• privacy policy
• accessibility
• sitemap

UCD Clinton Institute for American Studies

Transatlantic Affairs Newsletter -
Volume Three, Issue, 3
November / December 2007

Ireland and the United States

The Undocumented Irish

Frank Groome

The Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dermot Ahern T.D., traveled to New York and Washington D.C. this month (October) and held several high-level meetings with elected and government officials. First on the agenda was the plight of thousands of undocumented Irish living and working in the United States. The Minister met with Senators Edward Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Lindsey Graham and Charles Schumer, and later met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security chief Michaela Chertoff. The Minister’s request was simple: change the immigration system so that Irish citizens can get better access to America. Ahern was not interested in any “stopgap solutions,” instead he pushed for a long-term solution to this continuing problem.

As it stands the current situation is untenable. The “laws are currently constituted” so as “only a trickle of Irish can ever come into” America. In 2006, only 2,000 green cards were issued for Irish people. This is out of a world total of over a million. “Yet there were 19,000 work visa applications, not to mention the numbers of undocumented”

who entered America and have overstayed. Set against the backdrop of close cultural ties there is a sense that the legal situation is outdated. The question remains however, how can America change the immigration laws for Ireland and not for other nationalities? There are a plethora of lobby groups in Washington pressurizing Congress to do the same for their nationals. This puts Congress in an all or nothing situation politically.

But perhaps there is a way. The Irish government and the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform have been promoting “the peace process as a possible conduit for a new departure.”

In May 2008, American CEO and major corporations will hold a major economic conference in Belfast. The meeting is designed to stimulate economic growth in Northern Ireland and create employment. At this conference there is potential for several important economic agreements to emerge, perhaps one of these agreements could deal with the flow of citizens between Ireland and America. This kind of agreement has the potential to foster the idea of a “culture of compliance” between Ireland and America on immigrations laws.

Information for this article was taken from www.irishabroad.com: “Ahern Sends A Message” October 10, 2007.

back to top

The United States and the European Union

Chill cast on U.S.-Russia relations

James Gerstenzang

Political and diplomatic relations between America and Russia have soured in recent months. On assuming the White House, President Bush delivered a sanguine assessment of the Russian President and was willing and open to foster closer ties. In recent months however the American President has “presented a decidedly different view of his Kremlin counterpart.”

Most recently Bush has described Vladimir Putin as “wily.” This was Bush’s assessment of Putin when the two leaders met in Australia last month and, in particular, refers to Putin’s refusal to reveal the contenders to succeed him at the Kremlin next spring.

This recent statement is just symbolic of a general deterioration in the relationship between the two men. In recent years the two countries have diverged on many important issues. Since 2004 America has remained troubled at a variety domestic political decision taken by the Kremlin that the White House deems to be undemocratic. Moreover, there is a range of genuine differences emerging in the international arena. Most notably these include relations with Iran and Venezuela . Washington is vexed that Russia is nurturing an arms-trade relationship with Venezuela and that the Kremlin sold conventional arms to Iran in recent years.

In a statement last week (early October) President Bush highlighted his disapproval at Russia ’s internal political developments. The President used frosty language to make his point: “In terms of whether or not it’s possible to reprogram the kind of basic Russian DNA, which is a centralized authority, that’s hard to do.”

On the positive side, Putin has agreed that “it’s not in the world’s interest for Iran to have the capacity to make a nuclear weapon.”

Although having said that, the Russian President recently traveled to Tehran and defended Iran ’s right to develop a civilian nuclear power program. According to White House sources, this statement contrasted sharply with the expectation of the Bush administration, who had hoped Russia would take a stronger line against Iran ’s uranium enrichment ambitions. Maybe Russia is working to protect its economic interests in Iran, or, perhaps Moscow agrees with the EU-3 who already brokered a deal with Tehran to enable Iran develop domestic nuclear energy facilities (The EU-3 has moved away from this early deal as the situation has become more tense).

Gerstenzang, James. Chill cast on U.S.-Russia relations. The L.A. Times, October 18, 2007

Russia Rebuffs U.S. antimissile plan

Peter Spiegel

At the time of this writing, the U.S. continues to promote negotiations to construct a missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic , much to the chagrin of Moscow.. The recent election in Poland (21/10/2007) has forced America to postpone its negotiations over the military system however. (In the run-up to the election the new Polish government led by Donald Tusk has said it will review Polish military contributions in Iraq ). This will obviously raise concern and doubts in Washington regarding Poland ’s decision on any future missile defense system to be placed on its soil. In this new political environment, the Bush administration has put a six month moratorium on any possible decisions regarding the military system.

This month (October) Russian officials publicly rejected a new U.S. proposal aimed at persuading Russia to withdraw its objections to the missile defense sites in Eastern Europe . Vladimir Putin rebuffed the new proposal and warned the Bush administration against attempting to assert its influence over Eastern Europe , saying it would irreparably harm U.S.-Russian relations. Putin was unambiguous in his objections: “We can sometime in the future decide that some antimissile system should be established somewhere on the moon, but before we reach such arrangements, we lose the opportunity of fixing” our other bilateral disagreements.

A spokesman for the Russian President later emphasized that the President had not intended to be confrontational. This position was later qualified by meetings with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei V. Lavrov, who actually welcomed the America ’s new proposals. This American olive branch involved an invitation for Moscow to directly participate in parts of the antimissile system’s operations. The Russian Foreign Minster remains unconvinced by American intelligence estimates that claim Iran poses a missile threat to Europe . “The U.S. believes it shows Iran will be able to develop a long-range nuclear missile by 2015.” Moscow disagrees with these findings, and in light of the quality of U.S. intelligence on Iraq in 2002 and 2003 perhaps Russia is right to be skeptical.

The American plan for a missile defense system would involve placing missile-tracking radar in the Czech Republic and ten interceptor missiles in Poland . Moscow ’s main fear - apart from U.S. dominance in the region - is that these missiles would be aimed at Russia . According to Condoleezza Rice , America “believes we can address those concerns, and we intend to do it.”

The new American proposal is a “program that would greatly expand the planned American system by linking it directly with current Russian radars and, potentially, Moscow ’s existing missile defense system, which centers on protecting the country’s capital.”

Although both sides claim progress in negotiations evidence remains that the two countries are diverging. Putin has discussed with Rice and Gates the possibility of Russia withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force Treaty, a Cold War agreement signed in the 1980s preventing Russia and America from deploying short-and medium-range offensive weapons in Europe . This is a decision clearly taken in retaliation to American strategic plans in the region.

Spiegel, Peter. Russia rebuffs U.S. antimissile plan. The L.A. Times October 13, 2007.

back to contents

The United States and International Affairs

U.S. Is Top Arms Seller to Developing World

Thom Shanker

According to a recent U.S. Congressional report, America has retained “its role as the leading supplier of weapons to the developing world in 2006.” The report entitled: “Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations” was produced by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, a division of the Library of Congress. The highly competitive global arms industry was worth an estimated $28.8 billion US dollars in 2006; this was a decrease from the 2005 figure of $31.8 billion dollars. The rising cost of fuel/energy was cited as the reason for this decline.

The report named Russia and Britain as the next significant distributors of arms to developing nations, while Pakistan , India and Saudi Arabia were the top purchasers. An interesting section of the report highlighted the inherent linkage between the sale of arms and global politics. For example, in 2005 Russia concluded an arms deal with Iran worth over $700 million, but continued concerns in Washington and Europe appears to have deterred Moscow from concluding arms deals with Iran in 2006. Concurrently, Russia continues to supply arms to Venezuela , despite the obvious displeasure of the United States .

Furthermore, the report highlights American arms sales to “nations whose records on democracy and human rights are subject to official criticism.” American-Pakistan arms agreements in 2006 worth nearly $2 billion has renewed debate in Washington over whether the Bush administration is placing its counterterrorism measures above the administrations pledge to spread democracy. The information provided in the report also highlighted America was the largest exporter of arms to developed and developing nations combined; together this was worth a total of $16.9 billion in 2006. A significant point to note is that despite the overall drop in the value of global arms sales in 2006, America , Russia and Britain all increased their shared of the global industry in 2006 as compared with 2005.

Shanker, Thom. U.S. Is Top Arms Seller to Developing World. The New York Times, October 1, 2007.

back to content

Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century

Hillary Rodham Clinton

In the November/ December edition of Foreign Affairs, Hilary Clinton outlined her perspectives on the world and her vision for American foreign policy if elected President in November 2008. In sum, the U.S. Senator from New York believes the next “president will have a moment of opportunity to reintroduce America to the world and restore,” America ’s “leadership.” To achieve this, America “must get out of Iraq , rediscover the value of statesmanship, and live up to the democratic values that are the deepest source of our strength.”

These interrelated ideas form central components of a strategy based on “a preference for cooperating over acting unilaterally, for exhausting diplomacy before making war, and for converting old adversaries into allies rather than making new enemies.” This article will review several of her stated aims.

First Clinton sets the context by arguing that the incumbent administration “squandered the respect, trust and confidence” of America ’s allies over the past six years. President Bush wasted a unique opportunity to adopt a position of global leadership after 9/11, and instead pursued unilateral action that led to war and the failure to commit America to several important international treaties, including inter alia, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. If elected President, Clinton would “rebuild” American “power and ensure that the United States is committed to building a world we want, rather than simply defending against a world we fear.”

In an attempt to appeal to both disappointed Republican voters and her traditional Democratic base, Clinton argues that America must pursue a policy of power and principle. So, on the one hand she emphasizes the need to gain respect in the world through the adherents to a set of guiding principles, and on the other hand, she makes it clear she is not adverse to the use of force when necessary. In fact, she mentions her willingness to use force at least three times in as many paragraphs. Perhaps this is also an attempt to persuade the American arms industry that they made the right choice in backing her candidateship for President.*

A second element in Clinton ’s grand strategy for American foreign policy is to rebuild the American armed forces. “We must rebuild our armed services and restore them body and soul.”

This is a common theme running through the policy programmes of both Republican and Democratic presidential hopefuls. Clinton will modernize the military service to help combat the challenges of the twenty-first century. As part of this, she supports the notion that all American soldiers who are wounded in Iraq and elsewhere “receive the health care, benefits, training, and support they deserve.”

Although Clinton appears keen to implement the elements outlined above, she avoids a political commitment to provide them if she is elected president.

Another key component of her strategy is to reengage with America ’s traditional allies, especially in Europe . In sum, she is eager to strengthen alliances: “We must reestablish our traditional relationship of confidence and trust with Europe . Disagreements are inevitable, even among the closest friends, but we can never forget that on most global issues we have no more trusted allies than those of Europe .”

Moreover, America must engage constructive with Australia , Japan and India moving ahead, while at the same time refocusing Washington ’s attention on South America . According to Hilary, “We have witnessed the rollback of democratic development and economic openness in parts of Latin America ,” and to counter this “we must return to a policy of vigorous engagement.”

This is an area of the world that Clinton blames the Bush administration for ignoring. In addition to the regions outlined she mentions meeting the needs of Africa and working constructively with China . Interestingly, the United Nations does not receive much attention as an instrument for international statesmanship or engagement . *See a recent article in the Independent by Leonard Doyle entitled: “ Clinton bucks the trend and rakes in cash from the US weapons industry.”

This article highlights the close links between the US arms industry and Hilary Clinton for president. October 19, 2007.

Clinton, Hilary Rodham. Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-First Century. Foreign Affairs, November / December 2007.

back to top

An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom Securing America’s Future

John McCain

In a lucid article in Foreign Affairs, Presidential hopeful John McCain describes his assessment of the current shape of international politics and America ’s strategy for rebuilding its alliances, reengaging with partners and international institutions, and protecting America from the threat of international terrorism. The Senator from Arizona is running as a candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination and believes he has the solution to America ’s problems and challenges in the twenty-first century. McCain’s argument starts with an appeal to the broad spectrum of American voters. He stresses his conviction in the old puritan belief that America has a purpose and mission in the world and supports this contention with a dash of liberalism: “ America needs a president who can revitalize the country’s purpose and standing in the world.” Moreover, “the next U.S. president must be ready to show America and the world that this country’s best days are yet to come.”

This argument supports the proposition that America is entering another formative period in its history; an opportunity provided for by domestic and international uncertainty and that offers new leadership a chance to reengage with the American people through the utilisation of familiar rhetoric to espouse the values of the Founding Fathers. This is a language that resonates well with the American population who appear ‘primed’ to accept it. In short, it offers the population comfort and familiarity in moments of uncertainty regarding the future. The current administration it seems has placed America in a war without end. This, in turn, has heightened a perceived sense of insecurity throughout the population; McCain however believes he has the answer. Comparing this generation in America with the post–World War II generation, he argues that “now it is this generation’s turn to restore and replenish the world’s faith in our nation and our principles.”

He cites former President Truman who too assumed power when America was entering and uncertain period after the Second World War and who also used language that appealed to American predilections. McCain considers Truman’s statement that “God has created us and brought us to our present position of power and strength for some great purpose,” is as relevant in today’s world as it was in 1945.

McCain outlines several core elements to his grand strategy for American foreign policy that he hopes will ultimately enable America “to build an enduring global peace on the foundations of freedom, security, opportunity, and hope.”

These include inter alia: winning the war on terror, defending the homeland, uniting the world’s democracies, revitalizing the transatlantic partnership, aiding an African renaissance and preparing to lead. This piece will examine several of these elements.

Although the senator from Arizona recognises the “mismanagement and failure in Iraq ,” he argues that total failure in Iraq would be horrific: “a historic loss at the hands of Islamist extremists who, after having defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and the United States in Iraq ,will believe that the world is going their way and that anything is possible.”

A loss in Iraq would also make that country a sanctuary for terrorists and enable Iran to dominate Iraq and the region. For these reasons he supports the continuing efforts to win in Iraq and why he is also against a pre-emptive withdrawal. Regarding efforts to defend the homeland, McCain has a litany of proposals, ranging from expanding and modernizing the military to creating a modern-day Office of Strategic Services (OSS). This office would be designed to “take risks that our bureaucracies today rarely consider taking –such as deploying infiltrating agents without diplomatic cover in terrorist states and organisations.” This agency could also participate in rebuilding failed states.

An interesting component of McCain’s plans concern creating a League of Democracies in the international sphere. This organisation would be mandated to act when the UN fails. “This League of Democracies would not supplant the UN or other international organizations but complement them by harnessing the political and moral advantages offered by united democratic action.”

Of course, given that the UN is the sum-of-its-parts, to argue that the UN has failed in any given situation, is to acknowledge that the states of the world have failed. In this context, it remains doubtful if a new League of Democracies would be any more efficient at presenting a united front and acting in the world.

McCain, John. An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom: Securing America ’s Future. Foreign Affairs, November / December 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.groome@ucd.ie

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