How Europe and America Defend Themselves
The great solidarity Europe showed America after September 11 has started to wear off, and real differences have opened up in the transatlantic pursuit of homeland security. Europe's reluctance to take necessary steps to tighten security has made America more vulnerable. And unless cooperation improves, Europe will also be increasingly at risk.
Jonathan Stevenson is Editor of Strategic Survey and Senior Fellow for Counterterrorism at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.
COMMON GROUND
After the United States was attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001, its European allies were among the first nations to express sympathy and pledge their aid in the war to come. The fact that many European countries have long experienced terrorism themselves helped ensure a great deal of transatlantic empathy and cooperation -- at least at first. France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom have all suffered political violence over the past 30 years and were thus predisposed to help the United States in its new struggle against al Qaeda. But the kind of terrorism these European countries have suffered -- "old" terrorism -- differs substantially from that suddenly faced by the United States. As time passed, these differences started to erode the thoroughgoing unity that had flourished right after September 11.
Nowhere were the differences between the European and American experiences and approach more evident than in homeland security. Even as Washington scrambled to adopt new measures to defend itself, there was notably less haste among European authorities to tighten immigration policies or improve border security. This was typified by the dispute between the French and British governments over Paris' refusal to close the Sangatte refugee camp near Calais. Since the war in Kosovo, hundreds of refugees, many of Afghan origin, had sought to flee the camp for illegal entry into the United Kingdom via the nearby Channel Tunnel. After September 11, the British and others began to worry that al Qaeda or the Taliban might infiltrate these groups and blow up one of the world's engineering wonders. Yet it took well over a year of bilateral acrimony before the camp was finally closed, in December 2002.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
In Kosovo, America stumbled into the age of computer warfare. Now Washington must think hard about how to attack its foes' electronic networks and defend its own.
One of the most important figures in Obama’s administration will be his national security adviser. An examination of past advisers shows how to get the job right—or wrong.
The specter of weapons of mass destruction being used against America looms larger today than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis. The World Trade Center bombing scarcely hints at the enormity of the danger. America is prepared only for conventional terrorism, not a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons catastrophe. With the right approach and organization, however, the United States can be ready. Herewith a plan to reorganize the U.S. government to ensure that it can handle the threats of the next century.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.