Advertisement

Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 143–160 | Cite as

The USA and the EU as a third party in Middle East peacemaking: an asymmetric division of labour

  • Taylan Özgür KayaEmail author
Article

Abstract

This article aims to analyse the role played by the USA and the European Union (EU) in Middle East peacemaking. It argues that there exists a de facto division of labour between two actors. While the USA has played a primary role and acted as the principal mediator in successive mediation efforts and dominated political and diplomatic dimension of the peace process; the EU was relegated to a secondary and supplementary role and has mainly focused on economic and financial dimension of the peace process and the creation of the structural conditions for sustainable peace which aimed to complement peacemaking efforts at the diplomatic level.

Keywords

USA European Union Arab—Israeli conflict peacemaking third party 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Peter L. Hahn, Crisis and Crossfire: The United States and the Middle East Since 1945 (Washington, DC: Fotomac Books, 2005), 7.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Michael C. Hudson, ‘The United States in the Middle East’, in International Relations of the Middle East, ed. Louise Fawcett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 325.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hahn, Crisis and Crossfire, 7.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alan P. Dobson and Steve Marsh, US Foreign Policy Since 1945. 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2006), 119.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Costanza Musu, ‘The EU and the Middle East Peace Process: A Balance’, Studia Diplomatica LX, no. 1 (2007): 16.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    David Allen and Michael Smith, ‘Europe, the United States, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict’, in European Foreign Policy-making and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, ed. David Allen and Alfred Pijpers (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1984), 191.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    The landmark declarations issued by EC Member States during the 1970s and 1980s were Brussels Declaration of 1973, London Declaration of 1977 and Venice Declaration of 1980.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Philip Robin, ‘Always the Bridesmaid: Europe and the Middle East Peace Process’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs 10, no. 2 (1997): 74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hazel Smith, European Union Foreign Policy, What It Is and What It Does (London: Pluto Press, 2002), 169.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Daniel C. Kurtzer et al., The Peace Puzzle: America’s Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace, 1989–2011 (New York: Cornell University Press, 2013), 8.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Douglas Sturkey, The Limits of American Power: Prosecuting a Middle East Peace (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007), 34.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Patrick Müller and Claire Spencer, ‘From Madrid to Camp David: Europe, the US, and the Middle East Peace Process in the 1990s’, in European-American Relations and the Middle East, From Suez to Iraq, ed. Daniel Möckli and Victor Mauer (Oxon: Routledge, 2011), 114.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Joel Peters, ‘Europe and the Middle East Peace Process: Emerging from the Sidelines’, in The Foreign Policies of the European Union’s Mediterranean States and Applicant Countries in the 1990s, ed. Stelios Stavridis, Theodore Couloumbis, Thanos Veremis, and Neville Waites (London: Macmillan Press, 1999), 300.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sturkey, The Limits of American Power, 40.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ben Soetendorp, ‘The EU’s Involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process: The Building of a Visible International Identity’, European Foreign Affairs Review 7, no. 3 (2002): 286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Joel Peters, Pathways to the Peace: The Multilateral Arab-Israeli Talks (London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1996), 5.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Ibid., 10.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ibid., 60.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Soetendorp, ‘The EU’s Involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process’, 287.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Müller and Spencer, ‘From Madrid to Camp David’, 114.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Joel Peters, ‘Europe and the Arab-Israeli Peace Process: The Declaration of the European Council of Berlin and Beyond’, in Bound to Cooperate: Europe and the Middle East, ed. Sven Behrendt and Christian-Peter Hanelt (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Foundation, 2000), 163.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Alicia Martin-Diaz, ‘The Middle East Peace Process and the European Union’, European Parliament Working Paper (POLI-115 EN, May 1999), 32.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Musu, ‘The EU and the Middle East Peace Process: A Balance’, 19.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    These countries were Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey and the PA.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Taylan Özgür Kaya, The Middle East Peace Process and the EU: Foreign Policy and Security Strategy in International Politics (London: I.B. Tauris, 2013), 110.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Costanza Musu, ‘The Madrid Quartet: An Effective Instrument of Multilateralism?’, in The Monitor of the EU-Israel Action Plan, ed. Roby Nathanson and Stephan Stetter (Tel Aviv: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2006), 282.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Robin, ‘Always the Bridesmaid’, 81; Joel Peters, ‘Can the Multilateral Middle East Talks be Revived?’, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal 3, no. 4 (1999): 69.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Peters, ‘Can the Multilateral Middle East Talks be Revived?’, 70.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hahn, Crisis and Crossfire, 95.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kurtzer et al., The Peace Puzzle, 114.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sturkey, The Limits of American Power, 124.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ibid., 125.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
  38. 38.
    Müller and Spencer, ‘From Madrid to Camp David’, 116.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Soetendorp, ‘The EU’s Involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process’, 289.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Peters, ‘Europe and the Middle East Peace Process’, 312.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Soetendorp, ‘The EU’s Involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process’, 290.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Peters, ‘Europe and the Middle East Peace Process’, 312.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Soetendorp, ‘The EU’s Involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process’, 294.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Costanza Musu, ‘European Security and the Middle East Peace Process’, in European Security since the Fall of the Berlin Wall, ed. Frédéric Mérand and Martial Foucault and Bastien Irondelle (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011), 284.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Dobson and Marsh, US Foreign Policy Since 1945, 180.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shada Islam, ‘Falling Short Again’, Middle East International (2002): 13Google Scholar
  47. 46a.
    Costanza Musu, ‘The Middle East Quartet: A New Role for Europe?’, in European-American Relations and the Middle East, From Suez to Iraq, ed. Daniel Möckli and Victor Mauer (Oxon: Routledge, 2011), 127.Google Scholar
  48. 47.
    Rosemary Hollis, ‘No Friends of Democratization: Europe’s Role in the Genesis of the “Arab Spring“’, International Affairs 88, no. 1 (2012): 90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 48.
    Costanza Musu, European Union Policy towards the Arab-Israeli Peace Process: The Quicksands of Politics (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 49.
    Muriel Asseburg, ‘The EU and the Middle East Conflict: Tackling the Main Obstacle to Euro-Mediterranean Partnership’, Mediterranean Politics, 8, nos. 2–3 (2003): 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 50.
    Kaya, The Middle East Peace Process and the EU, 137.Google Scholar
  52. 51.
    Ibid., 137.Google Scholar
  53. 52.
  54. 53.
    Ibid., 138.Google Scholar
  55. 54.
  56. 55.
    Esra Bulut, ‘EUBAM Rafah (Palestinian Territories)’, in European Security and Defence Policy: The First Ten Years, ed. Giovanni Grevi, Damien Helly and Daniel Keohane (France: EU ISS, 2009), 302.Google Scholar
  57. 56.
    Damien Helly and Daniel Keohane (France: EU ISS, 2009), 302 Ibid.Google Scholar
  58. 57.
    Kaya, The Middle East Peace Process and the EU, 168.Google Scholar
  59. 58.
  60. 59.
  61. 60.
    Lazaroff, Tovah, ‘EUBAM Head: Keeping Rafah Open is the Trick’, The Jerusalem Post, February 6, 2009, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle% 2FShowFull&cid=1233304702298 (accessed June 25, 2009).Google Scholar
  62. 61.
    Kaya, The Middle East Peace Process and the EU, 169.Google Scholar
  63. 62.
    Muriel Asseburg, ‘The ESDP Missions in the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS, EUBAM Rafah): Peace through Security’, in The EU as a Strategic Actor in the Realm of Security and Defence: A Systematic Assessment of ESDP Missions and Operations, ed. Muriel Asseburg and Ronja Kempin (Berlin: German Institute for International and Security Affairs, 2009), 84.Google Scholar
  64. 63.
    Kaya, The Middle East Peace Process and the EU, 169.Google Scholar
  65. 64.
  66. 65.
  67. 66.
  68. 67.
    Ibid., 170.Google Scholar
  69. 68.
  70. 69.
  71. 70.
    European Commission, ‘The European Commission’s “Seyada” Project — “Empowering the Palestinian Judicial System“’, May 1, 2009, http://www.lacs.ps/documentsShowaspx?ATT_ID=3714. (accessed May 20, 2015).Google Scholar
  72. 71.
    www.lacs.ps.url/documentsShowaspx?ATT_ID=3714. (accessed May 20, 2015) Ibid.Google Scholar
  73. 72.
    Lena Kolarska-Bobinska and Magdelena Mughrabi, ‘New Member States’ Policy Towards the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The Case of Poland’, EuroMesco Paper No. 69, June 2008, 11, http://www.euromesco.net/images/paper69eng.pdf (accessed June 23, 2015).Google Scholar
  74. 73.
    Asseburg, ‘The EU and the Middle East Conflict’, 180.Google Scholar
  75. 74.
    Although the exact amount of money the EU has spent is not accurately known, a mid-level European External Action Service official put forward that since the peace process started the EU, including the individual member states, has provided over €10 billion to the Palestinians. (Quoted in Persson, The EU and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: In Pursuit of a Just Peace, 130.)Google Scholar
  76. 75.
    Chris Patten, Coherence and Co-operation: The EU as Promoter of Peace and Development (Stockholm: Swedish Institute of International Affairs, 2001), http://www.europaworld.org/DEVPOLAWAR/Eng/Conflict/Conflict_DocD_eng.htm (accessed December 1, 2007).Google Scholar
  77. 76.
    Musu, ‘The Middle East Quartet: A New Role for Europe?’, 135.Google Scholar
  78. 77.
    Kurtzer et al., The Peace Puzzle, 224.Google Scholar
  79. 78.
    Ibid., 236.Google Scholar
  80. 79.
    Musu, ‘The Middle East Quartet: A New Role for Europe?’, 135.Google Scholar
  81. 80.
    Christian-Peter Hanelt, ‘After Annapolis: What is Europe’s Role in Facilitating the Implementation of a Two-State Solution’, in Bound to Cooperate: Europe and the Middle East II, ed. Christian-Peter Hanelt and Almut Möller (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Foundation, 2008), 210.Google Scholar
  82. 81.
    Fawaz A. Gerges, Obama and the Middle East: The End of America’s Moment? (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 126.Google Scholar
  83. 82.
    Musu, ‘European Security and the Middle East Peace Process’, 280.Google Scholar
  84. 83.
    Musu, European Union Policy towards the Arab-Israeli Peace Process, 162.Google Scholar
  85. 84.
    A proactive follower is one that contributes to decisions which affect the group and displays independent thinking. As such, this style of followership is more of a partnership, http://www.switchandshift.com/how-to-influence-your-manager-passive-versus-proactive-followership (accessed May 12, 2015).
  86. 85.
    Anders Persson, The EU and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: In Pursuit of a Just Peace (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2015), 148–9.Google Scholar
  87. 86.
    Alain Dieckhoff, ‘The European Union and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’, Journal Inroads, no. 16 (Winter–Spring 2005): 54.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of Transatlantic Studies 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of International RelationsNecmettin Erbakan University, Faculty of Social Sciences and HumanitiesTurkey

Personalised recommendations