Advertisement

Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 41–61 | Cite as

An institutional approach to foreign policy-making: the EU, the USA and crisis management in Africa

  • Daniela SicurelliEmail author
  • Sergio Fabbrini
Article

Abstract

Since the end of the cold war, the USA and the European Union (EU) have developed different foreign and security policies towards Africa. The USA has prioritised the fight against terrorism, while the EU’s foreign policy has been primarily driven by the goal of structural stability. The difference between the two approaches can be partially explained by pointing to the different power resources of the two actors. Nevertheless, these structural differences have not prevented variations in how the two actors have redefined their foreign policy approaches over time and opted for alternative policy instruments. Comparison between the US and EU interventions in Sudan and Somalia shows that domestic factors account for the differences and variations in their respective foreign policy frameworks. This article argues that these differences and variations make the distinction between a ‘military America’ and a ‘civilian power Europe’ more nuanced than depicted by the mainstream literature on transatlantic relations.

Keywords

USA European Union foreign policy-making conflict management Africa 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    The EU formally came into being with the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. Before 1992, its last denomination was the European Community (EC). Between the Maastricht Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty (2009), the EU denomination indicated the first pillar and not the other two more intergovernmental pillars, although it was common to use that denomination for the entire polity. The Lisbon Treaty, abolishing the distinction between the three pillars, has formalised that usage.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    European Commission, Preventing Conflicts in Africa - A Comprehensive Response by the European Union no. IP/96/207, 7, March 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    See Christopher Hill, The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    See James M. Mc Cormick, American Foreign Policy & Process (Boston, MA: Wadsworth Publishing, 2010)Google Scholar
  5. 4a.
    John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (London: Allen Lane, 2007)Google Scholar
  6. 4b.
    Robert Pahre, Democratic Foreign Policy Making Problems of Divided Government and International Cooperation (Houndmills Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2008).Google Scholar
  7. 5.
    See Christopher Hill, The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy (New York, NY: Palgrave, 2003)Google Scholar
  8. 5a.
    Christopher Hill and Michael Smith, International Relations and the European Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)Google Scholar
  9. 5b.
    Brian White, ‘Foreign Policy Analysis and European Union Foreign Policy’, in Rethinking European Union Foreign Policy, eds. Ben Torna and Thomas Christiansen (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004), 45–61.Google Scholar
  10. 6.
    Maurizio Carbone, ‘The European Union and China’s Rise in Africa: Competing Visions, External Coherence and Trilateral Cooperation’, Journal of Contemporary African Studies 29, no. 2 (2011): 203–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 7.
    Divided government is the condition in which two different party majorities control the presidency and the Congress. By contrast, unified government is the condition in which the President and the majority of Congress belong to the same political party. The former was the rule in the 1990s (with the exception of 1993–1994) while the latter has been the quasi-rule in the 2000s (with the exception of 2007–2008 and 2010–2012). To be noted is that, in the 2001–2002 period, the Senate had a one-seat Democratic majority, although that did not prevent the institution from supporting all the decisions taken by the Republican president after 11 September 2001. Because of the decisions taken, the Republican unified government of the 2003–2006 period has characterised the entire decade.Google Scholar
  12. 8.
    Giovanna Bono, ‘The EU’s Military Operation in Chad and the Central African Republic: An Operation to Save Lives?’, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 5, no. 1 (2011): 23–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 8a.
    Bruno Charbonneau, France and the New Imperialism: Security Policy in Sub-Saharan Africa (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008).Google Scholar
  14. 9.
    The acronym CSDP was introduced in the Lisbon Treaty, replacing the previous European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP).Google Scholar
  15. 10.
    Niagalé Bagoyoko and Marie V. Gibert, ‘The Linkage between Security, Governance and Development: The European Union in Africa’, Journal of Development Studies 45, no. 5 (2009): 789–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 11.
    Kamil Zwolksi, ‘The EU and a Holistic Security Approach after Lisbon: Competing Norms and the Power of the Dominant Discourse’, Journal of European Public Policy 19, no. 7 (2012): 1–18.Google Scholar
  17. 12.
    Asle Toje, ‘The European Union as a Small Power’, Journal of Common Market Studies 49, no. 1 (2011): 43–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 12a.
    Charlotte Wagnsson, ‘Divided Power Europe: Normative Divergences among the EU Big Three’, Journal of European Public Policy 17, no. 8 (2010): 1089–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 13.
    Nicole Alecu De Flersand and Elfriede Regelsberger, ‘The EU and Inter-regional Cooperation’, in International Relations and the European Union, eds. Christopher Hill and Michael Smith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 317–42.Google Scholar
  20. 14.
    Matthew A. Baum, ‘How Public Opinion Constrains the Use of Force: The Case of Operation Restore Hope’, Presidential Studies Quarterly 3, no. 2 (2004): 187–226.Google Scholar
  21. 15.
    Bill Clinton, Address on Somalia, October 7, 1993, https://doi.org/millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/4566 (accessed February 5, 2012).
  22. 16.
    Brian Patrick Hoey, ‘Humanitarian Intervention in Somalia, 1992–1994: Elite Newspaper Coverage, Public Opinion, and US Foreign Policy’ (unpublished PhD diss., University of Maryland, 1995), quoted in Douglas Delaney, ‘Cutting, Running, or Otherwise? The US Decision to Withdraw from Somalia’, Small Wars & Insurgencies 15, no. 3 (2011): 28–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 17.
    Piers Robinson, ‘The CNN Effect: Can the News Media Drive Foreign Policy’, Review of International Studies 25, no. 2 (1999): 301–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 18.
    House of Representatives, Concurrent Resolution no. 170, October 22, 1993.Google Scholar
  25. 19.
    Baz Lecocq and Paul Schrijver, ‘The War on Terror in a Haze of Dust: Potholes and Pitfalls on the Saharan Front’, Journal of Contemporary African Studies 25, no. 1 (2007): 141–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 20.
    Mohamed Ibrahim, ‘Somalia and Global Terrorism: A Growing Connection?’, Journal of Contemporary African Studies 28, no. 3 (2010): 37–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 21.
    Apuuli P. Kasaija, ‘The UN-Led Djibouti Peace Process for Somalia 2008–2009: Results and Problems’, Journal of Contemporary African Studies 28, no. 3 (2010): 261–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 22.
    Herman J. Cohen, ‘In Sub-Saharan Africa, Security Is Overtaking Development as Washington’s Top Policy Priority’, American Foreign Policy Interests 30, no. 2 (2008): 88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 23.
    Mike M. Pflanz, ‘Hillary Clinton to Pledge US Support for Somalia again al-Shabaab Terrorists’, The Telegraph, August 4, 2009.Google Scholar
  30. 24.
    US Embassy to Addis Ababa, U.S. Condemns ‘Outrageous’ Attack by al-Shabaab on Somali Hotel, Press Release, August 24, 2010.Google Scholar
  31. 25.
    Ted Dagne, Sudan: Humanitarian Crisis, Peace Talks, Terrorism and US Policy, Issue Brief for Congress, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Division, August 2, 2002, 18.Google Scholar
  32. 26.
    Indeed, especially after his re-election in 1996, Bill Clinton was subject to systematic attack from neo-conservative quarters. Finally, he was submitted to the impeachment procedure, which failed by only a few votes in the Senate in 1999.Google Scholar
  33. 27.
    John Dumbrell, ‘Was There a Clinton Doctrine? President Clinton’s Foreign Policy Reconsidered’, Diplomacy & Statecraft 13, no. 2 (2002): 43–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 28.
    United States Senate, Testimony of Senator Jesse Helms, Senate Foreign Relations, International Operations, UN International Criminal Court, July 23, 1998.Google Scholar
  35. 29.
    Gorm R. Olsen, ‘The Post September 11 Global Security Agenda: A Comparative Analysis of United States and European Union Policies towards Africa’, International Politics 45, no. 3 (2008): 457–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 30.
    Theresa Reinold, ‘The United States and the Responsibility to Protect: Impediment, Bystander, or Norm Leader?’, Global Responsibility to Protect 3 (2011): 61–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 31.
    Jonathan Stevenson, ‘Risks and Opportunities in Somalia’, Survival 49, no. 2 (2007): 5–20.Google Scholar
  38. 32.
    Pew Research Center. Public Wants to Know More about Darfur and Many Favor U.S. Involvement, June 7, 2007.Google Scholar
  39. 33.
    Ellen Hallams, ‘The Transatlantic Alliance Renewed: The United States and NATO since 9/11’, Journal of Transatlantic Studies 7, no. 1 (2009): 38–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 34.
    Susan E. Rice, Dithering on Darfur: U.S. Inaction in the Face of Genocide, Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 11, 2007.Google Scholar
  41. 35.
    AFRICOM, ‘Advanced Questions for General William E. “Kip” Ward, U.S. Army Nominee for Commander’, Press release, 2007, https://doi.org/www.africom.mil/file.asp?pdfID=20071029142917 (accessed February 5, 2012).
  42. 36.
    Gorm R. Olsen, ‘Civil-Military Cooperation in Crisis Management in Africa: American and European Union Policies Compared’, Journal of International Relations and Development 14, no. 3 (2011): 333–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 37.
    Reuters, US Keeps Sudan Sanction but Offers Dialogue, October 19, 2009.Google Scholar
  44. 38.
    Marjorie Lister, The European Union and the South: Relations with Developing Countries (London: Taylor & Francis, 1997).Google Scholar
  45. 39.
    Karin Von Hippel and Alexandros Yannis, ‘The European Response to State Collapse in Somalia’, in European Approaches to Crisis Management, ed. Knud E. Jørgensen (Leiden and Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 1997), 65–82.Google Scholar
  46. 40.
    Kjell A. Eliassen, ‘Introduction, The New Foreign and Security Policy Agenda’, in Foreign and Security Policy in the European Union, ed. Kjell A. Eliassen (London: Sage Publications, 1998), 1–8.Google Scholar
  47. 41.
    European Commission, Communication on Conflict Prevention, Brussels, April 11, 2001, Com (2001) 211 final.Google Scholar
  48. 42.
    Mario Raffaelli, ‘The EU in Somalia: Furthering Peacemaking and Reconciliation’, International Spectator 42, no. 1 (2007): 121–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 43.
    Toby Vogel, ‘Military Mission to Somalia’, European Voice, March 18, 2010.Google Scholar
  50. 44.
    Andrew Hansen, The French Military in Africa, Council on Foreign Relations, Working Paper, February 8, 2008.Google Scholar
  51. 45.
    European Parliament, Resolution on Migration Flows Arising from Instability: Scope and Role of EU Foreign Policy, no. COM(2011) 248 final, April 5, 2011, Brussels; European Commission, Communication on Migration, Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, n. COM(2011) 248 final, May 4, 2011.Google Scholar
  52. 46.
    European Commission, European Commission Boosts Resilience through Emergency Aid in the Horn of Africa, October 2012, https://doi.org/europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1092_en.htm?locale=en
  53. 47.
    Lister, The European Union.Google Scholar
  54. 48.
    Toby King, ‘Human Rights in European Foreign Policy: Success or Failure for Post-Modern Diplomacy?’, European Journal of International Law 10, no. 2 (1999): 313–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 49.
    Olsen, ‘The Post September 11 Global Security’Google Scholar
  56. 50.
    Christophe Cazelles, The EU as an International Organisation: The Case of Darfur, Policy Report (Paris: Centre d’analyse stratégique, 2007), https://doi.org/www.strategie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/the_EU_as_an_international_organisation_the_case_of_Darfur.pdfwww.africom.mil/file.asp?pdfID = 20071029142917 (accessed February 5, 2012).Google Scholar
  57. 51.
    Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy, ‘We Are Pushing and Pushing to Save the Darfuris’, Times, August 31, 2007.Google Scholar
  58. 52.
    Andreas Mehler, ‘France in Search of a New Africa Policy’, IP Global (Spring 2008): 28–38, 32.Google Scholar
  59. 53.
    Bono, ‘The EU’s Military Operation’.Google Scholar
  60. 54.
    Council of the EU, ‘Council Decision 2010/450/CFSP of 11 August 2010 Appointing the European Union Special Representative for Sudan’, Official Journal of the European Union August 12, 2010 European Commission, ‘The International Criminal Court, Transatlantic Relations and Co-operation with Third Parties to Promote the Rule of Law’ Speech by Dr. Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy at the Parliamentarians for Global Action, ICC Round Table, Strasbourg, April 14, 2005.Google Scholar
  61. 55.
    Luis Charbonneau, ‘France and Darfur: Dirty Deals over Genocide or Pragmatism for Peace?’, Global News Journal, September 23, 2008.Google Scholar
  62. 56.
    Hill, The Changing Politics, New York.Google Scholar
  63. 57.
    We refer to ‘separation of power government’ or better ‘separated government’ in order to avoid identifying the US governmental system with ‘presidentialism’. Indeed, it can be argued that the USA has a presidential government but is not a presidentialist democracy. Indeed, its democracy belongs to the genus of the ‘compound model’ (to which also the EU, and Switzerland, belong).Google Scholar
  64. 58.
    Rob Reynolds, ‘Al-Bashir Warrant Sparks US Unease’‘, Aljazeera, March 5, 2009.Google Scholar
  65. 59.
    Ruth Wedgwood, ‘The International Criminal Court: An American View’, European Journal of International Law 10, no. 1 (1999): 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 60.
    Stephan Stetter, EU Foreign and Interior Policies: Cross-pillar Politics and the Social Construction of Sovereignty (London: Routledge, 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 61.
    John G. Ikenberry, Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011)Google Scholar
  68. 61a.
    Michael Smith, ‘Between “Soft Power” and a Hard Place: European Union Foreign and Security Policy between the Islamic World and the United States’, International Politics 46, no. 5 (2009): 596–615; Charlotte Wagnsson, ‘Divided Power Europe’.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of Transatlantic Studies 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology and Social ResearchUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly
  2. 2.School of GovernmentRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations