scholarly journals George W. Bush and the Political and Military Integration of the EU (2004-2008)

Author(s):  
Zakhar Vasilievich Pokudov ◽  
Viktor Evgenievich Tumanin ◽  
Marat Zufarovich Galiullin ◽  
Elvira Imbelevna Kamaletdinova

The aim of the article is to study European integration and the expansion of the European union together with the Atlantic alliance during George W. Bush's second term (2004-2008), for which the historical method was used. Despite the tendency that most researchers in the field of modern history and political science tend to focus on current events, and according to this logic it would be more appropriate to analyze Trump's foreign policy, in order to better understand the contemporary tension between the EU and the United States, today it is imperative to take a look at some contemporary historical processes. It is concluded that, to which George W. Bush's rhetoric has much in common with Donald Trump, he also laid the groundwork for change in U.S. foreign policy during Barack Obama's presidential term (2008-2016). The one-sided approach promoted primarily during George W. Bush's first term went from a gradual transformation of coalition building and the full support of the Atlantic alliance allies for the operation in Afghanistan in 2001, to more controversial rhetoric about "rebel states."

Modern Italy ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raffaella A. Del Sarto ◽  
Nathalie Tocci

Focusing on Italy's Middle East policies under the second Berlusconi (2001–2006) and the second Prodi (2006–2008) governments, this article assesses the manner and extent to which the observed foreign policy shifts between the two governments can be explained in terms of the rebalancing between a ‘Europeanist’ and a transatlantic orientation. Arguing that Rome's policy towards the Middle East hinges less on Italy's specific interests and objectives in the region and more on whether the preference of the government in power is to foster closer ties to the United States or concentrate on the European Union, the analysis highlights how these swings of the pendulum along the EU–US axis are inextricably linked to a number of underlying structural weaknesses of Rome's foreign policy. In particular, the oscillations can be explained by the prevalence of short-term political (and domestic) considerations and the absence of long-term, substantive political strategies, or, in short, by the phenomenon of ‘politics without policy’ that often characterises Italy's foreign policy.


Author(s):  
Ramūnas Vilpišauskas

For Lithuania, the geopolitical motive to join the European Union (EU) in order to prevent a repetition of the 1940s occupation has been as important as a motive to “return to Europe.” This motivation to become part of the West led the country’s political elites to conceptualize accession into the EU as an important part of the transition reforms which were expected to modernize Lithuania’s economy, public administration, and governance as well as contribute to the country’s security and create conditions for economic catching up. Membership in the EU, accession into NATO, and good neighborly relations became the three cornerstones of Lithuania’s foreign policy since the early 1990s and enjoyed broad political support. It was this support that arguably allowed for the maintenance of political and administrative mobilization and consistency of preparations for the membership during the pre-accession process. Public support for the EU membership remained above the EU average since accession in 2004. Around the time of accession, a new concept of Lithuania as “a regional leader” was formulated by the core of the nation’s foreign policy makers. The concept of a regional leader implied active efforts of mediating between Eastern neighbors and the EU, often in coordination with Poland, which was driven by the desire to stabilize the Eastern neighborhood and advance relations between Eastern neighbors and the EU and NATO. Although coalition building within the EU has been fluctuating between a strategic partnership with Poland and Baltic-Nordic cooperation, also most recently the New Hanseatic league, attention to the Eastern neighborhood and geopolitical concerns originating from perceived aggressive Russian policies remained a defining characteristic of the country’s European policy independent of personalities and political parties, which have been at the forefront of policy making. Completion of integration into the EU, in particular in the fields of energy and transport, as well as dealing with “leftovers” from accession into the EU, such as joining the Schengen area and the euro zone, became the other priorities since 2004. Lithuania has been one of the fastest converging countries in the EU in terms of GDP per capita since its accession. However, membership in the EU Single Market also had controversial side effects. Relatively large flows of emigrants to other EU member states generated political debates about the quality of governance in Lithuania and its long-term demographic trends such as a decreasing and aging population. Introduction of the euro in 2015 was perceived by the public as the main factor behind price rises, making inflation the most important public issue in 2016–2018. High per capita income growth rates as well as the prospect of the United Kingdom exiting the EU triggered discussions about excessive dependency on EU funding, the potential effects of its decline after 2020, and sources of economic growth. There are increasingly divergent opinions regarding further deepening of integration within the EU, especially in regard to alignment of member states’ foreign and security policies as well as tax harmonization. Still, membership in the EU is rarely questioned, even by those who oppose further integration and advocate a “Europe of nations.”


Politeja ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4(73)) ◽  
pp. 29-52
Author(s):  
Kamen Velichkov

Geography and a preference for regional approaches have an impact on EU foreign policy. From the EU perspective, the countries of Central Asia are classified as “neighbors of EU neighbors.” The EU’s policies assume the existence of strong centripetal forces in the Eurasian heartland, whereas in fact the regionalization is still in the initial stages there. Consequently, EU foreign policy in Central Asia pursues both structural and relational objectives. The specific goals and performance of EU member states add a two-tier dimension to this process. In parallel with other external actors such as Japan, the United States, South Korea, and India, the European Union conducts its dialogue and cooperation with the Central Asian states in a 5+1 format. Compared to the policies of China, Turkey, or Russia, the EU has much more limited influence. It primarily aims to support the independent development of the Central Asian countries, for which some degree of regionalization appears to be a prerequisite.


Author(s):  
V. Krushinsky ◽  
B. Pryimak

Despite the long history of relations Ukraine had a sidetrack in the German Eastern European politics. Ukrainian-German relations were in the shadow of German-Russian. This led to inconsistencies in the development of the German strategy for Ukraine and its European and Euro-Atlantic aspirations. Another cause is a dualism of German foreign policy – as a nation-state on the one hand and on the other – as the informal leader of the EU, the most influential country in the union, whose foreign policy to some extent affects Europe overall. As the informal leader of the EU, Germany wants to strengthen the organization, including by means of the expansion and attraction of the new member-states. At the same time, Germany cannot let the entry of economically weak and politically unstable states that will dilute the strength of the organization. This opinion is shared by the German foreign policy, since the increased number of weak economies in the EU will increase the burden on the economy of Germany. On the one hand this will prorogue considerably Ukraine’s entry to the EU and NATO, but at the same time the situation may change for the better in the event that positive changes take place in Ukraine. The breakdown of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is characterized by significant changes in the format of relations between countries, including the Eastern region, in particular the relations between Ukraine and Germany changed significantly. There is an abandonment of the fixed spheres of influence concept and political supremacy of some states over others. Germany and many of countries in the region are united in the European Union and NATO. There are new mighty centers of power, especially Poland, which is trying to play an independent role. This dictates the need for Germany to take into account the position of the Polish foreign policy strategies under development in the region.


2015 ◽  
Vol 59 (11) ◽  
pp. 38-46
Author(s):  
A. Kokeev

Relations between Germany, the US and NATO today are the core of transatlantic links. After the Cold War and the reunification of Germany, NATO has lost its former importance to Germany which was not a "frontline state" anymore. The EU acquired a greater importance for German politicians applying both for certain political independence and for establishing of a broad partnership with Russia and China. The task of the European Union Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) development has been regarded by Berlin as a necessary component of the NATO's transformation into a “balanced Euro-American alliance”, and the realization of this project as the most important prerequisite for a more independent foreign policy. Germany’s refusal to support the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 led to the first serious crisis in US Germany relations. At the same time, there was no radical break of the deeply rooted Atlanticism tradition in German policy. It was Angela Merkel as a new head of the German government (2005) who managed to smooth largely disagreements in relations with the United States. Atlanticism remains one of the fundamental foreign policy elements for any German government, mostly because Berlin’s hope for deepening of the European integration and transition to the EU CFSP seems unrealistic in the foreseeable future. However, there is still a fundamental basis of disagreements emerged in the transatlantic relationship (reduction of a military threat weakening Berlin’s dependence from Washington, and the growing influence of Germany in the European Union). According to the federal government's opinion, Germany's contribution to the NATO military component should not be in increasing, but in optimizing of military expenses. However, taking into account the incipient signs of the crisis overcoming in the EU, and still a tough situation around Ukraine, it seems that in the medium-term perspective one should expect further enhancing of Germany’s participation in NATO military activities and, therefore, a growth in its military expenses. In Berlin, there is a wide support for the idea of the European army. However, most experts agree that it can be implemented only when the EU develops the Common Foreign and Defense Policy to a certain extent. The US Germany espionage scandals following one after another since 2013 have seriously undermined the traditional German trust to the United States as a reliable partner. However, under the impact of the Ukrainian conflict, the value of military-political dimension of Germany’s transatlantic relations and its dependence on the US and NATO security guarantees increased. At the same time, Washington expects from Berlin as a recognized European leader a more active policy toward Russia and in respect of some other international issues. In the current international political situation, the desire to expand political influence in the world and achieve a greater autonomy claimed by German leaders seems to Berlin only possible in the context of transatlantic relations strengthening and solidarity within the NATO the only military-political organization of the West which is able to ensure the collective defense for its members against the external threats. However, it is important to take into consideration that not only the value of the United States and NATO for Germany, but also the role of Germany in the North Atlantic Alliance as a “representative of European interests” has increased. The role of Germany as a mediator in establishing the West–Russia relations remains equally important.


2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-275
Author(s):  
Józef M. Fiszer

This article is devoted to Ukraine; its focus is to present geopolitical and geo-economic determinants of its foreign policy. They are the source of a dilemma for those who govern Ukraine and since 1991 have been looking for strategic directions of development and cooperation with both the East and the West. In practice, this amounts to balancing between Russia and the European Union, and the dilemma of whether to apply for accession to NATO and the EU or to strengthen cooperation with Russia has a significant impact on Ukraine’s internal and foreign policy from the moment of regaining independence to the present day. This difficult choice is determined by many historical, cultural, social, economic and international factors. Moreover, in this article I present Poland’s position on the Ukrainian dilemma and on Ukraine’s accession to NATO and the European Union. I try to answer a few questions about this, such as which of these options is better for Ukraine, whether western or eastern, and which of them is better for Poland and its reasons for state. I would like to put forward a few theses and hypotheses here. Among other things, I would like to state that Ukraine should pursue a realistic policy, i.e. it should not succumb to illusions and should tread firmly on the ground. NATO and the EU membership should be a strategic objective of its foreign policy. To this end, Ukraine should also cooperate with Poland, which consistently supports the policy of NATO and EU enlargement to the East, and with the European Union and the United States.


2021 ◽  
pp. 38-50
Author(s):  
Viktoriia Orlyk

The article deals with the peculiarities of forming the new trends in the British foreign policy, due to the results of the referendum on Brexit and the country’s withdrawal from the European Union. Formation of the strategic priorities for the UK foreign policy course is becoming one of the most important tasks for the political, diplomatic and expert circles. The refusal to develop a common foreign policy of the EU as a result of Brexit, sets the essential challenge for Britain: to maintain existing influence and allied relations with continental European states (primarily, due to the strengthening of bilateral relations and the preservation of the Euro-Atlantic alliance), and at the same time to establish itself as an independent center of influence, not limited to the collective will of the EU. The main provisions of the “Global Britain” concept, presented in 2016 as the doctrinal basis of the foreign policy dimension of Brexit, are analyzed. The most significant of them are the next: the promotion of the UK`s economic and security interests around the world as the basis of foreign and security policy; alliance with the United States as a major foreign policy and security priority; rethinking the partnership with the EU and giving it a new depth in the name of protecting the international order and common values; the development of cooperation within the Commonwealth to strengthen Britain’s international presence and global influence. The author identifies the key foreign policy positions of London, which are not reflected in the concept presently, but will be of key importance for the European and global securities in the short and medium terms. The positions of leading regional and world players are analyzed, the risks of aggravation of relations with Russia and China are assessed. It is summarized that because of the new global threats and risks (first of all COVID-19 pandemic and its global impact and economic consequences) the “Global Britain” concept is still in its forming.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (8) ◽  
pp. 226-235
Author(s):  
O. Khlopov

The article is devoted to the study of energy problems in the foreign policy of the EU and the United States. The analysis of the paper is formed on a cognitive approach in analyzing the foreign policy making process and explores the relationship between energy and foreign policy of the EU and the USA. Based on the comparative method, the study races the role of the energy factor in shaping the foreign policy of the European Union and the United States. Although the US is the world's largest hydrocarbon producer and net exporter of energy, mainly due to its shale deposits, the EU remains the world's largest energy importer. This significant difference provides an opportunity to compare the role of energy in the foreign policy process of the two participants with completely different potential for the production and export, mostly of hydrocarbon resources. The author argues that the energy security strategies of both actors are based on interaction of material and ideological factors, but they have different ideas about the interests that generate their foreign policy behavior.


2020 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 337-355
Author(s):  
Mihajlo Vucic

The topic of this article is the Serbian foreign policy between its main strategic aims - membership in the European Union, and cooperation with China in the framework of the Belt and Road initiative. Serbia bases its foreign policy upon four pillars - the accession process to the EU and three strategic partnerships with great world powers - China, the United States of America, and Russia. However, the accession process to the EU requires from Serbia to strictly follow its obligations from the Stabilization and Association Agreement, Treaty Establishing the Transport Community, and other treaties signed with the EU which might sometimes conflict with project activities from the Belt and Road partnership process. These obligations relate mostly to competition and environmental protection. The author gives the analysis of the main points of possible conflict and indicates a double standard in the EU approach to the Belt and Road initiative. Then he presents arguments that indicate the Belt and Road can serve as a bridge between candidate countries and the EU internal market. The author concludes that although there exist some structural justifications to EU?s skepticism towards the Belt and Road, the best way to overcome them is to insist on political dialogue on many existing levels between the EU and China, with the aim to exchange information between them on EU rules, policies and standards to make sure Chinese investments and other financial activities in Serbia are in accordance with its accession obligations.


Author(s):  
Maxim Vitrak

The article examines the Euro-Atlantic direction of Ukraine's foreign policy during Leonid Kuchma's tenure as President of Ukraine (1994-2004) and the peculiarities of the foreign policy "multi-vector". The historiography and the source base of the article are analyzed. The author of the article examines the evolution of foreign policy of L.D. Kuchma on the Euro-Atlantic direction. A brief analysis of the priorities of Leonid Kuchma's foreign policy is made. The author emphasizes on those cautious steps in foreign policy that Leonid Kuchma took to preserve Ukraine's sovereignty while maneuvering between such centers of geopolitical gravity as Russia, the EU and the United States of America. The influence of international factors on the process of Ukrainian state-building was noted, the main problems and peculiarities of Ukraine's becoming a subject of international relations were analyzed. In the article the author expresses his own belief that the personality of Leonid Kuchma played a significant role both in the achievements of Ukrainian diplomacy on the path of Euro-Atlantic integration and in failures along the way. Analyzing Leonid Kuchma's Euro-Atlantic strategy, the author concludes that even profile experts, especially those who criticize Kuchma's actions, do not fully understand the position of international partners, in particular, the economic and political pressure exerted by the governments of the United States of America., The European Union and the Russian Federation for the activities of the second President of Ukraine, and the existence of political arrangements, which have been reported recently in open sources, are not always taken into account. These factors were taken into account by the author of the article. It is argued that multi-vector politics have become a landmark in Ukrainian history. Studying this aspect of Ukraine's foreign policy will be useful and interesting for a wide range of specialists, a source for understanding the root causes of many contemporary problems in Ukraine.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document