Abstract
Transatlantic relations have been the cornerstone of the Western alliance since the end the Second World War. Ever since, they have created a world order based on balance, respect for the rule of law and democracy. In the second decade of the twenty-first century, this axis appeared to be threatened by a number of challenges not only in terms of engagement but also in terms of alternative responses. European and American responses were formulated on a divergent axis based on the two strategic partners’ respective role, the means disposed and their vision of the emerging world order.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
As noted, ‘the U.S. has historically been the EU’s closest ally, with common interests and values as well as a shared view of the world guiding bilateral relations and joint actions’.
- 2.
As suggested, ‘a group will form around the United States, but in order to wage the cold war with greater force. The obvious reason is that the countries of Europe are afraid and are seeking help’.
- 3.
‘A transformed Atlantic Alliance constitutes an essential element in the new architecture of an undivided Europe; we are agreed that the Alliance must have the flexibility to continue to develop and evolve as the security situation dictates. An important basis for this transformation is the agreement of all Allies to enhance the role and responsibility of the European members. We welcome efforts further to strengthen the security dimension in the process of European integration and recognize the significance of the progress made by the countries of the European Community towards the goal of political union, including the development of a common foreign and security policy. These two positive processes are mutually reinforcing. The development of a European security identity and defense role, reflected in the strengthening of the European pillar within the Alliance, will reinforce the integrity and effectiveness of the Atlantic Alliance’.
- 4.
As plausibly noted, ‘spending and investment in defense across Europe has steadily declined since the end of the Cold War’.
- 5.
‘The North Atlantic Alliance has been the most successful defensive alliance in history. As our Alliance enters its fifth decade and looks ahead to a new century, it must continue to provide for the common defense. This Alliance has done much to bring about the new Europe. No one, however, can be certain of the future. We need to keep standing together, to extend the long peace we have enjoyed these past four decades. Yet our Alliance must be even more an agent of change. It can help build the structures of a more united continent, supporting security and stability with the strength of our shared faith in democracy, the rights of the individual, and the peaceful resolution of disputes. We reaffirm that security and stability do not lie solely in the military dimension, and we intend to enhance the political component of our Alliance as provided for by Article 2 of our Treaty’.
- 6.
‘Article 47 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) explicitly recognizes the legal personality of the European Union, making it an independent entity in its own right’.
- 7.
For a legal approach.
- 8.
For an overall evaluation of D. Trump’s policies and the way they affect relations with the EU.
- 9.
On the issue of European defense integration and particularly the motives behind ESDP/CSDP). The approach sees the quest through a Political realism prism as a case of bandwagoning, not simply a balance of power choice.
- 10.
As noted, ‘the EU remains principally a “civilian power” – using the leverage of access to or exclusion from its large domestic market, alongside a dominant position in economic standards-setting and regulatory design, to achieve economic advantage or to try to modify the behavior of other governments’.
- 11.
On the ‘Old-New Europe’ divide how the UN divided the two strategic partners over Iraq.
- 12.
For instance, ‘normative’ and ‘normative behavior’ may be interpreted in different ways.
- 13.
For a neo-realist critical approach of the concept of normative power.
- 14.
In the case of Spain (just an indicative case), although the country ‘argues that NATO is its current security guarantor, it still sees the EU as having the potential to become a security organization’. The analyses by country illustrate the different views of European partners vis-à-vis the role of the EU, its evolvement and the way this might affect EU–US relations.
- 15.
Further analysis on these problems.
- 16.
On the legal components of transatlantic relations.
- 17.
On the EU process.
- 18.
It was also noted that (Global Governance for the twenty-first Century) ‘the EU is committed to a global order based on international law, which ensures human rights, sustainable development and lasting access to the global commons. This commitment translates into an aspiration to transform rather than to simply preserve the existing system’. The aim of ‘transforming’ the international system implies a new global order based on rules. See EU and UN partnership vital for rules-based international system, Statement by Stephen Hickey, UK Political Coordinator at the UN, at the Security Council briefing on UN/EU cooperation, 12 March 2019, https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eu-and-un-partnership-vital-for-rules-based-international-system
- 19.
‘As the system moves away from bipolarity toward multipolarity, the frequency and intensity of war should be expected to diminish’. On the opposite view see Copper, J. F. (1975) ‘The Advantages of a Multipolar International System: an Analysis of Theory and Practice’, International Studies, Vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 397–415.
- 20.
For an evaluation of the euro crisis.
- 21.
My underlining.
- 22.
As noted, ‘there are other, equally concerned parties with whom the EU can work as it seeks to mitigate the strategic upheaval. From Canada to South Korea, Australia to Japan, the EU has partners that may be sceptical about the ability of Europe to step up its strategic game, but not about its desirability. Such countries are similarly keen to demonstrate the enduring appeal of effective multilateralism and a rules-based system against the forces of disruption’.
- 23.
As noted, ‘Obama’s new international policy is what the European Union but also many other countries of the world have called for’.
- 24.
For the changes and reorientation of US policy, see Parmar, I., Miller, L. B. & Mark Ledwidge, M. (eds) (2014) Obama and the World, New Directions in US Foreign Policy, 2nd edn, Oxon-New York, Routledge.
- 25.
WTO dispute has paralyzed the organization and its operational capability. The EU expressed its views in July 2018. As pointed out, it [EU] ‘stresses the role of the WTO in settling trade-related disputes; calls on all WTO members to ensure the proper functioning of the WTO dispute settlement system; regrets in this regard the United States’ blocking of new nominations to fill the vacancies the Appellate Body, which threatens the very functioning of the WTO dispute settlement system; calls on the Commission and all WTO members to explore ways to overcome this impasse on renewing judges at the WTO Appellate Body, and, if necessary by reforming the dispute settlement system; considers that such reforms could aim at ensuring the highest possible level of efficiency and independence of the system, while remaining consistent with the values and the general approach that the EU has constantly defended since the creation of the WTO, notably the promotion of free and fair trade on a global basis under the rule of law and the need for all WTO members to comply with all WTO obligations’.
- 26.
The description ‘confusing multipolar world’ may provide the blare picture of global order.
References
@EU_Commission. (2019, December 27). A week full of events and high-level meetings at the 74th session of the @UN General Assembly is coming to an end. Multilateral solutions are much more effective. Only by joining forces we can tackle the complex crises of our times. #UNGA.https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/1177526787909308418 [Twitter]. Accessed December 16, 2019, from https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/1177526787909308418
Adler-Nissen, R., & Kropp, K. (Eds.). (2016). A sociology of knowledge of European integration: The social sciences in the making of Europe. New York: Routledge.
Alcaro, R., Peterson, J., & Greco, E. (Eds.). (2016). The west and the global power shift: Transatlantic relations and global power shift. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Aldrich, R. J. (2004). Transatlantic intelligence and security cooperation. International Affairs, 80(4), 731–753 [online]. Accessed October 5, 2019, from https://academic.oup.com/ia/article-abstract/80/4/731/2434882
Barfod, M. (2019). Can the European Union save multilateralism? American Diplomacy [online] Accessed October 5, 2019, from http://americandiplomacy.web.unc.edu/2019/05/can-the-european-union-save-multilateralism/
Besch, S. (2018, May 23). NATO and the transatlantic defense relationship. CER [Podcast]. Accessed September 11, 2019, from https://www.cer.eu/media/cer-podcast-nato-and-transatlantic-defence-relationship
Biscop, S. (2016). Geopolitics with European characteristics: An essay on pragmatic idealism, equality, and strategy [online]. Brussels, Egmont – The Royal Institute for International Relations-Paper, no. 82. Accessed October 7, from http://www.egmontinstitute.be/content/uploads/2016/03/egmont.papers.82_online-versie.pdf?type=pdf
Biscop, S. (2019). The EU global strategy 2020 [online]. Brussels, EGMONT – Royal Institute for International Relations-Policy Brief No. 108. Accessed November 19, 2019, from http://www.egmontinstitute.be/content/uploads/2019/03/SPB108.pdf?type=pdf
Bond, I. (2018). Predictable unpredictability: The future of Euro-Atlantic security? CER-Riga Dialogue [online]. Accessed November 19, 2019, from https://www.cer.eu/in-the-press/predictable-unpredictability-future-euro-atlantic-security
Burrows, M., & Roger, G. (2016, January 20). Is America ready for a multipolar world? Washington must be clear-eyed about what comes next. The National Interest [online]. Accessed September 11, 2019, from https://nationalinterest.org/feature/america-ready-multipolar-world-14964
Cladi, L., & Locatelli, A. (2013). Worth a shot: On the explanatory power of bandwagoning in transatlantic relations. Contemporary Security Policy, 34(2), 374–381[online]. Accessed October 5, 2019, from https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080%2F13523260.2013.808072
Coffey, L. (2013). EU defense integration: Undermining NATO. Warsaw: Wise Europ.
Dettmer, J. (2019, April 2). NATO celebrates 70th anniversary, but demands rise for European burden-sharing. VOA [online]. Accessed September 11, 2019, from https://www.voanews.com/europe/nato-celebrates-70th-anniversary-demands-rise-european-burden-sharing
Deutsch, K. W., & Singer, J. D. (1964). Multipolar power systems and international stability. World Politics, 16(3), 390–406.
DW. (2018). France rejects German wish for EU seat at UN Security Council [online]. Accessed October 5, 2019, from https://www.dw.com/en/france-rejects-german-wish-for-eu-seat-at-un-security-council/a-46513931
EEAS. (2019a). EU–UN: a partnership that delivers [online]. Accessed October 7, from https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/eu_un_partnership_2019_0.pdf
EEAS. (2019b). Reinforcing the EU-UN Strategic Partnership on Crisis Management [online]. Accessed October 6, 2019, from https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/factsheet_eu_un_missions_july_2019_0.pdf
EEAS. (2019c). Mogherini calls for cooperation and effective global solutions on international day of multilateralism [online]. Accessed October 7, from https://eeas.europa.eu/topics/eu-global-strategy/61353/mogherini-calls-cooperation-and-effective-global-solutions-international-day-multilateralism-en-201-0.pdf
EEAS. (2019d). EU-NATO cooperation – Factsheets [online]. Accessed October 6, 2019, from https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/28286/eu-nato-cooperation-factsheets_en
EEAS. (2019e). #DidYouKnowThatEU will strive for a strong UN as the bedrock of multilateral rules-based order and develop globally coordinated responses with international and regional organisations, states and non-state actors – Factsheets [online]. Accessed October 6, 2019, from https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/64200/didyouknowthateu-will-strive-strong-un-bedrock-multilateral-rules-based-order-and-develop
EEAS Press Team. (2016). Shared vision, common action: A stronger Europe, a global strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy [online]. Brussels: EEAS European Union Global Strategy. Accessed November 19, 2019, from http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/top_stories/pdf/eugs_review_web.pdf
Emerson, M., Balfour, R., Corthaut, T., Wouters, J., Maciej Kaczyński, P., & Renard, T. (2011) Upgrading the EU’s role as global actor: Institutions, law and the restructuring of European diplomacy [online]. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS). Accessed November 20, 2019, from file:///C:/Users/houri/Downloads/Upgrading%20the%20EU%20as%20Global%20Actor%20e-version.pdf
European Parliament. (2018). The historical development of European integration [online]. Brussels: European Union-Factsheets PE 618.969. Accessed October 6, 2019, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/PERI/2018/618969/IPOL_PERI(2018)618969_EN.pdf
European Parliament. (2019a). Transatlantic relations: The USA and Canada [online]. Brussels: European Union-Factsheets. Accessed October 6, 2019, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ftu/pdf/en/FTU_5.6.1.pdf
European Parliament. (2019b). REPORT on the state of EU–US relations. (2017/2271(INI)) [online]. Brussels: Committee on Foreign Affairs- A8–0251/2018. Accessed October 6, 2019, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0251_EN.html
Fahey, E. (2013). On the use of law in transatlantic relations: Legal dialogues between the EU and US. European Law Journal, 20(3), 368–384.
Farrell, M. (2005). A triumph of realism over idealism? Cooperation between the European Union and Africa. Journal of European Integration, 27(3), 263–283.
Franke, U., & Varma, T. (2019) Independence play: Europe’s pursuit of strategic autonomy [online]. Berlin: European Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed October 7, from https://www.ecfr.eu/page/-/ECFR_Independence_play_Europe_pursuit_strategic_autonomy.pdf
Goldgeier, J. (2018, November 14). When President Trump heads to Europe, discussion turns to burden-sharing. The Washington Post [online]. Accessed September 11, 2019, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/07/09/president-trump-goes-to-europe-this-week-its-leaders-are-bracing-for-the-impact/
Gowan, R. (2019). How not to Save the World: EU divisions at the UN [online]. Accessed October 5, 2019, from https://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_how_not_to_save_the_world_eu_divisions_at_the_un
Grote, I. (2007). Donald Rumsfeld’s old and New Europe and the United States’ strategy to destabilize the European Union. Rivista Di Studi Politici Internazionali, 74(3), 347–356.
Hyde-Price, A. (2006). Normative’ power Europe: a realist critique. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(2), 217–234.
Ilgen, T. L. (Ed.). (2006). Hard power, soft power and the future of transatlantic relations. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Kirkegaard, J. F., & Posen, A. S. (Eds.) (2018). Lessons for EU integration from US history. European Commission [online]. Accessed October 5, 2019, from https://www.piie.com/system/files/documents/kirkegaard-posen_ec-report2018-01.pdf
Lazarou, E., & Harte, R. (2018). State of EU-US relations [online]. Brussels: European Union-EPRS. Accessed November 20, 2019, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2018/625167/EPRS_ATA(2018)625167_EN.pdf
Leal-Arcas, R. (2006). EU legal personality in Foreign policy? Boston University International Law Journal, 24(2), 165–212 [online]. Accessed October 5, 2019, from http://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/international/volume24n2/documents/165-212.pdf
Manners, I. (2015). Sociology of knowledge and production of normative power in the European Union’s external actions. Journal of European Integration, 37(2), 299–318.
Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. New York: W.W. Norton.
Merkl, P. H. (2005). The Rift between America and old Europe: The distracted eagle. London: Routledge.
Message by EU High Representative Federica Mogherini on EU–UN 40 Years Together in Vienna. (2019). YouTube video, added by EU Delegation Vienna [Online]. Accessed October 5, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFESeCvOYz4&feature=emb_logo
Monnet, J. (1950). Memorandum sent to Robert Schuman and Georges Bidault. In R. Vaughan (Ed.), Post-war integration in Europe. London: Arnold.
Murphy, R. (1956). The foundations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (p. 34). Washington, DC: Department of State-Bulletin.
NATO. (1949). The North Atlantic Treaty [online]. Accessed November 20, 2019, from https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/stock_publications/20120822_nato_treaty_en_light_2009.pdf
NATO Information Service. (1971). NATO facts and figures. Brussels: The Office of Information and Press.
Niblett, R. (2011). Strategic Europe: Still a Civilian Power [online]. Brussels: Carnegie Europe. Accessed October 5, 2019, from https://carnegieeurope.eu/2011/10/05/strategic-europe-still-civilian-power-pub-45665
Nye, J. S., Jr. (1990). Soft power. Foreign Policy, 80, 153–171.
Peral, L. (Ed.) (2009) Global security in a multipolar world [online] (Chaillot Paper n. 118). Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies. Accessed November 19, 2019, from https://www.iss.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUISSFiles/cp118.pdf
Popovski, V. (2007). Legal and policy discords between the European Union and the United States: Is the transantlantism ailing? In G. Voskopoulos (Ed.), Transatlantic relations and European integration: realities and dilemmas (pp. 256–286). Hyderabad: ICFAI University Press.
Raine, S. (2019). Europe’s strategic future: From crisis to coherence? London: IISS.
Rees, W. (2006). Transatlantic counter-terrorism cooperation: The new imperative. London: Routledge.
Regling, K. (2018, February 22).10 years after the global financial crisis – Speech by Klaus Regling, European Stability Mechanism [online]. Accessed October 5, 2019, from https://www.esm.europa.eu/speeches-and-presentations/%E2%80%9C10-years-after-global-financial-crisis%E2%80%9D-speech-klaus-regling
Riddervold, M., & Newsome, A. (2018). Transatlantic relations in times of uncertainty: crises and EU-US relations. Journal of European Integration, 40(5), 505–521.
Sari, A., & Wessel, R. A. (2013). International responsibility for EU military operations: Finding the EU’s place in the global accountability regime. In B. Van Vooren, S. Blockmans, & J. Wouters (Eds.), The legal dimension of global governance: What role for the EU? (pp. 126–141). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shapiro, J. (2018, May 2). Is a multipolar world emerging?, Geopolitical Futures GPF [online]. Accessed October 5, 2019, from https://geopoliticalfutures.com/multipolar-world-emerging/
SIPRI. (2005). Euro-Atlantic security and institutions: Summary [online]. Accessed November 20, 2019, from https://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2005/01
Tack, S. (2019, August 8). Europe and the U.S. find themselves in a transatlantic stretch over policy. Stratfor [online]. Accessed November 19, 2019, from https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/europe-us-trump-west-transatlantic-stretch-over-policy
The Economist. (2018). The Western alliance is in trouble: That should worry Europe, America and the world [online]. Accessed September 11, 2019, from https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/07/05/the-western-alliance-is-in-trouble
Tocci, N. (Ed.) (2008). Who is a normative foreign policy actor? The European Union and its Global Partners [online]. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS). Accessed October 7, from file:///C:/Users/houri/Downloads/1661.pdf
Transatlantic Relations, and Europe’s Security [online], Washington (The Heritage Foundation-Backgrounder no. 2806). Accessed October 5, 2019., from http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/pdf/bg2806.pdf
Valasek, T. (2011). Stopping the transatlantic Rift [online], London: CER. Accessed October 7, from https://www.cer.eu/in-the-press/stopping-transatlantic-rift
Voskopoulos, G. (Ed.). (2007). Transatlantic relations and European integration: Realities and dilemmas. Hyderabad: ICFAI University Press.
Voskopoulos, G. (2011). Transatlantic relations, alliance theory and the limits of soft power: A realist perspective. The IUP Journal of International Relations, 5(3), 1–18.
Voskopoulos, G. (2015). The Arab spring phenomenon and European security: Change and continuity under the spectrum of securitized idealism. The IUP Journal of International Relations, 9(3), 23–34.
Waltz, K. (1979). Realist thought and neo-realist theory. Journal of International Affairs, 44(1), 21–37.
Wickett, X. (2015). Exploring the transatlantic Rift [online]. London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs Chatham House. Accessed October 5, 2019, from https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/exploring-transatlantic-rift#
Wickett, X., & Webb, J. (2014). Elite perceptions of the United States in Europe and Asia [online]. London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs Chatham House. Accessed October 5, 2019, from https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/elite-perceptions-united-states-europe-and-asia
Wörner, M. (1991a). NATO transformed: The significance of the Rome summit. NATO Review, 39(6), 3–8 [online]. Accessed October 5, 2019, from https://www.nato.int/docu/review/1991/9106-1.htm
Wörner, M. (1991b). Final communiqué [online]. Copenhagen: North Atlantic Council. Accessed October 5, 2019, from https://www.nato.int/docu/comm/49-95/c910607a.htm
Zielonka, J. (2000). Transatlantic relations: Beyond the common foreign and security policy. The International Spectator, 35(4), 27–40.
ΝΑΤΟ. (1990). Declaration on a transformed North Atlantic Alliance “The London Declaration” [online]. Accessed October 5, 2019, from https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_23693.htm
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Voskopoulos, G. (2021). Transatlantic Relations at a Time of Uncertainty: The Formation of Transatlantic Axis. In: Voskopoulos, G. (eds) European Union Security and Defence. Contributions to Political Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48893-2_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48893-2_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-48892-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-48893-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)