INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF LATIN AMERICA
Political Science 2484/Section 10
Spring 2012
Syllabus is final only through February 16
COURSE INFORMATION
CRN 60460
Time: T and R 2:20-3:35
Location: Gov 101
INSTRUCTOR
Prof. Cynthia McClintock
Office: Monroe 407
Tel: (202) 994-6589
E-mail : mcclin@gwu.edu
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 the U.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:
1. 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
2. Understand the variety of scholarly explanations for U.S. policy in the hemisphere
3. Analyze key policy issues relevant to the region more effectively
4. Know key sources for knowledge on the international relations of Latin America
5. Be able to make more cogent analytical arguments
2
GRADE COMPUTATION
1. Midterm exam (25%).
2. Final exam (40%). (In accord with GWU policy, the final exam will be on the
officially scheduled date, not during the last week of the semester.)
3. Research paper (25%). (See below for guidelines.)
4. Attendance and participation (10%). For students who make regular, positive
contributions to class discussion and/or electronic debate on Blackboard, additional
points may be given.
RESEARCH PAPER GUIDELINES
Each student will submit to the professor a hard copy of the paper, which is to be a
maximum of 2,250 words or 7 pages, excluding bibliography (with a 12-point font and 1
inch margins), which responds to one of the questions under a class heading in the
syllabus. Excessive length will be penalized. The student is to address the question as
specifically as possible; detailed historical background is not to be provided. To the
extent possible, alternative arguments should be rebutted. The “/” mark in the questions
indicates that students should choose their position and/or can choose among the
specified options. If a student would like to modify the question, s/he should consult the
professor. This paper is to be carefully researched and documented, using recommended
works from PSC 2484 as well as additional readings. Not only direct quotes but also
paraphrased text and ideas taken from a source must be cited. Also, statistics that may
vary by source should be cited. For assistance with proper citation, visit the Writing
Center (http://www.gwu.edu/~gwriter).
Students who advise the professor of their intent to present their paper in the relevant
class by 5:00 pm on the Friday before the class, post the paper on “Discussions” in
Blackboard by noon the day before the relevant class, and present their paper in the
relevant class will receive 5 additional points on their grade for the paper. (When a topic
spans two dates, the second date is “the relevant class.”) The amount of time for the
paper presentation will vary depending on the number of students presenting and other
factors, but will usually be about 7 minutes. The deadline for students who do not present
their paper in the relevant class is April 26.
CLASS POLICIES
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.
Religious holiday: Please notify me if you must be absent due to a religious holiday.
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.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Remember that paraphrased text from a source must be cited. Academic honesty
policies (http://www.gwu.edu/~ntegrity/code.html) will be strictly enforced. Visit
http://www.gwu.edu/~gwriter for further assistance.
3
TEXTS
LaRosa, Michael and Mora, F. O. (eds.), Neighborly Adversaries: Readings in U.S.-Latin
American Relations. (Rowman and Littlefield, 2nd ed). F1418.N397 (L & M)
Lowenthal, A.F., et. al. (eds.), The Obama Administration and the Americas: Agenda for
Change. (Bookings, 2009). JZ1480.A53S55 2010
Smith, Peter, Talons of the Eagle (Oxford, 2008). 3rd ed. F1418.365 2008
Current History, February 2012 issue (CH).
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 "ejournal 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 sources available
through Gelman e-journals are The New York Times (NYT), The Wall Street Journal, The
Washington Post, The Economist, the Latin American Weekly Report and the Latin
American Regional Report. Recommended websites are the U.S. Dept. of State
(www.state.gov) and: 1) center, center-right: www.miami.edu/chp; 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; a good website is http://lanic.utexas.edu.
JAN. 17
INTRODUCTION
Smith, pp. 10-11.
PART ONE
U.S.-LATIN AMERICAN RELATIONS IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
JAN. 19
EXPLANATIONS FOR U.S. POLICY TOWARD LATIN
AMERICA: THE CASE OF MEXICO DURING WWI and WW2
Smith, pp. 56-59.
L & M, Ch. 14.
Nau, H.R. Perspectives on International Relations, 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.
4
Sloan, J., “U.S. Policy Responses to the Mexican Revolution,” JLAS
Vol. 10, No. 2 (Nov. 1978), pp. 283-295 and 300-308.
Recommended:
Smith, pp. 18-56.
Dominguez, J.I., “U.S.-Latin American Relations During the Cold War and Aftermath,”
in Bulmer-Thomas et. al. (eds.), The U.S. and Latin America…, Ch. 2 BB
Vasquez, J.A., Classics of International Relations, Chs. 16, 17 (Morgenthau, Wolfers)BB
Kegley, C.W. and Wittkopf, American Foreign Policy: Patterns and Processes, 4th ed.,
pp. 280-288, 480-489, 494-504. BB
Harrison, B.T., “Chandler Anderson and Business Interests in Mexico,” Inter-American
Economic Affairs (Winter 1979), pp. 3-23.
JAN. 24
U.S. POLICY TOWARD BOLIVIA AND GUATEMALA IN THE
EARLY 1950s
RESEARCH PAPER: Why did the United States choose accommodation
with Bolivia but confrontation with Guatemala?
L & M, pp. 1-6, 51-53, Chs.15 and 16.
Smith, pp. 69-80, 113-128, 149-153.
Rabe, S.O., Eisenhower and Latin America, pp. 42-64 and 77-83.
Recommended:
Lehman, K., “Revolutions and Attributions: Making Sense of Eisenhower
Administration Policies in Bolivia and Guatemala,” Diplomatic History, Vol. 21,
No. 2 (Spring 1997), pp. 185-213. BB
JAN. 26
THE U.S. AND CUBA, l958-l962
RESEARCH PAPER: Was Fidel Castro’s Cuba a “dagger in the heart”
OR a “thorn in the side”? AND/OR Between January and June 1961,
what policy [specify a policy] should President Kennedy have pursued to
defuse the threat?
Smith, pp. 128-131 and 153-157.
L & M, Ch. 17.
Blasier, C., “The Giant’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
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
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
JAN. 31
THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION AND U.S. POLICY TOWARDS
CHILE, l970-l973
5
RESEARCH PAPER: The national security explanation is/is not the best
explanation for U.S. policy toward Chile 1970-73.
Smith, pp. 136-147 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 ... White House, pp. 270-276.
Lowenthal, A., “The United States and Latin America: Ending the
Hegemonic Presumption,” FA 55, 1 (Oct. 1976), pp. 199-213.
Recommended:
L & M, Ch. 18.
The films “Frost-Nixon” and "Missing”
Sigmund, P., The U.S. and Democracy in Chile, Ch. 3 and 9. E183.8.C4; S57 1993
Maxwell, K., "The Other 9/11" FA (Nov.-Dec. 2003), pp. 147-151 & subsequent debate
between Rogers and Maxwell, FA (Jan-Feb. ‘04), pp. 160-165.
FEB. 2
THE CARTER ADMINISTRATION: HUMAN RIGHTS AND
U.S. POLICY TOWARDS NICARAGUA
RESEARCH PAPER: 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 policy]?
Smith, pp. 145-147, 186, 191-194 and 198-199.
L & M, Ch. 19.
Booth, J.A., et. al., Understanding Central America, pp. 69-76.
McClintock, C., Revolutionary Movements in Latin America, 216-221.
Recommended:
Arnson, C. Crossroads: Congress, the President, and Central America, 1976-1993, 2nd ed.,
Ch. 2. F14136.8UA76
Sikkink, K., Mixed Signals: U.S. Human Rights Policy and Latin America, Ch. 6.
JC 599.L3 S55 2004
Lake, A., Somoza Falling, Ch. 13. #E183.8.N5.L35 1990
Smith, T., America's Mission, pp. 239-252 and 260-265. E744.S588 1994 BB
FEB. 7
THE REAGAN AND BUSH ADMINISTRATIONS AND U.S.
POLICY TOWARD NICARAGUA AND EL SALVADOR
RESEARCH PAPER: Was the Reagan administration’s policy towards
Nicaragua/El Salvador a failure/a success? (Why? By what criteria?)
Smith, pp. 171-179 & 206-209.
6
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 &
221-231.
Carothers, T., In the Name of Democracy, pp. 1-1 and 78-111.
Recommended:
Arnson, C., Crossroads: Congress, the President, and Central America, 1976-1993, 2nd
ed., Conclusion. F14136.8UA76
Leiken, R.S., “Soviet and Cuban Policy in the Caribbean Basin,” in Schulz, D.E. & G
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, No. 1 (Jan. 2010), pp. 1-38.
FEB. 9
THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, DEMOCRACY
PROMOTION, AND U.S. POLICY TOWARD HAITI
RESEARCH PAPER: The Clinton administration’s policy toward Haiti
was a failure/a success? [Why? By what criteria?]
Smith, pp. 263-271.
L & M, p. 326.
“Debate: The Haiti Intervention,” FP 102 (Spring 1996), pp. 134-151.
McClintock, C. and Vallas, F., The United States and Peru, pp. 157-160.
Palmer, D.S., U.S. Relations with Latin America During the Clinton Years,
pp. 34-36, 47-51 and 65-68.
Recommended:
Lowenthal, Ch. 9.
FEB. 14
THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION AND THE HEMISPHERIC
AGENDA IN THE WAKE OF THE COLD WAR
RESEARCH PAPER: The Clinton administration enacted policies that
prioritized/did not prioritize trade and economic interests OR During the
Clinton administration, there was/was not a lost opportunity for
partnership with the Americas.
Smith, pp. 213-240.
Palmer, D.S., U.S. Relations with Latin America During the Clinton Years,
pp. 22-34, 36-46, 51-65, and 68-73.
McClintock, C. and Vallas, F., The United States and Peru, pp. 38-49.
Crandall, R., United States and Latin America after the Cold War, Ch. 6.
Mahon, J. & Corrales, F, “Pegged for Failure? Argentina’s Crisis,” CH
(Feb. ’02), pp. 72-80.
Recommended:
7
Eichengreen, B., “The Globalization Wars,” FA (July-Aug. 2002), pp. 157-164.
FEB. 16
MIDTERM EXAM
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. 21-23
POWER DISTRIBUTION IN LATIN AMERICA IN THE 2000s
RESEARCH PAPER: In international relations, the definition of power
is [specify a definition] and the criteria for the stipulation of the global
distribution of power are [specify 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 under Obama.
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.
“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:
www.justf.org, 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.
McClintock, C., “U.S. Policy Toward Latin America.” testimony at the U.S. House
Committee on Foreign Affairs’ Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere,
2/4/09 at http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/111/mcc02409.pdf
FEB. 28MAR. 1
CHINA AND LATIN AMERICA IN THE 2000s
RESEARCH PAPER: 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 respects].
CH, Feb. 2011, article by Farnsworth.
8
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 in Latin America, 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:
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 in Latin America: The Whats and Wherefores F1416.C66 E55 2009
MAR. 6-8
VENEZUELA: A NEW “MIDDLE POWER”?
RESEARCH PAPER: Especially given its ties to extra-hemispheric
powers, in particular Iran, and to 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.
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. 13-15 SPRING BREAK
MAR. 20-22 BRAZIL: A NEW “MIDDLE POWER”?
RESEARCH PAPER: 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.
9
Smith, pp. 286-289, 349-352 (& review 283-284).
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 Latin American 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.
Margheritis, A., Latin American Democracies in the New Global Economy, Ch. 2
(by Bouzas). BB
“Brazil and Paraguay: Brazil concedes on Itaipú Energy Deal,” www.coha.org/8/11/09
MAR. 27-29 MEXICO: A “MIDDLE POWER”?
RESEARCH PAPER: Overall, the effect of NAFTA on Mexico has been
positive/negative OR Overall, 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.
CH, Feb. 2004, Vol. 103, No. 670, articles by Castañeda & Weintraub.
Domínguez, J.I. & Fernández de Castro, R., Contemporary U.S.-Latin
American Relations, Ch. 2.
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.
“After U.S Envoy Quits in Mexico, Questions Arise on Cooperation in
Drug War,” NYT 3/26/11 p. A9.
Recommended:
Burstein, J., “U.S.-Mexico Agricultural Trade and Rural Poverty in Mexico,” at
www.wilsoncenter.org/Mexico, pp. 1-9.
Winter, B., “How Slim Got Huge,” FP No. 163 (Nov./Dec. 2007), pp. 35-42.
Rosenberg, T., "The Free-Trade Fix,” The New York Times Magazine, 8/18/02, pp. 2833, 50, 74-75.
Castañeda, J., “What’s Spanish for Quagmire?” FP Jan./Feb. 2010,pp. 76-81.
APRIL 3-5
THE HEMISPHERIC AGENDA: DRUG CONTROL
RESEARCH PAPER: U.S. drug policy has/has not failed AND/OR
accordingly marijuana/cocaine should/should not be legalized under
provisions similar to those for alcohol.
10
Smith, pp. 242-251, 327-332.
L & M, Ch. 21.
“How to stop the drug wars,” The Economist, March 7-13, 2009, pp. 1516, 29-34.
Hakim, P., “Rethinking U.S. Drug Policy,”www.thedialogue.org, 2/11.
Nadelmann, E., “Think Again: Drugs,” Foreign Policy (8/07), pp. 24-30.
Recommended:
The films “Traffic” and “No Country for Old Men”
Selee, A., “Success or Failure? Evaluating U.S.-Mexico Efforts to Address Organized
Crime and Violence,” Univ. of Miami, Center for Hemispheric Policy,
Perspectives on the Americas, 12/20/10.
Weintraub, S., “The High Cost of Criminalizing Drug Use,” CSIS Issues in International
Political Economy, No. 94 (Oct. 2007), at www.csis.org
Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy, Drugs and Democracy: Toward A
Paradigm Shift,” at www.drugsanddemocracy.org
APR. 10
THE HEMISPHERIC AGENDA: INTERSTATE COOPERATION
RESEARCH PAPER: Overall, especially given the policy shift in
Colombia from President Uribe to President Santos, the partnership
between the U.S. and Colombia is/is not weakening and UNASUR is/is not
strengthening.
Lowenthal, Ch. 4.
Casas-Zamora, K., “An Arms Race in South America?” Center for
Hemispheric Policy, University of Miami.
Domínguez, J., “Boundary Disputes in Latin America,” pp. 18-36.
“South America and Its Likelihood of a Season of Splendid Little Wars,”
at www.coha.org 10/21/09.
“Colombia’s Foreign Policy: Seeking New Friends,” The Economist
12/11/10 pp. 48-49.
“Colombia: Letter to Vice-President Angelino Garzón,” Human Rights
Watch 1/20/11.
“Kagan, R., “The Egypt-Colombia Paradox,” Wash. Post 1/23/11 p. A19.
Recommended:
Marcella, G., “War without Borders: The Colombia-Ecuador Crisis of 2008,” at
www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil
APR. 12
THE HEMISPHERIC AGENDA: CLIMATE CHANGE
RESEARCH PAPER: The U.S./China/LA nations (one or more LA
nation may be specified) are/are not stepping up to the plate to try to
negotiate a reduction in carbon emissions AND/OR to reduce their own
emissions.
“Climate change after Copenhagen,” The Economist, 1/2/10, pp. 43-44.
11
“Latin America Makes Impact at Copenhagen,” www.coha.org 12/27/09.
“Special Report: The Environment,” Time, Apr. 28, 2008, pp. 45-61.
“Forest Plan in Brazil…” NYT 12/22/08, p. A6.
“A Special Report on the Forests,” The Economist 9/25/10 pp. 8-11 & 1416.
“Melting Glaciers threaten Peru…” Wash. Post Jan. 17, 2011 p. A4.
“Climate Change Is Expected to Cost Latin American Countries… CEPAL
News Dec. 2010, pp. 2-3.
“Importancia asignada a los objetivos de la política exterior,” Las
Américas y el Mundo 2008,” p. 56.
“Small Steps on Global Warming,” NYT 12/17/2010 p. A30.
“Support for Climate-Change Compromise,” Wash. Post 12/11/10 p. A7.
APR. 17
THE HEMISPHERIC AGENDA: THE U.S., THE OAS, AND
DEMOCRATIZATION IN CUBA
RESEARCH PAPER: There is/there is not a contradiction between the
OAS position on Cuba and its position on Honduras OR The U.S.
should/should not lift the embargo against Cuba.
Smith, pp. 275-278, 334-335, 382-383.
Lowenthal, Ch. 7 and 10.
Domínguez, J.I., “Cuban Foreign Policy,” in Tulchin, J.S. and Espach,
R.H., Latin America in the New International System, Ch. 7.
“The OAS & Chile’s José Miguel Insulza,”at www.coha.org/2007/06/14.
Recommended:
If you are not familiar with the OAS, Wikipedia’s entry is helpful.
Hawkins, D., "Democratization Theory and Nontransitions: Insights from Cuba,"
Comparative Politics, Vol. 33, Issue 4 (July 2001), pp. 441-461.
Erikson, D. P., The Cuba Wars, esp. pp. 277-314. F1788.E65 2008
Morris, M., and McCillion, C., Unfinished Business: America and Cuba
after the Cold War, pp. 176-199. BB and E183.869 M75 2002
Legler, T., et. al. (eds.), Promoting Democracy in the Americas, Ch. 2 JL966.P753
2007 (BB)
APR. 19
THE HEMISPHERIC AGENDA: THE U.S., THE OAS, AND
DEMOCRATIZATION IN HONDURAS
RESEARCH PAPER: Under the circumstances, Obama administration
policy toward Honduras was/was not reasonably effective in helping to
restore democracy in Honduras after the mid-2009 coup.
Lowenthal, Ch. 8.
Finnegan, W., “An Old-Fashioned Coup,” The New Yorker, Nov. 30,
2009, pp. 38 and ff.
“Honduras’s presidential election: Voting to move onwards and upwards,”
The Economist 12/5/09 pp. 43-44.
12
Pine, A., “Honduras: ‘Reconciliation’ vs. Reality,” NACLA Report on the
Americas (Sep./Oct. 2010), pp. 4-5.
APR. 24-26
CONCLUSION