From Menem’s new Thatcherite experiment in Argentina, through Fujimori’s unexpected victory in Peru, to Collor’s near defeat at the hands of the rapidly growing Workers’ Party of Brazil, Latin American politics is once again in turmoil. Whilst military dictators have been dumped from office, their liberal and populist replacements have found television exposure and playboy reputations insufficient to hold together societies still remorselessly squeezed insufficient to hold together societies still remorselessly squeezed by United States foreign policy. But US influence in the subcontinent is not only under siege from the impoverished masses of increasingly unstable states; it is also threatened by intensifying superpower competition as Japan and a unifying Europe mount their challenges for world dominance. In this wide-ranging and original polemic, Petras and Morley examine the social structures which emerged from neo-liberal economic policy during the 1970s and 1980s. they show how Latin American society is increasingly organized around a continental bourgeoisie maintaining high levels of foreign investment, a national bourgeoisie operating on the margins of legality and committed to both economic deregulation and public-sector activity, and a growing class of low-paid and poorly employed workers subject to the demands of export-oriented capital into international financial circuits is matched by technical and intellectual integration, with a collapse into conformity of formerly critical groupings. For students and the interested general reader, this balanced and rigorous analysis of state power and social form provides a substantial new framework in which to consider the exigent questions of US-Latin American relations.

Sarajevo Under Siege offers a richly detailed account of the lived experiences of ordinary people in this multicultural city between 1992 and 1996, during the war in the former Yugoslavia. Moving beyond the shelling, snipers, and shortages, it documents the coping strategies people adopted and the creativity with which they responded to desperate circumstances. Ivana Maček, an anthropologist who grew up in the former Yugoslavia, argues that the division of Bosnians into antagonistic ethnonational groups was the result rather than the cause of the war, a view that was not only generally assumed by Americans and Western Europeans but also deliberately promoted by Serb, Croat, and Muslim nationalist politicians. Nationalist political leaders appealed to ethnoreligious loyalties and sowed mistrust between people who had previously coexisted peacefully in Sarajevo. Normality dissolved and relationships were reconstructed as individuals tried to ascertain who could be trusted. Over time, this ethnography shows, Sarajevans shifted from the shock they felt as civilians in a city under siege into a "soldier" way of thinking, siding with one group and blaming others for the war. Eventually, they became disillusioned with these simple rationales for suffering and adopted a "deserter" stance, trying to take moral responsibility for their own choices in spite of their powerless position. The coexistence of these contradictory views reflects the confusion Sarajevans felt in the midst of a chaotic war. Maček respects the subjectivity of her informants and gives Sarajevans' own words a dignity that is not always accorded the viewpoints of ordinary citizens. Combining scholarship on political violence with firsthand observation and telling insights, this book is of vital importance to people who seek to understand the dynamics of armed conflict along ethnonational lines both within and beyond Europe.

Over the last decade, the United States' position as the world's most powerful state has appeared increasingly unstable. The US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, non-traditional security threats, global economic instability, the apparent spread of authoritarianism and illiberal politics, together with the rise of emerging powers from the Global South have led many to predict the end of Western dominance on the global stage. This book brings together scholars from international relations, economics, history, sociology and area studies to debate the future of US leadership in the international system. The book analyses the past, present and future of US hegemony in key regions in the Asia-Pacific, Latin America, Middle East, Europe and Africa – while also examining the dynamic interactions of US hegemony with other established, rising and re-emerging powers such as Russia, China, Japan, India, Turkey and South Africa. American Hegemony and the Rise of Emerging Powers explores how changes in the patterns of cooperation and conflict among states, regional actors and transnational non-state actors have affected the rise of emerging global powers and the suggested decline of US leadership. Scholars, students and policy practitioners who are interested in the future of the US-led international system, the rise of emerging powers from the Global South and related global policy challenges will find this multidisciplinary volume an invaluable guide to the shifting position of American hegemony.

We live in a period of uncertainty about the fate of America's global leadership. Many believe that Donald Trump's presidency marks the end of liberal international order-the very system of global institutions, rules, and values that shaped the international system since the end of World War II. Exit from Hegemony, Alexander Cooley and Daniel Nexon develop a new approach to understanding the rise and decline of hegemonic orders. They identify three ways in which the liberal international order is transforming. The Trump administration, declaring "America First," accelerates all three processes, lessening America's position as a world power.

The issues that increasingly dominate the 21st century cannot be solved by any single country acting alone, no matter how powerful. To manage the global economy, prevent runaway environmental destruction, reign in nuclear proliferation, or confront other global challenges, we must cooperate. But at the same time, our tools for global policymaking - chiefly state-to-state negotiations over treaties and international institutions - have broken down. The result is gridlock, which manifests across areas via a number of common mechanisms. The rise of new powers representing a more diverse array of interests makes agreement more difficult. The problems themselves have also grown harder as global policy issues penetrate ever more deeply into core domestic concerns. Existing institutions, created for a different world, also lock-in pathological decision-making procedures and render the field ever more complex. All of these processes - in part a function of previous, successful efforts at cooperation - have led global cooperation to fail us even as we need it most. Ranging over the main areas of global concern, from security to the global economy and the environment, this book examines these mechanisms of gridlock and pathways beyond them. It is written in a highly accessible way, making it relevant not only to students of politics and international relations but also to a wider general readership.

The cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union provided the context for U.S. policies toward Central America from the 1950s to the 1980s. Nonetheless, attitudes developed during the Cold War cannot explain the specific content of U.S. foreign policies toward the region. Ronald W. Cox argues that U.S. business interests have worked with policymakers to develop trade, aid and investment policies toward Central America. He reveals how the relationship between business groups and the state has been shaped by business competition, national security considerations, institutional structures, and instability in the Central American countries. Many see the state as autonomous and not influenced by business, but Cox argues that business groups have been able to take advantage of specific international circumstances to promote economic policies, thus increasing foreign investment. At the same time, division among business groups has affected foreign economic policies. This book is a provocative analysis of interest to scholars of international political economy, American foreign policy, comparative politics, and business-government relations.

Sanctions as War is the first critical analysis of economic sanctions from a global perspective. Featuring case studies from 11 sanctioned countries and theoretical essays, it will be of immediate interest to those interested in understanding how sanctions became the common sense of American foreign policy.