UCD Clinton Institute for American Studies
UCD, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland | Director: Professor Liam Kennedy
Post US-Election Forum, 18 November 2004
The forum was held at University College Dublin on 18 November 2004, as part of a series of conferences and seminars to be held by the Clinton Institute for American Studies on the subject of American politics, culture and society. This forum brought together academics, diplomats and journalists to examine and assess the outcome and impact of the 2004 US election results.
The war in Iraq and the diplomatic crisis surrounding it has left divisions between Europe and America and contributed to the polarization of the American electorate. It is timely therefore to examine some of the salient challenges and questions facing America following one of the most divisive elections in the nation's history. Particular attention was given to assessing America's role on the world stage, including its relationships with Europe and with the Middle East.
The forum opened with introductory remarks from the Director of the Clinton Institute for American Studies, Professor Liam Kennedy.
Discussants:
Professor Mark Lytle (Bard College, USA)
Professor Lytle provided a lucid account of the shifts in voting patterns during presidential elections at particular junctures throughout US history. In his analysis, Professor Lytle identified a clear-cut difference between the geographical distribution of votes that went to each candidate during the 2004 election. While Senator John Kerry carried the cities, which traditionally are more liberal and multicultural; George Bush carried the more rural areas, where conservative values are particularly strong and where there exists a general indifference to America's international obligations.
By analysing the geographical distribution of voting patterns, it is clear that if the democrats were to win then they needed to conate their votes in the urban areas. From an historical perspective one event is certain, within the next few years a big problem/scandal will weaken this administration. No other two-term administration has escaped without a scandal of some sort.
Noel Dorr (Former Irish Ambassador to the United Nations)
Noel Dorr offered a detailed analysis of what a Bush second-term administration means for the international order. He identified several underlying assumptions that must be kept in mind when examining world geopolitics. First, the world is increasingly interdependent; all states are affected by geopolitical shifts. Second, the great powers can have a dynamic impact on the rest of the world and third, the United States is the greatest power the world has ever seen.
At the dawn of the new millennium the world is linked through economic and political bonds. The world's population is growing at an extraordinary rate and is predicted to reach 10-12 billion by 2050. These developments have created new threats and challenges for the more than two hundred or so nation-states. Increasingly, many of the new threats and challenges are borderless and include inter alia: the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, international terrorism, rogue states, poverty, alienation and genocide.
Although an imperfect organisation the United Nations is the most universal organisation the world has. It includes 191 nations and among these states the UN charter has become the accepted basis of the international rule of law. It is significant to note that the charter is a method to achieve greater peace and prosperity.
In the new century the United States is enjoying an unrivalled pre-eminence in all fields. From economics to politics the US is dominant and significantly it views itself as such. This confidence stems from the view of a 'manifest destiny.' Historically, the US has felt invulnerable. However, September 11th 2001 altered this perception and the rest of the world is feeling the impact of America's reaction. Guided by the US National Security Strategy of 2002, the Bush administration is fighting a pre-emptive war against international terrorism. However, there are some clear problems with this adopted strategy:
If the goal of America is to defeat international terrorism, than perhaps a strategy of preventive rather than pre-emptive war might be prudent. After all, preventive war is designed to tackle a long-term war, while pre-emptive is designed to fight short-term wars. Notwithstanding this significant difference, other questions in the adopted security strategy need to be addressed.
First, when will this war end? International terrorism is a method and not a tangible entity, so how is one to know when victory is accomplished. Second, in an effort to build a 'coalition of the willing,' the administration has adopted what it believes to be a persuasive stance by identifying “those [states] that are not with us are against us.” Again, perhaps a more prudent way to build a coalition of willing states would be to adopt a more inclusive phrase such as:
“those that are with us are not against us.”
Finally, if the mission determines the coalition of states, who determines the mission?
So, why are these policies misguided? First, a pre-emptive war against terrorism must be based on intelligence. This does not constitute an intelligent war. At present, it is more likely to feed resentment around the Islamic world. Second, can the war be sustained? So far this war has cost 87 billion dollars and significantly the US is borrowing millions around the world. Third, America's policy has turned away from the multilateral processes of the UN. This war has seriously undermined international law.
What is a possible alternative? Incrementally, the world should move in a new direction. All states are faced with the bane of international terrorism and we should adopt a thoughtful approach to dealing with non-state actors. All nations must understand and use the United Nations despite its weaknesses. All should work to enhance the United Nations' capacity and reform the organisation. America should adopt a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. All states should work to resolve the Middle East crisis.
Will these policies be adopted? Significantly, second-term presidents are usually freer, but we must factor in the reality principle.
Dr David Ryan (University College Cork)
Dr Ryan offered an interesting analysis of a second-term Bush administration. The cabinet reshuffle underway in the administration is testament to Bush's determination that the neo-conservatives conate power in Washington and over the next few years Bush will ify his approach. In sum, we can expect more of the same.
A central theme of American foreign policy is the projection of power. September 11th 2001 provided an insidious opportunity for the US to increase its power globally. Historically, American foreign policy is animated by “monsters.” From the Monroe Doctrine through to the Truman Doctrine the US have set up a divide between the old and new worlds.
The Bush administration has managed to do the same today with the phrase “you are with us or against us.” After the attacks of September 11th the resolve of the administration was clear, but where was the enemy? The administration conflated Al Qaeda with the Taliban, and the terrorist with the tyrant. This adopted policy has provided the administration with a conventional target in Afghanistan.
Iraq has fallen victim to the old adage “if you can't solve a problem, enlarge it.” As in Afghanistan, this policy has provided a more conventional target, but significantly an exit strategy as well. While resistance in Iraq has been extremely strong, the administration will be determined to keep going. George Bush has been emened by the recent election victory and in the next four years the world is likely to see a more assertive American foreign policy.
Lara Marlowe (The Irish Times)
Lara Marlowe offered the forum an insightful, illuminating and yet pessimistic analysis of US policy during the last Bush administration and over the next. She identified two crucial tests for the Bush administration over the next four years: Iraq and the Middle East crisis.
If the administration insists on pursuing this disastrous policy in Iraq the situation will only worsen. And under these circumstances the world can expect to see more of the same only worse. One of the biggest faults of President Bush is his unwillingness to admit mistakes.
However, the situation in Iraq can be improved by a concerted communications effort on behalf of the administration. This crucial task now falls to the new Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. At present, the “coalition of the willing” that Bush speaks so fondly of, is disintegrating. Hungry and Holland have decided to pull out and other nations are contemplating the same.
What chance is there of rebuilding Iraq when security remains non-existent. The US army is unlikely to secure the support of the majority of the Iraqi population when they conduct the war with utter carelessness and disregard for civilian life. The insurgency too has become increasingly and vicious in their attacks and kidnappings. If the US stays and pursues the same policy the best America can hope for in the long run is a US puppet regime, with the insurgency fighting on.
America talks of bringing democracy to Iraq and the region more generally. However, history has shown that the American view of what constitutes a democratic state is very narrow. As with Yasser Arafat in Palestine, any leader elected in Iraq that the US does not feel comfortable with will be shunned. Irrespective of whether the majority of the population has elected the leader. In Israel and Palestine, the Americans must impose peace on both parties.
Director of the Clinton Institute: Professor Liam Kennedy
Forum Organiser: Catherine Carey
Proceedings: Frank Groome
News & Events
Podcasts, Blogs & Videos
Analysing the latest issues & trends in the US, especialy in US Foreign Policy