How Does the US Influence EU Foreign Policy? a Comparison Between the Iraq War and the Syrian Crisis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
OSSERVATORIO SUGLI AFFARI STRATEGICI ED INTERNAZIONALI How does the US influence EU foreign policy? A comparison between the Iraq war and the Syrian crisis Federica Fazio Edizioni Machiavelli Novembre 2015 www.strategicstudies.it L’Osservatorio sugli affari strategici ed internazionali costituisce, all’interno dell’Istituto Machiavelli, il principale centro di analisi delle dinamiche e delle tendenze strategiche nel campo degli affari internazionali. L’Osservatorio elabora con continuità, autonomamente e su commissione, analisi, scenari e studi previsionali su temi politici, militari ed economico- finanziari di rilevanza strategica per l’interesse nazionale italiano e per il decisore pubblico e privato. I pareri espressi in questo documento sono personali dell’autore e non rappresentano necessariamente le opinioni dell’Istituto. Copyright © 2015 Istituto Italiano di Studi Strategici “Niccolò Machiavelli” – Roma È vietata la riproduzione non autorizzata, anche parziale, realizzata con qualsiasi mezzo, compresa la fotocopia, anche ad uso interno o didattico. II Istituto Italiano di Studi Strategici “Niccolò Machiavelli” AUTORE Federica Fazio Junior Fellow Researcher in International Relations who deals extensively with foreign and security policy problems and issues related to NATO, European defense and wider security and defense cooperation, including European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP)/Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP), Western European Union (WEU), transatlantic relations and systemic change since the end of the Cold War. She has a Master of Science (MSc) in Politics and Government in the European Union from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) and a Master’s degree with distinction in Law from the University of Naples Federico II. Istituto Italiano di Studi Strategici “Niccolò Machiavelli” III How does the US influence EU foreign policy? A comparison between the Iraq war and the Syrian crisis Objectives and Method1 Sources The aim of this study is to show how the US As for Iraq, a critical assessment of published influence on EU foreign policy has changed due literature and online newspaper articles from to a shift in US foreign policy itself. In order to 2003 to present has been performed. As for prove this change, a Qualitative Comparative Syria, considering that the events in question Analysis (QCA) has been conducted over two are relatively recent and not much is available case studies: the war launched against Iraq by on the topic yet, an innovative interpretation former President George W. Bush in 2003 and of such events has been offered. Published the crisis experienced in Syria under the Obama literature from 2011 to present was reviewed administration ten years later. The choice of but the limited amount available has forced these two case studies has been driven by the the writer to rely mainly on online newspaper fact that both public opinion and media - but not articles. This is the reason why there is a need yet the academic world - have made parallels to include more quotations in part II, to produce between them, beginning with the “casus belli”: more compelling arguments. In addition, expert the alleged possession and use of weapons of opinions have been requested. In particular, mass destruction (WMDs) by the Hussein regime professor emeritus Michael Cox from the London in the case of Iraq and of chemical weapons by School of Economics and Political Science the Assad regime in that of Syria. These two (LSE) was interviewed in July 2014 as an expert events have been compared from three different on transatlantic relations and American foreign perspectives: I. Causes, II. Venues of influence policy. and III. Results. 1. I must express deep gratitude to Dr. Claudio Neri for expressing interest in my work and giving me a chance to publish it, and to my former professors at LSE for past guidance and stimulation. A special thanks goes to professor Michael Cox for taking the time to address all of my questions despite his busy schedule and to professor Fawaz A. Gerges. Completing this work would have been all the more difficult were it not for the advice and assistance he gave me in reference to part II on the Syrian crisis. This manuscript is largely mine; hence I must assume full responsibility for all erroneous statements and other shortcomings. Updated to: October 30, 2015. IV Istituto Italiano di Studi Strategici “Niccolò Machiavelli” How does the US influence EU foreign policy? A comparison between the Iraq war and the Syrian crisis Part I: THE IRAQ WAR Introduction Western powers have long tolerated authoritarian longest and costliest war (when taken together regimes considered essential for the stability of with the war in Afghanistan) in all of American the Middle Eastern region. This attitude, however, history (Bilmes L.J. 2013 p.1 and 20, Coyote changed in the light of the terrorist attacks of C.E. 2013 p. 295-296). At first, the pretext to September 11, 2001, as undemocratic states invade Iraq was found in its refusal to cooperate like Afghanistan and Iraq began to be identified with the United Nations Special Commission on with Islamic terrorism and became, according to Iraq (UNSCOM) inspectors sent to the region the American view, legitimate targets of military to verify compliance with UN Security Council intervention (Fawcett L. 2013 p. 328). resolutions (UNSCRs) on WMDs. Yet, the truth In February 2002, two months after claiming is that Saddam Hussein never expelled the UN victory at Tora Bora, the Bush administration inspectors but that they were evacuated from Iraq began shifting intelligence resources and by the prior Clinton administration in anticipation special operations forces to Iraq, starting the of Operation Desert Fox aimed at hampering the Istituto Italiano di Studi Strategici “Niccolò Machiavelli” V How does the US influence EU foreign policy? A comparison between the Iraq war and the Syrian crisis region’s ability to produce WMDs (Fawn R. and Hinnebusch R. 2006 p. 22, Coyote C.E. 2013 p. Alleged possession of WMDs 186-187). Yet, it would be misleading to suggest The administration insisted Iraq possessed that regime change was already central to US WMDs and might use them against the US foreign policy during the Clinton’s presidency or transfer them either to terrorist groups or (Coyote C.E. 2013 p. 186, Baker P. 2013 p. neighboring countries like Iran, part of an “axis of 91). Despite the passage of legislation calling evil” together with Iraq and North Korea (Coyote for regime change in Iraq (the Iraq Liberation C.E. 2013 p. 159, Baker P. 2013 p. 179, 181 and Act) and the bombing campaign that followed, 186). The 2002 National Security Strategy (NSS) Clinton’s policy was still one of containment, as made clear that “to forestall or prevent…hostile the Act set no strategy to achieve that liberation. acts by our adversaries, the United States Full implementation comes only under George will, if necessary, act preemptively” if they are W. Bush with Operation Iraqi Freedom (Coyote perceived as a “threat to the United States or our C.E. 2013 p. 188, Baker P. 2013 p. 178). allies and friends” (National Security Strategy 2002 p.15-16). Therefore, even in the event that Iraq did not possess any WMDs, which was true, I. CAUSES just their potential development in the near future was enough to take action. Also, the former Vice Regime change President (VP) Dick Cheney and the former Iraq had been considered “unfinished business” Secretary of Defense (SoD) Donald Rumsfeld since 1990-1991 and regime change had been pressed the case that Saddam might transfer discussed for a long time. The 43rd President WMDs to Osama bin Laden (Coyote C.E. 2013 of the United States pictured his father - the p. 80. Baker P. 2013 p. 148-149, Napoleoni 41st President of the United States George H. L. p. 68-70). Notwithstanding the fact that the W. Bush - as weak for not daring to extend the National Security Council’s counterterrorism Gulf war beyond the UN mandate and go after advisor, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Hussein (Baker P. 2013 p. 190). Driven by the and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) example of Thatcher’s Falklands war in 1982, found no evidence of such a connection, Cheney he strongly believed that “one of the keys to and Rumsfeld championed and influenced the being seen as a great leader is to be seen as executive into taking a position that considered a commander-in-chief” and that the secret to a the very risk of such an alliance tantamount to a successful presidency laid in beginning a small “casus belli” (Coyote C.E. 2013 p. 267). war with a pretext of sort and quickly transforming it into a success (Coyote C.E. 2013 p. 200-201). Stabilization of the Middle Therefore, as attested by former Secretary of the East Treasury Paul O’Neill and former Secretary of State The democratic peace theory holds that Condoleezza Rice, part of the administration was democratic states are extremely unlikely to already focusing on ousting Saddam Hussein in engage in armed conflicts with one another. It is early 2001 (Coyote C.E. 2013 p. 162, Baker P. on this theory that President Bush predicated his 2013 p. 91, Fareed Z. 2015). After the tragedy foreign policy (FP), after no WMDs were found of 9/11, regime change in Iraq was also deemed in Baghdad (Coyote C.E. 2013 p. 90 and 152). necessary to reaffirm US political and military He conceived democracy as the cure against strength as it had proven incapable of protecting terrorism and believed that “the only path to its citizens within its own territory (Fareed Z. 2015, lasting peace is the expansion of freedom and Hallenberg J. and Karlsson H.