This book explores Mexico's foreign policy using the ‘principled pragmatism’ approach. It describes and explains main external actions from the country’s independence in the nineteenth century to Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s administration. The principal argument is that Mexico has resorted to principled pragmatism due to geographic, historical, economic, security, and political reasons. In other words, the nation uses this instrument to deal with the United States, defend national interests, appease domestic groups, and promote economic growth. The key characteristics of Mexico’s principled pragmatism in foreign policy are that the nation projects a double-edged diplomacy to cope with external and domestic challenges at the same time. This policy is mainly for domestic consumption, and it is also linked to the type of actors that are involved in the decision-making process and to the kind of topics included in the agenda. This principled pragmatism is related to the nature of the intention: principism is deliberate and pragmatism is forced; and this policy is used to increase Mexico’s international bargaining power.

'The concept of principled pragmatism developed in this book has gained strength. Rafael Velazquez applies it here from the nineteenth century to the present day and explains the factors that led to Mexico adopting it. The book shows the evolution, changes, and continuities of the country's external insertion. It is a very useful analysis to understand Mexico, and it is of great relevance for researchers and students. It helps us understand this country that has had such an active policy defending principles of international law.' -Martha Ardila, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia This book explores Mexico's foreign policy using the 'principled pragmatism' approach. It describes and explains main external actions from the country's independence in the nineteenth century to Andrés Manuel López Obrador's administration. The principal argument is that Mexico has resorted to principled pragmatism due to geographic, historical, economic, security, and political reasons. In other words, the nation uses this instrument to deal with the United States, defend national interests, appease domestic groups, and promote economic growth. The key characteristics of Mexico's principled pragmatism in foreign policy are that the nation projects a double-edged diplomacy to cope with external and domestic challenges at the same time. This policy is mainly for domestic consumption, and it is also linked to the type of actors that are involved in the decision-making process and to the kind of topics included in the agenda. This principled pragmatism is related to the nature of the intention: principism is deliberate and pragmatism is forced; and this policy is used to increase Mexico's international bargaining power. Rafael Velazquez-Flores is Professor of International Relations at the School of Economics and International Relations, University of Baja California, Mexico. He has taught International Relations in several Mexican universities at graduate and undergraduate levels. He has been a visiting professor at the Pablo Olavide University in Seville, Spain; Friedrich-Alexander-Universität in Erlangen, Germany; and the Maastricht Center for Transatlantic Studies, The Netherlands. His research interests focus on Mexican foreign policy, U.S.-Mexican relations, and diplomacy.

Role Theory and Mexico’s Foreign Policy examines why Mexico has an unusual foreign policy for a middle-power country. Using a series of case studies to show how role conflict has operated in Mexico’s foreign policy, Omar Loera-González studies three specific settings where Mexico could have displayed middle-power behaviour. First, he analyses Mexico’s controversial membership and performance in the Iraq crisis within the Security Council of the United Nations from 2002 to 2003. The second case study examines Mexico’s ambition to display a regional leadership role in regional multilateral bodies like the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) and the Pacific Alliance (PA). In the third and final case study, Loera-González focuses on Mexico’s engagement in human rights and democracy promotion. Conflicting expectations from several actors – domestic and external – have led to a foreign policy contradictory to what is expected for a country with Mexico's material capabilities and its foreign policy objectives. This book will be of interest to graduate students and researchers who work on and with foreign policy analysis and role theory, or to those with a research interest on Mexico.

What is pragmatism? Is it a means to an end, or an end in itself? Is it antithetical to ideology or morality? Arguing that pragmatism is a skill much more than an attribute, Phua examines how viewing it in this way can help achieve better foreign policy outcomes. He examines and contrasts the ways in which the United States, China and Singapore have incorporated pragmatism into their approaches to foreign policy. In doing so he debunks dualistic myths around pragmatism and ideology and promotes the view of pragmatism as a skill that can be developed. An essential primer for students, analysts and policymakers, with a fresh and practical approach to pragmatism.

Global geopolitical relations are being shaken to their roots, and no region in the world is more entangled in this than Latin America. Trump's foreign policy is transforming the role played by the United States on the world stage, questioning multilateralism and casting a shadow on the whole idea of global governance. Other world powers, especially Russia and China, are not sitting idly by. The European Union has an opportunity to take on the mantle of guarantor of liberal values and the multilateral order, and to strengthen its alliance with Latin American countries. This report helps to delve deeper into the region's shifting dynamics. How are the US, China, and the EU competing in terms of political alliances and economic projection towards the Latin American region? And how are some of the main Latin American countries (namely Brazil, Mexico, and Venezuela) contributing to change the regional picture?

From virtually the onset of its independence in the early nineteenth century, Chile took a superior attitude toward its racially mixed and less organized neighbors. This stance was not unlike that of another young republic in the hemisphere: the United States. With their relatively stable governments and prosperous economies, the two countries claimed amoral right to impose their will on nearby nations. Given this shared imperial impulse, it is not surprising that they became rivals. In Chile and the United States, the third volume to appear in the series The United States and the Americas, William F. Sater traces the often stormy course of U.S.-Chilean relations, covering not only policy decisions but also the overall political, cultural, and economic developments that formed the context in which those policies unfolded. As Sater explains, the Chileans initially believed that they could triumph in the event of a clash with the Americans because of their superior moral commitment and willingness to endure sacrifice. Unintimidated by the size of the United States, Chile found its sense of mission bolstered by the American government's inconsistent enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine and grudging acceptance of Chilean dominance over Peru and Bolivia. Yet, Sater shows, by the end of the nineteenth century Chile had to face reality: its organizational skills could no longer compensate for a limited population and resource base. Worse, just as both the United States and Chile's neighbor Argentina became wealthier and more populous, Chile sank into a political morass that paralyzed its ability to govern itself. Once the premier power of the Pacific, it fell to second-rate status--a fact that nevertheless did little to mitigate the Chileans' sense of cultural superiority. In the early twentieth century, Sater notes, Chile scored several economic and diplomatic victories over the United States and, after World War II, resorted to various new doctrines and strategies in hopes of regaining its lost glory. When the efforts of strongmen failed, Chileans turned to Christian Democracy, Socialism, and finally military rule--none of which succeeded in restoring the country's political unity and self-esteem. Yet, Sater contends, rather than accept that geopolitical and economic realities had limited their nation's place in the world, Chileans blamed the United States for whatever ills befell them, even as they continued to expect American aid. For its part, the United States insisted that Chile accept its counsel in order to receive U.S. economic assistance. This frustrating standoff, Sater shows, is but the latest phase of a contentious relationship, nearly two centuries in the making, that shows no ready signs of disappearing.