Although the world stood united behind America when the dust of the collapsed twin towers of the World Trade Centre settled, differences between the United States and Europe soon became apparent. Europe might have supported the US in Afghanistan, both politically and militarily, but diverging interests already became apparent when the US sidelined NATO and preferred to lead ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’ itself. The dispute escalated over the US plans to continue the war on terror in Iraq. Here, it emerged that the US and Europe do not share the same world view. While the US seem to perceive the world in Hobbesian terms, and believe that military strength is the only means to achieve security, Europe appears to understand security in the Kantian sense and believes that ‘perpetual peace’ can be achieved. The question that divided Europe and the US over Iraq then is more than a simple difference of opinion but reflects a deep philosophical division: Can global security be achieved by force or through sustained dedication to a set of normative principles implemented by the world community? Consequently, the counterterrorism strategies formulated in Europe and the US are of a fundamentally different nature, which cannot be explained merely by the discrepancy in military capabilities. If that would be the case, Europe would have begun to build up its military potential by now.
Acknowledging that “terrorism has become one of the most pressing political problems,” (David Whittaker) the aim of this paper is to compare the US and the European approach to global terrorism, establish reasons for the differences and evaluate which approach might be more effective.
As September 11, has changed our perception of security by demonstrating that even the US is, despite its unrivalled military superiority, vulnerable to attack, carried out by just 19 men armed with cardboard cutters, we should remain aware that the responses we chose to these attacks reflect our dedication to human rights, the rule of law and indeed freedom. Relying on military strength is easier than to acknowledge that terrorism is caused by a fundamentally unjust economical and political world order that markedly favours the West, yet it might ultimately prove to become more dangerous than terrorism itself, as it does nothing to resolve the problem but reinforces the world order that is the cause of the problem.
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. Risks and Strategies in the Post-Cold War Era
1.1 Post-Cold War Security
1.2 The ‘War Fighting’ Approach
1.3 The ‘Crime Fighting’ Approach
2. The US Response – An Outward Oriented Approach?
2.1 The National Security Strategy of the United States
2.2 Donald Rumsfeld’s Defence Vision
2.3 Homeland Security
3. The European Response – An Inward Oriented Approach?
3.1 Justice and Home Affairs
3.2 Exporting the European Experience
3.3 Diplomacy and Development
4. War Fighting or Crime Fighting or Another Way?
4.1 Reasons for the Differences
4.2 Effectiveness
4.3 Alternatives
Objectives and Research Themes
This dissertation examines the diverging counterterrorism strategies adopted by the United States and European nations in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It aims to evaluate the effectiveness of these distinct approaches and investigate how structural differences, geopolitical positioning, and ideological paradigms influence the formulation of national security policies.
- Comparative analysis of US "war fighting" versus European "crime fighting" strategies.
- The impact of the post-Cold War security agenda on international relations.
- The role of military capabilities versus normative "soft power" in combating global terrorism.
- Evaluation of the long-term effectiveness of pre-emptive military action versus diplomatic and developmental measures.
Excerpt from the Book
1.1 Post-Cold War Security
With the end of the Cold War, it was assumed, a new world order would be established and a more peaceful era would begin. Yet, the decade after the fall of the Soviet Union was wasted and found its tragic end in the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001. By now, it has become clear that “the Cold War dichotomy of freedom versus communism has been replaced by a new organising principle: order versus disorder.” While the danger of a major war has faded, it is widely acknowledged that “it is highly unlikely that in the near future advanced states will fight one another”, the break-up of the bipolar world order of the Cold War has increased the number of unconventional, but by no means less deadly, conflicts. “The end of the Cold War has loosened the international system. It makes new kinds of war possible and has changed the balance of military power.”
The security agenda of the post-Cold War era is instead dominated by a number of less costly but far more immanent threats to our security. The question what represents a danger to our security shifts from ‘which state might pose a threat’ to ‘what might threaten us’. According to Rogers, there are three dominate drivers for conflict and insecurity in the near future: ‘socioeconomic division’, ‘environmental constraints’ and the ‘proliferation of military technology’. The ‘socioeconomic division’ refers to the ever growing gap between rich and poor, which has been accelerated by demographic factors during the 1980s and 1990s. Rogers sees “a form of economic apartheid” emerging on a global scale, which could lead to a „revolution of frustrated expectations“, fuelled by increased primary education and communication, which results in an awareness of marginalisation.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: This chapter outlines the shift in global security post-9/11 and introduces the central research question comparing US and European counterterrorism strategies.
1. Risks and Strategies in the Post-Cold War Era: This section discusses how the post-Cold War security environment evolved and identifies the two competing paradigms of "war fighting" and "crime fighting".
2. The US Response – An Outward Oriented Approach?: This chapter analyzes the US National Security Strategy, the "revolution in military affairs," and the prioritization of pre-emptive, outward-oriented military force.
3. The European Response – An Inward Oriented Approach?: This chapter explores the European focus on judicial cooperation, the "crime fighting" model, and the use of diplomatic and developmental "soft power".
4. War Fighting or Crime Fighting or Another Way?: This section synthesizes the analysis to explain the reasons for these strategic divergences and evaluates the potential effectiveness and alternatives to both approaches.
Keywords
Global Terrorism, Post-Cold War Security, War Fighting, Crime Fighting, Counterterrorism Strategy, US Foreign Policy, European Union, National Security, Pre-emptive Military Action, Soft Power, International Cooperation, Global Disorder, Homeland Security, Hobbesian World View, Kantian Perpetual Peace.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this dissertation?
The dissertation investigates the different ways in which the United States and Europe have responded to the threat of global terrorism since the September 11 attacks.
What are the primary strategic models analyzed in this work?
The work distinguishes between the US "war fighting" approach, which emphasizes military force and pre-emption, and the European "crime fighting" approach, which prioritizes law enforcement, international cooperation, and diplomacy.
What is the ultimate goal of the author's research?
The goal is to determine why these two major powers have adopted such different strategies and to evaluate which approach might be more effective in addressing the root causes of global terrorism.
Which academic lens is used to differentiate the strategies?
The author utilizes international relations theory, contrasting the "Hobbesian" realist worldview (associated with the US focus on military dominance) with the "Kantian" postmodern worldview (associated with the European focus on norms and interdependence).
Does the author conclude that one strategy is definitively better?
The author argues that neither approach is ideal; both have significant shortcomings in terms of measurable success, though the European strategy is viewed as more sustainable in the long term.
What role do "rogue states" play in the US strategy?
The US strategy links terrorism and "rogue states" to justify a new doctrine of pre-emptive military action, which the author argues may undermine international law and global stability.
How does the author view the US response to the 9/11 attacks in the context of international law?
The author expresses concern that the US tendency towards unilateralism and pre-emption threatens the established fabric of international institutions and the UN Charter.
Can "fortress Europe" be considered an effective anti-terrorism strategy?
The author suggests that while Europe addresses underlying causes like poverty, its reliance on tighter border controls ("fortress Europe") limits individual liberties without necessarily eradicating the source of the terrorist threat.
- Quote paper
- Patrick Wagner (Author), 2004, Security in the 21st century: US and European responses to global terrorism, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/29625
