{"title":"欧洲-阿拉伯对话的开始和跨大西洋关系(1973-1975)","authors":"Silvio Labbate","doi":"10.1400/252209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the fact that attempts to make this type of collaboration permanent failed during the years which followed, the Euro-Arab Dialogue was a significant moment in the field of international relations and of the history of the European Community, especially analyzing the global scenario and the American opposition. Thought by the Quai d’Orsay to be an alternative strategy to the Washington deals during the 1973 oil crisis, it certainly represented an important attempt to develop an EC foreign policy that did not necessarily imply – as it turned out –incompatibility with the wishes of the White House. The purpose of this paper is to examine the development of the EAD and to compare it with the Trans-Atlantic dealings. Nevertheless, the typology and the methods of Washington opposition changed over time; in some circumstances Kissinger seemed to control the evolution of the EAD, pressing the Western European governments to confront and oppose the Arab intention to transform the dialogue into a base for political claims. This manuscript aims at investing the beginning of the EAD and the relations with the Trans-Atlantic limits and constraints, mainly using archival documents available at the Historical Archives of the European Union, at the National Archive, at the National Archives and Record Administration. There is not much literature about the EAD and this is mainly focused on the poor results. Beside the first academic works with a political science approach (i.e.: Al-Dajani, 1976; Allen, 1977; Taylor, 1978; Jawad, 1992), in the new articles the EAD is not always the main subject (i.e.: Miller, 2014; Mockli, 2009). Furthermore, Bat Ye’or (2005) attaches too much importance to the political issues, while Zakariah (2013) focuses its analysis on the ‘real’ attitude of the British policy towards the EAD.","PeriodicalId":42962,"journal":{"name":"NUOVA RIVISTA STORICA","volume":"101 1","pages":"347-370"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The beginning of the Euro-Arab Dialogue and the Trans-Atlantic relations (1973-1975)\",\"authors\":\"Silvio Labbate\",\"doi\":\"10.1400/252209\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Despite the fact that attempts to make this type of collaboration permanent failed during the years which followed, the Euro-Arab Dialogue was a significant moment in the field of international relations and of the history of the European Community, especially analyzing the global scenario and the American opposition. Thought by the Quai d’Orsay to be an alternative strategy to the Washington deals during the 1973 oil crisis, it certainly represented an important attempt to develop an EC foreign policy that did not necessarily imply – as it turned out –incompatibility with the wishes of the White House. The purpose of this paper is to examine the development of the EAD and to compare it with the Trans-Atlantic dealings. Nevertheless, the typology and the methods of Washington opposition changed over time; in some circumstances Kissinger seemed to control the evolution of the EAD, pressing the Western European governments to confront and oppose the Arab intention to transform the dialogue into a base for political claims. This manuscript aims at investing the beginning of the EAD and the relations with the Trans-Atlantic limits and constraints, mainly using archival documents available at the Historical Archives of the European Union, at the National Archive, at the National Archives and Record Administration. There is not much literature about the EAD and this is mainly focused on the poor results. Beside the first academic works with a political science approach (i.e.: Al-Dajani, 1976; Allen, 1977; Taylor, 1978; Jawad, 1992), in the new articles the EAD is not always the main subject (i.e.: Miller, 2014; Mockli, 2009). Furthermore, Bat Ye’or (2005) attaches too much importance to the political issues, while Zakariah (2013) focuses its analysis on the ‘real’ attitude of the British policy towards the EAD.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42962,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NUOVA RIVISTA STORICA\",\"volume\":\"101 1\",\"pages\":\"347-370\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NUOVA RIVISTA STORICA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1400/252209\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NUOVA RIVISTA STORICA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1400/252209","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6
摘要
尽管在随后的几年中使这种合作永久化的努力失败了,但欧洲-阿拉伯对话是国际关系领域和欧洲共同体历史上的一个重要时刻,特别是分析了全球局势和美国的反对。奥赛外交部认为这是1973年石油危机期间华盛顿协议的另一种策略,它当然代表了欧共体发展外交政策的重要尝试,这种外交政策并不一定意味着——正如事实证明的那样——与白宫的愿望不相容。本文的目的是考察EAD的发展,并将其与跨大西洋交易进行比较。然而,华盛顿反对的类型和方法随着时间的推移而改变;在某些情况下,基辛格似乎控制着EAD的演变,迫使西欧各国政府面对并反对阿拉伯将对话转变为政治主张基础的意图。本文主要利用欧盟历史档案馆、美国国家档案馆、美国国家档案和记录管理局提供的档案文件,旨在研究欧洲经委会的开始以及与跨大西洋限制和约束的关系。关于EAD的文献不多,这主要集中在糟糕的结果上。除了第一批采用政治科学方法的学术著作(即:Al-Dajani, 1976;艾伦,1977;泰勒,1978;Jawad, 1992),在新的文章中EAD并不总是主要的主题(例如:Miller, 2014;Mockli, 2009)。此外,Bat Ye ' or(2005)过于重视政治问题,而Zakariah(2013)则侧重于分析英国对EAD政策的“真实”态度。
The beginning of the Euro-Arab Dialogue and the Trans-Atlantic relations (1973-1975)
Despite the fact that attempts to make this type of collaboration permanent failed during the years which followed, the Euro-Arab Dialogue was a significant moment in the field of international relations and of the history of the European Community, especially analyzing the global scenario and the American opposition. Thought by the Quai d’Orsay to be an alternative strategy to the Washington deals during the 1973 oil crisis, it certainly represented an important attempt to develop an EC foreign policy that did not necessarily imply – as it turned out –incompatibility with the wishes of the White House. The purpose of this paper is to examine the development of the EAD and to compare it with the Trans-Atlantic dealings. Nevertheless, the typology and the methods of Washington opposition changed over time; in some circumstances Kissinger seemed to control the evolution of the EAD, pressing the Western European governments to confront and oppose the Arab intention to transform the dialogue into a base for political claims. This manuscript aims at investing the beginning of the EAD and the relations with the Trans-Atlantic limits and constraints, mainly using archival documents available at the Historical Archives of the European Union, at the National Archive, at the National Archives and Record Administration. There is not much literature about the EAD and this is mainly focused on the poor results. Beside the first academic works with a political science approach (i.e.: Al-Dajani, 1976; Allen, 1977; Taylor, 1978; Jawad, 1992), in the new articles the EAD is not always the main subject (i.e.: Miller, 2014; Mockli, 2009). Furthermore, Bat Ye’or (2005) attaches too much importance to the political issues, while Zakariah (2013) focuses its analysis on the ‘real’ attitude of the British policy towards the EAD.
期刊介绍:
La «Nuova Rivista Storica» fu fondata nel 1917 da Corrado Barbagallo: era in corso la prima guerra mondiale ed è probabile che quanto avveniva nel nostro paese e in tutta l’Europa sia stato determinante nel condizionarne il programma che fu pensato «un po’ diverso da quello comune alle altre riviste storiche» (Il nostro programma, firmato La Redazione, fasc.1, a. 1 gennaio-marzo 1917). In esso si auspicava infatti di poter «esercitare una speciale azione nell’ambito della nostra cultura storiografica: quella che nel pensiero dei suoi ideatori è parsa la più conforme ai bisogni dell’ora che volge».