• privacy policy
• accessibility
• sitemap

UCD Clinton Institute for American Studies

Transatlantic Affairs Newsletter
Volume Three, Issue 5
March / April 2008

Ireland and the United States

Bertie Goes To Washington

Frank Groome

The Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, T.D. has accepted an invitation to address the United States Congress on 20 April, 2008. In accepting the honour to address a joint session of the American Congress, Bertie has joined a distinguished list of world leaders including Nelson Mandela and President Charles de Gaulle. The Taoiseach is the sixth Irish leader to receive such an honour and he follows in the foot steps of Eamon de Valera (1964) and Garret Fitzgerald (1984).

On issuing the invitation, the speaker of the House of Representative Nancy Pelosi (Dem-Cal) stated that Bertie Ahern “is a tremendously innovative leader, on issues ranging from his leadership on the Northern Ireland peace process to the genocide in Darfur to combating climate change. He presides over an economy that is the envy of Europe, indeed the world. We look forward to welcoming home back to the United States Capitol and hearing his vision for continued friendship between our two nations.” Congressman Richard Neal, Chairman of the Friends of Ireland added that “no-one is more deserving of that special recognition than my good friend Bertie Ahern.”

In a statement accepting the invitation Mr Ahern declared that he was “deeply honoured and delighted to accept the invitation…” an “invitation” that “is a singular honour for Ireland and one of great historic significance, reflecting the unique friendship between Ireland and the United States over many centuries and which continues to the present day.” It is anticipated the Taoiseach will address some important topics and issues relating to the current shape of Irish-American relations. The on-going peace process in Northern Ireland and the plight of the undocumented Irish are likely to feature in the Taoiseach’s speech.

Information for this article was taken from http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie 

The United States and the European Union

Europe’s Eastern Promise

Ronald D. Asmus

At the end of the Cold War, America and western Europe embarked on a controversial grand strategy to enlarge the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union. This joint grand strategy was designed to reach out to the post-communist countries of central and eastern Europe and facilitate their transition to democracy and free-market capitalism. In the immediate aftermath of the unforeseen collapse of the Soviet Union, exuberant euphoria appeared to suffice as the serving logic stimulating this push eastward. Today however this logic is no longer sufficient and according to Ronald D. Asmus, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, “NATO and the EU must articulate a new rationale for enlarging still further…..this time in the face of a more powerful and defiant Russia.”

The central tenet of the U.S-west European plan after 1989 was simple: create an enlarged, free and peaceful Europe; reinvigorate the transatlantic community and refocus the mutual concerns of the Atlantic community to meet the new emerging global challenges. Ronald Asmus argues that the guiding rationale behind enlargement is flawed in 2008; moreover, he offers three reasons supporting this claim. First, the September 2001 terrorist attacks on America has shifted American “attention and resources” toward the Middle East. Europe is no longer considered the core geographical region for American policymakers. Indeed, “[t]he reservoir of transatlantic goodwill and political capital accumulated during the 1990s has evaporated in the sands of Iraq.” Thus, the political structure of the West has changed.

Second, “the East has changed.” The task to consolidate democracy and free-market capitalism in eastern Europe was largely successful in the 1990s. Hence today there exists a region of instability further east “extending eastward from the Balkans across the Black Sea region to the southern Caucasus and including Turkey, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan.” According to Asmus, these countries are the new periphery of the Euro-Atlantic community and form a region of states “weaker, poorer, and more politically problematic than the central and eastern European countries NATO and the EU sought to integrate earlier.”

The final reason supporting the contention that NATO and EU enlargement requires a new rationale is Russia, or more precisely, a resurgent and increasingly defiant Russia. After a period of weak political and economic leadership that left the country in ruin, the Kremlin appears determined to rebuild Russia by whatever means. The oil and gas industries have been nationalized, a decision that cannot be considered bad in and of itself. However, the method used to achieve this end does raise questions about the increasing authoritarianism emerging in Moscow. In domestic politics, the Russian president Vladimir Putin has taken steps since coming to power to consolidate the strength of the confederation. The president has removed the stipulation that governors of Russian states be elected to office and instead he retains the power of nomination. And in foreign affairs, Russia has become much more vocal on the international stage and has used its economic leverage over former ex-Soviet republics to elicit political and economic outcomes favourable to its wishes.

Ronald D. Asmus “Europe’s Eastern Promise” Foreign Affairs, January/February, 2008. Available on the Internet at www.foreignaffairs.org. 

Europe: Divorce the US Military

Neil Clark

On 19 March 2003, the US-led military coalition attacked and invaded Iraq. The preceding diplomatic wrangling and the mass and unprecedented public protests against the war did nothing to temper the agenda of the neo-conservatives in Washington. Despite recent media and administration proclamations that the “surge” is working, five years after the initiation of “Operation Iraqi Freedom” the situation in Iraq remains chaotic and innocent men, women and children are still dying. According to Neil Clark, “in the first week of February….over 200 people have been killed in the violence.” In Afghanistan, the situation is even worse, where attacks on western and Afghan troops were up a third in 2007. The recent heated military and diplomatic disagreements at the NATO summit are testament to the failure of the west to agree a common strategy and military commitments in Afghanistan. The neo-cons in Washington have had other similar set backs in advancing their market-military policies across the world.

In November 2007, the Joint Intelligent Estimate stated that there existed no evidence to support the contention Iran was developing nuclear weapons - “thus removing [the neo-cons] favored casus belli for military aggression against” Iran. Of course, the administration having learnt nothing from these set backs/reality checks still remained defiant. In fact, shortly after the release of the Joint Intelligent Estimate the President declared Iran remained a grave threat to American interests-contrary to evidence-because he said so.  

According to Neil Clark, there have been some recent successes for the neoconservatives in Europe.  The election of the right-leaning Nicolas Sarkozy in France last May was a real boon for American market-military interests the world over.  After all, it has finally reached home to the highest levels in Washington that America needs European assistance in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. The election of Donald Tusk in Poland has also proved useful for American interests. After intense diplomatic, economic and political pressure, (at the beginning of February) the new President announced he had agreed to plans to install part of the controversial American missile defence system on Polish territory.

For Clark, the recent and emerging support for Tony Blair to become President of the European Council if the Lisbon Treaty is passed, “would be the culmination of the neocon dream: to fully neuter Europe as alternative source of global power.” Of course, this  last point is still speculation, the Lisbon Treaty in its current form may yet be rejected and even if its does pass, the neo conservatives in Washington may not be around after November 2008 to feel the benefit of it.        

Neil Clark, “Europe: Divorce the US Military” AntiWar.com, February 14, 2008. Available on the Internet at http://www.antiwar.com

The United States and International Affairs

The Costs of Containing Iran Washington’s Misguided New Middle East Policy

Vali Nasr and Ray Takeyh

The Bush administration has shifted its emphasis in recent months toward containing Iran in the Middle East. Indeed, according to Vali Nasr, Professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, the “Bush administration” believes “containing Iran is the solution to the Middle East’s various problems.” This new policy trajectory, announced by Vice-President Dick Cheney last May, is designed “to contain Iran by rallying the support of Sunni Arab states” in the region. However, this strategy is considered “unsound, it cannot be implemented effectively, and it will probably make matters worse.”

In May 2007, Dick Cheney declared the administrations intention to contain Iran. “We’ll stand with out friends in opposing extremism and strategic threats…We’ll continue bringing relief to those who suffer, and delivering justice to the enemies of freedom. And we’ll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region.” More recently Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has supported this sentiment: “Iran constitutes the single most important single-country strategic challenge to the United States and to the kind of Middle East that we want to see.” Of course, Washington has already been taking steps to isolate Iran, including building up its Navy presence in the Persian Gulf and using harsh and war-like rhetoric. At the same time, Washington funds “a $75 million democracy-promotion program supporting regime change in Tehran.” And over the last year, the US has mobilised diplomatic support in the UN to pass a series of UN resolutions designed to intimidate and compel Iran into ending its nuclear ambitions. In addition, the administration has officially designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the al Quds Army as supporters of terrorism. This decision has enabled the US Treasury Department to target financial assets of these groups and the US military to detain their personnel in Iraq.

The Bush administration is trying to build a coalition of willing states in the region to balance Iran. The “administration has rallied support among Arab governments to oppose Iranian policies in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories,” and it has also provided a $20 billion arms package to Saudi-Arabia and the Gulf emirates. According to US officials, this arms deal is deigned “to enable these countries to strengthen their defenses and therefore to provide a deterrence against Iranian expansion and Iranian aggression in the future.”

There are some interrelated important reasons why this policy is bound to fail. First, the Bush administration is blind to the possibility that Iran could become a constructive actor in stabilising the region. In fact, the administrations “fundamental belief that Iran cannot be a constructive actor in a stable Middle East and that its unsavoury behavior cannot be changed through creative diplomacy,” will lead the United States into trouble in the region. After all, having removed Iraqi military power in the 2003 invasion, the US is the only military power large enough to balance Iran in the region.

It inevitably follows that America will remain in the region for decades if it continues to pursue this line. Second, the Middle East region is divided against itself. “In the 1960s, radical Arab regimes contested the legitimacy and power of traditional monarchical states. In the 1970s, Islamic fundamentalists rejected the prevailing secular order and sought to set the region on the path to God. In the 1980s, much of the Arab world supported the genocidal Saddam Hussein as he sought to displace Iran’s theocratic regime.” Of course it is also important to note America’s destabilising role in the region during this period, especially during the Iran-Iraq war. However, according to Nasr and Takeyh, the region is “fracturing once more, this time along sectarian and confessional lines, with Sunnis clamouring to curb Shiite ascendance.”

In the context of previous lessons learnt from historical involvement in the region, perhaps the question should be asked: Will another American policy designed to divide the region between the Sunni and Shiite communities achieve cohesion and long term stability in the region. Alas, the answer must be a resounding no. Furthermore, the idea that one can categorise these two interrelated communities into homogenous separate groups and divide them appears particularly naïve. Any attempt to support one side or another will undoubtedly prove beneficial for a minority within each community and ultimately lead to anti-American sentiment among the great majorities.

Vali Nasr and Ray Takeyh “The Costs of Containing Iran Washington’s Misguided New Middle East Policy” Foreign Affairs, January/February, 2008. Available on the Internet at www.foreignaffairs.org.

Fiscal Year 2009 Pentagon Spending Request Briefing Book

Christopher Hellman and Travis Sharp

The Bush administration is requesting $515.4 billion for the Department of Defense (DoD) in Fiscal Year 2009, which commences on October 1, 2008. This is a 5.4 percent (inflation-adjusted) increase on current levels. As part of total National Defence, the administration is also requesting $15.6 billion for nuclear weapon activities in the Department of Energy, $5.6 billion for non-DoD defence activities, and $4.4 billion for additional mandatory spending. Thus, according to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, the Bush administration actually submitted to Congress a request for $541 billion for “National Defense” (Function 050) and a further estimated $170 billion for the on-going wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, creating a grand total in Fiscal Year 2009 of $711 billion. 

The administration has requested $8.9 billion for the Missile Defense Agency in the Fiscal Year 2009, an increase of around $350 million. Much, if not all of this increase will be channelled into the third missile defence site in Europe (recently agreed to by the Polish government). With this budget submission, missile defense “continues to receive more funding than any other weapons program in the annual Pentagon budget.” Homeland defence is to receive an increase of 1.6 percent to $17.6 billion for Pentagon activities related to homeland security. These include “detection and protection against weapons of mass destruction, emergency preparedness and response, and protecting critical infrastructure.” However, the total budget for Homeland Security is estimated at $68.5 billion.

Interestingly, at a time of increased concern - at least rhetorically - of the dangers surrounding the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the administration is requesting a 2.6 percent decrease for Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) / “Nunn-Lugar” initiatives. The CTR is designed to assist Russia and former Soviet Republics safeguard weapons of mass destruction and related technologies. Any financial decrease supporting this important initiative might appear negligent to some objective observers. In other areas, the Bush administration has requested a financial increase of 7.5 percent for military personnel and has secured funding from Congress to increase the Army by 7,000 troops and the Marines by 5,000 for the Fiscal Year 2009. The Pentagon plans to increase Army and Marine personnel by 82,000 over the next five years.

Placing the defence budget for 2009 in historical context offers some interesting reading. In constant dollars the defence budget of the United States was one trillion dollars at the close of World War II in 1945. Through the 1950s up until the 1980s including the so-called military build-up the budget remained relatively constant fluctuating between $545 billion in 1953 (Korean War) and $522 billion in the 1980s.Bush II however has inflated the budget every year since 2001 increasing it by $373 billion in seven years. In fact, the financial costs of the invasion in Iraq and Afghanistan to date have reached $695.7 billion. Only World War II (at $3.2 trillion) has cost more.

Christopher Hellman and Travis Sharp “Fiscal Year 2009 Pentagon Spending Request Briefing Book,” Center For Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. Available on the Internet at http://www.armscontolcenter.org/

God vs. Elliott Abrams Advantage: Abrams

John Tyalor

In June 2003 Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath travelled to Washington and meet with President Bush. During that meeting the President told the Palestinian leaders that God told him to create a Palestinian state. “God told me, ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq,’ and I did. And now I feel God’s words coming to me, ‘Go and get the Palestinians their state’…and by God I’m going to do it.” Almost five years later and the Palestinians are nowhere near having a state of their own. Indeed, in many ways they are worse off. So what happened to the President’s divinely inspired mission? According to John Taylor, “neither God nor George Bush nor either of his guests reckoned on the power and persistence of longtime Israel advocate Elliot Abrams, who holds the Near East portfolio on the National Security Council.” According to Taylor, Elliot Abrams has a long-standing and successful record in and out of public office of thwarting any meaningful efforts to bring about a sustainable peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

However, when one examines Abrams’ prior work record, the very fact that he is in office is surprising. “During the Reagan administration, Abrams lied to Congress about supplying arms to the Contra rebels fighting the leftist government in Nicaragua. About to be charged in 1991 with a felony for deceiving Congress, Abrams pled to the lesser charge of withholding information and so avoided jail time.” From first approximation, his appointment under the current Bush administration appears strange to many who have worked on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to former Ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, Abrams’ appointment suggests the administration is backing off from a course toward settlement. “If the administration were preparing for a new push on the road map, this would be an unusual appointment.” John Taylor views his appointment differently however. Set against the backdrop of a weak Secretary of State, with “Abrams as the administration’s top Middle East adviser, how could the AIPAC or the Christain Right complain?”

The official record with Abrams at the helm speaks for itself. In 2002, America worked to block the UN General Assembly calling on Israel to repeal the “Jerusalem Law.” This “law” declares that “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.” Abrams and the White House refused to deal with Arafat because of his terrorist background and only reluctantly worked with Mahmoud Abbas. After the 2006 election in Palestine that produced a winning margin for Hamas, Abrams sought to reverse the election result by force. John Taylor writes that “he told visiting Palestinian businessmen that he supported a “hard coup” against the Hamas government.” Thankfully, this proposal was ultimately rejected by the CIA and Pentagon officials.  In June 2007, Abrams secretly persuaded Mahmoud Abbas (weakened by the election victory by Hamas) to attack Hamas in Gaza. This attack was so badly concealed that Hamas decided to launch a strike first, ultimately defeating Abbas’ forces in Gaza.

As Taylor reports “Elliot Abrams may have helped the administration retain the support of AIPAC and the evangelicals and shielded Condi Rice…but his effect on America’s reputation and position in the Middle East has been uniformly negative. Abrams has worked to stall the peace process since joining the administration; a stance that is morally indefensible.

John Taylor “God vs. Elliott Abrams Advantage: Abrams” AntiWar.com, February 12, 2008. Available on the Internet at http://www.antiwar.com