the cold war Iraq and Saddam Huseyin had had close relations with the USA in terms of fight against ‘communist threat’ but after the cold war they fell into conflict and now after two war in gulf, USA tore down Saddam Huseyin. On the other hand, it is a great question that what will happen in Iraq now and in the near future. The other advantage for USA is that the huge military power which it had created for the “whole” Western block is now able to be used for its own national interests. Beyond the military power the facilities that USA gained and constructed in many strategic regions of the world provides USA incomparable military capabilities. Today, maybe the result of this enormous power, it pursues a kind of foreign policy that ‘by-passes’ the United Nations and its decisions.
From the point of Europe’s view, the most important transition that we have to mention is that the transformation from the European Economic Community (EEC) to the European Union (EU). It is obvious that the main reason for the sign of the Maastricht Treaty, in other words treaty of European Union (TEU), was the end of cold war and related with that the need for establishing a foreign policy. Europe did not want to stay as an economic community or in other words “single market” anymore and took step front for a political union even for a federal unification. This situation brought new approaches, new policies and also new problems together. Due to new policy, EU would have to constitute a new type of relationship with USA. Thus, it is possible to say that the ‘Pandora box’ was opened. The main handicap for EU and maybe the hottest issue between EU and USA is that the new security policy approach of the union. In fact, EU had to constitute a new security policy. Firstly, the bloody collapse of the Yugoslavia and secondly the war in Kosovo made apparent the vital importance of military capability. The attempt of filling this gap wit the word of, “EU must undertake its own security by itself” caused the critics from the transatlantic. Furthermore, the aim for establishing an independent European army created serious reflects from the USA side. As I stated above USA does not want to lose its advantage about this issue. The officials from USA who does not want to make EU incontrollable says that EU does not need an independent army for its own security while there is NATO powers still exists in Europe region, many decision takers from the EU part think that this will create a paradox for establishing an independent foreign policy and they try to indicate new approaches. On the other hand, this kind of policy of EU has its own inadequacies and inconsistency. First of all, although military expenditures require a great deal of money the states in EU tend to decrease the allocations of security expenditures in their GNP. Secondly after the creation of a military, capacity of military operation will become very important. I mean, during the cold war the capabilities of USA army and also NATO forces pave the way to how to achieve successful military operations as a ‘know-how’. Such information and experience is very important for that kind of technical issues. And it is certain that USA will not be willing full for receiving that kind of strategic advantage to the counterparts in EU. In addition, the states which are the members of the both EU and NATO will face with a dilemma. It is clear that a possible withdrawal from the NATO for the sake of EU army will create a crisis between EU and USA. I want to emphasize a recent example from the Bosnia-Herzegovina issue:
“EU troops took over from NATO in Bosnia and Herzegovina last week. The so-called Althea mission will see 7,000 troops under EU command - the largest EU-led military operation so far. The EU decided to launch a military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina following the decision by NATO to conclude its SFOR mission there. The EU will deploy what it terms "a robust force" - known as EUFOR - starting at the same force levels as SFOR, with 7,000 troops, with a mission to ensure continued compliance with the Dayton/Paris Agreement and to contribute to a safe and secure environment.”[1]
And an other example from Iraq issue:
“…France has abandoned NATO from undertaking training mission in Iraq…”[2]
It can be said that that the competition has already started between EU and USA. We have to see that NATO tends to enlarge like EU in recent years. Maybe we can evaluate that enlargement policy as a contra attack against EU’s enlargement policy. Since May EU member states increased 25 and this process still goes on including Turkey and the remaining former Yugoslavia states but on the other hand, since March NATO has 7 new members which are Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Slovakia and three Baltic states. We have to underline that these 7 new members have become or are becoming members of EU. I think this an obvious out put of competition between EU and USA although they seemed to act in consensus about enlargement issue. In addition, Russia responds suspiciously about the enlargement of NATO to the Baltic states because of it’s ‘near abroad’ policy.
If we come back to USA side, after the 9/11 events the foreign policy of USA became very aggressive and this situation created some preoccupation among the EU member states. Most recently in Iraq war France and Germany standed against the USA intervention and USA blamed these two states as being ‘old Europe’. I think this situation shows the possible conflicts between EU and USA in the near future clearly. What about energy? It is ceratin that energy has significant importance for those who want to be a global power. The external dependence of EU is much higher than the USA. We know that EU is closer to Middle East and Caucasia than the USA so the external dependence of EU makes it uncomfortable about the intervention of USA to the region and lastly Iraq occupation disturbed EU very much. I think we have to mention the importance of Turkey in this issue. The short distance to the both energy regions is a vital importance and also the projects like Baku-Tiflis-Ceyhan petroleum pipe line, Baku-Tiflis-Erzurum natural gas pipe line and also other upcoming projects which are named TEN (Trans European Networks) highlight the strategic importance of Turkey. Although USA ‘supports’ the full membership of Turkey to the EU I think there some other detailed considerations lie under this policy. On the other hand, the main indicator of Turkey-EU relations is Cyprus and today the situation in the island is much more complicated than before. Although Turkish side approved the plan of Annan because of the decline from the southern side the plan could not be come in to force. But we have not seen any changes in the policy of EU about Cyprus yet. Even though after the last summit in 16-17 December there was not seen any significant change about the issue. The only thing that happened is only that the commitment of Turkey about the solution of the Cyprus conflict until 3 October 2005, the date of opening accession membership talks between Turkey and EU. It is certain that Turkey which has not had a certain membership date or vision from EU, will be a minus for the EU and a plus for the USA, especially in energy issue.
To sum up, the end of cold war is the main turning point of EU-USA relations, the possible conflict were under pressure of the communist threat during the cold war. Maybe we can say that the other important milestone is 9/11 events. The striking damage of international terrorism on USA affected the foreign policy of USA very much and I think this situation accelerated the lightening of the possible conflicts between EU and USA. USA wants EU to act parallel to its policies as happened in the period of cold war. On the contrary EU tries to take of this “strait jacket”. But, it is clear that EU is unable to embody this demand not only in military but also in economic sense. Although it was declared that there is a compromise and cooperation between EU and USA in Istanbul summit of NATO last summer it is certain that we will be looking forward to seeing the days of alliance between EU and USA in new emerging international system.
From the point of Europe’s view, the most important transition that we have to mention is that the transformation from the European Economic Community (EEC) to the European Union (EU). It is obvious that the main reason for the sign of the Maastricht Treaty, in other words treaty of European Union (TEU), was the end of cold war and related with that the need for establishing a foreign policy. Europe did not want to stay as an economic community or in other words “single market” anymore and took step front for a political union even for a federal unification. This situation brought new approaches, new policies and also new problems together. Due to new policy, EU would have to constitute a new type of relationship with USA. Thus, it is possible to say that the ‘Pandora box’ was opened. The main handicap for EU and maybe the hottest issue between EU and USA is that the new security policy approach of the union. In fact, EU had to constitute a new security policy. Firstly, the bloody collapse of the Yugoslavia and secondly the war in Kosovo made apparent the vital importance of military capability. The attempt of filling this gap wit the word of, “EU must undertake its own security by itself” caused the critics from the transatlantic. Furthermore, the aim for establishing an independent European army created serious reflects from the USA side. As I stated above USA does not want to lose its advantage about this issue. The officials from USA who does not want to make EU incontrollable says that EU does not need an independent army for its own security while there is NATO powers still exists in Europe region, many decision takers from the EU part think that this will create a paradox for establishing an independent foreign policy and they try to indicate new approaches. On the other hand, this kind of policy of EU has its own inadequacies and inconsistency. First of all, although military expenditures require a great deal of money the states in EU tend to decrease the allocations of security expenditures in their GNP. Secondly after the creation of a military, capacity of military operation will become very important. I mean, during the cold war the capabilities of USA army and also NATO forces pave the way to how to achieve successful military operations as a ‘know-how’. Such information and experience is very important for that kind of technical issues. And it is certain that USA will not be willing full for receiving that kind of strategic advantage to the counterparts in EU. In addition, the states which are the members of the both EU and NATO will face with a dilemma. It is clear that a possible withdrawal from the NATO for the sake of EU army will create a crisis between EU and USA. I want to emphasize a recent example from the Bosnia-Herzegovina issue:
“EU troops took over from NATO in Bosnia and Herzegovina last week. The so-called Althea mission will see 7,000 troops under EU command - the largest EU-led military operation so far. The EU decided to launch a military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina following the decision by NATO to conclude its SFOR mission there. The EU will deploy what it terms "a robust force" - known as EUFOR - starting at the same force levels as SFOR, with 7,000 troops, with a mission to ensure continued compliance with the Dayton/Paris Agreement and to contribute to a safe and secure environment.”[1]
And an other example from Iraq issue:
“…France has abandoned NATO from undertaking training mission in Iraq…”[2]
It can be said that that the competition has already started between EU and USA. We have to see that NATO tends to enlarge like EU in recent years. Maybe we can evaluate that enlargement policy as a contra attack against EU’s enlargement policy. Since May EU member states increased 25 and this process still goes on including Turkey and the remaining former Yugoslavia states but on the other hand, since March NATO has 7 new members which are Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Slovakia and three Baltic states. We have to underline that these 7 new members have become or are becoming members of EU. I think this an obvious out put of competition between EU and USA although they seemed to act in consensus about enlargement issue. In addition, Russia responds suspiciously about the enlargement of NATO to the Baltic states because of it’s ‘near abroad’ policy.
If we come back to USA side, after the 9/11 events the foreign policy of USA became very aggressive and this situation created some preoccupation among the EU member states. Most recently in Iraq war France and Germany standed against the USA intervention and USA blamed these two states as being ‘old Europe’. I think this situation shows the possible conflicts between EU and USA in the near future clearly. What about energy? It is ceratin that energy has significant importance for those who want to be a global power. The external dependence of EU is much higher than the USA. We know that EU is closer to Middle East and Caucasia than the USA so the external dependence of EU makes it uncomfortable about the intervention of USA to the region and lastly Iraq occupation disturbed EU very much. I think we have to mention the importance of Turkey in this issue. The short distance to the both energy regions is a vital importance and also the projects like Baku-Tiflis-Ceyhan petroleum pipe line, Baku-Tiflis-Erzurum natural gas pipe line and also other upcoming projects which are named TEN (Trans European Networks) highlight the strategic importance of Turkey. Although USA ‘supports’ the full membership of Turkey to the EU I think there some other detailed considerations lie under this policy. On the other hand, the main indicator of Turkey-EU relations is Cyprus and today the situation in the island is much more complicated than before. Although Turkish side approved the plan of Annan because of the decline from the southern side the plan could not be come in to force. But we have not seen any changes in the policy of EU about Cyprus yet. Even though after the last summit in 16-17 December there was not seen any significant change about the issue. The only thing that happened is only that the commitment of Turkey about the solution of the Cyprus conflict until 3 October 2005, the date of opening accession membership talks between Turkey and EU. It is certain that Turkey which has not had a certain membership date or vision from EU, will be a minus for the EU and a plus for the USA, especially in energy issue.
To sum up, the end of cold war is the main turning point of EU-USA relations, the possible conflict were under pressure of the communist threat during the cold war. Maybe we can say that the other important milestone is 9/11 events. The striking damage of international terrorism on USA affected the foreign policy of USA very much and I think this situation accelerated the lightening of the possible conflicts between EU and USA. USA wants EU to act parallel to its policies as happened in the period of cold war. On the contrary EU tries to take of this “strait jacket”. But, it is clear that EU is unable to embody this demand not only in military but also in economic sense. Although it was declared that there is a compromise and cooperation between EU and USA in Istanbul summit of NATO last summer it is certain that we will be looking forward to seeing the days of alliance between EU and USA in new emerging international system.
A.Gökhan RAKICI
January 2005
Sources
[1] www.europa.eu.int/Enlargement Weekly Newsletter 07 December.htm
[2] Stephen Castle, “historic year, historic decision”, The Independent, 27.12.2004. cit.in www.radikal.com.tr/yorum, 02.01.2005.
[1] www.europa.eu.int/Enlargement Weekly Newsletter 07 December.htm
[2] Stephen Castle, “historic year, historic decision”, The Independent, 27.12.2004. cit.in www.radikal.com.tr/yorum, 02.01.2005.
Yorumlar