Globalisation:Atlantic Partnership: Atlanticism and it's Critics - Revision history

Laura O'Donnell at 12:02, 18 November 2010

2010-11-18T12:02:54Z

Laura O'Donnell: /* Critics */

2010-11-18T01:35:52Z

Critics

Laura O'Donnell: /* Critics */

2010-11-18T01:35:17Z

Critics

Laura O'Donnell: /* Critics */

2010-11-18T01:34:43Z

Critics

Martin Ferguson at 14:03, 17 November 2010

2010-11-17T14:03:06Z

Laura O'Donnell: /* Pro-Atlanticism */

2010-11-17T13:52:37Z

Pro-Atlanticism

Laura O'Donnell: /* Pro-Atlanticism */

2010-11-17T13:50:05Z

Pro-Atlanticism

Laura O'Donnell: /* Pro-Atlanticism */

2010-11-17T13:48:51Z

Pro-Atlanticism

Laura O'Donnell at 13:46, 17 November 2010

2010-11-17T13:46:42Z

Laura O'Donnell: /* Pro-Atlanticism */

2010-11-17T13:46:13Z

Pro-Atlanticism

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:02, 18 November 2010
Line 23:		Line 23:


−	Tim Dunne's journal entry ‘When the shooting starts’: Atlanticism in British security strategy” in International Affairs, criticises Atlanticism arguing it is a way in which the United States can exercise power over it European ‘allies’. It shows that the most predominant transatlantic relationship is between the US and the UK, Dunne argues that the invasion of Iraq in 2003, ‘shows that Britain continues to place the bilateral connection with the United States above all other obligations’ and questions whether ‘atlanticist identity’ will succeed in delivering the interests of the United Kingdom or just be beneficial to the United States <ref>”[Dunne, T (2004) When the shooting starts’: Atlanticism in British security strategy” International Affairs, accessed 14th November 2010]”</ref> ultimately this journal entry believes atlanticism describes individuals and organizations who support coalition between the United States and Europe, with it being dominated and led by the United States.	+	Tim Dunne's journal entry ‘When the shooting starts’: Atlanticism in British security strategy” in International Affairs, criticises Atlanticism arguing it is a way in which the United States can exercise power over its European ‘allies’. It shows that the most predominant transatlantic relationship is between the US and the UK, Dunne argues that the invasion of Iraq in 2003, ‘shows that Britain continues to place the bilateral connection with the United States above all other obligations’ and questions whether ‘atlanticist identity’ will succeed in delivering the interests of the United Kingdom or just be beneficial to the United States <ref>”[Dunne, T (2004) When the shooting starts’: Atlanticism in British security strategy” International Affairs, accessed 14th November 2010]”</ref> ultimately this journal entry believes atlanticism describes individuals and organizations who support coalition between the United States and Europe, with it being dominated and led by the United States.

	==Pro-Atlanticism==		==Pro-Atlanticism==

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:35, 18 November 2010
Line 23:		Line 23:


−	Tim Dunne's journal entry ‘When the shooting starts’: Atlanticism in British security strategy” in International Affairs, criticises Atlanticism arguing it is a way in which the United States can exercise power over it European ‘allies’. It shows that the most predominant transatlantic relationship is between the US and the UK, Dunne argues that the invasion of Iraq in 2003, ‘shows that Britain continues to place the bilateral connection with the United States above all other obligations’ and questions whether ‘atlanticist identity’ will succeed in delivering the interests of the United Kingdom or just be beneficial to the United States <ref<”[Dunne, T (2004) When the shooting starts’: Atlanticism in British security strategy” International Affairs, accessed 14th November 2010]”</ref> ultimately this journal entry believes atlanticism describes individuals and organizations who support coalition between the United States and Europe, with it being dominated and led by the United States.	+	Tim Dunne's journal entry ‘When the shooting starts’: Atlanticism in British security strategy” in International Affairs, criticises Atlanticism arguing it is a way in which the United States can exercise power over it European ‘allies’. It shows that the most predominant transatlantic relationship is between the US and the UK, Dunne argues that the invasion of Iraq in 2003, ‘shows that Britain continues to place the bilateral connection with the United States above all other obligations’ and questions whether ‘atlanticist identity’ will succeed in delivering the interests of the United Kingdom or just be beneficial to the United States <ref>”[Dunne, T (2004) When the shooting starts’: Atlanticism in British security strategy” International Affairs, accessed 14th November 2010]”</ref> ultimately this journal entry believes atlanticism describes individuals and organizations who support coalition between the United States and Europe, with it being dominated and led by the United States.

	==Pro-Atlanticism==		==Pro-Atlanticism==

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:35, 18 November 2010
Line 23:		Line 23:


−	Tim Dunne journal entry ‘When the shooting starts’: Atlanticism in British security strategy” in International Affairs, criticises Atlanticism arguing it is a way in which the United States can exercise power over it European ‘allies’. It shows that the most predominant transatlantic relationship is between the US and the UK, Dunne argues that the invasion of Iraq in 2003, ‘shows that Britain continues to place the bilateral connection with the United States above all other obligations’ and questions whether ‘atlanticist identity’ will succeed in delivering the interests of the United Kingdom or just be beneficial to the United States <ref<”[Dunne, T (2004) When the shooting starts’: Atlanticism in British security strategy” International Affairs, accessed 14th November 2010]”</ref> ultimately this journal entry believes atlanticism describes individuals and organizations who support coalition between the United States and Europe, with it being dominated and led by the United States.	+	Tim Dunne's journal entry ‘When the shooting starts’: Atlanticism in British security strategy” in International Affairs, criticises Atlanticism arguing it is a way in which the United States can exercise power over it European ‘allies’. It shows that the most predominant transatlantic relationship is between the US and the UK, Dunne argues that the invasion of Iraq in 2003, ‘shows that Britain continues to place the bilateral connection with the United States above all other obligations’ and questions whether ‘atlanticist identity’ will succeed in delivering the interests of the United Kingdom or just be beneficial to the United States <ref<”[Dunne, T (2004) When the shooting starts’: Atlanticism in British security strategy” International Affairs, accessed 14th November 2010]”</ref> ultimately this journal entry believes atlanticism describes individuals and organizations who support coalition between the United States and Europe, with it being dominated and led by the United States.

	==Pro-Atlanticism==		==Pro-Atlanticism==

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:34, 18 November 2010
Line 22:		Line 22:
	As the end of 2005 was drawing in, the officials of Europe and America are stimulated over how, for trans-Atlantic relations, it has been a good year. The undersecretary of state for political affairs , [[Nicholas Burns]] - who has attended conferences held by the Atlantic Partnership<ref>"[http://www.atlanticpartnership.org/?p=141 Healing the Rift - London Conference]" Atlantic Partnership website. Accessed 16 November, 2010.</ref>- says “Europe and the United States have rebuilt bridges across the Atlantic, ended the war of the words sparked by discord over Iraq and recognized the fundamental truth that the trans-Atlantic partnership is a long-term marriage not susceptible to separation or divorce.” There are two large structural disjunctions that are expected to be the roots of future trouble. The first is said to be that trans-Atlantic relations presently have little focus upon Europe, in the view of the Europeans; these relations are still very much focused on the United States. The analysis which Burns makes was regularly repeated in Washington at that time. It is a gracious declaration about how Europe is not at the centre of U.S. geopolitical strategy. “Now that the process of postwar European construction has largely been achieved, the question is no longer what Washington thinks about Europe, but what the United States and Europe can do together to promote their interests and values, and spread democracy, in the rest of the world.” Collectively with acknowledgment of the increasing role of the [[EU]], this new approach was intentionally highlighted by President [[George W. Bush]]’s visit to the European Commission in Brussels in February 2005, which was the first by a U.S. president. To those of the Brussels-orientated European elite who would like to trust that the EU is on the edge of becoming an equal partner to the United States on the world level, this approach is seductive. However, this idea is, for the most part, based on self-delusion. While the United States still wants Europe as a source of help for a variety of reasons, Washington does not often put the word “equal” ahead of “partner”. The essential trouble is that regardless of Washington’s blandishments, most of the European intelligentsia, the news media and the political classes deem the United States, especially under Bush, as overbearing and unsafe. They seize upon every supposed transgression, from professed “torture flights” they carry suspected terrorists to undisclosed prisons to alleged violations of American civil liberties, as keenly as Bush’s most potent rivals in the United States. “This distorted view of America is fed by widespread envy of U.S. power. As long as it persists, many Europeans will be reluctant to commit themselves to a stronger Atlantic partnership.” The second large structural disjunction is stemmed from the variety of ways in which Europeans and Americans think the world should be controlled. The truth is that [[EU]] and U.S. officials frequently stress that the [[EU]] is making key donations to peace in such places as Yugoslavia and Afghanistan and working on the matter of Iran’s nuclear predicament with Washington. However, the model European outlook of how Western influence and especially military force should be put forth in the 21st century, is fundamentally contrasting to America’s and is liable to remain as such. In spite of the indisputable developments on the surface, these deep, underlying trans-Atlantic pressures are not likely to have been resolved within the next few years.<ref>Reginald Dale (2005) Behind the smiles, trans-Atlantic bile; Europe and the U.S. The International Herald Tribune. December 29, 2005 Thursday.</ref>		As the end of 2005 was drawing in, the officials of Europe and America are stimulated over how, for trans-Atlantic relations, it has been a good year. The undersecretary of state for political affairs , [[Nicholas Burns]] - who has attended conferences held by the Atlantic Partnership<ref>"[http://www.atlanticpartnership.org/?p=141 Healing the Rift - London Conference]" Atlantic Partnership website. Accessed 16 November, 2010.</ref>- says “Europe and the United States have rebuilt bridges across the Atlantic, ended the war of the words sparked by discord over Iraq and recognized the fundamental truth that the trans-Atlantic partnership is a long-term marriage not susceptible to separation or divorce.” There are two large structural disjunctions that are expected to be the roots of future trouble. The first is said to be that trans-Atlantic relations presently have little focus upon Europe, in the view of the Europeans; these relations are still very much focused on the United States. The analysis which Burns makes was regularly repeated in Washington at that time. It is a gracious declaration about how Europe is not at the centre of U.S. geopolitical strategy. “Now that the process of postwar European construction has largely been achieved, the question is no longer what Washington thinks about Europe, but what the United States and Europe can do together to promote their interests and values, and spread democracy, in the rest of the world.” Collectively with acknowledgment of the increasing role of the [[EU]], this new approach was intentionally highlighted by President [[George W. Bush]]’s visit to the European Commission in Brussels in February 2005, which was the first by a U.S. president. To those of the Brussels-orientated European elite who would like to trust that the EU is on the edge of becoming an equal partner to the United States on the world level, this approach is seductive. However, this idea is, for the most part, based on self-delusion. While the United States still wants Europe as a source of help for a variety of reasons, Washington does not often put the word “equal” ahead of “partner”. The essential trouble is that regardless of Washington’s blandishments, most of the European intelligentsia, the news media and the political classes deem the United States, especially under Bush, as overbearing and unsafe. They seize upon every supposed transgression, from professed “torture flights” they carry suspected terrorists to undisclosed prisons to alleged violations of American civil liberties, as keenly as Bush’s most potent rivals in the United States. “This distorted view of America is fed by widespread envy of U.S. power. As long as it persists, many Europeans will be reluctant to commit themselves to a stronger Atlantic partnership.” The second large structural disjunction is stemmed from the variety of ways in which Europeans and Americans think the world should be controlled. The truth is that [[EU]] and U.S. officials frequently stress that the [[EU]] is making key donations to peace in such places as Yugoslavia and Afghanistan and working on the matter of Iran’s nuclear predicament with Washington. However, the model European outlook of how Western influence and especially military force should be put forth in the 21st century, is fundamentally contrasting to America’s and is liable to remain as such. In spite of the indisputable developments on the surface, these deep, underlying trans-Atlantic pressures are not likely to have been resolved within the next few years.<ref>Reginald Dale (2005) Behind the smiles, trans-Atlantic bile; Europe and the U.S. The International Herald Tribune. December 29, 2005 Thursday.</ref>

		+
		+	Tim Dunne journal entry ‘When the shooting starts’: Atlanticism in British security strategy” in International Affairs, criticises Atlanticism arguing it is a way in which the United States can exercise power over it European ‘allies’. It shows that the most predominant transatlantic relationship is between the US and the UK, Dunne argues that the invasion of Iraq in 2003, ‘shows that Britain continues to place the bilateral connection with the United States above all other obligations’ and questions whether ‘atlanticist identity’ will succeed in delivering the interests of the United Kingdom or just be beneficial to the United States <ref<”[Dunne, T (2004) When the shooting starts’: Atlanticism in British security strategy” International Affairs, accessed 14th November 2010]”</ref> ultimately this journal entry believes atlanticism describes individuals and organizations who support coalition between the United States and Europe, with it being dominated and led by the United States.

	==Pro-Atlanticism==		==Pro-Atlanticism==

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:03, 17 November 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	[[Globalisation: Atlantic Partnership]]
		+
	==Atlanticism==		==Atlanticism==

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 ==Pro-Atlanticism==
-[[NATO]] has defended the releveance of Atlanticism arguing that it is vhanging and modernising over tome, "Today, the European Union is an economic equal to the United States. So the United States has every right to expect a more even sharing of the security burden with its prosperous European Allies. Thus, if NATO and the European Union today are building new ties between each other, if Europe and North America re-adjust their security relationship, they remain fully within the logic of Atlanticism - because Atlanticism is not static. It is a constant process of mutual adjustment." <ref>"[http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2000/s000915a.htm The Relevance of Atlanticism]" NATO accessed 16th November 2010</ref> The Atlantic Partnership strives to develop realationships between political bodies which is highlighted in [[NATO]]'s defence of atlanticism, a main feature odf Atlanticism that is still prominent from the days of the [[Cold War]] is, "the need for integration, and the linking of security and economics, still applies today. Nowhere is it more visible than in the complementary efforts by NATO and EU to project stability eastwards by offering membership to some, while associating others." <ref>"[http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2000/s000915a.htm The Relevance of Atlanticism]" NATO accessed 16th November 2010</ref>
+[[NATO]] has defended the relevance of Atlanticism arguing that it is changing and modernising over time, "Today, the European Union is an economic equal to the United States. So the United States has every right to expect a more even sharing of the security burden with its prosperous European Allies. Thus, if NATO and the European Union today are building new ties between each other, if Europe and North America re-adjust their security relationship, they remain fully within the logic of Atlanticism - because Atlanticism is not static. It is a constant process of mutual adjustment." <ref>"[http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2000/s000915a.htm The Relevance of Atlanticism]" NATO accessed 16th November 2010</ref> The Atlantic Partnership strives to develop realationships between political bodies which is highlighted in [[NATO]]'s defence of atlanticism, a main feature of Atlanticism that is still prominent from the days of the [[Cold War]] is, "the need for integration, and the linking of security and economics, still applies today. Nowhere is it more visible than in the complementary efforts by NATO and EU to project stability eastwards by offering membership to some, while associating others." <ref>"[http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2000/s000915a.htm The Relevance of Atlanticism]" NATO accessed 16th November 2010</ref>
 Ultimately [[NATO]] details that Atlanticism should not be criticised  as as 'short-term marriage of convenience between Europe and North America' but instead that it rests on the conviction that the nations of Europe and of North America are like-minded nations - nations who trust and respect each other, nations who are better off together than apart. <ref>"[http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2000/s000915a.htm The Relevance of Atlanticism]" NATO accessed 16th November 2010</ref>
-America favours the connections that Atlanticism can empower, the Washington Times expresses it delight;"The dawn of a New Alanticism comes as a welcome surprise. After years of benign neglect, European leaders who are energetic and emancipated Atlanticists in Germany, France and England are ready to shoulder new responsibilities outside their borders"<ref>"[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/oct/04/horizons-of-the-new-atlanticism/ Horizons of the new Atlanticism
+America favours the connections that Atlanticism can empower, the Washington Times expresses it delight;"The dawn of a New Alanticism comes as a welcome surprise. After years of benign neglect, European leaders who are energetic and emancipated Atlanticists in Germany, France and England are ready to shoulder new responsibilities outside their borders"<ref>"[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/oct/04/horizons-of-the-new-atlanticism/ Horizons of the new Atlanticism]" Washington Times, accessed 16th November 2010</ref>
-Therfore orgasnisations like the Atlantic Partnership who allow for Atlanticism are supported on either side of the Atlantic.
+Therefore orgasnisations like the Atlantic Partnership who allow for Atlanticism are supported on either side of the Atlantic.
 ==Notes==
 <references/>

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:50, 17 November 2010
Line 27:		Line 27:


−	America favours the connections that Atlanticism can empower, the Washington Times expresses it delight;"The dawn of a New Alanticism comes as a welcome surprise. After years of benign neglect, European leaders who are energetic and emancipated Atlanticists in Germany, France and England are ready to shoulder new responsibilities outside their borders"<~~REF~~>"[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/oct/04/horizons-of-the-new-atlanticism/ Horizons of the new Atlanticism	+	America favours the connections that Atlanticism can empower, the Washington Times expresses it delight;"The dawn of a New Alanticism comes as a welcome surprise. After years of benign neglect, European leaders who are energetic and emancipated Atlanticists in Germany, France and England are ready to shoulder new responsibilities outside their borders"<ref>"[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/oct/04/horizons-of-the-new-atlanticism/ Horizons of the new Atlanticism
	]" Washington Times, accessed 16th November 2010</ref>		]" Washington Times, accessed 16th November 2010</ref>