You are on page 1of 21

The European Union-the United States Transatlantic Relations post the Invasion of Iraq in 2003: A Comparative Analysis of Political

Actors Roles in the Global Arena*

By Nofia Fitri

Europe needs the US and the US needs Europe. When we speak with a common voice, no challenge is too great. When we speak with a common voice, we are truly an indispensable partnership. (Jos Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission) We want strong allies. We are not looking to be patrons of Europe we are looking to be partners of Europe. (Barack Obama, President of United States of America)

Table of Content I. Introduction II. Review of Literatures III. Understanding the Transatlantic Relations IV. The Disagreement of the Invasion of Iraq in 2003 V. The Way of Respond of EU and US as Global Actors VI. Balance of Power: Political Roles in the Global Arena VII. The Future of the Transatlantic Relations VIII. Conclusion IX. Bibliography

* I would like to say thank you for Korede Akinyemi my discussant, for her positive critiques and for my wise instructor, Dr. Wojciech Forysinski who has introduced me with this interesting issue and helped me much for write a qualify paper.



Nous Sommes Tous Americains or We are all Americans now was written as a headline of liberal France daily Le Monde. Jean Marie Colombany, the editor in chief who published it two days after the terrorist attacked the World Trade Centre (WTC) and Pentagon in 2001 reminded the readers with the former American president John F. Kennedys Speech in Berlin at 1962 when he declared himself to be a Berliner. The headline wrote by Colombany could reflected a meaning that might say we are all the New Yorkers. As a respond on it, Kroes noted there was a historical resonance among those statements. Yes it was, those statement are an interesting nuance among the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (USA/US) relations.1 The relations between the EU and the US was begun based on the US interest in response of the communism power post World War, which spread up from Uni Soviet to other countries. Besides of this political aspect, the economic factor was also important considered that the EUs economic had been raised post World War I. The US commitment to a Western Market system was thus paralleled by the desire to promote the strengthening of liberal democracies in Europe. At that time, there was also a problem of Europe, that is the inflation and crisis post World War II which Germany lose and had much debt, in economic even in moral responsibility. Thus through the Marshall Plan, Europe got much helps from America, and this relation continue to the established of Transatlantic agreement. I would give a brief explanation of the building of transatlantic agreement at the next part, but previously let me provide several arguments about the complexity of this relation. Through his testimony for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs of Subcommittee of Europe, Hamilton spoke that EU-US relationship is among the most complex and multi-layered economic, diplomatic, societal and security relationship that either partner has, especially if it is seen to encompass the

Merkl, Peter H. (2005). The Rift between America and Old Europe, the Distracted Eagle. London: Routledge, p. 25.

relationships the US maintains with the EUs 27 member states as well as its Brussels-based institutions.2 He emphasized that the networks of interdependence across the Atlantic have become so dense, in fact, that they transcend foreign relations and reach deeply into EU societies. Fabrini noted for unilateralist America, global terrorism constitutes a challenge to liberty and democracy, and particularly to the ways in which these are represented in America,3 thus as Kagan stated for that reason America must recover its freedom to act that is to say its decisional autonomy, if it does want to surrender to anti western-fundamentalist.4 While that point a view different from European multilateralist which on contrary argues that global terrorism has to be considered as the outcome of a global context crippled by injustice and resentment, so terrorism cannot be defeated military but only through a concerted and complex array of international policies carried out by a plurality of nations within the frame of the United Nation.5 Need to be note that several issues have been strengthened that relation which one of them is the military forces. The growing of military gap between Europe and US had already become a major issue prior the 9/11 attacked to WTC and Pentagon. As Dockrill argued Washington initially regarded post Cold War conflict in Bosnia and Kosovo as being within Europes sphere of responsibility, but as it turned out, US military power and leadership became essential to defusing of these crises.6 But the most crucial was the disagreement of the US invasion to Iraq in 2003 which had broken up their relation into the established statement of Old Europe.

Daniel S. Hamilton, The Lisbon Treaty: Implications for Future Relations between the European Union and the United States (Testimony to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe), December 15, 2009. 3 Burwell, Frances G, & Daalder, Ivo H (Ed). (1999). The United States an Europe in the Global Arena. London: Macmillan Press Ltd, p.22 4 Kagan R (2003) of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order, New York: Alfred A. Knof. 5 Burwell, Frances G, & Daalder, Ivo H, op.cit. 6 Saki Ruth Dockrill (2006) the Transatlantic Alliance in the Iraq Crisis, within the United States and Europe, p. 122

The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 has been marked as a crisis level of the EU-the US relations. Post the invasion of Iraq, most of the current debates deal with the question, whether the case of the Invasion of Iraq which caused the tension between the EU and the US gives mark as the end of the transatlantic relations. One of the effects was the emergent of anti-American in Europe and the desire to give a limit for the USs hegemony behavior. According to The Transatlantic Trends 2004, this report had considered that on the European sides got result from their research that 71 per cent of Europeans believed that UE should become a super power like the US.7 Based of those stuffs that I mentioned above, Im interesting on the future of EUUS relations after the Iraq crisis. Thus the research questions of this paper could be described as: 1. What would be the relations of the EU and US under the transatlantic relations as its umbrella post the invasion of Iraq in 2003, does the disagreement over Iraq bring many effects for the future of that relation? 2. Base on the world system today, considering many international issues, what would be the relations model of them as political actors in global arena?

I argued that the EU-the US relation which is base on the transatlantic agreement would maintain as partnership with the shape of balance of power. Even the invasion of Iraq had threatened both relations, at the future it will seem as a synergy partnership and would show that there is a strong interdependency between them as important actors in the global arena. This paper will describe the comparative ways that have been taken by the EU and the US as their roles within the global arena. By describing the naturally actions of both actors and considering their relations through the transatlantic relations post US Invasion to Iraq in 2003 perhaps I could measure how significant EU and the US have been giving a shape for the international system. The methodology

Transatlantic Trends 2004, A Project of the German Marshall Fund of the United States and the Compagnia di San Paulo of Turin, Italy.

that I use is comparative analysis by using historical approach through mention cases study. I would not focus as deeply to the cases study, but to the role that have been taken by them towards those issues.

II. Review of Literatures

According to Dougherty, theory is a systematic reflection of phenomena. It was designed to explain that phenomenon and to show they are related to each other.8 As he noted social science theories can usually be categorized as historical descriptive seek factual generalizations about post and present reality. Within this paper I used three important theories that would help me to build my analysis: realist paradigm, balance of power theory which deals with bipolar and multipolar system and alliances. Kenneth Waltz argued that states are unitary actors that seek at minimum to preserve themselves and at a maximum to dominate others if possible. 9 He explained that those states strive to achieve their objectives through internal efforts and external efforts, strengthening their own alliance and weakening that of the adversary. All those perspectives he has been explain through theory of structural realism. Within his lattes article, Waltz suggested that Europe will not become a great power in the absence of radical change. He explains integration could only alter the distribution of power among different units, but it could not alter the basic characteristics of the international system as the fusion of several states into one does not alter the anarchic relationship between the unit and all the other one which have not participated in the Union. Then he mentioned example that is United States of Europe would become a world superpower. Through the realist approach, the grand strategy of the US could be open a relevant question with regard to Europe as what Rivera noted: what must be the role of US in European affairs. The argument of John Mearsheimer might answer

Dougherty, James E. and Platzgraff, Robert L. Jr., (2001). Contending Theories of International Relations: A Comprehensive Survey (5th Ed). New York: Longman. 9 Ibid.

the question that the US should maximize relative power to gain security in order to avoid the instability resulting from multipolar system.10 Robert Gilpin stated that international cooperation is impossible only when a state is capable of imposing order in the international system by virtue of it s super power. He explained that there are few or no clashes of interest if there is a clear hierarchy of power because the stronger state can impose its will and weaker ones have to conform to its wishes. The balance of power is the oldest, most persistent and must controversial of all theories of international politics according to Dougherty. As Hume noted this theory was associated with the system of Europe. The naturally theories of international social reality employ balance as a central organizing for the power relations of nation states as Dougherty mentions. He then explained that the traditional methods and techniques of maintaining or restoring the balance were (1) the policy of divide and rule; (2) territorial compensations after a war; (3) creation of buffer states; (4) formation of alliances; (5) sphere of influence; (6) intervention; (7) diplomatic bargaining; (8) legal and peaceful settlement of disputes; (9) reduction of armaments; (10) armament competition or races and (11) war itself.11 As we can focus on the international system, the theory of Joanne Gowa (1989) would be useful as he explained in bipolar system agreements between states are stable and durable because alignments are structurally determined, allowing for higher degree of cooperation and trust. Use the regime theory of Krasner, he argues that international institutions or regimes affect the behaviors of states (or either international actors). This theory assumes that cooperation is possible in the anarchic system of states so regimes by definition are the instances of international cooperation.


John J. Marsheimer (Summer 1990), Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War, International Security, 15, No.1. 11 Ibid, p 15.

According to Smith, to understanding the EU as an international actor we have to divide into two terms: exclusive identities which EU as singular actor and exclusive identities which the EU as fortress. However she mentioned that based on valued based actor she suggested three important boards. First is the EU as a model which the EU is an ideal model of international organization, second is the EU as promoter of its internal values. This second board means that the EU has been built by common values, as Manners have mentioned: peace, democracy, liberty, the rule of law, human right, good government, sustainable development and so on. Third is the EU as a counterweight to the US. This board has answered this analysis which I have found that the balance of power among the EU and the US.12

III. Understanding the Transatlantic Relations

There is no relationship that more significant as the EU enhances its global role than the Transatlantic Alliance as Sbragia argued.13 Since the end of Cold War, he noted the frameworks of transatlantic relations had been changing overtime. This relation based on two pillars: NATO and the bilateral relations between the European Union and the countries of North America (the US, Canada, and, with regard to NAFTA, Mexico), with the EU-US partnership occupying a pivotal role. Frellesen and Ginsberg have pointed out the opportunities for transatlantic cooperation in term of meetings and other consultants are extensive14 The transatlantic relations are typically thought of the terms of security, trade, diplomacy while Burwell stated that the transatlantic alliance is to remain truly relevant to the challenge and opportunities of a new century Historically the US has had its most important bilateral political relationship with European national governments (most Western Europe) rather that the community (the EU). The EU has gradually become a more important institution actor in the
12 13

K.E. Smith (2002) European Union Foreign Policy in a Changing World, p. 56-57. Alberta Sbragia, The Transatlantic Relationship: A Case of Deepening and Broadening within the European in the World Community, p. 147 14 Frances Burwell, G, & Ivo H Daalder, (Ed). (1999). The United States and Europe in the Global Arena. London: Macmillan Press Ltd, p. 7.

international arena generally and this is increase of influence has been reflected and reinforced by the way in which the EU-US relations have involved. Since the end of the Cold War, Europe and the US have strengthened to find a new basis for partnership. As Burwell mentioned that in one direction the alliance would remain focus on the security and prosperity, especially for Western Europe and in the other direction, however the US and Europe would expand the scope of their Cold War partnership and work together to address a new set of threats.15 A much greater role of the EU within the European-US relations have given through the Clinton administration, that was the New Transatlantic Agenda on 1995 which Waren Christopher, the secretary of state addressed called for a major transatlantic effort to define a framework for broad US-EU cooperation extending beyond trade. The efforts of the transatlantic relations partner to bolster political and economic stability and the CEE countries.
Table 1 The Historical Building of Transatlantic Relations
The US Imagination on the creation of West European Association of state for global battle against communism.

Trade-political partner between European Community and the US government. (more geo-political factor)

1968-1979 Early 1970s-1980s 1973

The established of the Bretton Wood Monetary, Trade and Political Issues Yom Kippur War NATO - Helsinki Conference and the 1980 Belgrade - Iranian revolution - Afghanistan Invasion -Soviet union 1979


1980-1988 1989-1995

Community Relationship The New Transatlantic Agenda

The thing that has become an important part of the transatlantic relations is the existence of North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO, as an important

Ibid, p. 277.

alliance in security and defense. Within the NATO, Europe usually refers to the West European Allies but when the topic turns to the international economic policy, the relevant Europe is usually the EU. But however on many issues Europe refers to a still-involving international action in which the EU provides a forum for discussion and coordination and the implementing institution which the members remain the primary decision makers. This organization is often viewed as the center piece of transatlantic relations. However as Howard states as the security becoming a key actor in Europe, was not an immediate post war goal of the US, only within the context of global communism was this role defined as in the US national interest. He saw that post the end of the Cold War yet given that traditionally NATO has been viewed as central to the transatlantic relationship. It is strikingly at least one important economic relationship would have been left relatively unchanged if US troops had been repatriated.16 Nowadays NATO becomes the instrument of choice for stabilizing central and Eastern Europe. During the establishment period of the transatlantic relations, NATO has been the institutional expression of the transatlantic link. There is no equivalent U.S. link, however, with the EU, even though the EU is increasingly the institution that European governments use to coordinate their policies and actions, and will be Americas essential partner in many areas that are beyond NATOs purview and capacities. Thus by the existence of NATO, the urgency of relations that the United States forge a more effective strategic partnership with the EU, in ways that support and complement the transatlantic link expressed through NATO.


The Disagreement of the Invasion of Iraq in 2003


John Petterson, and A. Max (2003). Europe, America, Bush: Transatlantic Relations in the Twenty years Century. London: Routledge.

Henry Kissinger noted that the differences over Iraq have produced the greater crisis in the Atlantic alliance. This crisis was started from the White House, when the US was announcing the Invasion of Iraq in 2003, in Paris French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder stood together with Russian President Vladimir Putin in an unsettling new coalition of the unwilling. That was not only expression to rejected the invasion but also attitude to gives US a warning of its hegemony ambitions. Many scholars acted very fast to response this important momentum, one of the most important statement stated by Robert Kagan. He stated Americans and Europeans no longer occupied the same planet when it came to the use of military force; that Americans were from Mars and Europeans from Venus within his new book Paradise and Power.17 To portray the European Union members in the position of Invasion of Iraq can be seem, the Anglo-US position on Iraq was viewed sympathetically by the pro-Atlanticist governments of Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal and Ireland while the anti war-Euro opposition group were France, Germany, and Belgium. During the Iraq War as Fabricini suggested, the contrast between the EU and the principle continent countries of the EU and the US was anything but accidental which in fact it was not the expression of national rivalries such as one between France and the US.18 However both France and Germany began to oppose the American policy regarding a regime change in Iraq and the New American doctrines pointing towards unilateralism and superpower hegemony because they did not believe that Saddam Hussein had relations with the terrorism attacked to US. For Moravscick, the Iraq Crisis offered two basic lessons:


Robert Kagan (2003), Paradise and Power: American and Europe in the New World Order, New York: Alfred A. Knop, p.21. 18 Fabbricini, Sergio (Ed). (2006). The United States Contested, American Unilateralism and European Discontent. London: Routledge.



For Europeans, is that American Hawks were right, unilateral intervention to coerce regime change can be a cost-effective way to deal with the Rouge state. In military matters, there is only one superpower, the US and it can go alone if it has to. For American, is that moderate skeptics on both sides of the Atlantic were also right winning a peace is much harder than winning a war, intervention is cheap in the short run but expensive in the long run.19

V. The Way of Respond of EU and US as Global Actors

We could agree that the most of the emerging issues which is need a concern from the Transatlantic Relations are: the spread of WMD, democracy values and in practice in central Europe and the former Soviet Union countries, regional conflicts and instabilities and transitional economic system to liberalism. Those issues however have shaped different actions of both, the EU and the US. To analyze the different actions that have been taken by the EU and the US, I like to use Burwells assumptions. As she mentioned they are three main differences of the EU and the US ways over identifying a problem and how to respond: 1. The US is more likely to assume a global perspective while the Europe countries primarily regard themselves as regional powers. 2. The US tends to act unilaterally, while the Europeans look for ways to act in concert first with each other and then with international organizations. 3. The US tends to emphasize military solutions while the Europeans are often slower tracts and when they do more likely to stress policy options.20 Robert Kagan on his own capture of the EU-US relations stated that Americans generally see the world divided between good and evilfavor policies of coercion rather than persuasion while Europeans insist they approach problems with greater nuance and sophistications. They generally favor peaceful responses to problems preferring negotiating, diplomacy, and persuasion than coercions.21 For Smith while the EU places more emphasis on ideas and processes of conflict
19 20

Andrew Moravscick, Foreign Affairs, Vol 82, No.4 (July-August 2003) p.1 Frances Burwell, G, loc.cit., p. 23 21 Robert Kagan, Power and Weakness, Policy Review, 113 (June-July 2002).

prevention in global politics, the US more coercion or even preemption as preached and practiced. From those several arguments I could reached that the main focus is how to see both actors with the different angles. This is the ways that dividing both actors. While the US involves itself in issues and countries the European governments are often reluctant to act unless the issues concern a region in close. Through the table below I list my analysis finding as well. Table 2 The Ways of Response to Global Issues
The United States of America The US Global Perspective on Hegemonic Desire Unilaterally Hard Powers Military Options Political Development (Democracy) The European Union The European Regional Focus (Enlargement) Coordination Soft Power Negotiation Economy Development (Prosperity)

This argument based on the Kupchan conclusion which he noted that the European strategy of promoting an international system based on norms, rules,

agreements and formalized procedures represent an important counter-weight to the military tendencies present in the international system.22 After focused on the different taking action I would to provide in here 10 several cases that can show as clearly how the EU and the US differently. These cases are have been filtered by many sources.23 Table 3 Comparative Political Actors Roles in 10 Important Cases
Global Issues Main Actors The European Union The Middle East Some members rejected some members supported Economic sanction The United States

Iraq Invasion 2003

Military Invasion Political Pressure and international Lobbying Intervention

Iran Nuclear Program

Israel-Palestinian Conflict


Afghanistan War


Military Invasion

Asia Economic and Military Myanmar (Military Junta) Economic Sanction Monitoring Mission and Negotiations Europe Sanction, International Pressure Aceh (Indonesia) Political Pressure


Negotiation and sanction

Political Pressure


Kupchan C.A. (2002) The End of the American Era: US Foreign Policy and the Geo-politics of the Twentieth first Century, New York: Alfred A. Knof. 23 Major sources, check Francis Burwell, Walter B. Slocimbe. Transatlantic Transformation: Building a NATO-EU Security Architecture. Policy Paper, March 2006. Washington: the Atlantic Council of the United States.

Cyprus Conflict

Active Negotiations



Negotiation and sanction

Political Pressure

Africa Democracy and Economic Development

Economic Aid



Balance of Power: Political Roles in the Global Arena

From the description of the way of respond, considering that both actors are bounding by one regional alliance, I would like to argue that among their relation through the transatlantic relations has been emerging the conception of balance of power of realist views. Use the Rivera research, he saw that the transatlantic relationship relies on liberal-realist worldviews which realist emphasizes the enduring prosperity for conflict between the states, liberalist identifies several ways to mitigate these conflictive tendencies. The figure below shows my argument which has been built base on my finding after several descriptive explanations and aims to answer the research question.



Political Actor and its Roles

Political actor and its role


Security and defense, economic, world development, democracy, human rights, peace and Stability, and so on.


Within the Living of a New Europe, Brzezinski argued that the US does not fear of the emergent of the EU because of several different reasons, as he mentioned: 1) integration has not reflected unification as the ultimate goal of the European process, 2) Europe will grow horizontally rather than vertically, 3) the Creation of the ESDP does not represent a threat to NATO and, 4) NATO and the EU should enlarge at the same time.24 But today, Brzezinskis argument is not relevant anymore, however during the Euro Crisis and the tendencies of the US anxiety has been showed. Another argument had been built in 1980, by Bull (1983, 151) which he concluded that the European Community is not an actor in international politics and does not seem likely to become one. Nevertheless after the wider enlargement, the EU has showing itself as an important actor even it could be a counterbalance of the US. What are the obstacles and disincentive facing by Europe and US? Burwell argued that the basic EU and US interest are diverging and in facts becoming unite distinct. She concludes that the Europe and the US are more rivals than partner in economic arena and increasing at odds in the security and realm as well. Most of the scholars who have been concerned on the external roles of the EU used the Thucydides conception to explain the EU strategy. About 2500 years ago he made observation as modern experimental and historical studies have substantiated, mutual fear is the most solid basis upon which to organize an alliance and one of the alliance model is geographical scope. Thus the relation between EU and US under the umbrella of transatlantic relations is interdependency relation as mutual. Both of them depend of each other nowadays as their position in balance of power. Hamilton argued that if Europe had become a strong as the US military and economically the current transatlantic rift would have been minimized. He emphasized that meaningful EU-US consultations should precede and, wherever possible, be followed by joint action based on the complementarity of US and

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Living with the Europe, the National Interests (Summer 2000) pp. 13-33.

European 'tool boxes' combining hard and soft power. That is what I am trying to explain through the figures above which showed that between EU which is persuasive-negotiation model could cover the lacks (or the negative) of the US which is preventive-intervention model. Let me quote a statement from Powel which he said that there would be no America without Europe and there would be no free, prosperous and united Europe without America. Together, Europe and America can achieve almost anything; divided, they risk failing in many things: "When we quarrel we make headlines, when we work together, we make progress!"25 Base on my finding I can see that there is a balance of power of realist view among both actors. This balance of power condition also can be means that both of them deep on interdependency relations. The US needs the EU because without their alliance, the US would be alone in charge to pay the cost for maintaining the global stability, to establish democracy in all over the world. On contrary, the EU needs the US power for apply the principles of peaceful that has been a common value of its.

VII. The Future of the Transatlantic Relations

During the Invasion of Iraq, there was a growth of a global perspective which stated that while America is on honeymoon, Europe has a nightmare. This perspective emerging as an effect of US presidential transisition, the era of Bush administration would be difficult than the Clinton who had contributed much for the shape of transatlantic relation through new transatlantic agenda. This perspective exactly right, as been proved through the disagreement over Iraq between those leader, Bush, Schroeder and Chirac. Let me close my analysis by going back to the new transatlantic agenda under of Clinton administration. There are several points: promoting peace and stability,

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell during the EU-US Ministerial meeting at the Department of State on 18 December 2002.

democracy and development around the world, responding to global challenges, expansion of world trade and economic relations, parliamentary links and the important one is building the bridges across the Atlantic. The last agenda shows that there would be classes among them, because of variant interests, that is why to found the bridge between them is so much important. Then base on those agendas, how the relations would be goes. Many arguments have been built to predicted the future of transatlantic relations, I would started from scholar and combine it with my own. For Epstein, which focused on the economic as she mentioned with the framework of industry and globalization, the transatlantic relation will continue almost by default.26 She argued that the reason was simply because Europe lacks the capacity to develop weaponry of the same technological sophistication as the US while other countries are likely to close the gap in relations to Europe when it comes to their own arms industries. I suppose the assumption of Epstein just focused on industry as economic part. That is right that use economic factors between the EU and the US would face more difficulties then relation in other aspects because the competition of poverty development and the level of Foreign Direct Investment. This reason simply could be explained, because the other countries as the rest would choose which place that suitable for their economic interest while when the political and economic level of both the EU and the US balance as same power there would be no pressure for tend to one of them. Thus by considering many aspects most countries would choose European as the level of anti-American has increase. Nevertheless use realist perspective either in economic or in politics both of them would stabile by interdependency relation, this is what the realist Waltz sees as United States of Europe would become a world superpower. After the prediction I would like to move my intention to the challenge of the relations. As commonly the global world could see the structural problems on

Mathew Evangelista and Vittorio Emanuele Parsi (Eds), Partners or Rivals: European-American Relations After raq? (Milano: Vita e Pensiora, 2005).

both sides of the Atlantic are: the US has become the worlds sole hegemonic power, while Europeans have become inward-looking, less militant, and les decisive. This is the most fundamental different thing among them. Explained by Kagan, the US believes that Europes clamor for multilateralism is a recent phenomenon to cover up their military weakness, as it lacks the capacity to undertake unilateral military actions, either individually or collectively as Europe.27 Thus the commitment between them has been built by the same perspective on future of world security, this relation not as same as sensitive with economic relations. For realist view this is explained as international cooperation would pressure more clashes while the world shape by anarchic system. However the history of transatlantic relations is a history of crises as what Thimm argued.28 But as he mentioned the disagreement over Iraq had appeared to be the worst crisis in transatlantic relations. From the history clearly that case such as the Kyoto Protocol might threaten the relation but did not bring it to the rift as what Iraq case. Finally I suggest that the relations among them better to focus on the share of interests rather than shares of values. Share of interests would stresses the possibility to have a different perspective like what had been faced by them through their believed on terrorism and how to built democracy. Last, need to be mentioning here that Lisbon Treaty is important for the future of transatlantic relations, as I quoted from Hamilton: The more immediate impact of the Lisbon Treaty for the United States is likely to be in the area of justice and home affairs. The Treaty of Lisbon puts freedom, justice and security at the center of EU priorities. Under the Treaty the EU should be more effective in tackling human trafficking, fighting crime, building resilience and combating terrorism, and to be a more effective partner with the United States in these areas.29



27 28

Robert Kagan, loc.cit, p. 38. Johannes Thimm, What really Matters in Transatlantic Relations, discukussionspapier der FG4, 2005/03, September 2005, SWP Berlin, p. 4. 29 Daniel Hamilton, loc.cit, p. 6.

The EU now is working in progress. It will continue to evolve, including in some ways unforeseen. As we can see the EU external relations which focus on the global arena has showed that this institution becomes a very important political actor for counterbalancing the power of the US. As the conclusion my finding has showed that within the global arena both the EU and the US are important political actors with their different roles. But however towards their relations post the invasion of Iraq in 2003, within the global arena by considering the transatlantic relations, the US needs a strong, selfconfident that is the EU as a partner that can bring its political, economic, and military weight to bear in addressing threats to common interests in Europe and beyond the world. That is why the relation among them very important to keep the stability of the world politics. President Obama would not have so much homework because the relation has already passed the crisis period post Iraq War. He just needs to apply the commitment written as a new agenda of transatlantic relations, but Barroso have to learn much how to take an action from the other prior leaders of EU.



Andrews, David M. (Ed). The Atlantic Alliance under Stress: US-European Relations after Iraq. Cambridge University Press. Baylis, John., & Roper, John (Ed). (2006). The United States and Europe, Beyond the Neo-Conservative Divide? London: Routledge. Bretherton, Charlotte., & Vogler, John. (2000). The European Union as a Global Actor. London: Routledge. Burghardt, Gunter (2006), The European Unions Transatlantic Relations, EU Diplomacy Papers, Department of European International Relations and Diplomacy Studies. Belgium.

Burwell, Frances G, & Daalder, Ivo H (Ed). (1999). The United States and Europe in the Global Arena. London: Macmillan Press Ltd. Burwell, Frances G., Gompert, David C., Leslie S. Lebl, Jan M. Lodal, Slocombe, Walter B. Transatlantic Transformation: Building a NATO-EU Security Architecture, Policy Paper, March 2006, The Atlantic Council of the United States, p1-32. Cannizzaro, Enzo. (2002). The European Union as an Actor in International Relations. The Hague: Aspen Publisher. Chomsky, Noam (2003), Hegemony or Survival: America Quest for Global Dominance. New York: Metropolitan Book. Coppieters, Bruno., Emerson, Michael., Huysseune, Michel. (1997). Europeanization and Conflict Resolution, Case Study from the European Periphery. Gent: Academia Press. Crowe, Brian. (May, 2003), A Common European Foreign Policy after Iraq? International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 79, No. 3, pp. 533-546. Available at: Accessed: 12/06/2010 07:23 Duffield, John S. (2001), Transatlantic Relations after the Cold War: Theory, Evidence, and the Future, International Studies Perspectives No. 2, Blackwell Publishers p 93115. Fabbricini, Sergio (Ed). (2006). The United States Contested, American Unilateralism and European Discontent. London: Routledge. Higgott, Richard (April 2010) Multi-Polarity and Trans-Atlantic Relations: Normative Aspirations and Practical Limits of EU, Univeristy of Warwick, GARNET Working Paper No. 76/10, p1-33. Ivo H. Daalder, Are the United States and Europe Heading for Divorce? International Affairs, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Vol. 77, No. 3, Changing Patterns of European Security and Defense (Jul., 2001), pp. 553567, available on Accessed: 05/06/2010 07:30 Levy, Daniel., Pensk, Max., & Torpey, John. (2005). Old Europe, New Europe, Core Europe: Transatlantic Relations after the Iraq War. New York: Verso.

Matthew Evangelista and Vittorio Emanuele Parsi (eds.), Partners or Rivals? European-American Relations After Iraq? (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 2005). Merkl, Peter H. (2005). The Rift between America and Old Europe, the Distracted Eagle. London: Routledge. Mller, Bjrn, (2008) European Security: the Role of the European Union. Working Paper 29, Regional and Global Axes of Conflict, Danish Institute for International Studies February, Crisis States Working Papers Series No.2, p. 1-26. Nicol, Sir William., & Salmon, Trevor C. (2001). Understanding the European Union. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Peterson, John. (2006) In Defense of Inelegance: IR Theory and Transatlantic Practice University of Edinburgh, UK International Relations Copyright SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi), Vol 20(1): 525, Available at: Petterson, John and A. Max (2003). Europe, America, Bush: Transatlantic Relations in the Twenty years Century. London: Routledge. Rhodes, Carolyn (Ed). 1998. The European Union in the World Community. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. The European Union and the United States Global Partners: Global Responsibilities, EUROPEAN UNION publication Delegation of the European Commission to the United States, p.1-42. Available on