美国Hýbris: 1冷战后美国在古巴的民主推广-第二部分

Alessandro Badella
{"title":"美国Hýbris: 1冷战后美国在古巴的民主推广-第二部分","authors":"Alessandro Badella","doi":"10.13169/INTEJCUBASTUD.6.2.0157","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Promoting Democracy and the 'Two Level Game'Another answer to our main question - Why is the US promoting democracy abroad? - is based on the bi-univocal relationship between US foreign policy and internal and electoral dynamics. After the Cold War, the collapse of a powerful external enemy (the Soviet Union) brought a redefinition of the policy-making process at an internal level: the mutated international scenario, public opinion, Congress and the groups of pressure could now influence US policy in the global arena (Maynes 1990). After 1989, the 'costs' promoting democracy ebbed: during the Cold War, it was hazardous to abandon US-friendly authoritarian and military regimes in the name of human rights (with the risk of paying a high prime in geopolitical terms). However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, those 'costs' could now be perceived as minimal. As Holsti (2000: 152) pointed out,not only were the potential costs associated with expanding democracy significantly reduced, but this goal also seemed to offer a unifying focus for American foreign policy ... In short, this has appeared to be a foreign policy goal that not only promised a very favourable risk-reward ratio abroad, but that also offered the promise of rich domestic political dividends.Actually, American public opinion never looked at democracy promotion with interest and enthusiasm (Holsti 2000). In particular, after the invasion of Iraq, the American people started to associate democracy promotion with the high costs of the global war on terrorism and the 'Bush doctrine' in terms of economic resources and lives lost (Tures 2007).In the post-Cold War world, ethnic lobbying has become a distinguishing feature in the construction of US foreign policy: ethnic or national groups could now influence the foreign policy-making process (Shain 1995). The existing literature about the condition of successful influence of ethnic groups presents several factors: the organisational strength of the group, and the political unification, and power of mobilisation (Ahrari 1987; Haney and Vanderbush 1999; Said 1981; Watanabe 1984); the numerical and electoral significance of the ethnic group (Ambrosio 2002; Haney and Vanderbush 1999); the cultural affinity with the broader US population (Said 1981; Uslaner 2004; Watanabe 1984) and the ideological and strategic compatibility and affinity with US geopolitical views (Arnson and Brenner 1993: 214; Dent 1995; Trice 1976; Watanabe 1984). The Cuban community in the US had the possibility and the capability to develop all the above-mentioned elements (Haney and Vanderbush 1999).The results were a strong political influence over the process of foreign policy making. Since the 1980s, Cuban-American constituencies in Florida, and partly in New Jersey, became Cuban political citadels and 'no aspirant for local, state or national office could ignore the ethnic vote' (Morley and McGillion 2002: 11). In that decade, Cuban-Americans won important mayoral and representative offices in Miami and Florida (Perez 1992: 102-103). As Portes (2005: 193) pointed out, 'many exiles ... seemingly believed that they had been elected in Cuba and not in the US, and that they could behave accordingly'. In the 1990s, the penetration into US institutions was successfully completed, and the Cuban hardliners directly entered Congress, defying Clinton's foreign policy over Cuba (Haney and Vanderbush 1999: 345; Vanderbush 2009: 299-300). The Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) expanded its lobby activities to non-Cuban Congresspeople too (Calvo and Delercq 2000: 69-70). The 'Cuban question' came to represent a 'two-level game' (LeoGrande 1998), so that being too softwith Castro meant being 'punished' by Cuban-American voters: in this way, US-Cuba relations entered the national political competition (Eckstein 2009: 112-9; LeoGrande 1998).The 'symbiotic relationship' and the 'convergence of interest and world view' (Fernandez 1987: 116; Moore 2002: 86) between the White House and the Cuban ethnic group, which was formed during the Cold War and maintained in the 1990s, played a major role in the field of democracy promotion too. …","PeriodicalId":254309,"journal":{"name":"The International Journal of Cuban Studies","volume":"103 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"American Hýbris: 1 Us Democracy Promotion in Cuba after the Cold War - Part 2\",\"authors\":\"Alessandro Badella\",\"doi\":\"10.13169/INTEJCUBASTUD.6.2.0157\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Promoting Democracy and the 'Two Level Game'Another answer to our main question - Why is the US promoting democracy abroad? - is based on the bi-univocal relationship between US foreign policy and internal and electoral dynamics. After the Cold War, the collapse of a powerful external enemy (the Soviet Union) brought a redefinition of the policy-making process at an internal level: the mutated international scenario, public opinion, Congress and the groups of pressure could now influence US policy in the global arena (Maynes 1990). After 1989, the 'costs' promoting democracy ebbed: during the Cold War, it was hazardous to abandon US-friendly authoritarian and military regimes in the name of human rights (with the risk of paying a high prime in geopolitical terms). However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, those 'costs' could now be perceived as minimal. As Holsti (2000: 152) pointed out,not only were the potential costs associated with expanding democracy significantly reduced, but this goal also seemed to offer a unifying focus for American foreign policy ... In short, this has appeared to be a foreign policy goal that not only promised a very favourable risk-reward ratio abroad, but that also offered the promise of rich domestic political dividends.Actually, American public opinion never looked at democracy promotion with interest and enthusiasm (Holsti 2000). In particular, after the invasion of Iraq, the American people started to associate democracy promotion with the high costs of the global war on terrorism and the 'Bush doctrine' in terms of economic resources and lives lost (Tures 2007).In the post-Cold War world, ethnic lobbying has become a distinguishing feature in the construction of US foreign policy: ethnic or national groups could now influence the foreign policy-making process (Shain 1995). The existing literature about the condition of successful influence of ethnic groups presents several factors: the organisational strength of the group, and the political unification, and power of mobilisation (Ahrari 1987; Haney and Vanderbush 1999; Said 1981; Watanabe 1984); the numerical and electoral significance of the ethnic group (Ambrosio 2002; Haney and Vanderbush 1999); the cultural affinity with the broader US population (Said 1981; Uslaner 2004; Watanabe 1984) and the ideological and strategic compatibility and affinity with US geopolitical views (Arnson and Brenner 1993: 214; Dent 1995; Trice 1976; Watanabe 1984). The Cuban community in the US had the possibility and the capability to develop all the above-mentioned elements (Haney and Vanderbush 1999).The results were a strong political influence over the process of foreign policy making. Since the 1980s, Cuban-American constituencies in Florida, and partly in New Jersey, became Cuban political citadels and 'no aspirant for local, state or national office could ignore the ethnic vote' (Morley and McGillion 2002: 11). In that decade, Cuban-Americans won important mayoral and representative offices in Miami and Florida (Perez 1992: 102-103). As Portes (2005: 193) pointed out, 'many exiles ... seemingly believed that they had been elected in Cuba and not in the US, and that they could behave accordingly'. In the 1990s, the penetration into US institutions was successfully completed, and the Cuban hardliners directly entered Congress, defying Clinton's foreign policy over Cuba (Haney and Vanderbush 1999: 345; Vanderbush 2009: 299-300). The Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) expanded its lobby activities to non-Cuban Congresspeople too (Calvo and Delercq 2000: 69-70). The 'Cuban question' came to represent a 'two-level game' (LeoGrande 1998), so that being too softwith Castro meant being 'punished' by Cuban-American voters: in this way, US-Cuba relations entered the national political competition (Eckstein 2009: 112-9; LeoGrande 1998).The 'symbiotic relationship' and the 'convergence of interest and world view' (Fernandez 1987: 116; Moore 2002: 86) between the White House and the Cuban ethnic group, which was formed during the Cold War and maintained in the 1990s, played a major role in the field of democracy promotion too. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":254309,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The International Journal of Cuban Studies\",\"volume\":\"103 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The International Journal of Cuban Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13169/INTEJCUBASTUD.6.2.0157\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International Journal of Cuban Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13169/INTEJCUBASTUD.6.2.0157","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们主要问题的另一个答案是——为什么美国要在国外推广民主?——基于美国外交政策与国内和选举动态之间的双重关系。冷战结束后,一个强大的外部敌人(苏联)的崩溃带来了对内部决策过程的重新定义:突变的国际形势、公众舆论、国会和压力集团现在可以影响美国在全球舞台上的政策(Maynes 1990)。1989年之后,促进民主的“成本”下降了:在冷战期间,以人权的名义放弃对美国友好的独裁和军事政权是危险的(在地缘政治方面有付出高昂代价的风险)。然而,在苏联解体后,这些“成本”现在可能被认为是最小的。正如霍尔斯蒂(2000:152)所指出的那样,不仅与扩大民主相关的潜在成本大大降低,而且这一目标似乎也为美国外交政策提供了一个统一的焦点……简而言之,这似乎是一个外交政策目标,它不仅承诺在国外获得非常有利的风险回报比,而且还承诺在国内获得丰厚的政治红利。实际上,美国公众舆论从来没有以兴趣和热情看待民主推广(Holsti 2000)。特别是,在入侵伊拉克之后,美国人民开始将民主推广与全球反恐战争的高昂成本以及经济资源和生命损失方面的“布什主义”联系在一起(Tures 2007)。在后冷战时代,种族游说已经成为美国外交政策构建的一个显著特征:种族或民族团体现在可以影响外交政策制定过程(Shain 1995)。现有的关于族群成功影响条件的文献提出了几个因素:群体的组织力量、政治统一和动员力量(Ahrari 1987;Haney and Vanderbush 1999;说1981;渡边1984);少数民族的数量和选举意义(Ambrosio 2002;Haney and Vanderbush 1999);与更广泛的美国人口的文化亲和力(Said 1981;Uslaner 2004;Watanabe 1984)以及与美国地缘政治观点的意识形态和战略兼容性和亲和力(Arnson and Brenner 1993: 214;减少1995;吊起1976;渡边1984)。在美国的古巴人社区有可能也有能力发展上述所有要素(Haney and Vanderbush 1999)。其结果是对外交政策制定过程产生了强大的政治影响。自20世纪80年代以来,佛罗里达州的古巴裔美国人选区,以及新泽西州的部分地区,成为古巴人的政治堡垒,“没有一个有志于担任地方、州或国家公职的人可以忽视少数民族的投票”(莫利和麦克吉里昂2002:11)。在这十年中,古巴裔美国人赢得了迈阿密和佛罗里达重要的市长和代表职位(Perez 1992: 102-103)。正如波特斯(2005:193)指出的那样,“许多流亡者……似乎相信他们是在古巴而不是在美国当选的,他们可以据此行事。”在20世纪90年代,对美国机构的渗透成功完成,古巴强硬派直接进入国会,反对克林顿对古巴的外交政策(Haney and Vanderbush 1999: 345;Vanderbush 2009: 299-300)。古巴裔美国人全国基金会(CANF)也将其游说活动扩大到非古巴国会议员(Calvo和Delercq 2000: 69-70)。“古巴问题”代表了一场“两级博弈”(LeoGrande 1998),因此,对卡斯特罗过于温和意味着受到古巴裔美国选民的“惩罚”:以这种方式,美古关系进入了国家政治竞争(Eckstein 2009: 112-9;LeoGrande 1998)。“共生关系”和“利益与世界观的趋同”(Fernandez 1987: 116;Moore 2002: 86)在冷战期间形成并维持到20世纪90年代的白宫与古巴少数民族之间的关系,在促进民主领域也发挥了重要作用。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
American Hýbris: 1 Us Democracy Promotion in Cuba after the Cold War - Part 2
Promoting Democracy and the 'Two Level Game'Another answer to our main question - Why is the US promoting democracy abroad? - is based on the bi-univocal relationship between US foreign policy and internal and electoral dynamics. After the Cold War, the collapse of a powerful external enemy (the Soviet Union) brought a redefinition of the policy-making process at an internal level: the mutated international scenario, public opinion, Congress and the groups of pressure could now influence US policy in the global arena (Maynes 1990). After 1989, the 'costs' promoting democracy ebbed: during the Cold War, it was hazardous to abandon US-friendly authoritarian and military regimes in the name of human rights (with the risk of paying a high prime in geopolitical terms). However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, those 'costs' could now be perceived as minimal. As Holsti (2000: 152) pointed out,not only were the potential costs associated with expanding democracy significantly reduced, but this goal also seemed to offer a unifying focus for American foreign policy ... In short, this has appeared to be a foreign policy goal that not only promised a very favourable risk-reward ratio abroad, but that also offered the promise of rich domestic political dividends.Actually, American public opinion never looked at democracy promotion with interest and enthusiasm (Holsti 2000). In particular, after the invasion of Iraq, the American people started to associate democracy promotion with the high costs of the global war on terrorism and the 'Bush doctrine' in terms of economic resources and lives lost (Tures 2007).In the post-Cold War world, ethnic lobbying has become a distinguishing feature in the construction of US foreign policy: ethnic or national groups could now influence the foreign policy-making process (Shain 1995). The existing literature about the condition of successful influence of ethnic groups presents several factors: the organisational strength of the group, and the political unification, and power of mobilisation (Ahrari 1987; Haney and Vanderbush 1999; Said 1981; Watanabe 1984); the numerical and electoral significance of the ethnic group (Ambrosio 2002; Haney and Vanderbush 1999); the cultural affinity with the broader US population (Said 1981; Uslaner 2004; Watanabe 1984) and the ideological and strategic compatibility and affinity with US geopolitical views (Arnson and Brenner 1993: 214; Dent 1995; Trice 1976; Watanabe 1984). The Cuban community in the US had the possibility and the capability to develop all the above-mentioned elements (Haney and Vanderbush 1999).The results were a strong political influence over the process of foreign policy making. Since the 1980s, Cuban-American constituencies in Florida, and partly in New Jersey, became Cuban political citadels and 'no aspirant for local, state or national office could ignore the ethnic vote' (Morley and McGillion 2002: 11). In that decade, Cuban-Americans won important mayoral and representative offices in Miami and Florida (Perez 1992: 102-103). As Portes (2005: 193) pointed out, 'many exiles ... seemingly believed that they had been elected in Cuba and not in the US, and that they could behave accordingly'. In the 1990s, the penetration into US institutions was successfully completed, and the Cuban hardliners directly entered Congress, defying Clinton's foreign policy over Cuba (Haney and Vanderbush 1999: 345; Vanderbush 2009: 299-300). The Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) expanded its lobby activities to non-Cuban Congresspeople too (Calvo and Delercq 2000: 69-70). The 'Cuban question' came to represent a 'two-level game' (LeoGrande 1998), so that being too softwith Castro meant being 'punished' by Cuban-American voters: in this way, US-Cuba relations entered the national political competition (Eckstein 2009: 112-9; LeoGrande 1998).The 'symbiotic relationship' and the 'convergence of interest and world view' (Fernandez 1987: 116; Moore 2002: 86) between the White House and the Cuban ethnic group, which was formed during the Cold War and maintained in the 1990s, played a major role in the field of democracy promotion too. …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Submission guidelines Cuban cinema, crisis or transition? Negotiating a cultural tightrope El Fracaso De Las Compañías De Seguros De Esclavos: Cuba a Partir De la Experiencia Norteamericana Cuba: Plus ça Change? Dangerous Marielitos: Wisconsin Newspapers and the Proliferation of a Negative Representation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1