Sophie Vanhoonacker - The Bush Administration and the Development of a European Security Identity

Sophie Vanhoonacker
European Institute of Public Administration, Maastricht, The Netherlands

First published 2001 by Ashgate Publishing

Reissued 2018 by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Copyright Sophie Vanhoonacker 2001

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Notice:
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Publisher's Note
The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original copies may be apparent.

Disclaimer
The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders and welcomes correspondence from those they have been unable to contact.

A Library of Congress record exists under LC control number: 2001087937

ISBN 13: 978-1-138-71266-9 (hbk)
ISBN 13: 978-1-315-19932-0 (ebk)

Since the establishment of NATO, which led to the inextricable link between US and European security, the development of an independent European security identity has been a very sensitive issue in transatlantic relations. President de Gaulle's proposals for Political Union in the 1960s and the establishment of European Political Cooperation from the 1970s onwards were always viewed with suspicion on the other side of the Atlantic. Washington seldom refrained from countering these European initiatives with new transatlantic partnership proposals.

With the end of the cold war, the Member States of the European Community saw a chance to give new impetus to their attempts at foreign policy cooperation and, in the framework of the 1991 Intergovernmental Conference on Political Union, they agreed to develop a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). Despite the radically changed international environment the Bush administration (January 1989-January 1993) adopted the same ambivalent attitude as its predecessors. While it argued, on the one hand, that the time had come for the Europeans to take a larger share of the transatlantic security burden, it was on the other hand extremely wary of the Europeans going their own way. For Washington the essential forum for addressing European security affairs was to remain NATO.

The four years of the Bush administration were too short to digest and handle all the consequences of the end of the cold war for transatlantic security. Nevertheless, some first important steps were made, heading in a direction which would be developed further and to some extent adjusted by the Clinton administration. By the mid-1990s the shape that CFSP was taking had already become much clearer and it was obvious that for the time being it was not a serious alternative to NATO.

Notwithstanding the many hurdles CFSP has faced and despite the continuing central role of NATO, the attempts to develop the EU into a mature foreign policy and security player on the international scene are still ongoing. Parallel to the negotiations of the Nice Treaty, the Fifteen are discussing the development of a European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). The relationship between and cooperation of ESDP and NATO remain central themes of discussion for the EU and the US. By putting the debate on the development of a European security identity in a historic perspective and by analysing the reactions of America's first post-cold war administration to CFSP, this study aims at contributing to a better understanding of US security policy towards Europe and at providing a context to the current transatlantic security debate.

Maastricht, October 2000

The idea for this research first originated at one of the annual seminars on "EC Institutions and Decision-making and Transatlantic Relations" organised by the European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA), Maastricht, and the Brookings Institution, Washington D.C. The first of these seminars was organised in 1987 in Maastricht for high-level officials from various US Departments who wished to learn more about European integration and the main issues on the transatlantic agenda.

These seminars, which are still taking place, give a good picture of the "mood" in US-European relations. While, in the beginning, the debates were very much dominated by the 1992 internal market programme and American fears of a "fortress Europe", the late 1980s and the early 1990s again brought the issue of security high on the agenda. There were many uncertainties on both sides of the Atlantic and, after more than 40 years of a high degree of continuity, relations seemed to have come to a crossroads. In Europe fears arose that, following the collapse of communism, neo-isolationist forces would again emerge, leading to a withdrawal of US troops from the European continent. Washington, on the other hand, was worried that the Europeans would grasp the chance provided by the fall of the Berlin Wall to further develop their own security identity, undermining the central US position on the European security scene.

This research looks at how the end of the cold war has affected the transatlantic security relationship and, more particularly, studies the reaction of the Bush administration towards attempts by the EC Member States to develop an independent European security pillar.

Since this study deals with the US-European relationship, research was required on both sides of the Atlantic. Although most of my work was done at EIPA, the research topic also required regular stays in the United States. In this respect I would like to give special thanks to Desmond Dinan, Associate Professor at the Institute of Public Policy, George Mason University, who was one of the first to invite me to Washington D.C. and who gave me the opportunity to spend some time at his University. Throughout my work he was of great support. I also enjoyed the hospitality of the Brookings Institution where Larry Korb, the then Director at its Center for Public Policy Education and Barbara Littell, a Senior Staff Member, gave me the opportunity to work in a stimulating environment. They were also very helpful in arranging interviews with high-level US officials. Chris and Susan Buchanan were incredible hosts, allowing me to use their guest house and giving me the opportunity to become acquainted with American daily life. Towards the end of my research I had the chance to spend seven months at the Institute on Western Europe at Columbia University in New York. I am very grateful to Glenda Rosenthal, the Director of the Institute, whose encouragement in the final stages of my work I particularly appreciated.

This research would not have been possible without the support of my colleagues at EIPA. First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to my former colleagues Panos Tsakaloyannis and Finn Laursen who stimulated my interest in international relations and, through their comments, helped me in defining and elaborating the research topic. I am also indebted to my EIPA colleagues Les Metcalfe, Edward Best, Adriaan Schout, Simon Duke, Rita Beuter and Veerle Deckmyn all of whom supported me and encouraged me to pursue my work until its completion. I would also like to express my appreciation to Jacqueline Walkden and Suzanne Habraken from EIPA's linguistic services and to Denise Grew for the type-setting and lay-out of the book.