The events of September 11th have affected in several ways the relationship between US and EU but have not fundamentally changed the relationship. The changes that have occurred have in some ways served to reawaken focus on the core values of the transatlantic relationship since the end of the cold war. September 11 helped to highlight a new threat to Western and world peace. The transatlantic partners since 9/11 have had to forge new measures to deal with terrorism. Though there have been clear disagreements between USA and some EU members on how to deal with terrorism since 9/11, such disagreements do not qualify as fundamental since USA and EU have had a lot more upon which to agree than disagree. The most outstanding difference has been disagreement on how to fight the war on terror. Most EU nations are pro "diplomatic engagement" as opposed to USA's measure of outright use of force. Even though America is inclined to the use of force, Bush's government is equally engaged in diplomatic deliberation across the world as is the EU. As it was during the Cold War period, since 9/11 both sides of the Atlantic have enacted policies in unison to combat terrorism. America took the driver's seat which is not a new position in the EU-USA relationship.

Without going any further it is wise to highlight my line of argument.
Firstly - to outline the way both partners perceive the war on terrorism.
Secondly - to examine the military relations of both EU and USA, and
Thirdly - to assess the shift from-cooperation to unilateralism as a result of the events of September 11th, 2001.
These are personal views and therefore open to criticism or otherwise.


Since the end of the Cold War, Europe and the USA had not had any serious event that threatened their shared values of Security and Democracy until September 11, 2001. The relation between America and Europe has been and is to this date, based on some core-shared values of global security, world democracy and the spread of open markets. Therefore the attack on America on September 11 was not seen across the Atlantic as singularly an attack on America but instead a global one. Just three days after the horrific attack, this was clearly highlighted in a French newspaper, 'Le Monde', on September 12, 2001, stating 'we are all Americans'. The end of the Cold War had taken away a lot of the glue that bound EU and USA against any form of international threat to the extent of 9/11. After September 11, both partners saw the urgency for collective security measures against terrorism.
For the first time in history, NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) invoked its article V and coined the terrorist attack on USA as an attack on all NATO members; which today includes 26 EU states. Though George W. Bush's government declined the offer and opted for a coalition with willing EU members as opposed to NATO/Europe collectively, this step marked a new beginning in security cooperation between the USA and EU against the war on terror. Before 9/11 USA and EU had had experiences of terrorist attack from within and without, for example the Oklahoma bombing in 1995 in America (Washington Post, April 19, 1995), the attack on American embassies in East Africa in 1998, ( The Telegraph Saturday 8, August 1998) and the Para- military activities of the IRA in Northern Ireland. But none of these had led to such solidarity against terrorism until the events of 9/11. The most recent twist as a result of cooperation against acts of terror even within the Western political establishment is President G. W. Bush's isolation of the Northern Ireland Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams whom Washington has labelled 'not a partner for peace'. With such a renewed security commitment after 9/11, America, for example, was confident enough to make specific requests to her different European allies to share intelligence gathering and provide airspace for US and NATO aircrafts in the run up to 'Operation Enduring Freedom' that crippled the Taliban key bases in Afghanistan and saw the installation of an interim and then the current Hamid Karzia government. Though the attack on the Taliban regime was mainly dominated by US, the European allies provided nearly 16,500 troops from over 17 states.

But shortly after the successful Afghan campaign, America started to press for a regime change in Iraq and the need to dethrone Saddam Hussein, as he was feared to support terrorist activities, which is now a known lie. However, differences began to emerge within the EU-USA towards the summer of 2002 about how to approach the war on terror. In Europe, the two old American partners, Germany and France, preferred and strongly advocated for diplomatic means first, if there were to be any further military campaigns against terrorism, but Washington was fast running out of patience to consider diplomatic deliberations. Additionally, Americans argued that diplomatic means had been exhausted and Saddam Hussein had not complied to International law, therefore pre-emptive military action was deemed inevitable. As the saying goes, the rest is now history...Iraq is in a state of ruin.
At the end of 2002 and beginning of 2003, the transatlantic relationship was under huge stress. Germany and France continually questioned the validity of the American led attack on Iraq; they both argued that unlike Afghanistan, Iraq had no direct connection with Al-Qaeda led attacks of 9/11, but the US pressed on to claim that Saddam had the intentions and capability to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, allegations that were refuted by the UN led Weapons Inspection and Verification Team. Theories even began to emerge in Europe that a war on terror was a political myth created by Washington. The former environmental minister in the British cabinet, Michael Meacher, developed a theory that America was only paving way for her goal of world hegemony.
On the other hand the British government took side with America clearly creating a rift within the EU-USA alliance. President Bush, with the backing of Britain, the American media and a large majority of the American public who vividly remembered the events of 9/11, supported the attack on Iraq expressed in the president's speech that referred to any state that posed a threat to America as 'axis of evil'.
In Paris President Chirac stayed away from the Iraq campaign because it was not sanctioned by the UN Security Council and harboured fears that the war was likely to create so many 'little bin Ladens', which we now know is the case as many extremist groups have emerged in Iraq, Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern countries. But even at the peak of its tension the EU-USA relationship was still not at breaking point. Writing about this troubled period within the transatlantic relationship, Salona (2005) argues that what was happening was the evolution of a partnership as the circumstances in which this relationship operated changed.

After the events of September 11th, the global war on terror that was launched thereafter by America and her European allies required good military capabilities. Confronted with the reality of terror attacks, America and her European partners needed to go after suspected terrorist hideouts and sympathiser States; first on the list was Afghanistan and later Iraq. It is not known if Iran or N.Korea will be the next. Unfortunately European military capability leaves a lot to be desired. It is of concern whether America has reliable war partners in the war on terror that could fight anywhere in the world. The lack of military capability in Europe had actually been raised even before 9/11 at a 2001 NATO debate. The events of September 11th simply laid emphasis on what the US had been pressing her transatlantic partners to work on, increasing their militarily capability. Defence expenditures in Europe are very low and unfortunately most writers in this field argue that even after 9/11 the Europeans have not done a lot to change this. Since 1987 defence expenditure in Europe had fallen by 25%, apart from Britain which had increased hers by a mere 2% and recently France, as well ( Journal of Transatlantic studies, 2005). In Germany, in 2002 Gerhard Shroder planned to cut even further their defence expenditure placing the country at the very bottom of European annual defence expenditure. There is still not much evidence that EU is working to improve military capability and spending so as to take the weight of military budget off America. The European Security and Defence Policy which was launched in 1998 to develop an independent European military capability, to date is not even at its take off stage. As stated earlier, even the Rapid Reaction Force is still not equipped with modern communication, aircraft and vision equipment. This slow progress has showed lack of commitment on the side of Europe, whose relationship with America is mainly built on the cores of defence and security.
Military issues have added tension to the transatlantic relations. America's defence spending sky-rocketed after 9/11. In 2002 the Senate and House of Representatives passed a bill on military spending of 355 billion dollars U.S. which was estimated at almost 20% increased spending, twice as much as all EU partners put together. In 2005 the US government military expenditure was $420.7 billion dollars, in 2006 it went up to $441.6 billion and for the fiscal year 2007, it is estimated at $462.7 billion but with just a fraction increase by EU partners. Commenting on America's military discontent with her European partners, David Ryan, scholar in Transatlantic Studies, argued that without the military means to enact security policy, Europe is becoming increasingly irrelevant to Washington. It is therefore evident that unequal security spending has caused strains on US/EU relations; however this has not fundamentally altered their relationship as such. It has merely altered America's foreign policy outlook.


After 9/11, America's foreign policy approach shifted and US is far more willing than ever before to take a unilateralist approach to deal with foreign policy issues as opposed to a multilateral approach favoured by their European allies. This is not to suggest that they are unwilling to engage with their European allies but they are willing to go it alone if required.
As differences emerged over the attack on Iraq, the question of Europe's military capability resurfaced. America strengthened the 'coalition of the willing' and US foreign policy increasingly nurtured relations with pro-America- European states. A good example to site is the cosy relationship between Britain's Tony Blair, the Bush administration and Poland. Though Poland is a new ally in the NATO establishment, she has enjoyed a prominent role in occupying northern Iraq. On the other hand Germany, an older NATO member, was being ignored. While the three met in Brussels for a defence summit in May 2003, President Bush warned France, Germany and Belgium about possible consequences to their relations should they continue to create rivals for USA There had not been much harmony among the three states as they continued to undermine the real causes of the war in Iraq. This has disaggregated relations with old EU-USA partners and created favours with USA for new EU members like Poland.
The Europeans too, have continually expressed their discontent to Washington about the way terrorist suspect prisoners in Guantanamo Bay continue to be held without proper trial required by International Law. America was also under criticism in 2002 for opposing the International Criminal Court, which she feared would waiver immunity for American service men abroad. All this has poisoned the EU-USA relations to a great extent. In a voice of reason over the concern of growing unilateralism within the transatlantic relationship, Lord Robertson (former NATO Chairman) cautioned EU member states to ensure USA does not move towards unilateralism or isolationism by showing their willingness to develop effective crisis management capabilities. With the accounts above, the relationship has gone through a major shake up following the events of September 11th. However; as wisely stated by EU-Commissioner J. Salona (2005), 'there is plenty of life still left in the relationship'.

One can therefore conculude that the events of September 11 have to an extent changed the USA-EU relationship but not fundamentally. The changes that have occurred have helped to highlight the new challenges facing the relationship in a fast changing world. Firstly, the war on terror is new and requires good cooperation from both partners. 9/11 also teaches both partners the need to compromise and the wits to discern when to apply diplomatic deliberations and pre-emptive military action. Secondly, Europe owes it to USA to develop her military capabilities and take her fair share of the military burden, if EU is to act as an equal in ensuring the spread of their shared core values - peace, security, democracy and free markets around the world.
The cooperation over the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and even the differences on how the war in Iraq has been handled prove that the transatlantic relationship will survive despite the outcomes of the horrific events of 9/11.

Want to comment on this Blogs? Sign up to Edit Red and you will be able to comment on Blogs and get access to: Upload your own stories and poems, get readers and their feedback, promote your work...