The matter of American multilateralism (as in the Americas’ multilateralism) has been the subject of only a handful of deep, well-researched books, despite the fact that notions of a unity of values or purposes have existed and played a role in the history of the continent almost since the wars for independence from European powers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Therefore, Mark Petersen's book is a much welcomed contribution to a field that should receive more attention from scholars of international relations and the international history of the Americas.

Petersen's work focuses on the views and policies of the governments of Argentina and Chile toward the Pan-American initiatives proposed and carried out first by the United States at the end of the nineteenth century, and continuing with more interest and a more solid endorsement from Latin American countries in the first decades of the twentieth century. Petersen's narrative is straightforward: Argentina and Chile first suspected the motives of the United States in its efforts toward the constitution of Pan-American institutions, but evolved into acceptance of the reality and even the desirability of these institutions. They understood that their own national interests in the regional context could be advanced through them, much like their own perception of US foreign policy interpreted the original effort toward Pan-Americanism from US administrations in the latter part of the nineteenth century.

The process through which the change in the mindset of Argentines and Chileans unfolded constitutes the bulk of Petersen's narrative. Based on archival sources and a deep knowledge of the relevant bibliography in English and Spanish, Petersen describes in detail how statesmen and diplomats came to value the institutional opportunities offered by Pan-Americanism, or at least tried to make the best of their existence, even if many of them as individuals were skeptical of the purpose or practicality of the Pan-American framework. Petersen correctly identifies and explains links between domestic processes and the outlook on Pan-Americanism of Argentine and Chilean officials, although his emphasis on the diplomatic character of the problem makes clear to readers, appropriately in my view, that these were matters of foreign policy, a realm that at least in Argentina and Chile has a tradition of independence from other state duties and endeavors. Still, the adoption and embrace of the concept of Pan-Americanism among women seeking expansion of their civil and political rights and by other activist groups (for example, architects) aptly demonstrates the power that adhered to the concept, beyond the confines of institutional diplomacy.

As its title announces, the book focuses on the views and policies toward Pan-American institutions in Argentina and Chile, and to the extent that such concentration is its core aim, it must be commended as an excellent work of scholarship. This concentration, however, does open a few additional avenues of reflection that the author could have taken. One that seems germane to Petersen's description of the process, from the perception of Pan-Americanism as a ploy of US imperialism to a more ample endorsement from initially reluctant actors, is the way in which modern nation-states interact in regional settings assumed as geographically cohesive in some way. Pan-Americanism made (and makes) sense for Americans, both US and Latin, because both groups believed, at some level, that belonging to the same continent and having political systems based on similar principles–whatever the specific and contingent results these systems might produce–warranted the establishment of institutional frameworks that included them all.

Furthermore, Pan-Americanism was not a defensive endeavor, as had been the case with most international alliances and coalitions up to that point. In this sense, Pan-Americanism was one of the first instances, if not the first, of modern multilateralism, with all its promise and all its inherent weaknesses. Although Petersen comments on this issue throughout the book, one wonders if he might have given it more prominence in the argument.

In any case, these questions fall beyond the scope of the author's intent, so pointing them out is more a way to suggest future scholarship on a topic that deserves it than to make specific criticism of a book that stands as a good example of scholarship on inter-American relations and diplomacy.