Alana Moceri

Why does Spain care so much what the world thinks?

One thing I learned early on as a foreigner who sometimes appears in the press here in Spain was to never, ever, under any circumstances make a public statement about Catalonian independence. Never! You may remember the former U.S. Ambassador James Costos, who made a seemingly innocuous statement about how if Catalonia separated from Spain, American companies would “make adjustments accordingly.” This kicked up quite a frenzy of speculations about whether this represented an official departure from longstanding U.S. policy until he walked his comments back later that same day on Twitter stating that it is “an internal matter for Spain.”
So, while I have spent years carefully sidestepping the issue, I find it curious that these days, both Catalonian pro-independence leaders and the Spanish government have taken this internal dispute global. Why does Spain care so much about the world's opinion on this?

To be fair, the Catalonian leaders went on the international offensive first in the fall of 2017, bashing Spain's government as undemocratic wherever they could get an interview or op-ed published. It was frustrating to see this well-planned strategy play out in the international press as Rajoy's government mostly sat on their hands. These op-eds and interviews gave the impression that the international media was biased towards Catalonia—a consistent complaint among my friends and students and something I've been hard-pressed to find any real evidence of.

Al fin Pelosi le da a Trump el impeachment que estaba esperando

Fue un momento imponente cuando la presidenta de la Cámara de Representantes de Estados Unidos, Nancy Pelosi, anunció este martes que el órgano abría un proceso formal de impeachmentcontra el presidente Donald Trump. La gravedad del impeachment hace que su anuncio haya sido considerado siempre un momento histórico.

Pero lo que lo hace impresionante no es que Trump vaya a ser procesado. Ya lo fue con anterioridad por el Comité Judicial de la Cámara de Representantes y existen varias demandas contra él. Trump acumula tres años de incumplimientos a la Constitución de Estados Unidos y a su juramento al cargo. Lo que hace todo realmente formidable es que, desde que Pelosi juró su cargo de presidenta el pasado mes de enero, ha frenado diligentemente los deseos de muchos miembros de su partido de precipitarse en el impeachment . A cada escándalo que afloraba, Pelosi advertía: no, aún no. (leer articulo)

You can read the English version of this article here.

Nancy Pelosi finally gives Trump the impeachment he’s been wanting

It was a breathtaking moment when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the House of Representatives is opening a formal impeachment investigation against President Trump Tuesday evening. Given the gravity of an impeachment, its announcement is always going to be a historic moment. What made it breathtaking, however, wasn’t that Trump would be investigated. He is already being investigated by the House Judiciary Committee, not to mention that there are several lawsuits filed against him. Trump has amassed three year’s worth of flouting the U.S. constitution and his oath of office. The moment was breathtaking because since Pelosi was sworn in as speaker last January, she has been diligently reigning in the urges of many in her party to rush into an impeachment. To every new scandal, Pelosi has warned, no, we’re not there yet.

There’s a reason why Republicans have disparaged Pelosi so much throughout the years: she’s easily among the most effective, if not the most effective House Speaker the country has ever had. This is sometimes easy to miss since she does it with a smile while wearing 4-inch heels. But this woman who raised five children before entering politics has shown us time and time again the mettle she is made of. And if there’s anything to know about Nancy Pelosi is that she is strategic. If she’s decided that now is the time, then we can be assure the she has a plan behind that decision.

As They Go to the Polls Again, Spaniards Are Fed Up With All Their Parties

Spaniards are not happy that their country is headed for its fourth election in four years. According to a recent poll in El Pais, more than 90 percent of respondents said they felt either disappointment, anger or worry at the prospect of another vote. But the parliament that was chosen in April still dissolved Monday at midnight after the leaders of its main parties were unable or unwilling to come to an arrangement that would allow one of them to form a government, triggering an election on Nov. 10.

While Sept. 23 was the final deadline for any sort of Hail Mary, it was clear the negotiations had already failed a week earlier, when King Felipe VI announced that he couldn’t put forward any candidate for an investiture vote in parliament, since the parties were deadlocked. Acting Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez of the center-left Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party put the blame squarely on the three other main parties—the old-guard, conservative Popular Party and two recent upstarts, leftist Podemos and centrist Ciudadanos—for failing to support his candidacy. “I have tried by all means,” he said, “but they have made it impossible for us.” (read article)

Estados Unidos y Europa: ¿reiniciar relaciones a corto plazo?

Cuáles deberían ser las relaciones entre EE UU y la UE. He aquí las claves para entender qué les ha separado en los últimos años y cuál ha sido su trayectoria.  

Al comenzar el curso, la hija de una amiga mía, de 11 años, hizo un intento muy maduro de restablecer una relación muy envenenada con una amiga suya. Le preguntó si podían olvidarse de todos los dramas y empezar de cero. ¿Les sorprende saber que el drama volvió una semana después? Seguramente no.

Los intentos de simplificar las relaciones internacionales suelen ser ejercicios inútiles, pero las relaciones personales no son una mala analogía, e incluso pueden ser una forma muy recomendable de introducir el tema a los alumnos. Sin embargo, pese a todo lo que hemos aprendido con gran esfuerzo sobre relaciones difíciles e incluso tóxicas, en las relaciones internacionales, los políticos vuelven una y otra vez a la idea de una especie de nuevos comienzos. En el caso de la hija de mi amiga, puede tratarse de un sincero y maduro intento de cambiar las cosas. Pero todos sabemos que el resultado no suele ser bueno, ni en las relaciones personales ni, mucho menos, en las relaciones entre países, cargadas de diferencias ideológicas, culturales e históricas. (leer en esglobal)

You can read the English version of this article here. 

Don't expect a 'reset' the relationship between the U.S. and Europe anytime soon

My friend's 11-year-old daughter made a very mature attempt to reset a toxic relationship with a friend of hers at the beginning of the school year. She asked if they could leave the drama behind and start anew. Does it surprise you that the drama started up again about a week later? Probably not.

Attempts at simplifying international relations are typically fool's errands, but personal relationships are not a bad analogy and in fact, can be a pretty decent way to introduce IR theory to undergraduates. Yet, despite the hard lessons we've all learned about difficult, even toxic relationships, politicians go back time and time again to the idea of some sort of new beginning when it comes to international relationships. Lie with my friend's daughter, the intention might be a sincere and mature attempt at change. Yet, we all know that this rarely works for personal relationships, let alone, the relations between countries that are fraught with ideological, cultural and historical differences.

¿Ideas grandes y valientes para una victoria Demócrata en 2020?

Demócratas celebrado esta semana, la candidata a la presidencia Elizabeth Warren lanzó una reflexión: “No entiendo por qué alguien estaría dispuesto a padecer todos los problemas que acarrea el presentarse a presidente de los Estados Unidos solo para hablar de lo que no se puede hacer y de aquello por lo que no se debe luchar”.

Una nueva versión de la pregunta del millón que todos nos hemos estado planteando durante meses -¿Quién está mejor posicionado para derrotar a Trump, la izquierda progresista o los Demócratas moderados?- ha emergido en estos debates. Se ha transformado en una discusión sobre la oportunidad de plantear grandes propuestas e ideas audaces, y sobre si estas corren el riesgo de asustar al electorado general que siempre se necesita para ganar unas elecciones. (leer articulo en El Español)

You can read the English version of this article here.

Is big and bold the path to a Democratic victory in 2020?

During the first night of the second round of Democratic debates, the presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren mused “I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for.” A new version of the million dollar question we've all been askingfor months—who is better positioned to beat Trump, someone from the progressive left of the party or a moderate?—emerged from these debates. It morphed into an argument over whether big, bold ideas and whether they run the risk of scaring away the general electorate needed to win a presidential election.

Sure, many pundits continued to see this as a left-right fight, especially after Tuesday night's match up where progressive Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders more than held their own against moderate critics such as Representative John Delany and Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper. The newer, fresher faces like South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and former Texas Representative Beto O'Rourke, mostly stayed out of the fight, but the too favored the bold and the big. Going into night two, many wondered if former Vice President Joe Biden was the type of moderate candidate that could to hold up his end of the argument. In the end, the second night was a nine on one fight, with all the candidates, especially California Senator Kamala Harris, going after Biden, who enjoys the benefits of being tied to the Obama administration but also the liability of being tied to the kind of pragmatic incrementalism it represented.

Los demócratas tienen un problema con la política exterior

Los debate mensuales entre los aspirantes a candidatos demócratas a la presidencia arrancaron en junio y los votantes han comenzado a prestar atención a quién es quién y qué defiende cada uno de ellos. Las cuestiones que centraron más la atención en los debates de junio fueron la inmigración, la sanidad, la economía, el cambio climático y el control de armas. La política exterior no ocupó más que alrededor de 15 minutos de un total de cuatro horas. Pero esos escasos minutos bastaron para confirmar que los demócratas tienen un problema con la política exterior.

En concreto, ninguno de los candidatos ni, por tanto, el partido, están presentando nada que sirva de gran visión alternativa a la acción exterior de Trump, que es una auténtica película de horror. Lo que ofrecen es un confuso despliegue de visiones y posturas, algunas desinformadas y otras discrepantes con la política del gobierno de Obama. Y al mismo tiempo, no reconocen la dimensión internacional que tienen muchos de los principales problemas que discuten. (leer artículo en esglobal)

You can read the English version of this article here.

The Democrats have a foreign policy problem

Monthly debates kicked off in June among Democratic presidential hopefuls and American voters are beginning to pay attention to who's who and who stands for what. The issues that got the most attention inJune's debate were immigration, healthcare, the economy, climate change and gun control. Foreign policy only occupied about 15 minutes out of a total of four debate hours. Yet, these 15 minutes were enough to see that the Democrats have a foreign policy problem on their hands.

Specifically, the cohort of candidates and, by default the party, are not presenting anything that approaches a big picture alternative vision to Trump's horror-film style of foreign policy. This is underpinned by a blurry array of visions and positions, some of which are ill-informed while others are at odds with Obama administration policy. At the same time, there is a general failure to recognize the international nature of many of the biggest issues they are debating.