Analyzing of Anti-Terrorism Normative Strategy between European Union and United States of America in the West Asia

Document Type : Original Independent Original Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student, of International Relations Department, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Political Sciences, Political Sciences, Islamic Azad University Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran.

3 Professor of International Relations , Department, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

4 Assistant Professor of International Relations Department, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Since 2001, the anti -terrorism policy making of European Union unlike United States of America has concentrated over the reinforcement of existing domestic law enforcement instruments and on multilateral action internationally creating at least the outlines of a specific European model. Structural models either realist or culturalist provide partial explanations for this. Neither to say that the drug trade, organized crime and terrorism into the general category of internal security issues and to pose as an organizing question whether a European Model encompassing a generalized security response to these three problems might be emerging. West of the Atlantic, at least since the elections of 2000, terrorism has been emphatically removed from the category of internal security issues to be reframed as an external , and primarily a military threat , As such, it has led to a thoroughgoing reorganization of the command structure or the armed forces, with a renewed emphasis on unilateral pre-emptive and even preventive action and a defense of the "homeland" as well as militarization in style if not always in institutional responsibility on internal security. European states, including UK, on the other hand, have continued to treat the threat of terrorism first and foremost as a matter of internal security to be dealt with by courts and law enforcement agencies, Action beyond borders for the states of Europe has typically taken place in multilateral contexts, with an emphasis on collaboration among intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

Highlights

Introduction

Contrary to the common view concerning the anti-terrorism policy-making of the European Union, especially among its powerful member countries, has always been based upon the following of American anti-terrorism policy-making trace, the researcher in the present article emphasizes that there are obvious differences between the anti-terrorism policy-making model of the European Union and the United States of America, including the fact that for the Americans the main menace has a hard-ware aspect and comes from a real military attack from abroad so it needs to be confronted unilaterally but for the European Union the above-mentioned menace has an internal nature so it represents a soft-ware peril which derives from huge social, economic and cultural differences which exist among the foreign immigrant communities mainly Islamic communities within their hosting European countries such as France, Spain, Belgium, Germany etc…, so it has to be confronted in a multilateral way by applying the social and economic reforms within the European countries. Because of that the US and EU anti-terrorism norm-building strategy in the West Asian region has not had any constructive effect except of increasing instability as well as the emergence and spread of terrorism and extremism in this region. In short, the above-mentioned American anti-terrorism norm-building strategy, beyond focusing on the policy of regime change and unilateral confrontation in the framework of a direct war, has resulted in the emergence of bankrupt and failed States especially in Afghanistan and Iraq, which itself has led to more and more instability in regional dimensions becoming an international problem led by emergence and spread of terrorist groups in West Asia and in African Continent.

Methodology

The researcher has also used constructivist theory to theorize this issue. In this regard, it is necessary to remember that following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the bipolar system concentrated over the challenging situation existing between the United States of America and Soviet Union. In consideration of such, the regionalism became increasingly the main focal point for the United States of America and its main ally countries members of the European Union. It worth to be mentioned that Barry Bouzan and Ole Weaver, by presenting their regional security complex theory, outlined eleven security complexes in the world, which each of these complexes is based upon the international structural system which is nothing less than anarchy. The above-mentioned security systems are influenced by their intra-regional structures, which derives from the distribution of power and the shaping of relations among the regional and international actors.

 Findings

The internal and external factors and variables of each of the security systems affect the formation of the framework of the relations among the actors. In consideration of fact that the power of actors in the framework of West Asian region is limited to the borders of each State, the security complex of West Asia does not have the dominant power to deal with the influence of actors from outside of this region, so they themselves are under the influence of variables from outside the region. In fact, the great powers of other regions such as USA and EU, in addition to being considered the great powers of their regions, are also influential and play a role in other regions of the world. Following the terrorist incidents of September 11, 2001 and the increase in terrorist activities in the security complex of West Asia, the foreign policy of the United States of America and then the European Union has undergone a transformation by putting the promotion of the democratic States in this region as solution for all security problems now and in the future.

Conclusion

It is extremely important to remember that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continuous dangers arising from terrorist movements and the increase in anti-American tendencies, led the main politicians of the White House, who at that time mainly belonged to the neoconservative faction, to adopt military and security hardware approaches to replace the politics of the era. Worth to be mentioned that the main policy during the Cold War was based upon containment and maintaining the status quo. In fact, the policy-making concerning the foreign policy of America which was mainly based upon the neoconservative approaches during the President George W. Bush II, administration was completely unilateral, aggressive with a very profound military nature, and of course, the West Asian region, due to the destructive activities of Salafist-Wahhabi Takfirists terrorist organizations in this region, such as Al-Qaeda, has became the main scene of this presence. In consideration of  all above-mentioned strategic aspects, the American military attack in Afghanistan in 2001 and the overthrow of the Taliban regime in this country, and then in 2003 to Iraq and the overthrow of the Baath Party regime headed by Saddam Hussein, which was mainly accused of proliferation of mass-destruction weapons that could have been questioned seriously the hegemonic position of America in West Asia and in whole world, has been prepared and properly applied.

It is necessary to remember that the phenomenon of terrorism has undergone a fundamental transformation from the point of view of the United States of America. Therefore, terrorism has gone out of the framework of the internal security threat of the United States of America and has become an external, multi-dimensional, hardware and military threatening factor that threatens the United States from outside the geographical borders of this country. In the light of such a new security strategy and attitude, extensive developments in the field of reorganizing the command structure of the armed forces of this country with an emphasis on preparing for the implementation of preventive measures at the point of time when the need arises, also beyond shaping the unilateralist measures under the title of defense of the "security of the motherland" as well as the widespread "militarization" of the country's affairs in case of any terrorist act with deep destructive and subversive dimensions have been raised. It is worth noting that within the framework of such a hardware perspective, one could not expect anything but the expansion of security instability and the formation of terrorist groups in the West Asian region.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Barzegar, K. & Tabeafshar, S. (2016). Neoclassical Realism and American Foreign Policy; A Theoretical Analysis of Understanding US Foreign Policy. Political and International Approaches, 8(1), 42-70. (In Persian)
  2. Beit Jam, R., Khosravi, M. A., Jalali, R., & Sadeghi Haghighi, D. (2022). United States of America and the Iraq War According to Constructivism and Cultural Strategy. International Studies Journal (ISJ), 18(4), 179-200. doi: 10.22034/isj.2022.298483.1558 (In Persian)
  3. Dassa Kaye, D., Robinson, L., Martini, J., Vest, N., & Rhoades, A. (2021). Reimagining U.S. Strategy in the Middle East. Sustainable Partnerships, Strategic Investments (Executive Summary)
  4. Darvishi, F., & Hatamzadeh, A. (2013). The Process of US and EU Confrontation with Terrorism from Different Perceptions to Collaboration. Geopolitics Quarterly, 9(30), 136-160. (In Persian)
  5. Extraordinary European Council – Brussels. (2001). available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2002:087E:0216:0219:EN: PDF.
  6. Falahnejad, A., & Zakerian, M. (2016). America's Role in Middle East Crisis from a Structuralist Perspective (After 2010). International Relations Research, 6(21), 15-52. (In Persian).
  7. Ghahreman Pour, R. (2004). Constructivism: From International Politics to Foreign Policy. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 7(24), 299-318 (In Persian).
  8. Hatemzadeh, A., & Latifian, S. (2011). Differences and cooperation between the United States and the European Union in the fight against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction in the period after September 11. Dissertation, University of Tehran (In Persian).
  9. Moshirzadeh, H. (2019). Evolution in theories of international relations. Tehran; Side Publications (InPersian).
  10. Salhi, S. (2016). America and Terrorism. Tehran; The Echo of Justice (In Persian).
  11. McNamara, S. (2011). The EU–U.S. Counterterrorism Relationship: An Agenda for Cooperation. Backgrounder, No. 2528, Published by The Heritage Foundation.
  12. Motaghi, I and Kazemi, H. (2007). Coustructivism, Identity, Langyage and Foreign Policy of Islamic Republic of Iran. Pplitical Quarterly, 37(4), 209-237 (InPersian).
  13. Qawam, A. (2004). International Relations, Theories and Approaches. Tehran; Side Publications (In Persian).
  14. Rostow, N. (2001). Before and after: The changed UN response to terrorism since September 11th. Cornell Int'l LJ, 35, 475.
  15. Shafaat, M., Emamjomehzadeh, S., & Masoudnia, H. (2021). Investigating the Factors and Contexts Influencing the Re emergence of ISIS in Iraq, International Studies Journal, 18(2), 101-119. doi: 10.22034/isj.2021.235284.1146 (In Persian).
  16. Shafiei, I., & Karam Safari, A. (2011). The formation of a new cold war in the competition between America and Russia in the Caucasus region. Political and International Studies, 4(12), 185-229 (InPersian).
  17. Shosudovsky, M. (2009). America's war with terrorism. Translated by Jamshid Navaei, Tehran; Nagha Publications (InPersian).
  18. Khaluzadeh, S. (2013), European Union. Tehran: Samit Publications (InPersian).
  19. US National Strategy for Combating Terrorism. (2003). at: http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/policy/national/counter_terrorism_strategy.pdf
  20. Wahyu, W. (2013). The Constructivist Approach towards Foreign Policy Analysis. [Online]. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics