How substantial has US-European counter-terrorism cooperation Essay Example

Baader-Meinhof gang. These contrasting historical experiences have influenced the distinct approaches towards terrorism seen today.

Europe has primarily dealt with "old" domestic terrorism, centered around issues like national succession or ethnic conflict. This form of terrorism is more moderate and focuses on specific political objectives, making it more amenable to political resolution. In contrast, America has mainly faced "new" Islamist terrorism, which is largely apolitical and aims to completely overthrow systems through mass death and destruction or sheer chaos. Negotiation is unlikely to be effective with groups such as Al-Qaeda because they do not operate like traditional terrorist organizations such as the IRA. Instead of serving as direct figures of leadership, leaders like Bin Laden primarily inspire potential recruits. Consequently, addressing the terrorist threat requires a fundamentally different approach.

The divergent approaches to military action between America and Europe may be due to the perspectives put forth by Robert Kagan. According to Kagan, America favors military intervention while Europe leans towards employing sanctions, engagement, and negotiations due to their varying capabilities in projecting military force. Kagan states that "Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus when it comes to major strategic and international issues: they have limited agreement and understand each other even less."5 Currently, America's military power and expenditure greatly surpasses that of all European countries combined, making it nearly impossible for any other nation to surpass America militarily.

The significant implications of the strength disparity between America and Europe are evident. America, with its greater power, frequently resorts to military force, whereas Europe, being relatively weaker, prefers non-military approaches such as sanctions, diplomacy, and engagement. Regrettably, these divergent strategies can result

in misunderstandings and divisions between the two continents. Europeans perceive America as too quick to use force and less inclined to pursue diplomatic endeavors compared to Europe. Conversely, Americans tend to see Europe as feeble and reliant on America for security.

Europeans and Americans have different values, with Europeans placing greater emphasis on privacy, human rights, and the rule of law. The allegations of torture and "extraordinary rendition" made by America in its fight against terrorism have led to a feeling of disconnection among Europeans. What America considers necessary but unpleasant actions, Europeans view as sacrifices they are unwilling to make. Rees and Aldrich describe these unique "strategic cultures" as stemming from Europe and America's divergent historical experiences, political systems, and cultures that influence their problem-solving methods.

Although the US has a tendency to prefer using force and Europe leans towards non-military methods, it should be acknowledged that these approaches can still be compatible. Furthermore, it is essential to recognize that Europe is composed of several independent entities and lacks the unity seen in the US. While generalizations can be made about European countries' inclinations, their actions are not always cohesive or steady. Nevertheless, throughout history, these differing perspectives on force have caused tensions between Europe and America, impeding their ability to collaborate.

Between 1990 and 2001, Europe and America had limited cooperation on internal security issues because they did not perceive a need for it. Both regions were not confronted with a shared terrorist threat during this period. While the US faced minimal domestic terrorism, Europe dealt with nationalist conflicts in countries like Britain and Spain. Consequently, even European countries had restricted collaboration among themselves.

Nevertheless, some agreements

and declarations were made with G7/G8 countries including France, Germany, Italy, and the UK. In 1995, there was the "Common Declaration on Countering Terrorism," which acknowledged terrorism as a top priority for G7 nations. Additionally, another declaration in 1996 endorsed 25 methods to improve counter-terrorism cooperation.

Despite these endeavors, substantial counter-terrorism cooperation was not accomplished, and engagement with the entire European Union did not occur.

Following the 9/11 attacks, European nations acknowledged the threat posed by extremist Islamist terrorists and began working together to address internal security concerns. The European Union (EU) has taken several steps to enhance cooperation, including creating a "roadmap of priorities" with 60 recommendations for counter-terrorism. It is worth noting that representatives from the United States actively participate in important EU counter-terrorism meetings to facilitate idea exchange. However, progress in this area has been uneven. There is a particular emphasis on transitioning from individual agreements to pan-European policing and law enforcement mechanisms, exemplified by the establishment of Europol—a police service spanning Europe. Despite its potential impact, Europol remains relatively small and subordinate to conflicting interests within Brussels and European governments. Additionally, its primary focus is on analyzing general crime trends rather than conducting specific investigations.

Efforts have been made to establish a partnership between the US and EUROPOL for exchanging vital anti-terrorism data. It is important to note that EUROPOL, although relatively smaller in size compared to national law enforcement agencies in the US and other countries, has contributed significantly towards enhancing cooperation in Europe. This has been achieved through the implementation of a continent-wide arrest warrant, thereby reducing the need for extradition among European nations. However, the issue of extradition to the United

States remains unresolved due to European countries' prohibition on capital punishment.

Although progress towards easy and smooth extraditions has faced obstacles, it remains feasible to find compromise in specific cases by eliminating the possibility of capital punishment for US prosecutors. This showcases that cooperation is achievable despite differing values. A significant challenge in addressing values lies in the matter of data sharing and privacy concerns, as exemplified by the US's request for Europe to disclose information about passengers traveling to America, including their name, address, date of birth, and payment method.

Sharing this information with US authorities would put airlines in a difficult situation where they cannot comply with both US and European laws due to the EU's privacy directive. This directive has strict rules on sharing information with third parties, meaning that airlines would violate it by sharing with the US. However, a compromise was reached in May 2004 to address this issue. The US agreed to accept limited information for specific purposes, delete it after three and a half years, and review the agreement after the same duration. Despite legal challenges, this agreement demonstrated that America and Europe could find common ground despite their differing values.

Furthermore, concerns have been raised about the overlap between intelligence and law enforcement information in the US. In particular, there are concerns regarding the admissibility of intelligence-obtained information in court during criminal trials.

The divergence in perspectives between law enforcement and national security emphasizes the contrasting cultures they represent. Law enforcement places emphasis on civil liberties and accountability, whereas national security and intelligence gathering prioritize secrecy. These conflicting values have led to numerous disagreements that hinder cooperation. The security of Europe's

borders is a major concern for the United States, especially considering that while internal borders exist within the United Kingdom and new accession states, free movement is permitted across the rest of the European Union once inside.

The strength of European border security relies on its weakest state, such as Belgium, which has not given priority to terrorism concerns due to their lower vulnerability. However, this relaxed security in weaker states poses a risk to everyone.

In 2002, there was a successful trial of a border patrol that effectively halted illegal immigration and drug trafficking. Unfortunately, ministers failed to achieve significant progress on this issue.

Tensions have also emerged concerning port security, particularly due to the bilateral nature of agreements surrounding the Container Security Initiative that has caused friction with the US.

Conflicts over matters like biometric passports ultimately led to concessions from the US. Cooperation in enhancing border security is an area that needs improvement.

Progress has been made in combating financing for terrorist organizations through better policing of money laundering and stricter enforcement since 9/11.

Efforts have been made since the 9/11 attacks to freeze the assets of organizations linked to terrorism and promote transparency in transactions to combat money laundering. These initiatives are primarily conducted through the Financial Action Task Force (FAFT), which expanded its focus in October 2001 to encompass activities related to terrorism. FAFT aids organizations in identifying transactions that may be associated with financing terrorism. Despite encountering some challenges, this collaboration has proven successful.

However, there is still room for enhancing European-American cooperation regarding international security. The current accomplishments, although a step forward, remain relatively modest and necessitate further advancement. Obstacles such as differing values and

concerns about Europol's effectiveness persist. It is crucial for Europe itself to address these issues in order to overcome various challenges pertaining to European-American cooperation.

When Europe becomes more unified and able to coordinate cooperation among themselves, they will become a valuable partner to America. Despite this, there is reason for optimism in terms of internal security cooperation. However, the future of external security cooperation does not look promising. Between 1990 and 2001, there was minimal collaboration in this area, mostly limited to declarations by the G7/8 and scarce joint military action.

European countries have often disapproved or criticized US military action, including in the 1990s. Although they did support certain military actions, such as the cruise missile strikes following the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, Europeans have tended to see force as a crude tool and have preferred economic sanctions and positive engagement. This has created tension between the US and Europe, despite some shared reasons for their differing perspectives.

In 1995, the New Transatlantic agenda and the US-Europe Joint Action Plan were created to strengthen the partnership between the United States and Europe in dealing with terrorism and other matters. The objective of this initiative was to promote a more comprehensive and action-focused alliance. Consequently, biannual meetings at the presidential level were started between the EU and US to address shared concerns. Nevertheless, during that period, terrorism was not considered as much of a mutual threat as it is now, leading to limited advancements on this matter.

Furthermore, America has encountered issues despite implementing sanctions. The Iran-Libya sanctions act, which was established by Clinton in 1995 under pressure from the Republican congress, created difficulties in

Europe. This was because the act permitted the US to punish European companies that maintained trade relations with these two nations. While the US considered it a stance against terrorism sponsoring states, Europeans deemed it as bullying, particularly since it was enforced by the US congress externally.

The threat of involving the World Trade Organisation forced America to back down after a dispute, leading to resentment among Americans and reinforcing the perception that Europeans are weak on terrorism. These differences have become more pronounced since 9/11. The US is eager to respond militarily to the new threat, while Europe as a whole doubts the concept of "war on terror". Many Europeans believe it solely implies a military approach and fear an endless war with no clear targets, as they do not believe terrorism can be completely eliminated. On the other hand, the US considers terrorism as part of a broader problem involving concerning states and weapons proliferation, which leads them to prefer a military response.

Europeans have been hesitant to fully endorse the Iraq war in relation to combating terrorism due to fears of potential instability it may generate29. The 2003 conflict greatly strained transatlantic relations. Nevertheless, with no evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction after four years, it seems that those who asserted Iraq had distinct strategic objectives from the war on terror were proven right.

In the 1990s, military cooperation between the US and Europe faced challenges due to the absence of a common defense identity in Europe. However, this situation changed in 1999. Despite this change, Europe still had weak military capability that was linked to NATO. Furthermore, there was a lack of unity

among European countries on major issues. As a result, the US preferred bilateral cooperation with individual European states. The divisions over Iraq further reinforced this preference. When Europe lacks unity and a coherent position, it is only natural for the US to collaborate with countries such as Britain, Spain, and the new accession countries to the European Union that share its views. Nonetheless, there have been instances where Europe has offered military cooperation which did not attract interest from the US.

The war in Afghanistan garnered significant support and aid due to its justification - the aim to eradicate the Taliban in Afghanistan, who had provided refuge for Al-Qaeda and showed limited cooperation after 9/11. This reasoning was considered more legitimate than that of the Iraq war. Nevertheless, numerous offers of help were rejected, including activating NATO's mutual defense clause, which Europeans perceived as insulting.

Despite initial disagreements, multiple European countries have now joined NATO's peacekeeping efforts and ongoing fights against the Taliban in Afghanistan, indicating potential collaboration between Europe and America in military affairs. These differences should not be viewed as a complete termination of cooperation between the countries. Following Iraq, Americans increasingly recognize that military force alone cannot guarantee victory in the war against terrorism. They acknowledge that European endeavors focused on diplomacy or economic influence can also contribute to addressing significant matters.

Europeans have also recognized the valid aspects of America, such as acknowledging concerns about rogue states and terrorist cells acquiring weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the need for collective action. It is important to note that while the American National Security Strategy published in 2002 and the European National Security Strategy published

in 2003 differ in focus, such as Europe's emphasis on multilateralism and positive engagement, they do not fundamentally contradict each other when it comes to identifying shared problems.

However, there is still progress needed for full collaboration between Europe and America in counter-terrorism. Nevertheless, signs indicate that the future may be more promising than anticipated given the hostility observed in 2003. Therefore, it is fair to say that transatlantic counter-terrorism cooperation since 1990 has not reached its full potential.

Throughout the 1990s, challenges arose due to misunderstandings, misgivings, and a lack of political will. However, following 9/11, these circumstances underwent a transformation as it generated an immediate sense of urgency and political will among important political figures to address what they now perceived as a mutual threat. This alteration has led to advancements in internal security collaboration. Nevertheless, there remains significant work that needs to be undertaken, necessitating Europeans and Americans to persistently learn from one another and adapt accordingly.

Despite varying opinions regarding the suitability of military intervention, there has been limited advancement in the collaboration between Americans and Europeans in terms of external security. The transatlantic division caused by the unresolved Iraq war from 2003 persists. Nevertheless, despite this disagreement, other forms of cooperation have not been affected. While there is still a significant amount of work ahead, prospects for future joint efforts against terrorism across the Atlantic are encouraging.