The UC Washington Center is located at:

1608 Rhode Island Ave NW # 2
Washington, DC 20036-3206

For more information, please click here to download the event’s flyer or contact us:

May 5, 2010
by Bob Guttman and Stephanie Cotta

“Could Lehman Brothers have been better off as the Lehman sisters?” joked Connie Morella, former congresswoman (R-MD) on the Women’s Perspective Panel, hosted by the Bertelsmann Foundation on Earth Day April 22.  A major point of discussion among the all-women panel was whether we would have had such a devastating financial crisis if women were in charge of major Wall Street firms.  Debate was sparked on this discussion, because the theory was that women are less likely to take risks in what Morella called the “devils casino.”  Panelist Susan Segal, President and CEO of Americas Society and Council of the Americas, argued that the crash was bound to happen (as these things happen in cycles) but that it would have been on a smaller scale, since women are less likely to take “gambling risks.”  On the other hand, Katherine Weymouth, Publisher and CEO of Washington Post Media said she doesn’t feel like she handles running a company “any different than a man would.” Furthermore, the panel, ably guided by CNBC’s Becky Quick, emphasized that gender wasn’t the point of major importance, but rather diversity that needs to be more equally distributed throughout senior positions in business.

The panel agreed that the financial crisis would have been different if there were more diversity throughout Wall Street and Congress.  Vishakha Desai, president of Asia Society, said “they don’t listen to each other” in Congress because they aren’t accepting of diverse ideas and opinion, something that women can bring to the table.  More readily, would the financial crash have been avoided if women ran the show?  The general conclusion was that, of course, we will never know; it just would have been different.

Another topic covered during the conference was how to stimulate the economy in crisis.  Steve Case, co-founder of AOL and current CEO of Revolution felt that the way forward was through entrepreneurship and innovation.  Case alluded to the fact that in the information age, people trust technology to solve their problems more so than the government.

Dr. Gunter Thielen, in his opening statement for the second annual Opportunities in Crisis 2: Defining New Avenues of Growth Conference which looked at the financial crisis worldwide spoke of “casino capitalism” which threatens everyone’s financial systems.  Dr. Thielen stated, “If we continue with casino capitalism, then sooner or later the legitimacy of our entire economic system will come into question on a global level.  A globalized world also needs effective structures, so that we can agree on priorities, make far-reaching decisions, coordinate our efforts and take action.  Our existing governance organizations include too few of the relevant actors or simply cannot keep pace with today’s many developments.  In order to work, globalization needs global governance.”

With the emphasis of the Obama Administration to stress the G20 over the G8 in economic matters maybe they are listening to what Dr. Thielen is proposing.

And with the Greek debt problem endangering an already weak recovery in Europe, the world needs to act together to solve our massive economic and financial problems.

Congressman Darrell Issa (R-California) speaking at the Bertelsmann conference about the debt crisis in Greece said, “Some call California these days Greece II because we have a large debt and no innovative mentality.”

And while others at the Bertelsmann/FT conference discussed the need for stricter government regulation of the economy to prevent future financial meltdowns, AOL Founder Steve Case remarked, “Government would be smart to keep its hands off and not regulate too early as this could stifle creativity” among entrepreneurs.

The Director-General of the World Trade Organization Pascal Lamy, speaking at the conference at the Newseum in Washington, DC felt that “the real engine for recovery is trade”.   He said the goal of the 153 members of the WTO is to complete the Doha Trade Round and called trade “a form of global stimulus especially for developing nations.”

While most of the conference, with speakers from around the planet, focused on financial and economic concerns, the President of the Pew Research Center Andrew Kohut spoke out on the lack of confidence a large number of Americans have towards their elected leaders.  Kohut commented that “30% of the public says the federal government is a threat to their personal freedom and they feel the government has a negative effect on their lives.”

Kohut said the American “electorate is skeptical and disillusioned” and that the military and technology firms are more highly thought of than the President or Congress.   He remarked that the “American people are edgy over President Obama and he is seen as too left”.   And, he went on to say that “the public feels the stimulus and TARP did not work.”   The largest issue on people’s minds is lack of jobs and high unemployment.

Hopefully, the world economies will be so vastly improved that there may not be a need for a financial crises conference next year but I wouldn’t bet on it.

“I don’t want casino type jobs at our big banks. It is not acceptable for big banks to gamble with our money and I would hope our banks would stop their gambling. I have no problem with casinos if you are in Las Vegas and you want to gamble, “stated Simon Johnson, the author of the informative new book 13 Bankers which focuses on the background of the financial crisis, in a talk at Johns Hopkins SAIS on April 26th.

The chairman and CEO of Bertelsmann Foundation Dr. Gunter Thielen, speaking at the Bertelsmann/Financial Times conference on the worldwide financial crisis in Washington recently remarked , “If we continue with casino capitalism, then sooner or later the legitimacy of our entire economic system will come into question on a global level.

And, we all heard Senator Claire McCaskill at the hearings with Goldman Sachs senior executives exclaim, “You are all the house, you’re the bookie. [Clients] are booking their bets with you. I don’t know why we need to dress it up. It’s a bet.”

The casino comparison from diverse onlookers on the financial crisis is an apt and correct one. While the government regulators were asleep or looking the other way they were not regulating Wall Street. Simon Johnson feels that the “regulators are now completely captured by the big banks.”

It is beyond me that there is not more outrage around the country. After watching the smug and arrogant Goldman executives, one felt like demanding that they be contrite and ashamed of what they had done to our financial system. Yet there they sat, looking bored, not being back in the Big Apple making their bets so they can rake in their bonuses. Can anyone seriously explain how you bet against investments that you are making to your clients? Is there not fraud or at least misrepresentation involved in these transactions?

And, let us not forget that Congress was also asleep at the wheel and did not foresee or try to prevent the financial crisis. While the traders from Goldman played their role as arrogant and aloof from the financial storm, the senators all performed their roles as outraged citizens who yelled before the cameras so the voters could see their populist anger. Where was their outrage while the economy was tanking and people who could not afford homes were given loans as if they were candy?

While Congress and the administrations’ answer was to spend boatloads of our money on the stimulus package ,the head of Pew Research Center Andrew Kohut, speaking at the Bertelsmann/FT conference said, “The public feels that the stimulus and TARP did not work”.

While Americans continue to be bombarded by the reckless casino attitude and practices that exist on Wall Street and in our largest banks we see the rest of the world is not immune from similar economic and financial problems–most of them man -made.

Greece is trying to keep its head above water and not default on its large debt. Portugal and other European Union nations are also reeling from a large debt and too much public spending.

Having worked at the European Commission for fifteen years and given many talks on the euro in its early years I would point out that the introduction of the single currency was more of a political event than an economic one.

If this was purely an economic problem across Europe we would see a different outcome. However, the EU countries have too much invested in the success of the euro to see it collapse. They have too much political capital involved to let the single currency fail.

Europe and the U.S. are so intertwined with trade and investments that a collapse of the Greek economy (some are calling Greece the Lehman Brothers of Europe) would affect not only the rest of its EU partners, but America as well.

Are countries like banks too big to fail? Are traders at Goldman Sachs really allowed to go long and short on the same trade? Are government regulators who didn’t regulate beyond being fired?

As Simon Johnson stated at his talk at Johns Hopkins, “There is no social value for having large banks. And, big banks should be able to fail.”

As anyone who has taken Economics 101 knows the laws of capitalism provide winners and losers. If you provide enough campaign money and lobby effectively I guess that negates you from losing in today’s America. This has to change. If traders take unacceptable risks and do it from our banks they need to suffer the consequences when their deals go south.

We should break up our largest banks, as being bigger does not provide any guarantee of anything these days except, it appears, immunity from any wrongdoing. We should control the outrageous behavior of casino gamblers posing as bankers and seriously curtail their activities in trading that cause more harm than good.

Big is not better and wrong is wrong. Get some serious financial reform with real teeth that can send people who break the law to jail. Move our casinos from the banks and insurance firms in New York back to Las Vegas where they belong. As Simon Johnson said, “Bets in Vegas don’t upset the U.S. financial system”.

We may not be able to change the smugness and arrogance of the Goldman traders who testified before Congress but we certainly can pass tougher legislation that could put them in prison if they break the law. Casino capitalism has to end before it is allowed to bring on another financial crisis.

March 23, 2010

She is 42, glamorous, svelte, a successful pop singer-composer, formerly a top model, divorced, and reportedly wants to act in Woody Allen’s next film. She is also France’s first lady, who will be the fourth at a private dinner party at the White House March 30, hosted by President and Mrs. Barrack Obama, along with her husband, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy.

But she, French-Italian Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, may overshadow some of the interest and media coverage, as she is viewed by many as Europe’s version of Jacqueline Kennedy.

Informal dinner talk will probably cover interests both first ladies actively pursue, such as humanitarian causes, French-Amercan relations, and their experiences as wives of powerful leaders; earlier in the day, Obama and Sarkozy will have discussed heavier, controversial international issues, followed by a joint news conference.

The French conservative leader, who for nearly a year has quietly pressed for a meeting of this kind with Obama, will be projecting the image of a determined, reform-bent president and world leader. Both in Washington and the day before in New York where he will address the financial community.

The visits, however, will come in the wake of his shattering, major defeat and of his UMP Party in regional elections March 21, amid speculation that he may be challenged by other conservatives for his party’s nomination in 2012. They face a near-stagnant economy, record unemployment, governmental deficits and a deep, widespread mood of discontent and labor strikes over his failure to implement economic and social reforms promised during his successful presidential campaign in 2007.

And that despondent mood among many French men and women, particularly jobless youth, coincides with the growing appeal of leftist parties, who won 54.1% of the nation’s regional votes, notably the Socialist Party, led by its current leader, Martine Aubry, the outspoken, dynamic daughter of former European Commission President, Jacques Delors.

Meantime, Obama, once again being acclaimed by most Europeans as a strong world leader following his successful drive for health care reform, is expected to defuse the simmering tensions and annoyance over his alleged indifference to the European Union and trans-Atlantic relations. That was triggered by the White House cancellation of an E.U.-U.S. meeting in Madrid scheduled for late May. (Current Columns February 12)

Specifically, though no details have yet been announced, by the White House and the Elysée Palace, Obama is expected to seek Sarkozy’s support for enhanced military engagement in Afghanistan; combining tough sanctions against Iran for its nuclear buildup, with diplomatic pressure for compliance with a freeze on the military component of the buildup; engaging France and perhaps Britain for a cooperative stance on relaunching the Middle East peace process; coordinating efforts to restore economic growth to the world economy as France prepares to chair the G20 group of countries next year, and, as a supporter of Greece, to back France’s flexible approach to helping Greece solve its debt crisis, in sharp contrast to German Chancellor Anglea Merkel’s resistance to any form of an E.U. Bailout, which most European leaders favor, along with the International Monetary Fund.

And there may well be some talk about over the recent failure of EADS, Europe’s largest aerospace company to win a $35-billion contract for supplying the U.S. Air Force with a new aerial refueling tanker, in partnership with Northrop Grumman; the Pentagon awarded the contract, for smaller plane, to Boeing, amid allegations from the French government, among others in Europe, that the deal had been rigged. Fillon immediately termed the latest decision protectionist, and Sarkozy announced he would raise the subject with Obama.

Commenting on next weeks’s meetings, a senior U.S. diplomat told TransAtlantic that the administration hope is to “smoothe things over, revitalizing trans-Atlantic relations, showing the alliance is together, with shared commitment to promoting peace, security and prosperity around the world…these two leaders need each other.”

The same could be said of the Sarkozy couple, who first met in November 2007, given that he is not exactly well-known to most Americans, and that she is sure to attract attention. Some journalists may even ask about the widespread reports, notably in the British media, about their alleged extra-marital affairs, that both have denied,  but she in a more nuanced way.

Recently, asked by a reporter from Britain’s Sky News if she had confidence in her husband’s faithfulness, she replied that yes, “he would never cheat on me…have you ever seen photos of him with a mistress?” The reporter said no. “Alors,” she replied, meaning: you see? She has also told reporters, shocking some, that, in her view, marriage is not necessarily forever. In another break with French tradition, she created her own web site – www.carlabrunisarkozy.org/fr

Leaving aside Obama’s hopes and plans for re-election in 2012, questions and speculation over France’s presidential and legislative elections that same year have already surfaced. Considering that Sarkozy’s UMP won only 35.4% of the vote Sunday, with the Socialists and allies scoring their highest since 1981, it is no surprise that many conservatives are, for the first time, openly questioning Sarkozy’s ability to successfully confront a united, coalition of Socialists and other leftists, notably the charismatic leader of the Europe Ecology coalition party, growing in popularity, Daniel Cohn-Bendit.

Who might replace Sarkozy from within his ranks? Few political observers doubt that  because of his conservative, lower-key, and dapper appearance and style and that he has served for the past three years as prime minister, the choice would be Francois Fillon. And though just prior to his party’s defeat in the regional elections, many speculated that he would either be dropped, or resign, Fillon on Monday emerged as Sarkozy’s calm, hard-hitting government leader, who assumed his part in the failure, confirming that he and his government would carry on, with little or no change in direction.

Once a racing car driver, with a British wife, several children, whose base is in the rural Sarthe region, he was described as “chic and classic”  and “waterproof” in a recent cover story in the weekly news magazine, Le Point, headlined “Le President Fillon” stating that based on their recent survey, 42% of French conservatives prefer Fillon over all other UMP candidates, assuming Sarkozy doesn’t run. These might well include former, Dominique de Villepin, previously both foreign and prime minister under Sarkozy’s predecessor, Jacques Chirac, and who has announced he is creating his own conservative party, widely expected to challenge Sarkozy.

Meantime, appearing radiant, confident and determined, Aubry, as first secretary of the Socialist Party, has made it clear she will lead the opposition with other leftist parties in the runup to the 2012 elections. France’s leading daily Le Monde noted that, in the wake of the regional elections, she hopes to emerge as “the natural candidate” for the presidency, pressing with an ambitious leftist agenda, including tax reform and policies aimed at creating jobs. That role, however, will only be determined by a party primary in the second half of next year in which other Socialists are expected to run as well.

Most prominent among them, a familiar face in Washington, is Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former Socialist finance and economy minister and currently managing director of  the International Monetary Fund, whose ambitions probably include running, but, like Aubry, has declined to say so publically. According to a widely-circulated non-confirmed report,  what Le Monde describes as an informal “non-aggression pact” has been agreed to by the powerful, popular duo and another former Socialist prime minister, Laurent Fabius, pledging that whoever is ahead in polls prior to the primary, will get the support of the other two.

And while polls and surveys have limitations, particularly with long lead times, Le Point reported that, based on its poll of late February, if Fillon is the UMP candidate in 2012,  he would beat both Aubry (47%-31%) and the previous Socialist presidential candidate, Ségolène Royal. (57%-23%) But Fillon would lose to D-SK, as he is known. (34%-46%)

Maybe. But given the volatile nature of the French electorate and events – an anti-Sarkozy trade union-led strike today disrupted the nation’s rail and school system -  the future remains cloudy. Particularly since only 46.3% of eligible French  voters went to the polls in the second and final round of the regional elections on Sunday.

February 12, 2010

On a cold Friday afternoon at the prestigious Ecole Militaire in Paris, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, told a large gathering of senior French officers and students, that the Obama administration was fully commited to both strong, cooperative relations with France and further European integration, urging “we need European leadership in the 21^st century.”

As the applause died down, few if any in the hall imagined that an uproar would erupt the following Monday, February 8, which continues simmering in Paris, Brussels and other capitals, – all over what was widely perceived in Europe as an offensive, deliberate snub by President Barack Obama.

The story  broke on the web  site of the Wall Street Journal, revealing that the White House had decided to drop plans to attend a regular E.U.-U.S. Summit meeting in Madrid on May 24-25, citing the president’s busy schedule.

Consternation and some anger surfaced immediately in European capitals with diplomats telling reporters , with a hint of sarcasm, that it reflected Obama’s lack of interest and commitment to the European Union. Administration officials then tried explaining the meeting was never on the president’s agenda, so could not be considered a cancellation, arguing that Clinton’s speech in Paris reflected the administration’s strong commitment to the European Union. To no avail.

As the story unfolded last week, European officials countered by citing a preparatory meeting held in Madrid recently, with no hint Obama wouldn’t attend, amid some allegations, notably in the European media, that Obama’s the decision to forego the summit was something between a snub and an insult, even though E.U. leaders did not comment openly, with the exception of France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy. “I don’t think it demonstrates a lack of interest by President Obama for Europe. Where is the drama? Is that our only problem in the world today?”

Standing alongside the French leader at a recent meeting in Paris, aimed at bolstering their relations, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel evasively added that she would raise the White House decision with fellow E.U. leaders. Period.

There was, however, no hiding that this incident did in fact reflect a sense of American and even widespread, European disappointment, frustration, bordering on indifference and boredom, with regard to the E.U.’s slow, plodding, confusing, even ineffective efforts to play a leading role in world affairs.

The disappointment now extends to the particularly confusing, overlapping E.U. leadership which includes the new President of the E.U. Council, Belgium’s Herman Van Rompuy, Britain’s Catherine Ashton, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the European Commission; Portugal’s José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission and the current, rotating president of the E.U. Council of Ministers, Spain’s Prime Minister Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who recently visited Washington, aimid tensions between these leaders over who then is now responsible for speaking for Brussels on foreign policy and strategic issues.

The confusing, complex state of leadership in Brussels prompted France’s respected daily Le Monde to comment that “the American president is (still) struggling to identify the right interlocuteur for discussing strategic dossiers with Europe,” closley resembling the famous quip by Henry Kissinger over thirty years ago about not having a phone number for Europe. “Too many cooks…trying to stick their hands into the new foreign-policy pot,”headlined the Economist recently. But the problem isn’t really new.

The gradual, unspoken decline in active, enthusiastic American support for a single, European voice and integration began with the end of the Cold War and the eastward expansion of the E.U., including Central Europe, and most recently, the opening of negotiations for Turkey’s full membership in the 27-nation bloc, which Washington supports and Sarkozy opposes. The Obama administration has also been annoyed and frustrated with steadfast opposition by both Merkel and Sarkozy to provide significant, increased military support for the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, and with the fact that little of interest to Obama has come out of previous trans-Atlantic summits. Some European observers now understand and accept the Obama perception.

In London, Charles Grant, the director of the Center for European Reform, told the New York Times that the Obama snub was “a useful wake-up call for the E.U….no one will court them, or have summits because Europe is a nice idea. They need to deliver.” Added Nicole Bacharan, professor at the Paris Institute for Political Studies, conceding the European sense of wounded pride: “For Obama, there is no urgency about the relationship with Europe…he prioritzes, but lacks empathy toward Europe. Europe is not his priority.”

This is not to say that trans-Atlantic relations are in crisis. Trade and investment flows continue growing. Close cooperation between the U.S., and Brussels agencies continues to expand in such areas as security, anti-terrorist initiatives and undercover investigations; France opposes enhanced military support in Afghanistan, but Washington and Paris cooperate in other areas involving NATO and U.N. peacekeeping in developing countries, and in pushing for sanctions against Iran. And although throughout Europe Obama’s lack of success on the domestic front, mainly related to health-care reform and job creation, has disappointed many, he remains highly popular and admired.

By the same token, Obama and his advisers are closely tracking European leaders currently struggling to find solutions to the deficit/debt crisis battering Greece, but also Portugal, Spain and the euro, amid proposals being made this week by Van Rompuy” for what he terms reinforced E.U.“economic governance.” And that the European Parliament only voted on Tuesday for a new European Commission following a delay of some three months.

This does not mean short term that there is realistic hope for a stronger, dynamic role for the E.U. on the world stage, nor that Obama’s perfectly-justified decision to skip the May summit means he won’t participate in a trans-Atlantic summit later this year. Indeed, it seems he will – at a meeting to coincide with a NATO summit being scheduled for Lisbon in November.

Speaking to a crowd of 100 guests with the speech carried live on C-SPAN, the Ambassador pointed out that American troops are in his country “to have safe streets in the United States and Europe” and that it is “mutually beneficial for the U.S. and Afghans”.  He went on to say that “not being in Afghanistan is equally dangerous”.

It is easy to understand and remember the original reason and rationale for going into Afghanistan.  We were responding to the vicious and unprovoked attacks on us on 9/11.  We overthrew the repressive Taliban government and attacked the Al Qaeda training camps and tried to wipe out the Al Qaeda leadership.  The U.S. intervention was overwhelmingly supported by the American public and by most of our allies around the world.  We all assumed it was a successful operation so why eight years later are we sending a “surge” of troops back to this country to defeat an enemy we supposedly defeated years ago?  Why is the Taliban resurfacing?  Why hasn’t Al Qaeda been destroyed? Why is it on the day the President of the United States receives the Nobel Peace Prize that the first of the American troops are getting ready to deploy to Afghanistan?  There are many inconsistencies in the whole affair that will soon see more than 100, 000 U.S. troops in this mountainous nation.

November 23, 2009

Amid widespread surprise, consternation and some biting criticism, the leaders of the 27-nation European Union, meeting in behind-the scenes sessions in Brussels last Thursday, unanimously appointed a relatively unknown, low-key duo to the top EU jobs – Belgium’s Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy as President of the European Council and Britain’s EU Trade Commisioner, Catherine Ashton, as High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, posts created by the Treaty of Lisbon that goes into effect December 1.

Question: Do the appointments respond to the legendary comment attributed to the former U.S. Secretary of State who, in 1973 while trying to launch the Nixon Administration’s “Year of Europe” aimed at improving strained trans-Atlantic relations, mused that if he wanted to call Europe, notably the EU, what was the phone number?

The answer is yes; the incoming duo named Thursday does move the EU in the direction Kissinger was suggesting, but with a long way and difficult way to go. Kissinger, incidentally, unknown to many, admitted in an interview two years ago that he never recalled making the famous comment, but thought it so good he never denied making it, emphasizing, however, that times had changed and that the EU was moving “in a positive direction.”

Indeed, one of the candidates for the presidency and the only woman running- Latvia’s, outspoken, Atlanticist, former, center-right president, Vaira Vike-Freiberga – summed it up for many observers when she was asked if the EU would now be more operationally more efficient? Yes, she responded firmly, but would the EU now be more influential, visible on the world scene? “Not sure,” she replied.

Clearly, she, like many other leaders and observers, are asking: who are Van Rompuy (pronounced rum-pei) and Ashton? How will they perform?

It is a particularly tricky question, considering Ashton has never been elected to a political job, and has virtually no diplomatic experience. That already troubles many observers, considering that she will be responsible for running the EU’s expanding diplomatic corps, known as the European external action service, comprising 5000 persons, and some delegations in 130 countries.

In all fairness, she only learned she had the job as she was heading back to London from Brussels, had no prepared speech, and only commented that she would do her best and that she wanted to be judged on what she did once on the job starting December 1. Rompuy said even less, noting he had not really sought the presidency, and would always abide by the decisions of the  EU member states.

Indeed, that brief comment confirmed his new role, running for two-and-a-half years and can be renewed once, and that he has nowhere near the powers of a U.S. or French president. France’s former President Valery Giscard D’Estaing, described the new role as that of  “conciliateur,” in other words, being a consenus-building, mediating chairman of a large, disparate board, rather than a powerful, charismatic, presidential figure -  the opposite of Giscard’s role model, America’s first president George Washington. Concluded Giscard, the key architect of the new EU constitution, the choices sadly reflect  the minimalist, “average“ of  prevailing leadership within the EU governance system.

Agreeing with that assessment, many observers also noted that the seemingly-starless duo reflects a long tradition of balance and compromise: Van Rompuy, the center-right leader from a small, traditionally EU-supportive nation, Belgium, and  Ashton, a center-left leader from  the EU’s major Eurosketpical nation, Britain.

That, in turn, reflects what  at the end of last Thursday’s evening, was a major victory for Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel and France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy. Both were fearful of being upstaged, and thus strongly, successfully and together opposed competing bids, such as Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s choice of his predecessor Tony Blair for the presidency, and former foreign ministers for the diplomatic post, notably Italy’s Massimo D’Alema, Germany’s Joshka Fischer and France’s Hubert Vedrine; by dinnertime they had successfully rallied other EU leaders behind the duo.

So who are the two new leaders? And, who it should be noted, will be sharing executive powers with the President of the influential European Commission, whose members are also being replaced, meaning – regarding Kissinger’s question – there will still be at least three phone numbers for calling the EU, not counting the European Parliament.

With his self-depreciating sense of humor, described by colleagues as being down-to-earth; pragmatic, reassuring to colleagues;  a writer of Japanese haiku verse, who spent his last vacation crossing Australia in a camping van, and has been described by some who know him as “a modest dandy,” Van Rompuy, 62, is, above all, a highly-skilled negotiator and hardened, consensus-building Belgian politician.

For decades, he been a major figure in the nation’s Flemish Christian Democratic Party, having held key posts such as budget and then deputy prime minister. He is multilingual, trained at an early age by Jesuits; later studied philosophy and economics, and has played a key role in negotiating the currently, relatively-stable relationship between the traditionally-opposed Flemish and French-speaking regions of Belgium. A top Belgian journalist worried Sunday that his departure would be “disaster” for Belgium, though his experience and skills will help enormously in the new job.

And despite biting comments by some critics that he may not be up to the job, as someone like Tony Blair might have been, Belgium’s former former EU vice president and trade commissioner, Etienne Davignon, who knows him well, said that Van Rompuy is no “docile poodle.” Another admiring colleague said Rompuy “always thinks before he speaks.” And yet, few if any observers and officials contacted, can say what his views are on the the EU and its future, since they have never been expressed publically; many believe he is a “federalist,” meaning, presumably, a strong role for Europe in internal and foreign affairs. He has opposed Turkey’s EU membership, but has already stated he will abide by what EU member states eventually decide.

Ashton, 53, whose full name is Baroness Ashton of Upholland, a title bestowed by virtue of her previous position as member, and later as Labour Party leader, in the unelected House of Lords, earlier headed  a regional health authority, among other posts, including junior ministerial jobs covering education and justice. During her roughly one-year stint as EU trade commissioner, she helped conclude a free-trade agreement with South Korea, and, as part of her job, will be a Commission vice president. But there is little else in her background that provide hints regarding how she might perform. “Judge me on what I do, and I think you will be pleased and proud of me,” she told reporters when informed of her appointment. Undoubtedly, more will be known about her when she is questioned in detail at confirmation hearings of the European Parliament.

How will the new EU leaders relate to the Obama administration? Though congratulatory messages were sent, there  were no direct, friendly phone calls acknowledged publically; understandable, given that the duo are unknown in Washington, except to astute EU watchers, including a handful in the White House and the State Department.  As Giscard noted in an interview with the French daily Le Monde: “the fact that President Obama seems, until now, little concerned by European questions  constitutes an opportunity” to create a truly influential “European space” which should, in turn, lead to a closer, improved trans-Atlantic relationship.

Given that the EU already speaks with a strong, single voice in the areas of trade, competition and monetary policy, the difficult, controversial question remains: will the EU ever develop a powerful, credible foreign and security policy? A global , influential EU policy may yet emerge under the Lisbon Treaty. Yet one cannot help recalling the prophesy of the 18th century French jurist and political philosopher, Charles Montesquieu, whose thinking helped shape the U.S. Constitution: “Europe is a state composed of many provinces, but it is not amenable to the creation of a unified empire.”

We begin this week with a look at America’s role in Afghanistan and how it is continuing to evolve.We will also look at the role of NATO in Afghanistan and the possible introduction of more American troops.

I look forward to your comments, criticisms and your thoughts on our topic of the week.

I can be reached at rguttman@jhu.edu

Obama called the war in Afghanistan a “War of Necessity,” however, is this still the case?

“This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.” Barack Obama speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (August 17th, 2009)

In February of 2009, President Obama sent another 17,000 troops to Afghanistan, as requested by former American commander David D. McKiernan, strongly considering the situation to be more pressing than Iraq.

In late March, after much advising and reviewing, the Obama Administration decided to focus on dismantling and defeating the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The President decided on building up a stronger combat force and assigned Richard C. Holbrooke as Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. In April, former Lt. General  Karl W. Eikenberry was officially appointed as Ambassador to Afghanistan.

In May, Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal took over as the top American commander in Afghanistan, replacing the ousted McKiernan. McChrystal is requesting at least 40,000 more troops to be deployed into Afghanistan. This is where the debate stems from; however, the political situation in Afghanistan is also to be considered. The controversial Afghanistan elections that took place on August 20^th are still being investigated for fraud allegations.

The Obama Administration has stated that a decision to escalate or not escalate the war by increasing troops will not be made until these investigations are over and a new government in Afghanistan is in place. However, this may not be until after the November 7th presidential runoff elections, which both candidates Afghan President Hamid Karzai and former Foreign MInister Abdullah Abduallah have agreed to..

So, is this war still necessary? Should Obama increase troop numbers to Afghanistan?

October 16, 2009

Earlier this week, France’s highly-respected daily Le Monde carried a front-page interview with Philip H. Gordon, Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Euroasian Affairs. Creating a stir in influential circles on this side of the Atlantic. Its headline declared that, disappointingly, Washington calls on Europe to “share responsibilities” in world affairs, and display “solidarity” regarding the administration’s approach to Afghanistan and Iran.

Gordon, who spent a decade as a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and has written extensively on U.S.-European relations, brushed off what Le Monde’s experienced Washington correspondent, Corine Lesnes, described as Europe’s growing “deception” with the administration’s foreign policy. He cited the “incredible” popularity of President Barack Obama, notably in Central Europe, and that cooperation with Europe had never been so good, amid debate over strains and differences he described as “healthy.”

The following letter attempts to respond to some of the views expressed in the interview and provide some thoughts, a suggestion and to explain why I believe my French colleague correctly reflected much of the current thinking on this side of the Atlantic.

Summer, 2009

Considering Europeans who might best respond to questions regarding President Barack Obama’s foreign policy and related issues, ranging from Afghanistan to the Middle East, we quickly decided on “France’s Kissinger” – Hubert Védrine.

In the introduction to his admired book, published by the Brookings Institution two years ago, “History Strikes Back,”former U.S. Secretary of State (1997-2001) Madeleine Albright, wrote that “conversing with Védrine was like kayaking down a fast-flowing river. There was enough movement to demand concentration, enough excitement to keep spirits high, and enough danger to prevent complacency…he was my favorite diplomat with whom to disagree.”

We first met in the early 1980s when he was serving recently-elected Socialist President Francois Mitterrand as a top foreign relations adviser. He rose to become the Elysée Palace spokesman,  chief of staff, and Foreign Affairs Minister from 1997 to 2001 – always brilliant, concise, somewhat aloof, witty, and open to discussing issues when time was available.

Today, at 62, he continues to write, lecture and consult, gently brushing off often-made comparisons with both Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzinski, former national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, saying they are flattering, and that he admires both men greatly.

Our interview took place earlier this month in his right-bank Paris offices, overlooking the Seine, and was conducted in French.

In your 2007 book on history, you predicted that if Americans did not overcome their excessive pride, arrogance (hubris) we face repeated global catastrophes. What is your view today, in light of the election of President Obama?

First, I believe that Westerners as a whole, after the collapse of the Soviet Union,  were caught in illusions, based on their sense of triumph. I do not believe they saw emerging the multipolar world, continuing to believe they were the center of the world. They remain its most powerful and richest (bloc) notably the United States. But it (the U.S.) isn’t anymore, hence the G20. After presidents George Bush (senior) and Clinton came the policy of Bush (junior) which I at the time considered the most absurd and counterproductive foreign policy in American history, hence the reference to hubris. By contrast, absolutely extraordinary is that Americans, so capable of rebounding, elected Obama, not because he is black and energetic, but also an intellectual.

But what does the change mean in terms of foreign policy?

The change from Bush (W.)to Obama is simply gigantic, potentially. Because of his (Obama’s) background and intellectual capacity…and his full understanding of the outside world and, specifically the worsening, critical relations between the West and Islam. He rightly  believes this cannot be put off. He also isn’t interested in talking only to leaders, but to public opinions, which is a magnificent surprise, extraordinarily intelligent and useful, but also difficult.

Obama has made Iran a top priority, insisting on diplomacy and dialogue as the way forward. What is your reaction to assessments, including from President Sarkozy, that this approach is not working, concluding that “severe” economic sanctions are now needed?

In the past, the West has made important mistakes in dealing with Iran. Prior to Obama, for example, the United States, since 1979, has boycotted and sanctioned Iran, with no effect…in political terms. And that’s where we are today. President Bush himself did not dare take up the military option (against Iran) even though it was supported by members of his administration, lobbies and parts of the Israeli government. Tougher sanctions were proposed as well several times, but it was clear that we had reached the limits of what the Russians and Chinese could accept, so tougher sanctions would, in effect, be those of the West, not of the international community. Those currently criticizing Obama, without saying so openly, favor a return to the earlier Bush policy.

What about Obama’s diplomatic approach to the Near East, Iran, Afghanistan, and Islam in general?

It bothers a great number of people, though opinions in Europe and the United States have on the whole been supportive. There is no denying that Obama proved very intelligent in trying something else and it is clearly much too early to criticize; he is not adopting a new approach (with regard to the Islamic world) out of generosity, but adopting a tactic, a broader strategy. Indeed, his policy of the hand reaching out has already had its effects on a regime that panicked at his proposition, while bringing out differences within Iran. The Europeans, starting with France and Germany, who were unbelievably cowardly with regard to Bush, should now show courage, and support Obama’s stance.

That issue, among others, will be discussed at the G20 summit planned for September 24-25. Is this the appropriate forum for such discussions? If not, what approach would you suggest. And, more broadly, on what should the G20 focus its attention?

In international, legal terms, the only legitimate place for such discussions (regardng tougher sanctions) is the Security Council of the United Nations. In political terms, it is not inappropriate to discuss within the G20. This is not a world government, and there are differences within, but, in any case, there is no choice. Little by little, this is where issues of this kind  and others, will emerge, illustrating that the Western nations can no longer govern alone, faced with global issues. So with regard to Iran, the question is: do we have a Western policy, or one that is international? And if the latter, it is necessary to find a compromise with (G20 members) the Russians, Chinese, Arabs and Indians.

Meantime, looking ahead, what roles do you see for such other established international institutions, as the G8, IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, the OECD,  and NATO. Should they be reformed and if so, how?

First, the importance of the G8 will diminish, remaining a place of intermediate rendezvous of, for example, finance ministers. The only country with significant interest in the G8 is Russia…countries (like Russia) generally prefer a restricted framework, on the condition they are included. Regarding the organizations (mentioned) of the (post World War II) Bretton Woods system, they are not all challenged by what is happening. Changes might have been suggested earlier, but were not because we, the West, assumed we were predominant, that it was not worth the effort. Perhaps the G20 will address new,emerging issues, such as the environment. The broad, evolving participation in it could make more acceptable broadening participation in the United Nations, in the Security Council.

And NATO?

NATO is a separate issue…I thought that France’s change in policy (fully integrating its military command structure) was completely useless, that France’s traditional position bothered no one. It is inexact to claim that France will have greater influence (in NATO) and that its integration will improve movement to a European defense system. Thus, if U.S. policy with regard to Europe is good, acceptable, fine; if it is not, we will be in a difficult spot. It is clear that with regard to Afghanistan, for example, there was absolutely no (trans-Atlantic) strategic concertation.

So how would you describe the current, international architecture?

Baroque. In the sense that several systems are operating at the same time. But within it is the reality of power that counts. The architecture is but the dressed-up framework, and is not all that clear. And it will be shifting in time, meaning the system has become one of networks, rather than architecture, that more or less functions effectively.

Assuming the Lisbon Treaty is ratified by Ireland, Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland, what changes do you forsee for European Union’s role as a major force in the world,  U.S., Russia and Asia? What are the prerequisites for succeeding?

First, if the Lisbon is ratified it will be important for it will end some 15 years of  institutional controversy, providing stability that will endure…in my view there will no treaty afterward. All the questions that have been at the core of our problems for some 50 years, such as the institutional power configurations at national and European levels, will have been settled. Thus enabling the Europeans to concentrate their energy on projects and policy. Will Lisbon be enough to change mentalities? I do not think so. Europeans are not ready for Europe to emerge as a major power in a multipolar world, with (its own) financial resources, willing to take risks, confronting China, Russia and others if deemed necessary. The treaty will not change that.

What would?

The touching off of a trigger mechanism (déclic) involving a strategic agreement between France, Germany and Great Britain…formulating positions on key questions, such as policies with regard to Russia, China, energy. There are signs of this amid preparations for the G20 meeting. (To be held in Pittsburgh Septeber 24-25)

In light of what you just said about France with regard to NATO, how does that organization fit your overall assessment?

This (an EU defense policy) regretfully is a complete illusion. Unless perhaps Europeans were able to create a single, European defense industry. What provided the impetus for European (Union) construction? It wasn’t the founding fathers, (Robert) Schuman and (Jean) Monet, but Stalin and Truman…Monet never thought of creating a European power, being completely Atlanticist. Thus, I think we need to accept what Jacques Delors (former president of the European Commission) envisioned long ago as the ultimate outcome – a European federation of nation states. Once Europeans realize that European construction does not threaten their identities, they will be much more positive.

How would you assess the present state of French-U.S. relations, compared to the period in which you were Minister of Foreign Affairs?

During the period I served, in the period of (President Bill) Clinton, relations were good, both with the governments of  (Jacques) Chirac and (Lionel) Jospin. This was the period of Albright and me. Relations with the Bush administration were difficult, right from the start. We did not share the same concepts and approach to methods. Nevertheless, there was a large degree of solidarity after September 11 and, in the beginning, cooperation regarding Afghanistan, and then came the break over the war in Iraq; and I believe that, with hindsight, Chirac and (then Prime Minister Dominique) de Villepin were right, and then as time passed, relations improved somewhat, because of the combined efforts of  Chirac and (President George W.) Bush.

Then what after (Nicolas) Sarkozy was elected president?

In the beginning, and wrongly in my view, Sarkozy aligned himself with the conceptions of Bush, enormously, at a time when the entire world knew that Bush was mistaken (regarding Iraq) and then came the enthusiastic widely-admired election of Obama. That created a certain, bizarre  uneasiness on the French (Sarkozy) team, because they were too close to Bush. Obama knows this. Secondly, Obama is not that interested in Europe, having no special reason to be, and has far more urgent problems to deal with…on issues such as dealing with Iran. This will  evolve, and perhaps lead to better French-U.S. relations via the G20, but this is not the case today: some high-level French officials still refer to Obama as naïve. I believe this is a mistake.

Back in the days of President John F. Kennedy, and President Bush’s father, admirers of Monet and (France’s President Francois) Mitterrand, respectively, there were  prominent “Europeans” highly-placed at White House, such as JFK’s Undersecretary of State, George Ball. Does their notable absence around Obama matter?

This is not the problem. With the end of the Soviet Union, Europe was no longer a stake. As President of the United States, you have other priorities…Obama was elected for (dealing with) the crisis, which therefore concerns China. He has had to re-build a different relationship with Russia, less so with Europe, so there is absolutely no reason for him to single out Europe, no doubt concluding that if the Europeans remain divided, too bad for them; if they are united, with common positions, so much the better.

What is your assessment of the situation in Afghanistan, in light of growing threats of military failure there, contrasted with optimistic predictions for winning the Obama-supported war by American commanders? Was Europe right in hesitating or refusing to commit more forces? Are there other choices?

Obama was elected with a position that involved saying he was not against wars, but idiotic wars. This led to his opposing the war in Iraq and calling for doing more in Afghanistan, while never disassociating himself from his partners.Yet he announced his new policy for Afghanistan before coming to Europe, prior to the NATO summit, alone. There was no declaration of a war council, a joint military command, nor debate in NATO involving those countries present in Afghanistan. America decided. Thus, I believe the Europeans were right in refusing (to significantly increase their military involvement) and yet, should have been much clearer in the beginning, declaring full support for Obama, but urging that decisions should be taken together, as others, not just Westerners, have stakes…Arabs, Indians, the Chinese, the Russians.

What security-related solution to you suggest?

Basically,  a more limited approach, declaring that we will remain there for our own security. Needed is a mobile, rapid-intervention security force in the region. It would react and crush terrorist forces constituted in the area, in tribal areas, extending to Central Asia. And Afghans would take care of Afghanistan. Concentrating on security and vigilence. Otherwise, we won’t succeed. Soft power (non-military reconstruction and modernization) cannot be ignored, but will not resolve the problem. Our security is the only reason for our being there. I do not support a withdrawal.

At the White House August 18, Obama, declared during the visit of Egypt’s President Mubarak, that a solution for resolving the Israel-Palestinian settlements question was moving in “the right direction,” and that a “positive” climate had emerged. What, in your view, will it take to restart a Middle East peace process?

In light of the Israeli electoral system, it is an absolutely impossible situation for (Prime Minister  Benjamin) Netanyahu. Thus to settle the problem, (of moving toward a solution) it is necessary to end the deadlock involving the right-conservatives (political configuration) of Israel. The confrontration between those who accept the idea of Palestinian state and those opposed has been going on for thirty years. For American policy to surmount this obstacle, it would mean having another (parliamentary) majority to support Netanyahu, or he falls, in order to have a united government. If America is not prepared (to work for a change in Israeli leadership) or it won’t work out, we’re talking needlessly, and nothing will happen. If, however, you had a combination of Obama and (former, assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak) Rabin, you could be assured it (a credible, dynamic Middle East peace process) would work. But history has taught us that we rarely, if ever, (in such situations) have the right combination of leadership.