Ambassador's Corner

WEEKLY MESSAGE FROM AMBASSADOR JOHN BRUTON

October 23, 2007

The big tasks Americans and Europeans face together

Last week I presented a paper in Ireland containing personal reflections on some of the tasks the European Union and the United States will face together in the years ahead. The following are a selection of the points I made. They cover:

• Security threats;
• Our shared values;
• Relations with the Muslim world;
• The Middle East Peace Process;
• Iran;
• Globalization;
• Climate change, and
• Free trade.

We are consuming a lot of the world’s resources

We are consuming a lot of the world’s resources. Today the citizens of the European Union constitute 7.5% of the world’s population, enjoy 35% of the world’s income and consume 18% of the world’s energy.

The citizens of the United States constitute 4.6% of the world’s population, enjoy 27% of the world’s income and consume 23% of the world’s energy.

In contrast, the people of China constitute 20% of the world’s population, enjoy 5.4% of the world’s income and consume 16% of the world’s energy.

The people of Africa, with 14.2% of the world’s population, receive only 1.2% of global income and consume only 4% of global energy.

The story is similar for India.

These imbalances are a profound factor for instability in the world. They lie behind the immigration pressure experienced in Europe and the US, and the upward pressure on oil prices, and they greatly complicate our efforts to deal with climate change.

Security can’t be won by military methods alone

The collapse of the Soviet Union has created a world in which only one country, the United States, dominates the world in conventional military terms.

But neither the US nor anyone else can guarantee, by military methods alone, to reconstruct a new and stable civil society, in a country it may be able to militarily defeat. That is a political task, and one with which the US is encountering some difficulty in Iraq. To succeed, a political strategy that is acceptable to the local population, and has the full support of allies and neighbours, is needed. This illustrates the limitations of conventional military superiority, whether of the United States or of any other power.

For Europeans, who have lived under the protective umbrella of military US power since 1945, the emerging recognition of the inherent limitations of military power is a reality on which they must reflect just as do Americans.

Our shared values and interests – and our different reflexes

What are our interests - and our values? How do European interests and those of the United States converge?

In a media-driven democracy, how does one ensure public opinion supports policies that are in its own objective interests, even if these involve some pain?

Europeans and Americans agree that we have an interest in promoting democracy, open markets, the rule of law and respect for property, including intellectual property. It is in our interests to oppose terrorist activities. It is in our paramount interests to counter the possibility of nuclear terrorism, which poses an existential threat. Equally, it is in our interests to mitigate the causes of terrorism.

Europeans have limited domestic energy resources and thus have an interest in promoting energy conservation globally, for the sake of the climate, and to save money. The United States has a lower population density and has plentiful coal resources, so the United States may not share all Europe’s energy policy interests.

It is in the objective interest of Europeans and Americans to promote immigration, because neither will have enough people to perform all the tasks that our ageing populations will require if their standards of life are to be decent. That means we must diminish conflicts with the neighbouring countries from which the immigrants are likely to come - in Europe’s case, the Arab world, Africa and the Indian subcontinent.

The United States is not as physically close to the Muslim world as Europe, and while it needs oil from the Middle East and other foreign sources as its own oil reserves diminish, the United States has a visceral link with Israel, a society the United States sees as a pioneering replica of its earlier self, but which Israel’s Arab neighbours see as occupying land that it does not own and which it has taken by force.

While Europe and the United States have almost identical values and interests, we do have different reflexes when we are faced with a threat to those values.

The reflexes of the United States are influenced by the historical experiences of its founding population, reflexes that have been absorbed by subsequent waves of immigration.

The original colonists of the United States were frontier people. They had and have a reverence for the bearing of arms, that Europeans find strange.

It could be argued that this historic tradition leads the United States to have a quicker reflex, than most Europeans would have, to seek military solutions to problems. But it has to be said that the United States stayed out of all the European wars of the nineteenth century, took no part in the colonization of Africa, did not intervene militarily in the Philippines or Cuba until 1898 and did not enter either the First or Second World Wars until quite late. The Nazi occupation of Poland and France pre-dated US entry to World War II by almost two years.

The 9/11 attack has also had a traumatic effect on US opinion, to an extent that most Europeans simply do not understand. As someone said of America, it will never be the 10th of September again. Security will trump other considerations almost every time.

So while Europeans and Americans are indeed united in defending almost identical interests and values on a global scale, we sometimes approach the task with different reflexes.

Building a better relationship with the Muslim World

Let me say a word now about the principal tasks we face together.

A better relationship with the Muslim world is needed. If nuclear terrorism is the greatest physical threat we face, the most likely motivation of such terrorism is to be found in the Middle East. That is only one of the many reasons why we need to develop a new relationship with the Middle East, and with Islam.

A theological or politico/philosophical dialogue with Muslims is not easy for Christians or Jews. Muslims believe that their particular insight into God’s will is more advanced than that of other religions. Relativism about religious matters is something entirely foreign to them.

But democracy and tolerance have much support among Muslims.

Respect is the key here. We must show interest in, and respect for, Muslim points of view. We must learn to empathize, even if we do not agree.

Ingredients in a Peaceful order in the Middle East

I believe the Israel/Palestine question is a touchstone issue.

Israel’s security must not be threatened, but Israel’s long-term security is best guaranteed in a mutually agreed territorial settlement with the Palestinians. Palestinians can and do find this attractive because they have no wish to continue living the confined and uncertain existence they have had for the past forty years.

But if there is to be serious negotiation, both sides need to see the outlines of a settlement from an early stage.

It took the two sides in Northern Ireland thirty-three years, from 1974 to 2007, eventually to return to the settlement that was promulgated at Sunningdale in 1973. But if the Sunningdale model had never been promulgated in the first place, there would have been nothing to return to, no paradigm, no scenario of compromise – just continued nihilist conflict.

Israelis and Palestinians need now to see a similarly detailed scenario of compromise – covering precise borders, security arrangements, shared spaces, movement rights, etc. This scenario might not be accepted immediately by either side, but, as in Ireland, it would put those who would use violence on the defensive, by requiring them to show that they really did have something so much better to offer that it justifies all the suffering they were inflicting. I believe the United States, with European support, could offer such a scenario of compromise.

Respect – equal respect - is a key issue here too. If one is to demand, as a precondition to admission to negotiation, that Palestinians accept Israel’s absolute right to exist, respect requires that this be accompanied by a clear, concrete and visible demonstration that the Palestinians’ equivalent right to a viable, manageable and reasonably sized state is also accepted.

Also, I have to add that my own personal experience would suggest that it is not always wise to make acceptance of an issue of principle a precondition to any negotiation. The Irish Peace Process would never have got off the ground if the prior repeal of Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution (thereby acknowledging Northern Ireland’s de jure right to exist) had been made a precondition to any negotiation.

The US-sponsored conference in Annapolis is a very important event and shows important leadership by the United States on this topic.

Iran

There is deep concern about the possibility of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. Israel sees that possibility as a threat to its very existence. So too might Saudi Arabia. The nuclear non-proliferation regime might break down. That regime has already been weakened by the acquisition of a nuclear weapon by India and Pakistan (which never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and many countries are also concerned that the established nuclear powers are upgrading their arsenals, notwithstanding a Treaty commitment to reduce them.

Can Iran be persuaded not to develop a nuclear weapon within the coming years?

Western interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq have strengthened Iran’s strategic position and enhanced its confidence. But Iran still has a great need for western technology to develop its society. Its oil infrastructure is decayed. It needs trade and investment. It has a huge young population needing jobs. It needs security too, surrounded as it is by well-armed neighbours. The West could help Iran in these matters.

With US support, the EU has sought to persuade Iran to accept such an approach. Iran says it wants a direct and comprehensive dialogue with the United States, as well as with Europe.

Perhaps Iran cannot be trusted. Maybe now is the time to put that to the test.

One approach would be to set a time limit for a comprehensive and direct negotiation with Iran, but to set no limit as subject matter. Then one could see if a solution could be found, before more severe measures were contemplated.

Humanizing globalization

Since 1991, both the European Union and the United States have enjoyed sustained economic prosperity. This is a period of sixteen years of uninterrupted growth – something almost without precedent in post-war economic history.

This is due in no small measure to globalization. The labour force available in the world, to do the work that needed to be done, has doubled over those sixteen years. This is thanks to the opening up to the world of the economies of China, India and the former Soviet bloc.

Meanwhile information and communications technology, and cheaper transport, have allowed Europe and America to have its less well paid work done in those emerging economies, while upgrading the quality and the pay level of its own workers to new better jobs.

Offshoring of work has not actually led to a reduction in the number of jobs in Europe or America. It has, in fact, led to a big increase in incomes overall, although the benefits of this increase have not been equally shared. Those at the upper income levels have certainly got the biggest gains.

There is quite an amount of hostility to globalization in Europe – but the pattern is quite varied.

When asked in a poll in 2006, “Does globalization represent a threat to employment and companies in our country?,” almost 60% of French and Greek citizens answered “yes,” whereas little over 20% said “yes” in Sweden, and just 30% said so in Denmark, Italy and Ireland.

I expect that there would be big regional differences within the United States too, in the way people would answer the same question.

An end to globalization and a closing of markets would dramatically disrupt the lives of Europeans and Americans. An attempt by the US and Europe to close down globalization selectively, by using our present disproportionate economic power to shut out products and services that compete with American and European jobs, while continuing to let in the things we want but cannot produce ourselves, would store up huge resentment against both Europe and America in other countries.

That is why we have to find ways to humanize globalization, to demonstrate its benefits to our citizens while managing its downsides.

We need to look at our tax and social service systems to see if they can be used to mitigate the increased income inequality within countries that have been generated by globalization. We need to devise smart training systems that really do increase the employability of vulnerable workers, rather than just salve the consciences of employers or of governments. And we need to look at the way work is organized so as to minimize unnecessary stress and insecurity, while recognizing that neither can be completely avoided.

I believe it is only if we take that sort of holistic approach that we will create the political conditions that will sustain continued support for something that is actually very good for us – globalization and freer trade.

Climate change, free trade, and immigration – three linked issues

Another challenge Europe and America must face together is climate change, an issue that is closely connected with preserving the open global trading system, and minimizing forced emigration.

Let me illustrate why these three issues are linked.

It will be very difficult to keep global markets open in the absence of a global agreement on sharing the pain of mitigating climate change. Countries or trade blocs that are voluntarily incurring competitiveness losses to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions will come under pressure to adopt what the European Parliament recently described as:

“border adjustment measures applicable to trade in order to offset any short-term competitive advantage that producers in industrialized countries without carbon constraints might have.”

That is another way of describing a trade war over climate, something that could wreck the WTO [World Trade Organization].

Likewise Europe faces the possibility of huge migration flows from Africa caused by refugee crises arising directly from wars that have been triggered by droughts and crop failures that have been caused by climate change. The war in Darfur is partly due to climate change.

Measuring greenhouse gas emission fairly and accurately will also be a major task. Trust will not be easily won, especially in the trading of international emissions permits.

The European Union’s approach is to set emission reduction targets – for itself as a bloc and for other developed countries - but to leave it to individual countries to devise the mix of policies that will achieve these targets. We also favour a global cap and trade system.

I think we need to devise a cost-benefit scale for climate change policies. Simple things like replacing light bulbs and insulating buildings, while not as attractive to big engineering companies as carbon sequestration, nuclear generation, or so-called “clean” coal, may give a much bigger and much quicker return.

There may also be a place for simply banning the sale of certain energy inefficient products. The European Union is already going in this direction by proposing a ban on the sale of all new cars, after 2012, that exceed CO2 emissions exceeding 120 grams per kilometer. Such bans are simple and easily enforced, and bring quicker results than some marginal or sophisticated market based incentives, that most consumers will not understand.

But, most of all, we need an international agreement on climate change to which every country, developed and developing, makes a proportionate contribution. It must be binding and solid if it is to provide a basis for long-term investments and lifestyle changes. The forthcoming UN conference in Bali must move us quickly towards such a comprehensive agreement.

The Doha Round

The Doha Round represents a unique opportunity for poorer developing countries to act together to reduce and discipline trade-distorting subsidies in the world, and notably in the US. Indeed, while the EU has already reformed the CAP [Common Agricultural Policy] and has switched to fully decoupled direct payments that do not distort trade, the US has taken the opposite direction with its 2002 Farm Bill and in discussion in the Congress for the successor Farm Bill. These proposals will not lead to any substantial reforms unless a Doha agreement is reached.

The United States also needs the WTO to be seen to work, and so does the EU. We both gain from open markets. A return to protectionism would empty our supermarket shelves, push up our household budgets and impoverish our families. An undermining of the moral authority of the Doha disputes settlement mechanism would damage our interests.

But developing countries would gain most from a successful round. The highest trade barriers are between poor countries. These barriers lead to misallocation of scarce economic resources, to lack of specialization and to high consumer prices among peoples that can least afford to pay them.

A Doha Round that brought down those barriers, in a predictable and planned way, could increase living standards and leave the poorest countries less reliant on negotiating bilateral trade agreements with bigger and richer trade blocs, where they are in a weaker negotiating position than in a global round.

Conclusion

This is why the European Commission is working for a Doha Round trade deal. It is also why we are working for a global climate agreement.

The European Union wants to show that humanity can govern itself, and can determine its own future, rather than be prey to blind forces of nature – whether these be forces of greedy human nature, or the unpredictable forces of a natural world whose balance we have carelessly disturbed.