• privacy policy
• accessibility
• sitemap

UCD Clinton Institute for American Studies

Transatlantic Affairs Newsletter -
Volume Two, Issue 6
May / June 2007

Ireland and the United States

Celebrating 10 Years of Cross Border Programs

Ambassador Thomas C. Foley

On 14 April, 2007, the American Ambassador to Ireland, Thomas C. Foley addressed a celebration of a decade of cross border programmes carried out by the Boston College and funded by the US Department of State. The meeting which took place in Dublin was attended by the Governor of Maryland Martin O’Malley, the head of the Irish Institute at Boston College and by a large alumni group. The Ambassador congratulated the Irish Institute on completing 10 years of dialogue. “What a decade it has been!... If there ever was a decade that proved-out the value of dialogue in Ireland, this was surely it.” The success of dialogue in Ireland is clear for all to see and the recent reform of Stormont is testament to this willingness to enter constructive dialogue over the long-term.

Notwithstanding the success thus far, there remains a lot to be done in Northern Ireland. According to Ambassador Foley, the main challenges facing the new government in the North are the economy and community integration. “The biggest challenges I see…are economic and developing programs for integrating the catholic and protestant communities- particularly the young people in those communities.”

The economic choice is simple: “Economists no longer dispute how to stimulate and grow economies such as Northern Ireland.” The North must now follow the path of the South. “The answer…is to shrink the public sector, attract domestic and foreign investment with low taxes and competitive social costs, and support entrepreneurial activity.”

The challenge remains to persuade reticent politicians to rise and confront the issues as we move ahead. Regarding community integration the Ambassador cited America’s own experience with community integration, especially relating to the integration of schools and hoped that the American experience could “provide some light and direction to the North as it embarks on its integration journey.”

Information obtained via the US Embassy in Dublin. "The Ambassador's Outreach."

back to contents

The United States and the European Union

US and EU agree ‘Single Market’

Frank Groome

The annual United States and European Union summit meeting took place in Washington on 30 April, 2007. As predicted the agenda covered a broad array of thematic and substantive issues ranging from transatlantic economic cooperation to broad security agreements. The summit was attended by President Bush, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. Of central significance was the signing of a transatlantic economic partnership plan designed to reduce regulatory and trade barriers between the two trading blocks.

According to President Bush this economic agreement “is a commitment to eliminating barriers to trade.” Moreover, “it is recognition that the closer that the United States and the EU become, the better off our people become.”

A key component of the agreement is the decision to establish the “Trans-Atlantic Economic Council” to push for regulatory harmony in nearly forty areas, including intellectual property, financial services and the automotive industry. The EU Commission president welcomed the plan and stated the agreement was designed to remove “artificial barriers to trade and investment” through the harmonization of standards. Chancellor Merkel believed the agreement represented a “significant step forward” for trade partners who currently traded more than 2 billion dollars in goods and services across the Atlantic each day.

The US and the EU also signed an agreement to further liberalise air transport. The agreement will succeed all existing bilateral agreements between the US and EU member states and create an Open Aviation Area between America and all 27 EU members. According to U.S. Secretary of State Rice, “[t]his agreement ushers in an era of unprecedented liberalization for an area that encompasses 60 percent of global aviation traffic.”

Other issues/areas that were discussed included climate change, Darfur, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, Kosovo, the Visa Wavier Program, missile defence and the sharing of classified information. Although little was agreed regarding the issue of climate change, there was at least an acknowledgement of its importance. EU Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso stated “We agree there’s a threat, there’s a very serious global threat.”

Moreover, “We agree that there is a need to reduce emissions. We agree that we should work together.”Most observers agree however that this was just ceremonial lip service. It is far more likely given Washington’s repeated views on this issue that any agreement calling for a reduction in emissions was not a runner from the start.

Information on the recent (2007) EU-US summit was obtained from the U.S. Department of State

back to contents

SOLANA: TIME FOR U.S. TO OPEN COMMUNICATIONS WITH IRAN

Brussels Forum

The annual meeting of the Brussels Forum took place at the end of April this year. At the meeting the European Union High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana - who had recently met with the Iranian National Security advisor Ali Larijani - argued in favour of America commencing a dialogue with Iran regarding the on-going nuclear energy issue. According to Solana: “It is very difficult to continue in a situation where Iran is considered a country with whom you cannot organize some sort of dialogue.”

Moreover, Solana believed that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is ready and willing to open negotiations with Washington in an effort to break the current stalemate.

America and Europe have undertaken efforts to persuade Iran to abstain from attempts to acquire nuclear technology for over three years. The transatlantic alliance has offered several financial and diplomatic packages to Iran in exchange for Iran suspending its uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing programmes. However to date very little has been achieved. At this year’s Forum Solana stated his opinion that America should open a diplomatic channel to Tehran. “I think at this point in time, to have also the U.S. opening a channel of communications with Iran will be worth thinking about.”

Notwithstanding his stated optimism, the EU Foreign Policy chief was not complacent regarding the forthcoming challenges of arriving at a mutual acceptable resolution. Regarding Iran “we have many important hurdles to overcome…I think we have to be tenacious.”

This time last year most, if not all, diplomatic efforts to resolve this long-standing international problem were spearheaded by the European Union. Moreover, this seemed to be an indication of a more united and purposeful EU in the international arena. Another year on however and there is still no foreseeable end in sight. Against this backdrop, perhaps it is reasonable to deduce that the European Union’s designed strategy for ending this crisis has failed. Furthermore, reading through the diplomatic nuances, Solana’s recent comments suggest a man acknowledging frustration and failure and reaching for American assistance.

The Brussels Forum: SOLANA: TIME FOR U.S. TO OPEN COMMUNICATIONS WITH IRAN.

back to contents

The United States and International Affairs

The New New World Order

Daniel W. Drezner

In recent years the American led invasion of Iraq and now the war in Iraq has fostered much resistance to what many argue is blatant American unilateralism in global relations. In a recent Foreign Affairs article The New New World Order, Associate Professor Daniel Drezner argues that this mainstream analysis is impoverished. According to Drezner: “Controversies over the war in Iraq and U.S. unilateralism have overshadowed a more pragmatic and multilateral component of the Bush administration’s grand strategy.”

Over the same period of the Iraq conflict the U.S. has been involved in an attempt redesign American foreign policy and multilateral institutions to take account of the “shifts in the global distribution of power” for the twenty first century.

Throughout much of the last century the world’s dominant powers included, the United States, the Soviet Union, Japan and north-western Europe. In the twenty first century this list will expand in include emerging countries such as; inter alia, China, India and Brazil. This geo-economic and political shift will pose a direct challenge to American dominance of global institutions unless managed prudently in the years ahead. According to Drezner, unless these rising powers are incorporated into the American liberal market framework, the future of an American dominated global framework is in doubt. Importantly, the Bush administration has been taking steps to account for these international changes and integrate these new emerging countries into reformed global institutions.

In 2004 president Bush announced a reorientation of American global troop deployments to take account of shifting international dynamics. The president called for a reduction of American troops abroad and announced that thirty-five percent of U.S. military bases around the world would be shut by 2014. This decision is easily reconciled with the Defense Department’s faith in a policy of “full spectrum dominance.”

In January 2006, Secretary of State Rice proclaimed her intention to restructure the State Department for the new century. The Secretary announced that a significant number of diplomats would be moved from Europe to countries such as India and China. Washington has also pushed to reform certain global institutions including the IMF, ultimately increasing China’s voting quota. But other bilateral developments with India and China also signal the administration’s desire to adapt to new international realties. In 2006, America and India signed a bilateral agreement to cooperate on civilian nuclear energy. This was a de facto recognition by Washington that India is a nuclear power. Moreover in November 2006, the U.S. Department of Commerce arranged its largest ever trade mission to India. Regarding China, the administration has repeated the mantra that China must become a “responsible stakeholder” in the international arena. Furthermore, strategic efforts have been made to enhance economic cooperation through the U.S. – China Strategic Economic Dialogue launched last year.

Of course some of these initiatives have failed and some have had meagre results. However, there is evidence to suggest that “China’s continued participation in international economic and security regimes”

is having a slow but positive effect on the internal dynamics of the country. The important point for America seems to be not to disenfranchise its long standing allies in Europe in order to reward governments that are only emerging on to the world stage. As Drezen writes: “Bringing China and India into the concert of great powers without alienating the EU or its members will require prodigious amounts of diplomatic will and skill;” however in this regard, Fearon argues that “the Bush administration has gotten off to a start”

Daniel W. Drezner. The New New World Order, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007.

back to content

Iraq’s Civil War

James D. Fearon

For almost a year now the international community has talked of a total break down of order in Iraq. Most media and international officials in Iraq argue that the country is now in the middle of a civil war. Moreover, according to James D. Fearon, “by any reasonable historical standard, the Iraqi civil war has begun.”

So why does the White House still avoid the label? Does the Bush administration believe it has the capability of stopping the violence? Most historical evidence suggests that America will not be able to stop this civil war. “The United States can help bring about a settlement eventually by balancing Iraqi factions from afar, but there is little it can do to avert bloodshed now.”

Perhaps the reason why the Bush administration has avoided the label civil war is simple: a shift in policy would be an open acknowledgement of “dashed hopes and failed policy.”

Moreover, the American public might be less willing to support continued US engagement if they believed the country was caught up in someone else’s fight. So for domestic political reasons perhaps the administration can be forgiven for not calling it a civil war. Aside from these semantics however is a much more serious question. What are the implications of a civil war in Iraq for American policy?

By comparing the Iraq civil war with comparable civil wars in countries with weak political institutions, the Bush administration’s objective of creating a peaceful, stable democratic Iraq that can survive after the Americans have gone is naïve. As Fearon notes: “Given this unrealistic political objective, military strategy of any sort is doomed to fail almost regardless of whether the administration goes with the “surge” option…or shifts toward a pure training mission, as advised by the Iraq Study Group.”

The civil war in Iraq began in 2004 as a mainly urban guerrilla war by Sunni insurgents aiming to drive out the Americans and regain power they held under Saddam Hussein. It has undergone a dramatic escalation since 2006 with the involvement of Shiite militias, who allegedly seek to protect Shiites from Sunni attacks.

The Bush administration has placed itself in a difficult position. In an effort to strengthen the weak Shiite dominated government President Bush has adopted a policy that increasingly amounts to siding with the Shiites over the Sunnis. This is “a position that is morally dubious and probably not in the interest of either the United States or long-term regional peace and stability.”

Against this backdrop, the outcome for American policymakers is uncertain. According to Fearon: “Most civil wars end with a decisive military victory-and this one may as well-but a decisive military victory and political dictatorship for some Sunni or Shiite group is even less appealing as a long-term U.S. policy objective. A decisive military victory for a Shiite-dominated faction would favor [sic] both Iran and al Qaeda, and a decisive victory for Sunni insurgents would amount to restoring oppressive minority rule, a major reason for the current mess.”

James D. Fearon. Iraq’s Civil War, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007.

back to contents

Bush presses campaign against Malaria

The Associated Press

On 25 April 2007 President Bush marked Malaria Awareness Day (MDA) at a Rose Garden ceremony. This is the first occasion the President has joined with others around the world to mark the importance of this issue. Even today more than a million people die each year from the “preventable and curable” disease, mostly in Africa. According to the President, “defeating malaria is going to be a challenge, but it’s not going to require a miracle.”

In 2005 the White House announced the President’s Malaria Initiative, a five-year, 1.2 billion dollar programme that called on the private sector to join the U.S. government in combating malaria in the hardest hit African nations.

The programme aims to provide the most vulnerable countries with insecticide treated bed netting, indoor spraying and anti malaria medicine. Since the programme was founded it has expanded to include nearly 15 countries across Africa. The President declared that more than 11 million people in Africa have benefited so far from the Initiative and that number is set to reach 30 million by the end of this budget year (September 2007). In addition, the President announced his intention to call on the Group of Eight meeting of industrialised nations to commit significant resources to the challenge that remains. The Group of Eight are scheduled to meet in Germany in June 2007.

In his MDA speech President Bush rehearsed familiar biblical rhetoric calling on the American people “to answer the universal call to love a neighbor [sic] and join in our goal of eradicating malaria on the African continent.” Moreover, the President was sure Americans will continue their commitment to eradicate Malaria; after all it is our duty. “To whom much is given, much is required.”

The Associated Press. Bush Presses campaign against Malaria, The International Herald Tribune. Thursday, April 26, 2007.

back to contents

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