• privacy policy
• accessibility
• sitemap

UCD Clinton Institute for American Studies

Transatlantic Affairs Newsletter
Volume Three, Issue,
2 September / October 2007

Ireland and the United States

New Irish Ambassador in Washington

Frank Groome

Michael Collins is the sixteenth Irish Ambassador to take up residence in Washington DC. Prior to his appointment, Ambassador Collins worked as a Second Secretary to the Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. In this position, Collins had responsibly for International and European Union affairs, with a particular focus on the Northern Irish Peace Process, and in a recent interview, the Ambassador recognized and welcomed America’s involvement in the Northern Ireland Peace Process. According to Collins “The historic developments that we have seen in Northern Ireland peace process owe a great deal to the enduring support and encouragement of,”America’s involvement.

The new Ambassador’s past experience makes him uniquely qualified to represent Ireland in Washington. Already he has an established and good working relationship with U.S. Special Representatives Richard Haas and Mitchell Reiss and since taking up his appointment has met Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. To Irish abroad.com, the new Ambassador expounded his thoughts on the current shape of the bilateral relationship: “I am deeply conscious of how important the U.S. has been to Ireland’s success. People of Irish decent in the U.S. provide a living bridge between our two countries. Ireland and the United States enjoy an especially close relationship.”

Moreover, the Ambassador is keen to strengthen and add further momentum to the existing productive partnership between Ireland and the United States.

According to Collins, the issue of the undocumented Irish in America will be a priority as he settles in Washington. “The Irish government is deeply committed to the ongoing effort to address the plight of the undocumented Irish.” Indeed, the Ambassador considers “[t]his a pressing and sensitive issue which needs the earliest possible resolution.”*

* All information obtained from IrishAbroad.com

back to top

The United States and the European Union

The Annual Report on Transatlantic Trends

Frank Groome

Each year the German Marshall Fund of the United States conducts an in-depth review of the transatlantic relationship. The 2007 survey - entitled Transatlantic Trends - was released this month (September 2007). The Transatlantic Trends survey covers a range of substantive and thematic issues and measures public opinion in the United States and 12 European countries. This article will provide a succinct overview of the key findings.

A central point to note at the outset relates to a change of political leadership in several European countries in 2006 and 2007. This political change in the United Kingdom, France and Germany has already fundamentally altered the form and atmosphere of the partnership. Although all the leaders mentioned have reaffirmed their predecessor’s rhetoric of cooperation and pledged their support to building a closer partnership with the United States; European citizens remained unconvinced. Only a third of Europeans (35 %) expect relations between Europe and America to improve (when a new U.S. President is elected in 2008). This indicates a significant discrepancy between the views of political leaders in Europe and the wider populace, and probably reflects a widespread and lingering dissatisfaction with American action on the world stage. A summary of the key findings are detailed below:

International Terrorism

Sixty-six percent (66%) of Europeans consider international terrorism a major personal threat. In America this figure was higher at seventy-four percent (74%). For Europeans this represents an increase of sixteen percent (16%) from a 2005 survey, while in America there has been no fundamental shift in perceptions over the past year or two.

Energy Dependence and the International Economy

Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Americans and seventy-eight percent (78%) of Europeans felt they would be personally affected by the growing issue of energy dependence. This area has gained a significant share of media attention since oil prices started rising around two years ago. However, while these figures indicate a considerable level of agreement across the Atlantic regarding the energy dependency issue, Europeans felt less threatened by the corollary of a potential economic downturn. The relevant figures are sixty-five in Europe (65%) and eighty percent (80%) in America.

Russia

Over the past few years Russian politicians espoused a policy of political centralisation throughout the country. This development, considered authoritarian in nature, has raised concern in many quarters throughout Europe and America. The survey concluded that the warmth of feelings toward Russia has changed little from last year on either side of the Atlantic. Americans are slightly warmer at forty-eight percent (48%), while Europeans show an indicated forty-two percent (42%). However, majorities in Europe and America expressed concern regarding the recent internal political developments in Russia. Seventy-five percent (75%) of Americans expressed concern about the weakening of democracy in Russia. The figure for Europe on the same issue was fifty-seven percent (57%).

Iran

Continuing fears surrounding Tehran acquiring a nuclear weapon capability has made headline news over the past three years. This increased political trepidation and media focus is reflected in the broader public interpretation of Iranian action in America and Europe. “Eighty-three percent of Americans and 68% of Europeans agreed that a nuclear Iran would lead to further proliferation in the Middle East. Similarly, 54% of Europeans believed that a nuclear Iran has the potential to threaten Europe.” Interestingly, “If Iran was to acquire nuclear weapons, Americans (82%) and Europeans (68%) agreed it would supply nuclear weapons to terrorists.”

American Global Leadership

The perennial debate surrounding America’s role in the world, and in particular its leadership role, has once again produced a negative result in Europe. “Only 36% of Europeans viewed U.S. leadership in world affairs as “desirable.” This figure has remained constant since 2004. However, the percentage of Europeans who approved of President Bush’s international strategies remains very low - at around 20 %. Importantly, this indicates that Europeans draw a distinction between American action in the world and the Bush presidency.

The German Marshall Fund of the United States, Transatlantic Trends 2007.

back to contents

The United States and International Affairs

The Next Intervention

Robert Kagan and Ivo Daalder

The general view among political pundits and the main stream media is that America is militarily overstretched. The U.S.-led missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven more difficult than Bush administration officials predicted and this action has divided domestic public opinion. Against this backdrop, the conventional wisdom would recommend ruling out further military interventions. In a recent article entitled The Next Intervention, Robert Kagan and Ivo Daalder argue “the conventional wisdom is almost certainly wrong.”

The authors maintain that when set within recent historical context, future American interventionism is a real possibility. “Between 1989 and 2001, Americans intervened with significant military force on eight occasions-once every 18 months. This interventionism has been bipartisan-four interventions were launched by Republican administrations, for by Democratic administrations.”

This pattern highlights the consistency of American military intervention over the recent past, and since September 11, 2001, the situations in which an administration may have to use force have expanded. Moreover, “[d]espite the problems and setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, America remains the world’s dominant military power, spends half a trillion dollars a year on defense and faces no peer strong enough to deter it if it chooses to act.”

The answer to sustaining a broad public and international support for future American military engagements is legitimacy. There are few who doubt that the domestic and international consensus engendered after 9/11, has been destroyed by the American invasion of Iraq. Indeed, “[m]any of President Bush’s critics…argued that the war lacked the legitimacy since it was not a clear instance of self-defense nor received the sanction of the U.N. Security Council.”

In defence, Bush supporters have maintained that the removal of Saddam Hussein was a just act and hence legitimate. Although few Bush supporters offered this rebuttal in the run up to the war - favouring instead to focus primarily, but not solely, on the imminent threat from Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction. The Just Act argument became increasingly popular when the core motivation for the invasion proved wrong.

Despite these difficulties, Daalder and Kagan maintain that a domestic and international consensus can be achieved for future American military interventions. “The answer is the world’s democracies, the United States and its democratic partners in Europe and Asia.”

Tangentially related to a Kantian school of thought, a ‘Concert of Democracies’ sharing “a common view of what constitutes a just order within states,” and who tend to agree “on when the international community has an obligation to intervene” would provide America with the legitimacy needed for future sustained military action.

Robert Kagan and Ivo Daalder. The Next Intervention. August 2007.

back to content

Reengaging With the World

John Edwards

According to John Edwards - candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination -the war in Iraq is “one of the greatest strategic failures in U.S. history.” Through a thoughtless and rash foreign policy, the Bush administration has squandered the international support America secured from the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania in 2001. Indeed, over the last five years America has lost the moral high ground that formed the cornerstone of its foreign policy strategies in the twentieth century. So, what can America do to regain the trust of its allies and its reputation as a moral leader?

To once again be “a beacon to the world,” America must “reengage with the world.” This can only be achieved if America moves “beyond the empty slogan ‘war on terror’” to create a “genuine national security policy that is built on hope, not fear.”

It is essential America wins the war of ideas in the world. America’s image must be rebuilt and enhanced so that ordinary men and women the world over can trust American action and policy. Edwards is explicit that moving beyond the ‘war on terror’ will not see America reneging on its commitment to tackle international terrorism. It will mean however that America will stop relying on a policy that is designed for politics and which has failed. “By framing this struggle against extremism as a war, it has reinforced the jihadists’ narrative that we want to conquer the Muslim world and that there is a “clash of civilizations” pitting the West against Islam.”

As commander-in-chief, John Edwards proposes at least three crucial policy requirements designed to rebuild and enhance America’s position in the world. The first involves engaging with the world’s major powers, albeit in different ways. America must maintain and add further momentum to the already close and productive partnership it has with the European Union, Japan and Latin America. At the same time, Washington must engage more creatively with Russia, China and India.

Second, America must continue to rebuild a strong defence based on a productive relationship between the civil and military pillars of government. As president, Edwards “will reengage with our military through a basic doctrine of national security management that has been demolished by the current administration: military professionals will have primary responsibility in matters of tactics and operations, while civilian leaders will have authority over the political decisions and in all matters of broad strategy.”

In addition, Edwards plans to rebalance troop levels commensurate with America’s military missions.

A third element of Edwards’ grand design for American global policy is to restore America’s moral leadership. “We must begin to create a world in which the despair that breeds radical terrorism is overwhelmed by the hope that comes with universal education, democracy, and economic opportunity.”

In an effort to bring together and coordinate American foreign aid policy more thoroughly, Edwards, as President, would “create a cabinet-level position to coordinate global development policies across the government.”

This plan would enhance the effectiveness of America’s foreign aid programme by reducing the number of government entities involved in the process. At the moment there are over fifty U.S. government entities involved in foreign aid programmes. In short, the combination of this polices should enable America to reclaim its “historic role as a beacon for the world and become, once again, a shining example for other nations to follow.”

Edwards, John “Reengaging With the World” Foreign Affairs, September/October, 2007.

back to top

Toward a Realistic Peace

Rudolph Giuliani

In a recent article for Foreign Affairs, Rudolph W. Giuliani, a former Mayor of New York City and a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, outlined his perspectives on, and designs for, American foreign policy if he is elected president in November 2008. According to Giuliani, the next American President will face three separate but related foreign policy challenges that must be tackled with a prudent balance of “realism and idealism.” First, America must win the war against international terrorism. Second, America needs to strengthen the international system and finally, the benefits accrued from the international system must be extended “in an ever-widening arc of security and stability across the globe.”

Defeating the threat of international terrorism will require “winning the early battles of the long war,” “a stronger defense” and “determined diplomacy.” The current international situation is akin to the cold war insofar as it will take a generation or more to win. With this in mind, America must prepare itself for a long struggle. “The United States must not rest until the al Qaeda network is destroyed and its leaders, from Osama bin Laden on down, are killed or captured. And the United States must not rest until the global terrorist movement and its ideology are defeated.”

The next President must expand America’s military capability to meet the new challenges of international terrorism and rogue states. “We must rebuild a military force that can deter aggression and meet the wide variety of present and future challenges.”

According to Giuliani, “[w]hen America appears bogged down and unready to face aggressors, it invites conflict.” The discipline to stay the course, coupled with a stronger defence must be accompanied by sustained diplomatic efforts if peace is to prevail. After all, “America has been most successful as a world leader when it has used strength and diplomacy hand in hand.”

American foreign policy informed by tenacity, a strong military and a “determined diplomacy” will help strengthen the international system. A stronger international system is a central element of Giuliani’s grand design. Indeed, a “primary goal for our diplomacy - whether directed toward great powers, developing states, or international institutions - must be to strengthen the international system, which most of the world has a direct interest in seeing function well.”

Finally, in keeping with American tradition, Giuliani argues that promoting democracy abroad “is a noble ideal,” and the right thing to do. However, America must be realistic about what actually can be achieved. “U.S. assistance can do much to set nations on the road to democracy, but we must be realistic about how must we can accomplish alone and how long it will take to achieve lasting progress.”

Giuliani, Rudolph, “Toward a Realistic Peace” Foreign Affairs, September/October, 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.groome@ucd.ie

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