Nebolshaia Stat'ia Napisannaia mnoiy Smbat P.September 11 and US/Western Europe Relationship The September eleventh terrorist attack has changed a lot in the World politics. Especially the relationship between US and Western Europe has become very important. There was no doubt that Afghanistan would be bombed at any cost, mainly because the American public wanted a revenge. Western Europe on the other hand had to decide on how and how far should it support the American 'strike back'. The European answer was one that the world would expect. It strongly supported US strike back and a number of European political leaders made speeches condemning the attacks and encouraging for US to strike back promising full support. It was not only W. Europe that backed US millitary campaign but a number of other countries united for anti-terrorism campaign. Even Russia offered limited support and arguably it symbolised the entrance of the world politics into a new stage which they call post-post-Cold War era. In this new system the US/Western Europe relationship has become something special. In this essay I will try to examine how much has changed in Western Europe/US ties and who takes the leadership in this new era. Traditionally the relationship between US and Europe could be described as American leadership and European folowership throughout the post Second World War era. The war on terrorism especially deepened the cooperation of Western Europe and the US. Once again Western Europe backed the US for taking actions, this time-war on terrorism. Despite the fact that a number of differences arose between US and European countries (especially many trade disputes), September the 11 united Europe with the US. It is very clear that no European country supports terrorism but they never before had a common approach towards counter-terrorism. This time however the American government has decided how counter-terrorism should be implemented, not for itself but for Europe too. According to George W. Bush's speech every country should decide whether it is with US or against US in the war against terrorism. The European support was needed in the first place in this case. Terrorist cells operate in most of the major European countries. American pressure made European governments arrest a number of people suspected in cooperating with terrorists. This was a good 'demonstration' by European governments that US can count on full support."A 29-year-old man arrested in west London in connection with the terrorist strikes on the World Trade Center was released Saturday, Scotland Yard said. Two other men and one woman arrested Friday by anti-terrorist branch officers remained in custody. The officers arrested two men and one woman in west London in 3 a.m. raids at two separate residences. Both residences also were searched. A third man was arrested in the West Midlands region near Birmingham around 7 p.m., police said. The four were apparently questioned in a central London police station. British police carried trash bags of evidence from the Birmingham address, and, for examination purposes, police also towed an expensive German car parked at the residence. In France, eight people are being detained suspected of belonging to extremist groups thought to be planning attacks on U.S. interests in France, the interior ministry announced. Counter-intelligence officers arrested the suspects on orders of magistrates probing threats made against U.S. interests, possibly including the U.S. Embassy in Paris. The probe had been opened the day before the attacks in the United States A prosecutor's office in Brussels said two men believed to have been planning an attack on American interests in Europe have been charged with possession of weapons of war. They were members of a radical group, said Fabienne Laduron, a spokeswoman for the prosecutors." (1) However these arrests were not the most relevant part of Europe's support. The millitary campaign lead by US needed support by Europe. Unsurprisingly On September 12, 2001, the North Atlantic Council, the political arm of NATO, voted unanimously to invoke Article Five for the first time ever. All NATO members are now obligated to put the full force of their military and intelligence might at the ready to assist the U.S. in war if necessary. However so far US needed rather approval of Europe than millitary support. Strikes on Afganistan US could handle rather with no European help, but other anti-American countries would know that US is not on its own in this war against terrorism therefore would not risk to support Taleban. Powell told reporters "Some of our allies were a little frustrated that they didn't get into the battle right away, but I think they understand the reasons for that and it will all sort itself out". He also said that "United States appreciates the offers of assistance and expects that Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, head of the Central Command, will take them up once foreign forces fit into his plans. Administration officials have said Franks is concerned for now that an international security presence would encumber U.S. military operations." (2) European support also meant that the freezing of assets of suspected organisations and people would be more affective. Around 62 organisations had their assets frozen not only in American but also in European banks. In addition to that Europe prove to be very affective in putting pressure on 'unco-operative' countries'. "An EU official told the French news agency AFP that the 15 EU states had agreed to impose penalties on third countries considered "particularly unco-operative" in fighting money-laundering. total of 19 countries have already been identified as "unco-operative", according to AFP. Thirteen countries seeking EU membership will also have to adhere to the money-laundering regulations, including Hungary, which is currently on the blacklist of suspect countries. Russia has also been named as problematic." (3) Both, a number of Western European countries and the European Union have followed America's leadership in the new war. The EU has passed a number of laws to combat terrorism 'the American way'. The EU gave truly big support to US. Despite a number of conflict of interests between US and EU, such as many trade disputes and others, the small differences were put aside in favour of US. It is a well known fact that EU has always avoided Turkey, a major ally of US, getting close to becoming a member-state. For that reason a number of preconditions were set by EU for Turkey's accession such as the solution of the Cyprus problem and the acceptance of the Armenian genocide by Turks in 1915. At the America's command EU dropped the genocide acceptance precondition and arranged talks in search of political solution to the divided island of Cyprus' solution, thus making Turkey a step closer to becoming a member. The war on terrorism brought a new meaning to the EU. The problems within EU that were difficult to solve in the past became possible. For example the EU Justice and Home Affairs ministers had unanimously agreed a package of anti-terrorism measures which had been unsuccessfully attempted in the past two years. It is also expected to see an improvement in the Europol-the creation of an EU-wide warrant of arrest and the decision to arrive at a common definition of terrorism which would bring similar treatment and penalties in the 15 member states. Before September 11, these very sensitive issues were unacceptable to many because of federalist aspects, however now many (even British Conservative Party) do not object it. On the national level, however, the response to the September 11 were different from nation to nation. The British support was the maximum US could expect from any country. Britain was one of the few countries that sent troops to Afghanistan. Even Tony Blair's rhetoric proves that Britain is willing to support US to the full extent. While a number of politicians in Europe crticised the so called second phase of the war to include strikes on a number of independent nations Tony Blair was more carefull and has never denied further expansion of the war. It is very clear that Britain is the most enthusiastic about expanding American power in the Gulf, Central Asia and other parts of the world. Other European leaders have different views. For Example Jose Maria Aznar, the Spanish prime minister, warned against taking surprise action against Iraq in the next phase of the war against terrorism. "We have to convince ourselves whether an extension of that conflict is desirable and feasible, and you have to determine what your objectives and goals are," he said at a breakfast with Washington Post editors and reporters. "One has to look at the connections. . . . I would aspire to end the Afghan problem first," he said, reflecting the view of European powers opposed to opening up a new front. (4) From the German perspective, a greater alliance between Europe and the US must form the ‘anchor of stability’ and Russia would belong to such a new system of security. ‘Joint security in Europe cannot be guaranteed without Russia,’ Mr. Schrцder told the Labor conference. The whole concept of security of states has changed after the tragic events in the US on 11 September and now also includes measures against terror. A single nation, the United States, enjoys unrivaled military and economic power, and can impose itself virtually anywhere it wants. .Even without nuclear weapons, the United States could destroy the military forces of any other nation on earth. The Bush administration made a big contribution for creating a world with one leader. If we take a look at the newspapers today the only thing we see is President Bush decided to do... or President Bush made a decision on... We should say thanks to Bush for making the decisions for the rest of the world too. Not so long ago almost half of the population of US did not approve Bush's policies, however now the figure jumped to more than 80% in favour of his actions. Half of the countries around the world, including many European, also disliked Bush's policies before September 11, especially environmental issues such as witdrawal from Kyotto agreement, describing it as American selfishness. It is true that the Twin Towers and over 3000 lives were a big loss to US but it seems that Bush administartion has used the tragic events to the full scale to maximise its influence around Europe and the rest of the world. The invasion of Afghanistan meant that the Caspian Sea oil would also be in the hands of American companies. Afghanistan is also important transit route both for Europe and the East. The war on terrorism made benefits to Europe also but it was very unlikely for European countries to strike a country without American leadership. We have now moved to an era when anything that is done at home should not conflict any American interests otherwise it would be seen as a crime and support for terrorism. The September 11 is also being widely used for anti-libertarian purposes such as spying on people around the world, email control etc. not only in US but in Europe too. The most countries in Europe agreed to share intelligence with US agencies, one can imagine how much information the American agencies have gained about many individuals who are although suspected in connection with terrorist groups, but have nothing to do with them. Despite the European involvement in the war against terror, one thing should be clear-that the attacks that were described as war on civilization were rather attacks on US and only US, and US still remains the most important decision maker on how the future of this war should be. The Western Europe has little say at this moment mainly because Britain strongly supports US actions. If the EU had a common foreign policy it would have a greater say in the world. However today it seems impossible to have a united Western European foreign policy. If the War on Terrorism is to last longer US needs Eureope's support. The success for the US is maintaining and deepening a strategic coalition. At the coalition's center must be a stronger US-EU partnership. US-European cooperation is relevant to every facet of counter-terrorism. Together, the United States and EU possess most of the economic, technological, military and diplomatic resources for globalizing security. "To get it right, Europeans and Americans will both have to overcome some deep doubts: in the American case, whether Europeans are willing and able; in the European case whether Americans will hear and heed their voices, including an increasingly unified and distinct voice. The last eight weeks are moderately promising." (5)1 CNN News, September 24 20012 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...2-2001Dec4.html3 BBC News, Tuesday, 16 October, 2001, 14:42 GMT 15:42 UK 4 http://www.washingtonpost.com5 http://www.eusec.org/gompert.htm
