Thursday, 13 June 2013

A BIOGRAPHY OF A NOT SO NICE GUY



I bought “American Scoundrel...the life of the notorious civil war general Dan Sickles” by Thomas Keneally in the After Words bookstore in Chicago recently, when there on business, and I am really glad I did.

Keneally is an Australian author, of Irish descent, and is the author of “Schindlers List”, which is also based on a true story, and was made into a very good movie.  “American Scoundrel” would make a great movie too, with its mixture of low and high politics, adultery, betrayal, exotic diplomacy, and warfare. The book was published by Anchor Books
Keneally became interested in Dan Sickles when researching the life of Thomas Francis Meagher, the Waterford born Young Irelander, who was imprisoned in Australia after the failure of the 1848 rebellion, but escaped from there to go on to have a career in the United States as a politician, lawyer, and leader of one of the Irish regiments who fought on the Union side in the American Civil War.

The flag of Meagher’s regiment was presented to Dail Eireann by the late President Kennedy in 1963, and I used to look at every day as I came in and out of the Library in Leinster House. I had an added interest in it, in that I once stayed in the house where Meagher was born in Waterford (now the Bridge Hotel), and attended the same school as Meagher, though not at the same time! 
Dan Sickles was a close political associate of Meagher in New York politics, and when Sickles was later tried for the murder of his wife’s lover, Meagher was a member of his legal team, charged with coming up rhetorical flourishes that would impress the jury.
Sickles was an effective, if unscrupulous, politician. He was largely responsible for the preservation for recreation of Central Park in New York city, something he gets little credit for nowadays.
He was a Democrat in politics, and initially favoured concessions to the Southern states on the question of slavery, to keep them in the Union.

But when the South fired the first shot, at Fort Sumter in Charleston harbour, he took a strongly pro Union position and used his political name to raise a large number of volunteers in New York for the Union army. On the strength of his recruiting efforts, and without any military experience, he became a General in the Union Army.
And this happened after Sickles had been controversially acquitted of the murder of his  wife’s lover, Barton Key, a man who happened to be the son of the author of the Star Spangled Banner. 
Sickles had neglected his young wife, and  had carried on several public affairs with women, while married, including a notorious brothel keeper. Yet, when he discovered his wife herself had had an affair, to which she confessed, and he saw her lover Barton Key outside on the street, he armed himself, went out and shot the unarmed Key dead.
But he was acquitted in the trial , because it was considered that a man had a right to defend his honour in this way, and because, as one of Sickles lawyers put it, “the personal body of the wife was the property of the husband” (notwithstanding his own notorious misbehaviour). The jury accepted this notion.

Sickles once acquitted, quickly regained his good reputation, and went on to become a close friend of President Lincoln and a General. His wife, in contrast, could barely appear in public for the remainder of her short life. She died of TB at the age of 31. Sickles remarried,  was equally disloyal to his second wife, but lived to be re elected to Congress in 1892, having first served there in the 1850’s.
This book is well worth reading for the insight it gives in social attitudes in the nineteenth century and how different these are from those prevailing today. It also presents a great insight into the politics immediately preceding the American Civil War.

Monday, 10 June 2013

SYRIA , SOMALIA, TRADE ROUTES AND ENERGY----WHAT ARE EUROPE’S VITAL INTERESTS, AND HOW CAN IT BEST PROTECT THEM?

Next December, the European Union will have a special Summit meeting devoted to defence matters.

This is an important meeting because European countries have substantial mutual values and interests to defend, militarily and otherwise.

Europeans want to prevent genocide anywhere in the world. We remember what happened in Rwanda when the international community could not, or would not, act.

But we have more selfish interests too. Europeans import 50% of our energy, often from unstable parts of the world. We live by trade, so we need to keep vital trade routes open. We want to avoid huge uncontrolled flows of refugees into Europe from conflicts in our vicinity.

As a continent with 20% of the world income, but only 7% of its population, we want to uphold international law. 
Most EU member states are members of NATO, which is a military alliance and has capacity to deal with such questions. Some, like Ireland, maintain a policy of military neutrality. 
NATO is heavily, and perhaps unhealthily, dependent on the military strength and will of the United States. The United States share of NATO spending has risen from 63% in 2001 to 77% today. 
United States and European interests will not always be identical. The US will soon be self sufficient in energy, the EU is unlikely to be so in the foreseeable future. EU and US attitudes to international law are not always identical....for example on Guantanamo and drones.

Although the US pays the bulk of NATO’s bills, EU nations spend a great deal on defence. In fact they spend 200 billion euros a year, which is more than the defence spending of Russia, China and Japan combined!

But is EU defence spending as cost effective as that of, say, China?

There is a lot of duplication in defence spending by EU states, which is difficult to afford or justify, when other forms of spending are being cut back. EU states have 23 different types of armoured vehicle,4 different types of tank, and 7 different types of helicopter, which would make it more difficult for EU states to synchronise operations or  pool spare parts, if they did have to fight together in mutual defence, whether in a NATO context or otherwise.  
The European Union has an agreed security strategy. It was prepared for it by Javier Solana in 2003. It said that, for the EU, the 

”first line of defence will often be abroad”. 

But EU states lack the capacity to transport troops and equipment long distances, and have to rely on the Americans for this. This means that the EU is not the master of its own defence policy. At critical moments, the US is.
Among EU states, only The United Kingdom and France have significant military capacity. And these are the only EU states with seats on the UN Security Council. This gives them inordinate influence. 
For example, the EU recently lifted its  embargo on supplying arms to the parties in the Syrian civil war, a course demanded by France and the UK, who favour the rebels, although the other 25 EU states wanted to keep the embargo in place. On matters like this, where decisions are supposed to be unanimous, 2 states were still able to get their way over 25! 

We now have a strange situation in Syria where Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda are on the same side. 
Already in Iraq, western intervention has released sectarian forces  that led to a decimation of the Christian minority in that country. The same is likely to happen in Syria, if the side favoured by France and Britain wins. 
One has to ask if this is compatible with either the values, or the security interests, of the European Union.

One also has to ask if the concept of European Union defence can have much reality, if decisions on it, are made by the same system by which the Syria arms decision was made. 
That said, EU military cooperation has had some notable successes.

For the EU, safe sea lanes are a vital interest. 90% of all EU trade travels by sea. A few years ago piracy off the coast of Somalia was a huge problem for EU ships coming out of the Red Sea into the Indian Ocean, a vital trade route for EU exports to Asia. Now, thanks to a combination of  EU naval action, and EU development aid to Somalia, piracy on this sea route has been cut by 95%.
The European Union has also had considerable success in brokering a peace deal between Serbia and Kosovo. It has been able to do this, partly because both countries would like eventually to be members of the European Union.
A neutral island nation like Ireland has strategic interests to look after too. It needs trade routes to remain open. It needs to be able to import energy. It needs peace in Europe if it is to prosper.

Defence costs money.

The decision Ireland has to make is whether its security can be achieved more cost effectively by greater pooling of resources on defence matters with other EU states, or by  acting independently. This is a discussion that should take place before the December EU Summit.

Sunday, 2 June 2013

A TRANSATLANTIC TRADE AND INVESTMENT DEAL COULD GIVE THE WORLD ECONOMY A BADLY NEEDED CONFIDENCE BOOST


I had a meeting this week in Dublin with the members of the Transatlantic Legislators Dialogue (TLD).

This body brings together members of the United States House of Representatives, and members of the European Parliament for regular discussions. In many respects, these are the two most powerful legislative bodies in the world. So their  cooperation is  a vital global interest.

When I was EU Ambassador in Washington, I had a great deal of involvement with TLD and attended many of their meetings.
One of the big topics for the TLD was the possibility of a comprehensive Trade and investment Partnership (TTIP) being negotiated between the European Union and the United States.

If such a deal could be agreed it would cover over half of all the economic activity in the world. It would be a boost to the economy because it would remove barriers and inefficiencies that prevent Europeans and Americans realising their full economic potential. 

Even without an agreement, investment across the Atlantic supports 7 million jobs. For example, 70% of all foreign investment in the US comes from Europe, and US firms have more investment in Ireland that they have in China! Californian firms export twice as much to Europe as they do to China.
Among the barriers that might be swept away by a TTIP  are 
+ Tariffs on good exports, that average 3%.  Eliminating these tariffs could boost exports in both directions by 7%
+ Unnecessarily complex and duplicative customs formalities
+ Restrictions on European involvement in the provision of passenger air transport inside the United States, which means Americans pay unduly high air fares
+ Similar restrictions on European involvement in Shipping between US ports, which add to the price of goods
+ Restrictions on the provisions of services in one another’s markets in fields like insurance, education, computer services and logistics
+ Restrictions on the supply of goods and services to governments on both sides of the Atlantic, which mean that taxpayers pay more taxes  than they would if their governments could buy from the least expensive supplier regardless of nationality
+ Insufficient cooperation in combating counterfeiting, and theft of copyright and  of intellectual property
+ Non tariff barriers, and duplication of tests, that arise from having different standards, and different testing procedures, for electrical goods, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and other products
+ Restrictions on the sale of food products across the Atlantic, because of protective tariffs, and differently applied food safety standards

All these restrictions involve  potential misallocation of resources, and  waste or sub optimal use of time, talent, and material. Removing these restrictions could add 70 billion euros to the world economy.

The negotiation of this agreement will not be easy.

It would have been better if a new comprehensive global trade and investment deal could have been made through the World Trade Organisation (WTO), because it would have been open to every country in the world, and the WTO has a well established system for settling disputes. A transatlantic deal may lack that.

But the WTO talks collapsed so this is the best available option.

It is also urgent for Europe because the United States is negotiating a trans Pacific deal, which might diminish Europe’s relative position.
Among the leading figures who took part in the meeting were US Congress members,Mario Diaz Balart, Henry Cuellar, Michael Turner and Bill Keating.

On the European side, the delegation was led by Christian Ehler MEP and Elmar Brok MEP. Also included were former Commissiomer, Danuta Huebner MEP, Sarah Ludford MEP and Sean Kelly MEP.