Well, my department has updated my profile, so I guess I can make the good news official! I recently learned (on the 4th of July, in fact) that I’ve been promoted to Associate Professor at the University of Warwick. Time to place an order for new business cards! (The promotion isn’t effective until September 1, so I’ll keep them in the desk drawer for another month and half.)
UK universities don’t have tenure in the same way that most US universities do. That said, some aspects of the process are similar. There’s usually a probationary period. At Warwick, that’s usually five years, though you can apply for promotion earlier. In my case, my previous experience was taken into account, so the expectation when I was hired was that I’d apply for promotion after two years. The process is a bit less harsh than at comparable US universities, I think. A failure to get promotion does not necessarily signal the end of employment (e.g., promotion can be extended). At Warwick, though, it looks a bit like the tenure process, in that coming off probation and getting promoted go together.
Anyhow, it’s been a nice moment to reach out to some of my mentors and colleagues who gave me a lot of support along the way to share the good news. I’ve been incredibly lucky in many respects, but perhaps above all to have benefited from the kindness and support of so many tremendous people.
Next step…I should probably update my university profile picture to one that reflects the gray hair and glasses earned (incurred?) along the way.
My new article with Sebastián Bitar and Gabriel Jiménez Peña is now out in the Bulletin of Latin American Research (currently the no. 1 Latin America area studies journal by Impact Factor). The article emerged from collaboration during a British Council/Newton Fund ResearcherLinks grants, which allowed me to spend time at Universidad de los Andes in Bogotá. Later, Sebastián came to Warwick on an Institute of Advanced Studies grant, allowing us to thoroughly revise the article sitting side by side. Thanks to both for the research support, as well as to the many colleagues who gave us comments on earlier drafts, including at the Latin American Studies Association Congress in Lima.
Citation and link:
2019: “Domestic contestation and presidential prerogative in Colombian foreign policy,” Bulletin of Latin American Research, (Online Early View: DOI:10.1111/blar.12987). With Sebastián Bitar and Gabriel Jiménez Peña.
At long last, my review essay “There is no map: International Relations in the Americas” is out today in Latin American Research Review. It reviews six books and tries to offer some synthetic lessons on the evolution of international leadership in the Americas. Comments welcome!
Citation: Long, Tom. 2019. There Is No Map: International Relations in the Americas. Latin American Research Review 54(2), pp. 548–555. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25222/larr.459
Reconceptualizing Security in the Americas in the Twenty-First Century. Edited by Bruce M. Bagley, Jonathan D. Rosen, and Hanna S. Kassab. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2015. Pp. xix + 368. $49.99 paperback. ISBN: 9780739194874.
Brazil in the World: The International Relations of a South American Giant. By Sean W. Burges. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2017. Pp. xi + 280. £30.00 paperback. ISBN: 9781526107404.
U.S.-Venezuela Relations since the 1990s: Coping with Midlevel Security Threats. By Javier Corrales and Carlos A. Romero. New York: Routledge, 2012. Pp. xii + 228. $47.95 paperback. ISBN: 9780415895255.
21st Century Democracy Promotion in the Americas: Standing Up for the Polity. By Jorge Heine and Brigitte Weiffen. New York: Routledge, 2015. Pp. xii + 208. $47.95 paperback. ISBN: 9780415626378.
Aspirational Power: Brazil on the Long Road to Global Influence. By David R. Mares and Harold A. Trinkunas. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2016. Pp. x + 224. $32.00 hardcover. ISBN: 9780815727958.
Precarious Paths to Freedom: The United States, Venezuela, and the Latin American Cold War. By Aragorn Storm Miller. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2016. Pp. xxi + 278. $65.00 hardcover. ISBN: 9780826356871.
I’ve just published my first piece in The Conversation, which looks at the rising tide of illiberalism — of left and right — in Latin America. Given the news of the last few days, it has a particular focus on Venezuela. Check out the new piece over at The Conversation…“Venezuela: how Latin American tolerance of illiberalism let a nation slide into crisis”
Despite the news hook, the piece really seeks to underline some of the lessons from my International Affairs article from November: “Latin America and the liberal international order: An agenda for research.” That article is discussed here, with a link to an open-access copy.
I am thrilled that my article “Latin America and the liberal international order: An agenda for research” has been accepted at International Affairs. In perhaps a major journal record, it was accepted last week and is already scheduled to be published in the November 2018 issue.
The article emerged as a response to the January 2018 special issue of the journal, edited by Princeton’s John Ikenberry, on liberal international order. It expanded quite a bit from there, but it is really great to see it published in the journal that inspired it. International Affairs has been a leading outlet for discussion of the liberal international order from a broad range of scholarly perspectives, and with a focus on policy audiences. It’s also just a fantastic journal, and one of my favorites to read. I use articles from International Affairs in my classes frequently because they tend to emphasize clear argument, concise presentation, and strong writing.
I can only hope my own piece does the same! The abstract is below. Please drop me a line if you’d like the submitted draft. The final version will be out soon, but of course I’m glad to get responses and thoughts before then. As the title suggests, this article is Part 1 in what I hope will be an expanding research project.
Abstract: Recent debates about challenges to the Liberal International Order (LIO)
have led IR scholars, both those critical and supportive of the concept, to
examine LIO’s origins and effects. While this work has shed new light on
the evolution of international order, there has been a surprising absence:
Latin America. We explore the theoretical consequences of this empirical
gap for IR’s understanding of LIO. After assessing the literature’s
treatment of Latin American and LIO, we offer a macro-historical sketch of
the region’s role in the order’s critical junctures. LIO has shaped Latin
America, and Latin America has shaped LIO—but not always in the ways
supporters or critics might expect. Despite Latin America’s long liberal
traditions, LIO’s benefits for the region have often been narrow. The
region’s sovereignty and statehood evolved alongside LIO, with
international experiences very different from those of areas colonized
during LIO’s expansion. Latin American engagement shaped the practices
of great powers through international law and organization, cooperation
and resistance. Despite its participation in LIO’s founding moments, Latin
America was often accorded second-class treatment. The experience of
Latin American states over two centuries—independent but often
internationally unequal—offers a rich vein of experiences of the
consequences of partial inclusion or marginalization from LIO. Deeper
study of Latin America’s history with LIO casts light on the ways in which
non-great powers outside the order’s core shaped, and were shaped by,
the elements of the evolving order.
Busy media day, with appearances on DW News (Germany) and Al Jazeera English. Both spots were on Argentina’s mounting currency crisis, with the peso losing half its value this year and suffering a really steep drop last week.
The year-long decline owes to a number of structural constraints, but last week’s near panic was caused in large part by some botched communications that created a lot of uncertainty and enhanced doubts about President Macri’s fiscal management. The government will try to rectify that this week, but losing value against the dollar is much easier than getting it all back. This is a closely watched number in Argentina, with really big political implications. The only “positive” for Macri is that the Kircheristas are themselves caught up in problems with serious corruption alleged and lots of concerning evidence coming to light.
— Warwick Newsroom (@warwicknewsroom) September 3, 2018
I was looking at government budget plans that had the peso gradually falling to nearly 22 pesos to the dollar — by 2021. It’s now struggling to stay above 40. Those economic plans, like many others, have gone up in smoke.
I haven’t done much in this space for a while, but I will try to add a bit of summary about my time in Chile on the Fulbright from March to June, what I learned last week in Mexico for the Robert A. Pastor North American Research Initiative, and some very brief capsule reviews on some of the books I’ve been reading over the summer.
I’m thrilled that H-Diplo and the International Security Studies Forum just published a roundtable of my book, Latin America Confronts the United States. It’s a huge honor! There are reviews from Juan Pablo Scarfi of Universidad Nacional de San Martin , Laura Macdonald of Carleton, Richard Feinberg of UCSD, and Gian Luca Gardini of Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, along with an introduction by Dustin Walcher of South Oregon.
Walcher writes: “The reviewers are generally impressed with Long’s accomplishment. In the most laudatory essay, Richard Feinberg calls the book a “seminal contribution to international relations theory.” Gian Luca Gardini concludes that “[o]verall Latin America Confronts the United States is an excellent book not only because of its academic rigor and quite original focus and approach, but most of all because it makes the reader think deeply and widely about U.S.-Latin America relations and more broadly. It revives the diplomatic-history approach to international relations.” Similarly, Laura Macdonald holds that “Long displays convincingly … that although most Latin American states were not ‘mice that roared,’ even very small states were able at times to challenge, revise, or subvert U.S. policies in order to achieve outcomes more in line with their administrations’ own objectives.” She concludes, “this volume represents a valuable contribution to the project of rethinking the relations between the powerful and the less powerful within a rapidly changing global order.” Finally, Juan Pablo Scarfi finds that the book “is a groundbreaking study and contribution to an emerging scholarship that seeks to globalize international relations by examining it through the lens of the South, the so-called Third World, and the perspective of weaker states.'”
2017 has been quite a busy year, both professionally and personally. In September, I started a new post at the University of Warwick in the department of Politics and International Studies. It’s a great department, regularly ranked among the top five Politics departments in the UK. I am teaching an MA course on Rising Powers and finalist undergrad course on Latin America that combines comparative politics and IR. My new students and colleagues have been great. We also moved to Leamington Spa, which was shortly thereafter named happiest town in the UK. I’m not sure about that, but it is full of coffee and tea shops, so it might be the most caffeinated, which is basically the same thing.
I spent about two months earlier in the year in Colombia on a British Council Researcher Links, collaborating with my friend and colleague Sebastián Bitar of Universidad de los Andes. We held a number of events related to Colombian foreign policy and the effects of the peace process. I also worked on an — ultimately unsuccessful 😦 — ESRC New Investigators grant application. Seb and I are wrapping up a journal article as one of the products of that collaboration.
A number of publications bunched together, making 2017 look like a very productive year. My book was released in paperback in June and received a number of largely positive reviews. The royalties are allowing me to live large, with a moderately priced dinner for two every six months. (Just kidding! All royalties go to WOLA.) (more…)
My newest article is just out as part of a special issue of the journal Contemporary Politics, vol. 24, no. 1. The issue came out of a workshop at the College of Europe, called Between cooperation and competition: major powers in shared neighbourhoods. The workshop and issue were organized and edited by Simon Schunz, Sieglinde Gstöhl & Luk Van Langenhove, who did a great job putting this all together. The whole special issue is available here.
My article looks at US-Brazilian interactions in Latin America, drawing on and extending Brantly Womack’s asymmetry theory (abstract below). Routledge allows me to offer free access to my own article for the first 50 readers through a special link, available for a limited time here. Please help yourself to a free copy, while they last–on the condition that you cite it copiously, of course!
Abstract: Until its recent crisis, Brazil’s rise, combined with seeming US decline and distraction, led observers to declare South America a ‘post-hegemonic’ region. How have US and Brazilian ambitions and capabilities affected the countries’ relations within the shared neighbourhood of the Western Hemisphere? Building on work by Womack, B. [2016. Asymmetry and international relationships. New York: Cambridge University Press], the article analyses the US-Brazil-South America relationship as a regionally located, asymmetrical triangle. During two centre-left presidencies, Brazil sought to shift the dynamics of the hemisphere’s soft triangles. Brazilian diplomacy redefined its neighbourhood as South America, developed exclusive regional groupings, and assumed the role of pivot to shape relationships between the US and South America. In the face of sceptical neighbours and weakened Brazilian capabilities, the regional triangle is likely to return to a more ‘normal’ configuration in which the United States acts as a central, albeit often uninterested, pivot.
A couple quick media spots. I talked to The Guardian‘s reporter David Agren about Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s proposal of an “amnesty” for organized criminal bosses, and whether that was likely to reduce violence. In short, I have my doubts. In full, I said, “I am sure some punished narcos would appreciate an amnesty, but it would not do much to stop the ongoing violence. The market and the rewards would continue to exist, and different groups would continue to compete — often violently — over that market.
“Even if a Pax mafiosa were the intention, it is probably not feasible today. First, the organized criminal groups are much more fragmented. Second, they are involved in crimes beyond drug trafficking, and I doubt the Mexican population would stand for official tolerance of extortion, kidnapping, oil theft, and human trafficking. Those revenue streams would remain in the event of an amnesty. Third, the state is much different. It is less hierarchical, with different parties governing at different levels. Often, the local and state levels are most relevant for organized crime. There is evidence that the party of local government, and changes in party, matter to levels of violence in Mexico. It also means that not everyone would be on board with a proposed pax or even an amnesty.”
I also talked earlier in the day with Gerhard Elfers, the impeccably dressed Business News Anchor for DW News, regarding Venezuela’s economic crisis and President Maduro’s proposal for a crypto-currency as a way out of the crisis (or at least around US sanctions.