Accountability Moments
By Dr. Jackson Janes

"It Was the Election"
Following the elections in November of 2004, President Bush answered a critical question about the accountability for the increasingly bad news coming out of Iraq thusly: "We had an accountability moment. It was the election," and with that dismissed the question.

Another accountability moment is coming up next week. March 20 marks the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. That milestone can be measured in many ways, but what stands out in particular is that most Americans now think that the war cannot be won and most Americans believe that the administration misled the public about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as the rationale for the invasion.

The battle unfolding between the Democratic majority in Congress and the White House over how and when to extract American troops from Iraq will continue until the next electoral accountability moment in November 2008. During those twenty months ahead, the arguments will center on how to be accountable for all that has transpired since March of 2003. The White House will argue that being accountable means maintaining the troop levels, indeed increasing them, to assist the fledgling government in Baghdad in getting a foothold of control over the insurgents. Although not unified in their demands, the Democrats will push to decrease the U.S. military presence in Iraq certainly by sometime in 2008, just in time for the elections in November. That will be based on their sense of being accountable to the voters who gave them the majority in the Congress.

The Trust Factor
Yet the accountability factor is much larger than the debate over staying or withdrawing from Iraq. It involves another factor - that being trust - on which accountability must be based.

Following 9/11, a very domestically-divided nation became united in response to the attacks and gave President Bush its trust in dealing with this challenge; so did a good part of the world.  The steps taken were not all without debate, but for the most part the public kept the faith with the President. The decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power was seen as the President painted it, part of the war on terror. Despite the increasing questions and doubts about the wisdom of that decision in 2004, President Bush was given a second term in office - again - by a narrow majority.

In the meantime, the continuing deterioration of the situation in Iraq has undermined the messages coming out of the White House during the past two years, eroding trust and calling for accountability. How does the President respond with less than two years left in office? He changes Defense Secretaries and generals in Iraq. He takes steps to talk to countries surrounding Iraq with whom he had shunned contact before. Yet building back the level of trust in judgment and policy remains a very difficult task, not only at home but in many places around the world. Recent polls say that many people see the U.S. exercising bad policy judgment not only in Iraq but also in handling issues like North Korea and Iran's nuclear programs, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Guantanamo, and global warming.

The candidates, Democrat or Republican, who seek to sit in the White House in 2009 will be faced with a daunting task in dealing with the legacies they will inherit. And yet, despite these challenges, the fact is that there is no realistic alternative for the U.S., or for the rest of the world for that matter, to a United States that is fully engaged in meeting global responsibilities. The question being raised now is how the United States can engage more effectively with the support of its allies. The answer has as much to do with the ways in which the U.S. goes about shaping and exercising its power and influence as it does with the ways through which its allies engage themselves. Take Europe, for example.

Upcoming Opportunities
In a few days the European Union will mark its fiftieth anniversary. That is as much a moment to celebrate as it is also an accountability moment. The EU has a good deal of work to do in order to meet the challenges of integrating twenty-seven nations as well as seeking to invest in its nearly 500 million citizens a common sense of purpose and engagement. At the same time, the European Union has to be able to engage itself in the challenges well beyond its borders. From an American perspective, the EU represents the most important partner we have on the planet. Yet, forging a transatlantic mission in the twenty-first century has to be based on trust in and commitment to that mission.

Right now, we have common problems to overcome on both sides of the Atlantic. Washington has to find better ways of seeking common ground with its allies in Europe and beyond. Be it on the issues of trade, homeland security, or the current flash points in the Middle East, we need to define a common stake in language with which people can identify. European leaders need to be able to convey that same message as far as why a transatlantic mission is of such central importance to their interests. The recent past has generated a disconnect in the minds of many in Europe and in the United States. Some in Washington see a Europe unable to forge the ability to act as a global player, while others might feel anxious if it began to do so. Some in Europe see an unbridled super power unable or unwilling to be bound by frameworks of agreement to which they pay homage. A common problem we share is the domestic confusion over the roles we need to play in meeting the challenges we face. That is a reflection of weak or uncertain leadership and discordant debates.

Within the United States, the battle for the White House will generate a great deal of political noise, but it can be that we also see an emerging set of defining and perhaps clarifying calls for shared accountability in dealing with the problems we must face. Within Europe, there will also be arguments and debates about the direction of the European Union that need to encompass more than strengthening the status quo. For the U.S., this means taking the EU seriously as a partner. For Europe, it means recognizing its global responsibilities.

The web of institutions and policy processes that has evolved across the Atlantic during the past half century should not be taken for granted. Nor should it be ignored. There must be an accountability moment in which we recognize the responsibilities we bear toward each other. The arena for that moment is global; the agenda a long one.  What is needed is a strong set of voices to articulate the mission.

The March 25 Berlin Declaration on the fiftieth anniversary of the EU will provide Chancellor Merkel and her European colleagues with such a moment, assuming they can forge a consensus. One month later, the April 30 EU-U.S. summit will offer another for both the Europeans and President Bush, assuming there can be common ground found in Washington. But the benchmarks for success will be less the rhetoric but more the implementation of shared accountability.

....................................................................................................
This essay appeared in the March 15, 2007, AICGS Advisor.

....................................................................................................
Want to know more? Check out these links for more information.

Please check our coverage of Germany's EU and G-8 Presidencies.