• privacy policy
• accessibility
• sitemap

UCD Clinton Institute for American Studies

Transatlantic Affairs Newsletter -
Volume Three, Issue 1
July / August 2007

Ireland and the United States

A New Era in Northern Ireland - Frank Groome

On the week beginning June 25, 2007, Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness of Sine Fein and Finance Minister Peter Robinson of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) traveled to the United States. The two leading Ministers were accompanied by several other ministers from the newly elected Northern Ireland government. As Niall O’ Dowd of the Irish Voice has noted this was indeed “an historic occasion.”

Given the enormous commitment employed to achieve peace from all parties to the conflict this visit is a testament to that effort and its importance cannot be underestimated. “Indeed, as we look at the list of intractable problems in the rest of the world and consider for how long Northern Ireland was on that list, there is a justifiable pride in seeing representatives of a stable government come to the U.S. together.”

During the trip several events will be hosted by Thomas Moran and William Flynn of Mutual of America. Both Moran and Flynn have a long and established history of working for peace in Northern Ireland and “both men deserve numerous accolades for helping achieve the peace.”

On Thursday June 28, Paula J. Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs, and the President’s Special Envoy on Northern Ireland, invited the visiting Northern Ministers to meet with U.S. business leaders at the Department of State. The meetings held discussed business developments and financial investment opportunities in key aspects of the Northern Ireland economy. Dobrinasky stated that “Northern Ireland has entered a new era and the U.S. wants to explore ways we can encourage investment in Northern Ireland that will help build the shared future the people of Northern Ireland so deeply deserve.”

In an effort to foster emerging business and financial investment opportunities Dobriansky already traveled to Northern Ireland in early June. While there she meet with local business and community leaders, but the President’s Special Envoy also meet with victims of the troubles, politicians and many other stakeholders working for a better future in the North. “Repeatedly, I heard that economic development and inward investment are crucial to sustained peace and a better future” and “I am committed to addressing these priorities.”

The sincere hope of all is that this recent series of bilateral visits is only the start of a productive and prosperous relationship. Although there is cause for optimism - as Irish America is more than willing to engage with the new government in the North - translating goodwill into practical economic investment will take time and effort.

Niall O’Dowd, “An Historic U.S. Trip,” The Irish Voice, June 28, 2007 and Under Secretary Dobriansky Hosts Northern Ireland Ministers and U.S. Business Leaders to Discuss Investment in Northern Ireland

back to top

The United States and the European Union

U.S. EU Cooperation on Counter Terrorism - Frank Kerber

Based somewhat on the rather unsophisticated argument posited by Robert Kagan that Europeans are from ‘Venus’ and Americans are from ‘Mars, ’ common acumen holds that over recent years the relationship between America and Europe has become strained, moreover political and philosophical differences have driven the two sides apart. In an article for American Diplomacy Frank Kerber shows this is not the case with regard to law enforcement cooperation to counter terrorism. In fact, most evidence suggests both sides are now working more closely than ever in this important sector.

As Kerber notes: “Despite some high-profile political and trade differences in recent years, the fact is that our common interest in combating global terrorism has enabled us to achieve a series of notable successes in forging working law enforcement relationships with the EU.”

This cooperation is all the more impressive considering that in the main the bulk of competence in the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) area remains with the individual member states. European member states have only ceded competence to the European Commission in certain border security areas like visas and immigration. In this regard Washington must work to develop bilateral relationships with individual European member states, while simultaneously striving to agree cooperative measures at the EU supranational level. Although Kerber maintains this is a double challenge for U.S. policymakers, his argument negates the fact that American official are well adept at practicing this multi-targeted form of diplomacy with Europe countries.

So what are some of the central agreements reached between America and Europe in this area? In recent years there has been significant cooperation in combating terrorism and organised crime, and these agreements can be divided into three broad themes: “investigating and prosecuting terrorism, sharing national security information, and cooperation on border and homeland security.”

At the annual EU-U.S. summit in June of 2003 the U.S. and EU signed agreements on Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA). These agreements have several important and innovative aspects. For example, each side is required to identify bank accounts of suspected terrorists and transfer that information when required. In addition, the agreements permit the establishment of ‘joint task forces’ under the direction of either the U.S. or EU. Of course establishing these agreements was no easy undertaking. Existing bilateral agreements had to be reconciled with the new EU- U.S. agreements. The fact that this was negotiated within eight months indicates the willingness and desire of both sides to work together.

In the area of border and homeland security the U.S. and EU eventually reached agreement on the transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data. PNR is the personal passenger data collected by airlines. Given EU policies on personal data protection this is a significant development. A further corollary of this agreement is the decision to use biometric passports to secure travel documents. The agreements outlined above provide a sterling example of cooperation to ensure EU-U.S. collective security. Furthermore, they are an indication that American and Europe can and do work well together in areas of mutual concern.

Kerber, Frank, “U.S.–EU Cooperation on Counter Terrorism,” American Diplomacy.

back to top

America, Europe, and the Nuclear Challenge from Iran - Philip H. Gordon

Philip H. Gordon from The Brookings Institution presented a paper on the Nuclear Challenge from Iran at the 2007 annual German Marshall Fund U.S. – EU Think Tank Symposium in Washington D.C. last month. The central tenet of his argument was that Europe and America share a mutual interest in preventing Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. Moreover, this strategic aim is only likely to be achieved if the transatlantic partners work constructively together. There is little doubt that over the past year and an half European and American polices on Iran have converged. According to Gordon, “the Bush administration came to recognize how limited its military and unilateral options were, and... the Europeans became frustrated with Iran’s continued obstreperousness.”

In the end, a successful outcome will depend on the United States becoming more willing to engage Iran, and Europe more willing to pressure Tehran.

The assumption underpinning this line of thought is that Iran is actually pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. Although Iran has claimed that its nuclear research is for purely peaceful (energy) means, historical evidence to the contrary does raise some international concern. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has produced reports stating that Iran has hidden significant aspects of its nuclear program for nearly 20 years. Moreover, according to the IAEA Iran has failed to account for the presence of highly enriched uranium particles found on some of its equipment. In addition, North Korea has shown other would-be nuclear states that obtaining the bomb removes much of the threat of invasion by the international community and in fact can open the door for economic investment (see recent developments on six-party negotiations).

One of the central difficulties surrounding Iran with nuclear weapons is its neighbours in the region. If Iran goes nuclear, it is likely “others in the region - perhaps including Saudi Arabia. Egypt and Turkey- might follow suit, knowing that a world that allowed Iran to build a bomb would surely allow them to do so as well.”

So what are the options open to the international community? A minority have recommended the use of military force; however, according to Gordon, this approach is extremely problematic. Of course American air strikes might destroy Iran’s critical nuclear facilities but as the world has learned from the Iraq debacle intelligence is far from perfect, so we could never be sure of hitting the entirety of Iran’s programme. Due to this fact the bombing would have to be widespread increasing the likelihood of unnecessary civilian deaths. So if a militantly option is not possible that leaves the continuation of a diplomatic and economic strategy – based on pressure and engagement - already underway.

On July 31, 2006 the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1696 demanding that Iran “suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the IAEA.”

Although the Resolution imposed no sanctions it called on Iran to comply by a deadline of August 31 2006. The Resolution also made the Iranian uranium enrichment illegal. Two subsequent UN Resolutions -1737 December 2006 and 1747, March 2007- have added continued pressure by denouncing Iran’s lack of compliance. These Resolutions also put constraints on Iranian arms exports and imposed limited sanctions on nuclear trade with Iran and financial dealing with individuals involved in the Iranian nuclear programme.

It is only lately that engagement has been equally forthcoming from the Americans. In February 2005 President Bush announced that the U.S. would support the Europe -3 negotiations that were already underway with Iran. But this support has subsequently been extended. In March 2006, the administration announced its willingness to open a dialogue with Tehran about Iraq, and in May of the same year, Secretary of State Rice stated that if Iran agreed to suspend its programme then the U.S. would agree to multilateral talks. Since then some progress has been made. For example in May 2007 senior diplomats from the U.S. and Iran held discussions about Iraq. This was the highest level tête-à-tête between the two countries since 1979. Given the right kind of pressure and engagement it is possible a peaceful outcome can and will prevail. Europe and America must cooperate more fully for this to work however. Any pressure must be agreed upon by the two partners and followed through by both – just as any engagement must do the same. Mixed messages and ambiguous statements from either American or Europe are only likely to emen Iranian defiance and attempts to out manoeuvre the transatlantic partners.

Gordon, H., Philip, “America, Europe, and the Nuclear Challenge from Iran,” paper presented at V. Annual GMF U.S.-EU Think Tank Symposium Washington, D.C., June 17-18, 2007

back to contents

The United States and International Affairs

Renewing American Leadership - Barack Obama

In a recent article for Foreign Affairs, Barack Obama, Democratic Senator from Illinois and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, outlined his framework and trajectory for American foreign policy in the years ahead. According to Senator Obama, “After Iraq” America “may be tempted to turn inward. That would be a mistake.”

Unlike the many would-be Cassandra’s, Obama does not consider the debacle in Iraq as signalling the end of American global leadership; however the Senator from Illinois does argue that there is now a real need to renew American leadership across the full range of global challenges.

Despite only serving several years as a Senator, Barack Obama has demonstrated a sophisticated level of understating in the field of diplomatic relations. Supporting the maxim promoted by former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan that no nation can face the international challenges of the twenty-first century alone, Obama has argued that “America cannot meet this century’s challenges alone; the world cannot meet them without America.”

Of course to recognise the new complexity of these global threats and America’s dependence and leadership roles is not to give into pessimism. “Rather, it is a call to action.” Obama considers it imperative that American purposes and principles are renewed after the Bush administration’s misguided views and action over the previous several years.

What the Senator from Illinois is advocating is a return to traditional American values “not bound by outdated thinking.”

The legacy of a puritan heritage and the notion of American exceptionalism are vividly displayed in Obama’s thinking: as with past American presidents such as Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman America must “lead the world, by deed and by example.” The vivacious and inherent universalism embedded within American thinking on global relations is reconciled easily with Obama. In the article he argues that “the security and well-being of each and every American depend on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders. The mission of the United States is to provide global leadership grounded in the understating that the world shares a common security and common humanity.”

Moreover, “[t]o see American power in terminal decline is to ignore America’s great promise and historic purpose in the world.”

Aside from a familiar rehearsal of American traditional values and principles, what practical policies and solutions would Obama bring to the White House? In the article he addresses several areas of concern and interest. First, America must end the war in Iraq and refocus American attention on the broader Middle East. For Obama, “Iraq was a diversion from the fight against the terrorists who struck us on 9/11.”

The invasion was a strategic and military blunder. It is now time to accept this fact and begin a phased withdrawal of American military personnel. A suitable date would be March 31, 2008 - this was the date set by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Only a minimum contingent of U.S. forces should remain. Concurrently America must apply diplomatic and economic pressure on the warring factions and help facilitate a lasting solution. Only after this would America be in a position to refocus our efforts to end the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to Obama, “sustained American leadership for peace and security will require patient effort and the personal commitment of the president of the United States. That is a commitment I will make.”

Second, “[t]o renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalise our military.” This means not only expanding the military numerically but investing in American service men and women to enable them succeed. If elected president, Obama would use the military establishment for defensive and offensive initiatives. However, there would be one clear difference: “When we send our men and women into harm’s way, I will clearly define the mission, seek out the advice of our military commanders, objectively evaluate intelligence, and ensure that our troops have the resources they need.”

A third and four objective would be to halt the spread of nuclear weapons and continue and effective fight against global terrorism. Fifth, as president Obama would set out to rebuild “alliances, partnerships, and institutions necessary to confront common threats and enhance common security.” For too long America has pushed away its international partners. For example, “in the case of Europe, we dismissed European reservations about the wisdom and necessity of the Iraq war.”

Finally, Obama will work to rebuild trust in America. “It is time for a president who can build consensus here at home.”

The Senator accurately notes that no foreign policy can succeed absent of domestic support. This is why he will work to be inclusive and make people feel they have a stake in the success of American foreign policy. “This is our moment to renew the trust and faith of our people – and all people – in an America that battles immediate evils, promotes an ultimate good, and leads the world once more.”

Obama, Barack, “Renewing American Leadership” Foreign Affairs, July/August, 2007.

back to top

Rising to a New Generation of Global Challenges - Mitt Romney

In an illuminating article in Foreign Affairs, Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007, and a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination explains his understanding of, and outlines his design for, American foreign policy after the Bush administration. Romney begins by highlighting the perennial debate in Washington regarding the framework that underpins the course of American foreign policy. This debate can be traditionally divided between those who consider themselves “realists” and who adopt a hard-line attitude to the need to pursue American interests abroad only and those generally labelled pejoratively as “idealist,” who argue in favour of an American foreign policy driven and sustained by American domestic values and ideas. In a twist to the traditional divisions, Romney argues that today the line can be “drawn between those labelled “realists” and those labelled “neoconcservatives;” where most neoconservatives recognise that policy must be grounded in reality and most realists realise that much of American power and influence derives from its values and ideals.

Similar to other presidential candidates Romney is adopting language that is familiar to most Americans, language that provides a level of certainty in uncertain times. In the simplest of historical terms he recalls the bipartisanship that existed post World War II regarding American foreign policy. Moreover, Romney argues that Americans today face new challenges that can only be overcome by putting our differences behind us – as the “greatest generation” once did. “Our times call for equally leadership and for a renewed sense of service and shared sacrifice among Americans and our allies around the world.”

The new challenges America faces range from the conflict in Iraq, the resurgence of the Taliban, Iran, the genocide in Darfur, to leaders such as Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, the issue of AIDS, an energy crisis, and the rise of China. According to Romney, “Change will require sacrifice from the American people. But I believe America is ready for the challenge. To meet it, we need to focus on four key pillars of action.”

First, as Barack Obama has argued America must invest more in the military, increasing troop levels and purchasing the newest technology. After the cutbacks in the 1990s, the White House is going to need to invest at least an additional 30-40 billion dollars annually over the next several years to “modernize the military, fill gaps in troop levels, ease strain on our National Guard Reserves, and support our wounded soldiers.”

The second “pillar of action” is American energy independence. As Romney rightly points out “[O]ur decisions and destiny cannot be bound to the whims of oil-producing states.”

Today America uses around a quarter of the world’s oil supplies to power its economy. In the context of increased global demand, diminishing reserves and rising prices the current situation is not sustainable. American must therefore invest in new technologies that enable our cars, homes and businesses run more efficiently. Indeed, “[W]e need to initiate a , far - reaching initiative - an energy revolution-that will be our generation’s equivalent of the Manhattan Project or the mission to the moon. The third strand of Romney’s plan surrounds the idea of transforming American civilian capabilities to promote peace, security and freedom the world over. “We need to fundamentally change the cultures of our civilian agencies and create dynamic, flexible, and task-based approaches that focus on results rather than bureaucracy.”

And lastly, America must “strengthen old partnerships and alliances and inaugurate new ones to meet twenty-first-century challenges.”

“Whether diplomatically, militarily, or economically, the United States is stronger when its friends stand alongside it.” The similarities that exist between the democrat and republican nominees for president are striking – they all generally surround the most glaring failures of the current administration. But in another important and noticeable way they both strategically utilise the language of familiarity to offer a domestic audience a sense of certainty and security in an era of new relatively indefinable global challenges.

Romney, Mitt, “Rising to a New Generation of Global Challenges,” Foreign Affairs, July/August, 2007.

back to top

Time to Ratify the Law of the Sea - Don Kraus

The Nixon administration first started international negotiations on common rules governing the sea nearly forty years ago. On May 15, 2007, President Bush called on the Senate to “act favourably on U.S. accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea during this session of Congress.”

The President said that joining “will serve the national security interests of the United States, including the maritime mobility of our armed forces worldwide.” So what are the particulars of this new Law of the Sea? And how will it effect how nations use the oceans? According to Don Kraus, the Law has been “described as the most comprehensive and progressive protection for the oceans of any modern international accord.”

There are several key aspects to the new law governing economic, environmental and mutual national security concerns of coastal states. But the Law does more than this. It also establishes international cooperative mechanisms (binding arbitration) for resolving disputes on these issues. The convention is designed to safeguard marine habitats by strengthening the capabilities of states to enforce environmental regulations up to 200 miles off shore- areas called (the Exclusive Economic Zone –EEZ).

Although the agreement establishes qualified territorial limits on the oceanic area (200 miles) over which a nation may claim jurisdiction, in certain circumstances nations can claim mineral rights to the end of the continental shelf up to 350 nautical miles and further in special circumstances. Obviously this favours the United States “as one of the few nations with broad continental margins, particularly in the North Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Bering Sea, and Arctic Ocean.”

Not surprisingly U.S. oil and natural gas companies are lobbying the government in support of ratification. In this way Bush has argued that ratification of the treaty will secure American “sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including the valuable natural resources they contain. Accession will promote U.S. interests in the environmental health of the oceans and it will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interest are debated and interpreted.”

Kraus, Don, “Time to Ratify the Law of the Sea” Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF) Commentary, June 6, 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

CIAS 2007