scholarly journals “‘The Left Turn’ in Mexico is a new phenomenon”

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-45
Author(s):  
A. N. Borovkov

Interview with Anatoliy Nikitovich Borovkov, Doctor of Political Science, Leading Researcher of the Institute of Latin America of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Editor-in-Chief of the Iberoamérica journal. From 1969 to the present date, Dr. Borovkov works at the Institute of Latin America of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He is the author of more than 100 research publications. From 1984 to 1994, he was a representative of the Institute of Latin America and a regional correspondent for the Latin America magazine in Mexico and Central America. Dr. Borovkov is a prominent Russian researcher specializing on Mexico; his research interests include analysis of political parties, electoral legislation processes in Mexico, the socio-economic situation in this country and its relations with the United States.The interview was conducted by: A.A. Habarta. 

Author(s):  
James Dunkerley

This chapter examines US foreign policy in Latin America and the historical evolution of US relations with the region. It first considers the Monroe Doctrine and manifest destiny, which sought to contain European expansion and to justify that of the United States under an ethos of hemispherism, before discussing the projection of US power beyond its frontiers in the early twentieth century. It then explores the United States’ adoption of a less unilateral approach during the depression of the 1930s and an aggressively ideological approach in the wake of the Cuban Revolution. It also analyzes US policy towards the left in Central America, where armed conflict prevailed in the 1980s, and in South America, where the Washington Consensus brought an end to the anti-European aspects of the Monroe Doctrine by promoting globalization. Finally, it looks at the impact of the Cold War on US policy towards Latin America.


2006 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 57-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Soares

This article discusses the Carter administration's policies toward Nicaragua and El Salvador after the Sandinistas took power in Nicaragua in July 1979. These policies were influenced by the widespread perception at the time that Marxist revolutionary forces were in the ascendance and the United States was in retreat. Jimmy Carter was trying to move away from traditional American “interventionism” in Latin America, but he was also motivated by strategic concerns about the perception of growing Soviet and Cuban strength, ideological concerns about the spread of Marxism-Leninism, and political-humanitarian concerns about Marxist-Leninist regimes' systematic violations of human rights.


Author(s):  
Brian Loveman

U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America in the 19th century initially focused on excluding or limiting the military and economic influence of European powers, territorial expansion, and encouraging American commerce. These objectives were expressed in the No Transfer Principle (1811) and the Monroe Doctrine (1823). American policy was unilateralist (not isolationist); it gradually became more aggressive and interventionist as the idea of Manifest Destiny contributed to wars and military conflicts against indigenous peoples, France, Britain, Spain, and Mexico in the Western Hemisphere. Expansionist sentiments and U.S. domestic politics inspired annexationist impulses and filibuster expeditions to Mexico, Cuba, and parts of Central America. Civil war in the United States put a temporary halt to interventionism and imperial dreams in Latin America. From the 1870s until the end of the century, U.S. policy intensified efforts to establish political and military hegemony in the Western Hemisphere, including periodic naval interventions in the Caribbean and Central America, reaching even to Brazil in the 1890s. By the end of the century Secretary of State Richard Olney added the Olney Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (“Today the United States is practically sovereign on this continent and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its interposition . . .”), and President Theodore Roosevelt contributed his own corollary in 1904 (“in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of wrongdoing or impotence, to exercise an international police power”). American policy toward Latin America, at the turn of the century, explicitly justified unilateral intervention, military occupation, and transformation of sovereign states into political and economic protectorates in order to defend U.S. economic interests and an expanding concept of national security.


2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
MARK WICKHAM-JONES

In tracing the development of increased polarization in the United States, numerous scholars have noted the apparent importance of the American Political Science Association's (APSA's) Committee on Political Parties. The committee's influential (and often criticized) report, Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System, called for a wholesale transformation of political parties in the United States. On its publication in October 1950, political scientists quickly concluded that, taken together, the committee's recommendations represented a reworking of a distinct approach, usually known as “party government” or “responsible party government.” (The origins of responsible parties dated back to Woodrow Wilson's classic 1885 text Congressional Government.) Since then, the notion of party government has become a core issue in the study of American political parties, albeit a contentious one. A recent survey ranked the APSA document at seventh as a canonical text in graduate syllabi concerning parties.


2021 ◽  
pp. 47-52
Author(s):  
K. S. Nepeina ◽  
V. A. An

During the Cold War of the 20th century and the classification of information between the largest nuclear states the Soviet Union (USSR) and the United States of America (USA), data on the registration of nuclear explosions were not published in the reports of the Unitied Seismic Observation Service. However, underground nuclear explosions were recorded. For example, underground nuclear explosions, produced by the United States on Amchitka island, were recorded by more than 30 stations of the USSR at epicentral distances Δ ~ 8–160°. Tests at the Nevada Test Site were found especially well throughout the USSR seismic stations. As a result of processing the bulletins of registered events, checking the values with the time service, the registration parameters for the Soviet stations were destroyed. However, thanks to an employee of the laboratory 5-s of the Institute of Physics of the Earth named after O.Yu. Schmidt of the USSR Academy of Sciences Kh.D. Rubinstein is kept at the Institute for the Dynamics of Geospheres of the Russian Academy of Sciences named after Academician M.A. Sadovsky. Only after 1985 messages from some seismic stations of the former USSR began to be published in the operational reports of the Geophysical Service of the Russian Academy of Sciences. This material is intended to publish that layer of invaluable information on the registration of underground nuclear explosions, made by the United States, which has been so carefully created for decades, and has not been published anywhere at the moment.


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (318) ◽  
pp. 98
Author(s):  
Roy Nuñez ◽  
María Isabel Osorio-Caballero

<p align="center"><strong>ABSTRACT</strong></p><p>In the last two decades, remittances have acquired great importance as a source of external income for various developing economies. In the particular case of Latin America, the United States represents the most important destination, with 62.1 million Latinos living there according to U.S. Census Bureau. This paper analyses the effect that migration and remittances have on poverty in Mexico and Central America. The results show that a 10% increase in migration to the United States (as a percentage of the population in the destination country) translates into an 8.6% reduction in the population living on less than US$ 1.90 a day, while the poverty gap is reduced by 12.8%. With regard to remittances, a reduction of 6.7% is observed in the poor population and 10% in relation to the poverty gap.</p><p align="center"><strong> </strong></p><p align="center">REMESAS, MIGRACIÓN Y POBREZA. UN ESTUDIO PARA MÉXICO Y CENTROAMÉRICA</p><p align="center"><strong>RESUMEN</strong></p><p>Recientemente, las remesas han adquirido gran importancia como fuente de ingresos externos de diversas economías en desarrollo. En el caso particular de América Latina, Estados Unidos representa el destino más importante, con 62.1 millones de latinos viviendo en ese país según el U.S. Census Bureau. El presente trabajo analiza el efecto que tienen la migración y el envío de remesas en la pobreza de México y Centroamérica. Los resultados muestran que un incremento del 10% en la migración hacia Estados Unidos (como porcentaje de la población en el país de destino) se traduce en una reducción de 8.6% de la población que vive con menos de US$ 1.90 al día; mientras que la brecha de pobreza se reduce en 12.8%. Con relación al envío de remesas, se observa una reducción de 6.7% en la población pobre y de 10% respecto a la brecha de pobreza.</p>


Author(s):  
Sebastian Bitar ◽  
Tom Long

Latin America exhibits some of the world’s most worrisome patterns of insecurity. Homicide rates have reached alarming levels in dozens of cities in Mexico, Central America, Brazil, Venezuela, and Colombia. Drug and other illicit trafficking generate massive income for criminal organizations. Fighting among these organizations, and between criminal groups and the state, threatens human security in zones of production and along transit routes. Refugee crises—especially an exodus of 4 million Venezuelans by 2019—could increase substantially. Receiving countries struggle to respond. Insecurity in Latin America cannot be fully understood through comparison of the domestic challenges of each country in the region. The sources of contemporary insecurity are not contained within countries, but extend to transnational criminal networks, flows of illicit goods, and human trafficking and displacement. Likewise, isolated state responses are insufficient to respond to transnational dynamics; although some coordination has been achieved, intergovernmental responses have produced limited gains and substantial unintended consequences. Thus, we consider security challenges in the region as a “security complex” that includes Latin American and Caribbean countries, but in which the United States remains significant. On the other hand, international conflict and civil war, as traditionally defined, have almost vanished from Latin America. Threats of military coups and politically motivated violence have declined after being a key security issue for decades. However, some troubling cases and trends complicate this positive trend. Venezuela’s governing civilian–military alliance eroded basic democratic institutions and produced an economic, political, and humanitarian crisis. In response, the United States has raised the specter of military intervention or coup sponsorship. Honduras and especially Nicaragua have turned to authoritarianism, accompanied by alarming levels of repression of protesters and civil society activists. U.S. policies under the Trump administration toward migrants from Central America and Mexico are creating great tension in the region and fear of reprisals. Although most border disputes have been settled a few still are unresolved or contested and could generate tensions between countries in the region. The academic literature about international security in Latin America reflects the complex dynamics described above, covers historical and contemporary security challenges in the region, and presents debates and developments on Latin American security at the international and national levels. Despite its wide scope, the existing literature presents areas where more work is needed to account for emerging trends of (in)security.


1990 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 595-621 ◽  
Author(s):  
William M. Leogrande

Many foreign policy analysts in the United States expected a shift in US policy towards Latin America when George Bush succeeded Ronald Reagan as president. Though Bush had been a loyal supporter of Reagan's policies throughout the preceding eight years, Bush nevertheless seemed more pragmatic than his mentor. Whereas Reagan was the leader of the Republican Party's right wing, Bush was a scion of the East Coast Republican establishment, stronghold of the party's moderate centre.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document