Analysis of the Regionalization of Military-Political Interests of the USA and EU on an Example of the Intervention in Libya in 2011

 
PIIS013038640013382-8-1
DOI10.31857/S013038640013382-8
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Affiliation: Kazan Federal University
Address: Russian Federation, Kazan
Affiliation: Kazan Federal University
Address: Russian Federation, Kazan
Journal nameNovaia i noveishaia istoriia
EditionIssue 1
Pages159-168
Abstract

Analyzing the military-political relations between the US and the EU, it is necessary to understand how building relationships with other international actors and regions of the world affects interaction within the North Atlantic Alliance. The goal of the research is the analysis of the regionalization of military-political interests of the USA and EU based on an example of the intervention in Libya in 2011. The article is devoted to the study of premises of the military-political interests in the USA-EU relations. To achieve that goal, the differences in military-political approaches of the USA and EU towards the Libyan intervention will be considered. The 2011 military intervention in Libya is a crucial example because it had highlighted the readiness of the USA to return to the collective military actions, which was a significant difference in comparison to the uniliteral military-political approach of George W. Bush. Moreover, it has also highlighted the EU’s readiness to lead possible future military actions. However, even though NATO’s intervention achieved its aim, it has also demonstrated the lack of consensus within the transatlantic alliance, as well as the further regionalization of members’ interests. The academic originality of the research is that although NATO’s intervention in Libya has been already analyzed from various angles, it has not been analyzed in the context of the regionalization of the military-political interests of the NATO’s American and European flanks. The authors conclude that NATO’s intervention in Libya showed the inconsistency of NATO-EU’s actions concerning the approach of a strategic consensus within the transatlantic alliance in a post-bipolar world.

Keywordsinternational relations, the USA, the EU, NATO, Libya, regionalization, military-political interests, transatlantic cooperation
Received08.06.2020
Publication date29.01.2021
Number of characters28178
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 652

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Antiukhova E.A. Podkhod NATO k uregulirovaniiu konfliktov “arabskoi vesny” [NATO’s approach towards the arrangement of the Arab Spring’s conflicts]. Ph.D. thesis. Moskva, 2016. (In Russ.)

2. Arzamanova T.V. Pozitsiia Germanii vo vremia liviiskogo krizisa – 2011: Novaia vneshnepoliticheskaia strategiia ili predvybornyi manevr? [Germany’s stance during the Libyan crisis - 2011: New foreign policy or electoral maneuve] // Evropeiskaia bezopasnost': Sobytiia, otsenki, prognozy [European security: events, estimates, forecasts]. Moskva, 2011. № 26 (42). P. 11–15. (In Russ.)

3. Evropeiskii Soiuz v XXI veke: vremia ispytanii [The European Union in the XXI century: the Time of Challenges] / Pod red. O.Iu. Potemkinoi (otv.red.), N.Iu. Kaveshnikova, N.B. Kondrat'evoi. Moskva, 2012. (In Russ.)

4. Fedorov M.S. Deiatel'nost' Evropeiskogo Soiuza po uregulirovaniiu regional'nykh konfliktov: potentsial, politicheskie mekhanizmy i praktika [The actions of the European Union in arranging regional conflicts: potential, political instruments, and practice]. Ph.D. thesis. Moskva, 2019. (In Russ.)

5. Oganisian L.D. Politika SShA i ES na arabskom Vostoke v usloviiakh protsessov politicheskoi transformatsii v stranakh regiona v 2011–2016 gg. (na primere Tunisa, Egipta i Livii) [The policy of the US and EU on the Arab East within the Conditions of the Political Transformations in the Countries of the Region 2011–2016 (on the examples of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya)]. Ph.D. thesis. Moskva, 2019. (In Russ.)

6. Voskresenskii A.D. Kontseptsii regionalizatsii, regional'nykh podsistem, regional'nykh kompleksov i regional'nykh transformatsii v sovremennykh mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniiakh [Concepts of Regionalization, Regional Subsystems, Regional Complexes and Regional Transformations in Contemporary International Relations] // Sravnitel'naia polika [Comparative politics], 2012, № 2 (8). P. 30–58. (In Russ.)

7. Zvereva T.V. Vneshniaia politika sovremennoi Frantsii: monografiia [The French Contemporary Foreign Policy]. Moskva, 2014. (In Russ.)

8. Biscop S. Mediterranean Mayhem: Lessons for European Crisis Management // In an Arab Springboard for EU Foreign Policy / Eds. S. Biscop, R. Balfour and M. Emerson. Brussels, 2012. P. 75–81.

9. Brzezinski criticizes German and Polish stance on Libya // Deutsche Welle, 30.III.2011.

10. Communication conjointe au conseil européen, au parlement européen, au conseil, au comité économique et social européen et au comité des régions un partenariat pour la démocratie et une prospérité partagée avec le sud de la méditerranée. Bruxelles, le 8.3.2011. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri-CELEX%3A52011DC0200 (access date : 17.04.2020).

11. Conseil européen. Déclaration du conseil européen. Bruxelles, le 11 mars 2011. URL: http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-7-2011-INIT/fr/pdf (access date: 19.04.2020).

12. Declaration by the High Representative, Catherine Ashton, on behalf of the European Union on events in Libya. Brussels, 20 February 2011. URL: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/cfsp/119397.pdf (access date: 21.09.2020).

13. Deutsche wollen sich nicht einmischen // Stern. 16.03.2011. URL: https://www.stern.de/politik/ausland/umfrage-zu-unruhen-in-libyen-deutsche-wollen-sich-nicht-einmischen-3863588.html (access date: 22.09.2020).

14. Dorman A. NATO’s 2012 Chicago summit: a chance to ignore the issues once again? // International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 88, № 2. P. 301–312.

15. Erlanger S. Panetta Urges Europe to spend more on NATO or Risk a Hollowed-Out Alliance // The New York Times, 10.V.2011.

16. Hallams E., Schreer B. Towards a “post-American” alliance? NATO burden-sharing after Libya // International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 88, № 2. P. 313–327.

17. Kausch K., Youngs R. The End of the “Euro-Mediterranean Vision” // International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 85, № 5. P. 963–975.

18. Lizza R. How the Arab Spring remade Obama’s foreign policy // The New Yorker, 2.V.2011.

19. Regierungserklaerung von Budnesaussenminister Guido Westerwelle zu den aktuellen Entwicklungen in Libyen (Mitschrift). Die Bundesregierung, 18 Maerz 2011. URL: https://archiv.bundesregierung.de/archiv-de/regierungserklaerung-von-bundesaussenminister-guido-westerwelle-zu-den-aktuellen-entwicklungen-in-libyen-mitschrift--1122354 (access date: 22.09.2020).

20. Security Council Approves “No-Fly Zone” over Libya, Authorizing “All Necessary Measures” to protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions // Security Council. 17.03.2011. URL: https://www.un.org/press/en/2011/sc10200.doc.htm (access date: 19.09.2020).

21. Stokes D., Whitman R. Transatlantic triage? European and UK “grand strategy” after the US rebalance to Asia // International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 89, № 5. P. 1087–1107.

22. The White House. Remarks by President Barak H. Obama on Libya. February 23, 2011. URL: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-pressoffice/2011/02/23/remarks-president-libya (access date: 18.04.2020).

23. UN Security Council Resolution 1973. March 17, 2011. URL: http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_03/20110927_110311-UNSCR-1973.pdf (access date: 15.04.2020).

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up