Unformatted text preview:

BARACK OBAMA AND THE POLITICS OF HOPE (?)RATIONALES FOR ALTERNATIVESWHAT DRIVES FOREIGN POLICY?CLASSICAL REALISM“PROGRESSIVE” REALISMFUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCESWHAT WOULD IT TAKE?Slide 8THE OBAMA RECORDCURRENT ISSUESHONDURASBRAZILCUBA (2011)Slide 14Slide 15BARACK OBAMA AND THE POLITICS OF HOPE (?)RATIONALES FOR ALTERNATIVES•U.S. loss of “soft power”•Continuing frustration in Latin America•Importance of Latin America to U.S.•Change of U.S. administration as result of presidential electionWHAT DRIVES FOREIGN POLICY?•Generosity•Friendship•Proximity•Repayment of historical debt –Or•Self-centered national interest.CLASSICAL REALISM•1. The international system is anarchical.•2. Sovereign states are principal actors.•3. States are rational actors, pursuing national interests, and are in competition with one another.•4. Overriding goals are survival and security—best guaranteed by military power.•5. Constraints achieved by resistance of other powers, not by treaties or friendship.“PROGRESSIVE” REALISM•1. International system not anarchical but structured, as through “regimes.”•2. Nonstate actors and international organizations play significant roles.•3. State preferences vary from time to time, place to place.•4. States are not inherently aggressive or competitive; preferences can change.•5. Cooperation can yield mutual gains for participating states.FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES•1. Nature of power: “hard” vs. “soft.”•2. Sovereignty and internal vs. international domains.•3. War vs. peace.•4. Importance of democracy.•5. Value of international cooperation, institutions.•6. American power: extent vs. limits.WHAT WOULD IT TAKE?•1. Election of a president with personal commitment to progressive paradigm and a strong interest in Latin America.•2. Events within region that demand U.S. attention—e.g., spread of pink tide or launching of terrorist attack.•3. World developments that focus attention on Latin America—e.g., “clash of civilizations.”•4. Demographic and political changes within the United States.And the outlook is…..?THE OBAMA RECORD•Exaggerated expectations•Intervening priorities, domestic (economy) and international (Afghanistan)•Hesitant beginnings (Trinidad & Tobago ≠ Cairo)•Nuanced view of Latin AmericaCURRENT ISSUES•Honduras: questionable commitment to democracy•Colombia: military bases•Cuba: admission to OAS, Guantánamo•Points of tension:–Venezuela–Bolivia–“Pink tide” in generalHONDURAS2005-06 Manuel Zelaya elected2008 Joins ALBA (and Hugo Chávez)2009:6/28 Ousted, Roberto Micheletti takes power7/05Honduras suspended by OAS09 MZ returns to Honduras11/29 Porfirio Lobo elected (56.6% vote)2010:Jan MZ exile in Dominican RepublicJuly U.S. urges readmission to OAS Aug Mexico, Chile extend recognitionBRAZIL•Differences over Honduras, Cuba, Chávez•Ties to Iran, diplomatic initiatives•Trade: WTO suit, agricultural protectionism (e.g. sugar, oranges, ethanol)•Perceptions of power, relationship•Shift from Lula to Dilma Rousseff?CUBA (2011)•Restores Clinton emphasis on “people to people” contacts•Embargo exemptions for humanitarian, religious, academic purposes•More flights (chartered)•Remittances of $500 per quarter•Context:–Private market in Cuba, reduced role of state–Emergence of civil society–Republican takeover of House of Representatives–New generation of Cuban-AmericansUSA and Latin America: Comparative and Historical Perspective _________Latin America as Priority___________ ______ Low _______ _______ High _____Operational Mode for U.S. ____ Unilateral Ad hoc Systematic imposition intervention (Bush 2001-09) (Reagan 1981-89) _______ _________________ __________________ Intermittent, Consistent, Multilateral low-level high-level diplomacy engagement (Clinton 1993-2000) (Kennedy 1961-63) ____________________________________________________________Rank-Order Preferences for U.S. Policy ___Partners___ __Targets___ U.S. Policy (Mexico, (Cuba, __Rivals___ ___Bystanders__ __Configuration__ _Bush II__ __Colombia)__ __Venezuela)__ __(Brazil?)__ ___(Others)____ Low priority 1 4 2 1 4 + UnilateralLow priority 2 3 1 2 2 + MultilateralHigh priority 3 1 4 4 3 + Unilateral High priority 4 2 3 3 1 + MultilateralNote: As presented here, ordinal rankings mean that 1 stands for the first-place (most preferable) choice, 2 for the second-place choice, 3 for the third-place choice, and 4 for the fourth-place (least preferable) choice. Question: Where to place


View Full Document

UCSD POLI 146A - Session 10A

Download Session 10A
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Session 10A and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Session 10A 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?