tsl2m5

Brexit and Latin America

What’s the impact of the British referendum on the Americas?

This morning, we awoke to the shocking news that UK voters have opted for leaving the European Union. Like many elections in today’s globalized world, the effects fall heavily on countries and people who had no say in the matter, at least electorally. The consequences will fall heaviest on Europeans in the UK (and UK residents in the EU) and on Europe generally. U.S. businesses and political leaders were clearly hoping for the UK to remain in the UK, and the pessimistic expectations are already clear in early trading on the markets.

But do the results matter for Latin America?

The immediate impact of “Brexit” on Latin America is to create additional economic uncertainty in what is already a challenging environment. Many Latin American economies have been hit hard by falling commodity prices. In the near-term, the referendum results will exacerbate that. Market turmoil will continue to drive up the US dollar, increasing borrowing costs for countries that are already in the red.

For Latin American countries that have recently negotiated or are currently negotiating free trade agreements with the EU, the eventual absence of the UK reduces the value of those deals somewhat. Trade with the EU is very important to many Latin American economies. It accounts for about 15% of Argentina’s trade, nearly 20% of Brazil’s, 18% of Colombia’s. Though the figure is lower for Mexico, 11% of the country’s exports go to the EU (all figures from the WTO). It is a very important source of investment, too. To the extent that Brexit slows Europe’s economic recovery, it will hit Latin American export sectors that are already suffering.

Trade with the UK itself, however, is much less important. It generally accounts for only a tenth of the trade figures listed above. Some Latin American states may eventually seek separate agreements with the UK, but it is not likely to be a high priority. Certainly nothing can be arranged until the terms of the UK’s exit are clearer. A more immediate concern for Latin American governments will be securing the main European sources of investment through the EU. For most countries, that means Spain, the Netherlands, and Germany. It’s a bit of a different story for small economies of the Anglophone Caribbean, but not a more positive one given the general turmoil and possible reduction in market access. The UK is not the investment powerhouse that it once was in Latin America, when the island nation was a major force in the continent’s railway, shipping, and mining sectors. Therefore, the economic effects of Brexit are likely to be serious, but indirect–filtered through the EU, commodity prices, and the value of the dollar.

Politically, the immediate response in Latin America seems to be disbelief. The continent has long idealized and struggled for greater integration (though with many disagreements about what that should mean). Brexit flies in the face of that. Here is a regional organization that, for many legitimate gripes, on the whole really works to promote economic and social wellbeing, and has a record of enhancing peace and human rights. That has long been at least a rhetorical aspiration for many in the hemisphere, and so it is surprising to see it cast aside, I think. (At least it is for me.) That said, the region is likely to be much more consumed by the positive news of the ceasefire in Colombia.

Perhaps even more important are the echoes of the Leave campaign’s tenor for Latin Americans. Given the experiences of many Latin Americans living in the United States, there is little sympathy for the anti-immigrant sentiments that fueled much of the Leave campaign. In short, I don’t see many silver linings for Latin America from a British departure. It reduces British influence in Latin America, too, but cutting it out of EU programs and by weakening the UK’s appeal and “soft power.”

In the United States, the political picture is more mixed. Certainly, most of the business and political establishment was hoping for decisive Remain, as President Obama clearly stated. The United States has a strong interest in both a more integrated UK and in a more liberal EU. Both of those are now under severe threat, and on the whole that is bad news for U.S. companies. It also complicates U.S. security relationships, though there will be an emphasis on maintaining those. In terms of public opinion, there is a sector of the U.S. electorate that has long been skeptical of international organizations and that will celebrate Brexit. The messages of the Leave campaign will have resonated with many Tea Party supporters in the United States, which shared similar emphases on stopping immigration and purging supposedly unresponsive and unaccountable politicians and bureaucrats. The reception of the results of the referendum will largely mirror the political divisions that have been so evident during the U.S. presidential campaign.

Colombia-FARC ceasefire

Exciting news happening in Havana, as the Colombian government and the FARC announce a definitive ceasefire that will end a 50-year guerrilla war. Check out this story from Reuters, where I am thrilled to be quoted in the last paragraph, after talking with Havana correspondent Sarah Marsh.

I’ll also be talking live on Deutsche Weill television, which should stream online. I’ll be on sometime around 8:30 p.m. in Germany, which is 7:30 p.m. in the UK, and 2:30 on the East Coast in the U.S. I’ll put up a video of it if I can (for you, Mom).

Update: my head is enormous on German TV (in English):

DW TV

You can watch the announcement live from Havana via Colombian newsweekly Semana.

Book review: Kalman Silvert

I recently returned from the Latin American Studies Association conference. It was a landmark event for LASA — the 50th anniversary of the organization’s founding, the largest and most international conference ever, and a return to New York after decades away. One of the benefits of LASA, particularly now that I am living in the UK, is the opportunity to catch up with many of my past professors and mentors.

IMG_20160611_193716 — A new book on Kalman Silvert, edited by Abraham F. Lowenthal and Martin Weinstein, who like most of the contributors were former students, colleagues, and mentees of Silvert.

One of them, Louis Goodman, former dean of the School of International Service, gave me a copy of a book, Kalman Silvert: Engaging Latin America, Building Democracy, shortly before the conference (published by Lynne Rienner). The volume, to which Goodman contributed, was compiled and edited by Abraham Lowenthal and Martin Weinstein. Before getting the book, I knew Silvert’s name in large part because LASA’s highest prize is named after him. I would have been hard pressed to tell you too much more. As the book itself notes, Silvert’s contributions have somewhat faded from view. His writings are not widely cited. He is well remembered by a senior generation, but largely unknown to my own generation.

Silvert was a founder and the first president of LASA. He was a professor at Tulane, University of Buenos Aires, Dartmouth, and NYU. He also was a senior advisor for the Ford Foundation’s programs in the social science, with a focus on Latin America during a crucial time. He worked to support social scientists living and working in repressive regimes in the 1960s until his death in 1976. Support from Ford helped numerous institutions in Latin America provide a venue for independent social science under trying circumstances. Through his scholarship, teaching, and development of professional networks, Silvert pressed for individual rights, education, democracy, and better relations between the United States and Latin America. He was deeply involved in the creation of many institutions that for my generation have always formed the professional landscape of Latin American studies.

The book offers an excellent introduction to Silvert’s life and work. Chapters offer an overview of his major works, contributions on mentoring, through philanthropic organizations, as a public intellectual, and engagement with U.S. policy–particularly through the Commission on United States – Latin American Relations, often known as “the Linowitz Commission,” which had a major influence on the Carter Administration’s approaches to Latin America.

The book is also a wonderful reminder that so much of what we do goes beyond our writings. Most of the chapters are contributed by Silvert’s former students or by scholars he worked with closely across Latin America, though especially in Argentina and Chile. The chapters weave together many interlocking aspect’s of Silvert’s life and work, and they also serve as a wonderful reminder that the social sciences are social in more ways than one. These personal relationships are, of course, important to how we build knowledge, but they are usually invisible in our published work. This is an excellent corrective.

Looking forward to LASA 2016, NYC

cfnxppmumaet4jf The 2016 Latin American Studies Association conference is right around the corner, and I am looking forward to participating. This year, I will be giving a paper called “The United States and Latin America Decline of power or decline in interest?” on a panel on Sunday at 2:30. The panel, organized by Laura MacDonald of Carleton, is called “The Role of External Actors in Post-Hegemonic Latin America.” My paper (abstract below) sort of starts with asking, “how ‘post-hegemonic’ is the Western Hemisphere?” I am also discussant on a panel Sunday evening on “Contentious political issues in contemporary inter-American affairs: from (non)insurgency to international security and trade policymaking,” which includes my friend and superb young scholar Mariano Bertucci of Tulane.

Abstract: It is commonly asserted that the United States no longer holds the dominant position it once did in Latin America. This decline is credited to several factors: a global decline in U.S. power, lower levels of U.S. attention to the region, the entrance of new extra-hemispheric challengers, and more “assertive” Latin American leaders. This paper seeks to test these claims of U.S. decline. First, using a variety of metrics, it will ask whether U.S. power in the hemisphere has declined relative to regional and extra-regional actors. It assesses recent, frequently cited U.S. struggles to exert influence Latin America—that is, relational power—in comparison to the more distant past. The paper concludes that U.S. decline has too often been assumed instead of demonstrated, that when evidence has been provided it has often been anecdotal, and that this evidence actually demonstrates significant continuities. U.S. decline, both relative to extra-hemispheric powers and in regards to states within the region has been overstated, in part because of a tendency to exaggerate U.S. power in the past, a focus on changes, and an underestimation of the continued depth of U.S. military, economic, structural, and ideational power in the region. There have been real changes in the geographic concentration and nature of U.S. power, as well as in the economic role of China. However, these changes are often outweighed by the continuities of relationships that are still defined by asymmetry.

Truman in Rio: How Brazil, Mexico, and the United States Shaped Regionalism in the Americas

I have just learned that the Harry Truman Library Institute has awarded me a travel and research grant to support archival work at the Truman Presidential Library. My work there will focus on the creation of the inter-American system after World War II. I am particularly interested in debates around democracy, sovereignty/intervention, and international organization. The archives there will complement the work that I am doing in Rio de Janeiro this summer (supported by the British Academy/Leverhulme Trust), work I did last fall in Washington, and archival research done previously in Mexico City while a visiting professor at CIDE.

63-1383-53 — Harry and Margaret Truman in Rio de Janeiro. *Credit: Truman Library*

Here are a couple paragraphs from the application that give a sense of the project:

“The creation of the modern inter-American system, particularly the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio Treaty), has usually been explained as an effect of U.S. regional hegemony. On the one hand, this is understandable. The United States, in the closing stages and immediate aftermath of the Second World War, was at the apex of its relative power. In the Western Hemisphere, it had achieved the near-unanimous cooperation of Latin American states with the Allied war effort—with the exception of Argentina. The inter-American system solidified this state of affairs, while also serving to bring the reluctant Argentines into line.

“This project adopts a more multifaceted approach to regionalism. U.S. power and leadership were certainly crucial to the development of the regional system. However, during the creation of the post-war regional institutions, Latin American states—often led by Mexico and Brazil—sought to create a system that provided them an important forum and offered the possibility of greater influence. President Truman recognized those countries’ importance, paying each a visit in 1947, as well as hosting their leaders in Washington.”

The project ties into a couple medium-term article projects, including one with Max Paul Friedman. Eventually, it will all be part of a big book project that looks at Brazilian and Mexican policies toward regionalism and regional organizations over several decades.

Recommendations for U.S.-Latin American Policy

ed-aq851_biden_g_20130604173943 A group of more than twenty scholars, many with policy experience, have put together a document offering consensus policy recommendations for the next U.S. president: Recommendations for U.S.-Latin America/Caribbean Policy, 2016 Elections:
Conclusions of Global Americans Working Group.

The effort, ably led by Chris Sabatini, editor of the web magazine Latin America Goes Global, provides an analysis of the current situation in U.S.-Latin American relations. It also offers ideas for how to move forward on security, trade, diplomacy, human rights, the OAS, etc. I am glad to have been involved in this consensus effort, which I think moves the discussion in a positive direction. So far, unfortunately, the campaign’s discussion and portrayal of Latin America and its people has been overwhelmingly negative.

Now is a time for building bridges, not walls, between the United States and its partners and friends in Latin America and the Caribbean. Check out the report here.

Book review

The first review of my book (I think) is online at Post-Western World. Oliver Stuenkel pulls out some lessons from the book for Brazil and other countries hoping to influence Washington.

He writes, “Successfully engaging and influencing the United States will be crucial for Latin America in the coming years — be it vis-à-vis designing policies to combat drug trafficking and organized crime, fighting corruption, or articulating a regional response to deal with China’s growing influence. Latin America Confronts the United States offers a very interesting look back about how Latin America has been able to influence its dominant neighbor in the North.” Check out the review.

Forthcoming: It’s Not the Size, It’s the Relationship*

I’m glad to say that I have a new article accepted for publication at the journal International Politics, which is edited by Michael Cox at the London School of Economics. IP is a great, lively journal that publishes relatively short, engaging (and often argumentative) pieces. It is (I think) gaining prominence in the UK and elsewhere. They recently had a great special issue on responses to regional powers that is very relevant to anyone interested in regionalism or the role of Brazil in South America. My CIDE colleague Mark Aspinwall also published a great, counter-intuitive article about Mexican influence on U.S. drug policy in the journal a few weeks ago.

My own article certainly seeks to fit the journal’s argumentative mode. It is titled “It’s Not the Size, It’s the Relationship: From ‘Small States’ to Asymmetry.” The basic thrust of the argument is as follows: decades of debate over how we should define the term “small state” has not produced much consensus (everyone agrees on this). Furthermore, the debate has had some negative consequences, like limiting theory-building, comparison, and two-way conversation with IR theory. Instead, I argue that we should more fully embrace a relational approach that places small states within the context of asymmetrical relationships instead of treating them as a coherent category.

I don’t have a publication date or link yet, but I will update when I do.

*Intentionally sophomoric title. But it actually makes sense!

Forthcoming: Coloso Fragmentado

17094 Good news! I have a forthcoming article in Foro Internacional, published by the Colegio de México, in early 2017. It is titled, “Coloso fragmentado: The ‘intermestic’ agenda and Latin American foreign policy.” The review process was quite positive, with good suggestions from the anonymous reviewers. It will be out in Foro Internacional 227 (vol. LVII-1, enero marzo de 2017). There is a bit of delay because I wrote the piece in English, and Foro is graciously handling the translation for me. So, if you have something you would like to publish to engage with a Spanish-language audience, I would recommend it, even if you don’t want to (or can’t) write it in Spanish. Here is an abstract:

Abstract: “Intermestic” issues, including trade, migration, and drug-trafficking, dominate contemporary U.S.-Latin American relations and matter deeply to Latin American and Caribbean states. Despite their importance to Latin American leaders and publics, Latin American diplomats have had less success influencing U.S. policy than in other spheres. These failures owe, at least in part, to the dynamics that intermestic issues create in the U.S. foreign policy process. While those dynamics have been broadly explored, there has been less attention to the ways in which these dynamics affect Latin American and Caribbean foreign policy towards the United States. Building on work by Putnam, Milner, Tsebelis, and others, this article argues that intermestic issues have more veto players and narrower win-sets than traditional foreign policy issues, which complicates attempts at influencing U.S. policies. The argument is examined against the case of the U.S.-Mexico cross-border trucking dispute, where the Mexican government struggled with U.S. officials and interest groups for two decades to gain U.S. compliance with NAFTA. After briefly exploring other relevant issues, the article suggests that for Latin American policymakers, intermestic issues demand different diplomatic strategies.

Keeping up with CIDE

cide_vidrio-mid I have the very happy news that I have been appointed profesor afiliado with the Division of International Studies at the Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas in Mexico City. I can’t speak highly enough of the team there, and my year at CIDE was highly productive. The DEI is full of incredible scholars who are also wonderful people. This is a great way to maintain my ties with wonderful colleagues, facilitate research projects, and to have an institutional home in Mexico. I am honored to continue being a part of the CIDE family, even from a bit farther away (though honestly, a pesero from Condesa to Santa Fe sometimes felt like a trans-Atlantic flight). Thanks to the DEI and CIDE for the vote of confidence.