Editor's note
(volume 3, issue 1)
Of the many security issues currently facing the EU, none will have such wide-reaching implications to long-term EU security, and its ability to conduct its international affairs, as Obama’s accession to President of the US. Beyond the popular hype surrounding Obama’s rise to power, it is important to envision how the new US administration views the EU – and its members – in terms of contributions to international security.
On the surface, it seems that Obama is committed to maintaining the transatlantic alliance, and has risen to the occasion – 2009 marks the 60th anniversary of NATO’s founding, and 10th anniversary of NATO’s expansion to the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland – to dispel fears of a return to US ‘isolationism.’ However, the difference between rhetoric and reality are stark in this case, and Obama was elected to address the fears and ambitions of his electorate, the American public, not turn the US into a ‘benign’ power favoured by many Europeans. Since the US is facing an uphill battle to preserve its international position – hegemons seldom retreat without a fight – it stands to reason that Obama will reorganise the US’s international priorities to address the new security environment. Some of these priorities will however, stand in contrast to those advanced by the EU and hence are likely to cause a rift in transatlantic relations.
An important point to consider when discussing the US under Obama is the rhetorical insinuation of a ‘return’ of US power, credibility and political ingenuity that was sapped during Bush’s presidency. The impression Obama (and his administration) wants to convey is that the US is still a global hegemon, despite the eight year ‘hibernation’ it has recently awoken from. International relations however have not awaited the return of sensible politics in the US. Instead, a tidal change has occurred and the US risks further blows to its credibility if it continues to behave as though it could return to its power position prior to the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. For better or worse international relations is currently defined by multipolarity, and the US is but another actor – albeit an extremely powerful one – that comprises the international power mosaic.
It needs to reconsider its alignments and relearn the art of diplomacy if it is to be successful, ensure its relished security and continue to be a source of socio-economic and political inspiration around the world. Crucially however, the US needs to recognise that the ‘unipolar moment’ has ended and it must treat others, allies and adversaries, with greater respect.
This is especially true when concerning the US’s relationship to the EU and its members. While the EU’s second pillar (Common Foreign and Security Policy – CFSP) remains intergovernmental there has been tremendous progress in coordinating EU members’ foreign affairs so that it may yet emerge as a unified international relations actor. The US has embarked on a strategy to mire EU efforts at consolidating its foreign affairs so that NATO can persist. NATO is of course a security asset in Europe. However, it includes both the US and Canada, and therefore may be incompatible with some EU priorities and approaches in the long run, as the North American states maintain different notions of security. The idea of maintaining overlapping European security institutions; the EU and NATO, seems a tremendous waste of resources and political energies. Instead, the EU should bear increasing responsibility for its security and NATO should cede its influence and disintegrate like the other Cold War remnants. This does not preclude continued US-EU cooperation in a multitude of security related issues; however it would reduce the EU’s security dependence and allow it to pursue its own international ambitions without first seeking the support of Washington.
One of the more pressing security areas, and the main theme addressed in this issue of CEJISS, concerns asymmetrical challenges, including terrorism. While terrorism – particularly religious inspired terrorism – poses a challenge to both the US and EU, they each approach the phenomenon from different perspectives and hence, have developed very different tactics in combating it. It is noteworthy that NATO seems impotent for dealing with asymmetrical challenges. So, while combating terrorism, high-sea piracy and international crime are ranked high on the priority list across the transatlantic divide, NATO – the main Euro-Atlantic security provider – is largely disengaged.
This is an indication that NATO has run its course and the challenges faced by current NATO members are better solved through individual EU and US strategies. While this ‘Special Issue’ does not aim to develop or critique the aforementioned dissolution of NATO – this opinion remains my own – it does provide further insights into some asymmetrical challenges.
The first article by Yulia Zabyelina looks into an important, but often neglected, issue: Transnational Organized Crime (TOC). Zabyelina presents a compelling case for reviewing TOC through the lenses of International Relations as it seems that whether discussing people and goods smuggling or the raising of illegal funds, the relationship between TOC and international security is close.
As a crucial bridge between organized crime and terrorism, Oldrich Bures provides an extremely detailed and comprehensive account of an operational tool deployed by the EU: the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). This contribution explores some of the complications that have arisen on national levels in trying to implement the EAW, though clearly demonstrates the added value the EAW provides the EU in its struggle against terrorism, though many of the findings may be applicable to the fight against TOC as well.
This issue (of CEJISS) then turns to piracy in the Gulf of Aden and presents it as an international security challenge also linked to international terrorism and TOC. In this contribution, Bilyana Tsvetkova explores the history of Somali piracy, their ambitions and the impact this phenomenon is having on the strategic planning of states, particularly those whose vital oil supplies flow through the Gulf of Aden.
Despite popular linkages between Islam and terrorism in the 20th and 21st centuries, it is important to view terrorism, not as a particular strategy of a religious denomination, but rather attributed to a wide-spectrum of socio-political and economic pressures – including extremist ideologies – which conspire to drive ideologues and the desperate to commit heinous acts in the name of their deity or some other intangible entity. Ibrahim A. El-Hussari explores the so-called Gulen Movement to illustrate a specifically Islamic response to terrorism carried out in Islam’s name. By reviewing the Gulen Movement, El-Hussari also shows that Islam is not uni-dimensional, in politics or religion, and that greater understanding of the ‘Muslim world’ is required if the ‘global war on terrorism’ is to ever subside and dialogue replace conflict. The Gulen Movement is, in effect, a strategy for coping with renewed religious extremism.
The idea of developing a strategic response to asymmetrical challenges is also echoed in the fifth article by Bryan Groves who looks at US policy errors under the Bush administration. This contribution assesses the post-war situation in Iraq and addresses some of the reasons for the spiraling situation there, which led to a tremendous increase in terrorist attacks and countless civilian casualties. Groves argues that the Bush administration lacked, crucially, a strategic approach to Iraq and the US suffered immense setbacks as a result. Groves’ contribution paves the way for the subsequent research articles as his essentially looks at the renewal of geo-strategy within a changed international relations environment.
On this theme, Pierre-Emmanuel Dupont engages the pressing state of EU-Iranian dialogue in the context of nuclear affairs. The EU’s leadership role in attempting to dissuade Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is as important as Iran’s desire for independent nuclear power itself. A solution to this problem will surely have a long-term impact on international relations and may provide a much needed boost to anti-proliferation efforts. Alternatively, the failure to prevent Iran gaining nuclear power – and the ability to construct a nuclear weapon – will surely undermine current international and regional security.
Dupont’s contribution is in many ways underscored by the subsequent work on international order by Marketa Geislerova who explores some unfolding challenges and alterations to international security from a Canadian perspective. Geislerova offers a very insightful and theoretical analysis of the current state of international affairs, and provides an interesting take on the end of US hegemony and the rise of Europe.
Yet understanding Europe entails understanding the processes of European integration and enlargement, which are expertly detailed by one of the Czech Republic’s foremost experts on the topic; Jaroslav Jaks. When discussing Europe and international relations it is also essential to identify the role of Russia, the EU’s main regional competitor as well as partner.
This task is achieved in two separate articles: first, Jakub Kulhanek reviews Russian foreign policy under (former) President Putin in the context of the NATO-Russia Council, and then Marat Terterov looks at Russia’s relationship to the Persian Gulf States. Whereas Kulhanek’s focus is on direct Russian-NATO (Western) relations, Terterov focuses on a region where European and Russian interests are increasingly intertwined. Both of these contributions assist in capturing the current state of Russian foreign policy and hence provide relevant information for those interested in a variety of related security themes.
The final research article by Konstantinos J. Hazakis, presents the history and implications of G7/G8 economic summitry. In many ways, this finale may act as a glue for the preceding contributions as international relations are in the midst of a global economic crisis that knows no borders since the international economy is – for the first time in history – truly international.
It is a great pleasure to introduce CEJISS 3:1 to you and I look forward to your feedback and future cooperation.
Yours truly,
Mitchell A. Belfer
Editor in Chief
Central European Journal of
International and Security Studies
