The Global War on terrorism and the effects in the Euro-american relations: Causes, consequences, solutions

Amroze A.

Commandez une rédaction : Dissertation en Relations internationales sur mesure

Devis en ligne gratuit

Dissertation Format .doc

The Global War on terrorism and the effects in the Euro-american relations: Causes, consequences, solutions

Télécharger

Lire un extrait

Lecture
Résumé
Sommaire
Extraits

Résumé du document

Terrorism has become the most important threat regarding international stability in the 21st century. Though the Euro Atlantic community considers that it is of the utmost importance to eradicate it, it is not able to set up a common strategy. Since the war in Iraq, the Bush administration has developed the doctrine of the Global War on terrorism, in which military forces are used to defeat terrorists and terrorism. On the contrary, European countries have decided to prefer a strategy based on political and diplomatic means in order to defeat terrorism. This divergence in strategy to fight terrorism puts into question the unity in the Western world. The American military campaign in Iraq has shown its limits. Far from its initial goal, it has given a fresh impetus to terrorism. The terrorist attacks in Madrid and London have revealed the determination of those terrorist groups to punish the countries that supported the military action in Iraq.

Sommaire

The causes of transatlantic divergence since the end of the Cold War.
1. The changes of the geopolitical environment since the end of the Cold War
2. The Evolution of Europe
Terrorism at the era of globalisation
1. The new threat of global terrorism
2. Terrorism and globalisation
The American responses in the aftermath of 9.11
1. The American willing to answer to terrorism with military solutions
2. Theoretical debates on the global war doctrine
The consequences for the Euro-American relations
1. A lack of consensus to establish a common strategy
2. Divergent strategic concepts
The limits of the global war strategy
1. The American intervention has increased terrorism
2. The countries engaged in Iraq have to face threat
Multilateralism and ?Soft Power?: are they solutions to defeat terrorism and to improve Euro-American relations?
1. The lessons for the coming years
2. The real nature of power
3. 'How soft power can help defeat terrorism'? (Nye)

Accédez gratuitement au plan de ce document en vous connectant.

Extraits

[...] Power depends on contexts and situations, for instance power is not only resource. In the past centuries uranium was not a resource of power because the nuclear technology did not exist, however it is a source of power nowadays. The 21st century his characterized with three different contexts of power. The first context is the military one, where the United States has hegemony as no other countries can have a so important power. The economic context is the second context, however it is not possible to talk about hegemony as the United States has to sign commitments other countries. [...]

[...] If it is maintained, this approach could have grave consequences on NATO's functioning. According to Cohen-Tangui (in Trépant, 2004: 27) the increasing Euro-American military imbalance is one of the reason why the Unites States may consider Europe useless. Furthermore, the military interventions in Kosovo and Afghanistan proved the United States that Europe did not have much to offer on the military field. In Brief, the accumulation of the European pacification (no more the Soviet threat and no other existing threats) and the incapability for Europe to be a powerful actor, has led to the marginalization of Europe in the American point of view. [...]

[...] According to him, terrorism does not mean a rejection of American values but a real rejection of their methods. He warns that “even the best American intentions could be harmful to its allies [ ] for instance in Spain or in Great Britain”. In Europe, Lawrence Freedman thinks that the global war on terrorism is a “shift from wars of necessity to wars of choice” (2004: 256). The United States are fighting against a threat which jeopardizes their secondary interests, whereas the primary interests are not threatened. [...]

[...] This global war doctrine has been elaborated from the campaign in Afghanistan called Enduring Freedom in 2001. Then this policy has been followed during the second campaign in Iraq with the Iraqi Freedom operation in 2003. The Stanley Foundation has critiqued this American antiterrorist conception which has been published in September 2002 under the name of National Security Strategy. The main criticism is the fact that the United States have an “astonishing preference for military solutions” as response to terrorism (“Beyond Pre-emption and Preventive Policy Analysis Brief., February 2006, p Theoretical debates on the global war doctrine The Neo-conservative doctrine. [...]

[...] Conclusion In the era of global terrorism, the both sides of the Atlantic still share the same values and the same strategic targets. In spite of the persistent problems, both approaches which have been drawn since 2002 global war on terrorism and the European security strategy are rather compatible than competitive. The goal is not to chose one in order to reject the other one. Indeed, in some situations the European “soft strategy” is perhaps more efficient. However we cannot deny that “hard strategy” is inescapable in other cases. [...]

doc