A Roundtable on Vanessa Walker, Principles in Power: Latin America and the Politics of U.S
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
A Roundtable on Vanessa Walker, Principles in Power: Latin America and the Politics of U.S. Human Rights Kyle Longley, Jeffrey F. Taffet, Evan R. Ward, Mateo Jarquin, Thomas C. Field, Jr., and Vanessa Walker Roundtable Introduction urgent read.” Fields finds little to criticize and focuses primarily on Kyle Longley the many positives. Ultimately, Fields only notes that the “body of this book seems . to cut against the optimism of its conclusions” where the author recommends that cholars of the United States and Latin America will U.S. citizens, especially vis-à-vis debates on human rights, recognize that the arguments of the human rights continue to challenge U.S. policy. But this reflects more on advocates of the 1970s and 1980 sound eerily familiar the conclusions rather than the overall quality of the book. Sto those of American activists in the 1920s who opposed Mateo Jarquin also compliments the book, highlighting Washington’s interventions in the Caribbean Basin. Several that “Vanessa Walker’s new book is a welcome scholarly non-governmental organizations joined together to protest intervention” in a fresh understanding of the origins of U.S. interventions, especially in Haiti and Nicaragua. They human rights policy. He adds: “Her historical analysis called for withdrawal, highlighting widespread reports of persuasively argues that any 21st century human rights Marine atrocities including the bombing of civilians and policy should be both self-reflective—acknowledging mutilation of corpses. violations at home as well as U.S. complicity in abuses In particular, the All-American Anti-Imperialist abroad—and meaningfully integrated with broader League led the charge. Its members raised money for strategic goals.” He concludes that “Principles in Power is medical supplies for the insurgents led by Augusto César both valuable and timely.” Sandino and hosted speeches of his brother, Socrates. Jarquin, however, critiques one element of the They collaborated with like-minded congressmen as well book, primarily its “laser focus on the Chilean and as members of the media led by Carleton Beals at The Argentine cases” that “undermines its aspirations to Latin Nation and a young Ernest Gruening. Ultimately, they Americanize the history of U.S. human rights policy.” helped pressure the Coolidge Administration into starting Instead, he proposes that the “books arguments might have the process of withdrawing, a process aided by the Great been bolstered by a minimal discussion” of the differences Depression and the beginning of the Good Neighbor policy in U.S. policy toward the region including Cuba (Fidel during the Hoover Administration. Castro only receives one mention) as well as Nicaragua Such activities in the 1920s and 1930s reinforce several and the efforts against Anastasio Somoza Debayle (where valuable contributions of Vanessa Walker’s Principles of Carter had some successes). Here, Jarquin believes even Power: Latin America and the Politics of U.S. Human Rights a minimal discussion would have strengthened elements including the diverse actors concentrating on human of the argument and further highlighted how the region rights, the centrality of Latin America as America’s perplexed the Carter Administration including the fact the workshop, and the challenges faced by the “movement” Argentine government provided funding governments in in changing the direction of U.S. foreign policy relating to Nicaragua and Guatemala when Congress and the White Chile and Argentina in the 1970s and 1980s. It is a complex House cut off aid. He concludes “these omissions do not topic that Walker handles very deftly, making a significant detract from Walker’s careful analysis of the Chilean and contribution to the historiography on foreign relations and Argentine cases” but “they do raise questions about the use human rights as well as the larger context of the United of those two countries as proxies for ‘Latin America.’” States and Latin America. Jeffrey Taffet shares the impression of the others. He A diverse group of scholars have reviewed the book observes: “Among Walker’s significant contributions in her for this forum. They generally praise the work including well-executed and well-researched” book “is explaining Thomas Fields who characterizes the book as “elegantly the difficulties in transforming Carter’s idealistic vision for organized and beautifully written” and “among the a ‘new American foreign policy’ into practice.” He adds: most engaging recent works on U.S. relations with Latin “Walker’s emphasis on the role of human rights activists… America.” He also highlights how Walker employs is effective in illustrating the difficulties in developing a transnational historical methods and how she underscores national human rights policy and in showing how the the importance of non-state actors such as the Washington Carter administration changed over time.” Office on Latin America (WOLA) and the Institute for Taffet does raise some areas to consider. First, he Policy Studies (IPS). He concludes that Walker’s “sober asks about “addressing cultural and historical ideas about conclusions make Walker’s book an uncomfortable yet Latin Americans” or “discussions over internationalism or Passport September 2021 Page 17 political power from a philosophical perspective,” both of obvious) and the concern extending back to 1945. which could relate to answering the questions about what In response to Jarquin’s critique of not even mentioning motivated people to focus on human rights. While difficult the significance of the Central American issues or Castro to develop for the heterogenous group, it appears that for example, she underscores: “I would argue the Southern asking questions on cultural and possibly socioeconomic Cone was uniquely influential in establishing the working positions might have been useful. assumptions and mechanisms which started before Finally, he notes the book “harkens to a different and Carter’s tenure.” Here, there appears to be some disconnect earlier moment when US-Latin American relations was between Williams and Jarquin. It appears Jarquin really firmly a subfield of U.S. foreign relations history rather seems to want not a full-scale examination but some than of international history. The point of this book is not acknowledgement in the introduction or conclusion that to explain how U.S. efforts in Latin America transformed the Central American and Caribbean Basin cases mattered Chile and Argentina, but in understanding how they vis-à-vis human rights during the period discussed. But transformed the United States.” However, he stresses: “This Williams clearly articulates a reasonable explanation of her is not a critique, but rather an observation from a historian choices. who would like to see this kind of work appreciated as In the final part of her response, Williams underscores vital.” one of her most significant contributions as she responds Evan Ward also finds many strengths in the work, to Fields. “It seems to me we often fall into a no-win highlighting that Walker “deftly creates a sophisticated situation in conversations about where human rights fits model of how non-governmental organizations, Congress, into the U.S. foreign policy agenda,” she notes. “I believe and the executive branch influenced a more compassionate that my work shows that human rights is not necessarily foreign policy.” She does so by diving deep into the existing a trade-off between morality and objectives like national source material, both government and non-governmental. security or economic development,” she observes, adding, He praises other elements, emphasizing: “Walker’s “the universalist rhetoric that accompanies human rights signal contribution to the scholarship of U.S.-Latin often makes tradeoffs and compromises unpalatable.” But American relations rests on her examination of how left- she concludes “like all interests, there are hard choices and leaning advocacy organizations” including WOLA, IPS, and moment when one issue will surpass another.” This leads the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) “collectively her to stress: “We need to accept compromise and grapple known as ‘The Movement’ pressed for increased legislative with these complexities in this as in all issues if we want to oversight of presidential negotiations with Cold War allies have viable policies.” This complexity and nuance clearly that repeatedly violated the human rights of their citizens.” show the author has addressed some of the major challenges Beyond the NGOs, Ward also highlights the role of Carter of not only human rights policy, but the general challenges and government agencies including the State Department of issues including ideology in U.S. foreign policy. and Pentagon played in shaping what sometimes seemed In conclusion, these reviews clearly articulate the a battle between the idealism and realpolitik, often leading importance of this work in the historiography of U.S. to disconnects between major actors. By doing so allowed, foreign relations (particularly with Latin America) and Ward believes Walker developed the story vis-à-vis human rights and its growing significance as a cornerstone especially Chile and Argentina. of various administrations since the Carter Administration. But Ward finds some challenges, largely and probably Williams has shown the centrality of the Latin American case relating to his own focus as a Latin Americanist rather than studies in countries that many people overlook, including foreign relations scholar.