File Name: russell crandall the united states and latin america book .zip
It seems that you're in Germany.
I aim to problematize this assertion through an analysis of US regional security policy. Therefore, I consider data referring to military and economic assistance, arms transfers, and the SOUTHCOM position towards its area of responsibility, as well as official documents and diplomatic cables. I conclude that, although the region was not a priority, a waning in US actions or a moment of neglect in its policy towards it was likewise not observed.
From a historical perspective, the area was never the main focus of attention, but there is a specialized bureaucracy that works on the region to maintain US hegemony. Therefore, the investigation indicates that Latin American assertiveness during the s was caused primarily by the conjunction of the ascension of leftist governments and quest for autonomy, as well as by Chinese and Russian involvement in Latin America, but not by US neglect.
The article is divided into six sections, including the introduction and final remarks. Finally, I present the final remarks. This situation generated the perception of a post-hegemonic hemisphere Hakim ; Crandall ; Paz ; Riggirozzi and Tussie ; Lima ; Sabatini ; Drezner ; Long ; Tulchin The main argument presented by the literature regarding the first hypothesis is that, following the terrorist attacks, US Foreign Policy 3 was directed to the Middle East and no comprehensive plan was made regarding the Hemisphere.
Riggirozzi and Tussie argue that the US lack of interest — in combination with the quest for autonomy by South American countries — opened the path to a post-hegemonic hemisphere and a new awakening for regionalism. Both institutions emphasized political cooperation and promoted the idea that Latin America could solve its problems without external interference. Therefore, the creation of regional institutions was connected with the quest for autonomy in South America.
According to Puig 44 , autonomy is a process of broadening the margins for endogenous decision-making. In the s, Latin American left-leaning governments attempted to resume developmentalist policies and the quest for autonomy in foreign policy, seeking out to amplify national viability Wylde As expected, this situation stirred suspicions in Washington DC, which since has been hosting congressional hearings aimed at assessing the regional presence of external actors in the Hemisphere Subcommittee On Western Hemisphere and Peace Corps And Narcotics Affairs As Long claimed, the perception of neglect became common sense, being repeated by the media, policymakers, and experts, yet was hardly ever demonstrated.
I consider data referring to military and economic aid, arms transfers, speeches addressed by SOUTHCOM commanders, as well as official documents and diplomatic cables.
I conclude that, although the region was not a priority, there was not a waning in US actions. The investigation indicates that Latin American assertiveness during the s was caused primarily by the conjunction of the ascension of leftist governments and by Chinese and Russian involvement in Latin America, not by US neglect. Therefore, rather than being internal to US Foreign Policy dynamics, the shift was a product of changes external to the United States.
Due to spatial and scope limitations, the article will not discuss the theoretical aspect of US foreign policy, its inter-bureaucratic dynamics, nor the changes the country underwent in past years. The idea of US neglect towards its hemisphere is not a 21st century novelty. The consolidation of Central Europe as a stable area, integrated with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization NATO , became a primary issue, alongside topics such as nuclear non-proliferation and the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians Kjonnerod This process was not limited to the economic field and, when it comes to hemispheric security, it included a reformulation of the Organization of American States OAS and the launch of the Defence Ministerial of the Americas since Saint-Pierre However, this context would change in the following decade, during which the election of leftist leaders and the rejection of the FTAA in were responsible for creating a perception of US neglect and declining power.
The lack of priority indicates that the President and the Secretaries of State and Defence have their daily routine dominated by issues relating to other geographical areas, which they perceive as main concerns.
It does not follow, however, that there is no foreign policy to Latin America. Bureaucracies and other actors, including the Congress and the intelligence community, continue to operate in the region Buxton ; Brenner and Hershberg There are also strategies formulated within the National Security Council and operationalized by the multiple US agencies involved in foreign policy.
It contributed to the framing of certain local issues within the paradigm of combatting terror — especially through the association between drug traffic and terrorism, which took place in the fight against insurgent groups in Peru and Colombia Prevost ; Emerson ; Buxton ; Battaglino ; Isacson ; Tokatlian The war on terror contributed to the militarisation of US Foreign Policy to the region, denoting an increase in the military influence in foreign policy issues 5 Prevost ; Isacson ; Tokatlian According to Tokatlian:.
Militarisation meant that the US agencies perceived and dealt with social, economic and political problems as security issues, and that transnational organized crime and drug trafficking were encompassed to the war on terror logic Saint-Pierre ; Isacson ; Tokatlian Moreover, in , the United States recreated the Fourth Fleet, that had been deactivated since the s.
With regard to the physical presence of US military personnel in Latin America, the s represented a moment of relative losses to the hegemon, yet it did not imply its absence or decline.
The presence of US military personnel in Latin America decreased considerably during that decade, due to the closure of bases in Panama — as part of the agreements regarding the American withdrawal from the Canal. The subsequent decade was also marked by difficulties. In , Ecuador did not renew the agreement that authorized the maintenance of a US military base in the city of Manta. Since then, negotiations to replace the base have failed.
Thus, it has none in South America Vaicius and Isacson However, this does not mean the hegemon has a scarce military presence in Latin America. According to Bitar , the preference for informal arrangements is determined by the internal politics of Latin American countries, given that their national leaders perceive political costs with regard to the installation of military bases in their national territories.
However, informal access is also in line with the external power projection policy of the USA — distinguished by the construction of smaller, more flexible and informal bases, not subject to the scrutiny of the American Congress Bitar Moreover, in , the Pacific Arc Initiative was created, reuniting US regional allies into a multilateral sphere.
The initiative was supported and inspired by the USA and emphasized commitments to free trade and to the adoption of market reforms Biegon Long highlights that experts and academics usually overstress the US decline, while not adequately addressing its remaining structural power, remarkably exercised through the dollar hegemony and through its massive military strength.
The author claims that the USA remains the leading source of military training for most countries in South America. In the financial sphere, the power of the dollar persists, Latin American countries are dependent on it and US monetary policy has a significant impact on the financial performance of its neighbours. As for big powers advances in Latin America, starting in the s, bilateral trade and Chinese investments in the region expanded exponentially, generating other sources of financing to South American countries Kaplan ; CEPAL Russia also made regional economic incursions, particularly in the energy sector and arms transfers.
Although Russian and Chinese advances represent a relevant challenge to US power, which I do not intend to minimize, these did not imply in a complete shift in US power and are particularly concentrated in, and limited to, specific countries.
Long concludes that this is nonetheless not a radical change: direct investment from other parts of the globe , especially from Europe, is a constant in Latin America. However, it is worth mentioning that the Japanese economic challenge, in terms of trade and investment, was a source of US concern in the s when Japan started to operate in the hemisphere Paz These contradictory factors point to a shrinking but still important US hegemony and raise some questions. Was the United States indeed neglecting the region or was its loss of economic pre-eminence balanced by an increase in its military influence?
United States assistance directed to the region is a significant source of information to assess if the events in question, that took place in , marked a turning point in US policy to Latin America and entailed the beginning of a period of neglect.
Financial resources were assigned to South American countries through both of these programs. The reports on terrorism were added to the long existent reports on drug trafficking, possibly leading to sanctions should US demands not be accomplished Silva However, relevant differences among sub-regions have been observed. Therefore, US policymakers did not treat South America in a homogenous way, and it seems their main concerns were related to the Andean region.
Source: Created by the author with data from Center for International Policy The USA perceived relatively fewer threats in the Southern Cone, paying less attention to the area in terms of assistance, particularly regarding security issues. The coca producing countries are all located in the Andean region, corroborating with the assumption of that area as more unstable and as a source of threats.
The USA usually expects them to collaborate and share responsibilities, meaning that they also should assume tasks to assist their neighbours Bandeira Changes in discourse among the US foreign policy community have likewise been observed. After , the phenomenon of drug and insurgencies were conceived as narco-terrorism.
Military operations on Andean countries became the central US security concern in the Western Hemisphere, and Colombia became one of the main US aid destinations, ranked sixth among the top ten countries to receive assistance from to Center for International Policy ; Milani The relevant amount of aid destined to Colombia shows how significant that relationship was for the USA.
The country became the major US ally in South America, critical to ensure its regional presence. Colombia was the single key exception to the rise of left-leaning governments in Latin America, and that bilateral relationship became a means to react to the regional phenomenon. The repression deployed debilitated the rebel armed group and, during Juan Manuel Santos presidency, Colombia initiated a peace process.
The USA supported the negotiations and started to perceive the Andean country as a success case and as an ally that could be responsible for exporting security. Colombia, however, was not the only area where the United States government was acting at that moment. It also expected to contain the pink wave through the meddling in the internal politics in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Bolivia Leogrande ; Vanderbush Eventually, those actions could not avoid left-leaning governments from being elected in the region, and sometimes even backfired.
As a result, the strategy had to change. At the time of George W. Colombia was not the only US partner in South America. The relationship with Brazil was ambiguous, but the United States explored common areas for cooperation.
The assistance data also indicates differences between the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama During the Obama years, the amount of economic assistance became greater than the security aid, except in the Andes Graph 4 , partially reversing the tendency of militarisation. Back then, the idea of smart power, 8 meaning that all means of influence — economic, diplomatic, cultural and military — should be used to advance US interests, began to guide US grand strategy.
It was a critique to the Bush administration, whose main focus was placed on the military aspect of hegemony Biegon There was also a rhetoric on partnership, highlighted especially by the president, and a new opening to Latin American demands. The normalization of relations with Cuba in was the most explicit event deemed to portray the USA as not being unresponsive to Latin American requests, and conceived as a way of improving the relations with the entire hemisphere and change its corroded image The White House a.
In addition, another rhetoric emphasized multilateralism and the formation of horizontal partnerships in the region. Kassab and Rossen point out that Obama aimed to rebuild US soft power in the Hemisphere, especially diminished during the first Bush administration. This change involved new tactics, but the same goal remained: the Bush and Obama administrations sought to maintain their relative position as a great power Kassab and Rosen In general, the White House sought not to directly antagonize the countries of the Bolivarian axis, attributing a low profile to the issue.
However, the pressing on the left-leaning governments was not absent. It refrained from naming it a military coup and accepted the status quo after elections were held. That event wore out the euphoria that had followed the Obama election. This was the first step to initiate a process of imposing sanctions to the country. Increasing challenges and obstacles were posed to US hegemony, but its influence remained relevant in terms of military training and security assistance.
Therefore, US policymakers did not neglect the region. In the next section, the stance of the leading military agency dedicated to this region will be analysed, to clarify the US position in greater depth. It is the leading and permanent institution dedicated to promoting military-to-military cooperation between the USA and Latin America. Through these discourses, it is possible to identify the perceived threats coming from the hemisphere in different periods Table 1.
I aim to problematize this assertion through an analysis of US regional security policy. Therefore, I consider data referring to military and economic assistance, arms transfers, and the SOUTHCOM position towards its area of responsibility, as well as official documents and diplomatic cables. I conclude that, although the region was not a priority, a waning in US actions or a moment of neglect in its policy towards it was likewise not observed. From a historical perspective, the area was never the main focus of attention, but there is a specialized bureaucracy that works on the region to maintain US hegemony. Therefore, the investigation indicates that Latin American assertiveness during the s was caused primarily by the conjunction of the ascension of leftist governments and quest for autonomy, as well as by Chinese and Russian involvement in Latin America, but not by US neglect. The article is divided into six sections, including the introduction and final remarks.
Latin American Foreign Policies pp Cite as. The emergence of center-left and left-leaning governments throughout Latin America, the so-called Pink Tide, has been a striking feature of the Latin American political scenario in the first decade of the new millennium. Due to the progressive character and discourse of the majority of current Latin American leaders and governments, one would expect a more assertive approach to foreign policy. Indeed this has been the case, and Latin American foreign policies have become increasingly effective in defense of national interests. Yet, what is striking is the original synthesis between ideology and pragmatism.
H- Diplo. Roundtable Review. Volume XIX, No.
Historically speaking, bilateral relations between the United States and the various countries of Latin America have been multifaceted and complex, at times defined by strong regional cooperation and at others filled with economic and political tension and rivalry. Although relations between the U. Today, the ties between the United States and most of Latin America with the exception of certain countries such as Cuba and Venezuela are generally cordial, but there remain areas of tension between the two sides.
In the U. His main objective is to provide objective criteria in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the three radical interventions which become the raw meat of his analysis. The criteria includes whether or not Washington made prudent decisions based on all of the information that was available at the time. Also, Crandall means to weigh in on the consequences of U.