Latin America Confronts the United States

Long, Tom

doi:10.1017/cbo9781316343890

Cited by 55 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, the movement towards the use of the Gramscian approach applied to International Relations has been slow and relatively new, as stated by Stephan Gill (1993). Likewise, with the end of Cold War and, in particular after 9/11, there seems to be a tacit understanding among internationalists that Latin America had been neglected by the United States (Hakim 2006;Riggirozzi and Tussie 2012;Lima 2013;Long 2015). We point here that the region not only remained a US priority, but the interventionist practices carried out by US leaders did not cease with the advent of the 21st century.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Hegemony, consensus building, and pedagogical colonisation: new ways of external interference?

Vidal

2023

Contexto int.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study is a theoretical effort to rethink International Relations from the perspective of Neo-Gramscian Critical Theory in which its empirical object is the US hegemony in the scope of Latin America. More specifically, this study refers to the fabrication of consensus directed by an American ruling class through its own vehicle for this – the Atlas Network – which finds legitimacy and support in its Latin American counterparts. Based on primary data, public documents, and specialised bibliography, this study aims to contribute to the rethinking of International Relations using this institute as an object of empirical relation to theoretical study. More than presenting domination strategies through private hegemony apparatus, this study encourages us to reflect on relatively forgotten (or marginalised) practices and concepts in International Relations, such as imperialism, hegemony, and the role of consensus building. Finally, from Critical Theory, it contributes to understand the role of ruling classes in the creation of consensus in subaltern countries and classes to maintain this same hegemonic structure.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Hegemony, consensus building, and pedagogical colonisation: new ways of external interference?

Vidal

2023

Contexto int.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To access US-Latin American relations, I use the internationalist approach, which fits the premise of considering the interactive characteristics of negotiations after PB. It also implies that Latin American countries have agency, despite hemispheric material capability asymmetry (Long, 2015).…”

Section: The Effects Of Presidential Breakdowns | 511mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of presidential breakdowns on foreign policy in Latin America

Sposito

2023

Latin American Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Presidents and their ideologies have long been thought to be important explanatory variables in Latin American foreign policy, but little is known about how presidential breakdowns, a common form of leader change, affect foreign policy. I use a qualitative structured comparison to analyze the effects of nine presidential ousters on their successors’ foreign policies. I focus on cases in which the legitimacy of the process is in a gray zone, when narrative disputes are more likely to emerge. The findings indicate that incumbents politicize foreign policy when they use it to attain public support but accommodate it to congressional interests when they need support of Congress; meanwhile, international peers respond to presidential breakdowns according to their strategic and ideological rather than normative concerns. Even though Latin America is dominated by weak states, domestic politics, especially during crises, play a major role in explaining their foreign policies. Considering the role played by presidents in foreign policymaking, understanding this kind of presidential succession is essential.

show abstract

“…It maintains linkages with and wields leverage over the other member states as well as the OAS Secretariat, which is not only located in Washington next to the White House, but also dependent on US financial contributions (Closa and Casini, 2016). However, the scholarship on inter-American relations has shown that, despite the great asymmetry between the United States and Latin American countries, the United States rarely gets what it wants without the support of key Latin American states that wield great influence on delimited sub-regions, such as Brazil in South America and Mexico in Central America (Levick and Schulz, 2020;Long, 2017;Palestini, 2020;Shaw, 2004).…”

Section: Regional Powersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enforcing peoples’ right to democracy: transnational activism and regional powers in contemporary Inter-American relations

Palestini

Martinelli

2022

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Inter-American Democratic Charter (IADC) is the most comprehensive multilateral framework for dealing with democratic breakdowns and backslidings in the Western Hemisphere. In such cases, the Organisation of American States (OAS) is supposed to defend democracy by suspending states, imposing sanctions or taking other multilateral measures. Oftentimes, however, the OAS has looked the other way. The question, then, is what makes the difference. In this comparative case study, we use cross-cases comparisons and process-tracing to identify the actors and causal mechanisms that determine when and whether the IADC is actually enforced. We explain inconsistent enforcement by analysing interactions among three sets of actors – the governments of powerful member states, OAS secretaries general and civil society organisations – during coups, executive takeovers and electoral frauds in OAS member states between 2001 and 2020. Our analysis reveals that cooperation between an activist secretary general and civil society actors was neither sufficient nor necessary for IADC enforcement. By contrast, US support for enforcement was a necessary but insufficient condition for the OAS to act. To get it to do so, the United States required the support of two leading regional powers: Mexico and Brazil. These findings suggest that the ‘right to democracy’ enshrined in the IADC hinges upon the volatile preferences of the executives of the OAS’s three most powerful member states. The resulting lack of institutional autonomy leads to inconsistent enforcement of the IADC, jeopardising the credibility of the region’s formally declared right to democracy.

show abstract

Latin America Confronts the United States

Cited by 55 publications

References 0 publications

Hegemony, consensus building, and pedagogical colonisation: new ways of external interference?

Hegemony, consensus building, and pedagogical colonisation: new ways of external interference?

The effects of presidential breakdowns on foreign policy in Latin America

Enforcing peoples’ right to democracy: transnational activism and regional powers in contemporary Inter-American relations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About