Tag Archives: Latin America

The Berlin Conference and Latin America

The 1884-85 Berlin Conference is one of the best known and most infamous examples of European imperialism and the “Scramble for Africa.” How did Latin American states, the world’s first collection of post colonial countries, respond?

In a new article, with my brilliant co-author Carsten-Andreas Schulz, we examine this question. It’s out now in the Journal of Global History: “Seeing the Berlin Conference from the periphery: Latin American reactions to imperialism elsewhere, 1884–85″.

Although no Latin American states were invited, their diplomats paid close attention and offered strong responses. Carlos Calvo, perhaps the region’s most famous lawyer of the period, managed to attend. Their arguments reflected both resistance to imperialism and complicity in its logic. By tracing Berlin’s reverberations across multiple regions, we highlight the broader repercussions of late nineteenth-century ‘high imperialism’ and reassesses the nature of Latin American anti-imperialism.

On the one hand, Colombian diplomat Ricardo Becerra proposed a counter-conference to reject the principles advanced at Berlin. Scandalized by the proceedings and by the application of Berlin’s new colonial doctrines in the Pacific, he wrote: “If these are the notions of justice and international morality of the most enlightened statesmen of Europe, well-justified is the fear that tomorrow, when the Panama Canal opens, for example, that the same Germany or another power would apply to our deserted coasts of the Darien the doctrine subscribed in Berlin and already practiced with respect to the Carolines.” Brazil’s diplomat in Berlin expressed similar fears that the South American country might find itself victimized by imperial expansion.

On the other hand, the famous Carlos Calvo managed to attend the conference, drawing on his reputation in international law. Once there, he defended not the rights of Africans but those of Portugal’s traditional claims. Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico soon recognized King Leopold II’s Congo Free State, in an episode seemingly overlooked in the historiography.

The article is part of our AHRC-funded project on Latin America and the making of international order in the late nineteenth century. It draws on archival research in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico, as well as documents from France, Germany, the UK, and the US.

Check it out, open access.

Seeing the Berlin Conference from the periphery: Latin American reactions to imperialism elsewhere, 1884–85


Abstract: The Berlin Conference (1884–85) is widely studied for its role in fuelling European imperialism and legitimising the scramble for Africa. However, its global impact beyond Europe and Africa has received little attention, with Latin America notably absent. This article examines how prominent diplomats from Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico interpreted the proceedings. In their view, Europe’s renewed expansionism in Africa—combining private adventurism, colonisation enterprises, and imperial statecraft—resembled the great powers’ incursions into post-independence Latin America. They feared that new criteria for staking colonial claims would endanger their states’ sovereignty over vast, remote territories. Yet, while opposing intervention, these diplomats embraced civilisational thinking and state-building projects that echoed Eurocentric racial hierarchies. Their arguments reflected both resistance to imperialism and complicity in its logic. By tracing Berlin’s reverberations across multiple regions, this article highlights the broader repercussions of late nineteenth-century ‘high imperialism’ and reassesses the nature of Latin American anti-imperialism.

2024 in review

Happy holidays! It has been a busy year professionally and personally; given my recurring failure to write Christmas cards or a holiday letter, ever, I will share here a few highlights from 2024 and hopes/plans for 2025.

In the major bit of professional news this year, I was promoted to Professor at the University of Warwick’s Department of Politics and International Studies. Coming after seven years at Warwick, it was a great honor to receive this recognition from my colleagues and the university. I do miss the confusion caused by telling my US-based counterparts that I was a “Reader” of International Relations…but it simplifies the matter of translating my title quite a bit.

In terms of publications, it was great to see the efforts of several collaborations make their way through the long process of research, (re)writing, peer-review, and editing. I spent most of the year working collaboratively, and that has been a pleasure. Most of the things that came out in 2024 were years in the making. Several are products of my ongoing AHRC-funded research with Carsten-Andreas Schulz on Latin America and the formation of international order. The biggest highlight was making my debut in the flagship journal for political science, the American Political Science Review, with an examination of how Mexican Liberals shaped their own anti-imperial liberal internationalism in response to the French Intervention (1861-67).

In addition to those pieces with Carsten, I returned to collaborating with American University PhD alum and friend Sebastián Bitar, and finally saw a piece published with Warwick historian and my running partner Benjamin T. Smith. Ben and I first started discussing that paper while jogging down the canal paths during our government-approved pandemic exercise hour. That it came out in top-shelf history journal Past & Present was icing on the cake. Finally, a translated edition of an collaborative volume with Eric Hershberg was published in Spanish with El Colegio de México. That really served as the culmination of the Robert A. Pastor North American Research Initiative, which I’d chaired for about eight years. Given the more intense interest in North America in Mexico, we were very pleased to see this come to fruition with a prominent Mexican press. (The English version was published by University of New Mexico Press in December 2023.) Visual round-up below, and links after that.

Travel and talks

In addition to writing and teaching, I was lucky to visit and meet colleagues from the UK, Europe, and across the Americas to share work and swap ideas. I started 2024 with a trip back to my alma mater, American University, for the presentation of our book, North America Regionalism. It was also a fitting and moving tribute to our friend and my PhD supervisor, Robert Pastor, ten years after his passing.

In April, I visited San Francisco for the annual International Studies Association conference, always a wonderful opportunity to catch up with old friends, renew connections, and meet new and interesting folks. April was a busy month; Carsten and I also presented a new paper on the 1884-85 Berlin Conference and Latin America at the Oxford University Latin America Centre. I presented new iterations of that paper at the UK Latin American Historians Network meeting at Sheffield University and at a global diplomatic history workshop at Warwick in May.

Also in May, I caught the Eurostar through the channel tunnel for a trip to Paris, where I had the opportunity to make my first visit to the Maison de l’Amérique latine, discussing US relations with Latin America, in May. It was a great daylong discussion with largely French diplomats and scholars.

In July, I had the chance to get back to Buenos Aires for the first time since the pandemic. It’s one of my favorite cities anywhere, with tremendouse theater, arts, and literary scenes–not to mention some of the world’s most fascinating politics. I spent a lot of time trawling the foreign ministry archives, but I also had the chance to present my work in progress at FLACSO and to see brilliant friends and colleagues. After a break in Spain during August, it was back to teaching at Warwick for the fall term. Amidst that, I had the opportunity to join a postdoctoral development workshop at William & Mary in November, while also presenting Carsten and my book-in-progress at London’s Westminster University and at W&M in the same busy week.

Plans for 2025

The year to come promises to be a busy one, even as I try to focus on doing fewer but bigger projects. Carsten and I have a full joint agenda, starting with shepherding a few articles with R&Rs through the review process. We’re also working on getting a contract for our book-in-progress … hopefully news to come in the first months of 2025. And I’m also applying to an ERC Consolidator grant–always a long-shot but hopefully one worth taking.

I’m looking forward to making my first trip to Norway to meet colleagues at NUPI and present in their seminar series. There are many luminaries of historical International Relations there, as well as experts on small states, so it is a visit that I am really looking forward to.

In early March, I’ll be at the annual International Studies Association conference in Chicago. Carsten and I have co-organized a workshop and series of panels on how ideas and practices of international politics have moved from the Latin American region to the global level. We’re excited to be working with a diverse group of scholars on that theme. I will also be participating in roundtables on grand strategy and territorial conflict, and on liberalism beyond the west.

Hopefully, I’ll make it back to Mexico in April–I got sick and missed a long-awaited trip to Guadalajara in December. Plans for the second half of the year are still pretty much wide open…other than setting aside plenty of time for writing a book!

That’s my work-life year in review. Wishing you a very happy 2025!

Article in GJIA

Carsten-Andreas Schulz and I have an essay in the new issue of the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs. In it, we give a synthetic view of inter-American relations over the two centuries since Latin American independence. Against this historical backdrop, we focus on what changes within the hemispheric and at the global level will mean for U.S.-Latin American relations.

Article abstract

The two hundredth anniversary of the Monroe Doctrine provides an opportunity to make a somewhat contrarian point: U.S.-Latin American relations are not as unidirectional as commonly suggested. Though the international relations of the Americas have been characterized by the power disparity between the United States and its neighbors, it is misleading to imply that U.S. dominance equated to unilateral determination of inter-American relations since 1823. On one hand, the United States’ history of interventions, browbeating, and heavy-handedness is well known. Undoubtedly, asymmetry has played a significant role in shaping identities, interests, and designs of states in the Western Hemisphere. However, on the other hand, the disparity of power should not be understood as directly determining outcomes: the powerful state has not always prevailed; the weak have not always cowered. Instead, smaller states in the region have contested, cooperated, and co-constituted tin their relationships. In this piece, we aim to emphasize how Latin America has found spaces to pursue its interests in the interstices of asymmetry. Meanwhile, the United States has often fallen into an “insecurity dilemma,” exaggerating threats despite its position of much greater power and responding in ways that complicate cooperation.

Read “In the Interstices of Asymmetry: Two Centuries of U.S.-Latin American Relations”, open access, thanks to JHU Press and Project Muse.

It is time for a new U.S. approach: if Latin America is cast largely as a place from which ‘threats’ emerge instead of as a partner, the United States will alienate allies and struggle to build the security it desires.”

Cite: Tom Long and Carsten-Andreas Schulz. “In the Interstices of Asymmetry: Two Centuries of U.S.-Latin American Relations.” Georgetown Journal of International Affairs 25, no. 1 (2024): 132-143. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/gia.2024.a934896.

New article in International Organization

My new article, co-authored with Carsten-Andreas Schulz of Cambridge University, has been published by International Organization. IO is perhaps the most prestigious outlet in the field of International Relations, and I’ve dreamed of publishing there since first finishing my PhD. The article, entitled “Compensatory Layering and the Birth of the Multipurpose Multilateral IGO in the Americas,” emerges from our AHRC-funded research on Latin America and the formation of international order. In the piece, we illustrate the innovations that led to the creation of the world’s first multipurpose, multilateral international organization–a form associated with the League of Nations and the United Nations. The first such body was the Pan American Union, which developed between 1890 and 1910 through a series of bargains between the United States and Latin American states. The article builds a bridge between Global International Relations and the study of institutional design, while also advancing institutionalist understanding of the design and development of IOs.

We’re beyond thrilled to see this piece online and eventually in print. We started working on it in mid-2019, initially for a workshop at Johns Hopkins University, and it was a long road with pandemic-related disruptions pushing our revisions back by nearly a year. It’s an honor to be in the pages of International Organization! Abstract below the image.

The Pan American Union building, located just off the national mall in Washington, DC.

Abstract

International organizations come in many shapes and sizes. Within this institutional gamut, the multipurpose multilateral intergovernmental organization (MMIGO) plays a central role. This institutional form is often traced to the creation of the League of Nations, but in fact the first MMIGO emerged in the Western Hemisphere at the close of the nineteenth century. Originally modeled on a single-issue European public international union, the Commercial Bureau of the American Republics evolved into the multipurpose, multilateral Pan American Union (PAU). Contrary to prominent explanations of institutional genesis, the PAU’s design did not result from functional needs nor from the blueprints of a hegemonic power. Advancing a recent synthesis between historical and rational institutionalism, we argue that the first MMIGO arose through a process of compensatory layering: a mechanism whereby a sequence of bargains over control and scope leads to gradual but transformative institutional change. We expect compensatory layering to occur when an organization is focal, power asymmetries among members of that organization are large, and preferences over institutional design diverge. Our empirical and theoretical contributions demonstrate the value a more global international relations (IR) perspective can bring to the study of institutional design. international relations (IR) scholars have long noted that international organizations provide smaller states with voice opportunities; our account suggests those spaces may be of smaller states’ own making.

Article online: Foro Internacional

foro-internacional-coverA new article is now out in Spanish in Foro Internacional, which most consider Mexico’s top academic International Relations journal. My piece, “Coloso fragmentado: la agenda ‘interméstica’ y la política exterior latinoamericana,” is the first piece in the January issue. The English title would be roughly “A fragmented colossus: The ‘intermestic’ agenda and Latin American foreign policy.” The official text is in Spanish, but I have included links to both Spanish and English versions and abstracts below.

La versión del artículo en español se encuentra aquí.

An unofficial, pre-translation English-language version is available here.

Abstracts below the jump.

Continue reading “Article online: Foro Internacional”

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?
brexit-promo-master495The 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.”
2016-06-24
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.

Looking forward to LASA 2016, NYC

cfnxppmumaet4jfThe 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.

What I’m reading: La conexión México – La Habana – Washington

Homero Campa, La conexión México – La Habana – Washington: Una controvertida relación trilateral, Editorial Planeta Mexicana, 2014

On December 15, 2014, I presented a paper in Havana at a “series of conversations” on U.S.-Cuban relations. That paper looked at the role of Panama, host of the April 2015 Summit of the Americas, as a potential facilitator of U.S.-Cuban dialogue. If I had subbed in Canada or the Vatican for Panama, I would have looked much smarter two days later when, to our surprise, Presidents Obama and Castro announced a prisoner exchange and move to re-establish relations.

Homero Campa, whose interesting book on the role of Mexico as a sometimes interlocutor between the U.S. and Cuba came out in 2014, might feel similarly unlucky. As it turned out, despite their historic role between the United States and Cuba, Mexican diplomats had no hand in last year’s secret negotiations, which led to today’s big announcement of the opening on embassies in Havana and Washington. Read differently, Campa’s book is a bit more prescient than my paper (though trust me, I can suggest a more prescient reading of my paper, if you’d like!). Mexico’s lack of involvement—and by all accounts, Mexicans were surprised by the announcements—fits with the larger pattern of its declining role as a broker between the United States and Cuba.Continue reading “What I’m reading: La conexión México – La Habana – Washington”

Available for pre-order: Latin America Confronts the United States

Latin America Confronts the United States
A new book on U.S.-Latin American relations, coming in November 2015 from Cambridge University Press.

My first book, Latin America Confronts the United States: Asymmetry and Influence is now available for pre-order through Cambridge University Press. It has a cover design, too! The book is due out in November–so why not do your holiday shopping now? (Don’t all families do hard-cover academic book exchanges?)

Here is the summary from Cambridge:

“Latin America Confronts the United States offers a new perspective on US-Latin America relations. Drawing on research in six countries, the book examines how Latin American leaders are able to overcome power asymmetries to influence US foreign policy. The book provides in-depth explorations of key moments in post-World War II inter-American relations – foreign economic policy before the Alliance for Progress, the negotiation of the Panama Canal Treaties, the expansion of trade through NAFTA, and the growth of counternarcotics in Plan Colombia. The new evidence challenges earlier, US-centric explanations of these momentous events. Though differences in power were fundamental to each of these cases, relative weakness did not prevent Latin American leaders from aggressively pursuing their interests vis-à-vis the United States. Drawing on studies of foreign policy and international relations, the book examines how Latin American leaders achieved this influence – and why they sometimes failed.”