Globalizing governmentality: Sites of neoliberal assemblage in the Americas

This dissertation analyzes processes of globalization, through a critical examination of the dynamics of neoliberalism in the Americas. It employs and also develops a Foucauldian governmentality analytical framework, demonstrating how such a framework contributes to our understanding of world politics. This dissertation also develops the concept of a liberal political imaginary—consisting of the market, society, and the state—and utilizes this as an analytical framework for understanding the globalization of neoliberal forms of governance. The research suggests that discourses and practices of globalization, global civil society, and global governance represent a fundamental transformation in the way that contemporary social and political reality is understood, and that this has significant consequences for the kinds of political practices and relations that are possible. Moreover, the research suggests the globalization of a neoliberal form of competitive subjectivity that can be applied to a broad range of actors—from individuals to nation-states and international organizations—is reshaping contemporary world politics. The dissertation concludes by suggesting how Foucauldian IR can move forward by incorporating studies of contemporary transformations in capitalism into their analyses.

Trade, justice, and the politics of difference: Small developing states in the World Trade Organization

The purpose of this research project was to investigate two distinct types of research questions – one theoretical, the other empirical: (1) What would justice mean in the context of the international trade regime? (2.Using the small developing states of the Commonwealth Caribbean as a case study, what do Commonwealth Caribbean trade negotiators mean when they appeal to justice? Regarding the first question, Iris Young's framework which focuses on the achievement of social justice in a domestic context by acknowledging social differences such as those based on race and gender, was adopted and its relevance argued in the international context of interstate trade negotiation so as to validate the notion of (size, location, and governance capacity) difference in this latter context. The point of departure is that while states are typically treated as equals in international law – as are individuals in liberal political theory – there are significant differences between states which warrant different treatment in the international arena. The study found that this re-formulation of justice which takes account of such differences between states, allows for more adequate policy responses than those offered by the presumption of equal treatment. Regarding the second question, this theoretical perspective was used to analyze the understandings of justice from which Commonwealth Caribbean trade negotiators proceed. Interpretive and ethnographic methods, including participant observation, interviews, field notes, and textual analysis, were employed to analyze their understandings of justice. The study found that these negotiators perceive such justice as being justice to difference because of the distinct characteristics of small developing states which combine to constrain their participation in the international trading system; based on this perception, they seek rules and outcomes in the multilateral trade regime which are sensitive to such different characteristics; and while these issues were examined in a specific region, its findings are relevant for other regions consisting of small developing states, such as those in the ACP group.

Domestic and foreign isolationism in an interdependent world

Since Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Politics established the basis for Western political thought almost 2500 years ago, the discipline of international relations has evolved substantially. However, most of the literature revolves around state interaction within the system, and there is little discussion of countries that opt out of the international states system and become isolationist. Given the interdependent nature of the modern international system, this study elaborates on domestic and foreign isolationism by expounding upon the reasons and consequences of states opting out of the international system. The empirical case studies utilized to explore isolationism are Albania, North Korea, and Burma. By empirically verifying the components, motivations, and consequences of isolationism in an interdependent world, this study provides insight into why and how states resist engagement with the global socioeconomic and political state system. ^ Using historical, comparative, and inductive analysis, this study explains why states choose to isolate themselves both domestically and internationally. Specifically, comparative historical analysis highlights isolationism as a concept and practice. This study maintains that extreme forms of self-imposed isolation in an interdependent international system, while perhaps serving the immediate interests of a ruling regime, harms the long-term national interests of the state and the populace. Although the leadership in an isolationist state gains a significant amount of power and control over the people within its borders, the state as a whole experiences profound negative effects. In the long term, a state loses power, stability, prestige, and suffers a decline in overall economic prosperity. ^ States that withdraw from the international system, therefore, provide insight into an unexplored area of international relations when considering notions of rationality, self-interest, power politics, cooperation, and alliances. In short, isolationism in an interdependent state system goes against the logic of the modern society/system of states, resulting in deleterious consequences to the wellbeing of the state. ^

Soviet and Western bloc competition in the less developed world and the collapse of Détente

The purpose of my dissertation was to examine the competition between the U.S.-led Western bloc and the Soviet bloc in the less developed world during Détente. I assessed whether or not the Soviet bloc pushed for strategic gains in the less developed world in the middle-to-late 1970's and whether this contributed to the U.S. decision to abandon Détente in 1979. I made the attempt to test the international relations theory of balance of threat realism (Walt, 1992). I accomplished the test in two ways. First, I measured the foreign aid allocations (military and economic) made by each respective bloc towards the Third World by using a quantitative approach. Second, I examined U.S. archives using the process-tracing/historical method. The U.S. archives gave me the ability to evaluate how U.S. decision-makers and U.S. intelligence agencies interpreted the actions of the Soviet bloc. They also gave me the chance to examine the U.S. response as we evaluated the policies that were pushed by key U.S. decision-makers and intelligence agencies. On the question of whether or not the Soviet bloc was aggressive, the quantitative evidence suggested that it was not. Instead, the evidence found the Western-bloc to have been more aggressive in the less developed world. The U.S. archives also showed Soviet actions to have been defensive. Key U.S. decision-makers and intelligence agencies attested to this. Finally, the archives show that U.S. officials pushed for aggressive actions against the Third World during the final years of Détente. Thus, balance of threat realism produced an incorrect assessment that U.S. aggression in the late 1970's was a response to Soviet aggression during Détente. The evidence suggests structural Marxism and domestic politics can better explain U.S./Western actions. The aggressive foreign aid allocations of the West, coupled with evidence of U.S. decision-makers/agencies vehemently concerned about the long-term prospects of the West, strengthened structural Marxism. Domestic politics can also claim to explain the actions of U.S. decision-makers. I found extensive archival evidence of bureaucratic inter-agency conflict between the State Department and other intelligence agencies in areas of strategic concern to the U.S.

The United States and the politics of trade: the banana war with Europe and the Caribbean

This thesis examines the involvement of the United States in the decade-long trade dispute before the World Trade Organization (WTO) over the European Union's preferential banana regime. Washington's justification for bringing this case to the WTO comes from Section 301 of the U.S. trade act, which allows for disputes to be undertaken if U.S. "interests" are violated; however, this is the first case ever undertaken by the United States that does not directly threaten any American banana industry, nor affect any American jobs. Why, then, would the United States involve itself in this European-Caribbean-Latin American dispute? It is the contention of this thesis that the United States thrust itself headlong into this debate for two reasons: domestically, the United States Trade Representative came under pressure, via the White House and Congress, from Chiquita CEO Carl Lindner, who in the past decade donated more than $7.1 million to American politicians to take the case to the WTO. Internationally, the United States used the case as an opportunity to assert its power over Europe, with the Eastern Caribbean islands being caught in the economic crossfire. According to existing literature, in undertaking this case, the United States did as any nation would: it operated within both domestic and international levels, satisfying at each level key interests, with the overall goal of maintaining the nation's best interests.