RWTH Aachen University
Das außen- und sicherheitspolitische Verhalten der USA nach dem 11. September 2001
Abstract
dc:descriptionThe events on September 11, 2001 cost the lives of many innocent people. The occurrences greatly influenced the political, military and cultural behaviour, as well as the safety of many countries, especially that of the USA. Plenty of safety measures were taken by the countries involved. Furthermore the relationship between the United States and their supporters and opponents became influenced by the course of events, which consequently also cast a different light on the interrelation between the USA and the European Union. In the course of the Cold War the United States felt threatened by the members of the Warsaw Pact, which proceeded from the Fulda Gap to the West. Today another threat is posed by the Islamic Fundamentalism (Islamic terrorism), which again prompts the USA to act and react to the event of September 11. and the time after. The United States present the new situation as menacing and critical, thus trying to influence other countries according to their own interests and to interfere with their domestic policy. They try to build military alliances with intent to make the imposition of economic, military and political sanctions against selected countries look natural. “This new world is full of symbols of the former Cold War. We have to state repeatedly, that the threat to safety is rising constantly.” “Increasing threats become visible in terms of atomic weapons, means of mass extermination and even terrorism.” With the new complexity of international relations following the end of the Cold War and the hope for a “new (peaceful) world order”, collapsing after September 11. at the latest, some questions gained major importance. These are basic questions, such as under which conditions it may be acceptable, especially for Western democracies, to apply military force in international systems, when human right abuse is likely. Relations and the situation under international law became difficult in 1999, after the military interventions of the NATO and the USA in the Kosovo. Together with their allies they had formed a “coalition of volunteers”. The Iraq War implicated further difficulties. The role of the UN was challenged. The meaning of terms like “democratic interventionism”, “right for self-defence”, “preemptive war” and “spreading of democracy” will have to be actively discussed and redefined. These terms are by no means new, of course, but they were seen and discussed differently during the time of the bipolar world order. In the new, apparently unipolar world order the humanitarian intervention of the Western countries in the Kosovo and the Iraq War form the vertices of the basic complex of problems. These focus on the question, if applying force against nations can be legal or even legitimate without the existence of formal justifications, such as the need for self-defence or an authorization by the United Nations Security Council. Answers to these questions are complex and have been discussed ideologically and emotionally, as public and academic debates about the self-authorization of the NATO in 1999 show. Nevertheless an academic discussion of the behaviour of the United States toward allies in the European Union after 11 September 2001 still seems essential. To improve the understanding of the influence of the events on September11., 2001 on the relations between the USA and the European Union, the political strategy in the USA after the occurrences has to be examined and analysed.
Author and committee
dc:creator, dc:contributor.*- Author dc:creator
-
- Sheikhzadeh, Shahram
- Contributors dc:contributor
-
- Rotte, Ralph
Subjects
dc:subject × 11Rights
dc:rights- Statement dc:rights
-
- info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
- Language dc:language
- ger