Conclusion: economic and diplomatic tools vs military might

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

Robert Kagan, Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003.

Dana Priest, The Mission – Waging War and Keeping Peace with Americas' Military, New York: W.W. Norton, 2003.

For the role of the EU in the Arab-Israeli conflict see Martin Ortega (ed.), The European Union and the Crisis in the Middle East, Chaillot Paper 62, Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies, July 2003; Elena Aoun, ‘European Foreign Policy and the Arab-Israeli Dispute: Much Ado about Nothing?’ European Foreign Affairs Review, No.8, 2003, pp.298–312.

European Council. A Secure Europe in a Better World: European Security Strategy, Brussels, p.4.

Giovanna Bono, The EU's Approach to Security Challenges post 9/11: A US Prototype in the Making? Paper at the European Consortium for Political Research, Marburg, Sept. 2003.

Jean Pascal Zanders, ‘Assessing the Risk of Chemical and Biological Weapons Proliferation to Terrorists’, The Nonproliferation Review, Fall 1999, pp.17–34: Amy Sands, Deconstructing the Chemical-biological Threat: Testimony for the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 19 March 2002. CNS Report, Monterey Institute of International Studies, accessed at www.cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/asands.htm.

Bruce Hoffman, ‘Intelligence and Terrorism: Emerging Threats and New Security Challenges in the Post-Cold War Era’, Intelligence and National Security, Vol.11, No.2, 1996, pp.207–23; Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998.

On the ability of terrorists to obtain the scientific skills and expertise to develop biological and chemical weapons see C. Chyba (2002), ‘Toward Biological Security’, Foreign Affairs, Vol.81, No.3, pp.122–36; Richard Falkenrath, ‘Confronting Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Terrorism’, Survival, Vol.40, No3, 1998, pp.43–65; John Parachine, Combating terrorism: assessing the threat of biological terrorism – testimony before the subcommittee on national security, veterans' affairs, and international relations committee on government reform, US House of Representatives, 12 Oct. 2001; Andrew O'Neil, ‘Terrorist Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction: How Serious is the Threat?’ Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol.57, No.1, 2003, pp.99–112.

Cited in Martin Agüera, ‘NATO Ministers To Focus on Mending Ties’, Defense News, 2 Feb. 2004.

This is a view held by Simon Nuttall, College of Europe, Bruges, panel discussion entitled ‘Security and the Union’ at the The EU: The First Ten Years, The Next Ten Years? 33rd Annual Conference and 8th Research Conference, Newcastle, 2–4 Sept. 2003.

For an overview of fluctuations in Anglo-French relations, see Jolyon Howorth, ‘France, Britain and the Euro-Atlantic Crisis’, Survival, Vol.45, No.4, Winter 2003–2004, pp.173–91.

In early March 2004, the six ‘old’ EU member states which were participating in military operations in Iraq were: Britain, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal and Denmark. The seven states that joined the EU in May 2004 are: Lithuania, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Latvia, Estonia and Poland.