MingCampbell.org.uk

A New Trans-Atlantic Relationship for a New President

Rt Hon Sir Menzies Campbell CBE QC MP
Chancellor of the University of St. Andrews and Member of Parliament for North East Fife

Speech at Georgetown University.
Thursday 30th October

It is a very great privilege to be here in this great university, the nation’s oldest Catholic and Jesuit university, founded in 1789 – the year of the French Revolution and the coming into effect of the Constitution of the United States.

I stand here in two capacities, as Chancellor of St. Andrews University, Scotland’s oldest University founded in 1411 by papal bull, and second as a Member of the UK Parliament.

In both of these capacities I harbour a deep and abiding affection for the United States, based on my time as a postgraduate student in the Stanford Law School and frequent visits since.

Fifteen percent of St. Andrews university students come from the United States.

Our departments of counter-terrorism are both justifiably renowned, and St. Andrews the town remains a Mecca for many American golfers.

The common religious heritage has I fear not survived.

St. Andrews became a focal point of the Reformation in Scotland, and a forum for John Knox – a disciple of Calvin.

David Beaton, Archbishop of St. Andrews caused George Wishart a leading advocate of the Reformation to be burned at the stake. The arch bishop was subsequently murdered by Wishart supporters and his body hung from the battlements of the castle.

We are on better terms now….at least I hope so…

There is a strong hint of old Europe arrogance in a British citizen coming to Washington and purporting to advise an incoming US President.

The new President will face a daunting agenda and a possibly more difficult set of international challenges than any of his predecessors since World War Two.

And one of these challenges will be the Trans-Atlantic relationship.

This contains two components; first the relationship between the USA and Great Britain – who share a common language and whose histories are inextricably interwoven.

This relationship is in and of itself of a wholly different nature to relationships with the other great nations of Europe. The term ‘Anglo-American’ has a distinct meaning all of its own when applied to politics.

The second component is the relationship between the USA and the rest of Europe. The USA has what could be described as a series of special relationships with European capitals – Berlin, Paris, Rome, Madrid – and increasingly Warsaw, Budapest, Bucharest.

But it also has an increasingly important relationship with Brussels, home of the institutions of NATO and the EU.

In Britain, the focus is invariably on relations between London and Washington.

Churchill and Roosevelt, Macmillan and Kennedy, Thatcher and Reagan all had successful political relationships buttressed by personal chemistry.

LBJ and Harold Wilson could hardly bear to be in the same room together, and George Bush Snr. and Margaret Thatcher hardly hit it off, but common interest overcame personality differences.

Tony Blair moved smoothly from a close personal friendship with Bill Clinton to an even more comfortable relationship with George W. Bush.

The irony is that in spite of the Blair-Bush relationship, the Atlantic has never seemed so wide or so deep.

All of which emboldens me to offer some thoughts on how we bind up the wounds and reinvigorate our common purpose.

The trans-Atlantic relationship is based on common principles and common interests.

But not always a common strategy.

Consider if you will -

If the President of the United States had addressed the world after the horrifying events of 9/11 and had characterised them as a ‘crime against humanity’ rather than embarking on the so-called “War against Terror” and he had thereafter with the active co-operation and support of the whole of Europe proceeded to use every tool in international law, including legitimate military force to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Would the world now be a different place?

Consider too –

If the British Prime Minister when he visited the American President for the summit in April 2002 had told him that there was no evidence that Iraq had played any part in the events of 9/11.

And if at that time he had also told the President at that the legal advice he had received did not support regime change; and further that the U.K. could not take part in any military action against Iraq without explicit authority from the UN Security Council.

Would the world be now a different place?

My purpose in asking these questions is not to re-write history but to demonstrate that personality always matters in politics.

In a crisis, the judgements of individuals and their beliefs will dramatically affect the decisions they take.

But some personalities by reason simply of their office have greater influence than others.

The occupant of the White House is one such personality.

Whoever is chosen by the American people in a few days time may well radically alter the years ahead – not only for Americans, but for Europeans, for Africans, for Asians, for Iraqis, Afghanis, Iranians, Syrians, Israelis and Palestinians.

But such power to influence is not unlimited in democratic societies.

There are factors which limit the actions of the national leader.

Political and social culture, geography, technology, legal systems, military and diplomatic capacity, a free media, the views of allies and treaty obligations – all of these have the capacity to limit room for manoeuvre.

With these preliminary observations, today I intend to try and look ahead to see how the relationship across the Atlantic can be made effective in meeting the foreign policy challenges that Europe and America face.

The Issues

The in-tray of the new American President is complex and demanding.

If we set aside the economic crisis for the moment, the issues which the new President will face require focus, attention and leadership.

A stable Iraq that can stand on its own two feet?

Containing the Taliban in Afghanistan and building a working unified state?

Helping to improve stability in Pakistan?

Preventing Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from entrenching and extending their fanaticism?

Breaking the logjam in the Middle East peace process?

These are only some of the immediate challenges.

The long term strategic demands are just as pressing.

Countering the spread of nuclear weapons and materials.

Addressing the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea.

Countering re-emerging Russian nationalism.

Managing China peacefully into constructive participation in international affairs.

Poverty and conflict in Africa.

Remodelling international institutions for a globalised world.

And of course possibly the most important of all, tackling climate change to ensure the survival of our citizens and civilisation itself.

Meeting multiple challenges is not new territory for the American President.

The United States as the most powerful nation in the world has been at the heart of the solutions to many crises over the last century.

The defeat of Nazism, the reconstruction of Europe, the creation of a rules based system of international relations and resistance to communism.

In this last America was aided by the unifying threats explicit in the Cold War and a common trans-Atlantic approach of containment which encouraged coherent decision making.

With American leadership joint strategic decisions could be taken within a structure that was generally understood no matter which side of the wall you stood on.

But the so-called “War on Terror” - is not a strategy.

It is unfocused, ill-defined and counter productive.

As Richard Holbrooke has written, it is “simultaneously too broad and too limited”.

It is ill suited for application to the long-term issues I have set out above.

And the tactics used to prosecute the “War on Terror” have undermined common trans-Atlantic objectives.

The American government and its allies have been morally and legally exposed as a result.

The invasion of Iraq in particular has allowed other nations to withstand legitimate US and European disapproval over their actions – Russia’s adventurism in Georgia for instance.

The suspension of legal and moral codes – as evidenced in detention at Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, torture – has been a profound mistake.

This has affected America’s ability to lead and Europe willingness to support.

The current economic crisis generates a new series of security issues.

History teaches us that extreme nationalism flourishes in times of severe economic hardship.

Extremist movements of the right and left offer simplistic but superficially attractive solutions to people anxious and disheartened by the near collapse of the global financial system.

Countries with less robust institutions and traditions of liberal democracy are not immune to the attractions of nationalism.

We must recognise that a mark of the interconnected nature of the globalised financial system is that contagion can spread so fast and have such far reaching consequences.

Household names o both sides of the Atlantic have failed or been taken over.

Russian stocks for example, have fallen 70% since May.

The IMF is having to bail out Hungary and Ukraine.

And the emerging economies of the former Warsaw Pact are under threat.

Even the economic transformation of China is restricted to growth of 9% - although most of us would settle for that!

The ‘great capitalist peace’ that has been predicted since the end of the Cold War is unlikely to be so great, so capitalist or so peaceful.

In these changing circumstances it is salutatory to remind ourselves that economic strength and global influence go hand in hand.

The histories of our two countries are an eloquent testament to the umbilical relationship between economic might and global influence.

Can we be sure that the America which emerges from this turmoil will be as confident, as self-assured, as outward looking?

Can we be sure that protectionism and even isolationism will not find their supporters in the U.S.A.?

In truth the American response to the economic crisis will define whether America can still lead in the way to which it has become accustomed.

While any decline in Europe’s strength will affect its capacity to be a strong component in a renewed Atlantic partnership.

The new President will have to have clear strategic objectives in order to tackle the external issues that face this country.

He will have a better chance of success if he can enlist the support of his trans-Atlantic allies.

Let me adopt a European perspective.

Senator Obama appears to offer a change of tone compared to Senator McCain, but on policy issues such as Iran, the Middle East peace process, nuclear proliferation, the differences between the two men are more easily discernible to those who understand the nuances of the American political debate.

As the presidential campaign has progressed, substantial differences are harder to find.

For example in relation to the American commitment to Iraq what is the difference in substance on the issue of troop withdrawal?

Senator Obama had initially voiced a willingness to speak directly to unpalatable regimes.

But recently, he has made it clear that face to face talks could only occur after significant so-called ‘preparation’.

Is this not ‘pre-conditions’ by another name?

Senator Obama has also felt it necessary to strengthen his pro-Israel position as the election has approached, no doubt under the kind of pressure he is facing today.

One significant point of difference would appear to be Senator McCain’s wish to move outside of the United Nations with the creation of a ‘league of democracies’.

Is this not in effect the continuation of the Bush policy of ‘coalitions of the willing’ created to bypass the UN Security Council when American policy is frustrated?

There is no great zeal for Senator McCain’s idea among America’s allies.

And taking Iraq as a test case, given the attitudes of the French and German governments at the time, would acting through a ‘league of democracies’ rather than the UN have been any less divisive?

But is this proposal of Senator McCain a difference of real substance between two candidates?

Senator Obama rarely mentions the United Nations except to make general pledges of UN reform.

To European ears in tone he seems more sympathetic to the role of international institutions than his opponent.

But would this translate into a wholly different approach to the United Nations?

Senator Obama’s Advisers certainly project a candidate who would do things differently, who would engage more with allies, who is a natural multilateralist.

In response, Europeans who hope for an American President, described by the Guardian’s Jonathan Steele, as “less aggressive, less unilateral, less imperial, and more attuned with the complexities of international policy”, pin their hopes on Barack Obama.

Indeed if Europe had to vote there is no doubt who would win.

But what Europeans fail to understand is that they will not get a European in the White House, but an American.

European affection for the Clinton administration lingers on.

But it was the Clinton Administration that rejected the International Criminal Court, rejected an international ban on landmines, began the process which led to withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and only signed the Kyoto Treaty in its very last day in office.

Who is to say that once faced with the realities and responsibilities of office President Obama will not adopt the same approach?

In foreign affairs the frequently asked question is whether it is strategic interests or national values that drive policy.

In democratic countries the answer is both.

In the first place, it is the appeal to ‘national values’ that ensures the popular support required for election to the highest office.

Senator Obama’s description of America as the “best, last hope of Earth” is a statement of idealism in the tradition of President Woodrow Wilson who declared that the United States was created “not to serve ourselves, but to serve mankind.”

It would be easy to dismiss such rhetoric as mere politicking and uninformative of a President’s actions once in power.

But I believe this would be to misjudge the American political character.

Politics loves definitive sound bites….no more Munich’s, axis of evil, mission accomplished……but in American politics it seems to me that moral certainty and a sense of destiny are central to the debate about America’s place in the world.

What many Europeans fail to understand and where to a certain extent their enthusiasm for Senator Obama should be tempered, is that since the end of the Cold War the spectrum of United States foreign policy has lain between unilateralism on one hand and multilateralism on the other.

Whether this is accurately expressed as unilateral if we can, multilateral if we must is a moot point.

Certainly more attractive to European ears is multilateral if we can, unilateral if we must.

But in reality the distinction is more verbal than substantial.

The spectrum always remains the same and at any one time it will be a matter of judgement for an incumbent President where he positions himself.

It will be a rare occasion when that position is not determined by national interest.

Despite John McCain talking of “good international citizenship” and Barack Obama of “renewing American leadership” it must be an open to question whether the new circumstances will result in a wholehearted United States commitment to multilateralism.

In foreign affairs power is ephemeral.

It is not based on title, but on influence, and the ability to bring your party, your government and your country with you and the belief that you can deliver on promises made.

As this election approaches, real power is slipping away from the Bush administration and its ability to deliver on promises or bring people to the table is waning.

The American system of government ensures that the political appointments of any new administration penetrate deep into the State Department.

A change of administration always brings a significant change in personnel.

Therefore an opportunity always presents itself.

It would be impossible to prescribe in advance common positions on every issue where the United States and Europe have similar interests.

Much more sensible is to identify areas where interests will coincide.

Here are five foreign policy issues that would benefit from a unified common approach.

First, the Middle East has occupied a quite extraordinary amount of diplomatic effort on both sides of the Atlantic. And to no lasting peace.

Achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians serves the national interests of both Europeans and Americans.

It is surely time that this effort should be rewarded.

In that regard, who believes that any meaningful settlement can be achieved that does not accommodate Hamas nor take account of the fact that in democratic elections, they were the preferred choice of so many Palestinians.

Who also believes that a lasting settlement can be achieved until all of the Arab League states unequivocally undertake to recognise Israel and to respect its borders.

Here is an opportunity for trans-Atlantic co-operation and a concerted effort at breaking the logjam.

Second - a common approach to issues of nuclear proliferation and disarmament.

Both candidates for the Presidency talk positively of reducing the nuclear arsenal of the US. This is obviously to be welcomed.

A common Trans-Atlantic position on nuclear disarmament building on the Schultz-Kissinger-Perry-Nunn initiative in which Britain and France are active participants should be explored.

If we are serious about prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power and further proliferation in the region, every effort should be made to bring Israel into a non-proliferation framework and to use the 2010 NPT review conference for the promotion of a nuclear free zone in the Middle East.

No matter how many legal, moral or security arguments are made for the still unconfirmed possession of nuclear weapons by Israel, it remains my opinion that a nuclear Israel encourages proliferation in the Middle East.

Third – a common approach to Russia.

Since the end of the Cold War, a unified allied approach to Russia has slowly loosened.

Vladimir Putin has been astute at forming strong bi-lateral relationships with individual European states and their leaders.

Many European states now have significantly complex economic relationship with Russia.

Many rely heavily on Russian energy resources.

Russia’s re-emergence, in Putin’s disingenuous phrase as “a managed democracy”, should galvanise the trans-Atlantic partnership.

We should not seek a return to Cold War thinking but we should learn its lessons.

George Kennan put it best:

“It is a sine qua non of successful dealing with Russia that the government in question should remain at all times cool and collected and that its demands on Russian policy should be put forward in such a manner as to leave the way open for a compliance not too detrimental to Russian prestige”.

Fourth, a unified programme of assistance to the developing world.

The economic crisis provides us with an opportunity to remodel the Bretton Woods institutions, including our approach to aid and trade with the poorest countries – most of who are on the continent of Africa and for whom climate change could threaten their very existence.

A common trans-Atlantic strategy, in which aid flows, trade agreements and conflict resolution strategies are co-ordinated through international institutions, the UN, charities and regional institutions such as the African Union, would make for more effective action and avoid duplication.

Fifth, and perhaps most ambitious, would be to begin work on the creation of a trans-Atlantic free trade area, which linked the economies of NAFTA to those of the enlarged European Union.

As a traditional European Liberal, I believe that free trade and free markets bring prosperity.

I understand the challenges that globalisation brings of a globalised economy, particularly the contest between for productivity and living standards in which the East currently holds a unique advantage against the West.

But, in my view, the worst response to the economic challenge would be a retreat into protectionism.

The prospect of a trans-Atlantic free trade area as part of the re-regulation of the global economic system should be pursued.

So in these five areas, the Middle East, nuclear proliferation and disarmament, Russia, development and free trade, a strategic trans-Atlantic partnership would be both possible and desirable.

But if we are to rebuild our relationship, it is important that both the US and Europe address the issues of common responsibility that partnership brings.

What signals could the US send to Europe?

A unequivocal commitment to the rule of international law and respect for human rights even at the risk of embarrassing existing or former allies.

The closure of Guantanamo Bay to which both Senators Obama and McCain are committed would be a positive beginning.

A second signal would be tangible demonstration of a commitment to the United Nations.

What signals should Europe send to the United States?

A recognition that Europe has not contributed sufficiently to the military burden of allied commitments in NATO and most particularly in Afghanistan.

Europeans need to recognise that to exercise influence they need to be willing to assume responsible.

No European nation alone can hope to emulate the strength, breadth and technology of the full spectrum military force of which the United States is capable.

A serious commitment to a European Security and Defence Policy would make a good start provided that commitment is underscored by resources.

I have spent most of my time today on political relationships with a brief acknowledgement of the institutional relationship between our too universities.

But ‘relationship’ should not be defined in a restrictive way.

Ties of family, culture and commerce are powerful reminders of how much we share.

The space devoted in the media to the present presidential election exceeds anything I can ever remember on similar occasions in the past.

The interest in the United States and our common interests with the United States are vital.

But the context in which these are best pursued is necessarily dictated by a vibrant political relationship.

It is time to redraw, renew and reinvigorate that relationship.