Book Reviews

The end of the Cold War raised hopes among many democratic and human rights activists that a new era of openness and accountability in global affairs was possible. Just as the end of both World Wars led to the emergence of new social movements for radical political change and national liberation, there was hope that as the bipolar politics that had dominated world affairs for several decades receded, new movements could emerge to confront challenging economic and social problems. Perhaps the high point of this period, from a North American perspective at least, was the 1999 Seattle uprising against the World Trade Organization. But the moment proved to be shortlived, as the events of 9/11 reminded the world of both the continuing appeal of authoritarian politics to many in the developing world, as well as the inherent tendency of Western powers to surrender civil liberties in the face of dangers that are frequently overblown. Thus, if the Cold War is indeed now only a memory, it is very much the case that authoritarianism remains a potent force in world politics. A reconsideration of the roots of today’s political circumstances in the Cold War, then, would be very welcome. This collection, edited by historian Jessica Stites Mor, promises such a reconsideration yet quickly finds itself justifying a new version of the authoritarianism that undermined many opponents of Western imperial power during the Cold War. As perhaps the most obvious example, the book contains not one but two chapters (out of nine) dedicated to the argument that there is, or at least was, something fundamentally progressive about Fidel Castro’s Cuba. Russell Cobb, writing about cultural issues, appears to believe that “initially” the Cuban Revolution was a breath-taking inspiration to Latin American artists, only to “turn [at some unspecified date after January 1959] dogmatic and authoritarian.”1 In other words, for Cobb, the Revolution began as a progressive experiment that turned bad. He even suggests, without foundation, that the “revolution in the region’s politics . . . stemm[ed] from Cuba.”2 This is an odd conclusion in light of the book’s stated aim of exploring a new alternative “transnational solidarity from below.”3 It is true, of course, that the Cuban Revolution was influential across Latin America, but different actors drew different lessons from the experience. In Nicaragua, for example, the events were mostly influential in encouraging dangerous new forms of guerilla warfare by liberals and radicals alike that endangered broader forms of democratic movements opposed to the Somoza dictatorship. It