1
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF LATIN AMERICA
Political Science 6484/Section 10
Spring 2012
Syllabus is final only through Feb. 15
COURSE INFORMATION
CRN 60463
Time: W 5:10-7:00 p.m.
Location:Duques 152
INSTRUCTOR
Prof. Cynthia McClintock
Office: Monroe 407
Tel: (202) 994-6589
E-mail:
Office hours: W 2:30-4:45 (and by appointment)
COURSE DESCRIPTION
The United States has been the preponderant power in the hemisphere since the early twentieth century. Prior to the midterm, we explore U.S. policies toward the region during the twentieth century and explanations for these policies. In particular, during the Cold War, the U.S. and the USSR were considered the world’s two powers and the U.S. was concerned about challenges presented by the USSR in Latin America. We assess to what extent U.S. policies reflected security threats by the USSR and to what extent economic concerns, democracy concerns, and/or features of theU.S. policy-making process.
After the midterm, we explore the evolution of the power configuration in the hemisphere in the 2000s. Is the hemisphere unipolar? Does the U.S. remain preponderant? Has China become the second most important power in the region? Does China present an opportunity, or a threat, similar in some respects to the USSR during the Cold War? Are Brazil, Venezuela, and Mexico significant “middle powers”? What does the rise of China and Latin American nations mean for U.S. goals in the hemisphere? Is the U.S. achieving its goals on key issues of the hemispheric agenda (the “war on drugs,” interstate cooperation, climate change, and democratization)?
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
As a result of completing this course, students will:
- Know trends in U.S.-Latin American relations, in the roles of extra-hemispheric actors in the region, and the roles of Latin American nations in the global arena
- Understand the variety of scholarly explanations for U.S. policy in the hemisphere
- Analyze key policy issues relevant to the region more effectively
- Know key sources for knowledge on the international relations of Latin America
- Be able to make more cogent analytical arguments
GRADE COMPUTATION
1. Class attendance and participation (20%). Students are expected to complete the assigned readings prior to class. Excellent contributions to class discussion show students’ knowledge of the readings and build on the readings. If you encounter difficulties participating in class, please discuss these with the professor.
2. Participation in one debate (25%). Building arguments, two students will debate one of the issues posed for the class session. The professor and the other students will raise questions and criticism.
3. Take-home midterm exam, distributed Feb. 8 and due Feb. 22 (20%). Students doing the Feb. 15 or Feb. 22debates may take a one week extension on this due date.
4. Take-home final exam, distributed April 18 or April 25, due 13-15 days subsequently (35%).
5. Students may also opt to write a research paper of about 20 pages on a topic related to the themes of the course, written for this course only, and including materials from the course, discussed with the professor by March 21, and due April 25. For students writing the paper, the weight of course requirements is: participation, 10%; debate, 20%, midterm, 15%; paper, 25%; final 30%.
CLASS POLICIES
Paper submission: All written work must be submitted in hard copy and must be typed double-spaced, using a 12-point font and one inch margins and include proper citations.
Late work: 2 points will be subtracted from a grade for the first hour that a paper is late; after one day, an additional 3 points will be subtracted for each day that a paper is late.
Computer use: Computers are to be used only for taking notes. The professor will observe any student permanently riveted to his/her computer screen and query him/her.
Religious holidays: Please notify me if you must be absent due to a religious holiday.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Not only direct quotes but also paraphrased text and ideas taken from a source must be cited. Academic honesty policies ( will be strictly enforced. Please visit the GWUWritingCenter ( for further assistance.
SUPPORT FOR STUDENTS OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM
Any student who due to a disability may need an accommodation should contact Disability Support Services at 202 994-8250. Visit for information. For assistance with personal, career, or study-skills problems, contact the UniversityCounselingCenter at 202 994-5300, which is available 24/7, or visit
DEBATE GUIDELINES
In the debate questions posed in the syllabus, a “/” mark indicates that students should choose their position or that they may choose among indicated options. If both students would like to modify the debate question (emphasize one component, add comparative perspective, etc.), they should consult the professor. Also, if the two students cannot agree on their positions, they should consult the professor. By noon on the Friday before the debate, each student is to e-mail a summary of his/her argument (approximately 125 words or 4 to 5 sentences) to the class via Blackboard. Each student is to present his/her argument for a maximum of 7 minutes and rebut the other’s argument for 1 minute each, for a total debate presentation of 16 minutes. On the day of the debate, each student submits to the professor a paper of no more than 1,750 words; this paper is to be carefully researched and documented, using recommended and other additional readings. Many of the debate topics require use of current materials from websites. Students are to address the question as directly as possible; historical background will be provided by the professor. Students will be graded on the quality of both the paper and the presentation (including adherence to time constraints and the logic of the students’ work as a pair).
TEXTS
LaRosa, Michael and Mora, Frank O. (eds.), Neighborly Adversaries: Readings in U.S.- Latin American Relations. (Rowman and Littlefield, 2nd ed). F1418.N397
(L & M in syllabus)
Dominguez, J.I. & Fernández de Castro, R. (eds.), Contemporary U.S.-Latin American Relations (Routledge 2010). (D and F in syllabus) F1418.C8133 2010
Lowenthal, A.F., et. al. (eds.), Shifting the Balance: Obama and the Americas (Bookings, 2011). JZ1480.A53S55 2010
Smith, Peter, Talons of the Eagle (Oxford, 2008). 3rd ed. F1418.365 2008
Current History, Feb. 2012 issue (CH). Articles TBA.
ADDITIONAL READINGS
Required book chapters and articles are available on "Electronic Reserves" on Blackboard. Recommended materials that are also on “Electronic Reserves” are indicated by the symbol BB. Other recommended articles are available through "e-journal title finder" at the Aladin home page of Gelman. Some journal titles are abbreviated: FP=Foreign Policy, FA=Foreign Affairs; JLAS=Journal of Latin American Studies; World Politics=WP. Recommended books are at the Reserve Desk in Gelman.
Also, students should be up-to-date on events and issues. Valuable sourcesavailable through Gelman e-journals areThe New York Times (NYT), The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post,The Economist, the Latin American Weekly Report and theLatin American Regional Report. Recommended websites are the U.S. Dept. of State ( and: 1) center, center-right: csis.org;2) center, center-left: thedialogue.org, crisisgroup.org; 3) center-left, left: ciponline.org, wola.org, lawg.org, coha.org, cepr.net. Readings in Spanish and Portuguese from periodicals based in Latin America are also encouraged; is a useful website.
COURSE SCHEDULE
JAN. 18INTRODUCTION
Smith, pp. 10-11.
Part One: U.S.-Latin American Relations in the Twentieth Century
JAN. 25EXPLANATIONS FOR U.S. POLICY TOWARD LATIN AMERICA: U.S. POLICY TOWARD MEXICO, BOLIVIA, AND GUATEMALA AT CRITICAL JUNCTURES
KEY QUESTION: Why did the United States choose accommodation with Mexico and Bolivia but confrontation with Guatemala?
L & M, pp. 3-6, Chs. 14, 15, and 16.
Smith, pp. 24-41, 54-59, 69-80, 113-128, and 149-153.
Nau, H.R., Perspectives on International Relations: Power, Institutions, and Ideas, pp. 20-33.
Hayes, M.D., “Dimensions of U.S. Security Interests in LA,” Latin America and the U.S. National Interest, pp. 219-236.
Reid, M., The Forgotten Continent, pp. 35-40.
Molineu, H., U.S. Policy Toward Latin America, pp. 135-140.
Sloan, J., “U.S. Policy Responses to the Mexican Revolution,” JLAS Vol. 10, No. 2 (Nov. 1978), pp. 283-295 & 300-308.
Rabe, S.O., Eisenhower and Latin America, pp. 42-64 and 77-83.
Lehman, K., “Revolutions and Attributions: Making Sense of Eisenhower Administration Policies in Bolivia and Guatemala,” Diplomatic History, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Spr. ’97), pp. 185-213.
Recommended:
Smith, pp. 18-56.
Kegley, C.W. and Wittkopf, American Foreign Policy: Patterns and Processes, 4th ed., pp. 280-288. BB
L & M, pp. 51-80, 97-99.
Dominguez, J.I., “U.S.-Latin American Relations During the Cold War and Its Aftermath,” in Bulmer-Thomas & Dunkerley (eds.), The United States and Latin America: The New Agenda, Ch. 2. BB
Harrison, B.T., “Chandler Anderson and Business Interests in Mexico,” Inter-American Economic Affairs (Winter 1979), pp. 3-23.
Grow, M., U.S. Presidents and Latin American Interventions, Ch. 1. F1418.G83 2008
FEB. 1A. THE U.S. AND CUBA, l958-l962
DEBATE: Was Fidel Castro’s Cubaa “dagger in the heart” OR “a thorn in the side”?AND/ORBetween January and June 1961, what policy [specify two different policies] should President Kennedy have pursued to defuse the threat?
Smith, pp. 128-131 and 153-157.
L & M, Ch. 17.
Blasier, C., TheGiant’s Rival: The USSR and Latin America, Ch. 6.
“CIA Bares Its Bungling,” NYT 2/22/98.
Recommended:
Miller, N., Soviet Relations with Latin America, 1959-1987, Ch. 5. F1416.S65M55 1989
Gleijeses, P., "Ships in the Night: The CIA, the White House, and the Bay of Pigs," JLAS Vol. 27, Part 1 (February 1995), pp. 1-42. BB
Paterson, T., Contesting Castro, Ch. 22 E183.8.C9 P36 1994
Wyden, P. Bay of Pigs, pp. 19-31, 93-114, 146-152, 313-327.#F1788.W9
Morley, N.H., “Reinterpreting…American Corporations and U.S. Policy Toward Cuba,” Comparative Politics (Oct. 1983), pp. 67-84.
Welch, R.E., Response to Revolution,Ch. 4. E183.8C9W34 1985
Nixon, R., Six Crises, Ch. 4. E743.N58 1990
B. THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION AND U.S. POLICY TOWARDS CHILE, l970-l973
DEBATE: Given the nature of the threat posed by Allende’s Chile, the most appropriate policy for the Nixon administration was [specify two different policies].
Smith, pp. 135-147 and 161-167.
Nogee, J.L. & Sloan, J.W., “Allende’s Chile and the Soviet Union,” Journal of InterAmerican Studies and World Affairs, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Aug. 1979), pp. 339-368.
Fagen, R., “The United States and Chile: Roots and Branches,” FA Vol. 53, No. 2 (Jan. 1975), pp. 297-313.
Hersh, S., The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House, pp. 270-276.
Maxwell, K., "The Other 9/11" FA (Nov.-Dec. 2003), pp. 147-151 debate bet. Rogers & Maxwell, FA (Jan-Feb. ‘04), pp. 160- 165.
Lowenthal, A. F., “The United States and Latin America: Ending the Hegemonic Presumption,” FA (Oct. 1976), pp. 199- 213.
Recommended:
L & M, Ch. 18.
Kornbluh, P., "Opening up the Files: Chile Declassified," NACLA Report on the Americas Vol. XXXVII, No. 1 (July/Aug. 2003), pp. 25-31. BB
Hersh, S., The Price of Power, pp. 250-296. E840.8.K58H47 1983
Sigmund, P., The U.S. and Democracy in Chile, Chs. 3 and 9. E183.8.C4; S57 1993
FEB. 8A.THE CARTER ADMINISTRATION: HUMAN RIGHTS AND U.S. POLICY TOWARDS NICARAGUA
Midterm exam distributed.
DEBATE: Could/could not the Carter administration have prevented the taking of power by the Sandinistas? (If so, how might the administration have done so most effectively?[specify two different approaches)
Smith, pp. 146-147, 186,191-194, and 198-199.
L & M, Ch. 19.
Booth, J.A., et. al., Understanding Central America, pp. 69-76.
Smith, T., America’s Mission, pp. 239-252 and 260-265.
McClintock, C., Revolutionary Movements in Latin America, pp. 216-221.
Recommended:
Arnson, C., Crossroads: Congress, the President, and Central America, 1976-1993, 2nd ed., Ch. 2. F14136.8U6A76
Sikkink, K., Mixed Signals: U.S. Human Rights Policy and Latin America, Ch. 6. JC599.L3S55 2004
Lake, A., Somoza Falling,Ch. 13. E183.8.N5.L35 1990
B. THE REAGAN AND BUSH ADMINISTRATIONS AND U.S. POLICYTOWARDS NICARAGUA AND EL SALVADOR
DEBATE: Was the Reagan administration’s policy towards Nicaragua/El Salvador a failure/a success? (Why? By what criteria?)
Smith, pp. 171-179 & 206-209.
Bischof, H., “The Socialist Countries and Central American Revolutions,” in Grabendorff, W., et. al., Political Change in Central America, pp. 228-244.
McClintock, C., Revolutionary Movements in Latin America, pp. 48-63 and 221-231.
Carothers, T., In the Name of Democracy, pp. 1-11 and 78-111.
Recommended:
Arnson, C., Crossroads: Congress, the President, and Central America,1976-1993, 2nd e ed., Conclusion. F14136.8UA76
Leiken, R.S., Soviet and Cuban Policy in the CaribbeanBasin,” in Schulz, D.E. & Graham, D.H., Revolution and Counterrevolution in Central America and the Caribbean, pp. 447-478. BB
Peace, R., “Winning Hearts and Minds: The Debate Over U.S. Intervention in Nicaragua,” Peace and Change, Vol. 38, issue 1 (Jan. 2010), pp. 1-38.
Shultz, G.P., Turmoil and Triumph, Chs. 19, 20, 23, 42 and 45. E840.8.S535 A3 1993Booth, J.A., et. al., Understanding Central America, pp. 77-85, 98-110. BB
FEB. 15THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION AND THE HEMISPHERIC AGENDA IN THE WAKE OF THE COLD WAR
DEBATE: 1) The Clinton administration’s policy toward Haitiwas a failure/a success (Why? By what criteria?)OR 2) Overall, the Clinton administration enacted policies thatprioritized/did not prioritize trade and economic interests OR 3)During the Clinton administration, there was/was not a lost opportunity for partnership with the Americas.
Smith, pp. 213-240, 263-271, 307-320, & 337-346.
Mahon, J. & Corrales, J., “Pegged for Failure? Argentina’s Crisis,” CH (Feb. ’02), pp. 72-80.
Palmer, D.S. U.S. Relations with Latin America During the Clinton Years, Chs. 3 and 4. F1418.P1862 2006
Crandall, R., United States and Latin America after the Cold War, Ch. 6.
“Debate: The Haiti Intervention,” FP 102 (Spring 1996), pp. 134-151.
McClintock, C. and Vallas, F., The United States and Peru: Cooperation at a Cost,pp. 38-49 and Conclusion.
Recommended:
L & M, Ch. 22.
Lowenthal, Ch. 9.
Eichengreen, B., “The Globalization Wars,” FA (July-Aug. 2002), pp. 157-164.
Shacochis, Bob, The Immaculate Invasion. F1928.2 .S53 1999
PART TWO: THE U.S., CHINA, AND LATIN AMERICA IN THE 2000s
PLEASE NOTE: ASSIGNED READINGS FOR FEB. 22 AND SUBSEQUENTLY WILL BE FINALIZED AFTER THE PUBLICATION OF THE 2012 ISSUE OF CURRENT HISTORY.
FEB. 22POWER DISTRIBUTION IN LATIN AMERICA IN THE 2000s
Midterm exam due.
DEBATE: In international relations, the definition of power is [specify two different definitions] and the criteria for the stipulation of the global distribution of power are [specify two different sets of criteria] OR During the Bush administration, U.S. power in Latin America eroded/did not erode, but/and to some degree it has/has not been restored during the Obama administration.
Lowenthal, Chs. 1 and 11.
Nye, Altman & Haass, & Gelb, articles in FA (Nov./Dec. ’10), pp. 2-12, 25-43.
Ikenberry, G.J., “The Future of the Liberal World Order,” FA (May/June 2011), pp. 56-68.
Crandall, R., “The Post-American Hemisphere,” FA (May/June 2011), pp. 83-95.
Haass, “Is America in Decline?” FA (May/June ‘08), pp. 18-56.
“A new line on democracy?” Wash Post 10/4/10 (op-ed page).
Olson, J., “Latin America in 2010,” testimony at the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 12/1/10.
Recommended:
for figures on recent U.S. economic and military aid to LA.
Nye, J.S., Jr., “Get Smart: Combining Hard and Soft Power,” FA (July/Aug. 2009), pp. 160-163.
Ikenberry, G. J., et. al., “Introduction: Unipolarity, State Behavior, and Systemic Consequences,” WP (Jan. 2009), pp. 1-27.BB
McClintock, C., “U.S. Policy Toward Latin America.” testimony at the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs’ Subcommittee on the WesternHemisphere, 2/4/09 at
FEB. 29CHINA AND LATIN AMERICA IN THE 2000s
DEBATE: China is/is not the second most important external power in Latin America in 2012 AND/OR China presents an opportunity/threat to the U.S. in the region OR China’s role in Latin America is similar to the USSR’s in various respects, but different in other respects [specify different sets of respects].
D & F, Ch 1 and pp. 204-205 and 212-213.
CH, Feb. 2011, article by Farnsworth.
Rachman, G., “Think Again: American Decline,” FP Jan.-Feb. 2011, pp. 59-63.
“The dragon in the backyard,” The Economist, Aug. 15, ’09, pp. 19-21.
“Iran and Latin America,” The Economist Nov. 28, 2009, pp. 41-42.
Ellis, R.E., “Chinese Soft Power in Latin America,” Joint Forces Quarterly, Issue 60, 1st quarter 2011, pp. 85-91.
Krugman, P., “China, Japan, America,” NYT, Sep. 13, 2010, p. A29.
Ellis, R.E.,China inLatin America: The Whats and Wherefores, pp. 236- 243.
“Discord: Chinese Foreign Policy,” The Economist 1/15/11 pp. 13-14.
“China Makes Money Talk…” Wash. Post 7/26/10 p. A1 & A7.
“A World with No One in Charge,” Wash. Post Outlook, 12/5/10 pp. B1-4.
Recommended:
Glaser, C., “Will China’s Rise Lead to War?” FA (March/April 2011), pp.
Roett,R. and Paz, G., China’s Expansion into the Western Hemisphere: Implications for Latin America and the United States. HF1604.24 U636 2008
Ellis, R.E., China inLatin America: The Whats and Wherefores F1416.C66 E55 2009
MAR. 7VENEZUELA: A NEW “MIDDLE POWER”?
DEBATE: Especially given its ties to extra-hemispheric powers, in particular Iran, and the ALBA countries, Chávez’s Venezuela is/is not a “middle power” in Latin America (roughly on a par with Brazil).
Smith, pp. 352-363.
Lowenthal, Ch. 5.
D & F, Ch. 11.
Corrales, J., & Penfold, M., “Venezuela’s New Foreign Policy,” Dragon in the Tropics, Ch. 5.
Burges, S., “Building a Global Southern Coalition: the competing approaches of Brazil’s Lula and Venezuela’s Chávez,” Third World Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 7 (2007), pp. 1343-1358.
Ellis, R.E., “Venezuela’s Relationship with China: Implications for the Chávez Regime and the Region,” Challenges to Security in the Hemisphere Task Force, Center for Hemispheric Policy, Univ. of Miami, 8/18/10, pp. 1-12.
Recommended:
“Fidel’s Heir,” The New Yorker 06/23/2008.
Articles by Christopher Marquis in the NYT 4/25/02; Scott Wilson in Wash. Post 4/16/02, and Karen de Young in Wash. Post 4/12/02.
MAR. 14SPRING BREAK/NO CLASS
MAR. 21BRAZIL: A NEW “MIDDLE POWER”?
DEBATE: In the 2000s, Brazil became/did not become Latin America’s most powerful country and has recently been/not been achieving its foreign-policy goals.
Smith, pp. 286-289, 349-352 (& review 283-284).
D & F, Ch. 7.
Lowenthal, Ch. 3.
Sweig, J., “A New Global Player?” FA (Nov.-Dec. 2010), pp. 173-185.Burges, S., “Building a Global Southern Coalition…,” (review)
Recommended:
Foreign-policy analysis from LatinAmerican Regional Report, Brazil (especially for updates on Mercosur, including admission of Venezuela)
Sotero, P., “Brazil’s Rising ambition in a Shifting Global Balance of Power,” Politics 30, S1 (2010), pp. 71-81.
Sotero, P., “Brazil as an Emerging Donor: Huge Potential and Growing Pains,” Development Outreach Vol. 11, No. 1 (February 2009).
Margheritis, A., Latin American Democracies in the New Global Economy, Ch. 2 (by Bouzas). BB
“Brazil and Paraguay: Brazil concedes on Itaipú Energy Deal,”
MAR. 28MEXICO: A “MIDDLE POWER”?
DEBATE: Overall, the effect of NAFTA on Mexico has been positive/negative OROverall, since 2000 Mexico’s ties with the U.S. have helped/not helped Mexico to achieve its goals [one or more goals, such as U.S. immigration reform and/ or drug control, may be chosen].
Smith, pp. 257-262, 320-324, 347-349, 380-381.
Lowenthal, Ch. 2.
D & F, Ch. 2.
CH, Feb. 2004, Vol. 103, No. 670, articles by Castañeda & Weintraub.
Gonzalez, F., “Mexico’s Drug Wars Get Brutal,” CH Feb. ‘09, pp. 72-76.
Casas-Zamora, K.,“Felipe Calderón’s War: It’s Time for Serious Debate,”
Brookings Institution, 1/25/11.
“Gun-Sale Reporting Plan Hits a Snag,” Wash. Post 2/20/11 p. A5.
“Mexico’s Calderon to visit White House at time of rising tension,” Wash. Post 3/3/11 p. A5.