• privacy policy
• accessibility
• sitemap

UCD Clinton Institute for American Studies

Transatlantic Affairs Newsletter
Volume Three, Issue 6
September/October, 2008

Ireland and the United States

The Missing Connection

Frank Groome

With just two months to go before the American people go to the polls in one of the most interesting and unusual Presidential election contests in years, most opinion polls show Sen. Barack Obama with a marginal lead over his rivals for the White House. Senator Barack Obama, a relatively unknown candidate, unexpectedly defeated Senator Hilary Clinton and the massive Clinton Democratic machinery to take the Democratic Party nomination last week (25/08/2008) in Denver. This week (1/09/2008) in St. Paul, Minnesota, Senator John McCain will accept the Republican nomination for the Presidency and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with his surprise choice for the Republican vice-Presidential candidate, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska.

For some, the prospect of another American president with Irish ancestry is an opportunity not to be missed and in recent weeks various Irish media sources have spent considerable time discussing the ancestral issue. The common view maintains that having a President in the White House with an Irish heritage (even if Barack is only half Irish) is sufficient reason to be optimistic about an Obama presidency and all that could be done for Ireland during his tenure.* Although no specifics about character or policy are discussed during these optimistic “time-fillers,” the assumption is that like former President Clinton and his work in Northern Ireland, having a President in the White House with Irish roots is bound to auger well for the homeland. Furthermore, with Senator Joseph Biden, an Irish Catholic, now running for the Democratic vice Presidency, many in Ireland, particularly the mainstream media, view this Presidential ticket as an expression of the perceived general success of the Irish in America.

Of course, this article is far from an endorsement of the policies of John McCain, which would be disastrous for America, Ireland and the world, but it is a request for the media to engage in a little less assumption and good deal more analysis on the important issues/policies the candidates represent as the election approaches. Let’s do something new and unconventional, let’s focus on the policies and character rather than on the character alone. For example, a closer look at the policies of McCain’s choice for VP speaks volumes and highlights where he intends to take America if elected President in November. Sarah Palin, is a conservative evangelical (this will help McCain with his hard-line conservative base) who supports drilling for oil and gas in Alaska (this issue is and has been on-going for many year in Washington); believes global warming is not caused by human activity; is a member of the National Rifle Association; and has refused to recognize and place Polar Bears on the endangered species list (despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary). With all this important and easily accessible information on the candidate, one would think that looking beyond the fact that she is a woman might even be enticing for the mainstream media. What is also amazing is that Barack Obama had already succeeded in securing the vote of the mainstream media in Ireland and various Irish politicians (due to his heritage) before they even knew his policies.

*Barack Obama’s father came from Kenya, but his mother traces her ancestry to the village of Moneygall, in county Offaly, Ireland.

The United States and the European Union

Russia, Georgia and the West

Frank Groome

According to Reuters New Service, the United States warned President Mikheil Saakashvili against trying to retake the region of South Ossetia by military force, and did so even on the eve of the August 7 Georgian military attack. The U.S. Ambassador to NATO, Kurt Volker, believes Moscow was looking for an excuse to send its military into Georgi and Tbilisi suitably obliged. Ambassador Volker maintained that Washington “consistently counseled Georgia, over a long period of time, that there is no military solution” in South Ossetia. The leadership in Moscow “had long exerted pressure on Georgia by placing restrictions on trade and visa and through small-scale military incidents, while it built up Russian forces stationed in South Ossetia as peacekeepers.”

There is little doubt that Russia responded with disproportionate force to Georgia’s attack on the region of South Ossetia. Russia not only expelled Georgian military troops from the region but invaded Georgia proper too.  These developments have brought about a new low in relations between Russia and the West (America and the EU) with NATO accusing Moscow of not fulfilling its promised commitment to withdraw from Georgian territory. At the time of this writing the situation has deteriorated even further, with an announcement by NATO Foreign Minister’s that they plan to cut off ties with Moscow over the incident.

For their part, the Americans appear to have overreacted too. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, “there is a real concern that Russia has turned the corner here and is headed back toward its past.” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has even questioned whether Russia could now become a “responsible state, ready to integrate into international institutions.” This strong language will do nothing to help reduce the current tension and has probably only inflamed the situation. The reality is both Russia and Georgia have been at each other for years and are both to blame for the current debacle.

In addition, the current situation is more complex then the media rhetoric suggests. First, American policymakers should take their fair share of responsibility too, especially against the background of attempts, at least since the 1970s, to secure direct access to Caspian Sea oil without having to build a pipeline through Russian territory. In 1997, Washington deployed 500 paratroopers from the Eighty-second Airborne Division to Kazakhstan to train Kazakh and other Central Asian troops. This military activity was followed by more U.S. troop deployments to Uzbekistan in 1998 and further Joint military training exercises with Kyrgyzstan. The idea behind these troop deployments was to support the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline project of which Clinton was an enthusiastic supporter and was a strategy designed to cut the Russians out completely. Of course, Moscow was seriously irritated by the American military presence in the area they regard as their traditional sphere of influence.

Second, European Union efforts to build a new pipeline in the region (which would parallel the current Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline) to further free itself from its over-dependence on Russian energy sources undoubtedly provoked Moscow to overreact militarily in the region and show the West it objects to the on-going effort and if necessary can do something about it.  Thus, it appears that the only party to benefit from the current conflict is the oil companies’ profits, which due the conflict have once again increased. (BP who control the BTC pipeline stopped the oil flowing (ostensibly because of the crisis) which had the positive effect of increasing the price of oil on world markets). Finally, the West needs Russian assistance in a number of sensitive foreign policy and geopolitical areas, including Iran, Afghanistan and on energy security issues and should perhaps adopt a more diplomatic line with Moscow and recognize legitimate Russian security interests.

Georgian Crisis Brings Attitude Change to a Flush Poland

Nicolas Kulish

On August 20, 2008, the United States and Poland signed a Declaration on Strategic Cooperation between the United States of America and the Republic of Poland. This agreement allows important elements of an American missile defense shield to be located in Poland. With this agreement America and Poland “intend to expand air and missile defense cooperation” and “have agreed on and important new area of such cooperation involving the deployment of a U.S. Army Patriot air and missile defense battery in Poland.”

The agreement also allows for information and military technology transfers and joint military training exercises. The latter has been sanctioned by Congress and allows U.S. and other foreign troops train and share tactics together. In the past this policy has opened up new markets for the American arms industry and is likely to prove profitable once again.

The decision to sign this declaration did not receive a warm welcome in Moscow. Indeed, Moscow objected vociferously to this missile defense initiative and has viewed it as a threat. Furthermore, it is important to note that until Russia’s invasion of Georgia, the decision to locate a missile defense system on Polish soil was opposed by the majority of Polish citizens. It appears only the government of Poland was in favour of the deal. The Russian military activity in Georgia it seems brought back a flood of bad memories for the majority of Polish citizens and the Polish government has lost no time since the Georgian crisis erupted to cement its relationship to America more formally. Of course, public support for the missile defense is by no means universal and might even be a temporary blip which the government in Warsaw has used to secure the agreement. According to Nicholas Kulish, “some residents said the threat was being hyped by leaders for political gain, and others maintained that any steps that might provoke Russia were a mistake.”

Nicholas Kulish “Georgian Crisis Brings Attitude Change to a Flush Poland,” The New York Times, August 21, 2008

The United States and International Affairs

A Strategic Economic Engagement Strengthening U.S. - Chinese Ties

Henry M Paulson Jr.

According to U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Henry M. Paulson, the economic prosperity of the United States and China rests on China’s further integration into the global economic system. There are many limited debates in Washington on how America should respond to China’s new economic power. Some commentators have called for containment, others confrontation, but the Secretary of the Treasury argues for a policy of engagement – a strategy that President Bush has pursued. The concept of adjustment to China’s new rising power fails to get a mention in these debates in Washington. This is strange considering the fact that China (although undertaking economic reforms) has never tried to become an American-style free-market economy, but has rather exploited other market economies to become a great economic power of its own design.

According to Secretary Paulson, the “overriding importance of economic growth to China’s leaders presents the best means of influencing China’s emergence as a global power.” Thus, to adopt an effective strategy to control China’s integration into the international economic system in a way that is beneficial to American interests, Washington must appeal to China’s fundamental economic interest and avoid inflaming differences that may emerge. In this context, President Bush promoted the U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue (SED) which is designed to “manage both immediate tensions between the two countries and their expanding relationship over the long term.” The success of this strategy, according to Paulson, is down to the fact that Bush “understands….that robust and sustained economic growth is a social imperative for China and the Beijing views its international interactions primarily through an economic lens.”

Over the past two years, the SED has focused on policy areas which cut-across Chinese and American interests. In doing this, the SED “has found new and constructive ways to discuss some of the most important and contentious matters in the U.S.-Chinese economic relationship, including growth imbalances, energy security and environmental sustainability, trade and investment issues….and Chain’s position in the global economic system.” Despite China’s tremendous growth, some fundamental problems remain. Some of these problems are primarily a Chinese concern; others are more related to America’s interests.

First, China now has the fourth-largest GDP in the world today, but it is still classified as a developing country and ranks one-hundredth in the world per capita GDP. Thus, it is obvious that many Chinese citizens have not seen the benefits of this tremendous economic growth and remain excluded. This will need to be addressed internally in the long term. Second, and of concern to American investment and interests, China still has a large current account surplus, which in 2007 stood at around 11 percent of GDP. As Paulson argues “this reflects the fact that China spends much less than it produces and earns and that is has a high rate of national saving.” This high rate of personal saving reduces household consumption (which was 35 percent of GDP last year) and limits the opportunities for American financial interests to invest in China’s banking system (through lending) and for American corporate interests through consumer sales. Thus, America will keep on pressuring the Chinese government to be less prudent with advocating personal savings. Given the lessons learnt in East Asia during the 1997 economic crisis and subsequent stale IMF policies in the region, China will be keen to limit its openness to American financial investment.  

Henry M Paulson Jr. “A Strategic Economic Engagement: Strengthening U.S. - Chinese Ties,” Foreign Affairs, September/October, 2008. Available on the Internet at www.foriegnaffairs.org.

Rethinking the National Interest American Realism for a New World

Condoleezza Rice

In a recent Foreign Affairs article, U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, reflects on the past eight years of American leadership in the world. Perhaps unsurprisingly Secretary Rice has chosen to discuss a rather selective meta-narrative that has been rehearsed numerous times and reflects a very narrow interpretation of American foreign policy action around the world. The article details, inter alia, American democracy promotion efforts and the countries evolving relationship with Russia and China.

In keeping with American official rhetoric, Rice argues that democracy is essential to economic development and that economic development is central to democratic consolidation. Thus, democratic development, according to the Secretary, “is not only an effective path to wealth and power; it is also the best way to ensure that these benefits are shared justly across entire societies, without exclusion….” However, a cursory glance at recent data from the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Internal Revenue Service indicates that income inequality in America itself has been increasing since the 1970s, despite assertions claiming to be the model of democracy and economic inclusion to the world. In fact, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, has frequently commented on the need for the government to tackle this increasing trend. This American government evidence refutes the Secretary’s claim regarding income redistribution and democracy. Indeed, her assessment of the interrelationship between economic growth and democracy ignores all the historical evidence to the contrary. Nazi Germany, for example, or the Soviet Union or more recently Communist China; indeed, the Japanese ‘economic miracle’ had less to do with a democratic system of government that the Secretary appears willing to admit.   

According to Secretary Rice, America’s relationships with Russia and China “have been rooted more in common interests than common values,” and can be defined by cooperation and conflict. However, she is confident that common ground has been found over the last eight years. Although believing that Washington’s relationship with Moscow has been strained at times by “Moscow’s rhetoric,” Rice is optimistic that the “strategic framework” agreed by America and Russia last March (2008) will go some way to alleviate tensions. Despite this optimism, Rice remains concerned by Russia’s energy policies which she claims “have a distinct political tinge.” The recent fighting in Georgia highlights this new struggle for energy security in the twenty-first century.*

Regarding China, the Secretary of State remains cautiously optimistic and believes America has nothing to fear from China’s rising power “if that power is used responsibly.” However, Washington does remain worried about China’s “rapid development of high-tech weapons systems,” which apparently remains opaque. The Secretary of State has once again ignored the fact that in 2007 America sold more arms and weapons than any other nation and that American companies are selling security equipment to China (despite a ban on doing so, which was put in place by Congress after Tiananmen Square in 1989) ostensibly under the guise that these high-tech security and surveillance systems will be used only for the period of the Olympic Games. Furthermore, Secretary Rice does not mention the need for America to adjust to China’s emerging power; rather she only talks of the need for Beijing to adjust to American established international rules.

* See article on Russia, Georgia and the West in this edition.

Condoleezza Rice, “Rethinking the National Interest: American Realism for a New World,” Foreign Affairs, September/October, 2008. Available on the Internet at www.foriegnaffairs.org.