Tom Long Dissertation Prospectus Committee: Robert A. Pastor (chair), Max Paul Friedman Ph.D.

program chair: Stephen Silvia Words: 2,997 October 29, 2010 Convincing the Colossus: Latin American Leaders Face the United States On May 13, 1958, furious crowds halted Vice President Richard Nixon s motorcade on the streets of Caracas. The demonstrators smashed the car s windows and covered Nixon in spit and broken glass before his driver managed an escape. The episode so disturbed President Eisenhower that he put the military on alert, ready to carry the vice president to safety. 1 The attack on Nixon alerted the Eisenhower administration to problems in the region, where it had considered communist subversion to be largely under control. This belief would be entirely overturned months later as the Cuban Revolution overthrew a longstanding dictator and became more evidently communist. The fear of radical revolution stoked by these events conditioned U.S. policies in the decades that followed, engendering bursts of heightened attention, and often overreaction, from the United States.2 In this way, the cold war has long been seen as an imposition on Latin American leaders a condition that inhibited their policy options. However, in a manner that is underappreciated in the literature on inter-American relations, Latin American leaders were at times able to take advantage of crises to advance their priorities acting as transnational policy entrepreneurs in the U.S. foreign policy process. The Caracas debacle showed that popular expectations in Latin America were rising, but they were not being met. Into the void stepped an exuberant, dynamic president with a vision for how to

Tad Szulc, U.S. Flies Troops to Caribbean as Mobs Attack Nixon in Caracas, The New York Times (May 14, 1989), pp. 1 2 Robert A. Pastor, Exiting the Whirlpool : U.S. Foreign Policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 2001).


1971)." Luso-Brazilian Review 27. 6 a four-point plan that evolved into Operation Pan America. Brazil s Chief Calls for U. pp. 1 (1990). pp. The more rapid development of Latin America's economic strength will result in a growing sense of vitality and will enable it to increase its contribution to the defense of the West. 1963). Accessed November 22. Available online: http://www. 2 . The American Presidency Project. 1958).meet a challenge in Latin America that went much deeper than communism. Milton Eisenhower noted this.presidency. Woolley and Gerhard Peters. 6 Louis Stein. 8 Federico Gil.ucsb. the United States and Latin America (Garden City. 7 The Brazilian president s advocacy and astute use of personal ties and the media forced the Eisenhower administration to reconsider its Latin American economic policy. and urging a comprehensive reappraisal of the proceedings already in motion for the furtherance of Pan-American in John T. Though Kubitschek claimed he had no definite and detailed plans.8 Though the fiscally conservative Eisenhower was not ready to launch anything as grandiose as Operation Pan America. Aid to Latins. Latin American--United States Relations (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. This leader was not John F. A1 7 Operation Pan-America. (Released June 10. (June 21. "Juscelino Kubitschek and the Politics of Exuberance. 4 he had in fact proposed such a reappraisal during breakfast with Eisenhower several years earlier. Though there was little overlap between Kennedy s and Kubitschek s time in office. 4 Exchange of Letters between the President and President Kubitschek of Brazil. Kubitschek did spur important changes notably the creation of a hemispheric development Kennedy. in Modern History Sourcebook (Fordham University). the new 3 Maram Sheldon. The Wine Is Bitter.3 Days after the Caracas fiasco. A Brazilian aide memoire called the proposal a reorientation of hemispheric policy. but Brazilian President Juscelino Kubitschek. N.fordham. 218-219. Milton Stover Eisenhower.Y. Kubitschek called for a Marshall Plan for Latin America. Kubitschek penned a letter to President Eisenhower expressing solidarity with the vice-president.html. 1956-1961.: Doubleday. which through technical and economic assistance would make plain Latin America s place in the cold war. The Washington Post. no. 9 Personnel changes within the Eisenhower administration also corresponded with the new openness on economic policies as Treasury Secretary George Humphrey departed and Douglas Dillon became a leading figure. 5 The president s brother.5 Weeks later. 1958) Online: http://www.9 Kubitschek s ambitions would come to fruition when new leadership in Washington reacted to new leadership in Havana. 2009.

and economic well-being of the peoples of our hemisphere. Online: http://www. Making the Americas : The United States and Latin America from the Age of Revolutions to the Era of Globalization (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.10 More than reaction? Relations between the U. political.S. 1 and 2. policy? The preceding example suggests that they have. At least since the SpanishAmerican War of 1898. 11 For example. the United States has thrown its considerable heft around the Western chs. and Latin America Have Latin American leaders influenced U. Kennedy. in John T. The American Presidency Project. policy process? Before turning to these questions directly. the principal question of this dissertation is. 10 3 .S. Many argue this policy began nearly with the country s inception a drive to westward expansion led to countless battles with native nations and to the annexation of nearly half of Mexico s territory.U. One of the cardinal objectives of my administration will be the association of the United States with the peoples of Latin America in a common effort to improve the lives of our peoples under the reign of liberty. see Thomas F. but we lack a systematic understanding of when and how this has occurred. Message to President Kubitschek of Brazil.S. The dominant perspective in the field stresses the overwhelming power of the United States and paints an ungenerous picture of its intentions. under what conditions have Latin American leaders influenced the U. it is helpful to place them within the context of the literature on inter-American relations. what choices do Latin American leaders have? They can comply and perhaps gain the benefits of hegemonic favor or resist and face the giant s powerful wrath.S. Woolley and Gerhard Peters. John F. This Melian choice Kubitschek left the presidency shortly after Kennedy s inauguration. president seized the departing Brazilian s arguments. Therefore.11 During the cold war. esp. the plight of Latin American leaders was characterized by the doomed names of Arbenz and Allende or iconic places like the Bay of Pigs or Managua harbor. 2007).presidency. which had planted the seeds for the Alliance for Progress in the summer of 1958. Kennedy responded to an inaugural greeting from Kubitschek: I share Your Excellency's deep concern for the social. Facing this daunting context. During the brief overlap.ucsb. O'Brien.

policies than the previous generation of scholars. Jr. The Latin American Policy of the United States : An Historical Interpretation (New York: Norton. 15 This school was heavily influence by the New Left of William Appleman Williams. establishment authors tend to criticize specific issues within U. Policy toward the Caribbean Basin: Fixed and Emerging Images. 1971). 3 (1978).S. While more critical of U. A body of critical scholars emerged. 2000). 13 Samuel Flagg Bemis. Hogan and Thomas G. Russell Crandall recently described the literature as split between an establishment itself divided along U. partisan lines and an anti-imperialist critique. policies. exemplified by Samuel Flagg Bemis landmark text.17 Establishment authors. "American Imperialism: The Worst Chapter in Almost Any Book. "Review: Explaining U.S.S. strongly influenced by Marxism and dependency theory.15 Scholars identified a split between establishment and radical authors.. Inevitable Revolutions : The United States in Central America (New York: Norton. 2008). 17 It is worth noting that even this dichotomy and its emphasis of U. no. Walter LaFeber. In the study of U. no. Bemis examined Latin Americans reactions to U. New York: Cambridge University Press.S.S. decisions.S. no. political parties reflects that lack of attention to Latin American agency in the literature. 1983). Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.S. policy towards Latin America." "Radical.S." World Politics 38. policy to Latin America. especially the period of frequent interventions stretching from the late 1890s to the late 1920s." Latin American Research Review 8. the divide remains. see James A. Walter LeFeber has been especially influential. Talons of the Eagle : Dynamics of U.characterizes many studies of inter-American relations. the perspective often merged with dependency theory.S.13 are now labeled nationalist. including Crandall. Lowenthal. policymakers and often offered justifications for U. Robert A. 12 4 . Field. which emphasized economic aspects of empire. offering a harsh reappraisal of U. frequently have policymaking experience." and "Bureaucratic" Perspectives. Latin American states are snared by the talons of the eagle. policy.S. 14 Nationalist historians stressed the dominance of U. Pastor. 12 The literature has evolved considerably from its Second World War origins. Smith. see Abraham F.S. 16 For earlier reviews of the literature that used similar divisions. The United States and Latin America after the Cold War (Cambridge. Paterson. 2004).S. 14 Michael J.-Latin Peter H." The American Historical Review 83.-Latin American Relations (New York: Oxford University Press. The cold war changed the course of both inter-American relations and the scholarship that examines them. Russell Crandall.16 Though Marxism and dependency have lost much of their sway. "United States Policy toward Latin America: "Liberal. For a counterpoint on this period in particular. as actors they had minimal roles. Early works on U. 3 (1973). 3 (1986).

Policy toward Latin America (Cambridge. and Cuban designs for Latin America all largely failed.-Latin American Relations. Harry Drost (London.22 For works within this school.S. Piccone. 2009). 2006). 1990).S. Gunboat Democracy : U. Atlantic Highlands. many of whom exhibited profound anticommunism. trans. 1985). Lars Schoultz.S.S. mattered more.S.-Latin American Relations.J.18 Various stripes of anti-imperialists dominate the field. most of the time." Diplomatic History 27. Latin America's Cold War: An International History (Cambridge: Harvard University Press.: Harvard University Press. and Panama (Lanham [Md. The actions of Latin American elites. Soviet.American relations rather than the foundations of those relations. Del: Scholarly Resources.20 A growing group of political scientists and diplomatic historians has argued that Latin Americans possess important leeway.. and the Rise of the New Imperialism (New York: Metropolitan Books. Greg Grandin.: Zed Books. U. and Latin American actions. Bringing Latin America Back In: Recent Scholarship on United StatesLatin American Relations. "Review: Explaining U. Beneath the United States : A History of U.-Latin American Relations (New York: Praeger. 20 Max Paul Friedman. In 2003. historian Max Paul Friedman noted an incipient trend of retiring the puppets. 2010). A Hemisphere to Itself : A History of U. 4 (2008).21 Hal Brands has recently. Andru es Rivarola Puntigliano. Some stress dependent economic conditions.S. which incorporates both U. Robert Pastor posits an interactive focus. Gilderhus. Michal J. 2006). no. Frank Niess.S. N. On the whole. Lowenthal. argued that U. 21 Pastor. a subtler option exists one that has at times been overshadowed by the emphasis on power asymmetry and demeaning American attitudes.S. see Russell Crandall.S. ending the treatment of Latin American leaders as marionettes guided by a northern master. Grenada. "Suspicious Minds: Recent Books on U. Empire's Workshop : Latin America. Policy toward the Caribbean Basin: Fixed and Emerging Images. and Laurence Whitehead. 19 There are myriad works within this school.S. no.: Brookings Institution Press.C. 1998).. Exiting the Whirlpool. U. Theodore J. The Second Century : U. 2000). "Retiring the Puppets. the United States.19 However. Pastor. 5 (2003). intentions rarely determine outcomes. Some with a broader focus include Mark T. while others examine policymakers prejudices and assumptions about Latin Americans." Latin American Politics and Society 50. Kryzanek. and persuasively." 22 Hal Brands. The Obama Administration and the Americas : Agenda for Change (Washington. Mass. Interventions in the Dominican Republic.-Latin American Relations since 1889 (Wilmington. 18 5 . Abraham F. the United States is a beneficial presence or at least does not behave worse than any other great power.]: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. D.

1997). Hey. 27 The concept of policy entrepreneurs has primarily been used regarding domestic policy. Gustavsson. Though I concur with this assessment. suggest that Latin American leaders retain room to maneuver when faced with U. Dimitris. 4 (1997). Agendas.S. Hey. More recently. policy and that Latin American leaders offer conflicting proposals. 2003). This idea has been applied only sparingly to foreign policy. Latin American and Caribbean Foreign Policy (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Works looking at Latin American foreign policy often stress the individual level of analysis. The Somozas excelled at anticipating U.S. assistance. policies as opposed to outcomes are at times shaped. inattention. 26 Jeanne A.27 It is clear that Latin American leaders do not always influence U. John Kingdon has tried to explain how these entrepreneurs identify windows for political action. Brown. K. backing in order to dominate Nicaragua. "How Should We Study Foreign Policy Change?. Importantly. 1992).26 Their options are broader than the Melian choice submission or ruin.25 These works. 1 (1999).23 as do many foreign relations histories that highlight Latin American agency. The Sparrow and the Hawk : Costa Rica and the United States During the Rise of José Figueres (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Spyros and Bourantonis Blavoukos. and Public Policies (Boston: Little.S. and brief episodes of U.S. and with the importance of adopting an interactive study of inter-American relations. The dissertation asks whether U. Jeanne A. 2003). John W. the question of this dissertation goes a step further." in SGIR 7th Pan-European Conference on IR (Stockholm: 2010). changed. ""Accounting for Foreign Policy Change: The Role of Policy Entrepreneurs.S.S. K. policies.S. or influenced by leaders from Latin America." COOPERATION AND CONFLICT 34. 25 Paul Coe Clark. Kyle Longley explains that Costa Rican President José Figueres was able to pursue his country s interests without provoking confrontation with the United States. CT: Praeger. no. Using an analogy of how the tiny sparrow outwits the powerful hawk. to project an image of support. Hey. K. 1984). Hey on small-state foreign policy. by J.S. The United States and Somoza. "Three Building Blocks of a Theory of Latin American Foreign Policy. 24 Kyle Longley. Mora and Jeanne A. the Somoza dynasty exploited long periods of U. K. Small States in World Politics : Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 23 6 . Frank O. Kingdon. no. along with the writing of Jeanne A. I will explore whether Latin American leaders have recognized opportunities in the U. foreign policy process and acted as policy entrepreneurs by presenting mutually beneficial solutions to problems. 1933-1956 : A Revisionist Look (Westport." Third World Quarterly 18.24 Less benevolently. Alternatives. fears and insinuating U. especially in response to crises.

and culture too much to overcome? Influence posits a process. we must first determine a definition of influence.: Princeton University Press..S. ascertaining the degree to which it existed is the principal challenge for this study.S.S.30 Is it possible that Latin American leaders had similar influence? Or were differences of power. and the U. wealth. actions. Latin American demands must be included in U.. Foreign Policy. Thomas Risse-Kappen relates influence to a Weberian definition of power: an actor has power if he is able to get another to do something he would not have done otherwise. pp. security decisions during the cold war. Risse-Kappen asks if European democracies influenced U. to assess the possibility of influence. which begins with a disagreement between U. degrees of European influence have to be measured in comparison to these other factors. Power asymmetries [were] mediated by norms of democratic decision-making among equals emphasizing persuasion. since many other factors exert influence on U. Princeton Studies in International History and Politics (Princeton. pp. 1995).28 He finds that the allies mattered more than structural realism predicts not simply through bargaining. Risse-Kappen argues that: There has to be a change in American behavior traced back to allied demands that cannot be explained otherwise. choices.Therefore. leaders perceptions of identity and interests. But it cannot be expected that the European allies single-handedly change American preferences and decisions. 30 Ibid. Definitions and hypotheses Did someone influence the actions of another? Influence is a slippery concept. 7 . and the nonuse of force. Cooperation among Democracies : The European Influence on U. 29 Risse-Kappen argues that democratic values played a key role of increasing Europeans influence in Washington.S.S.S.29 In weighing the explanatory power of NATO allies on U. compromise. Finally.S. Ibid. but by altering U. decision must reflect those demands. I will test a proposition that dominates the literature and engage in theory-building by analyzing the conditions under which influence did or did not affect policy decisions.S. policy deliberations. and Latin America leaders. 33. position 28 Thomas Risse-Kappen. In other words.S. N. the change in U. To approach this question.J. 13.

structural realism.-Cuba relations. My goal is not to test hypotheses about all possible conditions. Mass. policy. H0: Latin American leaders do not significantly influence U.32 My null hypothesis follows the Thucydidean maxim of international relations expressed by realists and the anti-imperialist school. Liberal IR theories on asymmetric interdependence and democratic alliance dynamics leave room for Latin American influence and suggest conditions under which that influence might be greater. Lars Schoultz. Co. policy..S.S.S. there should be little space for the relatively weak states of Latin America to influence U. or control access to an important resource. Theory of International Politics (Reading. and analyzing whether that influence was a significant.S. That Infernal Little Cuban Republic : The United States and the Cuban Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. if friendly countries credibly threaten collapse or defection. 31 8 . policy. but to describe the conditions under which influence occurred and abstract from the historical circumstances to general propositions. 32 The landmark work is Kenneth Waltz. I will judge the significance of Latin American influence by weighing its importance against competing explanations for each case. their influence might be greater For example. H1: Latin American leaders can influence U. 2009). I will study my cases in light of explanation offered in the secondary literature.should not be better explained by other factors. Hypotheses Following the anti-imperialist logic. form a cohesive bargaining bloc. To examine competing explanations. Lars Schoultz returns to this maxim several times in his recent tome on U. The literature suggests some factors that might have affected Latin Americans ability to influence the U.S. but missing factor. For example. 1979).: Addison-Wesley Pub.31 This proposition coincides with IR s dominant theory.

Credible threats that their friendly governments might collapse without concessions from the United States. and the alliance could reshape how the U.J. Risse-Kappen. Table 1: Conditions that might affect Latin American influence on U. pp.than traditional power indicators would suggest. pp.35 These norms will be enhanced where they are backed by institutional linkages NATO in the cases Risse-Kappen explores. Power and Interdependence : World Politics in Transition (Boston: Little. Unified negotiating bloc among Latin American countries Appeals to shared democratic norms Issue area Access to institutionalized alliance mechanisms Party in power in United States Level of economic ties Control over special resource Risse-Kappen refers to this as bargaining and links it to classical realists among others. Keohane and Joseph S. 24-31. Brown. it should emphasize norms of consultation and equality. It should eschew coercion. if friendly governments invoked the specter of the Cuban revolution. Nye. Risse-Kappen. 34 Charles Lipson.: Princeton University Press. N. defines its interests in the region. 33 9 .S. 2024.S. 1977). However. I turn to methodology. This list does not exhaust the possible conditions that might limit or enhance the influence of Latin America leaders. arguments about the ability of small allies to influence the U.S.33 The threat of collapse might have been especially relevant during the cold war. 35 Risse-Kappen.34 According to Risse-Kappen. policy y y y y y y y y y Credible threats to defect from the alliance. Reliable Partners : How Democracies Have Made a Separate Peace (Princeton. if the United States sees allies as fellow democracies. Likewise. a significant literature suggests that shared democracy is an important factor in the interactions between states. To discuss how these hypotheses and conditions will be explored. 2003). are also found in Robert O.

George and Andrew Bennett. use memoirs and oral histories. contemporary press accounts. and where possible. employ contemporary press accounts. memoirs. I will employ archival research. If influence existed. Mass.S. a changing panorama of actors makes decisions with implications at multiple levels of analysis. esp. Ch. how it occurred. 37 George and Bennett. pp." Comparative Political Studies 40. "Case Study Methods in the International Relations Subfield. George and Bennett argue for process-tracing to build these narratives. 172. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences (Cambridge. 36 10 . I will ask what form it took. my primary goal is theory-building about the conditions under which influence has occurred. Andrew Bennett and Colin Elman. and interviews where possible. 206. and to avoid equifinality. decision-making to observe whether Latin American concerns were represented in that process and assess whether their impact on the final decisions outweighed competing explanations.Cases Selection. 2005). no. and Research Design The question of determining influence involves complex interactions among many variables. My objective with these sources is somewhat different than with U.36 Research design In this dissertation. I will study Latin American sources. Methodology.: MIT Press. For this project. it is more important to gain an understanding of the goals and strategies of Latin American leaders as they approached the U. in which multiple hypotheses are consistent with a given outcome. conduct interviews.S. Alexander L. I will employ case studies as theoretically oriented narratives to understand whether influence occurred. to understand causal mechanisms and causal effects. documents. and under what conditions. In addition. I do not need to delve into the policymaking process. To understand Latin American agency. To offer this perspective. 12. I will conduct archival work in the Latin American capitals most relevant to each case. These aims lend themselves to case-study methods. while I do aim to test an implication of a dominant theory. 6.37 My case narratives will reconstruct the process of U.S. 2 (2007): pp.

Eisenhower reversed course on several issues of importance to Latin American leaders. I include variation on the degree of democratization. and the Free Nonrandom selection is the dominant logic for qualitative research. 1994). Within that scope. policy. Mexican President Carlos Salinas free trade proposals had a major impact on U.38 Given the questions at hand. and whether the case occurred during or after the cold war. N. 1. 1988).41 In the early 1990s. with some cases that represent policy change in accordance with Latin American wishes and others that do not. policy toward Latin America. is limited to U. my goal is to maximize variation.: Princeton University Press. issue area. Robert O. though.S. For example. Designing Social Inquiry : Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton. Salinas helped spark a regional trade agenda that included the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative.40 In 1977. 39 Secondly. a non-democracy achieved its goal. Cases of policy change include the Latin American struggle for development aid in the last two years of the Eisenhower administration. and Sidney Verba. the cases should include different conditions that might affect Latin American leaders influence. I include variation on the dependent variable. Ch. I will follow the logic of nonrandom selection of qualitative cases. 38 11 . 39 In the absence of process-tracing.S. This eventually culminated in the Alliance for Progress under the Kennedy administration. 124-128. the North American Free Trade Agreement.Case selection The scope of this dissertation. 41 Personal communication with Robert Pastor. Eisenhower and Latin America : The Foreign Policy of Anticommunism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. In the shorter term. I do not yet claim that influence caused the policy change. so as to describe and compare a greater variety of historical circumstances and abstract away from them to theorize about more general conditions. pp. 40 Stephen G. Cases include with-in case variations on some of these conditions. countries involved. Keohane.J. though the arguments of democrats such as Venezuela s Carlos Andrés Pérez were also influential. In this case. See also Pastor. Rabe. and thus the applicability of its results. Exiting the Whirlpool. See Gary King. multiple Latin American countries sought to influence the United States. in most cases. Panamanian dictator Omar Torrijos achieved a longstanding goal with the negotiation and congressional approval of the Canal Treaties.

However. he does not include nondemocracies within the scope of his project. one must include a variation of regime types. and Trujillo and U. no. it is important to include cases.44 Based on the availability of U. G. Rómulo Betancourt. while treating the other two as shadow cases for which I will rely heavily on the secondary literature.: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Though the United States offered counter-narcotics aid to Colombia starting in the 1980s. Pastor. I will choose two of these cases to study in greater depth. the proposal could not overcome realpolitik or the opposition of some Latin Americans. This diverges from Risse-Kappen s approach. The United States held that aid was aimed at counternarcotics. not political conflict. advocated the Betancourt Doctrine. 2-3. which span the cold war and post-cold war. 1993).S. Colombia also sought assistance in its battle against leftist rebels.42 Finally from 1999 to 2000.Trade Area of the Americas.S. policy. To achieve variance on the dependent variable.45 A final case will show a nondemocracy that failed to change U. Policy toward Colombia (Boulder. However. the democratically elected Colombian government convinced the Clinton administration to change its military aid policies and launch the multi-billion dollar Plan Colombia. pp.S." Diplomatic History 20. "The Caribbean Triangle: Betancourt. 44 Because of Risse-Kappen s argument that commonly held democratic norms were important in Allied cooperation. Driven by Drugs : U.43 These cases. and Latin American sources. I also include two cases in which Latin Americans failed to achieve their policy objectives. like the Canal Treaties and NAFTA. one of Latin America s democratic leaders. Castro. in 2000 the United States and Colombia agreed to a military and civil assistance package aimed the leftist FARC and ELN. Rabe. in which diplomatic recognition would be predicated on democratic governance. During the Alliance for Progress period. Despite Betancourt and Kennedy s personal affinity. Colo. Integration with Mexico : Options for U.S. 42 12 . 2002).S. and Betancourt s prestige as a fighter for democracy. 1958 1963. 1 (1996). Policy (New York: Twentieth Century Fund Press. were successful from the perspectives of at least some Latin American leaders under greatly varied conditions. As the Sandinistas grew stronger in Nicaragua in the late Robert A. Foreign Policy. 45 S. 43 Russell Crandall. in which a nondemocratic leader achieved his desired policy. if one is to give a fair test of the realist proposition that regime type does not matter.

the evidence presented. While there has been increasing attention to the role played by Latin Americans in determining the course of the cold war in their own countries. this attention has not yet explored the influence of Latin Americans in the making of U. Given the paucity of theory that exists in this regard. Pastor. perspective. Despite the gravity of his situation. process. 2002). In other cases. through its cases. Small States in World Politics : Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior. Institute of.S. Warring Friends : Alliance Restraint in International Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 1968). the assistance was not forthcoming. Secondly. Colo. it adds theoretically to the growing recognition of the importance of Latin American agency. This is also the focus of Robert L. 13 . it seeks to make an empirical contribution. Rothstein. Not Condemned to Repetition : The United States and Nicaragua (Boulder. Jeremy Pressman. Most importantly. 47 Studies of small state alliances have most often focused on the relationship of alliances to war. policy. 46 Robert A. and Latin American policymakers. strongman Anastasio Somoza pled for renewed assistance from the Carter administration. Therefore.47 Finally. places little emphasis on the interaction between U. I seek to better understand the foreign policy behaviors of small states.: Westview Press.1970s. 2008). War Columbia University. much of the literature is decades old and does not take advantage of newly available information.S.46 Expected contributions This dissertation s contributions are directed toward three fields. and Studies Peace. Alliances and Small Powers (New York: Columbia University Press. an area that has received sporadic attention in international relations. For example. I also seek to expand the historical literature available regarding Latin Americans roles in major issues that have been explored from the U. see Hey.S. While some of the cases have been extensively studied. following the theories that guided the inquiries. and conditionalities of this influence is needed. basic theory-building regarding the significance. Jeremy Pressman argues that countries join alliances in large part to restrain the aggression of their partners. For more general theorizing.

14 . Hal. no. 2002. 2010. The United States and Somoza. Latin America's Cold War: An International History. Gil. Westport. the United States. ""Accounting for Foreign Policy Change: The Role of Policy Entrepreneurs. Gustavsson. The Wine Is Bitter. 3 (1978): 644-668. Interventions in the Dominican Republic. "How Should We Study Foreign Policy Change?" COOPERATION AND CONFLICT 34. Gilderhus. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Crandall. Latin American--United States Relations. Colo. Mark T. The Latin American Policy of the United States : An Historical Interpretation. Samuel Flagg. "Case Study Methods in the International Relations Subfield. ________. Bringing Latin America Back In: Recent Scholarship on United States-Latin American Relations.S. 1963.S." Comparative Political Studies 40. 2010." The American Historical Review 83. Bennett. 2000. ________. Cambridge. Dimitris. Blavoukos. Grenada. Jr. Eisenhower. Federico. and the Rise of the New Imperialism. New York: Metropolitan Books. Driven by Drugs : U. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Friedman. 2006. Russell. Milton Stover. and Panama. Brands. Andrew.: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Spyros and Bourantonis. Stockholm. Max Paul. 5 (2003): 621-636. Lanham [Md.. Del: Scholarly Resources. 2 (2007): 170-195.]: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Wilmington. J.Y. Alexander L. The Second Century : U. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Gunboat Democracy : U. no. Policy toward Colombia. and Colin Elman. 2006. New York: Norton.: Doubleday. "Retiring the Puppets. CT: Praeger. 1 (1999): 73-96. 1971. Clark. Cambridge. N. no. the United States and Latin America. Empire's Workshop : Latin America.-Latin American Relations since 1889. 1933-1956 : A Revisionist Look. George." In SGIR 7th Pan-European Conference on IR. The United States and Latin America after the Cold War. Boulder. Grandin. 1971. no. 2008. New York: Cambridge University Press. Greg. 2005. Field." Diplomatic History 27. 1992.S. "American Imperialism: The Worst Chapter in Almost Any Book.. and Andrew Bennett.: MIT Press. James A. Mass.Works Cited Bemis. Garden City. Paul Coe.

Designing Social Inquiry : Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. no. Lipson. and Sidney Verba. Princeton." World Politics 38. N. K.S. N. "United States Policy toward Latin America: "Liberal. Translated by Harry Drost." "Radical. Gary. Hogan. 3 (1986): 483-515. New York: Praeger. Inevitable Revolutions : The United States in Central America. 2003." Latin American Research Review 8. Jeanne A.Hey.: Princeton University Press. Reliable Partners : How Democracies Have Made a Separate Peace. 1994. Robert O.S. 1985. Robert A. Brown. Thomas F. Keohane. 1983. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. ________. 1990. New York: Norton. and Jeanne A. O'Brien. Nye. Walter. Frank O. Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations. Lowenthal.. Paterson. D. Longley. Latin American and Caribbean Foreign Policy.S.. King. Robert O.: Brookings Institution Press. A Hemisphere to Itself : A History of U. and Public Policies. Pastor.-Latin American Relations. Piccone. 1977. Brown. 3 (1973): 3-25. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.-Latin American Relations. Hey. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Power and Interdependence : World Politics in Transition. Small States in World Politics : Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior. no. K.: Zed Books. Lowenthal. Michael J. 2003. 4 (1997): 631-657.. and Thomas G. Kryzanek.J. "Three Building Blocks of a Theory of Latin American Foreign Policy. 2007. U." Third World Quarterly 18. Kingdon. The Sparrow and the Hawk : Costa Rica and the United States During the Rise of José Figueres.: Princeton University Press. Boston: Little.. Mora.J. no. Kyle. 2004. John W. Frank. LaFeber. 2003. London. "Review: Explaining U. Michal J. Boston: Little. Washington. and Joseph S. The Obama Administration and the Americas : Agenda for Change." and "Bureaucratic" Perspectives. 1984. Atlantic Highlands. and Laurence Whitehead. Keohane. Abraham F. Niess. 15 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1997.J. 2009. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Princeton.C. Agendas. Making the Americas : The United States and Latin America from the Age of Revolutions to the Era of Globalization. N. Abraham F. Theodore J. Policy toward the Caribbean Basin: Fixed and Emerging Images. Charles. Alternatives.

Thomas. 2002. War Columbia University.-Latin American Relations. That Infernal Little Cuban Republic : The United States and the Cuban Revolution.S. Policy. Talons of the Eagle : Dynamics of U. New York: Oxford University Press. Lars." Latin American Politics and Society 50. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.. Boulder. 2000. Kenneth. Rabe. ________. Foreign Policy. Integration with Mexico : Options for U. 1968. Robert L. Boulder.: Westview Press. Schoultz.S. ________.S. Cambridge.. New York: Columbia University Press. Beneath the United States : A History of U. 1 (1990): 31-45. New York: Twentieth Century Fund Press. Exiting the Whirlpool : U. Mass. 2009. "Juscelino Kubitschek and the Politics of Exuberance. "The Caribbean Triangle: Betancourt. 1958 1963. Sheldon. no.: Harvard University Press. 1988. Co. 2001. Reading. Colo. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. no. 1998. N. Mass." Luso-Brazilian Review 27. 1995. Foreign Policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean. Waltz. Pressman. 4 (2008): 155-172. Risse-Kappen. no.: Westview Press. Warring Friends : Alliance Restraint in International Politics.S." Diplomatic History 20. 1956-1961. 1 (1996): 55-78. Jeremy. Institute of. Princeton. and Studies Peace. S. 16 . Not Condemned to Repetition : The United States and Nicaragua. Policy toward Latin America. Castro. Smith.: Princeton University Press. "Suspicious Minds: Recent Books on U.J. Rothstein. Theory of International Politics. 1979. Cooperation among Democracies : The European Influence on U. Eisenhower and Latin America : The Foreign Policy of Anticommunism. Alliances and Small Powers.S.-Latin American Relations.S. Foreign Policy Princeton Studies in International History and Politics. Rabe.S. Peter H. Maram. 2008.________. Puntigliano. 1993. Colo. Stephen G. G. Andru es Rivarola. and Trujillo and U.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ________.

interviews in U. possibly JFK Library. Classification of secondary sources for individual cases. March-May 2011: Secondary research on cases May-August 2011: U. May 2012: Write-up on Brazil June-September 2012: Write first draft October 2012-March 2013: Revisions and supplemental research. Brazilian position on other cases. If possible. September-November 2011: Archival work and interviews in Bogota on development aid. March 2013: Defense May 2013: Graduation 17 .S.Appendix 1: Timeline for Completion January 2011: Classification of secondary sources for broader historical review February 2011: Confirm case selections based on historical review. National Archives.S. Betancourt Doctrine. Plan Colombia December 2011: Write-up on Colombia work January-February 2012: Research in Panama on Canal Treaties February 2012: Write-up on Panama March-May 2012: Research in Brazil on development aid.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful