PS 479/579 Prof. Jane Cramer

Syllabus, Winter 2012 Office: PLC 820

CRNs:25165/25175 Off. hours:Tues. 1-4

346-4626

jkcramer@uoregon.edu

U.S. Interventions in Developing Nations

Class Location: Condon 330

Time: M, 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? What has the debate over constitutional “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, with special attention to each President since WW II 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. Competing explanations for why many of these interventions happened will be evaluated, with special focus on the US in the Philippines 1898-1902, Iran 1953/today?, Guatemala 1953-54, Cuba 1961, Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia, Chile 1973, Nicaragua, Grenada 1983, Panama 1989, Bosnia/Kosovo 1990s, Afghanistan, and Iraq 1991 & 2003. These interventions represent a wide array of reasons for intervening including security, nonproliferation, economic interests, oil, religion, 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 reading summaries for each class by Sunday night, as will be explained at the first 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 in full with discussion questions, and with possible outside research for some topics. 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, reading summaries, leading two discussions of readings and participation = 45% of final grade.

2.) A short research paper (4-5 pages), briefly investigating an intervention since 1945 starting from William Blum’s accounts in Killing Hope will be due at the time the intervention is discussed as will be scheduled during the first class. Short paper and presentation = 20% of final grade.

3.) A research project of 8-10 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 35% 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 (15 pages) and structured at a graduate level—STUDENT MUST SEE ME IN OFFICE HOURS TO DISCUSS—come early and often.

Due dates:

1.) Leading two discussions required on days assigned.

2.) First short paper due at time of presentation of the intervention.

3.) Detailed outline for long research project: Monday, week 8, in class.

4.) Research Project due in lieu of final: Wednesday, March 21, 5:15 pm in my mailbox—9^th floor PLC on hallway, box marked “Cramer”.

5.) All PAPERWORK must be turned in at the end of the course in a folder--so KEEP ALL PAPERWORK!

Required Reading:

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

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

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)

Recommended for reference:

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

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 a bit of this.)

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

Many readings available through the library as explained on the 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.

Course Policies:

Attendance will be taken, and participation noted. Sign-ups for all presentations the first day—see me if you missed signing up or need to switch.

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 you receive important announcements—I will use e-mail to help you in many ways—make sure you get my e-mails.

Week 1: Monday, Jan. 9

1.) Introduction to U.S. interventions; Why Iraq? discussion; Diversionary Theory introduced; How to evaluate US interventions generally—discussion of theories and methods

Read intro to William Blum’s book, Killing Hope, pp. 7-20, also found on Blackboard for this first week.

Read the foreward and Chapter 1 of John Prados’ book, Safe for Democracy, pp. xiii-27. This is the best book available on the U.S.’s CIA interventions—meticulously researched—the very best.

2.) For discussion: Why Iraq?

Short and provocative—is Lind right? Read 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 may really know because he knows the guys who planned it…or maybe he is wrong—how to assess? Lind briefly does what we’ll do—he tries to piece together all of the available 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?

Also see Michael Lind, “Back to the Spanish-American War of 1898?” The Globalist, March 27, 2003.

3.) Diversionary Theory of War and Domestic Politics more generally as theories of 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?

See: 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 have a very special interest in this theory and I 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.

4.) 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.

5.) Read over next week--The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs About the Use of Force

Martha Finnemore, The Purpose of Intervention, read ch. 1.

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?

Week 2: Monday—Jan. 16—MLK Day—No Class

Week 3: Monday, Jan. 23: Imperialism & The First BIG U.S. WAR of imperialism abroad—The US in the Philippines: Spanish-US-Filipino War, 1898-1902/1909.

1.) Why Imperialism: (Compare to Finnemore)

Benjamin J. Cohen, “The Question of Imperialism” (New York: Basic Books, 1973) pp. 3-141, 229-257. Economics? Security? Ideology?

Cohen provides an excellent summary and critical evaluation of theories of economic imperialism offered over the 90 years before his writing in 1973. This reading makes a very interesting contrast to Finnemore. You should read the beginning well for about the first ~75 pages where he reviews Marxists and Hobson and Schumpeter, then skim—then read Cohen’s ideas on why imperialism at the end. Can you arrow diagram any theories discussed? How relevant are his ideas today?

Recommended: 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).

2.) ***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.

Stephen M Kinzer, “Bound for Goo-Goo Land,” chapter 2 in Overthrow, pp. 31-55.

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: The US, Central America, and the Caribbean, 1900-1934/1945

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. What was the “Good Neighbor Policy”? Was the U.S. a good neighbor?

Week 4: Monday, Jan. 30: Truman, Kennan, Korea, War Powers and the beginning of the CIA in 1947

1.) Truman: Imperialism for Security?—Containment policy (lasted 1946-1989…what happened?)

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?

FYI: Who was the late great George F. Kennan? He passed away at the age of 101 in 2005, and Gaddis recently wrote a book on him. There are many very different reviews of this book available—why? Two reviews posted on Blackboard.

Read Prados: Chapter 2-5 on the beginning of the CIA under Truman, pp. 28-96.

Read Blum: Korea 1945-1953, pp. 45-54.

2.) Command of Interventions in the US changed with Korea—War Powers discussed:

Ryan C. Hendrickson, The Clinton Wars, read the Intro and Ch. 1 “War Powers in American History.” (27 pages.) Notice how Truman’s behavior in Korea was very significant for war powers….

3.) The CIA and Intervention

First part of 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.

Week 5: Monday, Feb. 6: Eisenhower, Iran and Guatemala & more:

1.) Iran: Read Kinzer, All the Shah’s Men. Kinzer has relied upon all of the best sources and also made a highly readable account of Iran 1953.

2.) Guatemala: Blum: ch. 10 (pp. 72-83); Prados on Guatemala (pp. 107-123) and Read ch. 6 from “Bitter Fruit” on Blackboard.

Also other Eisenhower interventions: Prados: Ch. 7-11 as possible; and Blum, sections 9-15 (pp. 64-107).

Week 6: Monday, Feb. 13: Kennedy, LBJ and the 1960s; Nixon/Kissinger (Chile & more.)

1.) Kennedy’s thinking on Counterinsurgency: Why did Kennedy and other civilians get scared in the 1960’s? Why Vietnam? What was the thinking here?

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.

2.) Many interventions—we’ll pick several to focus on:

Prados: Ch. 12-17.

Cuba, Congo/Zaire, Ghana, Angola, Bolivia, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia

Blum: section 16, 19, 20, 21, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 & more.

On Nixon/Kissinger: Selection from Film in class: The Trials of Henry Kissinger.

Week 7: Monday, Feb. 20: Carter, human rights; Reagan and the Reagan Doctrine, Grenada, Nicaragua & Afghanistan & more.

1.) 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?

2.) 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.

Prados: Chapter 18-22.

Blum: Sections 41-49.

3.) Why invade Grenada? Medical students in danger? Security?

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.

Week 8: Monday, Feb. 27: Intervention after the Cold War; Bush Sr. & Panama and the Diversionary Theory of War; Any evidence of diversion as a reason for Iraq 2003? (Gulf War I Later!)

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

1.) 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.

2.) 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.

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?

3.) On Iraq 2003: Hints of Diversionary war?

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: Monday, March 5: Clinton Wars and The War Powers Act; Bush Sr. & Gulf War I

1.) Clinton Wars: 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.

2.) Iraq 1991— 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)

Week 10: Monday, March 12: 2003 Iraq War; and Obama and the future of interventions: Why surge in Afghanistan? Iran Next?

TBA and Review these assigned above (week 8) 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 Review of Books, Vol. 52, No. 10, June 9, 2005. Including the “Downing Street Memo”—What indicates diversion/domestic politics—anything?

Recommended and on Blackboard: Chaim Kaufmann, “Threat Inflation and the failure of the Marketplace of Ideas”.

Obama and the future of intervention—Readings TBA.

***Research Project DUE in lieu of exam, Wednesday, March 21, 5:15 pm—Place in Cramer’s locked mailbox (there is a slot for papers) on the 9^th floor of PLC.