The United States and the Independence of Latin America, 1800–1830. By Arthur Preston Whitaker, University of Pennsylvania. [The Albert Shaw Lectures on Diplomatic History, 1938, The Walter Hines Page School of International Relations.] (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. 1941. Pp. xx, 632. $3.75.)

Author(s):  
Andrés Malamud ◽  
Júlio C. Rodriguez

From November 1902 through February 1912, four presidents governed Brazil. Throughout all this period, though, only one person headed the foreign ministry: José Maria da Silva Paranhos Jr., alias Baron of Rio Branco (20 April 1845–10 February 1912). This political wonder and diplomatic giant was to shape Brazil’s international doctrine and diplomatic traditions for the following century. His major achievement was to peacefully solve all of Brazil’s border disputes with its South American neighbors. Founded in 1945, Brazil’s prestigious diplomatic school carries his name, Instituto Rio Branco, and, since the early 2000s, Brazilian foreign policy has become the largest subfield of international relations in university departments across the country. Indeed, Brazilian foreign policy is to Brazilian academia what American politics is to US academia, namely, a singular phenomenon that has taken over a general field. In contrast with the United States, most in-depth research from about 1998 to 2010 came from foreign-based scholars; however, since then a large cadre of mostly young academics in Brazil have seized the agenda. Unlike the pre-2000 period, the orientation has been toward public policy rather than diplomatic history. That the top Brazilian journals of international relations are now published in English rather than Portuguese attests to the increasing internationalization of the field.


1973 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-445 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip C. Jessup

Territorial disputes are commonplace in the history of international relations. The United States has had its share—the northeastern boundary with the British territories after the Revolutionary War, “54:40 or fight” in 1845–1846, the Alaskan boundary arbitration in 1903, and many others— including El Chamizal. This “thicket” or “brierpatch” was one in which the friendly relations between the United States and Mexico were entangled for almost a century. “The Chamizal conflict has not been a major factor in United States-Mexican relations, but has been a constant emotional irritant which has plagued both nations and had frequent reverberations throughout Latin America.”


Author(s):  
Quintijn B Kat

Abstract The strategies of subordinate states in hegemonic or asymmetrical relations have been widely studied by international relations scholars. Such works generally focus on how a subordinate state can influence the hegemon's behavior so as to address and further the interests of the subordinate state. The relation between subordinate-state agency and the hegemonic system, the makeup of the hegemonic order, itself receives less attention. Through analysis of two cases of US hegemony in Latin America, this article examines how subordinate-state agency may strengthen or weaken the hegemonic system and, as such, makes a case for subordinate-state agency as an underpinning element of hegemony. It explores Colombian agency in the design phase of Plan Colombia as contributing to US hegemony, while Bolivian agency under the presidency of Evo Morales is examined as a challenge. In both instances, it was the United States, rather than the Latin American states, that took on a passive role, leaving the initiative with Colombia and Bolivia. Therefore, instead of reaffirmations of active one-way US hegemony versus passive subordinate states, the paper proposes to understand both cases as demonstrating the importance of subordinate-state agency in the configuration of the hegemonic system.


2020 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-72
Author(s):  
Rubrick Biegon

ABSTRACTThis article examines change and continuity in the United States' recent foreign policy toward Cuba. In the context of the posthegemonic regionalism of the Pink Tide and regional disputes over Cuba's position in the interamerican system, the Obama administration's rapprochement was driven to protect the institutional power and consensual features of U.S. hegemony in the Americas. The Trump administration reversed aspects of Obama's normalization policy, adopting a more coercive approach to Cuba and to Latin America more broadly. Against the emerging scholarly proposition that the international relations of the Americas have crossed a posthegemonic threshold, this analysis utilizes a neo-Gramscian approach to argue that the oscillations in U.S. Cuba policy represent strategic shifts in a broader process of hegemonic reconstitution. The article thus situates U.S. policy toward Cuba in regional structures, institutions, and dynamics.


Author(s):  
Ángel De la Fuente Ferreras

En 1964, Eduardo Frei Montalva comenzó el primer gobierno democratacristiano en América Latina. Este artículo analiza el protagonismo de las relaciones internacionales de Chile entre ese año, cuando comenzó la denominada “Revolución en Libertad”, y 1970, momento en el que el triunfo electoral de Salvador Allende truncó el proyecto de la Democracia Cristiana. Durante ese tiempo, el gobierno chileno de Eduardo Frei desplegó un intenso programa de relaciones exteriores con Estados Unidos, el resto de los países iberoamericanos y otros pertenecientes al bloque socialista, además de mantener una activa agenda europea. Todo ello, dentro del marco de las directrices políticas que determinaban su programa y del cambiante panorama internacional. In 1964, Eduardo Frei Montalva began the first Christian Democratic government in Latin America. This article analyzes the leading role in Chile´s international relations between that year, when the so-called “Revolution in Liberty” began, and 1970, when the electoral victory of Salvador Allende truncated the Christian Democracy project. During that time, the Chilean government of Eduardo Frei deployed an intense foreign relations program with the United States, the rest of the Ibero-American countries and others belonging to the socialist bloc, in addition to maintaining  an active European agenda. All this within the framework of the political guidelines that determined its program and the changing international panorama.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document