European Cultural Studies

ECS The European Security Strategy rests on a platform of multilateralism that includes roles for organizations like NATO, the United Nations, as well as other quasi-legal bodies like the World Trade Organization and International Criminal Court the implement international law. The ESS therefore seeks to foster peace through the use of consensus and international institutions. Where these different institutions have enjoyed the most success is when there is a common interest that can drive the desired consensus.

In trade, there is usually a common interest in fostering economic growth, for example. In issues of security, however, there are challenges inherent in bringing about consensus because there is much less room for common ground. As Hyde-Price (2008) notes, different understandings of what is desirable arise from different cultures, and the process of reconciling the needs of different cultures are myriad.

Overcoming those challenges cannot be done simply be creating ethnic and national definitions, especially not when people are then asked to allow internationalism to supersede those identities, and especially not what the international community seeks to apply quixotic moral crusades to the world at large (Hyde-Price, 2008). Ethnicity and nationalism remain a major obstacle to the ESS model of peace. Ethnicity reflects a sense of identity, and is typically based on cultural traits -- a common culture and language breeds a common ethnic identity (Porter, 2011).

However, Porter argues, ethnicity is a construct almost as artificial as national identity. In most societies around the world, at least those without a tradition of strong, centralized government, societies were structured more along clan or family lines. Many clashes today in the world reflect the challenges of adopting ethnic and national identities, while retaining clan identities. Conversely, some have seen ethnicity and national identity as a means to bring about peace.

Unfortunately, attempts by outsiders -- usually colonial regimes -- to describe ethnic or national identities fail to resonate with the people on whom the definition is being imposed. At times, such identities can be forged vis-a-vis a colonial power to bring about peace between different groups. Examples of this can be found amongst the once-warring tribes in French Polynesia or in South Africa, where Africans long set aside their clan differences in the face of oppressive colonial regimes.

The idea of the European Security Strategy rests heavily on the power of the nation-state, and the fostering of a loyalty towards an entity greater than the nation-state. The most prominent manifestation of this outlook, the European Union, demonstrates that ethnic and national constructs, once they have been made powerful, are difficult to transcend. The current crisis in the Eurozone, a project designed to foster a greater sense of pan-European identity, has instead contributed to a revival of mainstream nationalism, to speak nothing of the rise of Europe's far-right.

This mainstream nationalism emerges as national interests compete with pan-European interests (Clibbon, 2012). Another example of the weakness in the ESS lies with the balance of power within international frameworks. Any vote concerning Israel and Palestine illustrates this -- 300 million Americans get one vote at the UN, while 300 million Arabs vote as an ethnic bloc with 20 UN votes. Where ethnic identity trumps international cooperation and where there lies an imbalance of power in the international institutions.

The United States, with a clear national identity that eschews conformity to international norms, is unlikely to take a view that would be seen as compromising a distinct set of cultural values that have allowed the U.S. To be a success in this world. Americans see their success framed by concepts like American exceptionalism and manifest destiny, and these cultural traits are common even when other cultural values are not. It is the strong common culture that discourages America from taking the ESS view.

Geography provides another lens through which the ESS can be evaluated. The European approach to the fostering of peace is substantially different from that of the United States in part because of geography. Europe has been subject to conflict since civilization existed, and probably before that. Europe's geography has a large population in relatively small area. National and ethnic identities were forged from geographic isolation, as Europe is crisscrossed by rivers and mountains.

The span of control possible for most of Europe's history also dictated the rise of its hundreds of different peoples. Europe, therefore, has the outlook that conflict is inevitable unless neighbors work together to avoid conflict. European nations bear the scars of conflict, be they war monuments in Western Europe or bullet holes in the houses of Sarajevo. There is a significant imperative in Europe for cooperation in order to avoid future conflict. In the United States, there is no such imperative.

International cooperation is not necessary in a country which has only two land neighbors. The closest that conflict has come to America's borders in the past century was the Cuban missile crisis. Furthermore, neither Mexico nor Canada can field a military to invade the U.S., and nor would either country stand much to benefit from conflict.

The European supposition that every part of the world has seen open conflict of late rests on a technicality that conflict in North America has occurred, but Americans know that minor conflicts in small countries in Central America are not an existential threat the way that the two world wars were to European nations The balance of power ensures America's safety, so its national security lens rests not on international cooperation but on its ability to hold influence over different actors around the world.

Even then, the United States is only protecting its overseas interests, not defending against an existential threat. The U.S. has a view of international security that.