On June 26th, Democratic Representative Joe Crowley of New York was defeated in a primary challenge from the left by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a twenty-eight-year-old former organizer for Senator Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential run and member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Ocasio-Cortez’s victory shocked many as Crowley, the powerful chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, had been named as a potential replacement for Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and led in several polls in the weeks leading up to election day. Yet despite the upset, Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez said Ocasio-Cortez “represents the future of our party;” and based on her support amongst younger voters, he would seem to be correct.
In addition to running on a progressive platform similar to that of Senator Sanders in 2016, Ocasio-Cortez’s policy positions are indicative of a larger trend within the Democratic Party. Over the last eighteen months, Democrats have begun pivoting to the left of their Obama-Era stances as a result of President Donald Trump’s actions in an effort to oppose him as strongly as possible.
Take immigration for instance. President Barack Obama famously deported more people than any of his predecessors and called for tough and secure borders, while simultaneously supporting a path to citizenship and implementing the DACA program, which protected minors who were brought to the U.S illegally from deportation. All of which were at the time moderate. Obama called them, “common sense” solutions. Yet Trump’s rhetoric and actions on immigration, regardless of how disrespectful and inhumane they may be, have caused Ocasio-Cortez to call for the abolition of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, or ICE, and a number of other high-profile Democrats are now doing the same. The policy represents a strong shift to the left from Obama’s positions. Thanks to Trump, Democrats who used to back Obama’s “common sense” immigration reform and strong border security measures would be hard pressed to utter any sort of support for them now.
The same is happening in healthcare. Before Trump, Democrats supported working to improve the flaws within the Affordable Care Act. Regardless of what many in the Republican Party may say, President Obama’s signature legislative achievement was both a moderate plan and a compromise solution to one of the nation’s toughest and most divisive issues. However Trump’s efforts to strip Americans of their health insurance and wreck the Obamacare market through repeal of the individual mandate have led rising Democratic stars such as Ocasio-Cortez to instead call for a more radical Medicare for All plan. Again, due to Trump, attempting to fix the flaws in Obamacare is seen as outdated while support for a Single Payer system has now become a litmus test for Democratic presidential hopefuls in 2020.
Across many issues, the pattern remains. Democrats under Obama supported moderate policies and positions. Along comes Trump, and Democrats move to the left to oppose him as strongly as possible. Ocasio-Cortez and her campaign platform embody this trend, and now it “represents the future of [the] party.”
Yet when it comes to foreign policy and support for the U.S-led liberal, international order, the pattern stops. On domestic policy, Ocasio-Cortez’s platform is filled with aggressive stances opposing Trump, and yet there is no mention of his tariffs jeopardizing the global network of free trade, no position on Russian election interference constituting a threat to American democracy and democracy worldwide, and no reference to Trump’s rhetoric and actions against NATO threatening the Western-democratic alliance. What explains the dichotomy?
Given the lack of criticism Trump has received from Ocasio-Cortez for his actions, it has become clear that the far left is willing to go along with the President in renouncing America’s role as the world’s leading economic, democratic, and military power. For instance, Ocasio-Cortez’s lack of opposition to Trump’s tariffs and potential instigation of a global trade war can be explained because, like Trump, progressives have their own issues with free trade. President Obama championed trade deals through pursuit of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the U.S-Korea Free Trade Agreement. In contrast, Bernie Sanders said in 2015 that agreements like these “have been a disaster for the American worker,” because “corporations that shut down here move abroad.” Later in a Democratic primary debate, Sanders even touted his “being on the picket line in opposition to NAFTA” in the 1990s. And Sanders is not alone. A number of left-leaning economists such as J.W Mason and Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Policy and Economic Research, have also spoken out strongly against the benefits of free trade. Therefore, Ocasio-Cortez’s lack of criticism towards- and agreement with- the President’s trade policy is actually in line with her fellow progressives. What’s notable is that just as Trump’s victory represented the triumph of protectionism within the GOP, Ocasio-Cortez’s has done the same for Democrats.
Second, similar to her silence on trade, there is not a word in Ocasio-Cortez’s platform, criticizing Russia’s efforts to sway the result of the 2016 Presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. Likewise, I have yet to hear her denounce President Trump’s denials of what unquestionably constitutes a foreign threat to the strength of American democracy, or comment on how the President’s partisan attacks against the Justice Department, FBI, and the media over investigating those threats are eroding public faith in American institutions. Moreover, Bernie Sanders– for all his vocal support and outspoken appeals for progressive policies–has not really spoken strongly either about the dangers Russian meddling poses to democracy worldwide. Why is that?
I suspect it stems from the fact that many on the far left have long seen American democracy and its institutions as intensely flawed, and therefore don’t view them with much essential value. If the American political system was not valuable to progressives to begin with, then attacks by foreign adversaries against it are not perceived of as being particularly threatening. Similarly, if the U.S can’t reasonably claim to represent democratic ideals, then it has no moral right to tout democracy around the world. Though conservatives always questioned whether or not President Obama “loved America,” he never failed to speak glowingly about the country and its political system, saying “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being,” and “in no other country is my story even possible.” Certainly those statements illustrate a belief in a system worth protecting from foreign threats. Yet as Peter Beinart noted in The Atlantic on July 4th, it is hard to imagine Ocasio-Cortez, or any progressive of her caliber for that matter, saying something similar. Thus, unlike Trump’s immigration policy, his passivity regarding defense of democracy and actions in assistance of its demise have failed to provoke Ocasio-Cortez and others on the far left to speak out.
When President Woodrow Wilson announced America’s entrance into World War I with the intention of making “the world safe for democracy,” he became the first U.S. President to articulate a belief in defending the American system of government both at home and abroad. Trump’s victory however symbolized the end of a Republican Party that cared about Wilson’s conviction of protecting American ideals and institutions in the face of foreign threats. Apparently this view now constitutes “the future” of the Democratic Party as well.
Third, Ocasio-Cortez’s platform lacked criticism of Trump’s dismissal and undermining of American multilateral military alliances such as NATO. Additionally, she has not discussed in any of her post-Election Day interviews the effect those actions have had on weakening and eroding the U.S.-led liberal order that every post-War President, including Barack Obama, has strongly supported. On the campaign trail Trump consistently complained about NATO, lamenting the fact that our European allies weren’t paying their fair share towards their defense and that the distribution of costs was “unfair, economically, to us.” Just this past week in advance of the NATO summit in Brussels, the President levied criticism at German Chancellor Angela Merkel, claiming Germany free rides off U.S security guarantees and threatening to pull back the 35,000 U.S troops deployed to Germany. Such actions are indicative of Trump’s belief that America is getting a raw deal when it comes to NATO and that the U.S would be better off avoiding the international entanglements and obligations that come with the alliance.
When it comes to scaling back U.S military commitments abroad, progressives like Ocasio-Cortez often agree with Trump. Bernie Sanders has long sought to cut American defense spending and once criticized President Obama’s plan to combat ISIS for not encouraging Middle Eastern states to “step up their military efforts and take more responsibility for the security and stability of their regions,” a statement with echoes of Trump’s rhetoric towards Europe. To quote Reihan Salam, the executive editor at the National Review, Ocasio-Cortez is actually “keeping with the fact that many on the hard left have their own objections to the status quo in U.S foreign policy.” Whether it be military interventions or alliances, progressives aren’t shy about their belief that the U.S should take a less activist role. So just as Trump has cowed the GOP into reversing and renouncing its history of support for multilateral agreements and mutual defense, if Ocasio-Cortez’s politics truly constitute the future, then the Democratic Party will soon do the same.
In 1947 when Republican Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Arthur Vandenberg declared that partisan politics should stop “at the water’s edge,” he solidified a bipartisan consensus behind Democratic President Harry Truman’s proposals to drag the U.S from its isolationist past towards an internationalist future. However President Trump’s takeover and transformation of the GOP into an inward-looking party hostile to globalization has threatened the strength of this internationalist consensus. Moreover, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the likely soon-to-be Democratic-Socialist Congresswoman from New York, who openly and proudly opposes Trump on domestic issues, has yet to criticize the President and GOP for this radical shift. If the Republicans are the party of Trump and Ocasio-Cortez is the Democrats’ future, then there may yet be a bipartisan consensus on foreign affairs. It just isn’t the one Truman and Vandenberg had in mind.
The belief that the U.S should abdicate its world leadership arises for different reasons on the Trumpian Right and the Progressive Left. While Trump believes America is better off when it doesn’t concern itself with the interests of the rest of the world, progressives believe the world is better off when America doesn’t. Both positions however are intensely flawed. There is widespread agreement amongst economists on the benefits of free trade for all parties involved. American democracy, imperfect as it may be, is a stronger force for good in the world than Russian or Chinese autocracy. And without military alliances to defend Western liberalism from Moscow and Beijing, there is no way to guarantee its survival. Hopefully one of America’s two parties will recognize this reality before it’s too late.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is the most revolutionary, comprehensive international agreement that any country has ever signed. Since the end of the Second World War, the U.S. has pursued a general policy of trade liberalization, and President Reagan began to more aggressively do so in the 1980s. This kicked off a new era of globalization largely defined by increasingly interconnected nations, cultures, and markets that continues to this day, and has come to define the world community. Unfortunately, this manner of embracing globalization through trade does not account for many of the most important societal developments and issues today. Instead, it favors an almost purely “economy-first” approach. In an age of rapid globalization-driven policy reforms, the TPP provides promising insights into potential future changes and new directions the expanding process of international interdependency could take.
The TPP is a proposed agreement between twelve Pacific Rim nations that account for nearly forty percent of global GDP, with a value of intra-group trade at $2.08 trillion in 2014. The 5,500 page agreement contains thirty chapters on topics ranging from E-commerce to Investment to Intellectual Property. Although the reduction in barriers to trade is highly impactful and affects roughly 18,000 tariffs, the TPP goes beyond just trade liberalization. The TPP represents a historic move towards a more modernized and globalized society, and indicates a shift away from solely economic-based policy towards a more responsible global framework.
The TPP attempts to address modern challenges at the forefront of recent international debates. A prominent example of how the TPP is the most advanced, modern international agreement is the twentieth chapter, “Environment.” Many of the United States’ FTAs have included environmental provisions; however, these provisions have been rather toothless. The US-Australia FTA, for example, essentially contains an agreement to comply with the existing environmental transparency laws and excludes those laws from the agreement’s dispute settlement provisions. Japan, one of the most environmentally responsible countries in the world, has signed 24 FTAs (sometimes called Economic Partnership Agreements) and not a single one contains an environmental chapter or even a side agreement on environmentally responsible policy. Requirements within the TPP Environment chapter, like the ban on subsidizing fishing of overfished stocks, are subject to the agreement’s dispute settlement mechanisms. This means states will punish others for non-compliance. This new, more mandatory approach is indicative of a new set of policy initiatives aimed at pursuing a more conscientious form of globalization.
There are countless other sections in the Trans Pacific Partnership that represent unprecedented advances in achieving transnational regulatory harmonization. Nevertheless, there are plenty of counter-arguments cited as rationale for not signing the TPP. Liberal Democrats worry the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions will undermine the environment chapter, though even if they did that’s hardly an effective argument for tossing the agreement altogether. It’s better to have environmental protections that very occasionally are difficult to enforce than to have absolutely none at all. Moreover, some members of the U.S. Congress from both parties tend to argue (rather loudly and simplistically) that TPP will destroy jobs, even though anyone with even a basic understanding of economics knows that the effects of free trade on employment are far more complex and nuanced. Yes, liberalization of trade destroys jobs in certain industries. This is through a process known as “job churn,” by which liberalizing trade disrupts employment to the detriment of some industries and the benefit others. Critically, though, the number of jobs lost is outweighed by the number of jobs created by liberalizing trade. Perhaps that’s why most experts say that although some jobs, mainly manufacturing ones, will be lost due to the TPP, a higher amount of jobs will be created, and in higher-paying industries. These are just some of the many hotly contested issues that abound discussions on the TPP.
One can find countless responses to the vast majority of arguments in favor of ratifying the TPP. However, there is one main argument in favor of TPP that its opponents have yet to devise a viable counter-argument to: Failing to sign the TPP cedes the strategic and economic high ground to China, and potentially destroys any opportunity for spreading progressive regulation to some of the key economic powers in the world.
A common mistake made when analyzing the TPP is assuming a failure to ratify is tantamount to preservation of the status quo. It is very much not. As the US Congress quibbles over whether or not to ratify TPP, China is vehemently pushing an economic agenda of its own in East and Southeast Asia. For years, China has been racing to complete the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). RCEP includes all the TPP nations outside the Americas, in addition to India, South Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Laos, Myanmar, and Cambodia. Taken in terms of population, RCEP nations account for nearly half of the world’s population. Crucially, RCEP includes virtually none of the countless progressive, modern regulatory advancements provided for in the TPP, like environmental protections, and would allow China to dictate the terms of economic activity for 50% of the world, leaving the United States to play by someone else’s far less comprehensive rules in Asia and elsewhere. In short, RCEP represents the sort of economy-first approach to international cooperation that has, for decades, failed to address some of the most pressing issues facing the global population.
Failing to ratify TPP and allowing RCEP to become to law of land in the world’s fastest-growing region would be nothing short of a catastrophe. Liberal Democrats would never see the improvements in human rights, labor, and environmental standards that they so-love to complain the TPP lacks. Conservative Republicans would have actively participated in the act of ceding greater economic authority to China, which they and their presidential candidate erroneously attribute much of America’s problems to; and the world would remain on its current course of globalizing trade that has failed to solve so many paramount issues.
This article says little of the highly complex economic implications of the agreement that both proponents and opponents often oversimplify to advance their positions. The TPP’s ratification, unfortunately, is far from guaranteed and if ratified, it will be some time before the public can get beyond mere projections and truly begin observing tangible impacts. This article is simply a recognition that in the era of rapid and seemingly uncontrollable globalization and ever-changing centers of economic growth, the TPP provides the global citizenry with a glimpse into one potential future of international cooperation. The TPP transcends the economic metrics and market-based approaches that have dominated international cooperation for decades, and endeavors to fundamentally improve the manner in which governments around the world embrace the phenomenon of globalization.
America’s ban on stem cell research in the early 2000’s opened up opportunities for other countries to advance in the field at the US’s expense. In August 9, 2001, President George W. Bush signed an executive order prohibiting the use of federal funding towards embryonic stem cell lines. Because these cells could only be harvested from unborn embryos, this field of research provoked political and ethical controversy. This not only prevented stem cell research from progressing, but also pushed American researchers to move their efforts overseas. By 2006, America fell behind Israel as the world’s leader in the field of regenerative medicine. Unlike the US, Israel owes its technological advancement to its government’s support of stem cell research. Eight years later, President Obama overturned this ban, citing that “these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases.” Since then, America has refocused its attention towards advancing its domestic stem cell research.
Medical breakthroughs in stem cell therapy can relieve financial burdens and save lives. Embryonic stem cells have the ability to differentiate into any cell type, making them useful in replacing damaged cells caused by chronic, incurable diseases. For example, Alzheimer’s disease, a neurodegenerative illness that degrades cognitive function, is currently the 6th leading cause of death in the United States. Every year, Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia cost the federal government upwards of two hundred billion dollars. According to Dr. Huntington Potter, a neurobiologist at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, an increase in the number of Alzheimer’s patients will lead to the bankruptcy of both Medicare and Medicaid. Diseases like Alzheimer’s continue to cost the federal government money and our country its citizens. Progress in stem cell therapy provides a hopeful solution to a very costly and difficult problem.
Following the 2001 American stem cell ban, Israel, with the help of its supportive government, emerged as a world leader in stem cell research. Unlike the United States, Israel’s government and law fully supports the usage and research of embryonic stem cells, considering it a “mitzvah”, or blessing, to its people. Without ethical and political constraints, Israel flourished in the field. In a 2013 Euro Stem Cell Report on trends, Israel ranked the highest in relative activity, with over 5 times the world activity level in adult stem cell and 2.55 times the world activity level in embryonic stem cell research. Israel’s problem, however, lies in its lack of funding. Dr. Merchav, an Israeli stem cell consultant, believes that the greatest barrier to Israeli advancement is its funding limitations. Being a small state, Israel does not possess the funding capabilities compared to that of a larger state, like the US. Despite its funding issues, Israel’s success and commitment to furthering stem cell therapy has attracted cross-border partnerships with the UK as well as a state funded program in California.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown signed a joint declaration in 2008 to establish the Britain-Israel Research and Academic Exchange Partnership (BIRAX). Over eight years this program has completed more than ten joint research projects and has been renewed earlier this year. Israel’s Science Ministry and California’s Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) finalized its joint research agreement with Israel in February of this year. This agreement is the first of its kind; CIRM brings together the two states’ most talented scientists and advances medical treatment for Diabetes, Alzheimer’s and HIV-AIDS. Cross-border partnerships help alleviate the financial burden for research and clinical trials. Israel’s success in cross-border research and development partnerships with the UK and California serves as a model for future negotiations with the United States.
While Israel has expanded its stem cell research globally through bilateral R&D agreements, the United States has adopted a more isolationist policy, meaning that much of its research remains within its borders. Currently, at about 30%, the US ranks among the lowest in stem cell research papers co-authored with another country per year. On the other hand, Israeli stem cell research ranks as one of the highest, collaborating with other countries’ scientists about 70% of the time. While Americans conduct the highest number of clinical stem cell trials compared to other countries, cooperation across states is limited and not every trial produces significant results. Although CIRM’s partnership with Israel serves as a breakthrough in the American stem cell community, the program is funded by state governments and therefore lacks resources that a unified federal government could otherwise provide. According to David Siegel, the consul general of Israel, a stronger partnership between the United States and Israel allows for quicker FDA approval. This could mean more efficient clinical trials and a quicker turnaround time for approval of new stem cell treatments.
Funding stem cell research and collaborating across borders is an investment for the future. According to the 2013 World Stem Cell Summit, expanding networks and facilitating the transfer of knowledge across countries will further clinical trials more quickly and efficiently. For decades, the United States has served as the the model and standard for modern research and development. Collaborating with Israel would expedite the research process and bring relief to people at home and abroad. Before American stem cell research can expand, our country must first educate the electorate on the benefits of regenerative medicine so that a cohesive, bipartisan stem cell agenda can be made. The health of our affected citizens is not a partisan or negotiable issue. Progress in stem cells has already brought relief to people suffering from leukemia and multiple sclerosis, saving the federal government billions of dollars. With an informed and willing constituency, American politicians can push for and form cross-border research and development agreements. Only then can we hope to extend the field of stem cell research from a possibility to a reality.
FeaturedImmigrationMexico and Latin AmericaSecurity and ConflictSociety and CultureThe International Economy
Ending the Embargo: Liberating US Politics from the Cuba Lobby
Cuban propaganda declaring “Ideas are and forever will be the most important weapon.”
On 14 December, 2014, President Obama announced he will re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba after almost 54 years. A month later in the State of the Union, he called on Congress to end the embargo in 2015.
Since its beginnings in 1960, the embargo has done nothing to promote its stated goal of fostering democracy and human rights on the island. On the contrary, Cuba remains a one-party communist state that has been led by either Fidel or Raul Castro since 1959. In reality, the brothers use the embargo to successfully create a martyr identity; propping up their regime by giving them a boogeyman on whom they can blame the country’s economic woes. Furthermore, it serves as a derisive obstacle to US cooperation with Latin America. Economically, it costs US exporters at least $1.2 billion per year. Even stalwart allies, with the exception of Israel, leave the US isolated on this issue by renouncing the embargo. Since 1999, more Americans have favored ending the embargo than oppose ending it. So what’s the fuss? Why has it taken so long to abandon an anachronistic cold-war remnant that is not just ineffective, but deleterious to American interests?
Over the last 40 years, the “Cuba Lobby,” interest groups that support the embargo and other hardline policies towards Cuba under Castro, has wielded an unrivaled level of influence in Washington; indeed, analysts like American University’s William M. Leogrande have deemed it more powerful than even the NRA. The Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) and the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC have a long history of wooing congressional candidates with campaign contributions and punishing those who would renounce the embargo. Similarly, this power reaches even to the State Department. Notably, congressmen under the influence of this cartel are known to manipulate the agency’s funding for specific programs and deny appointments to career Foreign Service Officers who are not sufficiently hard on the Castro government. Furthermore, in possibly the moment when their influence was most strongly felt, many election analysts believe that the traceable chain from Vice President Al Gore to the Clinton Administration’s actions during the Elian Gonzalez saga provoked the wrath of the CANF and the Cuban American exile vote during the 2000 election. Consequently, the lobby’s powerful presence in Florida helped swing the state, and correspondingly the presidency, to George W. Bush.
However, this is all changing. The first group of Cuban Americans who came to the US as political refugees after the Cuban Revolution are now well into their 80’s. It is this generation and their children, themselves aging and approaching retirement, who fervently loathe the Castros. These older Cuban Americans make up the leadership who push the Cuba Lobby to strongly support the embargo and other policies that isolate Cuba. On the other hand, the more recent Cuban immigrants came to the US for economic reasons. They do not possess the same acrimonious sentiments towards the Castros. They desire improved relations between the US and Cuba so they can visit and send remittances to their families without hindrance. As this younger generation replaces the older one, a window is now opening where a majority of Cuban Americans wish to see the embargo end. Currently, 52% of Cuban Americans in Miami-Dade County, the largest center of Cuban Americans, oppose continuing the embargo. The changing mood in the Cuban American community, and the fact that the President sees it as politically safe to normalize relations with Cuba, are evidence that the Cuba Lobby’s power is beginning to fade.
Even with the change in general attitude that is spurred by shifting demographics, it is unlikely that we will see any changes toward the embargo in the near future. As a matter of fact, both Houses of Congress are in the hands of Republicans. If Congressional Republicans fall in line as expected with current leadership, Speaker John Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell, the necessary congressional support needed to repeal the embargo will be hard to come by. Under the current hyper-partisan climate in Congress, supporting policies that are promoted by the President are often seen as traitorous to the Republican cause. With that stated, there are some GOP supporters in Congress such as Senators Jeff Flake and Rand Paul who desire a change in policy. However, for the time being, the Cuba Lobby still retains its hold on the legislative branch. Perhaps future Congresses can end the embargo by bringing either a change in party control, or, if enough Republicans find political incentives to oppose the Cuba Lobby.
The embargo is very likely to become a hot foreign policy issue in the next Presidential election. The Democratic frontrunners support continuing President Obama’s initial steps. However, with the notable exception of Rand Paul, nearly all the Republican hopefuls oppose the president’s efforts to normalize relations with the island.
It is ironic that while the Cuba Lobby has been able to exploit Florida’s disproportionate political importance for its own cause, those wishing to end the embargo are looking to do it through another US electoral power oddity: Iowa, the first state to begin the process to pick presidential nominations for both parties. The United States Agricultural Coalition for Cuba (USACC), an organization made up of many powerful agricultural interest groups, sees Cuba as a potential market for farm exports. They can count among their supporters current US Secretary of Agriculture and former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. USACC’s goal is to convince voters in Iowa’s caucuses of the potential benefits that ending the embargo would have on the local agricultural industry. It appears their argument is already being heard in Iowa as the State Senate recently approved a resolution supporting enhanced trade between the US and Cuba.
Perhaps the Iowa caucuses can convince those seeking the Republican nomination, and in turn provide evidence to Congressional lawmakers, that opposing the Cuba Lobby is a politically tenable position. The beginning of presidential nomination process will be a great barometer to how close the US is to ending the embargo.
Note: This article also appears in The Generation’s first print issue
A political poster from a Buenos Aires street advocating “Enough Vultures! Argentina united in a national cause.”
In 1776, Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations asserted: “When it becomes necessary for a state to declare itself bankrupt, in the same manner as when it becomes necessary for an individual to do so, a fair, open and avowed bankruptcy is always the measure which is both least dishonorable to the debtor, and least hurtful to the creditor.” Yet, 238 years later, international financial institutions still fail to answer Smith’s call. Recent turmoil in financial markets has brought both advanced economies such as Spain, and developing nations like Argentina, dangerously close to default. The global threat by destabilized markets makes it imperative that the State of New York, the federal government, and international bodies, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), create new mechanisms to resolve the unique cases of sovereign debt defaults. Just as bankruptcy laws and courts are used domestically to resolve debt repayment conflicts, a similar framework needs to be created to handle sovereign debt disputes. This system needs to be focused on producing economic growth in the interest of both creditors and debtors. This idea is not new: Anne Krueger, while in the office of First Deputy Managing Director of the IMF, proposed a Sovereign Debt Restructuring Mechanism (SDRM) in 2002. The proposal was vetoed by the George W. Bush administration. Now it is time to raise the issue again, as the absence of an adequate forum to handle these disputes is apparent in the ramifications of recent US court rulings against the Republic of Argentina.
In Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, the Supreme Court upheld a ruling by Thomas Griesa, Federal Chief Judge for the Southern District of New York, stating that Argentina must pay the full value of $1.33 billion in bonds that are possessed by NML Capital before paying its obligations on other bonds. NML Capital is a hedge fund that owns Argentine bonds that were not exchanged during the country’s attempts in 2005 and 2010 to restructure debt after its 2001 default. As a result of the ruling, the nation fears that it could be liable for $15 billion when it is applied to all holdouts. This $15 billion albatross would be equal to roughly half of Argentina’s central-bank reserves. Yet the most important aspect of the ruling is Griesa’s understanding of the bonds’ pari passu clause. His interpretation prescribes that Argentina cannot make payments to the exchange bondholders until it comes to an agreement with NML Capital regarding its holdout bonds. When no agreement was reached and the Republic’s payment to exchange bondholders was blocked, Standard & Poor’s declared Argentina in default on July 30.
Argentina will not be the only party to endure the negative consequences of this ruling: the future of all sovereign debt restructuring is in jeopardy. Under Griesa’s interpretation of pari passu, bondholders will have no incentive to accept a debt swap after a default. Furthermore, even one bondholder who holds out can nullify an entire debt restructure and force the debtor back into default. As a result, countries with troubled economies become bigger prey for “vulture funds”: a pejorative term used to describe hedge funds such as NML Capital who buy up distressed bonds at fractions of their initial prices with the intent to litigate to be paid the bonds’ full nominal value. The ruling sets a precedent that would prevent nations from restructuring their debt, making good with creditors, and rebuilding after a default.
On the international level, Bolivia, with the support of the G77+China and alerted by Argentina’s tribulations, proposed a multilateral legal framework for sovereign debt restructuring processes at the UN General Assembly. On September 9, the assembly overwhelmingly adopted the measure with 124 votes in favor, 11 votes against and 41 abstentions. The US was among the 11 nations that voted against the resolution. The proposal is short on specifics but it includes an element that would bind all creditors to a restructuring agreement if a majority accept. It is improbable that the US would yield jurisdiction on local contracts to a global institution. Thus this hypothetical framework would have little power over existing bonds issued in New York markets. However, this is a clear call by the developing nations who are most likely to issue bonds in foreign markets such as New York that such mechanisms are badly needed.
Understandably, if US law is more concerned about protecting creditors than permitting nations with a troubled past a chance to start over, sovereigns will reconsider issuing bonds in New York or other capital markets in the US. This has the potential for New York to lose its place as an international financial center in regards to issuing sovereign debt. On July 15, with the Argentine President in attendance as a special guest, the heads of state from Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa inaugurated the $100 billion New Development Bank (NDB) at the sixth BRICS summit in Fortaleza, Brazil. These nations hope that the NDB will serve as an alternative to the western dominated IMF and World Bank. The BRICS’ NBD will be an alluring alternative to US financial markets for developing nations in the future.
If New York desires to preserve its place as an international financial center, new laws to preside over the unique cases of sovereign debt default need to be adopted. A sovereign is not a normal partner in a contract such as a person, business, or corporation. Hence, a special bankruptcy court for sovereign nations overseen by judges with advanced training in economics should be created by the State of New York or the federal government. A mechanism for negotiation, mediation and arbitration needs to be in place with a focus on restoring a nation’s economy so it has the ability to pay back its creditors. Among its many tools, it could swap debts for new bonds that pay according to macroeconomic statistics such as GDP growth similar to Argentina’s bond swap offers in 2005 and 2010.
But these measures can augment more than a developing country’s economic growth and New York’s standing as a hub of finance; they will promote global economic justice. Social utility is completely absent in the process where a cabal of hedge funds purchases distressed debt at a fraction of its titular value and subsequently litigates to be paid in full. A common counter argument is that Griesa’s and similar rulings are in line with what is in the bond contract. Thus, in order to observe rule of law, debtors must be held accountable. The fact that the legal process supports this practice is the very reason it needs to be reformed. The consequences aren’t beared by the corrupt politicians who wantonly accepted too much in loans and ensuingly misspent them in order to maintain political power. They fall on a country’s citizens who pay for both the creditor’s and debtor’s avarice in increased taxes, substandard public services, and stagnant economic growth.
The US’ foreign policy in regard to sovereign defaults must be reexamined and made coherent as well. With a large mandate from the aforementioned UN resolution, the world has asked the US to bring its actions in line with its commonly stated foreign policy goals of long term economic and social progress in the developing world. It should start by advocating and ratifying a SDRM at the IMF. The Anne Krueger proposed SDRM with collective action clauses from over a decade ago would be a great example to follow. This would set insolvent nations on a feasible path to grow while making good with all their creditors. The alternative is an eternal cycle of debt and default for nations with a dolorous economic past such as Argentina
”Los muertos no pagan las deudas” – ”The dead don’t pay their debts” is a phrase from late President Nestor Kirchner’s 2003 speech to the UN General assembly. Frequently, the current president borrows her late husband’s proverb in speeches regarding the external debt and the holdouts.
by Akbar Khan
Contributing Writer
In the words of Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese military tactician, “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” To some, this may seem an unattainable naivety, and yet for 800 years, the Zhou dynasty adopted Sun Tzu’s advice, resulting in its reputation as the longest-lasting imperial reign in Chinese history. In contrast, conflict in the West has embodied a different meaning, one that involves direct military engagement. But to Sun Tzu, conflict was just as much about perception, domestic unity, and indirect engagement as it was about actual warfare. In fact, what Sun Tzu was proposing was that the greatest victory is not the one that comes from physical battle–but the one achieved without military confrontation.
Beginning in the mid-19th century, the “Century of Humiliation” refers to an era of British and Japanese subjugation of China. In the mid-20th century, Mao Zedong ushered in a new period of communist revolution. These two time frames represent an era of foreign domination and poor economic development in China. However, the contemporary era has witnessed the re-emergence of Chinese leadership in East Asia. Some even speculate that the Chinese economy will soon rival the American economy, after more than two decades of United States international economic dominance while others dismiss China’s recent emergence as a short-lived phenomenon. Let’s take a closer look.
As the U.S. has become pre-occupied with fiscal hardship and overseas engagements, China has been rapidly, yet steadily, honing in on American economic prowess. Over the last two decades, China’s annual GDP growth has hovered around 10%. With an abundance of cheap labor, European and American companies have developed supply chains in China to reap the benefits of low production costs, transforming the country into the global manufacturing hub. Even high-end brand names like Armani employ Chinese manufacturing. Cliché as it is, “Made in China” is increasingly stamping itself on American consumer products.
Some economists have predicted that China’s growth rate is unsustainable. They suggest that China’s capital endowments will yield diminishing returns, and, as a result, China’s impressive growth will drop considerably. However, this is not expected to significantly slow Chinese growth for at least another decade. In fact, the International Monetary Fund predicts that in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), China’s GDP will surpass America’s in 2016. PPP is measure that uses currency exchange rates to adjust for differences in prices between rich and poor countries. Even if Chinese growth slows from present rates, America’s economic advantage over China is shrinking.
Not convinced on China’s prospects? There’s more.
The Chinese government, in a rather brilliant maneuver, has created export quotas on its rare earth metals, which is surprising considering China wholly dominates the market. One may wonder why Chinese leaders have pursued this policy. By limiting its own output of rare earth materials, China is creating incentives for foreign businesses to relocate to China in order to get around the quota.
Still not convinced?
In 2006, the Pentagon confirmed that China successfully tested a ground-to-space laser to block U.S. satellite imagery. Reports on exactly which satellite was targeted are difficult to discover, perhaps because the event is not something the American media are eager to reveal. In a report by Defense News, the National Reconnaissance Office Director, Donald Kerr, admitted that China had the technological capability to affect U.S. satellites. This revelation demonstrates the increasing technological capacity of China but the incident signals a more profound implication–China has stepped on America’s toes without repercussions.
China is increasingly doing as it pleases: trading weapons for oil to Iran, violating environmental restrictions, trading with North Korea, and keeping foreign imports out of its borders. Were China a weaker nation, the U.S. would be able to put much more pressure on China to cooperate. However, as a result of the extensive U.S. trade deficit, China owns over a trillion dollars of American debt. This gives China leverage over the U.S. economy in being a creditor to the United States.
China has shown it has the potential, the ingenuity, the technology, and the swagger–a seemingly complete package. But, the one serious disadvantage for China with respect to the U.S. comes down to raw, material capability. According to the World Bank, America consistently spends above $600 billion on its defense budget while China spends over $100 billion. The U.S. GDP is approximately $14 trillion; China’s GDP is about half of the U.S. GDP.
Yet, consulting the timeless advice of our old friend Sun Tzu in his military guidebook The Art of War, we come to realize that material assets are not everything. Rather, strategic, non-violent tactics are the most effective method for combating opponents. In a world with strong international peace agencies, increasing globalization and an implicit fear of nuclear holocaust, direct military engagement between major powers is unlikely; this means that China may be able to rival America without ever having to fire a single bullet. Now that is a victory Sun Tzu would be proud of.
Fact and Figures from the World Bank, The Economist, and Bloomberg Business.
Akbar Khan is a third-year Political Science student with a minor in Global Studies. He is an intern at the Burkle Center for International Relations.
by Brad Rowe
The New York Times reported on Saturday that the U.S. and Iran have agreed to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. According to Obama administration officials, this is “setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.”
This is encouraging as we are approaching a U.S. Presidential election that pits two candidates against each other who have vastly differing opinions on foreign policy. These negotiations fit in nicely with the policy suggestions put forth below. This article is meant to offer an objective dissection of the issues that face the United States and the world with regards to the issue of a nuclear Iran.
The ideas are based upon a policy memo created in June 2012 by UCLA Master in Public Policy candidates Chloe Cornuejols, Nobuko Goto, Masaaki Kishi, Celeste Miller, Brad Rowe and Isla Yao for their Methods in Policy course. In addition to conducting thorough research that went into the creation of the memo, these students conducted interviews with high-level policy and security experts who elaborated upon some of the concepts and findings.
* * * * *
Iran may be enriching uranium to levels that would be useful for developing a nuclear weapon. If they acquire a weapon of this type, it presents several potential concerns. There are a multitude of possible even probable dangers from this scenario. One is that Iran would use the weapon on the U.S. or elsewhere. Others come simply from their possession of the bomb: it could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, it could provoke a military response from Israel, or an Iranian nuclear WMD could end up in the hands of terrorists.
It would serve the negotiating parties to embrace the fact that, at this point, we cannot prove they are not enriching uranium to weapons grade levels, but we most certainly cannot prove that they are either. Dealing with the argument that ‘you cannot prove the absence’ of something is akin to me saying that you cannot prove that I don’t have a nuclear device somewhere in my house. Indeed you would have to tear apart every square inch of my house to prove this.
The current U.S. course of sanctions, diplomatic negotiation, military threats, and cyber attacks seems like a prudent path for the time being. For now, the IAEA has been accommodated by Iran for unfettered access to existing nuclear power development facilities. If reliable information emerges signaling a shift to weapons enrichment efforts, we should consider alternate options.
In light of the unlikely but hugely consequential possibility that Iran is working toward acquiring ‘doomsday’ technology, it is critical to keep the full menu of strategy options available as actionable scenarios and as tools of negotiation.
Before Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon, the options are: do nothing; diplomatic intervention (which seems currently viable); economic sanctions and incentives; cyber attacks; military threat; and finally land, air, and sea attacks. These are not exclusive options and can be used in combination.
After Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon, the options would be: do nothing; diplomatic intervention; reduce US dependency on oil from the Middle East; regional defense system; secure Iran’s nuclear weapons system; regime destabilization; cyber attacks; military threat; and finally land, air, and sea attacks. Again, these are not exclusive options either and can be used in combination.
Policy Options
Let’s look at the policy options in two ways.
First, BEFORE acquisition: Should the United States dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons and if so, how? The top options in this scenario would be:
- Cyber attacks to slow or prevent any nuclear weapon development
- Diplomatic Intervention
- Economic intervention: sanctions and incentives
Second, AFTER acquisition: If Iran did acquire nuclear weapons, how could the United States best minimize bad outcomes? The top options in this scenario would be:
- Regional Defense System
- Reduce US dependency on Middle East oil
- Secure Iran’s nuclear weapons system
U.S. Priorities and Concerns
For the UNITED STATES: The major priorities and concerns relating to Iranian nuclear weapons acquiring activity are the international distrust and disbelief that Iran is developing its nuclear capabilities for peaceful uses only. Furthermore there is concern that Israel will act unilaterally against Iran via military efforts if Iran continues to grow its nuclear capacity overall and/or if Iran specifically develops nuclear weapons. This could have dire circumstances if Israeli leadership is less than rational.
We also need to give weight to the potential growth in and power of threats to U.S. interests posed by Iran’s support for militant groups in the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan. As Colin H. Kahl stated in September’s Foreign Affairs article ‘Iran and the Bomb’: “Iran’s government currently sponsors terrorist groups and supports militants throughout the Middle East, in part to demonstrate a capability to retaliate against the United States, Israel, and other states should they attack Iran or undermine its interests.”
This threat is leveraged by Iran’s ability to destabilize world economy and oil markets through controlling their own oil exports and threats to free passage of Middle East oil through the Straits of Hormuz.
What no one wants is further proliferation resulting in a nuclear arms race in the Middle East especially among Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
There are homegrown concerns as well. U.S. leadership, such as House Speaker John Boehner, is very mercurial and has displayed hawkish tendencies recently.
And relating directly to the November elections, there is U.S. executive unpredictability. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has surrounded himself with several neo-con military advisors from the George W. Bush era. Among them are a group born from the post 9-11 neo-con think tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC), now renamed the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI). One of the most prominent hawkish foreign policy advisors to Romney is John Bolton who has publicly equated diplomacy with weakness and indecisiveness. This could spell for contentious or non-existent future negotiations with Iran.
Iran’s Key Drivers
Key among Iran’s drivers and positions concerning its potential status as a nuclear power with weapons capability are the current regime survival and increased nationalism/support of the population for the government. They are looking out for their national security and protection, including from external threats, such as the U.S. and other members of the international community. They are also not without ambition and are looking at expansion of Iranian regional influence as well as of the country’s global stature – overall and as a trading partner.
The current status of Iran’s nuclear efforts and situation includes sustained vows by Iran that their nuclear activities remain for peaceful civilian purposes only. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s (and other clerics’) repeated condemnation of nuclear weapons as being contrary to Islamic Law (he has expressed support for the development and use of nuclear resources for peaceful use but issued a fatwa in 2010 – and later reaffirmed it – on banning production and use of weapons of mass destruction).
As an international cooperator, Iran continues as a signatory to The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). It should be noted that Iran is currently in compliance. Most importantly: there is no evidence – either from the limited International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) observations, under General Director Yukiya Amano, or other monitoring or intelligence sources – that Iran has diverted any nuclear resources from civilian to military uses. To bolster Iran’s case here, there was an announcement on May 22, 2012 by the director general of IAEA, that he has reached an agreement with Iran granting nuclear inspectors wider access to Iranian atomic facilities.
To be noted however: Iran’s current ability to produce low enrichment uranium means that 90% of the necessary resources and effort to generate highly enriched uranium already have been brought together by Iran. This means simple nuclear weapons could at that time be delivered to a target in a small vehicle or boat; however it would still take several years of work and testing, for any weapon to be delivered by missile. Such undertakings – especially testing – would be hard to keep under wraps.
To understand the progress they have made, consider that having enriched to 20% means they are 90% they way to enriching to 90% weapons grade Uranium. This is on account of front loaded program building and the similarly front loaded Separative Work Units, or SWUs, needed to separate the Uranium isotope 235 from zero to 5% energy-producing levels.
A few points to highlight for further research are:
- Recently uranium enriched above the 20% used for power was found, though the 27% enrichment number could have been attributed to equipment error.
- In a 2005 speech, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad commented that he wished the State of Israel would collapse. (The translation of his “Wiped off the Map” comment has been widely disputed) Whether or not his statement was a declaration of military intent or simply a lament, it has resulted in an agitated condition for nuclear-armed Israel.
Based on review of existing research, analysis, and information on this situation as well as our own expert interviews[1], we also acknowledge that the highest objective of the Iranian government is to remain in power. Within the Iranian national dynamic, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei wants power over Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and vises versus.
Let us not underestimate the power of the masses however. Iran could become a fully representative democratic republic. Per our U.S. security and international diplomacy source, people of Iran currently appear favor or to have neutral feelings about America now, but would likely be swayed the other way by overly aggressive U.S. intervention. Extreme external pressure or military aggression will only increase Iranian nationalism and support of its citizens for the existing government there.
Regionally? Iran has scarce close regional allies on account that it feels ethnically and religiously isolated and has a sense of cultural and historical “exceptionalism.” While U.S. and international economic sanctions may have no direct effect on the progress of Iran’s nuclear efforts, they are causing enough pain to the government and country overall to potentially allow for more openness in discussions on the part of Iran as an example, both sides (Iran and US/P5+1) have dropped some prior intractable conditions for negotiation and Iran has agreed to grant wider access to IAEA inspectors.
Any military intervention would raise Iranian incentive for expansion of nuclear capabilities into weapons of mass destruction, while at the same time ensuring Iran’s expulsion of any IAEA observers and possible Iranian withdrawal from the NPT. Along these lines, we feel the Iranian government will act rationally. Iran is aware of and we all should be as well that U.S. future standing with the Middle East, Russia and Iran itself are critical considerations when weighing these policy options.
There is an important note regarding horizon type strategy relevance here. This long-term strategy is a valid exercise as Iran acquiring a nuclear device is still possible, even though they would have to violate the non-proliferation treaty and jump through several logistical and technical hurdles to get there. We also want to consider the possibility that Iran getting the bomb could potentially be a stable scenario *(i.e. Pakistan).
Finally, there is a special worst-case situation that needs sober consideration. While military intervention was not one of the more robust strategies when all criteria were considered, there is one situation in which experts believe it should be fully considered as a top option. That is when it is absolutely obvious that a missile attack by Israel on Iran is imminent and the U.S. and/or UN are unable to dissuade them. Under such circumstances, according to some security experts, the U.S. should then undertake any bombing attacks.
The reason for this is two-fold. First, Israel does not have the military capability and weaponry to launch an effective attack, which would ensure the elimination of the nuclear targets. The U.S. has the needed firepower and expertise to do so. Second, even if Israel acted unilaterally, both Iran and most of the international community would assume the U.S. was complicit. Therefore, if the U.S. will be facing the ramifications of such global opinion post-Israeli strike, then it would be prudent for the U.S. to ensure a surgical and fully efficient missile strike.
This is, of course very tricky as Israel cannot know that US will intervene on their behalf. This could cause them to act recklessly. Israel would be burning the ally bridge with US in either case. This is a difficult hand to play for sure.
It will be of great importance and interesting to see how the Iran negotiations play out. Hopefully cooler minds will prevail and the safety of the next generations will be more secure than they were before hand.
Brad Rowe is a second year Masters In Public Policy candidate at UCLA focusing in Education, Crime and International Affairs. Rowe is also a Rosenfield Fellow working on Educational Policy and Programs for the United Way of Greater Los Angeles.
[1]Research/Analysis: RAND Corporation, Congressional Research Service, American Enterprise Institute Iran Tracker. Media reports: New York Times, The Economist, Los Angeles Times, Financial Times.
by James Walker
There has been a great deal of controversy recently in the U.S. over the publication of No Easy Day, a personal account of the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden written by one of the elite Seal Team 6 members who took part in the raid, Matt Bissonnette. The book was released on September 4th, and was immediately listed as the number one best selling book on Amazon.com. The memoir raised concerns on many levels domestically, with much attention paid to the possibility that the author might have revealed classified information, that he had not obtained prior clearance to write the book at all from the powers that be, that the account differed in some respects from the official version, that he had broken the unwritten code of silence within the Special Ops community, and that the revelation of his real identity (by conservative news broadcasters Fox News) placed him and his family in harms way. Gallons of ink have been spilled exploring these issues, but this controversy also raises questions concerning the effect of publishing sensitive information in the International Relations (IR) realm.
As can be imagined, the publication of the book has not been beneficial in regards to the strained relationship between the United Statesand Pakistan. Still smarting from the raid itself, which was conducted without the knowledge or acquiescence of the state, and with a justifiable sense of outrage at the infringement of its national sovereignty, the Pakistani government has nonetheless been remarkably subdued in its official response. However, the relationship between the two countries has been badly strained over the past year. In particular, the Pakistani Intelligence Services (ISI) have been very active in responding domestically to the raid.
As a result of ISI investigations, a number of significant repercussions have taken effect. Perhaps the most visible has been the prosecution and conviction for treason of Dr. Shakil Afridi, a Pakistani doctor who assisted in a CIA sponsored genetic screening operation disguised as an inoculation program. The US has confirmed that the program took place, and that it provided significant information in the search for Bin Laden. Dr. Afridi was arrested 20 days after the raid, and has been sentenced to 33 years in prison. Recent news reports suggest that he was subjected to torture during his incarceration before trial, and continues to suffer inhuman treatment at the hands of the security forces.
Aside from the repercussions to Dr. Afridi, the revelation of CIA involvement in a public health initiative has had a severe impact on distinctly non-state oriented actors and initiatives. Multiple humanitarian organizations have reported that their ability to provide assistance and public health programs to people in the region has been badly curtailed. Warlords and tribal elders have made health workers persona non grata, leading to significant issues with a resurgence in levels of childhood disease, and other public health concerns. This rather begs the question of why the US government would ever admit to having done such a thing in the first place. In this instance, the actions of the state in releasing information have had a direct effect on the non-state realm.
Which brings us back to No Easy Day and its potential impact on the IR world. Unlike the sad case of Dr. Afridi, nothing about the publication of Mr. Bissonnette’s book has the imprimatur of the US government; quite the contrary. However, while the contents of the book describe a sanctioned US operation, the publication itself is a distinctly private, non-state actor affair, and one that has the potential to impact the state of play between two sovereign nations. While there has been no official response to the book’s release from Pakistan, it is not surprising to see that it is considered an insult to the state. Many commentators have described this book as an example of the lack of regard shown by the US, and view the silence of an official response to the publication as a sign of weakness and insecurity domestically. This plays into a major political debate within Pakistan in regards to its relationship with the US. For example, Dr. Afridi describes his ISI interrogators as stating that “the Americans are our worst enemies; worse than the Indians.” That is a powerful statement, given the 70 year history of aggression and warfare between India and Pakistan.
Doubtless the details of the raid in No Easy Day will add further points of contention to the internal political dialog in Pakistan, and that is why this book is such an interesting point of reference for students of IR. In classical Waltzian Realist IR theory, the actions of the domestic realm and the international realm are distinct entities, and never the twain shall meet. Ian Clark describes this notion as the “Great Divide” between Political (Domestic) Science and IR as fields of study, and argues that it is a false distinction. So much attention has been focused in the US on the domestic impact and repercussion of this book, with the debate almost entirely framed in regards to the propriety of publishing such a personal account of a secret mission. The questions asked are exclusively concerned with duties towards the state and comrades in arms, verses personal gain, becoming a best selling author, and being used as a political tool during an election year. However, this book has the potential to impact the domestic political debate of BOTH countries, and by extension the field of IR as a study of the relationship between sovereign entities. No Easy Day suggests that the actions of a private individual who chooses to publish a memoir can transcend the great divide between the domestic and the international. It is not just the actions of states that impact the field of play, however attached to Kenneth Waltz we may be.
While the raid to kill Bin Laden in Abbatobad, Pakistan was a distinctly Waltzian, realist operation, the repercussions have been anything but. The release of information by the state has significantly impacted the non-state realm causing transnational effects on humanitarian efforts, and domestic impacts within both sovereign parties to the event. At the same time, the actions of Mr. Bissonnette, one year removed from the event itself, are showing themselves capable of impacting the domestic political arena of these two distinct nations. When we focus only on the domestic implications of this book, we leave out a vital dimension in our considerations. The boundary between the domestic and the international arenas is far more blurry than we like to think, and in this instance the great divide has never looked quite so easy to traverse.
James Walker is a fourth year Global Studies Major at UCLA, and a lifelong social activist. His research interests focus upon international governance and institutional legitimacy, with an emphasis on personal accountability, and the development of the International Criminal Court.