The US and European approaches to fighting terrorism - Research Paper Example

"UNITED S AND EUROPEAN RELATIONS Compare the US and European approaches to fighting terrorism. How are they similar or different To the extent that they are different, what explains these differences Terrorism can simply be defined as strategies to coerce or cause terror. No matter how it is defined, "terrorism is a pejorative term." (White p. 3) White further states that "[I]t is beamed into our homes through television screens, it assaults us in newspapers and magazines, and it sometimes touches our lives in a more direct manner." The official Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) definition of terrorism takes apart domestic and international terrorism. The FBI (2002) explains, "Domestic terrorism refers to activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." It further says, "International terrorism involves violent acts or acts of dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state." (White p4) The European believes that the security at home and overseas can be accomplished if there is stability and development in the Mediterranean. In France where there is a large population of Muslim and Jews, practically every significant domestic political issue from crimes, immigration, and anti-Semitism, has an imperative Mediterranean dimension. They perceive that the source of terrorism lie in the economic, social and political discriminations that are prevalent on the southern seaside of the Mediterranean and as such can only be addressed through a broad structure that hits at the deepest causes of terrorism. During the time that the Soviet Union crumbled, the members of the European Union no longer saw possible North-South conflicts or nuclear threats. Instead, they saw various south-south conflicts and series of new transnational risks such as illegal trafficking of arms, drugs and even persons; terrorism connected to numerous religious issues; immigration. EU further believes that European security should be less focused on military conditions instead to social and political development of Mediterranean. In the United States, the FBI is a part of vast criminal justice machinery tasked to maintaining legal and political order. They deal with terrorism based on how they perceive acts related to it. According to the FBI, "Terrorist acts are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping and occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum." However, other people are apprehensive about the way the US defines terrorism since some in the Muslim countries believe that the values of the Islam are threatened by the materialism of the West. The US focus to fighting terrorism is to strengthen its military capacities. They are plagued by what had happened during the 9/11 that US became aggressive in terms of fighting terrorism. Even when countries are cooperating fully, there is no way to suppress or prohibit every conceivable terrorist movement or conspiracy. A more realistic situation would be to increase considerably the costs and risks that criminals and terrorists face when they choose to engage in conspiracies. Further than that, more measures can be taken. The United States can work more with European partners to strengthen states in transition and those new to democracy in any areas of economy. Undeniably, the European model seems to offer incentives before castigatory threats. Consequently, while the United States conceives of a war against terrorism, Europe does not. As a result of difference in perspectives of threat, both sides of the Atlantic take deviating approaches to homeland security. Europeans opt to favor the use of law enforcement strategy over a war-fighting approach. In the meantime, the US administration believes that a "quasi-militaristic," explicitly proactive, and extremely vigilant standpoint will serve as the best prevention to more attacks. By US standards, EU's measures to counter terrorism is inadequate, in contrast to what EU perceive to be accomplish more since September 11 and even more since the assaults in March 11, 2004 in Madrid and in July 7, 2005 in London. As a consequence, there are considerable transatlantic differences on the best methods of stopping the swell of terrorism. Perhaps the greater undertaking for the transatlantic counterterrorism partnership is to refurbish the sense of urgency for cooperation in aspects where the United States and EU countries agree upon such as in the collection and allocation of intelligence. The fact remains that the United States will have to make some hard choices in the light of maintaining good relations with EU partners. References: 1. White, Jonathan. Terrorism and Homeland Security. California: Wadsworth Congage Learning, 2009. Print. 2. Van Krieken, Peter. Terrorism and the International Legal Order: With Special Reference to the UN, the EU and Cross-Border Aspects. Cambridge Univ Press,2002. Print. 3. Stevenson, Jonathan. "How Europe and America Defend Themselves," Foreign Affairs, vol., 82, issue 2. Print. 2. Compare the approaches of the US and Europe to dealing with the problem of global climate change. What explains transatlantic differences on this issue What are the prospects for closer transatlantic cooperation on this issue In recent times the European Union and the United States have disagreed over regulation of a number of health and environmental risks, from processed foods to climate change. The difference between the US and EU that have often hampered their relations on climate policy, one such case is the pending solution to the role of compulsory voluntary controls on greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions. In various ways, the US started the advocate in relation to climate change policies. The US Congress enacted several laws setting direction and funding for climate change research and studies in 1978 and continuing into the 1980s and 90s. Through the year 2006, "the prevailing US view at the federal level has been that the imposition of regulatory controls on GHG emissions beyond those now in effect, such as vehicle fuel economy standards, is at best premature and, given the potentially significant burden to the US economy, would be an unacceptable cost without a commensurate return." (Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw p17) The preferred approach in the US implementing the UN Headquarters in New York of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ("UNFCCC") has been to practice a diversity of voluntary domestic and international means along with the bilateral and multilateral international conformities and partnerships. President Bush stated further that, "[w]e need to recognize that economic growth and environmental protection go hand in hand. and in the coming decades, the world needs to develop and deploy billions of dollars of technologies that generate energy in cleaner ways. And we need strong economic growth to make that possible." (Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw p19) Concurrently, the EU established the European Climate Change Programme ("ECCP") with the intent of "identifying the most environmental-friendly and cost-effective ways to enable the EU to meet its target under the Kyoto Protocol." The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement bridged to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Its main attribute is that it sets binding goals for 37 developed countries and the European countries for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The European Commission issued its schemes for a new energy policy for Europe. This represents the EU's attempt to align its energy and climate policies. Typified as setting the pace for a "new global industrial revolution", it asserts to commence the process of delivering a low carbon economy for Europe. However, the Commission needs to improve and expand the EUETS because of some limitations and to address criticisms. US and EU views on how to embark upon global climate change have been characterized by widely conflicting opinions on the significance of technology, the economic costs, the role of developing countries and the nature of importance of binding multilateral diminutions targets with or without trading means. However, with the enforcement of the Kyoto Protocol, and the recognition by the Kyoto Parties that medium to longer-term targets are likely to be complex to achieve than the previous commitment period Kyoto targets, the chance to move the pursuit of climate change agenda has arisen. The EU proposal is fundamentally another round of Kyoto: "tougher targets for developed countries; no formal targets for developing countries, though there would be incentives for them to become more engaged through national plans or sectoral approaches; and a greatly expanded Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to reduce emissions and transfer technology." (Evans, p2) On the other hand, US favors an approach known in the language as "pledge and review", focused around the informal "AP6" group of Asian economies, with Australia another leading beam. This advancement is subjected not on targets and timetables, instead on technology partnerships and national targets with no proper international standing. Completely unchanged in the conditions is the prolonged held US position that it will not assume formal targets unless developing countries do too. The basic disparity of approach between US and EU itself reflects an essential divergence about how urgent climate change is. EU perceives time is short, and that it is cheaper to work on it now than later. Contrary to what the US believes. The EU has regarded the agreement by the US to engage in multilateral dialogue over the period of two years (2006-2007) as a way to achieving a new compromise on how to handle climate change. However, it remains to be seen whether that dialogue allows the US and EU to attain more tangible proposals for linking the climate divide in 2007 and beyond. References: 1. Sharp, Cate. Roger, Patrick. The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Environment Law 2007. United Kingdom: Global Legal Group. Web: http://www.mayerbrown.com/london/article.aspid=3427&nid=1522. 2. Evans, Alex. The Post-Kyoto Bidding War: Bringing developing countries into the fold. 2007. Web: http://www.cic.nyu.edu/global/docs/PostKyotobiddingwar.pdf Read More