Category Archives: Uncategorized

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!

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.

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.

 

I just finished a great discussion of Latin America Confronts at St. Antony’s College at Oxford University. It was a real honor to be invited to speak at this wonderful university, founded in 1096. St. Antony’s is one of the younger colleges, and it is known for its international focus in history and politics. St. Antony’s is home to the North American Studies Programme, whose director Hal Jones was gracious enough to invite me. I spoke in the NASP seminar series. The college is also home to an active Latin America Centre, so speaking there gave me the opportunity to meet a number of excellent scholars and students working on the region.

Thanks for all the great questions and comments. Sorry to have prattled on a bit long, leaving less time for them than I should have!

A condensed version of my Latin America Goes Global post on the negotiations in Colombia is now online at the Cambridge University Press author blog. If you prefer the bullet pointed version, you can read it here.

I have a new article online at the excellent page Latin America Goes Global. There is an excerpt below, but you can read the whole thing at the link above.

December 16, 2015

Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos has wagered his legacy on the possibility of peace. He is not the first Colombian leader to do so, but Tuesday’s announcement of an agreement on restitution for the conflict’s victims, following a late September announcement of an agreement on transitional justice, has made it clear that the ongoing talks are making greater headway than ever before.

Santos’ immediate predecessor, Álvaro Uribe, made a very different bet on how to end the country’s five-decade internal conflict. Uribe wielded the military, much improved by U.S. hardware, training and intelligence cooperation, in pursuit of unconditional victory against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Uribe beefed up and deployed the coercive institutions of the Colombian state to improve the government’s position on the battlefield and re-establish state authority—though according to his critics often in collaboration with paramilitaries and at the cost of respect for human rights, according to Uribe’s critics.

There’s no doubt—despite their current personal spat—that Santos’ peace initiatives build on the success Uribe’s war against FARC. But the Colombian president would do well to look back to the administration of President Andrés Pastrana (1998-2002) who preceded Uribe. Like Santos, Pastrana gambled on a negotiated peace with the FARC. His effort was personal—before his swearing in, he traveled to FARC-held territory to meet the guerrilla leader. While Pastrana’s peace efforts coincided with poor military performance and popular demands for an end to the fighting, it also grew from the leader’s own hope to chart a new path for his country’s political and economic future.

Keep reading at Latin America Goes Global!

The following article was published today by War on the Rocks. Here’s a brief excerpt from my piece. –TL

Last month, citing human rights concerns, the United States quietly withheld about $5 million in counternarcotics assistance for Mexico. The State Department declined to certify that Mexico met conditions imposed on the aid by Congress under the Leahy Amendment, triggering the 15-percent reduction in funding for Mexican security agencies. Though more than $140 million of other U.S. funding will continue to flow, the decision — first reported by The Washington Post and confirmed by a deputy spokesman at the State Department — was cheered by human rights advocates. A senior official at Human Rights Watch told The New York Times that the cut was “unprecedented.”

The State Department’s decision is symbolically important, but Mexico’s muted reaction was perhaps even more surprising. The Mexican government limited its response to a statement that criticized “unilateral practices,” but painted the aid cut as a consequence of U.S. executive–legislative relations. The focus was instead on the “deep and mature bilateral relationship” between the two neighbors. The muted Mexican reaction is no doubt a reciprocation of the State Department’s low-key handling of the issue and recognition of the fact that most aid money continues to flow, but also a reflection of the evolution of Mexican foreign policy toward the United States. Changes in Mexican politics and the “maturation” of bilateral ties allow U.S. policymakers to give greater weight to human rights without jeopardizing the broader relationship. The United States should use that space to respond to the growing concerns of Mexican citizens about human rights and accountability while reevaluating the failing military-led response to Mexico’s insecurity.

Read the rest over at War on the Rocks.