DOCSLIB.ORG

On the Brink of the Transatlantic Rift? 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Notes 1 The United States and the European Union: On the Brink of the Transatlantic Rift? 1. Elaine Sciolino, “France Will Use Veto, Chirac Says,” The New York Times, 11 March 2003, http://www.nytimes.com. 2. Donald Rumsfeld, Briefing at the Foreign Press Center, 23 January 2003. Transcript at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2003/t01232003_t0122 sdfpc.html. 3. This pattern is also noted in Kagan, “Power and Weakness” and Paradise and Power, and van Ham and Kugler, Western Unity, to name only three recent examples. 4. Treaty on European Union, 7 February 1992, Article J.1.2. 5. Christopher Patten, “A European Foreign Policy: Ambition and Reality,” speech to the Institut Français des Relations Internationales, Paris, 15 June 2000. 6. Clinton, National Security Strategy 1999, iii. 7. Ibid., 5. The 2000 version of this document is less succinct in its restatement of the same vision and goals. 8. Richard Haass, “Multilateralism for a Global Era,” speech to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Conference, 14 November 2001. 9. Richard Haass, “Defining U.S. Foreign Policy in a Post-Post-Cold War World,” Arthur Ross Lecture to the Foreign Policy Association, 22 April 2002. 10. Bush, National Security Strategy 2002, 1. 11. Ibid., 14–30. 12. “Revolt at the U.N.,” The New York Times, 5 May 2001, A12; William Safire, “Slavery Triumphs,” The New York Times, 7 May 2001, A17. 13. Statement by William F. Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA, 4 May 2001. 14. Barbara Crossette, “For First Time, U.S. Is Excluded from U.N. Human Rights Panel,” The New York Times, 4 May 2001, A1. 15. Christopher Marquis, “Washington Arguing over Losing Rights Seat,” The New York Times, 4 May 2001, A13. 16. “Error of Commission,” The New Republic, 21 May 2001, 11. 17. For an excellent treatment of the development of Common Foreign and Security Policy, see Eliassen, ed., Foreign and Security Policy; Regelsberger, de Schoutheete, and Wessels, ed., Foreign Policy of the European Union; Duke, Elusive Quest; Smith, European Union Foreign Policy; Guay, Political Economy of a Relationship; Soetendorp, Foreign Policy in the European Union; Holland, European Union Common Foreign Policy; and Peterson and Sjursen, eds., Competing Visions. For a more general look at EU policy-making, see Peterson and Bomberg, Decision-Making in the European Union. For the first years of European integration, see Haas, Uniting of Europe. 18. Costa v. ENEL, cited in Wallace, “Sharing of Sovereignty,” 510. 170 Notes 19. Ibid., 505–6. 20. Ibid., 518. While the EU may not exercise sole control over all its inhabitants, this is also true of many “failed states,” particularly in Africa (Somalia, Sierra Leone, Congo) but also in Colombia and Iraq. Perhaps recognition as a state today requires only the inhabited territory and the “ability to enter into relations with other states,” as suggested by Dugard, Recognition and the United Nations,7. 21. Maggie Farley, “U.S. Regains Seat on Rights Panel,” Los Angeles Times, 30 April 2002, http://www.latimes.com. 22. “Secretary Rumsfeld Roundtable with Radio Media,” Department of Defense News Transcript, 15 January 2002. 23. “Secretary Rumsfeld Media Stakeout at NBC,” Department of Defense News Transcript, 20 January 2002. 24. “EU Presses U.S. on Prisoner Rights,” BBC News, 21 January 2002, http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world. 25. T.R. Reid, “British Find No Abuse of U.S. Captives At Cuba Base,” The Washington Post, 22 January 2002, A08. 26. “Britain Questions Treatment of Prisoners by U.S.,” The Washington Post, 21 January 2002, A07. 27. “Germany Criticizes U.S. Over Prisoners’ Treatment,” The Washington Post, 22 January 2002, http://www.washingtonpost.com. 28. “U.S. ‘Rewriting Rules on Prisoners,’ ” BBC News, 8 February 2002, http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world. 29. “Detainee Operations,” DoD Talking Points, 10 May 2002. 30. Todd Pitman, “British Won’t Give Captured Enemies to U.S.,” The Washington Times, 30 April 2002, http://www.washingtontimes.com. 31. Tom Malinowski (Advocacy Director, Human Rights Watch) and David Bowker (Attorney Adviser, Department of State), and American government officials, in discussion with the author, June 2002. 32. U.S. Mission to the United Nations Press Release # 87 (02) June 30, 2002. 33. Colum Lynch, “Dispute Threatens UN Role In Bosnia,” The Washington Post, 1 July 2002, A01. 34. Richard Beeston, David Charter, James Bone and Rory Watson, “Britain Seeks U.S. Truce to Save Peace Missions,” The Times (London), 2 July 2002, http://www.thetimes.co.uk. 35. Judy Dempsey, “EU to Speed Action on Bosnia Police,” The Financial Times, 4 July 2002, http://news.ft.com/world. 36. “U.S. Offers Court Veto Deal,” BBC News, 3 July 2002, http://news.bbc.co.uk/ hi/english/world. 37. Colum Lynch, “U.S. Wins 1-Year Shield From War Crimes Court,” The Washington Post, 13 July 2002, A16. 38. H.R. 4775, 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response To Terrorist Attacks on the United States, Title II—American Service-Members’ Protection Act 39. P5_TA-PROV(2002)0367. 40. Statement of the U.S. Embassy to the Netherlands, 12 June 2002, www.usemb.nl/061202.htm. Dutch colleagues of the author, spoken to during this period, did not find this statement fully reassuring. 41. Lee Dembart, “U.S. and Global Criminal Court: How Much Leeway for Washington?” International Herald Tribune, 25 September 2002, http://www.iht.com. Notes 171 42. Judy Dempsey, “Accords with U.S. ‘Will Violate’ ICC Treaty,” Financial Times, 27 August 2002, http://news.ft.com/world. 43. Robert Wielaard, “EU Panel Disputes Immunity at ICC,” The Washington Times, 29 August 2002, http://www.washingtontimes.com. 44. Elizabeth Becker, “European Union Urges Aspirants to Rebuff U.S. on World Court,” The New York Times, 14 August 2002, http://www.nytimes.com. 45. Elizabeth Becker, “U.S. Issues Warning to Europeans in Dispute Over New Court,” The New York Times, 26 August 2002, http://www.nytimes.com; Peter Slevin, “U.S. Presses Allies on War Crimes Court,” The Washington Post, 26 August 2002, http://www.washingtonpost.com. 46. Judy Dempsey, “UK to Back U.S. on War Crimes Court,” Financial Times, 31 August 2002, http://news.ft.com/world/; “EU to Consider Exempting U.S. from ICC,” The Washington Times, 1 September 2002, http://www. washingtontimes.com. 47. Judy Dempsey, “Europe Retreats over Criminal Court Accords,” Financial Times, 30 September 2002, http://news.ft.com/world. 48. Javier Solana, “A Partnership with Many Missions,” speech at the German Marshall Fund Peter Weitz Awards Dinner, Washington, 20 May 2002. 49. Haass, “Defining U.S. Foreign Policy.” 50. For more, see Smith, European Union Foreign Policy; Holland, European Union Common Foreign Policy; Soetendorp, Foreign Policy in the European Union; Bronstone, European Union-United States Security Relations; and Krenzler and Wiegand, “EU-U.S. Relations.” 51. Treaty on European Union, Article B. This language has been retained in Article 2 of the Treaty, as amended at Amsterdam and at Nice. 52. Right Honourable Henry McLeish (Member of Scottish Parliament), in discus- sion with the author, April 2002. 53. The only mention Bush made of Europe, as opposed to generic references to “our allies,” was near the end, when he said, “Together with friends and allies from Europe to Asia, and Africa to Latin America, we will demonstrate that the forces of terror cannot stop the momentum of freedom.” State of the Union Address, 29 January 2002. 54. This division of topics into different “issue areas” follows the model of Brecher, Steinberg, and Stein, “Framework for Research,” although the specific issue areas differ from what they specify on pages 91–2. Following Potter, “Issue Area,” 419, this division implies the possibility that foreign policy behavior could be different in these issue areas. This work was pioneered by Lowi, “American Business.” 55. The classic work is Olsen, Logic of Collective Action. See also Sandler, Collective Action, or Barkin and Shambaugh, Anarchy and the Environment. 56. For a full discussion of multilateralism, see chapter 2; in particular Ruggie, “Multilateralism,” and Multilateralism Matters. 57. Patrick J. Haney and Walt Vanderbush, “The Helms-Burton Act: Congress and Cuba Policy,” in Contemporary Cases, ed. Carter, 270–90; for a description of diplomatic efforts between the United States and EU to resolve the issue see Richard A. Nuccio, “Cuba: A U.S. Perspective,” in Transatlantic Tensions, ed. Haass, 7–28 and Joaquín Roy, “Europe: Cuba, the U.S. Embargo, and the Helms-Burton Law,” in Transatlantic Tensions, ed. Haass, 29–47. 58. Roy, “Europe,” 30–9. 59. Marco Gestri, “Control by States Parties over Private Extraterritorial Activities: Issues of Jurisdiction and International Responsibility,” in The New Chemical Weapons Convention, ed. Bothe, Ronzitti, and Rosas, 476–8. 172 Notes 60. For example, Bonser ed., Security, Trade, and Environmental Policy; Telò ed., European Union and New Regionalism; Calleya ed., Regionalism in the Post-Cold War World; Bergsten, “America and Europe”; and Krenzler and Wiegand, “EU- U.S. Relations.” 61. Soetendorp, Foreign Policy in the European Union, 88. 62. Guay, Political Economy of a Relationship, 78. 63. “Trade War Looms over Steel Dispute,” BBC World, 6 March 2002, http:// news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world. 64. Helmut Bünder and Claus Tigges, “Transatlantic Tete-a-Tete Hardens Over U.S. Tariffs for Steel Imports,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 2 May 2002, http://www.faz.com/IN/INtemplates/eFAZ. 65. Bronwen Maddox, “EU Throws Down Gauntlet to Bush as Steel Wars Hot Up,” The Times (London), 17 May 2002, http://www.thetimes.co.uk. 2 International Relations Approaches and Transatlantic Relations 1. This concept of evaluating existing and competing research programs follows the design of Imre Lakatos, “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programs,” in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, ed.
Recommended publications
  • The Midnight Ride of Kwame Nkrumah and Other Fables of Bandung (Ban-Doong)

    The Midnight Ride of Kwame Nkrumah and Other Fables of Bandung (Ban-Doong)

    Robert Vitalis The Midnight Ride of Kwame Nkrumah and Other Fables of Bandung (Ban-doong) The battle against colonialism has been a long one, and do you know that today is a famous anniversary in that battle? On the eighteenth day of April, one thousand seven hundred and seventy five, just one hundred and eighty years ago, Paul Revere rode at midnight through the New England countryside, warning of the approach of British troops and of the opening of the American War of Inde- pendence, the first successful anti-colonial war in history. About this midnight ride the poet Longfellow wrote: A cry of defiance, and not of fear, A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door, And a word that shall echo for evermore!1 Two conferences were held at Bandung in April . One was the real conference, about which not very much is known, about which people care even less, and which has faded away like a bad dream. The other was a quite different conference, a crystallization of what people wanted to believe had happened which, as a myth, took on reality in the Bandung Principles and, later, in the Bandung Spirit. The real conference aroused interest mainly because it contributed towards the solution of a crisis then much in the news but which history scarcely troubles to record.2 Myths or the identity stories a group tells about itself are found not just in grade- school primers or nationalist tracts but also in advanced scholarship, in professional journals, and in conference papers. Consider the case of the Asian-African Conference at Bandung, Indonesia.
  • Foreign Policy Association Board of Directors 4

    Foreign Policy Association Board of Directors 4

    FOREIGN POLICY ASSOCIATION 2011-2012 Annual Report Mission Founded in 1918, the mission of the Foreign Policy Association today, as it has been throughout its 94-year history, is to serve as a catalyst for developing awareness, understanding, and informed opinion on U.S. foreign policy and global issues. Through its balanced, nonpartisan publications and programs, FPA encourages citizens to participate in the foreign policy process. To learn more about the Foreign Policy Association, please visit www.fpa.org. TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreign Policy Association Board of Directors 4 Message from the Chairman and the President 5 FPA Presentation: Introducing Henry Kaufman: Speaking his Mind, Making the Country Better by Paul Volcker 7 FPA Presentation: Rapidly Rising Financial Concentration: Observations and Analyses by Henry Kaufman, President, Henry Kaufman and Company 9 Great Decisions 2011: Making Sense of the World for Hundreds of Thousands of Readers 14 National Opinion Ballot Report 16 Great Decisions Television Series 17 Great Decisions Updates 18 Headline Series: The Quest for African Unity 18 Great Decisions Teacher’s Guide 19 Outreach Through Technology 20 Foreign Policy Association University 21 Great Decisions Community Outreach 22 Great Decisions Teacher Training Institute 2011 24 Five Great Decisions Groups Earn Special Recognition 26 Academic WorldQuest New York Competition 27 Foreign Policy Association Meetings Program 28 FPA Presentation: Justice is Non-Negotiable: Strategies of Tyranny Will Not Work by Tsakhia Elbegdorj, President of Mongolia 32 FPA Presentation: Kyrgyzstan Chose Freedom: We are Learning about Democracy by Roza Otunbayeva, President of Kyrgyzstan 35 FPA Presentation: A Decade of Evolving Partnership by Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defense, Canada 49 FPA Presentation: Greece: Why the Financial Crisis Happened by Stavros Lambrinidis, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Greece 53 Off-the-Record (OTR) Lecture Series 59 Foreign Policy Association Financial Summary 60 Foreign Policy Association Contributors 61 In Memoriam 63 Mary L.
  • Philanthropy, Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Threat Reduction Paul Rubinson February 2021

    Philanthropy, Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Threat Reduction Paul Rubinson February 2021

    Philanthropy, Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Threat Reduction Paul Rubinson February 2021 In this essay, I analyze several case studies that illustrate the role of philanthropy in promoting nuclear nonproliferation and threat reduction and examine the evidentiary bases behind their claims of impact. The influence of social movements, activism, public opinion, and philanthropy on national security policy is notoriously difficult to measure: policymakers are reluctant to credit outsiders for fear of looking weak, while accounts of social movements are often written by participants or by people sympathetic to movements’ goals. Furthermore, when sources do credit philanthropy with achieving nonproliferation or threat reduction, their assertions are most often vague or difficult to verify. Nonetheless, these sources, flawed as they are, offer evidence that philanthropy has influenced threat reduction (including nuclear nonproliferation) and highlight the need for continued research on the subject. This essay proceeds chronologically, covering threat reduction from the early 20th century through the Second World War, then Cold War nonproliferation, and lastly post–Cold War nonproliferation and threat reduction. The final section covers in detail the activities of the Ploughshares Fund and the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) and looks closely at philanthropy’s influence on the Iran nuclear agreement of 2015. Activists, philanthropists, and ordinary citizens have dedicated a tremendous amount of time and money to nuclear arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation. Although observers tend to lump arms control and disarmament together, they are distinct: arms control aims to limit the use or number of nuclear weapons, whereas disarmament aims to eliminate nuclear weapons from arsenals and has therefore been exceedingly rare.
  • Program Evaluation

    Program Evaluation

    Foreign Policy Association www.fpa.org 2010 – 2011 Annual Report The mission of the Foreign Policy Association has remained constant since the founding of the organization in 1918. FPA serves as a catalyst for developing awareness, understanding, and informed opinion on U.S. foreign policy and global issues. Through learning programs designed for a broad cross-section of Americans, meetings and events organized to advance public discourse, and authoritative resources compiled to build international understanding, FPA encourages effective public participation in the U.S. foreign policy process. After 93 years of serving an inclusive demographic and geographic constituency, the Foreign Policy Association is widely acknowledged as a leader in advancing public learning and stimulating national discussion about today’s most pressing current international challenges. American lives become more deeply connected to the world around us each year: the food we eat and clothes we wear, the technology we utilize, the fuel we consume, the entertainment we enjoy, and other significant aspects of our lives link us to countries abroad. Understanding the cultures, economies, and policies of other countries is increasingly imperative. Yet recent surveys find that: 75 percent of young Americans cannot find either Iran or Israel on a map of the Middle East 80 percent do not know that India is world’s most populous democracy 75 percent do not know that a majority of Indonesians are Muslim The Foreign Policy Association is committed to expanding opportunities for Americans to learn about the world. Please visit www.fpa.org for an overview of the many ways that FPA engages people of diverse ages and interests in learning about global affairs and U.S.