• privacy policy
• accessibility
• sitemap

UCD Clinton Institute for American Studies

Transatlantic Affairs Newsletter
Volume Two, Issue 5
March / April 2007

Ireland and the United States

Guaranteed Irish

Frank Groome 

The Taoiseach Bertie Ahern is scheduled to travel to New York and Washington D.C. for the traditional St. Patrick’s season celebrations in America from the 13 –16 of March 2007. The visit will culminate with the annual shamrock ceremony at the White House with president George W. Bush on March 16. Ahern has a demanding schedule once he arrives.

First he will meet with members of Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform in New York. Against the backdrop of another proposed Senate bill on immigration reform in the near future this is an important and well-timed meeting. It is anticipated that Senator Edward Kennedy and John McCain will introduce the new reform bill in the coming weeks. After that, it is expected to go before the Senate Judiciary Committee by the end of March, and be passed before the Congressional spring recess in April. The Taoiseach’s second round of meetings in New York is expected to include a meeting of the IDA Ireland and the Council on Foreign Relations.

In Washington Ahern will attend the annual fundraising dinner hosted by the American Ireland Fund. This is an important annual occasion and key guests will include the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. After a series of political and economic discussions on Capitol Hill on Thursday, Ahern is expected to meet with several presidential contenders, including Senators Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd and Barack Obama. On Friday the Taoiseach will meet with president Bush at the White House for discussions on a full range of issues of mutual concern and interest. This meeting will be concluded with a reception of Irish American leaders.

The president’s recent announcement that March 2007 is Irish-American heritage month has added considerable importance to the Taoiseach’s visit and the St. Patrick’s Day celebrations all over America.

* This series of scheduled meetings is based on preliminary information and may change

back to top

The United States and the European Union

A Battle for Global Values

Tony Blair

In a recent Foreign Affairs article A Battle for Global Values, Prime Minister (PM) Tony Blair offers an interesting exposé on his own ideological predilections in the ongoing war on terrorism. According to PM Blair: “The war on terrorism is not just about security or military tactics. It is a battle of values, and one that can only be won by the triumph of tolerance and liberty.”

This new unconventional war will require the West to adopt a new unconventional method of fighting at the level of values as well as military force. In fact, “We can win only by showing that our values are stronger, better, and more just than the alternative.”

Moreover, the West must ensure that “we are evenhanded and fair in our application of those values.”

Interestingly, the language used by the Prime Minister to describe the challenge ahead is analogous to the language used by successive U.S. presidents during the cold war period. During the cold war the perceived threat from communism was global and there was a core (Europe and America) and a periphery (the rest of the world) connected through the universal threat. The ideological premise underpinning communism was considered evil and fanatical. It was, according to leaders in the West, determined to threaten Western values at every opportunity. This is the same argument propagated by the current leadership in Washington and London today. The PM has clearly linked the core with the periphery: “The struggle against terrorism in Madrid, or London, or Paris is the same as the struggle against the terrorist acts of Hezbollah in Lebanon, or Palestinian Jihad in the Palestinian territories, or rejectionist groups in Iraq.”

Once again it is argued by Western politicians that the terrorists are infused with a deep-seated ideological fanaticism determined to kill. Similarly, the West is absent of ideological zeal and holds instead the monopoly on truth.

According to the PM, the terrorists started this war on the West and it is a fanatical perverted form of Islam that needs to be challenged everywhere and destroyed. What these terrorists want is “to retreat into governance by semifeudal religious oligarchy.”

Moreover, they abhor the liberal components of freedom and democracy in all its forms. So why is the West not yet succeeding? Blair argues that “we are not being bold enough, consistent enough, thorough enough in fighting for the values we believe in.”

 What is necessary is a global alliance formulated on shared global values that we can act through. Inactivity “is simply the wrong” policy. Supporting this fight is the need to tackle global poverty, unfair global trade policies and climate change.

Blair, Tony, A Battle for Global Values, Foreign Affairs, January/February, 2007.

back to top

No Power to the People

Andrew Moravcsik

The perennial debate within European Union member states over how best to institutionalize a more democratic, transparent and efficient Union is once again on the agenda. Notwithstanding the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty by French and Dutch voters in 2005, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose country holds the EU presidency until June, is determined to revive the failed document. At the Davos World Economic Forum Chancellor Merkel declared that the Constitutional Treaty is an indispensable “road map” for European integration. The announcement has divided European Union member states on the next steps forward.

Some member states (Britain, France, the Netherlands, Poland and the Czech Republic) are promoting a pragmatic approach arguing that only a few key provisions of the rejected Constitutional Treaty should be kept and implemented. According to Moravcsik, these key provisions include “the consolidation of foreign-policy powers, a shift in weighted voting rights, a modest expansion of the role of the European parliament and the creation of a five year presidency to replace the unwieldy current system of rotating six-month terms.”

Interestingly, nearly all these countries’ governments face strong anti-Europe opposition from some quarters at home. On the other hand, the integrationists (nearly every other member state) argue in favour of an ever-deeper Union and at the end of January 2007 met in Spain under the rubric of “Friends of the Constitution.” At the gathering they rejected a “minimalist” EU future and embrace deeper economic and political integration.

A significant division within Europe “pits democratic reformers against those who favour Europe’s old elite style decision making.”

A central tenet of the European integration strategy has been to democratize Brussels and give the people in Europe the power to decide. According to many this goal backfired in 2005 and is now off the agenda. “Referendums are shunned.” Although a key proponent to revive the Treaty, Chancellor Merkel has been accused of reverting diplomacy in Europe back to the old “secret huddles in smoke-filled rooms.” 

An approach which is anathema to the democratic ideas enshrined in the Constitutional Treaty. It is apparent that European member states are again divided on the best way forward, but at the same time are united in their desire not to be embarrassed by another rejection.

Moravcsik, Andrew, No Power to the People, Newsweek, February 5, 2007

back to top

The United States and International Affairs

U.S. Pivots on the Axis

Michael Moran

In the 2002 State of the Union Address president George W. Bush was resolute: Iran, Iraq and North Korea “and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger.”

According to the president, the strategic aim of the United States was to quarantine these “rogue states.” Through a combination of economic, political and diplomatic sanctioning the president was unequivocal that Washington could end this threat. At the beginning of 2007, it is not the threat of these “rogue states” that has ebbed but the president’s determination to stay the course. 

Many foreign policy experts in Washington have long argued that isolating Iran, and North Korea was an unsound policy to adopt. Moreover, it is a policy that has actually produced counterproductive results over the last few years. In the past month however, the Bush administration has finally caught up with mainstream expert opinion. In January 2007 the administration held the first set of bilateral negotiations with North Korea-this was a step too far for the administration only a year ago. At the end of February, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced she would attend a meeting with several of Iraq’s neighbouring countries, including Syria and Iran. These public meetings were accompanied by a less–publicized shift in December 2006, when a radical Shiite Iraqi political leader, Abdul Aziz al –Hakim was invited to meet president Bush at the White House. Abdul Aziz al –Hakim has been backed by Iran and is in command of Iraq’s largest Shiite militia group.

According to Michael Moran, the Bush administration has argued that this is not a sign of an administration in reverse. But is an indication of the success of the president’s policies to date. A senior administration official has stated that “the government of the United States now feels as though it has leverage,” and thus is open to pursing these active steps with Iran, Syria and North Korea. Steven A. Cook, an adviser to the Iraq Study Group, has argued that there are several key events that have happened that have pushed the administration into altering its stated policy.

The first has been the growing political pressure in Washington over recent months. The Democratic Party now holds a majority in Congress, which has put the administration somewhat on the defensive. In shifting policy the president is sending a signal to Congress that he has learned and can change. Second, the administration has increased its pressure on Iran but in many ways “the Iranians hold many of the cards.”

Even as recent as 27 February president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has reiterated his stated goal to continue to develop their nuclear capabilities. This situation has put pressure on the U.S. to engage. After all, Iran “have the means to make the U.S. military’s life much more difficult in Iraq.”

For Michael Moran “all this has friend and foe alike wondering whether America is turning on the “axis,” or merely spinning.”

Moran, Michael, U.S. Pivots on the Axis, Council on Foreign Relations, Daily Analysis, March 1, 2007.

back to top

Fidel’s Final Victory

Julia E. Sweig

Fidel Castro gained power in Cuba in 1959 and since then successive Washington administrations and the Cuban exile community in America have worked and hoped for his demise. According to Julia Sweig, Director of Latin America Studies at the Council of Foreign Relations, “the smooth transfer of power from Fidel Castro to his successors is exposing the wilful ignorance and wishful thing of U.S. policy toward Cuba.”

The United States has misread the political atmosphere in Cuba in several significant ways:

First, there is a widespread belief among many in America that once Fidel is gone Washington would be in a position to remake Cuba in its own image. This analysis is naïve and inconsistent with the situation in Cuba. Second, the post-Fidel transition is already under way. Defined by a steady gradualism this transition began last year when Fidel turned over “provisional power” to his brother Raul and six other loyal officials. These new leaders are loyal to Castro and aim to preserve the system while permitting some elements of slow reform. Against this backdrop, any American anticipated grassroots revolution among the Cuban population for change appears misplaced.

Julia Sweig argues that the American ability to effect change in Cuba after Castro is wishful thinking. The pillar of Castro’s regime has remained for over half a century and the self-imposed American isolationism with Cuba offers Washington little in the way of bargaining tools. The new first secretary of the Communist Party Raul gave an interview last year aimed at an American audience. He said, Cuba “has always been ready to normalize relations on the basis of equality. But we will not accept the arrogant and interventionist policies of this administration.”

In addition, he remained adamant that the current political model in Cuba would be retained without compromise. In response, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Thomas Shannon stated that America would consider lifting the long-term economic and political embargo, but only if Cuba establish a route that would lead to multiparty democracy, release all political prisoners and allow independent civil society organisations. It is clear that these stated positions offer no room for change.

On the death of Fidel, America and the international community can be expected to call for democratic reforms in the country. According to Sweig, these demands will be asking Cuba to “become a country it has never been, even before the revolution.”

Of course while many of the reforms would be desirable if one was constructing a new country from scratch. “Few of them are now realistic” in Cuba.

Sweig, E. Julia, Fidel’s Final Victory, Foreign Affairs, January/February, 2007.

back to top

Afghanistan, Five Years On

Lionel Beehner

In 2001 the United States launched a military attack on the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The stated goal was the destruction of the state framework in Afghanistan that supported international terrorists organisations. A corollary of the military attack was to free the country for the eventual establishment of a stable democratic state based on the rule of law. According to most reports, the American led military strategy has brought few positive developments. The Taliban are now resurgent around the country and the opium trade is once again flourishing. Barnett R. Rubin of the New York University told the Carnegie Council in last year that the situation in Afghanistan “is so poor that we can’t even tell how poor it is.”

What is the reason for the dire political, economic and security state of affairs?

According to Lionel Beehner the current deteriorating conditions in Afghanistan can be attributed to the combination of several significant events. First, the international community has provided too little financial support to reconstruct the country’s infrastructure. The international community has invested ten times more per capita in Kosovo as it has in Afghanistan. What little reconstruction has taken place has been compounded by increased security concerns. Second, the Afghan parliament is full of Islamist warlords and drug barons, which has added to the country’s overall dysfunction. Third, a significant number of the political, religious and social freedoms installed in 2001/2 are being rolled back. This is raising concerns among many in Washington that the country is sliding back into a “failed state” status.

In recent years the profit from the opium trade is estimated to be as much as 60 percent of Afghanistan’s gross domestic product (GDP). This money however is being used to fund the activities of Taliban rebels who have killed over 2000 people over the past 2 yrs. Moreover, these insurgent groups have targeted reconstruction projects in an effort to weaken the resolve of the international community and indigenous population. Another significant problem according to Stephen Biddle, a senior defence fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations, is that aid workers are often resented by local Afghans “They’re doing reconstruction to win hearts and minds but if the result is this flood of Western recon personnel driving SUVs and living in what look like luxurious accommodations, who end up being a separate society within a society, people resent that.”

According to Amirzai Sangin, Afghanistan’s minister of communication, there has been some progress, including the establishment of a nascent banking sector and a growing telecommunication sector. Once again it appears as if America’s belief in its ability to “nation-building” is misplaced.

Lionel Beehner, Afghanistan, Five Years On, Council on Foreign Relations, October 5, 2006.

back to top