A Comparative Study of Us-European Union Policies Towards the Middle Eastern, Balkans and South Asian Crises (1990-2002)

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF US-EUROPEAN UNION POLICIES TOWARDS THE MIDDLE EASTERN, BALKANS AND SOUTH ASIAN CRISES (1990-2002) By SHAISTA SHAHEEN ZAFAR AREA STUDY CENTRE FOR EUROPE, UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI 2014 Ph.D Dissertation Topic: A Comparative Study of US-European Union Policies towards the Middle Eastern, Balkans and South Asian Crises (1990-2002) Submitted by: Shaista Shaheen Zafar Area Study Centre for Europe, University of Karachi DEDICATION This thesis is lovingly dedicated to my mother (late) and daughter Maryum (late). It is also dedicated to my daughter Sana and nephew Syed Osaid Table of Contents Acknowledgements………………………………………………... i Abstract……………………………………………………………. ii-v English Urdu List of Abbreviations……………………………………………… vi-vii Introduction……………………………………………………….. viii-xxvi Chapter-I The United States and the European Union in the ……………... 1-75 Post-Cold War International Order Chapter-II The Balkans Crisis: The Responses of the United States ……… 76-178 and the European Union Chapter-III The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict; the Peace Process and ……… 179-264 the Policies of the US and the EU Chapter-IV The Post-Cold War Crises in the Subcontinent: ……………. 265-350 The Responses of the EU and the US Conclusion ……………………………………………………….. 350-409 Maps……………………………………………………………… 410-420 Bibliography …………………………………………………….. 421-433 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all I thank Almighty Allah for his great kindness, in making it possible for me to accomplish my research. I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Naveed Ahmed Tahir, former Director of the Area Study Centre for Europe, University of Karachi for her invaluable guidance, encouragement and gracious cooperation throughout, which enabled me to complete my thesis. I am grateful to the librarians of the Area Study Centre for Europe, the Mahmood Husain Library, University of Karachi, the Liaquat National Library and the Pakistan Institute of International Affairs Library for their cooperation. I am indebted to my dear parents (May they rest in peace). Without their blessings and care I could never have accomplished any of my goals in life. I also thank to my friend Dr. Fatima Agha for her unselfish support in finalizing my thesis. I would like to acknowledge the contribution of all my family members, especially my sister Shagufta Shaheen Zafar and nephew Syed Osaid Adil who constantly urged me to continue work on my thesis. I am highly indebted to my beloved daughter Sana Munir Alam who has borne occasional neglect on my part while I was writing this thesis; her emotional support and love has been invaluable. ABSTRACT The international strategic situation in the cold war period which began after 1945 was characterized by a bipolar power structure along the lines of the East-West rivalry. European politics–whether in the West bloc or in the East bloc-drew upon this major struggle between the superpowers. The member states of the European Community (EC) had very little space to define their own strategies for they were part of the western alliance led by the United States. Thus, European policies reflected the superpower rivalry in the ideological and geo- strategic realms. The European Community acted within this strategic and ideological framework, which was mainly structured by the EC (now EU) countries’ membership of NATO. After the end of the cold war, the bipolar international power structure has been replaced by a unipolar structure upheld by the United States as the self-appointed guardian of a “new world order” and leader of the “West” which dominants world affairs. As the “victor” in the global power struggle of the cold war, the US is convinced that it has especial rights and privileges in world affairs, even vis a vis its allies in Europe. The present global situation which favours the US as the only remaining superpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union has marginalized Europe as just a regional power center with limited global reach as far as geo-politics is involved. In the economic realm, undoubtedly, it enjoys great clout. Multi-polarity with different power centers is yet to emerge. Though, China and the Russian Federation are increasingly assertive, Europe often displays its weakness. A multi-polar global structure may be a long time away if we take into consideration Europe’s string of failures since 1989 to jointly address major international crises as they broke out in the Gulf in 1990-1991, on the territory of former Yugoslavia in the early nineties or in the Middle East at various intervals. In all these crises, it was the United States that eventually took the initiative and imposed its own solutions while the European Union dithered and was not even able to agree on the basic principles for solving these issues nor could it stand up against the overwhelming strength of the US in the military, logistic and communication realms. Yet Europe has a positive impact on world affairs. Its ‘soft power’ approach is in sharp contrast with the ‘hard’ approach of the US. Though, double standards often become apparent, the EU’s emphasis on human rights, fundamental freedoms, the rule of law and other moral values do exert a positive influence on international actors. INTRODUCTION In the nineteenth century several European states such as Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium were involved in a fierce competition for colonies in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. They ruthlessly exploited the natural and human resources of the subjugated peoples and established their hold on the trade and commerce of the world. The Europeans imposed artificial boundaries on their colonies often based on give and take between the colonial powers. This resulted in societal divisions. For example the Somali people were spread across the colonial administrations of the British, French and Italians. Such situations occasionally led to colonial wars, but above all divided ethnic, linguistic and religious groups across boundaries which created severe problems for the future. (1) By the end of the nineteenth century the major European colonial powers had carved up Africa and Asia between them. Those European powers that joined the colonial race later, such as Germany and Italy challenged these divisions, while the Ottomans, whose empire was being slowly nibbled up by the French and the British or by others through their connivance, were also angry and unhappy. This situation divided Europe into two armed camps and soon the First World War broke out. The defeated powers--Germany, the Habsburg empire and the Ottoman empire faced not only severe humiliation, but also heavy reparations, loss of empire and the reduction in the size of military and cut down in production of armaments. The boundaries of Europe were redrawn to serve the interests of the victors. Ottoman Turkey lost all its possessions in Europe and the Middle East and was threatened with disintegration. The victorious European powers were determined to destroy its national sovereignty and integrity. The Habsburg empire too was broken up. Its borders now shrunk to what is present day Austria. The humiliation heaped on Germany, led to the rise of Nazism, an extremist ideology and a dangerous demagogue--- Hitler. Hitler started to negate the Versailles treaty imposed on Germany and reasserted the latter’s sovereign rights. Hitler’s ally, Mussolini in Italy was devoted to recreating the Roman Empire. Fascist Japan, had ambitions that matched those of Germany and Italy. Japan occupied Manchuria in 1931 and launched a full-fledged aggression against China in 1937. In the same year, the Fascist powers formed an alliance after Italy became part of the German-Japanese Anti-Commintern Pact signed earlier in November 1936. The fascist powers had decided that they would re-divide the world in their own favour. (2) This ambition to alter by force, the international order which had been set up by the victors of the First World War created a situation that led to outbreak of the Second World War, which caused even more devastation than the first war. When the war ended it badly weakened the colonial powers; and owing to the momentum gained by movements for self-determination all over the European colonies in Asia, combined with pressure from the US, the Europeans began to grant independence to their colonies. (3) The cold war followed at the heels of the Second World War. The Cold War was a post war conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union and their respective allies. This conflict spanned political, ideological and military issues. It has often been described as a struggle between the two systems of governance---capitalism cum democracy and communism. In the European context, this meant the US led the West and NATO on one side and the Soviet Union led Eastern and Central Europe and the Warsaw Pact on the other side. It lasted from 1945 until the collapse of communism in the East bloc in 1989. The manner in which the Soviet Union sanitized its satellite states from Western thoughts and its way of life is dubbed as the ‘Iron Curtain’. (4) The Truman Doctrine of 1947, on the containment of communism formed the basis of American foreign policy for the next five decades or so. The US in this context began to provide huge amounts of aid to help revive the European economies after the end of the second world war. This assistance to Europe (the western part of it) was disbursed under the Marshall Plan. A military alliance, NATO was also set-up as a bulwark against Soviet expansion. This total involvement of the US in European affairs was a departure from the traditional American isolationism which had initially kept it from joining the Allies in the first and second world wars. The US was now the undisputed leader of the so-called “free world”.

Load more