• privacy policy
• accessibility
• sitemap

UCD Clinton Institute for American Studies

Transatlantic Affairs Newsletter
Volume Two, Issue 4
January / February 2007

Ireland and the United States

Enhancing the Relationship in 2007

Frank Groome

The Tanaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Michael McDowell, T.D., traveled to America last week (w/b 8/21/07) where he attended several high level engagements on law enforcement and foreign direct investment (FDI). During his short visit the Minister also met with several leading American academics in legal and cultural affairs to discuss the potential for bolstering Ireland-U.S. educational opportunities.

On his visit the Minister was accompanied the Garda Commissioner Mr Noel Conroy, who had traveled to America to explore and examine specific elements of the American justice and policing system, especially in regards to organized crime. Commissioner Conroy was assessing whether Ireland might adopt best American practices regarding dealing with organized crime elements. This is a significant step toward tackling Ireland’s organized criminals.

While in Indiana the Minister held productive meetings with faculty members from Notre Dame University. As noted, the meetings were designed to explore opportunities for enhanced cooperation on legal studies and to develop and expand research projects between Ireland and America. Enhancing closer educational and research bonds between Irish and American Universities is a crucial component of enhancing overall cultural, diplomatic and economic cooperation. In California the Tanaiste met with executives of Amgen, the largest biotechnology company in the world. This company is currently developing a major manufacturing facility in East Cork and is of considerable importance to the region. This was a symbolic visit to highlight Ireland’s economic openness and the government’s commitment to providing the right environment for American business on the island.

As 2007 begins, Ireland still remains an attractive place to do business for American companies. Ireland has retained a comparative advantage over other European countries when it comes to a percentage rate of return for U.S. companies. For example, between 1995 and 2002, the percentage rate of return of U.S. companies in Ireland was 20 percent, while in the UK during the same period it was only 7.6 percent. Ireland still maintains a leading position with regard to corporation tax and its skilled workforce are leading the rest of Europe.* Minister McDowell’s visit to America so early in the New Year is an indication of the considerable importance this government attaches to the Irish- American relationship.

*Data is taken from IDA statistics for 2006

back to top

The United States and the European Union

Americans, Europeans upbeat on trade and globalization, but concerned over jobs, imports, China

The German Marshall Fund

2007 could prove to be a good year for the transatlantic partnership. New data released by The German Marshall Fund of the United States in December 2006 shows a significant level of mutual support across the Atlantic on several key issues. The survey collates transatlantic public opinion on inter alia, international trade, economic development, immigration, and China.

Although the Doha Round of World Trade Organization talks were suspended in July 2006 without agreement, most Americans and Europeans remained committed to the lowering of tariffs and other trade barriers. Seventy-eight percent of Americans and eighty-two percent of Europeans believe that freer trade enables access to new markets, while seventy-one percent of Americans and seventy-two percent of Europeans consider freer trade makes the world more stable by facilitating cross-border cooperation. Moreover, most Americans and Europeans in 2006 had a more positive view on the processes of globalization than they had in 2005; however, significant trepidation remains regarding potential job losses. Three-quarters of Americans and Europeans are keen to support an expansion of international trade with poor countries. Americans and Europeans agree that “aid for trade” will benefit their own economies.

Survey information on immigration issues provides for some interesting reading. In all countries surveyed unskilled-worker wages are considered more under threat then skilled-worker wages. However, the extent to which countries believe this actually happens varies overall. In fact sixty-two percent of Americans and fifty-four percent of Europeans believe immigrant workers create new businesses that add value back into the economy. In 2005 China reported an economic growth rate of 9.9 percent. This increasing rate of growth is concerning many in Europe and America. Sixty-nine percent of the American and European populations consider China’s growing economy a considerable threat. The main point of concern rests in competition from low-cost Chinese products and U.S. and European firms relocating to China. On the up side, ninety-four percent of Americans and Europeans believe that investing in education, job training and technology will enable them compete in the global economy.

The German Marshall Fund of The United States, Americans, Europeans upbeat on trade and globalization, but concerned over jobs, imports, China.

back to contents

EU Battlegroups Ready (and Willing?)

CSIS

Although several important strategic questions remain unsolved, the European Union’s new rapid military response capability comes online this January. This new European Union military instrument will enable the Union to undertake two missions concurrently. As with most European Union negotiations the formulation of this new capability has been marred by ambiguity since its inception in November 2004. Member States’(MS) interpretation of the Battlegroups’ rules of engagement, command and control structures, and relationship with other institutions remain unanswered.

A central feature of the new instrument will be to correct some of the European Union’s Rapid Reaction Force (ERRF) shortcomings, in particular its inability to be deployed rapidly. According to the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), several major issues remain unclear. First, Member States remain unclear and vague on how and when the new capability will be utilized. Many MS want the new Battlegroups to react to the full spectrum of possible future missions, while other MS consider the primary role of the new instrument is to serve low-intensity humanitarian missions.

A second growing problem is the overall decline in defense budgets in many European Union nations. If the EU is seriously contemplating a military capability that can be deployed in far away places in fifteen days and be sustained for 30 days (120 with rotation) then the Union will have to find methods to meet these requirements. A noticeable and immediate shortfall is the Union’s lack of strategic airlift capabilities. According to most reports the EU is leasing Russian Antonovs to make up the shortfall. This is not a sustainable situation. A third problem remains regarding the strategic command of these new Battlegroups. Again division among MS is widespread. Some Members have suggested a NATO or UN command structure, while others have proposed that individual members provide a base of operation. In the end the EU itself might create a new EU command structure; however at present the problem remains acute.

Finally, it is unclear what relationship this EU military instrument will have with NATO. In the context of current shortfalls it might be prudent for the Battlegroups to rely on the Berlin Plus arrangements to gain access to NATO assets. “The EU may also want to consider developing a link between the Battlegroups and the NATO Response Force.”

This is an outcome that would benefit both strategic military instruments over the long-term and would undoubtedly be welcomed by the United States, especially given Washington’s general concerns regarding an independent European military capability.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies, Transatlantic Security Notes and Comment, January 2007.

back to top

The United States and International Affairs

Bush’s Strategy for Iraq Risks Confrontations

Sheryl Gay Stolberg

On January 10 2007, President Bush presented the American nation with a new plan for success in Iraq. The president’s proposals include: an increase of more than 21,000 US troops reinforcements; a focus on securing Baghdad using more aggressive rules of engagement; a parallel effort to hit al-Qaeada in Anbar province, using 4, 000 more troops in the region; and finally, increasing pressure on the Iraqi Government to take control of all provinces by November 2007. The administration’s new initiative and drive to secure victory in war-weary Iraq rejected the central tenets of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group’s (ISG) recommendations to wind down the US combat role and to engage with Iran and Syria. According to Sheryl Stolberg, president Bush’s decision to increase American military presence in Iraq at this time is inviting a clash at home with the Democrats who control Capitol Hill. Moreover, the president is ignoring the outcome of the November 2006 Congressional elections and openly flouting the advice of his own generals.

In a twenty-minute speech from the White House, the president reaffirmed his commitment not to withdraw American troops. He still firmly believes that a troop withdrawal would bolster the insurgency in Iraq and ultimately lead to an American defeat. This is an outcome he is unwilling to contemplate. “To step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government,”

declared the president. In a significant rhetorical move the president for the first time conceded that there had not been enough American or Iraqi troops in Baghdad to stop the insurgent militia groups throwing the capital into chaos over the past year. In addition, a White House document released shortly before the speech acknowledged that the administration’s previous strategy was based on flawed assumptions regarding the power of the Iraqi government.

Many in Washington remain critical of the president’s strategy. Leon E. Panetta, a Democratic member of the Iraq Study Group believes that the president is “basically taking the nation into another nightmare of conflict over a war that no one sees any end to.”

Of course there is little doubt that Bush will be able to deploy the troops he wants without Congress being able to stop him. After all, the democrats are not going to allow themselves be forced to vote against a troop increase and become the possible scapegoat for failure in Iraq. A prudent president however would keep in mind the forthcoming battles with Congress over funding for the war and other domestic polices. Over the short-term the decision to ignore the Democratic leadership and the ISG might prove the defining feature of the remainder of the president’s term. But on the other hand maybe the president has a long-term objective in mind- an objective that could help the Republican Party in the 2008 presidential election. If the president can create some semblance of stability in Iraq with an increase of troop levels, while at the same time strategically shifting the blame for the continued violence on an fledgling Iraqi government, then the administration will have opened the door for a credible American withdrawal in two years time. One thing is certain however, no president can prosecute the war indefinitely without the support of the American people, and with most polls showing less than 20 percent support for this new proposal the president has an immense uphill challenge either way.

Sheryl Gay Solberg, Bush’s Strategy for Iraq Risks Confrontations, The New York Times, January 11, 2007.

back to content

A Great Opportunity The Potential Impact of UN and U.S. Leadership Changes

Spencer P. Boyer and Ken Gude

The world is now facing a tremendous array of international and transnational problems. International terrorism, in particular al –Qaeda, has been transformed into a global terrorist brand; poverty and disease continue to plaque Africa and Asia; Darfur, Afghanistan and Iraq continue to need long-term humanitarian assistance; and climate change is upon us. These global challenges require global solutions and leadership. Against this backdrop, the new Secretary-General (SG) Ban Ki Moon will have his work cut out for him, as he becomes the eight SG of the UN.

The U.S.-U.N. relationship had reached a new low point during the last few years. U.S. Ambassador John Bolton and SG Kofi Annan often had very public and difficult disagreements. As Spencer P. Boyer and Ken Gude write: these disagreements “often broke into public sparring matches that characterized a relationship that can at best be described as difficult and at worst dysfunctional.”

With the dawning of a New Year comes the chance for a fresh start. Last week (w/b 8/1/07) the White House announced the appointment of U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalizad to the United Nations. Ambassador Khalizad has a long-standing diplomatic career having served as the U.S. representative to both Afghanistan and Iraq. Many anticipate that Khalizad, understanding the importance of the United Nations, will revitalized this broken partnership. Obviously this is a reciprocal relationship and the United Nations must also step up efforts to bolster the relationship. Fortunately, there are few who doubt that the former South Korean diplomat Ban Ki Moon has the required skills to achieve this.

However, Ban’s ability to reform the UN and construct a more effective organization is relative to the support the SG and the organization receives from its member states.

After all the UN is the sum of its parts bound together through the Charter. Absent of member states’ finance, personnel and political will the organization will founder. The United Nations and America have a lot to gain from each other. It is incumbent upon the American president- who represents the strongest state in the world- to lead through constructive action in conjunction with the only truly universal organization on the planet to solve our common global problems.

Spencer P. Boyer and Ken Gude, A Great Opportunity, The Potential Impact of UN and U.S. Leadership Changes.

back to top

The Faces of Chinese Power

David M. Lampton

During the last decade discussions in the U.S. surrounding the rise of China generally focus on the countries potential coercive power. This is a surprising trend considering China is most rapidly growing in the economic and intellectual spheres. According to David M. Lampton, accurately assessing the power of this potential behemoth is a vital task. If an accurate depiction is not produced soon Washington could find its strength overshadowed by the growth of Beijing.

There are several important reasons to formulate an exact assessment of Chinese power. First, the United States has tended to underestimate the strength of China. In 1950, Washington dismissed the idea that China would intervene to halt America’s drive to unify the Korean peninsula. This miscalculation produced an enormous human death toll for all parties concerned. Second, and more recently, the Clinton administration threatened to suspend trade tariff “treatment if Beijing did not improve its human rights record within a year.”

Ultimately Washington backed down and the administration was forced to make an embarrassing U-turn before the ultimatum was due to expire. The Chinese proved more resilient to American pressure then predicted. For Lampton, this “episode convinced the Chinese that Washington’s tough talk on human rights was little more than campaign rhetoric and that for the United States human rights were an interest secondary to strategic and business concerns.”

Similar to previous administrations Washington today has a vital interest in the region, especially in the Korean Peninsula and the Taiwan Strait. The paradigm for negotiations with Pyongyang and Kim Jong Il has been for the United States to rely on Chinese coercive power to halt North Korea’s nuclear ambition. Although China does have considerable leverage over Pyongyang, forcing the hand of Kim Jong Il would be too costly. According to Professor Lampton, China’s “muscle is unlikely to be sufficient if the United Sates does not simultaneously give North Korea positive incentives to comply.”

Another inherent failing in American assessments of Chinese power is in the economic sphere. Washington has a penchant to exaggerate China’s role as a seller and exporter while generally neglecting its position as a buyer, importer and investor. Moreover, American policymakers underestimate China’s intellectual, diplomatic and cultural power.

So, what does the future hold for a country with such large potential? According to senior Chinese government officials the broad objective is to enhance China’s military, economic and intellectual power. This plan involves adapting to and utilising the processes of globalisation, reforming through marketization, and limiting political liberalism. The record of achievement to date is impressive. In 2006 China was the third largest consumer of luxury goods in the world. In 2003 China accounted for 21 percent of America’s global export market. Finally, in 2005, China’s global foreign investment totalled 57.2 billion U.S. dollars, an increase of almost 50 billion U.S. dollars since 2000. In the intellectual sector, China has embarked upon recruiting global talent to its universities, and a growing percentage of Chinese students who studied abroad are now returning to China. In 2003, China surpassed Japan as the leasing source of Asian tourists. The overall result of these developments has been to improve China’s image worldwide. According to the Pew Research Center, the BBC and the Financial Times, China is perceived more favourably, in much of the world, than America.

What does all this mean for America? According to Lampton, America must engage with China. “Washington has no choice. China is too big, too important, too dynamic, and has too many other nations with an interest in cooperating with it to be pushed around.” Of course Beijing must also take steps to reassure America of its intentions, and a first step in the right direction might be to increase transparency in it military budget.

David M. Lampton, The Faces of Chinese Power. Foreign Affairs, January/February, 2007.

back to top

Transatlantic Affair Editor: Frank Groome

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

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