PS 479/579 Prof. Jane Cramer

Syllabus, Spring 2008 Office: PLC 915

CRNs: 34380/34391 Hours: Thurs, 2-5

346-4626

jkcramer@uoregon.edu

U.S. Interventions in Developing Nations

Class Location: MCK 123

Time: T, 14:00-16:50 (2:00-4:50 pm)

Course Description: American empire? Or is the US a “benign” hegemon or what? How should we describe U.S. interventions in weak states? Has there been an American empire over the past century? What has it looked like? How has it been managed? An “empire by invitation” and/or an “empire by imposition”? An empire serving what purposes—wealth, security, human rights, democracy, and for whom? Have U.S. interests in empire changed across time? How have international “norms” about intervention changed across time? How does the U.S. decide to intervene, particularly what has the debate over “war powers” looked like?

This course examines the causes and consequences of United States military and CIA interventions in the Third World since 1898. Course readings and discussion focus mostly on analyzing cases of intervention using theories of intervention, but this course also emphasizes methodology explicitly. Substantive topics addressed are: 1) major theories of imperialism, and other theories explaining U.S. interventions, 2) past and present policy debates over interventions (Why should the US intervene? What does the US gain? How did elites argue for intervention at the time? Have these debates changed across time?) 3) the history of US interventions, 4) major historical/interpretive controversies about these interventions, and 5) evaluation of American past and present policies toward the Third World (Were these interventions beneficial for the US? For the country affected? Did the intervention have the U.S. leaders’ intended results/consequences?) 6.) Are US decisions to intervene arrived at democratically? 7.) What role do international laws and institutions play in US decisions to intervene?

The history covered includes over 37 US interventions directly discussed at some length. Competing explanations for why these interventions happened will be evaluated, with special focus on the US in the Philippines 1898-1902, Iran 1953/today?, Guatemala 1953-54, Grenada 1983, Panama 1989, Bosnia/Kosovo 1990s, Afghanistan 2002, and Iraq 1991 & 2003. These interventions represent a wide array of reasons for intervening including security, nonproliferation, economic interests, oil, credibility, misperceptions, democracy, humanitarian relief, human rights and US domestic politics.

Course requirements:

1.) Students must attend the seminar and participate. Students are required to read assigned materials in advance of class. Students are required to prepare and hand in discussion questions for every class after the first class, in advance of class. Each student will be required to help lead discussion three times during the term. Each student will help lead discussion twice by preparing the week’s readings. A third presentation of an intervention investigated for the first short paper is discussed below. For the two presentations of the week’s readings, a 1-2 page outline of discussion is required, including also preparing discussion questions. Attendance, leading two discussions of readings and participation = 40% of final grade.

2.) A short research paper (5 pages) investigating an intervention since 1945 starting from William Blum’s accounts in Killing Hope will be due in week 5 or 6—at the time of the scheduled presentation. Short paper and presentation = 30% of final grade.

3.) A research project of 10-15 pages investigating a case study of a controversial US intervention is required. Students will be asked to evaluate leading competing explanations for why the US intervened in a particular case (student must research a different intervention from the short paper above). Students are STRONGLY encouraged to investigate an intervention that is new/less familiar to the student. This research project will be worth a total of 30% of your final grade. A 1- 2 page detailed outline will be required in advance (5% of the 30%).

4.) PS 579: Graduate Student requirements: All requirements will be the same—except a few additional readings from the recommended readings and the research project will be longer and structured at a graduate level—see me for details.

Due dates:

1.) Leading two discussions required on days assigned.

2.) First short paper due: April 29 or May 6 (at time of presentation.)

3.) Detailed outline for research project: Tuesday, May 20

4.) Research Project due in lieu of final: wednesday, June 11, 1:00 pm in my mailbox—9^th floor PLC on hallway, box marked “Cramer”.

Required Reading:

1.) Ryan C. Hendrickson, The Clinton Wars: The Constitution, Congress and war Powers (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2002)

2.) William Blum, Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995)

3.) Stephen Kinzer, All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and The Roots of Middle East Terror (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2003) (used copies available for $5 + postage on-line)

4.) Stephen Kinzer, Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, (New York: Henry Holt, 2006—many used copies available.)

5.) John Prados, Safe for Democracy:The Secret Wars of the CIA, (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee Publisher: October 2006)

5.) Possibly also purchase used, on-line: Martha Finnemore, The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003) (We will be reading much of this—I will explain at the first class.)

6.) Many readings available on e-reserve and on Blackboard web site.

*** All required books are also available on reserve at Knight Library.

Recommended: The New York Times. We will often comment on current US interventions and any other currently proposed interventions. Like it or not, the NYT is the paper to read if you are a student of international politics—I will likely refer to it frequently. Very cheap student subscriptions are available at the UO bookstore.

Course Policies:

Late or missed assignments will be severely penalized! If you somehow fail to hand in an assignment on time you will need a valid medical excuse. Late papers will not be accepted without a medical excuse unless prior arrangement has been made because of a known conflict. Arrangements can be made for conflicts with other deadlines—but PLAN IN ADVANCE! Advance planning is essential to being a responsible person.

DO NOT PLAGIARIZE! We will discuss this—but it is your responsibility to understand plagiarism and to make sure you do not do it! Using extensive, excellent footnotes is the best way to avoid plagiarism.

Course Web Site: There will be a Blackboard web site for this course. You will absolutely need to check it regularly for materials and announcements. Please make sure I have your correct e-mail address so that you receive important announcements—I will use e-mail to help you in many ways—make sure you get my e-mails!

Week 1: Tuesday, April 1

Introduction to U.S. interventions; Iraq Today; How to evaluate US interventions—theories and methods

See Blackboard for Intro to Stephen Kinzer, Overthrow, if you have not already purchased it. Read pp. 1-6. Also read intro to William Blum’s book, Killing Hope, pp. 7-20, also found on Blackboard. Compare histories and theories of US interventions in each.

Why Iraq?

Blackboard for link: Michael Lind, “The Weird Men Behind George W. Bush’s War” New Statesman, April 7, 2003 --on Blackboard or at Lind’s web site linked below. Lind argues this Iraq war is not for oil…but truly a weird story, and he maybe he really knows because he knows the guys who planned it…

Blackboard for link: Michael Lind, “Back to the Spanish-American War of 1898?” The Globalist, March 27, 2003. On Blackboard and Can be found here:

http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=1185

Lind does what we’ll do—he tries to piece together all the evidence to really understand what is driving U.S. policy. Study his use of evidence closely. What is he missing? What questions would you ask? Do you think Kinzer and Blum would agree?

Diversionary Theory of War and Interventions—very popular theory, very tough to prove—how common really? This theory is unlike others and requires special considerations … do you like Hendrickson’s tests for this theory? We will be watching for evidence of US domestic politics causing interventions throughout the term—what would be evidence?

Blackboard: Ryan C Hendrickson, “Clinton’s Military Strikes in 1998: Diversionary Uses of Force?” Armed Forces and Society 28:2 (Winter 2002), pp. 309-332. On Blackboard.

Hendrickson devises clever tests for the very elusive theory of diversionary war. We need to carefully understand this popular theory of interventions against weak states in order to watch for signs of it as a possible explanation.

Full disclosure here—I like and use Hendrickson’s tests in my own work: Cramer, “JUST CAUSE or Just Politics?”— see this on Blackboard. We will read this for real when we study the US intervention in Panama.

What is a theory? What is a case study?

Recommended and on reserve: If using theories and studying case studies is unfamiliar to you, read selections from Van Evera, Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science, carefully study pp. 1-88—available on Blackboard. This is a very, very, very quick read—a small, user-friendly guide. You need to master these basic ideas to do well in this class. Especially pp. 7-34, but all is useful.

Week 2: Tuesday, April 8 —The Changing Purposes of Intervention; Command of Interventions

Norms of Interventions:

Martha Finnemore, The Purpose of Intervention, read ch. 1, ch. 3, ch. 5—skim 2 & 4.

Finnemore discusses how norms of interventions have changed—what do you think of her proposed hypotheses? Do you like her case studies and evidence? What are “norms”? How powerful are they? Is she convincing? How would you test her arguments? What is going on today that confirms or goes against her arguments?

Command of Interventions in the US—War Powers:

Ryan C. Hendrickson, The Clinton Wars, read the Intro and Ch. 1 “War Powers in American History.” (27 pages.)

INTRO to Theories of Imperialism will be discussed, previewing next week:

See Blackboard: Jack Levy, “The Causes of War: A Review of Theories and Evidence” pp. 262-289 only. Found in Philip E. Tetlock et. al.(eds.) Behavior, Society and Nuclear War Vol. I (NY: Oxford U. Press, 1989).

Week 3: Tuesday, April 15: Theories of Imperialism Considered— Economic Theories of Imperialism; Kennan, The Cold War and imperialism for security? Kennedy and counterinsurgency. Carter and Containment. The Reagan Doctrine and imperialism for democracy and freedom?

America and imperialism for profit? Marxists and many others say “yes.”

See Levy above. We will discuss these ideas at length throughout the class.

Read and skim (required to “confront”): Benjamin J. Cohen, “The Question of Imperialism” (New York: Basic Books, 1973) pp. 3-141, 229-257.

Cohen provides an excellent summary and critical evaluation of theories of economic imperialism offered over the last 90 years. Can you arrow diagram any theories discussed here? Cohen does great work, but also makes his own mistakes and you are invited to uncover them.

Required: Imperialism for Security?—Containment 1945-1989

John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of postwar American National Security Policy (NY: Oxford University Press, 1982), chapter 2: “George F. Kennan and the Strategy of Containment” pp. 25-53.

An excellent explication of the ideas of the prime intellectual architect of America’s containment policy. Does widespread intervention in the Third World follow from Kennan’s ideas? If not, how and why did American foreign policy later deviate from Kennan’s original concept?

Who was the late great George F. Kennan?(recently passed away at the age of 101!)—you should know more even if you have some ideas! Go to: http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/kennan.html

Kennedy and Counterinsurgency: Why did Kennedy and other civilians get scared in the 1960’s?

Charles Maechling, Jr. “Counterinsurgency: The First Ordeal by Fire,” in Michael T. Klare and Peter Kornbluh (eds.) Low Intensity Warfare: Counterinsurgency, Proinsurgency, and Antiterrorism in the Eighties (NY: Pantheon, 1987) pp. 21-48.

Carter and Containment: What were Carter’s priorities—containment or human rights? Both? What was he doing?

Martha L. Cottam, “The Carter Administration’s Policy toward Nicaragua: Images, Goals, and Tactics” Political Science Quarterly, 107:1 (Spring 1992) pp. 123-146. Did Carter do counterinsurgency?

The Reagan Doctrine and intervening for democracy and freedom.

Charles Krauthammer, “The Poverty of Realism: The Newest Challenge to The Reagan Doctrine,” The New Republic, Feb. 17, 1986, p.14-22.

Krauthammer provided the first explication of ‘The Reagan Doctrine’, strangely named since Reagan never enunciated the Doctrine himself. Here Krauthammer dismisses security reasons for intervention altogether, resting his case wholly on other grounds.

Also see: James M. Scott, Deciding to Intervene: The Reagan Doctrine and American Foreign Policy (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1996) pp. 14-39.

Intervention considered after Reagan and the Cold War—a DEBATE:

Steven R. David, “Why the Third World Matters,” International Security, Vol. 14, no. 1 (Summer 1989), pp. 50-85. The best late Cold War era explication of why the US should intervene in the Third World, for both strategic and other reasons. What do you think?

Response: Stephen Van Evera, “American Intervention in the Third World: Less Would Be Better” in Kenneth A. Oye et. al. (eds.) Eagle in a New World (NY: HarperCollins, 1992). A systematic critique of the arguments for intervention.

Rebuttal: Steven R. David, “Why the Third World Still Matters,” International Security, Vol. 17, no. 3 (Winter, 1992/93) pp. 127-159.

The Newest Imperialism— for security? :

President Bush’s “National Security Strategy”--2002—posted on Blackboard.

Discussion of Newest Imperialism: Jack Snyder, “Imperial Temptations” The National Interest, Spring 2003

Week 4: Tuesday, April 22: The First BIG WAR of imperialism abroad—The US in the Philippines: Spanish-US-Filipino War, 1898-1902.

***Film in class--Savage Acts, 1995 (30 min.) –You could also see Crucible of Empire (117 min.) on your own— both available at Knight Library.

Albert A. Nofi, The Spanish-American War: 1898 (Pennsylvania: Combined Books, 1996) Chapter 1, “A Splendid Little War” pp. 15-55—Interesting background with good pictures.

Ephraim K. Smith, “William McKinley’s Enduring Legacy: The Historiographical Debate on the Taking of the Philippine Islands,” found in James C. Bradford (ed.), Crucible of Empire: The Spanish-American War & Its Aftermath, (Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1993) pp.205-250.

Recommended, (not required):

David Healy, Drive to Hegemony: The U.S. in the Caribbean 1898-1917 (Madison: U. of Wisconsin Press, 1988). Especially first section and chapter 4, “Assumptions, Biases and Preconceptions.”

Also find: David Healy, US Expansionism: The Imperialist Urge in the 1890s (Madison: U. of Wisconsin Press, 1970). (Available through Summit.)

Healy’s rich descriptions find American behavior firmly grounded in a coherent worldview; foreign policy is carried out by elite that know more or less what they are doing. Provocative—compare to Halle below.

Louis Halle, Dream and Reality: Aspects of American Foreign Policy, (NY: Harper Colophon, 1974), Especially chapters 15-17, pp.176-214. Halle paints American policy as a series of mindless follies, committed by a government pressed forward by a mysteriously exercised public.

On reserve: John L. Offner, Unwanted War (Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 1992) A very different interpretation of U.S. national politics. This is a DIVERSIONARY explanation for the war!!! Is it possible???? I NEED to know… a pattern I see often in more recent wars!

Also required: The US, Central America, and the Caribbean, 1900-1934

Peter H. Smith, Talons of the Eagle: Dynamics of U.S.-Latin American Relations, (Oxford Univ. Press, 1996), Esp. Ch.2, pp 40-64; Also of interest, ch. 3 & ch. 4. A good synopsis of American interventions and attitudes.

Available to compare (not required): Federico Gil, “Ch. 4: The Interventionist Era, 1904-1933” in Latin America-United States Relations (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971) pp. 86-116. A standard factual synopsis of the main events in the Caribbean. Compare also to Finnemore above.

Week 5: Tuesday, April 29: Killing Hope—US Interventions since 1945 considered.

Short Papers due at time of presentation!

William Blum, Killing Hope—you will need to read this entire book over two weeks. For this week read approximately half-- pp. i-220 (roughly 1945-1965).

Likely cases for this week:

China & Korea

Greece & Italy

The Philippines

Albania, Eastern Europe & Germany

Guatemala & Costa Rica

Syria & The Middle East (Jordan)

Indonesia & East Timor (14 & 31)

British Guiana

Vietnam

Cambodia & Laos (20 & 21)

Haiti (22 & 55)

Presentations should include handouts of a timeline, and a short summary of leading explanations. Economic explanations? Security? Domestic politics?

Brief assessment: Intervention good for U.S. interests? Good for target country?

Week 6: Tuesday, May 6: Killing Hope (cont’d)

William Blum, Killing Hope, read pp. 221-383 (roughly 1965-1995)

Likely Cases for this week:

The Congo/Zaire (26 & 42)

Brazil & Peru & Ecuador

Uruguay& Bolivia

Dominican Republic (29)

Cuba (30)

Ghana (32)

Chile (34)

Algeria, Morocco & Libya (24, 46, & 48)

Angola & Seychelles (41 & 44)

Nicaragua (49)

El Salvador (54)

Columbia, “War on Drugs,” not in Blum—any volunteers?

Week 7: Tuesday, May 13: The CIA and covert interventions- Iran 1953 and today.

The CIA and Intervention

Film in class: CIA: America’s Secret Warriors

Ponder the evolution and constitutional legality of CIA operations. This incredible film has some rare interviews. These guys are proud. Check them out.

John Prados, Safe for Democracy:The Secret Wars of the CIA, (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee Publisher: October 2006) SELECTIONS TBA. Prados is a leading researcher on the CIA. He spends his time seeking the release of documents for the National Security Archive. He does an incredibly meticulous job.

The Mossadeq coup in Iran, 1953

Stephen Kinzer, All the Shah’ Men:An American Coup and The Roots of Middle East Terror (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2003)

Week 8: Tuesday, May 20: Grenada & Panama and the Diversionary Theory of War; Any evidence of diversion as a reason for Iraq 2003?

***Detailed 1-2 page outline for research project DUE!!!

Why invade Grenada? Medical students in danger?

Blackboard for link: R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., “The Small Island that We Rescued,” American Spectator, 30:5, May 1997, p. 20.

Blackboard for link: Maurice Waters, “The Law and Politics of a U.S. Intervention: The Case of Grenada,” Peace and Change, 14:1, January 1989, pp. 65-105.

Panama, first Post-Cold War intervention—why?

Short piece of film in class--Please see at Knight library for full film: The Panama Deception, 1993 (90 min.)

A juicy film putting forward a number of conspiratorial explanations for President George Bush Sr.’s invasion of Panama to arrest General Manuel Noriega. This was the first Post-Cold War intervention, orchestrated by many of the same fellows in power today, and an unusual case.

E-reserve/See Blackboard: Eytan Gilboa, “The Panama Invasion Revisited: Lessons for the Use of Force in the Post-Cold War Era” in Demetrios Caraley, The New American Interventionism (NY: Columbia U. Press, 1999) pp. 89-112.

Gilboa disagrees with the film—what does he argue?

Blackboard: Cramer, “JUST CAUSE or Just Politics?”—For full disclosure, see this on Blackboard. Is this person delusional? What does she say?

On Iraq 2003:

Senator Robert C. Byrd, Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency, (New York: WW Norton & Co., 2004) Chapter 7, “Out of Business” pp. 153-177.

Mark Danner, “The Secret way to war,’ The New York Reviewof Books, Vol. 52, No. 10, June 9, 2005. Including the “Downing Street Memo”—What indicates diversion/domestic politics—anything?

Week 9: Tuesday, May 27: Clinton Wars and The War Powers Act

Ryan C. Hendrickson, The Clinton Wars: The Constitution, Congress and War Powers, Re-skim Intro & ch. 1 (assigned above) and read chapters 4 & 6 (on Bosnia and Kosovo). Humanitarian intervention in the 1990’s--why? What happened with War Powers under Clinton? What should be done about war powers? What might be possible?

Cases covered by Hendrickson: Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, strikes on Bin Laden and Iraq, on reserve.

Week 10: Tuesday, June 3: Afghanistan, the 1991 Gulf War and 2003 Iraq War, and the future of interventions.

John Prados on Afghanistan:

http://www.historycooperative.org//journals/jah/89.2/prados.html

Gulf War I: These are all BRIEF selections on e-reserve/See Blackboard:

Micah L. Sifry and Christopher Cerf (eds.) The Gulf War Reader: History, Documents, Opinions (NY: Random House, 1991) pp. 21-33; 79-84; 197-220; 243-250.

Selections include historical background, speeches and opinion pieces examining why the US really intervened in Iraq in 1991.

Daniel Yergin, “Oil: The Strategic Prize”

Micah L. Sifry, “US Intervention in the Middle East: A Case Study”

Joe Conason, “The Iraq Lobby: Kissinger, the Business Forum & Co.”

George Bush, “In Defense of Saudi Arabia” (Speech of August 8, 1990)

A.M. Rosenthal, “Saddam’s Next Target”

Thomas L. Friedman, “Washington’s ‘Vital Interests’”

Alex Molnar, “If My Marine Son Is Killed…”

William Safire, “The Hitler Analogy”

Patrick Buchanan, “Have The Neocons Thought This Through?”

Andrew Kopkind, “EnGulfed”

Doug Bandow, “The Myth of Iraq’s Oil Stranglehold”

Gary Milhollina, “How Close is Iraq to the Bomb?” (Testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, November 30, 1990)

More READINGS on CURRENT IRAQ WAR—TBA.

***Research Project DUE in lieu of exam, Wednesday, June 11, 1:00 pm—Place in slot of Cramer’s locked mailbox on the 9^th floor of PLC.