Latin American Foreign Policies

Global And Regional Dimensions

Elizabeth G. Ferris

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9780367018719
• eBook ISBN: 9780429724541
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Arms Control
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This collection of original essays takes a comprehensive look at Latin America's regional and global foreign policies. The book begins with an assessment of the current state of research in the field, followed by an overview of Latin American foreign policies and the political determinants of those policies. Next, an examination of the global policies of Brazil, Cuba, Mexico, and Peru demonstrates differing theoretical perspectives and provides information for cross national comparisons. The third section presents case studies of regional foreign policies in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Bolivia, Venezuela, Mexico, Cuba, and the Anglophone Caribbean nations. In the concluding chapter, the editors review the recurring themes in the book and propose a theory for the analysis of Latin American foreign policy behavior.

Part 1
Perspectives on Latin American Foreign Policies and International Relations

1
Introduction to Latin American Foreign Policy: Global and Regional Dimensions

Jennie K. Lincoln

The growing influence of international events on domestic political and economic situations makes an understanding of Latin American foreign policies an increasing necessity for those seeking to understand present and future developments in the region. At the same time, the diversity of Latin American governments makes the analysis of Latin American foreign policies—particularly generalizations about regional patterns of behavior—a challenging endeavor. This volume represents an effort to recognize the increasing importance of Latin American foreign policies and to confront the challenge of the difficult task of analyzing those policies in a substantively informative and theoretically rigorous manner. The study of Latin American foreign policy is not a theoretically well-developed field. Although scholars have studied "the interAmerican system" for the past thirty-five years, a focus on Latin American foreign policies—as the product of Latin American foreign policy strategies—is a recent development.

Approaches to the Study of Latin American Foreign Policy

An overview of the development of Latin American foreign policy analysis reveals close parallels between the development of the literature and the development of the region's international relations. In the years immediately following World War II, the creation of interAmerican institutions was paralleled by U.S. scholars' emphases on the development of Latin American political institutions and on U.S.-Latin American relations. During the 1960s when democratic reform and economic progress were heralded by the Alliance for Progress, scholars provided the theoretical foundation for such U.S. aid programs by hypothesizing a causal relationship between economic growth and the emergence of democratic political institutions. By the end of the 1960s, however, when leftist movements had surged forward and nationalism had become an accepted reality, Latin American formulation of dependencia¹ theories focused attention on the U.S. from a different perspective. Latin American policies which evolved prescribed a new set of nationalistic foreign and domestic policies as a means for changing the unacceptable Latin American dependence on the United States. As Latin American governments sought to break—or at least to reduce—economic and political dependence on the United States, analysts of Latin American foreign policies began to realize that there were more aspects to Latin American foreign policies than just U.S.-Latin American relations. It is, of course, impossible and undesirable to ignore the United States in discussions of Latin American international relations; and almost all of the selections presented here discuss the ramifications of U.S. ties on the foreign policy behavior of specific nations. However, this volume focuses on what Latin American governments are doing and not primarily on how the U.S. responds to the region.

The study of Latin American foreign policies is made difficult not only by the diversity of Latin American nations, but also by confusion concerning what actions are to be considered foreign policy. Foreign policy is generally defined here as those actions taken by governments to influence other governments; yet governmental policies toward foreign investors and toward transnational actors (particularly multinational corporations and subregional political groupings) make precise specification of the concept difficult.

The study of Latin American foreign policy from a comparative perspective has traditionally been more firmly rooted in the area-specific concerns of comparative politics than in the discipline of international relations. While international relations scholars seek to explain action of Latin American nations in relation to global configurations of power or to discern behavioral uniformities in the interactions of nation-states, Latinamericanists focus on unique national behavior and on the region's specific attributes and traditions. If anything, the gap between international relations specialists and Latinamericanists has been growing larger. A major dilemma confronting those seeking to understand Latin American foreign policies has been whether to adopt a theoretical focus emphasizing the unique characteristics of Latin American nations or one which places Latin American international concerns in a broader theoretical context. Most of the selections in this volume have adopted the former approach; however, the broader issue is addressed once again in the final chapter of this collection.

Problems in the study of Latin American foreign policy also parallel problems in the discipline of political science as a whole. In general, the problems and traumas of self-examination that characterized the field of political science (and later international relations) in the period following the 1960s' behavioral revolution have just arrived on the Latin American political scene. The bitter debate between Latin American proponents of dependencia theories and U.S. international relations specialists seeking to quantify and to determine causal relationships between dependency and behavior are reminiscent of those 1960s debates which generally questioned the validity of empirical analysis of political phenomena. The question of methodological approaches is, of course, not just a question of methodology but of theoretical orientation as well.

The literature on Latin American foreign policies is further characterized by unequal coverage by nation and by region as discussed in greater detail in the section below. United States scholars have tended to study the international and domestic policies of Latin America as a region in those times when the region has been of particular concern to U.S. governmental and economic interests. Furthermore, U.S. scholars have tended to study primarily those countries of particular importance to U.S. foreign policy-makers. Specifically, the prel970 literature on Latin American foreign policy concentrated heavily on those nations which had significant trade patterns with the U.S. (Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina); military penetration by the U.S. (Guatemala, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic); or significant economic penetration by the U.S. (Chile, Peru, Bolivia, and Venezuela). With the exception of Cuba and the Dominican Republic there was a marked absence of foreign policy analysis of the Caribbean as well as most of Central America in the prel970 literature. The position of the United States in the prel970 literature was so predominant that the concept of "Latin American foreign policy" usually referred to U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America rather than to foreign policies of Latin American nations individually or collectively toward any other nation.

Studies of Latin American foreign policy for the most part have been based on case studies of the foreign policy behavior of individual nations. Any cross national attempts have usually been based on grouping countries in terms of a specific national attribute such as location (the Andean countries, the Plata Basin countries, Central American countries, Caribbean countries); or size (large countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Mexico as well as the small countries such as the Central American republics, Uruguay, Paraguay, and again the Caribbean nations). These studies have included the following components: (1) analyses of external and internal determinants of foreign policy behavior; (2) analyses of the decision-making structures and processes involved in foreign policy behavior; (3) analyses of the substantive contents of individual foreign policies; and (4) analyses of the subsequent consequences of foreign policy behavior.

In order to analyze the determinants, processes, and consequences of foreign policy behavior, most Latin American foreign policy studies have included historical descriptions of specific policy decisions and actions taken by the government. Analyzing policy contents has been used to specify foreign policy goals, strategies, and intended targets of a specific foreign policy by examining the decisions and actions taken by the government.

These foreign policy decisions and actions have been explained in terms of governmental actions in response to one or more external or internal determinants of foreign policy behavior. External determinants are those actors or forces beyond the territorial boundaries of a nation which exert influence on the nation's foreign policy process while internal determinants are actors or forces within the nations which exert influence on the foreign policy process. The external variables most frequently explored in the Latin American foreign policy literature include: (a) changes in the international system which affect the international relations of Latin American nations; and (b) penetration by an external actor in the national affairs of a Latin American nation. Internal variables most frequently explored include: (c) national attributes—such as capabilities, size, or level of economic development; (d) regime orientation—political ideology and goals of the government; (e) social forces within the nation; and (f) specific national experiences—such as catastrophies or extraconstitutional change of government.

It is important to note that in analyzing external and internal determinants of foreign policy behavior it is often difficult to separate the overlap between the two variables. It is indeed that overlap, or the "linkage" (Rosenau, 1969) between these variables that provides the most powerful explanation of determinants of foreign policy behavior in Latin America. Analyses of external and internal determinants of Latin American foreign policy and subsequent consequences studied in the prel970 literature produced an emphasis on a fundamental explanatory variable: that foreign policy in all Latin American nations has been and continues to be an extension of domestic policy. Linkages between domestic and foreign policies² allow foreign policies to be instruments through which policy-makers may accomplish their principal domestic goals: national development and national security. While there are many conceptualizations of development, national development is understood here as more than the development of technical capabilities associated with modernization; it includes the "growth toward self-realization of the whole society, of the whole person, and of all persons. It has a normative and humanistic overtone and encompasses a desired set of political, cultural and economic dynamics" (Tyson, 1975: 224). National security is understood to mean both protection of society from external aggression and protection of society from internal disturbance.

One of the weakest areas of the literature on Latin American foreign policy has been in the study of the process by which policies are formulated and implemented. What actors are involved in the formulation of foreign policy? Who makes the final policy choice? Who is responsible for implementation of the foreign policy and how is that foreign policy choice implemented? Identification of the actors involved has largely been concentrated on the chief executive and the foreign ministry.

To some extent this emphasis accurately reflects the predominance of the chief executive in the foreign policy-making process of the prel970 era. Tyson notes that in Brazil the key questions of foreign policy formulation relate to the president's central role in foreign policy-making (1975: 248; see also Schneider, 1976). The dominant role of the chief executive in the foreign policy process in Mexico has been identified by Courtier (1975) and by Ameringer (1977) in Venezuela. In Peru, the chief executive has had primary responsibility for foreign policy-making, although has sometimes been accountable to the military for foreign policy decisions (Gomez, 1964: 310-312). Similar to other Latin American nations, Ecuador's Congress has a formal constitutional role in the foreign policy process, but the president remains the "final arbiter" (M. Martz, 1975: 394). Wilson's description of Trujillo's foreign policy-making role in the Dominican Republic and Duvalier's corresponding role in Haiti sums up the central role of the chief executive in many Latin American nations:

. . . Foreign policy decision-making was a one-man process, with little advice and consultation, since their legislatures were mere rubber stamps and the position of minister of foreign affairs in their cabinets was that of an assistant, usually engaged in a process of musical chairs (1975: 215).

Analyses of the decision structures and processes before 1970 usually depended upon idiosyncratic studies of individual leaders and decision-making styles of those leaders for the principal sources of information.³

Other studies, especially those since 1970, have attempted to analyze the foreign policy process from a perspective of greater depth in an effort to identify actors and processes of Latin American foreign policy-making in addition to the principal role of the chief executive. For example, external actors have been identified as participants in the foreign policy process in Latin America, especially in the formulation of foreign policy (Goodsell, 1974; Moran, 1975; Pinelo, 1973; Tugwell, 1975). Bushnell (1975: 410) identified the Federacion Nacional de Cafeteros as "not merely a growers' association but a semipublic corporation that takes part in devising and administering official coffee policy" in Colombia.⁴ Other economic groups such as FEDECAMARAS in Venezuela have been linked to foreign policy decisions to join economic integration groups (Lincoln, 1981; Rodriguez, 1974). Political parties have been examined to determine their influence on foreign policy decision in Ecuador (M. Martz, 1975: 393) and Venezuela (Cooke, 1968). The input from ministries other than the foreign ministry (such as finance, development, commerce, or mines and hydrocarbons) has been identified in Colombia (Bushnell, 1975) and Venezuela (Cooke, 1968; Tugwell, 1975). These examples do not signify a decline in the importance of the chief executive's role in the foreign policy process; however, analysis of other actors involved in the foreign policy process provides greater understanding of Latin American foreign policy.

Together the components of foreign policy analysis identified above (external and internal determinants, decision-making structures and process, policy contents, and consequences) have been employed to analyze Latin American foreign policy with varying degrees of success during two somewhat distinct eras: (1) the era of hemispheric security and economic integration in the 1950s which evolved into developmental nationalism in the 1960s; and (2) the era of regional and global interdependence in the 1970s and 1980s. The following discussion identifies the principal foreign policy concerns of the Latin American nations individually and collectively since World War II and illustrates the approaches to the study of those concerns in the Latin American foreign policy literature.

Hemispheric Security, Economic Integration, and Developmental Nationalism: 1945-1970

Hemispheric Security

Latin American foreign policies in the 1950s and 1960s were overwhelmingly influenced by the foreign policy goals and actions of the United States. Hence, the literature dealing with Latin American foreign policies of that time is saturated with studies of the role of the U.S. as an external variable in Latin American foreign policy. As the U.S. assumed a moral role of combating communism, Latin American nations were drawn into the Cold War as allies of the U.S. in hemispheric solidarity against an extracontinental threat from the Soviet Union. From this evolved an interAmerican system with the United States as the dominant actor.

Following World War II the United States looked to Latin America for support of its postwar policies against the spread of communist influence. The interAmerican system which emerged involved the penetration of U.S. interests in Latin America on a broad scale including military, diplomatic, and economic levels. Perception of the Soviet Union as a common external enemy to the hemisphere unified the nations of Latin America and the United States militarily under a mutual defense agreement signed in 1947 This treaty, the InterAmerican Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (ITRA or Rio Pact), included the following principal objectives:

. . . protecting the sources of strategic material and the lines of access to them; maintaining a capacity to defend the region against small aircraft and submarine attacks from the outside; and reducing the role of the U.S. armed forces in regional defense (Lieuwen, 1967: 21-22).

Described as the "first military treaty of the Cold War" (Ojeda Gomez, 1974b: 514), the Rio Pact secured hemispheric cooperation in the interests of the United States. In addition to securing hemispheric cooperation through this mutual defense treaty, Lowenthal writes that a network of interAmerican military schools, training programs, and defense councils were developed which "provided a means to ensure continuing U.S. influence in that sphere through devices ranging from standardized weapons and procedures to personal influence" (1976: 204).

In 1948 a diplomatic alliance, the Organization of American States (OAS) was formed to "promote the peaceful settlement of . . . international disputes and to encourage . . . international trade" (Davis, 1975: 15). The OAS symbolized hemispheric cooperation under the notion that "the hemispheric states shared a common history, philosophy, and destiny that distinguished them from the rest of the world" (Slater, 1977; see also Ball, 1969; Fenwick, 1963; Slater, 1967; Thomas and Thomas, 1963).

Not long after the OAS was formed, however, a difference between the priorities of the United States and the priorities of the Latin American nations emerged. Whereas the United States appeared to envision the alliance as a vehicle to combat communist influence in the region (Slater, 1967), the Latin American nations were more interested in an alliance to assist in economic and social development of the region (Wilson, 1975: 55). The United States responded eventually to the proposals of the Latin American nations in the OAS to establish an interAmerican financial institution; and in 1959 the InterAmerican Development Bank (IDB) was established to provide financial assistance to Latin American nations from the U.S. and other sources.

Changes in the international system in the early 1960s— particularly the rise to power of Fidel Castro in Cuba and the subsequent Cuban Missile Crisis—led to changes in the interAmerican system. From the U.S. perspective the concept of hemispheric defense shifted from external to internal security in which "the main effort was devoted to countering internal subverions through a program of military aid and military technical assistance in counter insurgency techniques" (Ojeda Gomez, 1974b: 516). The counterinsurgency doctrine which evolved was another development in U.S. hegemony over Latin American nations which furthered penetration of U.S. interests in the national affairs of those nations. Overt military intervention occurred in Cuba (Bay of Pigs) where U.S.-trained Cubans unsuccessfully tried to overthrow the Castro regime and in the Dominican Republic in 1965 where U.S. marines intervened to forestall a possible communist takeover.

Concurrent with the increase in military assistance from the United States to Latin America under the Kennedy administration was the development in the early 1960s of an extensive social and economic aid program, the Alliance for Progress. U.S. governmental interest in the region was paralleled by an increase in multinational corporate penetration in Latin America. As Cotler and Fagen discuss (1974: 10-11) there is little consensus among scholars about whether the Alliance for Progress was intended for the economic development of Latin America, the economic subjugation of Latin America, or some combination of the two. The timing of the extensive aid program, however, clearly coincided with U.S. efforts to rally political support against Cuban influence in the area. U.S. interest in securing the loyalty of the region through economic assistance is further exemplified by the quintupling of the OAS budget after 1961 and a similar expansion of the programs of the InterAmerican Development Bank (Lowen...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Tables and Figures
• Acknowledgments
• The Contributors
• PART 1. PERSPECTIVES ON LATIN AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICIES AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
• PART 2. LATIN AMERICAN GLOBAL FOREIGN POLICIES
• PART 3. LATIN AMERICAN REGIONAL FOREIGN POLICIES
• PART 4. FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH ON LATIN AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICIES
• References
• Index