| November-December 2006
German-American Relations |Transatlantic Relations | Europe | NATO |
F1 - The Change in Government and Transatlantic Relations
Janes, Jackson
German Politics and Society, Spring 2006, v24, #1, pp116-135
"Almost 17 years after the Berlin Wall fell, German-American
relations represent a mixture of partnership, competition, and
a vast network of political, economic and cultural ties which
make up one of the most intensive bilateral relations on the globe.
A cornerstone of the Euro-Atlantic framework, German-American
relations remain of critical importance to both sides of the Atlantic.
However, the reasons why that is the case have been in continuous
transformation, as the interests and the needs of the United States
and the Federal Republic of Germany have responded to the demands
of a changing environment during the past five decades, especially
since the end of the Cold War. Angela Merkel has stated clearly
that she sees a stronger Europe and a stronger transatlantic relationship
as two sides of the same coin. While that has been the mantra
of many chancellors before her, she has an opportunity to help
define what it means today. In setting the priorities and the
course of German foreign policy while engaging in an honest and
candid dialogue with Washington, Angela Merkel will be building
on a mixture of continuity and change within the German debate
about its European and global roles and responsibilities."
Jackson Janes is the Executive Director of the American Institute
for Contemporary German Studies at the Johns Hopkins University
in Washington, D.C. Order
Article
F2 - Innovation in the United States and Germany
Hughes, Ken and Axel Werwartz
AIGCS Report,#26, December 2006, online edition, 36p
"As economic ties between the United States and Germany have
grown steadily deeper and more intertwined, economic performance
in one country increasingly affects the transatlantic partnership
as a whole. Positive economic growth and strong economies have
a number of underlying factors, one of which is a climate of innovation,
which itself is influenced to varying degrees by the quality of
educational systems, a society’s tolerance for risk, and various
political, cultural, social, historical, and institutional factors.
The authosr describe innovation practices in both countries and
how these practices impact the global markets. This publication
is the first in a three-part series titled, "Advancing Innovation,
Enhancing the Economy: A German-American Project," which
will look closely at the importance of innovation for the global
economic competitiveness of the United States and Germany. Kent
Hughes is the Director of the Program on Science, Technology,
America, and the Global Economy (STAGE) at the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars. Axel Werwatz is Professor of
Microeconometrics and Industrial Economics in the Faculty of Economics
and Social Science at the University of Potsdam, Germany, and
heads the department of “Innovation, Manufacturing, Service” at
the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) in Berlin.
Fulltext
F3 - The Fourth Age: The Next Era in Transatlantic Relations
Kupchan, Charles A.
National Interest, Sep/Oct2006, #85, pp77-83
"We are at the dawn of a new era in the Atlantic relationship.
Rather than trying to recreate the past, the Atlantic democracies
should move forward by acknowledging that the tight-knit alliance
of the Cold War years is gone for good. Instead, they should accept
that the character of the Atlantic order is undergoing a profound
transformation, seek to understand the attributes of the emerging
order, and figure out how to make the most of its cooperative
potential..." This article discusses a new era in the Atlantic
relationship. The author reviews the three distinct periods of
the transatlantic relationship during the periods 1776-1905, 1905-1941
and 1941-2001. These are called the era of balance of power, the
era of balance of threat and the era of cooperative security.
It has been claimed that Atlantic relations are still in transitional
phase and it is too soon to discern the defining features of the
era that is emerging.
Charles A. Kupchan is Professor of international affairs, Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Georgetown University. Fulltext
F4 - The Widening Military Capabilities Gap between the United States and Europe: Does it Matter?
Coonen, Stephen J
Parameters, Autumn 2006, v36, #3, pp67-85
"Military and political experts on both sides of the Atlantic assert that the widening military capabilities gap between the United States and Europe creates a more challenging environment for transatlantic cooperation. From the American perspective, arguments tend to suggest that the growing gap limits interoperability, dictates contradictory strategies between the United States and Europe, generates domestic burden-sharing accusations, and ultimately obliges the United States to pursue a more unilateralist foreign and security policy." Lieutenant Colonel Stephen J. Coonen is a US Army European Foreign Area Officer (FAO) currently assigned to Office of Administrative Review for the Detention of Enemy Combatants, in Washington, D.C. Fulltext
F5 - Transatlantic Approaches To Sanctions:
Principles and Recommendations
Niblett, Robin; Mix, Derek
CSIS Europe Program, October 10, 2006. pp1-28
“In today’s security environment, the United States and Europe
face many common challenges, from preventing the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction, to countering international terrorism,
and promoting democratic government. The problems require strategies
to deal with state actors such as Iran, North Korea, and Belarus,
as well as with a whole host of non-state entities. However, despite
this prevalence of overlapping foreign policy objectives, transatlantic
cooperation in pursuing common goals is prone to breaking down
in debates over which means to use. Few policy areas illustrate
this dilemma more clearly than that of the design and application
of international sanctions. The use of sanctions as an effective
and manageable instrument of national foreign policy or multilateral
action has come under serious question in recent years, and it
is clear that both sides approach the question of sanctions from
very different perspectives. Yet, with differences over the utility
and use of force likely to persist well into the future, it is
imperative that U.S. and European leaders make a serious effort
to develop a more coordinated approach to the use of sanctions
as an instrument of foreign policy.” Robin Niblett is Executive
Vice President and Director of CSIS Europe Program. Derek Mix
is Research Associate at CSIS Europe Program. Fulltext
F6 - The United States and the European Security and Defense Policy: Old Fears and New Approaches
Larabee, Stephen
Rand Corporation, December 2006, online edition, 16p
“The U.S. attitude toward the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP)
continues to be marked by ambivalence. The U.S. fears that the ESDP is seeking
to become NATO’s competitor or that the EU may want make ESDP a counterweight to
NATO. It also has concerns about the EU’s operational planning and the
capabilities gap between it and its European allies, and worries that the ESDP
may form a ‘European caucus’ within NATO or seek to provide its own security
guarantees to its members. Although some Europeans have called for a division of
labor in which Europe concentrates on peacekeeping and the U.S. on
high-intensity operations, the author believes that such a division is unwise.
Rather, the United States should takes steps to strengthen transatlantic
relations. It should accept that Europe needs some operational planning capacity
and should harmonize its defense transformation with Europe’s. NATO and the EU
need to develop mechanisms to allow rapid response in time of crisis. Finally,
the U.S. must recognize that the EU is becoming an increasingly political
security actor.” Stephen Larabee has a Corporate Chair in European Security with the Rand Corporation. Fulltext
F7 - Religion and the Political Organization of Muslims in Europe
Warner, Carolyn M.; Wenner, Manfred W.
Perspectives on Politics, September 2006, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 457-479
This article aims to “allay common apprehensions that Islam may
afford its adherents a basis for a unified political movement
in Europe, one that would pose a standing threat to Western culture
and civilization. They depict the Muslim population of Europe
as variegated in part because of the decentralized, non-hierarchal
organizational structure of its faith but also due to both doctrinal
differences and ethnic diversity. According to Warner and Wenner,
this heterogeneity, encouraged in part by European institutional
arrangements that incorporate constitutional protections for religious
practice, makes it unlikely that such a unified Islamic movement
can emerge. They warn in closing, though, of a quite different
predicament that this same heterogeneity makes possible; it may
invite members of smaller-scale, sectarian groups onto the path
of radicalism.” Carolyn M. Warner is Associate Professor of
Political Science and Global Studies, Arizona State University.
Manfred W. Wenner is Visiting Scholar, Department of Political
Science, Arizona State University. Order
Article
F8 - Different Speeds, Same Direction. NATO and the New Transatlantic Security Agenda
Rühle, Michael
Internationale Politik, Transatlantic ed., Summer 2006, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 77-82
“Europe and America are coping with enormous change in their security outlooks. The process of adapting to the new circumstances has neither been smooth nor harmonious. But despite lingering differences, Europe and North America have realized that NATO remains a unique framework for developing a new transatlantic security consensus.“ Michael Rühle is head of the Policy Planning and Speechwriting Section, NATO Political Affairs and Security Division. Order Article
F9 - Global NATO or Global Partnerships?
Koschut, Simon
International Politik, December 12, 2006, online edition, 17p
"In the run-up to the NATO Summit in Riga in November 2006, a debate on both sides of the Atlantic has now evolved over NATO’s global engagement that touches on the very foundations of NATO’s original purpose and definition. Critically, the debate is no longer about wether NATO should go ‘out of area or out of business’ but wether the Alliance should enlarge on a global level from Vancouver to Tokyo and Wellington. In order to place this debate into the recent historical context of the Alliance, this article examines U.S.-European security relations since September 11 within the institutional framework of NATO and, subsequently, draws conclusions for the future role of the Alliance. As the transatlantic community faces security threats of inherently global nature such as internationally organized terrorism and crime, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, collapse or lack of state structures in certain regions, and ruptures in the stable supply of energy resources, NATO will have to define its role as a global security actor if it wishes to avoid becoming a mere service provider of security. Simon Koschut is a Research Associate at the Transatlantic Programm of the DGAP (Deutsche Gesselschaft fuer Auswaertige Politik e.v.) Fulltext
|
