However critics may point out that the Gulf War was ‘overwhelmingly an American effort’ and shows a continuing theme in American foreign policy for them to ‘go it alone’ (Gordon, 2001, ) and underlines America’s willingness to not get too involved with its European allies so that they can make their own decisions without too much consultation with other countries. This isolationist theory that still exists gives a good example of how U.S Foreign policy has remained similar to what it was during the cold war and with suspicions in the beginning that the Soviet Union would condemn the attacks on Iraq shows a continuing mistrust of the ex-communist states.
The Gulf War created what President Bush Snr described as a ‘new world order’ in which America ‘had the opportunity to remake American foreign policy’ (Dumbrell, 1997, page 163). This called for multilateral collective action against threats to world peace and demonstrated America’s willingness to share the role as the world’s policeman and to co-operate more closely with Europe than since the end of the second world war. Also ‘the new world order recognised that the U.S could not do everything’ and therefore helped to dispose of the old isolationist approach to international relations (Dumbrell, 1997, page 163). However ‘the New World Order did embody themes from the early days of containment and preponderant power’ and it could be argued by radical critics that it was simply an attempt to ‘recreate a world of uncontested U.S power’ (Dumbrell, 1997, page 164). This can be seen as over exaggerated but the ‘New World Order’ was certainly not the end of disputes with European countries and should not be seen as a pivotal point in the change of U.S foreign policy towards Europe.
Over the Bosnian conflict the U.S were at first reluctant to involve itself on a military footing. Even though Serbian aggression had violated the ‘New World Order’ President Bush was ‘adamant that the U.S would not act as a global policeman in every instance – especially where key U.S interests were uninvolved’ (Dumbrell, 1997, page 168) and therefore demonstrated the remaining realist approach to global matters by the U.S that shows the lack of change since the cold war era. However after Bill Clinton was appointed president and the arms embargo on the Bosnian government between July and August 1995 was lifted, there appeared to be more of a willingness to get involved with the peacekeeping efforts of Europe in the former Yugoslavia.
America’s involvement can be seen as a significant step towards better relations with Europe in the post cold war era. Before their involvement America’s ‘reluctance to wield force has undermined the unity and resolve of the western powers’ (Economist, 9th Sept 1995, page 37) and shows the fragile nature of relations between Europe and the U.S, however co-operation over the peacekeeping in Bosnia helped to bring America and Europe together. In one report it was claimed that ‘America, France and Britain – the driving force behind the military effort – have displayed an impressive degree of unity’ (Economist, 9th Sept 1995, page 37) which supports the claim that since the cold war era relations between the U.S and Europe have been improved, especially with Russia supporting the efforts in Bosnia which could not have been predicted considering the atrocious state of U.S-Soviet relations under a decade ago during the cold war
After Bill Clinton decided to get the U.S militarily involved in the Bosnian conflict he began to be more involved in foreign policy towards Europe, with some crowning him as ‘a foreign policy president’ (Economist, Oct 14th 1995, page 67). This was partly due to his efforts to be re-elected, especially after the loss of power over America’s domestic agenda now that the Republican party controlled Congress. His involvement in Bosnia ‘he boasts…are bringing results’ (Economist, Oct 14th 1995, page 67) and with progress being made in other European areas of military conflict like the diplomatic talks in Northern Ireland and later military action in Kosovo we can see what a significant difference Clinton made to the nature of U.S foreign policy, how he has moved America into closer understanding with Europe and how he has helped shape U.S foreign policy into what it has become in present day. He helped America make the transitional stage from being a lone actor on international affairs, which they had been for some time, to one that is the leader who works closely with her allies. In a conference organised by Freedom House on October 16th 1995 Mr Clinton stated that “If the United states does not lead, the job will not be done” and used the word “leadership” 22 times to show ‘that there was a method in American foreign policy’ (Economist, 14th Oct 1995, page 67)
However America’s involvement with European conflicts under Clinton cannot be seen as perfect. In Bosnia the U.S were involved in incidents of military action when European leaders were not informed, with General Janvier the U.N commander ‘not consulted on the use of Tomahawks’ (Economist, 16th Sept 1995, page 47) and with the ‘Brussels headquarters worry that, increasingly, the Pentagon is running the show’ (Economist, 16th Sept 1995, page 47). This shows that U.S co-operation with Europe over military matters is not quite as smooth as it first appears. Also with ‘the quarrel over which comes first in Northern Ireland, political talks or a handing over of IRA’s arms’ (Economist, 14th Oct 1995, page 68) remained unsolved by Clinton and still does. So while we should recognize the important steps that America, under Clinton, made in closer co-operation with Europe, we should also see that transatlantic relations still bear resemblances to the relationship that existed during the cold war. One which suspicion still exists especially of the ex-communist states which can be seen with Clintons reluctance in 1995 to allow ex-communist states, namely Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary, to join NATO because of the risk ‘of tipping Russia back into dictatorship’ (Economist, 1st July 1995, page 43).
Americas involvement in the conflict in Kosovo saw U.S troops working closely with European troops under NATO, as well as involving intense diplomatic talks between U.S politicians, western European politicians and more significantly Russian politicians. Russian leaders at first condemned attacks by NATO on Serbians who are ethnically closely linked to the Russian people. However Russia became more ‘favourable to co-operating with NATO’ (Economist, 8th May 1999, page 41) as soon as western leaders went against suggestions of a ground assault. This highlights how America and Europe were able to co-operate over a peace agreement with an ‘alliance that…stuck together well in a war that many thought the West would have no stomach for’ (Economist, 22nd May 1999, page 47). Table 1 shows how America led armed support in the Kosovo war but with significant military backup from Europe.
(Source from Economist, 8th May 1999, page 42)
This co-operation is very different to relations during the cold war in which America was to ‘beware of involvement in European affairs’ (Bohlen, 1969, page 11) and shows significant progress in U.S foreign policy towards Europe. However relations in recent years should not be presumed to be concrete as some still saw them as a ‘fragile consensus between Russia and the West’ (Economist, 22nd May 1999, page 47) and Russian leaders expressed their reluctance to commit troops to the peacekeeping efforts in Kosovo without the reassurance from President Clinton ‘that its troops would not be formally subordinated to NATO’ (Economist, 12th June 1999, page 46).
President Clinton’s critics argue that the war in Kosovo was a ‘U.S led terror campaign against Yugoslavia’ (Grigg, 1999, ) and see America’s involvement as being too aggressive towards the Serbian forces. If these claims are to be taken seriously then U.S foreign policy could be deemed to be too heavy handed to its approach to certain European matters. However the source of these claims is from a predominantly Republican journal that goes to the extreme to frame a Democratic Clinton as the ‘chief author of the Yugoslav terror campaign’ (Grigg, 1999, ) without any clear argument that is backed up by credible facts.
The September 11th attacks on America ‘seemed fated to change radically and permanently the degree to which, and the way in which, the U.S engaged with the rest of the world’ (Gordon, 2001, ). This applies significantly to U.S foreign policy towards Europe with closer links being established towards virtually every European country. America moved to agree with Russia over ‘a new set of strategic understandings better suited to the post cold war era’ (The Economist, 10th Nov 2001, page 13) and demonstrated how far the two countries had come since the end of the cold war. American foreign policy has adopted the approach of establishing allies who support the war on terrorism, this shows its changing nature from that which existed during the cold war. The recent attacks helped to ‘erase the concept in some quarters that America can somehow go it alone in the fight against terrorism or in anything else for that matter’ (Bush Snr, 2001, ).
American relations with Europe were strengthened after the September 11th attacks with Europe showing ‘clear expressions of solidarity – and offers of support’ (Gordon, 2001, ) under the terms of article 5 of the NATO treaty. This shows how U.S foreign policy has increasingly started to realise that Europe can be a very useful ally and has ‘put a higher premium on multilateral cooperation’ (Gordon, 2001, ) than ever before. However not every European supported America with some believing that ‘the attacks on America were a consequence of the evils of American foreign policy’ (Economist, Sept 15th 2001, page 21) which shows that U.S foreign policy must also be careful because it has enemies in Europe as well as the middle east.
To conclude we must look at the past decade since the end of the cold war and realise that American foreign policy has moved on a great deal. The ‘New World Order’ in 1991 ‘recognised that the U.S could not do everything’ (Dumbrell, 1997, page 163) and signalled the start of an American Foreign Policy that relied more on multilateral action rather than unilateral. This change has meant that the U.S has had to find closer friends and has therefore brought Europe in as a closer ally than ever before. The different conflicts that America has joined on European soil, fighting with European soldiers in Bosnia and Kosovo has brought the two together through co-operation on military matters. Also ‘the September 11th attacks will not be an American return to isolationism, but a reinvigoration of engagement’ (Gordon, 2001, ) with relations with Russia never being so good in the post-cold war era. This constantly changing world environment means that the future of U.S foreign policy will never be certain but the days of isolationism and suspicion of Europe are for the moment behind us and with the new war on terrorism in which America will lead ‘U.S foreign policy will probably never be the same again’ (Gordon, 2001, ).
Word Count - 2729
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Charles E. Bohlen, 1969, The transformation of American Foreign Policy, Macdonald & Company Ltd, London
John Dumbrell, 1997, American Foreign Policy, MacMillan Press Ltd, Hampshire
Philip Gordon, 2001, ‘September 11th and American foreign policy’, ()
William N. Grigg, The New American, ‘NATO’s terror campaign’
Vol 15, No 17, 1999, (
Ronald Reagan, 1982, “Evil Empire Speech”, (http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/rr40/speeches/empire.htm)
The Economist, ‘Countdown’, 5th January 1991, page 51
The Economist, ‘That NATO headache’, 1st July 1995, page 43
The Economist, ‘Ratko refuses to leave the sinking ship’, 6th September 1995, page 47
The Economist, ‘The West’s two-track mind’, 9th September 1995, page 37
The Economist, ‘The world at his feet’, 14th October 1995, page 67
The Economist, ‘Bombs over Belgrade’, 8th May 1999, page 41
The Economist, ‘Diplomacy amid the rubble’, 22nd May 1999, page 47
The Economist, ‘Peace, for now, in Kosovo’, 12th June 1999, page 45
The Economist, ‘Old friends, best friends’, 15th September 2001, page 20
The Economist, ‘Suddenly, such good neighbours’, 10th November 2001, page 13
Yahia Zoubir, ‘U.S and Soviet policies towards France’s struggle with anti-colonial nationalism in North Africa’, Canadian Journal of History, Vol. 30, No. 3, December 1995