Debate Content: What TAM Students Think the Forty-Fourth US President Should Know

This year I asked the TransAtlantic Masters (TAM) students to read and comment on Henry Kissinger’s “The debate we need to have”.  This text appeared in the International Herald Tribune on Monday, April 7th, 2008:  http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/07/opinion/edkiss.php

In this essay, Kissinger indirectly chastises the US presidential candidates (McCain, Obama and Clinton at that point) for eschewing the type of discussion needed in favor of “slogans driven by focus groups for daily headlines.”  Kissinger draws attention to the concept of national sovereignty and underscores the importance of what he sees as “three simultaneous revolutions occurring around the globe”:  the evolving EU, a pervasive radical Islam, and the growing power of China and India.

I was curious to see how the TAM students in Europe might respond to Kissinger’s assessment and to the various questions he poses at the end of his piece.  For instance, he asks in the text: “In a world in which the sole superpower is a proponent of the prerogatives of the traditional nation-state, in which Europe is stuck in a halfway status, in which the Middle East does not fit the nation-state model and faces a religiously motivated revolution, and in which the nation-states of South and East Asia still practice the balance of power, what is the nature of the international order that can accommodate these different perspectives?”  The question seemed tailor-made for the TAM students observing this spring’s US presidential primary from a distance as they studied such topics as European integration, migration, security and defense at various European universities.

When I asked the students to provide a response to Kissinger’s piece and to include references to their experiences / observations in their European TAM locations, I thought they might defend their candidate of choice from Kissinger’s charge and point to the ways in which each US presidential hopeful had been depicted in the European media.  I was pleased to see that they instead zeroed in on different aspects of the essay in an effort to both substantiate and dispute Kissinger’s claims.  Their essays are informed and fascinating.  Heidi Mawby, who has spent the last year studying in Paris and Berlin, points to several flaws within Kissinger’s premise and insightfully amends his discussion.  As Mawby explains, the next US president must not discount the role of the nation state in Europe and the power that the individual EU member governments continue to hold in the minds of their citizens.  She goes on to argue that, in addition to placing renewed importance on the TransAtlantic Alliance, the US now also needs to examine the social aspects that nurture radical Islam and to remain attentive to all emerging nations – not just to India and China.  Meanwhile, Meg Austin, who has spent the last year in Italy, points to the media’s role in shaping democratic ideals throughout the world and calls on the next US president to “examine changes in the structure of multi-level governance” which have a global impact instead of reaffirming an us vs. them approach to international relations.

I’m pleased to welcome you to this most recent volume of TAM’s on-line journal.  Please read on and send your comments to tam@unc.edu