Prof. Dr. Michael Cox: The Transatlantic Relationship after 9/11, closing lecture series on "The EU Security Policy after 9/11"

Closing off the lecture series on "The EU Security Policy after 9/11", Prof. Dr. Michael Cox, Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics, talked about the Transatlantic Relationship after 9/11. Professor Cox argued that scholars are failing to understand how deep and significant the current transatlantic crisis is. Although there have been previous crises in the transatlantic relationship – Suez and Reagan administration etc -, the transatlantic crisis that began in 2001 has distinguishing features that marks a turning point in its history. Its resolution will shape the future of the global order.

He pointed out that scholars have been wrong on many occasions about key historical events: the end of the Cold War, the future of China and the failure to anticipate the terrorist attacks of 9/11. This can be explained by an inherent international conservatism: a tendency to think that the patterns of the past will be those of the future. Scholars have underestimated the quality of the changes in the relationship because they misread the history of the1990s.

Prof. Cox identified some of the key changes. In the past, the transatlantic relationship was an idea that shaped the notion of the West. This is why the United States and Europe came to be identified as a region and why there were talks of a ‘security community’. But the end of the Cold War had a profound impact on the coherence of the West. In his view, during the 1990s there was an overoptimistic view of the nature of the transatlantic relationship. This perspective had some grounds because NATO did manage to survive and there was a deepening of economic integration in the transatlantic area in terms of trade and foreign direct investment. In fact, in the 1990s, Europe invested heavily in the United States. For these reasons, scholars and policy-makers were ill prepared, both politically and intellectually, for the crisis that unfolded.

Prof. Cox challenged the current interpretation of the transatlantic crisis.

Most commentators argue that Bush’s first term in office represented the deepest moment in the rift and to maintain that we are now in a process of mending bridges and returning to a solid transatlantic relationship. Hence commentators points to changes since the 2nd Bush Administration and US senior officials’ frequent visits to Europe as representing an acceptance in certain powerful sections of the US establishment that European allies might have been right in their opposition to the Iraq war.

In his view, they are wrong in this analysis for a number of reasons. There is a failure to understand that the row over the war against Iraq was not just an isolated event but rather is both the cause and symptom of deeper trends. In Prof. Cox’s view, we are at present working through the impact of the end of the Cold War. If 9/11 and the war on terrorism would have happened in the Cold War period, it would not have had the same impact because the structure of the international system was more stable that it is now. The ‘war on terror’ cannot unite the West as anti-communism did in the Cold War period.

Another reason for the importance of the current crisis in the transatlantic relationship is that the Cold War privileged Europe in the eyes of US policy makers. Hence, in the Cold War period, there was a high US military commitment to European security: over 700,000 US troops were stationed on European soil. For the United States, Europe was central to its own security and defence. Today, this US perception no longer exists. We are therefore witnessing a sharp decline in US military presence in Europe and the Bush Administration has made a conscious decision no longer to make NATO a central institution in US defence strategy. NATO is relegated to undertaking tasks that are considered less vital to US security interests.

There are significant transatlantic differences about the threat of terrorism. The events of 9/11 led to a redefinition of US military posture. The US government responded to the terrorist attacks by embarking on new wars and at present the United States remains at war. For the US government international terrorism represents a threat that is comparable to that of Fascism and Communism. It is this perception that can explain the measures taken abroad and at home since 9/11. Europe is not at war. Europe does not view the threat of terrorism in the same way as the United States. This is evident in the reaction to the terrorist attacks in Madrid (March 11th 2004) and London (July 7th 2005). It is also apparent in other issues: the way in which US officials made a connection between states and terrorism, whereas Europeans refused to unite around this perception; the way in which US officials believe that the situation prior to 9/11 in the Middle East is the cause of international terrorism and therefore have embarked on a radical policy review that endorses regime change throughout the region, whereas Europeans are more reluctant to endorse such radical review process. The deep nature of the crisis is also evident in the level of anti-Americanism that is now present in Europe, not just in sections of the elites and the media but also among the public in many European countries, including Britain.

In his conclusion, Prof. Cox stressed that there is not going to be an easy return to a normal transatlantic relationship. The current tensions over Iran, human rights etc are more likely to intensify in the immediate future and the disintegration of the world system will continue. Europe has a duty to hold on to the principles that shape the liberal order: international law, respect for human rights etc and needs to become united around these principles.

Discussant Mr Patrice Dabos (NATO Diplomacy Division and lecturer at Science Po, Paris).challenged Prof. Cox’s arguments on a number of grounds. He argued that the current divisions are creating new opportunities for reshaping the transatlantic relationship and this will make Europe less dependent on the United States. This is positive development in the transatlantic relationship that will most likely help reinvigorate it. He questioned the level of anti-Americanism that Prof. Cox identified as a feature of the current crisis and argued that NATO remains crucial to the United States, particularly in the political realm. He doubted Prof. Cox’s assessment that the London bombings have not moved Europeans closer to the US perceptions about the ‘war on terrorism’.

The questions and answers session focused on the following issues: how can Europe have a stronger voice in the transatlantic relationship; the arguments for and against Turkish EU membership; Prof Cox’s position towards G. John Ikenberry’s work; the impact of NATO on EU external policies.