Pathways to Peace, Progress, and Public Goods
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Pathways to Peace, Progress, and Public Goods: Rethinking Regional Hegemony By Charles Ripley A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Approved March 2013 by the Graduate Supervisory Committee: Roxanne Doty, Chair Sheldon Simon Lynn Stoner ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY May 2013 ABSTRACT The purpose of this dissertation is to study not only relations between Latin America and the United States, but also Latin American states with each other. It specifically aims to examine the extent to which the United States, the principal hegemonic power in the Americas, can play a constructive role by providing regional public goods. These goods include conflict resolution and economic progress. Although the United States has the potential to create such goods, it also has the potential to create public bads in the form of regional instability, political terror, and economic stagnation. This raises two fundamental research questions: Under what conditions can Washington play a positive role and if these conditions cannot be met, under what conditions can Latin American nations bypass the United States and create their own economic progress and conflict resolution strategies? Drawing upon qualitative research methods and case studies that have attracted scant academic attention, this dissertation finds that through regional multilateral diplomatic negotiations, the United States can play a positive role. However, due to U.S. parochial economic interests and the marginalization of diplomacy as a foreign policy tool, these conditions rarely occur. This research further finds, however, that through flexible regionalization Latin American nations can bypass the United States and create their own goods. Supported by an alternative regional power, flexible regionalization relies upon supranational institutions that exclude the United States, emphasize permanent political and economic integration, and avoid inflexible monetary unions. Through this type of regionalization, Latin America can decrease U.S. interference, sustain political and economic autonomy, and open space for alternative conflict resolution strategies and economic policies that Washington would otherwise oppose. i This dissertation is academically significant and policy relevant. First, it reconsiders diplomacy as an instrumental variable for peace and offers generalizable results that can be applied to additional cases. Moreover, finding that Latin American countries can address their own regional issues, this study recognizes the positive agency of Latin America and counters the negative essentialization commonly found in U.S. academic and policy research. Finally, this research offers policy advice for both the United States and Latin America. ii DEDICATION To my wife, Yunely, and son, Baby Charlie, for all their love, support, and inspiration; and to family and friends iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people to thank after a long journey through a Ph.D. program. First, at Arizona State University, I would like to thank my committee members, Professors Roxanne Doty, Sheldon Simon, and Lynn Stoner, not only for dissertation support, but also the courses they imparted. My time spent in their seminars vastly enriched my academic experience. I would also like to recognize the support of Professors Carolyn Warner, Richard Ashley, Magda Hinojosa, Kyle Longley, Michael Mitchell, Kim Fridkin, Ruth Jones, Patrick Kenney, and George Thomas. I further want to stress the invaluable assistance of Patricia Rothstein, Staci Ewing, Thu Nguyen, Cindy Webster, and Gisela Grant for helping me navigate through the day-to-day challenges of the university bureaucracy, particularly during my transition into the instructor position. I also need to thank fellow graduate students Patrick Roe, Josh Sierra, Alexander Arifianto, Cliff Koehler, Daniel Pout, Randy Swagerty, Eyal Bar, and Jean Chrissien for their professional assistance. Finally, I would like to thank my ASU undergraduate students for making me a better teacher and intellectual. From my master’s program at the University of Massachusetts at Boston, I want to recognize the invaluable support of Professors Janis Kapler, Robert Weiner, Primo Vannicelli, and the late Jalal Alamgir. Outside the academia I must thank my mother, Mary Ripley, and sister, Kathy Rowe and her family. Finally, I need to thank all the people whom I met and worked with in Nicaragua. Living, working, and researching outside the country has made me conscious of all the weaknesses and power structures inherent in the U.S. academic world. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ ix LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... x LIST OF GRAPHS ........................................................................................................... xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... xii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 Research Problem ....................................................................................... 3 Relevance and Contribution ........................................................................ 5 Additional Cases and Generalizability........................................................ 9 Policy Implications ................................................................................... 10 Caveats ...................................................................................................... 11 Dissertation Overview .............................................................................. 13 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 15 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................... 17 Introduction ............................................................................................... 17 Definition .................................................................................................. 18 Conventional v. Latent Hegemonic Stability Theory ............................... 21 Five Trends in the HST Literature ............................................................ 25 The Bureaucratic Politics Model .............................................................. 33 Diplomacy ................................................................................................. 36 v CHAPTER Page Conclusion ................................................................................................ 42 3 RESEARCH METHODS ..................................................................................... 44 Introduction ............................................................................................... 44 Complexity Theory ................................................................................... 45 Positivism in International Relations ........................................................ 49 Complexity Theory and International Relations ....................................... 54 Grounded Theory and an Inductive Approach.......................................... 58 Quantitative Section .................................................................................. 59 Qualitative Methods .................................................................................. 62 Interpretive Methods ................................................................................. 68 Operationalization of Definitions ............................................................. 71 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 77 4 U.S. INTERVENTION IN LATIN AMERICA: A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 78 Introduction ............................................................................................... 78 Results and Discussion ............................................................................. 80 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 85 5 PRE-COLD WAR CASE STUDY: THE CENTRAL AMERICAN COURT OF JUSTICE (1907-1918) .......................................................................................... 86 Introduction ............................................................................................... 86 The United States and Central America.................................................... 88 The Spirit of International Arbitration and Regionalization ..................... 93 vi CHAPTER Page The Court Begins ................................................................................... 102 The First Case and the Court’s Accomplishment .................................. 106 U.S. Intervention: The Bad Neighbor Policy ......................................... 111 El Salvador v. Nicaragua ....................................................................... 113 Costa Rica v. Nicaragua ......................................................................... 117 The Court’s Demise ..............................................................................