The 11th September events have stirred common concerns among Western allies. At the same time, the evolution of American policy since then has also caused new differences to arise and old ones to resurface. While there is agreement on combating terrorism and the rogue states that support it, there are disagreements on the way to do it as well as priorities.
After something more than a year elapsed since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2002, assessments of terrorism and ways and means to respond to it continue to be central in public debates. In this paper two questions are raised with respect to terrorism.
Today, the Southern approaches to Europe are perhaps the most important source of instability for that continent and the West in general. Instability has increased as a result of the West's failed attempts to curb it in the 1990s and solve the conflicts that nurture it. As a result of this failure, frustration and interdependence - as opposed to integration- have increased regionally and globally so that Southern instability now generates larger and more diffuse spillovers than a decade ago.
In the 1990s, the end of the East-West confrontation brought about sweeping changes in the regions beyond the Mediterranean further than in the European East. During the Cold War many Middle Eastern and North African countries had received support from the USSR and sided to varying extent and in different ways with it. Thus, the Mediterranean region had been regarded by NATO as its “southern flank”. In fact, conflict in that area could give way to a “horizontal escalation” and shift the confrontation from regional to global level.
The conference was organized by the Istituto Affari Internazionali and sponsored by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, the EU Institute of Strategic Studies and the US Embassy in Rome. Its general purpose was to discuss the new international challenges and to reassess the transatlantic partnership in light of them.
During the Cold War, threats coming from across the Mediterranean Sea to Europe and the Western world in general were strictly related to the East-West confrontation. National security was not endangered by possible attacks from the Mediterranean or Middle Eastern countries as such but by the East-West escalation South-South conflict could be able to give way to. In this sense, the Arab-Israeli conflict was a central threat to Western security. What was frightening was not the military power of the regional countries but their alliance with the Soviet Union and the possibility of what at that time was called horizontal escalation (as opposed to East-West direct vertical escalation).
During the Spanish-Moroccan crisis over the Perejil/Leila islet both the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) have squarely supported Spanish sovereignty. They have completely ignored the special co-operation promoted with the Mediterranean countries from the mid-1990s onwards. This is particularly true with respect to the EU-initiated Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, whose ambitious agenda contemplates an articulated political and security agenda of collective cooperation with the Southern Mediterranean countries, including Morocco. For a number of reasons, the partners have failed to turn their aims into a practical reality. Nonetheless, co-operation is still on the agenda and the parties to the scheme are still apparently committed to it. It is true that one witnessed the same kind of response from the Arab side. The Arab League supported Moroccan claims just as unambiguously as the Western or European side did Spain. How can one explain that precisely at the time when the spirit of Euro-Med co-operation was most necessary it vanished?
Topic:
Security and International Law
Political Geography:
Europe, North Atlantic, Spain, North Africa, and Morocco
The Barcelona Declaration has to be considered as an international peacebuilding regime. International peacebuilding regimes, according to the definition of the International Crisis Group-ICG, are “international laws, norms, agreements and arrangements - global, regional or bilateral in scope - designed to minimise threats to security, promote confidence and trust, and create frameworks for dialogue and co-operation”. They are geared to prevent conflict and to post-conflict management (including preventing conflicts from re-escalating).
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Security, Human Welfare, and International Cooperation
The common language on security governance remains a mid-to long-term objective for the Euro-Med community. But, the conceptualisation of security governance is a possible way to problematise security sector reform and democratic control of armed forces in the Euro-Med context. The EU as a civilian power had in the past little authority to deal with politico-military matters. This is now changing with the operationalisation of ESDP. From a EU perspective there are three motivations to promote security governance in the Mediterranean.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Democratization, and International Law
This paper looks at the international relations across the Mediterranean Sea, between the European countries - in particular, the European Union-EU - and the countries of the Near East and North Africa. In this framework, it tries to define the role of Italy and Libya and the joint actions they can carry out to foster peace and co-operation in the area concerned.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, and International Cooperation