Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wpx84 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T16:46:23.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

US hegemony and the reconfiguration of the Caribbean*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Anthony Payne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Like every other part of the world, the Caribbean is having to come to terms with the deep-seated changes in the nature of the world order manifest at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s. These changes have set in train a process which is beginning to constitute a reconfiguration of what is meant by and included within the concept of the Caribbean. Conventionally, the Caribbean has been defined by a blend of its geography and history. From a simple geographical viewpoint, it consists of all the islands in the Caribbean Sea, making up a huge archipelago which runs some 2,500 miles from the southern tip of Florida in the north to the coast of Venezuela in the south, facing Central America to the west and the Atlantic Ocean to the east. From a more complex historical viewpoint which emphasizes the common, searing impact of slave-based European imperialism, it also includes Belize on the Central American isthmus and the three ‘Guianas’ on the South American coast: Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana. Conceived in this way, the region has widely been said to possess an intellectual coherence that makes it possible to analyse its modern politics and economics within a single framework.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , April 1994 , pp. 149 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For further elaboration of this definition, see Payne, Anthony, The International Crisis in the Caribbean (London, 1984), pp. 1–10Google Scholar. 149

2 Williams, Dr Eric, the distinguished historian and former prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago for many years, put the point in typically pithy fashion in condemning as early as 1975 a plan to call a conference on the Caribbean Basin, ‘whatever that may be’. Trinidad Guardian, 16 May 1975Google Scholar.

3 Rapkin, David P., ‘The Contested Concept of Hegemonic Leadership’, in Rapkin, David P. (ed.), World Leadership and Hegemony (Boulder, CO., 1990), p. 1Google Scholar.

4 Alan W. afruny, ‘A Gramscian Concept of Declining Hegemony: Stages of U.S. Power and the Evolution of International Economic Relations’, in Rapkin (ed.), World Leadership and Hegemony, p. 97.

5 Kindleberger, C. P., The World in Depression, 1929–39 (Berkeley, 1973Google Scholar and 1986) and Gilpin, R., U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporations: The Political Economy of U.S. Foreign Direct Investment (New York, 1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Keohane, Rober O.After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton, 1984), p. 32Google Scholar.

7 Keohane, After Hegemony, p. 33.

8 See Wallerstein, I., The Politics of the World-Economy (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 38–9Google Scholar.

9 Snidal, Duncan, ‘The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory’, International Organization, 39 (1985), pp. 579–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 This debate is reviewed in Haggard, Stephan and Simmons, Beth, ‘Theories of International Regimes’, International Organization, 41 (1987), pp. 491–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 The references that could be assembled here are truly enormous. For a taste of this literature, see Huntington, S. P., ‘The U.S.-Decline or Renewal?’, Foreign Affairs, 67 (1988/1989), pp. 76–96;iCrossRefGoogle ScholarNye, J. S., ‘Understating U.S. Strength’, Foreign Policy, 72 (1988), pp. 105–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and many other articles in the same two journals.

12 A particularly sharp critical review is provided in Leaver, Richard, ‘Restructuring in the Global Economy: From the Pax Americana to Pax Nipponica?’, Alternatives, 14 (1989). pp. 439–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Keohane, After Hegemony, pp. 32ff.

14 Ikenberry, G. John, ‘Rethinking the Origins of American Hegemony’, Politiea! Science Quarterly, 104 (1989), p. 379Google Scholar.

15 Russett, B., ‘The Mysterious Case of Vanishing Hegemony, Or is Mark Twain Really Dead?’, International Organization, 39 (1985), pp. 207–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Strange, Susan, ‘The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony’, International Organization, 41 (1987), pp. 551–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Cox, Robert, ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10 (1981), pp. 126–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method’, Millennium: Journal of International Relations, 12 (1983), pp. 162–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Production, Power and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History (New York, 1987)Google Scholar.

17 Cox, ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations’, p. 168.

18 Cox, Production, Power and World Order, p. 7.

19 Cox, ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders’, p. 153.

20 Strange, Susan, ‘An Eclectic Approach’, in Murphy, Craig N. and Tooze, Roger (eds.), The New International Political Economy (Boulder, CO, 1991), pp. 33–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Strange, ‘An Eclectic Approach’, p. 37. Cf. Strange, S., States and Markets: An Introduction to International Political Economy (London, 1988), pp. 115–34Google Scholar.

22 Cox, Robert, Review of Susan Strange, States and Markets, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 18 (1989), p. 110Google Scholar.

23 Rapkin, ‘The Contested Concept’, in Rapkin (ed.), World Leadership and Hegemony, p. 5.

24 The literature which seeks to describe and explain post-war US hegemony is manifestly too large to cite. Moreover, the objective here is not to bring forward new evidence but rather to retell familiarevents by reference to a particular view of what hegemony means.

25 Cox, Production, Power and World Order, p. 299.

26 See Gill, Stephen and Law, David, ‘Global Hegemony and the Structural Power of Capital’, International Studies Quarterly, 33 (1989), pp. 475–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Sutton, Paul, ‘The Caribbean as a Focus for Strategic and Resource Rivalry’, in Calvert, Peter (ed.), The Central American Security System: North-South or East-Wesfl (Cambridge, 1988), p. 41Google Scholar.

28 For a discussion of the US intervention, see Slater, Jerome, Intervention and Negotiation: The United States and the Dominican Republic (New York, 1970)Google Scholar and Lowenthal, Abraham, The Dominican Intervention (Cambridge, MA, 1972)Google Scholar.

29 President Reagan's speech to the National Association of Manufacturers, cited in Caribbean Contact (Bridgetown), April 1983Google Scholar.

30 One notable exception was Emilio Pantojas Garcia, ‘Restoring Hegemony: The Complementarity Among the Security, Economic and Political Components of US Policy in the Caribbean Basin During the 1980s’, in Beruff, Jorge Rodriguez, Figueroa, J. Peter and Greene, J. Edward (eds.), Conflict, Peace and Development in the Caribbean (London, 1991), pp. 22–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 The literature here is again considerable. On the official side, the US International Trade Commission has produced annual reports to Congress on The Impact of the Caribbean Basin Recovery Act on US Industries and Consumers (Washington DC, 1985-1992)Google Scholar. On the academic side, amongst the best discussions are Newfarmer, Richard S., ‘Economic Policy toward the Caribbean Basin: The Balance Sheet’, Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 27 (1985), pp. 63–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Phillips, Glenn O. and Shaw, Talbert O. (eds.), The Caribbean Basin Initiative: Genuine or Deceptive? (Baltimore, 1987)Google Scholar; Deere, Carmen Dianaet al., In the Shadows of the Sun: Caribbean Development Alternatives and U.S. Policy (Boulder, CO, 1990)Google Scholar; and Griffith, Winston H., ‘CARICOM Countries and the Caribbean Basin Initiative’, Latin American Perspectives, 17 (1990), pp. 33–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 For an elaboration of this argument, see Payne, Anthony and Sutton, Paul, ‘Introduction: The Contours of Modern Caribbean Polities’, in Payne, Anthony and Sutton, Paul (eds.), Modern Caribbean Politics (Baltimore, 1993), pp. 17–27Google Scholar.

33 Jackson, John H., ‘Multilateral and Bilateral Negotiating Approaches for the Conduct of U.S. Trade Policies’, in Stern, R. M. (ed.), U.S. Trade Policies in a Changing World Economy (Cambridge, MA, 1987)Google Scholar and Schott, Jeffrey J., ‘More Free Trade Areas?’, in Schott, Jeffrey J. (ed.), Free Trade Areas and U.S. Trade Policy (Washington DC, 1989)Google Scholar.

34 Brock, William E., ‘U.S. Trade Policy toward Developing Countries’, inPreeg, E. H. (ed.), Hard Bargaining Ahead: U.S. Trade Policy and Developing Countries (Washington DC, 1985), p. 38Google Scholar.

35 See Baer, M. D., ‘North American Free Trade’, Foreign Affairs, 70 (1991), pp. 132–49Google Scholar; Porter, R. B., ‘The Enterprise for the Americas Initiative: A New Approach to Economic Growth’, Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 32 (1990), pp. 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Weintraub, S., ‘The New US Economic Initiative toward Latin America’, Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 33 (1991), pp. 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 White House press release on The Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, Washington DC, June 1990. 162

37 Weintraub, S., ‘The North American Free Trade Debate’, Washington Quarterly, 13 (1990), pp. 119–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Anthony P. Maingot, ‘The Offshore Caribbean’, in Payne and Sutton (eds.), Modern Caribbean Politics, pp. 259–76.

39 Statement of Peter Hakim, Inter-American Dialogue, to the Subcommittee on Foreign Relations, US House of Representatives Hearings on ‘External Debt and Free Trade in the Americas’, Washington DC, March 1991.

40 Statement of Frederic H. Brooks, President, Caribbean/Latin American Action and Chairman, Riddell Inc. to the Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and Means, US House of Representatives, Washington DC, February 1991.

41 Statement of Brooks.

42 For an account of the work of the CBTAG, see the CBTAG Status Reports, January and September 1992, Department of State, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

43 For further discussion of this issue, see Payne, Anthony J. and Sutton, Paul K., ‘The Commonwealth Caribbean in the New World Order: Between Europe and North America?’, Journal of Interamerkan Studies and World Affairs, 34 (1993), pp. 39–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 For a discussion, see Serbin, Andres, ‘The CARICOM States and the Group of Three: A New Partnership between Latin America and the Non-Hispanic Caribbean?’, Journal of Interamerkan Studies and World Affairs, 33 (1991), pp. 53–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.