Tom Long has written an important book, and its message could not be more significant for those interested in the Americas on the world stage as the second decade of the century comes to a close. Not only is Long generally correct about the asymmetry of US power not being the decisive general influence in Latin America that it once was, but Latin American states have at times been able to shape the course of their relations with the United States to their benefit more substantially than has been recognised. Long wants to get the field beyond the colourful metaphors about the talons of eagles and Latin America being beneath the United States to understand how clearly weaker states can and do sometimes get their way.
Long's argument for restructuring our thinking about relations between the smaller countries of Latin America with the United States colossus starts with a thoughtful, Chapter 1 review of the pertinent post-World War II literature. Drawing on the intellectual legacy of Robert A. Pastor, his scholar-diplomat mentor, Long points out the importance of the ‘security thesis’ and realism in the ‘establishment’ school of scholarship. These studies invariably describe outcomes considered beneficial to both sides and contributing to the spread of democracy and stability, but neglect the contributions by the Latin American states. In reaction, ‘revisionist’ scholarship, which emerged in the 1980s and grew to dominate the literature, reversed the lack of attention to US exploitation and impositions on Latin America. While calling attention to the imperialist or hegemonic aspect of bilateral and regional relationships, these analyses also failed to articulate the contributions on the Latin American side and overstated the homogeneity of the relationships that 20 nations had forged with the United States.
For Long the ‘internationalist’ approach pioneered by Hal Brands offers a still better alternative (pp. 11–12). Such studies embrace multilayered and multinational considerations without a presumption of dominance and leave room for evaluation of the asymmetry in power relations and the way interests are defined. He describes this as the foundation for a five-stage analytical process that he employs in a series of case studies in the next four chapters of the book: (i) problem understanding, (ii) foreign policy goals, (iii) foreign policy strategies, (iv) dyadic actions and responses and (v) outcomes.
The case studies provide comprehensive reviews of four regionally significant episodes in which Latin American countries largely shaped the outcome of interactions with the United States. They cover the role of Brazil in laying the foundation for the Alliance for Progress (Operação PanAmericana), the way General Omar Torrijos enabled Panama to gain control of the canal, Mexico's success in framing the original NAFTA treaty, and the way Colombia got financing from the United States for its plan to fight the violence resulting from drug trafficking. While the case studies succeed in demonstrating the utility of Long's approach, the soundness of the overall treatments and the addition of considerable archival and other original material sourced in the Latin American countries argues for taking them as more than case studies. They actually offer authoritative diplomatic histories of these important regional developments.
The quality of Long's analysis of these globally significant incidents in US–Latin American relations endows this book with utility far beyond the expected range of courses in International Politics and Latin American Studies. Any of the cases could also be useful in Latin American History or Comparative Politics courses and would also be appropriate in Development Studies and even Trade Policy Studies. These studies would also be especially valuable for diplomatic training and war college programmes because of the richness of the treatment of both sides, as well as the give and take and gradual re-shaping of positions and subtle influences which characterise diplomacy but are often neglected in academic texts.
Despite the obvious achievement that Long's analysis represents, he is a cautious scholar and his concluding chapter stays well within the scope of the original intention. His review of the case studies shows that Latin American countries were not only able to influence the situation within their region but also influenced US behaviour. They demonstrate that weaker states do indeed exert far more influence in international relations than the difference in material power would seem to predict. He then extends this analysis to point out how weaker states can develop opportunities to extend their power, build additional resources through collective action with other states, and especially take advantage of unique resources, such as the geostrategic positions of Panama's canal and Mexico's shared border with the United States, to further influence outcomes.
His final arguments point out the gains the internationalist approach provides over some fairly well-known establishment and revisionist interpretations of these case studies. His claim that the results show ‘richer, more complex understandings of US–Latin American relations, in which there are many significant actors instead of one’ (p. 235), is amply supported. However, his caution and perhaps modesty lead to the neglect of another fascinating and, at least to this reviewer, still more significant set of conclusions about these cases. In each instance, the favourable outcomes for the Latin American protagonists led to what might be considered collateral benefits to other neighbouring states: Brazilian advocacy of Pan-Americanism opened the door for the Alliance for Progress; Panama's control of the canal resulted in an expanded and more efficient waterway and increased regional cooperation in maritime security; the success of NAFTA encouraged the development of a number of regional trade agreements and increased competitiveness in Latin American economies; and Plan Colombia served as the harbinger of increased regional cooperation and US financial support for countries of Central America and the Caribbean. No one would be more pleased than Bob Pastor with results showing that getting the United States to cooperate with Latin American initiatives has the potential for advancing inter-Americanism.
