Leslie Lebl writes that the EU takes a different strategic approach to fighting terrorism than the U.S. does. When it comes to the question of “is this a fight to be conducted primarily at home, or carried abroad to the enemy?” the EU goes for the former option. Lebl asks if the EU view will grow closer to the U.S. view given its new borders.
Do you guys foresee either side revising its position? I think the U.S. is unlikely to change its tactics, but it’s harder for me to guess what will happen in the EU. As we discussed in class, Europe’s longer history of home-grown terrorists contributes to its domestic approach. But the threat of Islamic extremism would seem to demand a different approach.
If anything, I would guess the EU will increasingly work with third countries to form agreements on important issues. It has already created policies to deal with asylum seekers that seek to place a greater burden on the countries through which those people traveled to get to the EU. In the future, it could expand the scope of its counterterrorism efforts by attempting to create consequences for states that do not actively pursue terrorists.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
For the people who didn't get to see Solana speak, here is a short review of the talk and my reflections.
Solana's main point in his speech was the need to solve/manage the new security problems of the post war period through organized and cooperative global governance and a strong transatlantic relationship. The old security system can no longer work given global interdependence and the rise in power of individuals, the media and sub-national actors. He called for stronger regional organizations such as ASEAN and AU. He focused on the rule of law saying that while the world has globalized law has remained local and in order for multilateral organizations to be effective in addressing global insecurities they needed to gain popular legitimacy as well as political will to back them.
His short speech gave away his main ideals of commitment to multilateralism, regionalism, rule of law internationally, and attention to new dispersed power centers but it remained overall very vague and abstract. Probably because it was all on the record, Solana spoke like a politician. When he was asked about the differences in the opinions of the EU countries on Kosovo final status he replied that it was important to the EU to have a common position on Kosovo, when he was asked about the role of civil society and the private sector in the new system of global governance he answered that they were important players in the global insecurity and governance and that they needed to be part of the new global governance. Although it was not particularly informative, it was interesting to see the attitude he brings toward global insecurity in general which is what I thought seemed to be genuine optimism about the ability of multilateral cooperation to resolve and manage global security problems.
Ps I’m sorry I have posted this as a comment to Amelia; I can’t seem to post my own posts!
I've just noticed the entire transcript of the talk is posted on the Brookings site: http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20070321.htm
Post a Comment