The United States and Europe: Current Issues
Derek E. Mix
Analyst in European Affairs
March 20, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS22163
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
The United States and Europe: Current Issues
Summary
Due to extensive cooperation on a wide range of issues, the relationship between the United
States and Europe is often called the transatlantic partnership. The two sides have many common
values and concerns, and have grown increasingly interdependent in terms of security and
prosperity. The transatlantic relationship and the main areas of U.S.-European cooperation and
shared interest are likely to have continuing implications for U.S. policy during the 113th
Congress. Members of Congress may have an interest in considering the dimensions and
dynamics of current issues in U.S.-European relations in the course of oversight or legislative
activities, or in the context of direct interactions with European legislators and officials.
According to most observers, the overall tone of transatlantic relations during the Obama
Administration has been largely positive. At the same time, a constructive tone does not
necessarily translate into tangible results with regard to foreign policy objectives or other goals.
With respect to certain issues, such as terrorist detainee policy or climate change, U.S. and
European policies have often been at odds and have generated frictions in the relationship from
time to time.
This report selects a number of issues that both illustrate the nature of U.S.-European cooperation
based on shared interests and present challenges in terms of the efficacy of such cooperation:
• The United States and the European Union (EU) have the largest trade and
investment relationship in the world. Over the past several years, the Eurozone
crisis has posed a danger to economic recovery and financial stability worldwide.
Members of Congress and Administration officials have been concerned about
the potential effects of the crisis, but avenues for U.S. involvement in resolving it
have remained limited. In early 2013, the United States and the EU announced
their intention to begin negotiations on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership aimed at boosting jobs and growth on both sides.
• The United States and Europe continue to cooperate closely on a wide range of
foreign policy and international security issues. Many of these challenges are in
the wider Middle East region: countering Iran’s nuclear ambitions, seeking to halt
the violence in Syria, adjusting to the regional transitions of the so-called “Arab
Spring,” and managing the transfer and withdrawal of U.S. and European troops
in Afghanistan. Managing difficult relations with Russia also remains a priority
and common interest of both the United States and Europe. Additionally, in the
context of the pending conclusion of operations in Afghanistan and low defense
spending in many European countries, officials and analysts continue to debate a
number of on-going questions about the future role and capabilities of NATO.
• Europe remains both a primary target of radical Islamist terrorists and a potential
base for those seeking to carry out attacks against the United States. Transatlantic
counterterrorism cooperation has been strong since the terrorist attacks of 9/11,
although U.S.-EU differences regarding data privacy have posed some key
information-sharing challenges.
• Cybersecurity issues have received growing attention and emphasis on both sides
of the Atlantic. Although some differences exist regarding regulation of the
Internet, the United States and the EU have pursued initiatives to deepen
cybersecurity cooperation and counter cybercrime.
Congressional Research Service
The United States and Europe: Current Issues
• In 2012, the U.S. Congress passed legislation prohibiting U.S. aircraft operators
from participating in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). Airlines
participating in the ETS must purchase carbon allowances in order to offset CO2
emissions. The EU has delayed implementing the international application of the
ETS for aviation pending negotiations on a broader multilateral agreement.
• Concerned by Europe’s reliance on Russian energy, many U.S. officials and
analysts regard European energy security as a U.S. interest. With its energy
import needs expected to rise, Europe has had mixed success in seeking ways to
diversify its energy supplies and consolidate its internal energy market.
As the United States and Europe face a changing geopolitical environment, some
observers assert that the global influence of the Euro-Atlantic partnership is in decline. In
addition, the Obama Administration’s announced “re-balancing” toward Asia has caused
some anxiety among Europeans. Overall, however, most analysts maintain that the
United States and Europe are likely to remain one another’s closest partner, and that U.S.-
European cooperation is likely to remain the foundation of international action on a wide
range of critical issues.
Congressional Research Service
The United States and Europe: Current Issues
Contents
The United States and Europe ......................................................................................................... 1
Issues for Congress .................................................................................................................... 1
The EU and NATO .................................................................................................................... 1
An Evolving Relationship ......................................................................................................... 2
Selected Key Issues in U.S.-European Relations ............................................................................. 3
Economic Relations ................................................................................................................... 3
The Eurozone Crisis ............................................................................................................ 4
Potential Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership .................................................. 5
Foreign Policy and Security Issues ............................................................................................ 6
Iran ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Syria .................................................................................................................................... 7
Transitions in the Middle East and North Africa ................................................................. 7
Afghanistan ......................................................................................................................... 8
The Future of NATO ........................................................................................................... 9
Russia ................................................................................................................................ 10
Counterterrorism ...................................................................................................................... 11
Cybersecurity ........................................................................................................................... 12
EU Emissions Trading System ................................................................................................ 13
Energy Security ....................................................................................................................... 14
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 15
Congressional Research Service
The United States and Europe: Current Issues
The United States and Europe
Common values, overlapping interests, and shared goals are the foundation of what is often
described as the transatlantic partnership between the United States and Europe. Many observers
stress that in terms of security and prosperity the United States and Europe have grown
increasingly interdependent. Both sides of the Atlantic face a common set of challenges,
including economic concerns, terrorism, weapons proliferation, energy security, and the
destabilizing effects of failing and rogue states. Both sides are proponents of democracy, open
societies, human rights, and free markets. Supporters of close U.S.-European cooperation argue
that neither the United States nor Europe can adequately address the wide array of global
concerns alone, and that the track record shows the two sides can accomplish much more when
they work together. The United States and Europe also share a huge and mutually beneficial trade
and investment relationship.
This report summarizes a selection of broad issues in which the transatlantic relationship and
U.S.-European cooperation play an important role. A full survey of global issues that are
important for U.S. and European interests would also include relations with countries such as
China, India, and Turkey; concerns about stability in the Balkans and the countries of the former
Soviet Union; the Middle East peace process; development assistance and humanitarian aid to the
countries of Africa and elsewhere in the developing world; and many more.
Issues for Congress
The activities of the U.S. Congress frequently involve issues that have a European dimension,
including economic, security, and diplomatic issues. Members of Congress often interact directly
with European legislators and officials to discuss a wide variety of topics. In the course of
legislative activities or in exercising oversight of U.S. foreign policy, Members of Congress may
wish to consider the dynamics of U.S.-European cooperation in terms of benefits versus
shortcomings, alignment versus divergence, or partnership versus competition.
Many Members of Congress have long supported a close transatlantic relationship and have seen
the European Union (EU), NATO, and the idea of a Europe “whole and free” as supporting and
advancing U.S. interests. During the Cold War, many viewed a more integrated and united Europe
as a way to counter the Soviet Union. More recently, congressional interest in Europe tends to be
rooted in a U.S. need for likeminded partners in facing global challenges. At various times over
the years, however, Members have also been concerned when U.S. and European policy positions
have conflicted, have doubted the degree of cooperation offered by Europe, or have questioned
whether Europe might somehow constrain U.S. policy choices.
The EU and NATO
By almost any measure, the institutional pillars of the Euro-Atlantic community, NATO and the
EU, have proven successful in promoting prosperity and security in Europe. The U.S. Congress
and successive U.S. Administrations have strongly supported both institutions as means to foster
democratic states, reliable military allies, and strong trading partners.
While strong bilateral relationships between the United States and individual European countries
remain a vital foundation for transatlantic relations, the relationship between the United States
Congressional Research Service
1
The United States and Europe: Current Issues
and the EU has been taking on a growing significance. The EU has become an increasingly
important interlocutor for the United States because its 27 member countries now take common
decisions and formulate common policies in a wide range of areas, including many economic and
social issues and a growing number of law enforcement and judicial matters, at the level of the
EU institutions.1 The EU is also continuing efforts to develop a stronger Common Foreign and
Security Policy (CFSP) and Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP).2
Meanwhile, NATO remains the preeminent security institution of the Euro-Atlantic community.
Given the United States’ leading role in the Atlantic Alliance, Members of Congress maintain a
consistent and significant interest in NATO. Like the EU, NATO has experienced dramatic
change over the past two decades. Since the end of the Cold War, the alliance has added 12 new
member states from Central and Eastern Europe. While the last ten years have been defined by
operations in Afghanistan, the member states of the alliance have also been mulling over
questions about the future role and capabilities of NATO. Debates related to these questions are
outlined in “The Future of NATO” section below.
An Evolving Relationship
Polls show that President Obama remains popular in Europe, and European perceptions of U.S.
foreign policy have improved significantly compared to the years of the George W. Bush
Administration.3 The overall tone of transatlantic relations has been mostly positive and
constructive over the past four years. In attempting to deal jointly with the daunting list of
challenges they face, however, both sides have also encountered frustrations and reality checks—
in seeking to achieve strong economic recovery, trying to marshal resources for the mission in
Afghanistan, or attempting to agree on a new international climate change treaty, to name but
three examples. Such examples lead some observers to caution against the dangers of exaggerated
expectations, warning that each side should be realistic and reasonable about what it can expect
from the other.
In any case, U.S.-European agreement and cooperation may often be a prerequisite for effectively
addressing global problems, but it is not necessarily sufficient on its own. Questions about the
future relevance of the transatlantic relationship have received increased attention in recent years.
Some observers see an emergent trend in which a more multipolar world, signaled by the advent
of the G-20 and the rise of the “BRICs,” foretells a future of declining Euro-Atlantic influence.4
Additionally, some Europeans and analysts on both sides of the Atlantic believe that with much of
U.S. attention centered on Asia and the Middle East, the United States is consequently pulling
back from a Europe that is no longer a central preoccupation. Since the Obama Administration
announced its “re-balancing” of U.S. foreign policy toward a greater focus on Asia, many in
Europe have been wondering where the transatlantic relationship stands today and where it will
wind up in the years to come. Some observers assert that the relationship is an increasingly
utilitarian one, based more on function and less on sentiment. In other words, U.S. interest in
1 For more information, see CRS Report RS21372, The European Union: Questions and Answers, by Kristin Archick.
2 For more information, see CRS Report R41959, The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy, by Derek E. Mix.
3 See, for example, The German Marshall Fund of the United States, Transatlantic Trends 2012—Key Findings, p. 26-
29, http://trends.gmfus.org/files/2012/09/TT-2012-Key-Findings-Report.pdf.
4 The acronym “BRIC” is commonly used to refer to Brazil, Russia, India, and China as a group.
Congressional Research Service
2
The United States and Europe: Current Issues
Europe is now mainly driven by whether Europe can be an effective partner in addressing
common threats and concerns. Those of this view worry that perceptions of an economically
stagnant Europe, preoccupied with its own internal problems and offering declining military
capabilities, may lead to weaker U.S.-European ties over the longer term.
On the other hand, in a speech at the 2013 Munich Security Conference, Vice President Biden
stated, “ ... President Obama and I continue to believe that Europe is the cornerstone of our
engagement with the rest of the world and is the catalyst for our global cooperation.”5 Many
analysts maintain that Europe is, firstly, an important U.S. ally precisely because the substance of
the relationship is deep and meaningful. Examples of close and unique U.S.-European
cooperation are not lacking; many analysts cite Europe’s contributions to operations in
Afghanistan, joint efforts to combat piracy off the coast of Somalia, the 2011 NATO operation
against the forces of Muammar al-Gadhafi in Libya, the expansion of EU sanctions on Iran, or the
dimensions of the transatlantic trade and investment relationship as proof of the continuing and
deep vitality of the transatlantic partnership. Less tangibly, however, many analysts also assert
that Europe will continue to matter to the United States because, if nothing else, common values,
shared history, and compatible worldviews still matter, too.
Nevertheless, many observers agree that if Europe is to maintain itself as a central global actor
and a close U.S. partner over the longer term, it needs to urgently re-discover ways to increase
economic dynamism and competitiveness; commit to deeper initiatives for pooling defense
resources in order to gain capabilities and efficiency; and emphasize the further development of
soft power strategies that project influence through the attractiveness of European political,
cultural, and economic values. Some also assert that it is essential for Europe to increasingly
speak and act as one on foreign policy and security issues if it is to maintain global influence. On
many such issues, however, the EU and its member states continue to find consensus difficult to
reach. While many U.S. officials support the development of a more robust and coherent EU
foreign and security policy, there also remain some reservations in the United States about a
future scenario in which the EU is more unified and assertive in these areas, including with
respect to the potential implications for NATO.
Selected Key Issues in U.S.-European Relations
Economic Relations6
The United States and the European Union have the largest trade and investment relationship in
the world. In 2011, the value of the two-way transatlantic flow of goods, services, and income
receipts from investment totaled nearly $1.47 trillion. U.S. and European companies are also the
biggest investors in each other’s markets—total stock of two-way direct investment came to
about $3.1 trillion in 2011. Transatlantic economic activity provides an estimated 15 million jobs
in the United States and Europe.7 With the United States and the EU together comprising
5 Remarks by Vice President Joe Biden to the Munich Security Conference, February 2, 2013,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/02/remarks-vice-president-joe-biden-munich-security-conference-
hotel-bayeri.
6 For more information see CRS Report RL30608, EU-U.S. Economic Ties: Framework, Scope, and Magnitude, by
William H. Cooper.
7 Daniel S. Hamilton and Joseph P. Quinlan, The Transatlantic Economy 2013, SAIS Center for Transatlantic
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
3
The United States and Europe: Current Issues
approximately 50% of global gross domestic product (GDP), the transatlantic economic
relationship is also the world’s most influential in terms of shaping standards and regulations.
U.S.-EU cooperation has been the key force driving efforts to liberalize world trade.
The Eurozone Crisis8
Over the past three years, the Eurozone crisis has posed a threat to economic well-being on both
sides of the Atlantic.9 Members of Congress and other observers have been concerned that the
extensive U.S. export, banking, and investment interests in Europe could be adversely affected by
the crisis. Analysts have also been concerned that economic difficulties in Europe could act as a
brake on U.S. growth and set back the world economy. The U.S. Congress has held numerous
hearings on various aspects of the crisis and its implications for the United States, and the U.S.
Administration has urged European leaders to take more decisive action to resolve the crisis. The
options for direct U.S. involvement in resolving the crisis have remained limited, however.
Since late 2009, when markets began losing confidence in Greece’s ability to repay its debts, the
Eurozone crisis has demanded the energy and attention of Europe’s leaders. Although Greece
remains the most acute case, the crisis spread in 2010-2011 to Ireland and Portugal, each of which
also received financial assistance from the EU and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in
order to avoid defaulting on their debts. Bond markets and rating agencies have put considerable
pressure on other EU countries, especially Spain and Italy, and the debt crisis expanded into a
banking crisis.
Overall, the crisis has unfolded as a series of mini-crises interspersed with periods of relative
calm. At times, the course of events has raised pessimistic speculation about the future of the
euro, reinforcing some long-standing doubts that the Eurozone, a monetary union without fiscal
union, has a sustainable structure for a currency area. European policymakers have been forced to
confront difficult choices about the nature of the EU and its currency union, but there has been no
quick and easy consensus about the best way forward. After prolonged and contentious debates,
European leaders and the European Central Bank (ECB) have taken a series of unprecedented
steps attempting to stem the crisis. In early 2013, many analysts have observed that conditions
appear to have improved, but they also doubt that the crisis is completely over. The political
uncertainty following the Italian election of February 2013 and the controversy surrounding
debates about a financial assistance package for Cyprus serve as a reminder of the range of
potential triggers that could resurrect market unease. As Europe continues to face challenges with
regard to economic growth, competitiveness, and unemployment, the outlook is likely to remain
unsettled for some time.
(...continued)
Relations, Johns Hopkins University, http://transatlantic.sais-jhu.edu/transatlantic-topics/transatlantic-economy-
series.htm.
8 For more information on the crisis, see CRS Report R42377, The Eurozone Crisis: Overview and Issues for Congress,
coordinated by Rebecca M. Nelson.
9 The term “Eurozone” refers to the group of 17 EU member countries that use the euro as their common currency
(Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta,
Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Slovenia). The other ten members of the EU have not yet adopted the
euro, or have chosen not to adopt it (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,
Romania, Sweden, and the United Kingdom).
Congressional Research Service
4
The United States and Europe: Current Issues
Many observers have noted that the Eurozone crisis morphed beyond economic issues, turning
into a political crisis as well. Disagreements about the best course of action exposed differing
interests, preferences, and views about European integration in ways that increased tensions
between EU member states. The collective EU response to the crisis has been slowed and
complicated by domestic political constraints and concerns about “moral hazard.” Policies of
austerity have fanned political and social tensions within EU member states, and several national
governments in the Eurozone have fallen or been voted out of office as a direct or indirect result
of the crisis. Critics accuse the EU of “muddling through” the crisis, with step-by-step measures
coming only when forced and only after extensive introspection.
The sum total of the steps thus far appears to be a trend towards tighter integration, with the
members of the Eurozone pooling more sovereignty over economic policymaking, including
plans such as the formation of a banking union supervised by the ECB. Critics assert that these
steps are long overdue, and that the crisis has compelled European leaders to re-start a process
that had largely stalled after the launch of the euro in 1999. Other analysts suggest, however, that
European integration may be approaching the political limits of what is possible. In any case, the
notion of tighter integration around a Eurozone “core” is not without problems. The trend has
given rise to renewed speculation about the dynamics of a multi-tier Europe with varying levels
and speeds of integration.10 It has also created anxieties and tensions for non-euro members of the
EU, most prominently visible in the strains that have emerged in the UK-EU relationship.11
Potential Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
Over the past several years, some observers have argued that a new U.S.-EU initiative pushing for
a more fully integrated transatlantic market could be timely and mutually beneficial. In the
February 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama announced that the United States
“will launch talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the
European Union.”12 A High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth that was created at the
2011 U.S.-EU summit recommended pursuing such a comprehensive bilateral trade agreement as
a way to boost jobs and growth on both sides.13 Earlier studies have also concluded that reducing
regulatory burdens and harmonizing standards could provide a significant boost to U.S. and
European GDP. The United States and the EU have made a number of previous attempts to reduce
remaining non-tariff and regulatory barriers to trade and investment. The Transatlantic Economic
Council (TEC), for example, was created in 2007 and tasked with advancing the process of
regulatory cooperation and non-tariff barrier reduction. A potential U.S.-EU trade and investment
agreement is widely viewed as a promising opportunity, but there are also “remaining barriers to
free and fair trade that are long-standing and difficult to overcome.”14 Given the complexity
involved in such negotiations, analysts observe that the process could be slow and difficult.
10 See, for example, Katinka Barysch, A multi-tier Europe? The political consequences of the euro crisis, Centre for
European Reform, December 7, 2012, http://www.cer.org.uk/publications/archive/briefing-note/2012/multi-tier-europe-
political-consequences-euro-crisis.
11 See CRS Report RL33105, The United Kingdom and U.S.-UK Relations, by Derek E. Mix.
12 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Remarks by the President in the State of the Union Address,”
February 12, 2013, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/remarks-president-state-union-address. See
also http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-94_en.htm and http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-
95_en.htm?locale=en.
13 The group’s final report is available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/february/tradoc_150519.pdf.
14 This statement was conveyed to the U.S. Trade Representative in a February 2013 letter from the Chairman and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5
The United States and Europe: Current Issues
Foreign Policy and Security Issues
Iran15
Transatlantic cooperation regarding Iran’s nuclear program has been close and extensive. Since
the discovery of Iran’s covert enrichment activities in 2002, the “EU-3” (France, Germany, and
the United Kingdom) have played a leading role in international efforts to curtail them. In 2006,
the United States joined the EU-3, along with Russia and China, to form the “Permanent Five
Plus One” (P5+1) group that has attempted to conduct negotiations with Iran.16 Between 2006
and 2010, the EU-3 and the United States successfully pushed for United Nations Security
Council approval of four rounds of sanctions on Iran (Resolutions 1737, 1747, 1803, and 1929).
Since 2010, the EU has shown a new willingness to go beyond what has been authorized by the
U.N. and to adopt sanctions on Iran independently. Many analysts are surprised at how far the EU
measures have gone. In the past, some Americans had pointed to European economic ties with
Iran as a sign of European reluctance to press Tehran too hard, urging Europeans to adopt tighter
sanctions. Analysts assert that this shift by the EU has sent a strong signal and brought U.S. and
European sanctions policy on Iran into a broad alignment.
An EU embargo on Iranian oil took effect on July 1, 2012. Previously, the EU had bought about
600,000 barrels per day of Iranian oil, about a quarter of Iran’s total oil exports. EU sanctions
now in place against Iran also include restrictions on access to nuclear technology and dual use
items; an embargo on natural gas and petrochemical products, and restrictions on business
activities with the energy and petrochemical sectors; an arms embargo; and extensive restrictions
on financial transactions and other business activities with the Iranian government, Iranian
Central Bank, and Iranian financial institutions. Restrictions and enhanced inspection
requirements for Iranian cargo vessels and aircraft have also been imposed, as well as a visa ban
and asset freeze against more than 130 individuals involved in Iran’s nuclear program, and an
asset freeze on more than 330 entities identified as supporting Iran’s nuclear program.17
Although some in the United States and elsewhere advocate a total EU trade embargo on Iran,
many Europeans are likely to remain uncomfortable with this idea. The EU has stressed that its
sanctions are designed to target sources of finance for Iran’s nuclear program, not the Iranian
people or legitimate trade activities. Key EU countries including France, Germany, Spain, and
Sweden are thought to remain opposed to a total trade embargo on Iran.
(...continued)
Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee that outlines their expectations and priorities for the negotiating
process. See United States Senate Committee on Finance, “Baucus, Hatch Outline Priorities for Potential U.S.-EU
Trade Agreement,” February 12, 2013, http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=17b2fd73-
067d-4a4a-a50f-a00265efbf67.
15 For more information see CRS Report RL32048, Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses, by Kenneth Katzman
and CRS Report R40094, Iran’s Nuclear Program: Tehran’s Compliance with International Obligations, by Paul K.
Kerr. For more extensive information about sanctions on Iran, see CRS Report RS20871, Iran Sanctions, by Kenneth
Katzman.
16 EU High Representative Catherine Ashton acts as the group’s leading spokesperson.
17 The most recent consolidated version of the EU Common Position Concerning Restrictive Measures on Iran can be
downloaded at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2010D0413:20120803:EN:PDF.
Congressional Research Service
6
The United States and Europe: Current Issues
Syria18
Alongside the United States, the EU has been a leading voice in international condemnation of
the Syrian government’s violence against its people. With stronger U.N. action blocked by Russia
and China in the Security Council, the EU has moved ahead to impose extensive sanctions on the
Asad regime, expanding its sanctions from an initial focus on targeting specific individuals and
entities to broader measures against the regime’s economic base, including an oil embargo and
extensive restrictions on financial and banking activities. The immediate goal of EU policy has
been to convince the Asad regime to halt violence and enter into negotiations with the opposition.
Analysts asserted that EU sanctions successfully ratcheted up economic pressure on the regime—
approximately 90% of Syria’s oil exports were sold to European countries—but sanctions do not
appear to have greatly affected Asad’s political calculations.
As in the United States, Europeans have debated military intervention or openly arming the
Syrian rebels, but have remained reluctant to pursue either option. The United Kingdom and
France have reportedly been pushing to lift the EU arms embargo in order to arm opposition
forces, but have been unable to bring the matter to a consensus among all EU members. European
countries have thus far provided non-lethal equipment, humanitarian assistance, and some
training.19 Also like the United States, in December 2012 the EU recognized the opposition
Syrian National Coalition as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people. Having ruled
out any sort of direct military intervention for the time being, however, the EU appears to have
staked its Syria approach on bringing about a political settlement through the combined pressure
of sanctions and international opinion. The EU can thus be expected to continue to strongly
support U.N. and Arab League efforts to monitor the situation and broker negotiations, while also
continuing to use the United Nations as a forum in which to urge counties such as Russia and
China to apply pressure on the Asad regime.
Transitions in the Middle East and North Africa20
The United States and Europe continue to face challenges stemming from the dramatic political
and social upheavals occurring across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region over the
past two years. The civil war in Syria may be the most acute and urgent case in the region, but the
stakes involved with the on-going transitions in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia are also of
considerable importance.
The United States and its European partners share similar interests in ensuring that the changes
underway in the region result in more open and democratically accountable governments, greater
economic opportunities, and long-term stability and security. Common U.S. and European
concerns in the region include countering terrorism, weapons proliferation, and transnational
crime, curtailing Islamist extremism, ensuring a reliable flow of energy exports and commercial
transit, and advancing regional peace. Europe’s geographic proximity to the MENA region also
makes controlling migration a key priority for the EU and individual European countries, while
18 For more information, see CRS Report RL33487, Armed Conflict in Syria: U.S. and International Response, by
Jeremy M. Sharp and Christopher M. Blanchard.
19 Harvey Morris, “Britain and France Push for Arming Syrian Opposition,” The New York Times, March 13, 2013.
Julian Borger and Nick Hopkins, “West training Syrian rebels in Jordan,” The Guardian, March 8, 2013.
20 For more information, see CRS Report R42393, Change in the Middle East: Implications for U.S. Policy,
coordinated by Christopher M. Blanchard.
Congressional Research Service
7
The United States and Europe: Current Issues
preserving military cooperation with MENA countries remains critical for the United States,
especially given its interests in Israel and the Persian Gulf. In light of the sweeping changes in the
region, the United States and the EU have been seeking to re-align their policies to put greater
emphasis than in the past on supporting democratic and economic reforms in the MENA region.
Both the United States and Europe face inherent difficulties, however, in dealing with a changed
political landscape in the MENA region in which new actors and unsettled conditions make for
considerable uncertainty. As events unfold in the region, potential U.S.-European policy
differences—on issues ranging from how best to encourage Egypt’s democratic progress to how
to manage the role of Islamist parties or what to do about the on-going violence in Syria—could
arise and complicate the prospects for closer U.S.-European cooperation. In addition, experts note
that both the United States and its European allies are ultimately limited in what they can or
should do to influence events in the region.
Afghanistan21
Over the past several years, many analysts have considered Afghanistan the most urgent and
important international security issue for the transatlantic alliance. Afghanistan has been a focal
point for transatlantic and international cooperation: although troop drawdowns are proceeding,
as of early December 2012 the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) still
consisted of over 102,000 troops from 49 countries, including all 28 members of NATO.22 The
prolonged commitment of European countries to maintaining their ISAF contributions has been
an important tone-setter in transatlantic relations.
The Afghanistan mission is now is the midst of a final transition period in which ISAF seeks to
transfer full responsibility for security to Afghan leadership, with Afghan forces leading in all
functions and operations by the end of 2014. This transition process also defines the timetable for
withdrawing the vast majority of NATO forces from the country. Considerable segments of the
public in many European countries have never been convinced of the need for their country’s
participation in Afghanistan, and many national governments have been eager for the transition
timeline to proceed and stay on track.
In any case, however, most analysts agree that Afghanistan will most likely need some level of
direct security assistance after 2014. Under the Enduring Partnership agreement signed at the
2010 NATO Summit, NATO will undertake a follow-on mission to support the capacity-building
of Afghan forces.23 European countries including France, Italy, and the United Kingdom have
also signed bilateral partnership agreements with Afghanistan that outline military training and
economic development commitments beyond 2014. Nevertheless, given Europe’s economic
difficulties and the sense of “Afghanistan fatigue” felt by many Europeans, the depth of the
overall European commitment after the 2014 withdrawal date is uncertain.
21 For more information see CRS Report RL30588, Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy,
by Kenneth Katzman.
22 As of December 3, 2012, “International Security Assistance Force (ISAF): Key Facts and Figures,”
http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/epub/pdf/placemat.pdf.
23 See “NATO and Afghanistan,” http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_8189.htm?.
Congressional Research Service
8
The United States and Europe: Current Issues
The Future of NATO24
The planned transition in Afghanistan is expected to mark a dramatic downshift in operational
tempo for NATO as it transitions from a “campaign posture” to a “contingency posture.”
Although the transition is welcomed and anticipated by many allies, the approaching end of
operations in Afghanistan could also force NATO to confront longer-term questions about its
future with greater intensity. For the past decade, Afghanistan has been an urgent operational
priority that has provided the alliance with a clear and immediate sense of purpose. Some
observers wonder whether fundamental questions and debates about the relevance of the alliance
are bound to re-surface and multiply after 2014.
Many of the tensions and shortcomings exposed during the course of the Afghanistan mission, as
well as in the 2011 NATO air operation in Libya, were expressions of underlying dynamics that
have been developing within the alliance for decades. Aspects of these operations highlighted
concerns about European shortfalls in military resources and raised questions about the equality
of commitments and burden-sharing. On one hand, NATO allies, particularly France and the UK,
took an unprecedented leading role in the Libya operation and flew many of the combat sorties.
Only 14 of 28 NATO members took part in the mission, however, and the U.S. capabilities were
essential in filing crucial allied gaps in areas such as targeting, aerial refueling, munitions, and
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR).
The United States currently accounts for at least two-thirds of total allied defense spending.
Although many European allies have undertaken defense transformation initiatives since the end
of the Cold War, most are also lagging in meeting defense spending benchmarks, and many are in
the process of enacting far-reaching defense cuts. European militaries continue to be severely
limited in terms of important capabilities such as strategic air- and sealift, aerial refueling,
helicopters, and ISR.
Especially given the budgetary constraints facing many European governments, U.S. officials and
others remain concerned that declining European defense budgets and a growing transatlantic
“capabilities gap” could undermine alliance unity by increasing NATO’s already significant
reliance on U.S. military capacity. Some observers argue that current fiscal constraints strengthen
the logic for European defense integration initiatives that pool resources to develop shared
capabilities, such as NATO’s “Smart Defense” initiative. In the aftermath of Afghanistan,
however, some analysts also believe that public opposition to combat operations and a lack of
political will could make Europe less willing and less likely to engage in another large-scale
mission overseas.
Since the end of the Cold War, members of NATO including the United States have argued that
the relevance of the alliance increasingly depends on its ability to conduct “out-of-area”
operations and address unconventional security threats. Other members, including many of the
countries of central and eastern Europe, have made clear a preference for focusing more on
NATO’s traditional mission of collective territorial defense. The latest NATO Strategic Concept,
adopted at the 2010 summit in Lisbon, Portugal, supports both sides of this debate in setting out a
broad vision for NATO’s role. The document outlines three core tasks: collective defense, crisis
management, and cooperative security. It reaffirms NATO’s primary role as a military alliance
devoted to ensuring the collective defense and security of its members, but also calls on member
24 See CRS Report R42529, NATO’s Chicago Summit, by Paul Belkin.
Congressional Research Service
9
The United States and Europe: Current Issues
states to continue to develop capabilities for expeditionary operations, including
counterinsurgency, stabilization, and reconstruction operations, and for confronting new and
unconventional security challenges such as international terrorism, proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction, cybersecurity, and energy security.
Russia25
In 2011-2012, Russia’s parliamentary and presidential elections and their aftermath sharpened
U.S. and European concerns about governance and the rule of law in Russia, but expressions of
concern and criticism triggered a strong backlash from the Russian government. With Vladimir
Putin returned to the presidency, Russia also reacted in a markedly negative fashion to the U.S.
Congress adopting the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-208)
amid cases of alleged human rights violations against journalists and opposition activists.26 The
Russian government expelled USAID from the country in September 2012 and banned the
adoption of Russian children by U.S. citizens in December 2012. Russia has also been
increasingly at odds with U.S. and European foreign policy. After criticizing the 2011 NATO
operation in Libya, Russia has thwarted U.S. and European efforts to address the violence in
Syria through the United Nations Security Council, and returned to a hard line against U.S. plans
for a missile defense system in Europe.
In the aftermath of its 2008 conflict with Georgia, relations between Russia and the West reached
what some observers consider their lowest point since the end of the Cold War. Relations had
already grown increasingly tense in previous years over issues such as Kosovo and NATO
enlargement, and observers in Europe and the United States had routinely expressed concern
about what they perceived as the increasingly authoritarian character of the Russian government,
as well as its assertiveness and quest for influence in the Russian “Near Abroad” and beyond. In
the period 2009-2011, the Obama Administration’s “reset” initiative appeared to help alleviate
some of the tension that had built up. U.S.-Russia cooperation on Afghanistan and Iran improved,
the two sides signed the new START treaty, and the revision of U.S. missile defense plans
temporarily diminished tensions on that issue. At the same time, U.S. and European objections
remained regarding Russian policy on many issues, including Russia’s recognition of the
breakaway Georgian provinces Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and the unilateral suspension of its
obligations under the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty.
Many European countries have complex and interdependent relationships with Russia in terms of
energy (see “Energy Security” section below) and economics, and EU member states have had a
difficult time formulating a common approach to their eastern neighbor. Some European
countries, especially in central and eastern Europe, tend to view Russia as a threat and advocate a
firm stance, while others are more inclined toward pragmatism and engagement. While the
sharpness of such divisions in Europe has diminished in recent years, a consistent and balanced
approach remains a challenging goal for European policymakers. The 2010 EU-Russia Summit
25 For more information see CRS Report RL33407, Russian Political, Economic, and Security Issues and U.S. Interests,
coordinated by Jim Nichol.
26 The act expresses the sense of the Congress that the United States should continue to support and assist efforts by the
Russian people to establish a vibrant democratic political system that respects individual liberties and human rights,
and that the Russian government’s suppression of dissent and political opposition are of profound concern to the United
States. It also directs the President to report to Congress, publish, and update a list of individuals involved in the death
of Sergei Magnitsky and other cases of extrajudicial killing, torture, or human rights violations, and to impose on those
individuals a U.S. travel ban and asset freeze.
Congressional Research Service
10
The United States and Europe: Current Issues
launched a “Partnership for Modernization” in which the EU pledged to help develop and
diversify the Russian economy while encouraging reforms related to governance and rule of
law.27 More recently, however, tensions have arisen in the EU-Russia relationship over EU
legislation that seeks to increase competition in the energy market, a European Commission
investigation into the business practices of Gazprom, and complaints that Russia is not applying
WTO rules on market liberalization.
Counterterrorism28
In the years since the 9/11 attacks, transatlantic cooperation on counterterrorism has been strong.
Spurred on by 9/11, the March 2004 bombings in Madrid, and the July 2005 bombings in
London, the EU has sought to strengthen and coordinate its internal counterterrorism capabilities.
While the EU has thus been increasing its relevance in this area, bilateral intelligence sharing and
law enforcement cooperation between the United States and individual European countries also
remains key to disrupting terrorist plots and apprehending those involved. Analysts assert that
Europe remains both a primary target of radical Islamist terrorists and a potential base for cells
seeking to carry out attacks against the United States.
U.S. and European officials from the cabinet level down maintain regular dialogues on issues
related to homeland security and counterterrorism. In recent years, U.S. and EU police and
judicial agencies have established cooperative relationships that include several information
sharing arrangements. In 2010, new U.S.-EU treaties on extradition and mutual legal assistance
entered into force. The United States and the EU have also reached agreements on container
security and airline passenger data as part of their efforts to strengthen aviation, transport, and
border security. In addition, the United States and the EU actively work together to track and
counter the financing of terrorism, in forums such as the Financial Action Task Force and through
information sharing deals such as the U.S.-EU “SWIFT agreement,” which allows U.S.
authorities access to financial data held by a Belgium-based consortium of international banks as
part of the U.S. Treasury Department’s Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP).
Although overall counterterrorism cooperation is strong, areas of tension exist. European
policymakers have had significant concerns over the adequacy of data privacy safeguards in a
number of U.S.-EU information sharing arrangements. The EU considers data privacy a basic
right, and the EU has strict regulations protecting personal data. During the past several years,
objections raised in the European Parliament complicated and delayed the adoption of the most
recent version of the SWIFT deal and the agreement on sharing airline passenger name record
(PNR) data. In 2011, the United States and the EU began negotiations on a framework Data
Privacy and Protection Agreement (DPPA). Some observers assert that such a framework
agreement, building on a set of privacy and data protection principles endorsed by the two sides
in 2009, could expand mutual recognition of one another’s data protection systems, help ease
European concerns, and promote closer cooperation.
Over the past decade, the United States and the EU have largely aligned their lists of entities
designated as terrorist organizations. Some differences persist, however, most notably in the case
27 Council of the European Union, Joint Statement on the Partnership for Modernization, June 1, 2010,
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/er/114747.pdf.
28 For more information see CRS Report RS22030, U.S.-EU Cooperation Against Terrorism, by Kristin Archick.
Congressional Research Service
11
The United States and Europe: Current Issues
of Hezbollah. The lack of consensus among all 27 EU member states has kept Hezbollah off of
the common EU list. While the United Kingdom and the Netherlands include Hezbollah on their
national lists of designated terrorist organizations, other member states argue that the group also
has political and social dimensions separate from its military wing. Members of Congress and
U.S. Administrations have long urged the EU to add Hezbollah to its terrorist list. Immediately
after the July 2012 attack on Israeli tourists in Bulgaria, Israeli officials accused Hezbollah of
carrying out the attack and numerous Members of Congress renewed this call through letters sent
to EU officials and institutions. In February 2013, Bulgarian officials concluded their formal
investigation into the attacks and effectively named Hezbollah as responsible. In light of this
announcement and an on-going trial of a suspected Hezbollah operative in Cyprus, some analysts
believe that the EU may be more inclined to add Hezbollah to its common terrorist list; other
experts, however, remain doubtful that the EU will reach the necessary consensus.
Cybersecurity29
Cyberattacks, malicious viruses, malware, and hacking incidents pose a considerable and growing
threat to the computer networks of government agencies, financial institutions, and other critical
infrastructure in both the United States and Europe. Such concerns have prompted the United
States and the EU to increase cooperation focused on strengthening cybersecurity and countering
cybercrime. The two sides launched a Working Group on Cybersecurity and Cybercrime
following the 2010 U.S.-EU Summit with the broad aims of sharing best practices, developing
collaborative approaches and stronger response capabilities, and increasing the involvement of
the private sector. Led by the European Commissioner for Home Affairs and the U.S. Secretary of
Homeland Security, the group has reportedly focused its efforts toward bolstering the security of
domain names and internet addresses, securing industrial and utility control systems, and
combating online sexual abuse of children. In November 2011, the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security and the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA), the EU’s
cybersecurity advisory body, held the first joint U.S.-EU cyberattack simulation exercise (Cyber
Atlantic 2011). In January 2013, the EU opened a new Cybercrime Center at Europol (the EU law
enforcement and criminal intelligence agency) headquarters in the Hague, Netherlands to
coordinate the work of national law enforcement agencies and serve as a clearinghouse for
information sharing. Some experts suggest that U.S. authorities might consider developing close
cooperation with the new Cybercrime Center. In February 2013, the EU released a new
comprehensive cybersecurity strategy that emphasizes freedom and openness in cyberspace, the
preservation of EU laws, norms, and values, capacity building, and cooperation with international
partners, organizations, the private sector, and civil society.30
While both U.S. and EU officials largely support a free and open Internet, there are some
differences in U.S. and EU laws and perspectives on Internet regulation and freedom of speech
that have cause occasional tensions. The United States tends to emphasize maximum protection
of freedom of expression, whereas some EU countries have banned what they view as
“inflammatory” or “hate” speech, including over the Internet. These different viewpoints have led
to some frictions related to racist and anti-Semitic material on U.S. websites, which would be
illegal if hosted on Internet servers located in many European countries, but are largely protected
29 For more information, see CRS Report R42984, The 2013 Cybersecurity Executive Order: Overview and
Considerations for Congress, by Eric A. Fischer et al. and CRS Report R42547, Cybercrime: Conceptual Issues for
Congress and U.S. Law Enforcement, by Kristin M. Finklea and Catherine A. Theohary.
30 http://www.eeas.europa.eu/policies/eu-cyber-security/index_en.htm
Congressional Research Service
12
The United States and Europe: Current Issues
in the United States by the right to free speech. In addition, potential measures intended to
strengthen law enforcement cooperation or increase information sharing could face criticism from
data privacy or civil liberties advocates.
EU Emissions Trading System31
In 2005, the EU launched an Emissions Trading System (ETS) in order to cap industrial CO2
emissions by establishing a market of tradable allowances (i.e., “cap and trade”). On January 1,
2012, EU legislation took effect that included aviation as part of the ETS. The U.S. and
international reaction to this measure was strongly negative, leading the EU to postpone its
implementation for flights into and out of the EU (but not for intra-EU flights).
The new EU rules are intended to cover all flights, domestic or international, arriving or departing
from an EU airport.32 Operators will receive emission allowances, which they must turn in to EU
authorities in relation to flights’ actual level of CO2 emissions. Those ending up with excess
allowances may sell them on the ETS “carbon market” or keep them for future use. Those who
exceed their allowances must buy additional credits on the carbon market. Operators who
anticipate exceeding their allowances could also seek ways to reduce their emissions.33 The
allocation scheme for emission allowances has been controversial, however. Most analysts
concluded that the allocations made for aviation would not cover actual emissions, obliging
airlines to seek a significant number of extra allowances on the carbon market. Some analysts
expected the impact on ticket prices to be minor, adding as little as $5 to the cost of a transatlantic
flight, but one industry association countered that the scheme would cost U.S. airlines more than
$3 billion from 2012 to 2020.34
At a November 2011 meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), an agency
of the United Nations, 26 countries, including the United States, China, and Russia, formally
objected to the EU’s plans to enforce the ETS for aviation, arguing that it violates standing
international agreements on aviation and infringes on sovereignty. The U.S. State Department and
Transportation Department asserted that the plans also violated the U.S.-EU Open Skies
agreement signed in 2007. In December 2011, however, the EU Court of Justice upheld the ETS
legislation in a lawsuit brought by a group of U.S. airlines and the Airlines for America industry
trade association. The court ruled that including aviation in the EU ETS does not violate the
principles of territoriality or sovereignty, does not discriminate between operators on the basis of
nationality, and does not violate Open Skies because it is not a tax, fee, or charge on fuel.
In November 2012, the United States adopted the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme
Prohibition Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-200) instructing the Secretary of Transportation to prohibit U.S.
civil aircraft operators from participating in the EU ETS, and to conduct negotiations in order to
ensure that U.S. civil aircraft operators are held harmless under the EU ETS.35 The European
31 For more information, see CRS Report R42392, Aviation and the European Union’s Emission Trading Scheme, by
Jane A. Leggett, Bart Elias, and Daniel T. Shedd.
32 In addition to the 27 EU members, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein also participate in the ETS. Croatia, which is
expected to accede to the EU in 2013, will participate in the ETS starting in 2014.
33 European Commission website on Climate Action, Reducing Emissions from the Aviation Sector, http://ec.europa.eu/
clima/policies/transport/aviation/index_en.htm.
34 Elisabeth Rosenthal, “Your Biggest Carbon Sin May Be Air Travel,” The New York Times, January 27, 2013.
35 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ200/pdf/PLAW-112publ200.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
13
The United States and Europe: Current Issues
Commission subsequently announced it would suspend the inclusion of international aviation
(flights taking off or landing outside the EU) in the ETS for one year, while advocating for ICAO
to reach a broader international agreement on aviation CO2 emissions in 2013.
Energy Security36
Europe is a major importer of natural gas, and over the past decade energy security has become a
major European concern in the context of rising global energy demand, highlighted by increased
competition from countries such as China. The EU as a whole is dependent on Russia for about
one-third of is gas imports and one-quarter of its total gas and oil supplies. These percentages are
expected to grow substantially over the next 20 years. For some individual countries, dependence
on Russian gas is already much greater. Some analysts have described a trend in recent years in
which Moscow seems to use energy supplies as an instrument of foreign policy leverage. Russia
has actively sought bilateral energy deals with a number of European countries and acquired
large-scale ownership of European energy infrastructure. At the same time, analysts assert that
Russia has not applied Western standards of transparency and market reciprocity regarding
business practices and investment policy. In addition, the possibility of upstream gas cutoffs, as
occurred in a dispute between Russia and Ukraine in 2009, has posed a concern for many of the
countries dependent on Russian natural gas supplies.
Largely starting during the George W. Bush Administration, many U.S. officials and Members of
Congress have regarded European energy security as a U.S. interest. In particular, there is concern
in the United States over the influence that Russian energy dominance could have on the ability to
present European—and, by consequence, transatlantic—unity when it comes to other issues
related to Russia. For this reason, some have expressed the desirability of decreasing European
reliance on Russian energy through diversification of supply, and supported European steps to
develop alternative sources and increase energy efficiency.
Europe faces numerous challenges in its attempts to diversify its energy supply, however. While
North Africa is often viewed as the most likely alternate supplier of natural gas, political and
economic instability in the region have thus far hindered the expansion of its role. Increased
supply from Central Asia has been largely dependent on the construction of new pipelines, but,
among other complications, Russia has been working to prevent the development of alternative
pipelines outside its control that would link Europe directly to Central Asian suppliers. Many
European countries have also emphasized the development of renewable energy, but there are
questions about how much of a contribution these sources will ultimately provide.
European leaders have sought, with mixed success, to develop a stronger common European
energy strategy that coordinates member states’ energy policies. The EU has pursued initiatives to
liberalize and integrate the internal European energy market, including by expanding the
interconnection of grids and pipelines. The EU has also adopted legislation seeking to introduce
more competition and transparency in the energy sector. Elements of this legislation, combined
with a European Commission investigation against the business practices of Gazprom, have been
sharply criticized by Russia.
36 For more information, see CRS Report R42405, Europe’s Energy Security: Options and Challenges to Natural Gas
Supply Diversification, coordinated by Michael Ratner.
Congressional Research Service
14
The United States and Europe: Current Issues
Author Contact Information
Derek E. Mix
Analyst in European Affairs
dmix@crs.loc.gov, 7-9116
Congressional Research Service
15