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 abundance of news focused on the U.S. presidential election has left little room for the discussion of President Obama’s national security legacy. This intense spotlight on the controversial candidates limited projections of the long-term repercussions of President Obama’s policies and the precedents they have set for the next president. Two weeks ago, UCLA’s Burkle Center for International Relations, in conjunction with the Center for Near Eastern Studies and the International and Comparative Law Program, hosted a conference on President Obama’s drone legacy that specifically focused on the use of weaponized drones against terrorists. The conference consisted of two panels hosting, among others, distinguished Georgetown Law Professor Marty Lederman and Ret. General Wesley K. Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO Europe. The panelists spoke at length about international humanitarian law, human rights and the Bush Administration, tying each to President Obama’s foreign policy and national security framework.
Two very different, although not mutually exclusive, perspectives on President Obama were developed throughout the day. The first President Obama was depicted by Lederman and, to some extent, Ret. General Clark, describing President Obama’s use of drones against terrorists as responsible and restrained. They maintained that President Obama has only used weaponized drones in specific armed conflicts, restricting their use under the Presidential Policy Guidance (PPG) and maintaining the strikes’ legality in terms of international and domestic law. The other President Obama cut a darker figure, described by British attorney and human rights expert Alex Moorhead as a continuation of the Bush Administration’s secrecy and disregard for human rights. Moorehead chastised President Obama’s drone policies as blurring the lines between war and peace, setting dangerous precedents for drone strikes to be unrestricted in terms of geography and temporal scope.
Despite the two characterizations of President Obama, nearly all the panelists agreed on one thing: President Obama’s current drone policies must be amended by his successor. Most of the panelists also concurred that a Congressional oversight committee on drone use would perform an adequate check on presidential power. Moorhead went further, supporting the concretization of PPG into actual law, rather than just policy. Currently, the PPG will only act as a guide for future administrations and can be easily ignored or changed, whereas making it law would codify restrictions on future presidents’ drone use. President Obama’s drone legacy has now moved beyond his control. President-elect Trump must implement Congressional oversight and support new domestic laws restricting the use of weaponized drones to armed conflicts in specific countries for limited periods of time. These steps would protect a positive legacy for President Obama’s drone program, keeping executive power restrained.
Both the Bush and Obama Administrations have pursued counterterrorism policies that are designed to keep Americans safe. Weaponized drone use by the president is governed by two legal frameworks: international humanitarian law (IHL) and domestic statutes. IHL, also known as the Law of War or the Law of Armed Conflict, legalizes the killing of enemy combatants in an armed conflict. Cardozo Law Professor Deborah Pearlstein specified that killing as a first resort is only legitimate in this context. The classification of terrorists under IHL is key to placing limitations on drone strikes, as some argue that, as “unlawful combatants”, IHL does not apply to terrorists. Pearlstein laid the basic foundation of how terrorists fit into IHL, explaining that conflicts between state and non-state actors are called non-international armed conflicts, or NIACs. Both President Bush and President Obama were able to define and characterize American conflict with terrorist groups through a global NIAC paradigm, controlling the story around its interaction with relatively new legal frameworks and, crucially, new technology. The lack of accountability and transparency regarding drone strikes has kept government policy hidden from American citizens, while rapidly developing technology has kept it from being restricted by domestic legislation or international law. Although the U.S. conflict with Al Qaeda, and now ISIS, seems to fit into the legal NIAC framework, the U.S. insistence on a global NIAC makes U.S. drone strike capabilities dangerously unrestricted in terms of location and time period, leaving questions concerning a timeline for the end of the war on terror and its current global reach unanswered. Pearlstein also argued that as the reach of IHL grows, supplanting domestic criminal law in more situations, the space for human rights law shrinks due to the further enabling and legitimizing of state power over individuals. President Obama’s persistent use of weaponized drones has set dangerous precedents for future administrations and other national governments that may support more extreme use.
Not all the panelists agreed that President Obama has continued the global NIAC against terrorist groups, and used the PPG as a specific example of his restraint. Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic stated that drone use is deliberative and discriminate, meaning it can pick out targets with little or no collateral damage. He and Lederman assert that the PPG does enhance these restrictions, setting barriers that further regulate the strikes. While the panelists agreed that the publishing of the PPG improved transparency within the Obama Administration, Moorehead focused on its limitations as a policy guideline, rather than domestic law. President-elect Trump could–and likely will–reject the PPG completely and follow his own interpretations of IHL and domestic law. Pearlstein also argued that transparency is less important than the lack of legal and political accountability. She emphasized the significance of scrutinizing the justifications for using weaponized drones in areas where legitimate and capable government does exist, such as Pakistan.
The creation of a Congressional oversight committee that monitors drone strikes and proposes legislation restricting the use of weaponized drones would create a necessary check on executive power. It would also allow Congress to contribute to the debate concerning the legality of weaponized drone usage outside of traditional battlefields and in sovereign states like Pakistan. Although President-elect Trump will likely reject any transfer of power to Congress, allowing greater congressional oversight would ensure respect for human rights and potentially spread the negative political ramifications of strikes with heavy civilian casualties and those targeting American citizens. A congressional oversight committee is a critical step towards reining in America’s weaponized drone usage. President Obama and other Commanders-in-Chief prefer drone strikes because they pose no risk to the soldiers involved, meaning the political risks of these killings are also lessened. This can incentivize leaders to use deadly force more frequently, an executive power that must be checked immediately. President-elect Trump must also support the codification of the PPG into domestic law, permanently restricting weaponized drone use and cementing a drone legacy of restraint and responsibility. The creation of checks and shared responsibility with respect to weaponized drone use may lead to political gains for both the president and Congress, while also creating spaces for human rights and legal weapons use. President Obama’s drone legacy depends on it.
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
On September 11, 2001, the entire world shook when the World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked by Al Qaeda. Not only was Osama Bin Laden responsible for the terrorist attacks on 9-11, but for attacks on two American embassies in East Africa, the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, and countless others. On May 1st, 2011, Osama Bin Laden — the mastermind behind the worst attack on American soil — was declared dead. Bin Laden was said to be killed in a secret operation in Abbottabad, Pakistan, which was carried out after a secret executive order was issued last week by President Barack Obama, in conjunction with U.S. intelligence. Confirmation was not made until his body was identified. Ironically this occurred on the eighth anniversary of President Bush’s ‘Mission Accomplished’ speech.
So now that the world’s foremost terrorist is dead, what happens?
The most obvious is a sigh of relief. Relief for the American people and particularly for the families who lost loved ones on September 11th and the men and women in uniform who lost their lives overseas. This sigh of relief was demonstrated as a large crowd congregated in front of the White House and at Ground Zero chanting, “USA! USA! USA!” and singing the National Anthem. This comes as a feeling of relief to other people in the world as well, especially those in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
We will likely see a continued metamorphosis of Al Qaeda. As President Obama mentioned in his speech, “Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will — remain vigilant at home and abroad.”
Al Qaeda could possibly retaliate or dismember at this point in time. The latter is less likely since there are still many who could take Bin Laden’s place. One such person is a man who has been emulating Bin Laden; Sheikh Abu Yahya Al Libi.
Al Libi initially was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (linked with Al Qaeda) and was on its Shari’a Council. His religious training took place in the North African country of Mauritania. In 2005, he escaped the Bagram U.S. military prison in Afghanistan, and since has made a more obvious international presence.
Al Libi’s chief contender is Bin Laden’s right-hand and deputy Dr. Ayman Al Zawahiri – who seems more or less the likely candidate. This could potentially cause a rift in Al Qaeda. Much cannot be said right now on what will happen next. Nevertheless, a sense of hope and further value has been embedded to our relentless effort for the past decade in the Middle East, especially in Afghanistan.
In all this, the upcoming 2012 presidential elections is starting to become brighter for President Obama just as he seemed to be at a breaking point. A common belief is that President Obama did in three years what President Bush could not do in eight. The upcoming days will be a crucial time for the American government and the rest of the world. As long as the world remembers, the 44th President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, will go down in history as the man who killed Osama Bin Laden. This historic moment will forever be remembered.
Holly Dagres is a Foreign Policy Analyst with a degree in Political Science and French from UCLA. Originally from Los Angeles, California, she spent her teen years in Tehran, Iran. Holly is a frequent contributor to The Professional Express among other publications.
Above Picture Used with Permission:
by theqspeaks