• privacy policy
• accessibility
• sitemap

UCD Clinton Institute for American Studies

Transatlantic Affairs Newsletter
Volume One, Issue 3
November / December 2005

Ireland and the United States

The Generational Gap

The first two editions of Transatlantic Affairs focused on Irish-American close diplomatic and economic relations. This opening section will concentrate on the importance of maintaining robust support for Irish Immigrant Groups in the US as a means for building and further enhancing closer political, diplomatic and economic bonds.

On the whole, the current generation of political leaders in Ireland and America, no longer have an automatic or visceral knowledge of each other. As in the rest of Europe, the deep instinctive ties created by the shared struggle of World War II and the Cold War have been loosened by the passage of time. The various and rather elusive forces of globalisation are crafting a global economic environment where US business will travel to the cheapest location to establish itself. Where once there was a somewhat automatic instinct to look to each other to do business, this is no longer the case.

Against this backdrop, Ireland like other states will have to compete even more for US economic sustenance going into the future. For Ireland, the additional trump of large numbers of Irish immigrant groups, who have already established deep and firm roots in America, is something that should be harnessed and cultivated.

Used effectively these immigrant group can and have helped bridge the generational gap for political leaders in Ireland and the US, as leaders seek consensus on issues of common concern and interest. Having a foothold in grassroots America can provide Ireland with political and economic leverage in Washington, something that will be increasingly important in future years.

In this context, the recent announcement by Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dermot Ahern, T.D., for a 40 per cent increase in funding to Irish Immigration Group in the US is a welcome and positive development. This timely increase in funding reflects the Irish Governments awareness of the need to further develop and promote our community in the US.

Complementing this increase in funding to immigrant groups is the establishment last year of a dedicated unit-the Irish Abroad Unit-within the Department of Foreign Affairs, that is focused entirely on matters relating to developing and enhancing connections to our emigrant groups across the globe. In an ever-changing and globalised world, this is an important and vital resource that must be developed in the decades ahead.

back to top

The United States and the European Union

The End of Europe?

Laurent Cohen-Tanugi

In no uncertain terms, the “double fiasco” concerning the rejection of the European constitution and the failure to reach an agreement regarding the European financial perspectives 2007-2013, produced a deep crisis for the EU integration project. The historic problem of European wide voter disillusionment was not caused by the recent debacle surrounding the Constitutional Treaty. However, it did act as a catalyst and provide a context within which this dissatisfaction could foment. According to Laurent Cohen-Tanugi, the solution to the current impasse must involve pragmatic steps to enhance the dire state of the European economy. Any attempt to remedy the current difficulties through institutional reforms is likely to fail.

The rejection of the Constitution by France and the Netherlands, both founding members of the EU, does not necessarily spell the end of the Union, but it does reflect a profound crisis that reaches to the heart of the unification process. Failing to remedy the situation has obvious implications for the EU, but according to Cohen also carries significant implications for America and by logical extension EU-US relations.

The recent referendum campaigns in France and the Netherlands were absent of any real public debate over the EU Constitutional Treaty. It is perhaps not surprising therefore, that the Treaty was rejected. Viewed within this context, the ‘non’ vote can be seen as not a direct oppositional attack against the Treaty, although for some this was clearly their basic motivating factor, but rather a vote of protest. The ‘non’ vote can be viewed as an indication of the electorates’ dissatisfaction with the current level of economic and social problems in both countries. These problems have manifested themselves through high unemployment in France and social instability in traditionally tolerant Holland. In addition, voters are clear in their distaste of the current ruling parties, whose longevity is illustrative of the lack of credible political opposition, rather than any love for the party in power. And finally, the no vote is a protest vote against the opaque forces of economic globalisation, whose driven impulses are viewed as emanating from bureaucratic Brussels.

n the wider international arena, a weaker, divided and less coherent Europe would be detrimental to efforts by America to face and combat the challenges of international terrorism, environmental derogations, the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destructions, the Middle East Peace Process and larger economic issues. Paradoxically, without a united European front supporting and working with the US, Washington is probably increasingly to act unilaterally in pursuits of its foreign policy objectives; a strategy that has fomented much of the angst and frustration within some EU member states over the last few years.

f there exits no obvious legal or institutional solutions to the current impasse. Then the only real solution lies within the economic sphere. In the end, only pragmatic economic steps can help the EU out of crisis. The first step should be to bolster the European economy, this however, is largely a domestic challenge facing France, Germany, Italy and others. At the supranational level, the EU should work to steer France and Germany along more liberal economic tracks and should renew its commitment toward closer integration, while simultaneously working to enhance its partnership with America. All of these efforts will require vision, leadership and diplomacy on the part of the European governments.

Cohen-Tanugi, Laurent, The End of Europe? Foreign Affairs, November/December 2005.

back to top

Europe’s Trash Talk

Alan Sked

The rejection of the constitutional treaty will not deter the European bureaucrats from implementing their grand design. As an alternative to accepting failure these bureaucrats will peddle another myth: “the need to balance the American behemoth.”

In European elite circles words mean whatever bureaucrats want them to mean. It is not surprising therefore, that the myths of a European Union responsible for bringing peace to a worn-torn land after 1945; ensuring economic stability through the Cold War; spreading democracy to the darkest corners of Europe all encapsulated within the overarching communality of ‘a common European civilisation,’ are disseminated widely as popular fact.

n this article Alan Sked provides a sceptical and rather pessimistic view of the European project. According to Sked, if an historical analysis of the European project can show anything, it is that the rejection of the constitutional treaty in spring this year by French and Dutch is not the end of attempts to implement this document. Sked cites the NICE referendum in Ireland as a case in point. “To EU leaders ‘no’ must mean ‘yes.’”

And when leaders eventually go back to the people of Europe to ask for their approval, they will rehearse familiar arguments.

They will reminisce about how the EU brought peace to Europe after world war II, while neglecting to factor in the dominant role played by the military destruction and occupation of Germany, the establishment of NATO and the defence of Europe by British, American and Canadian forces. Following this myth comes the trade myth. “Britain, for example, has been told that to trade with Europe, you must be part of it.”

But, according to Sked, this is a weak argument based on a false assessment. The UK can trade with America without adopting the dollar and needn’t adopt the yen to trade with Japan.

The argument posited that the EU democratised Eastern Europe, as well as Greece, Spain and Portugal is also exaggerated and historical impoverished in its assessment. It fails to take a full account of the role of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in ending the Cold War. Encapsulating the myths outlined above is the overarching myth posited about a common European civilisation. Again, Sked argues that this argument neglects to take a full account of the historical facts and is remarkably selective in its historical approach.

In this context, what does the future hold for the European Union? Sked offers a rather alarming and pessimistic view that the “whole rotten edifice will collapse beneath the weight of its contradictions, and its own electorates will help it crumble.” However, in the short term we should expect more of the same.

Sked, Alan. Europe’s Trash Talk. Foreign Policy, July 2005.

back to top

What New Transatlantic Institutions?

Charles Grant and Mark Leonard

According to Charles Grant and Mark Leonard, the European Union and the United States lack any sufficient institutional arrangement to discuss big strategic questions and now, at the moment when the future of NATO is unsure, is the time to begin to rethinking the methods of conducting this vital relationship.

Of course, they recognise the important role of the annual EU-US Summit but question its ability to achieve the require outcome on issues of major geopolitical importance. This problem is particularly acute given the nature of the rotating EU presidency and the fact that small and sometimes neutral countries are at helm. It is not that small member states do not have the right foreign policy prescriptions, but rather more often than not they have a narrower foreign policy perspective than the big three of Britain, France and Germany.

Grant and Leonard argue the merits of a smaller annual transatlantic meeting at the highest levels. On the European side no more than five leaders would participate (these would probably include the leaders of Britain, Germany, France, the Commission and the Council Secretariat) and would be complemented on the American side by the President and four of his most senior advisors. The meeting would be conducted in an informal setting and no press would be invited. A forum of this kind would enable a frank discussion of some of the most important and pressing international challenges facing all nations.

A secondary meeting could also take place consisting of ‘contact groups.’ These contact groups would consist of the American Secretary of State and perhaps others on the US side and the relevant EU foreign ministers (depending on the topic) and Solana on the European side.

Obviously these proposals require a more coherent EU foreign policy in the main, but “the apparent openness to a different kind of EU-US institutional relationship may stem as much from NATO’s waning salience as the allure of a strong European Union.” Whatever the cause this opportunity will require vision and mature leadership to implement.

Grant, Charles and Leonard, Mark. What New Transatlantic Institutions? April/May 2005.

back to top

The United States and International Affairs

Enduring Freedom: Public Diplomacy and US Foreign Policy

Liam Kennedy & Scott L ucas

In this cogent and illuminating article, Liam Kennedy and Scott Lucas contend that “in the last few years US public diplomacy has undergone intensive reorganisation and retooling as it takes on a more prominent propaganda role in the efforts to win the hearts and minds of foreign publics ”

and that this “new public diplomacy” functions “in a conflicted space of power and value that is a crucial theatre of strategic operations for the renewal of American hegemony within a transformed global order.”

The paper, divided into three parts, provides a succinct and useful synthesis of the historical development of Cold War American public diplomacy from the 1940s through to an examination of “selected lineaments” of a new US public diplomacy endeavouring to achieve successful political results around the world post September 11, 2001. According to Kennedy and Lucas, post-9/11 American public diplomacy “functions as both a tool of national security and as a component of US efforts to manage the emerging formation of a neoliberal empire.”

In the final part of this paper Kennedy and Lucas argue a need to re-think our understanding of the “mode and meanings” of US public diplomacy in ways that enable a deeper exploration of the relationship between the power of the American state and public diplomacy pursuits “across national borders. ” And following from this, the need to consider the “conditions of knowledge-formation and critical thinking shaped”by the exercising of this power.

Kennedy, Liam & Scott, Lucas. Enduring Freedom: Public Diplomacy and US Foreign Policy. August 2005, American Quarterly.

back to top

Taming American Power

Stephen M. Walt

A problematical debate about how America should use its preponderant power in the global arena has obsessed policymakers in Washington for over fifteen years. Conversely, for the rest of the world, the debate has focused on how best to deal with that power. As a result, different states have taken distinct paths when establishing relations with Washington. Some states have made peace with America and try to manipulate it; others stand firm in opposition and work to undermine American interests and goals. According to Stephen Walt, the central challenge for the United States in the international arena “is how to turn its material dominance into legitimate authority.”

In a world of rising anti-Americanism, America must aim to make its dominant position more acceptable to other states. A strategy designed to achieve this end would not just work to enhance America’s name internationally, but would also increase the health of US business abroad, which has taken a fall over recent years. To this end, a new multifaceted approach that seeks to use American military force more sparingly; fosters greater cooperation with chief allies; and works to rebuild America’s crumbling international image, would bolster the power of the US within the global arena.

Against the backdrop of a more hostile international environment, Professor Walt argues that the US is in a battle for the “hearts and minds” of people across the world and is currently losing (for further elaboration on these themes see Kennedy & Lucas, 2005). In fact, if anti-Americanism continues to grow, the US will face greater resistance and find it harder to attract support for its policies. Trying to counter these threats alone will exacerbate the fear of US power abroad and isolate the US even more. This can only produce an outcome in which Americans will feel increasingly threatened.

Elaborating on this new approach, Walt rejects the notion that the US should retreat into isolationism, although this would work to stem efforts to restrict US power in the world. However, in an ever increasingly interconnected world the benefits would not be worth the costs. In his analysis, the world would be a more dangerous place without American power to underwrite many of the international organisations that work to facilitate international peace and economic cooperation.

Instead, America should adopt its traditional role as an “offshore balancer.” This is a strategy that “assumes that only a few parts of the world are of strategic importance to the United States, such as Europe, industrialized Asia, and the Persian Gulf.”

In this role the US would lead via local actors, who would work to maintain a regional balance of power. The US would still have an overarching influence and would have to be ready to assume leadership, through possible military intervention, if it became absolutely necessary.

For Walt “Being less directly involved on the ground would also bolster the United States’ freedom of action. Washington would be able to play hard to get, making its support for others conditional on broad compliance with US goals. Other states would be less likely to take US protection for granted. By diminishing global concerns about US dominance, this approach would also make it easier for Washington to gain global backing on those rare occasions when it needed to use force.”

Walt, Stephen. Taming American Power. Foreign Affairs, September/October, 2005.

back to top

China’s Search for Stability With America

Wang Jisi

The conventional view holds that the United States and China occupy corresponding ends of a continuum within the international sphere. Fundamental differences in national power, international status, political systems and ideological viewpoints have prevented the US and China from bridging this gap. However, according to Wang Jisi the two countries have grown so interconnected that cooperation is the best way to serve the interests of both states. A corollary of this is that - given the preponderance of American power within the international arena - no other country can affect China’s fortunes more directly than America.

Despite the increased level of interconnectivity, the reality is that the potential hotspots including Taiwan and North Korea remain at the heart of the relationship. Against this backdrop, it is unlikely the US and China will develop a true friendship any time soon.

To enable a more comprehensive assessment of where and how China and America can cooperate, it is important to establish an understanding of how each state views the other. From a Chinese perspective American dominance within the world is pervasive and in the short term unlikely to change. However, in the long term, China views the decline of US primacy and the subsequent transition to a multi-polar world as inevitable. Despite the many economic, military and political strengths of America, China’s perspective is guided by the assessment that American power is not invulnerable.

According to Jisi however, it would be imprudent for Beijing to challenge the international order favoured by the Western World and dominated by America –“and, indeed, such a challenge is unlikely.”

From an American perspective China remains a closed, opaque and a secretive state, dominated by a small elite holding the reigns of power and showing little or no regard for democracy and human rights. More recently, is a growing perception in Washington that China is building up is military capabilities behind closed doors and issuing false assessments regarding the percentage of China’s GDP being allocated to defence spending. In addition, the economic rise of China is attracting a lot of attention in Washington.

The Chinese-US relationship remains beset by more profound differences in perspective than any other bilateral relationship between major powers in the world today. And according to Jisi, it is in Asia and the Pacific where the US and China are most likely to either come face to face in conflict or develop real cooperation (or both). The US support for democracy in Taiwan; the on going six party talks regarding nuclear proliferation in North Korea and economic rivalry between Japan and China means that the US–China relationship is closely interwoven by positive and negative aspects for both.

This complex dynamic rules out an assessment of this relationship as based on traditional zero-sum terms. “If, for instance, the United States really aimed to Hamper China’s economic modernization-as the University of Chicago’s John Mearsheimer has argued should be done-China would not be the only one to suffer. Many US enterprises in China would lose the returns of their investments.”

Any improvements in US-China relations are likely to be slow and tortuous, limited and conditional, and could ultimately end in conflict- a disastrous option for both. To this end, it is vital that whatever cooperation or disagreement the US and China entered into, all attempt should be made to make sure that the other side understands its intentions.

Jisi, Wang. China’s Search for Stability with America. Foreign Affairs, September /October 2005.

back to top

Transatlantic Affairs Editor: Frank Groome

If you have any comments or suggestions to improve this service please contact the editor at frank.groom@ucd.ie

The William Jefferson Clinton Institute for American Studies at University College Dublin www.ucd.ie/amerstud

© CIAS 2005