Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T19:16:38.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Civil-Military Affairs and Security Institutions in the Southern Cone: The Sources of Argentine-Brazilian Nuclear Cooperation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Arturo C. Sotomayor Velázquez
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper analyzes the conditions in which the governments of Argentina and Brazil founded security institutions in the early 1990s, while they were democratizing. It advances the hypothesis that international cooperation in the security field is often linked to the evolution of civil-military relations. Civilian leaders in both countries established institutions and sought international participation deliberately to achieve civilian control and gain leverage over the military establishment, which they sorely distrusted. The need to stabilize civil-military relations at home was therefore the prime motivating force behind the emergence of security institutions in the Southern Cone. Three mechanisms were at work: omnibalancing, policy handling, and managing uncertainty. These mechanisms are derived from three different schools of thought: realism, organizational-bureaucratic models, and theories of domestic political institutions. Besides explaining the sources of nuclear bilateral cooperation, this argument also serves as a critique of two prominent theories in international relations that attempt to explain cooperation and peaceful relations among democracies: neoliberal insti-tutionalism and democratic peace theory.

Type
Research Article
Information
Latin American Politics and Society , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , Winter 2004 , pp. 29 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © University of Miami 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acharya, Amitav. 1998. Beyond Anarchy: Third World Instability and International Order After the Cold War. In International Relations Theory and the Third World, ed. Stephanie, G. Neuman. New York: St. Martin's Press: 159–211.Google Scholar
Acuǹa, Carlos H., and William, C. Smith. 1994. The Politics of Arms Production and the Arms Race Among New Democracies of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. In Security, Democracy, and Development in U.S.-Latin American Relations, ed. Lars Schoultz, Smith, and Augusto, Varas. Coral Gables: North-South Center Press. 199–240.Google Scholar
Adler, Emmanuel. 1987. The Power of Ideology: The Quest for Technical Autonomy in Argentina and Brazil. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Agüero, Felipe. 1992. The Military and the Limits to Democratization in South America. In Issues in Democratic Consolidation: the New South American Democracies in Comparative Perspective, ed. Scott, Mainwaring, Guillermo, O'Donnell, and Samuel Valenzuela, J.. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. 153–98.Google Scholar
Agüero, Felipe. 1995. Soldiers, Civilians, and Democracy: Post-Franco Spain in Comparative Perspective. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Albright, David. 1989. Bomb Potential for South America. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 45, 4 (May): 16–20.Google Scholar
Brooke, James. 1990. Brazil Uncovers Plan by Military to Build Atom Bomb and Stops It. New York times, October 9: Al.Google Scholar
Byman, Daniel L., and Kenneth, M. Pollack. 2001. Let Us Now Praise Great Men: Bringing the Statesman Back in. International Security 25, 4 (Spring): 107–46.Google Scholar
Carasales, Julio César. 1997. De rivales a socios: el proceso de cooperatión nuclear entre Argentina y Brasil. Buenos Aires: Grupo Editorial Lati-noamericano.Google Scholar
Castro Madero, Carlos, and Esteban, A. Takacs. 1991. Politica nuclear argentina: iavance o retroceso? Buenos Aires: Librería El Ateneo.Google Scholar
Child, Jack. 1985. Geopolitics and Conflict in South America: Quarrels Among Neighbors. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Child, Jack. 1990. The Status of South American Geopolitical Thinking. In South America in the 1990s: Evolving International Relationships in a New Era, ed. Pope Atkins, G.. Colorado: Westview Press. 53–85.Google Scholar
Corrales, Javier. 1999. Regimes of Cooperation in the Western Hemisphere: Power, Interests, and Intellectual Traditions. International Studies Quarterly 43, 1 (May): 1–36.Google Scholar
David, Steven R. 1991. Explaining Third World Alignment. World Politics 43, 2 (January): 233–56.Google Scholar
Doyle, Michael W. 1997. Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Escudé, Carlos, and Andrés, Fontana. 1998. Argentina's Security Policy. In International Security and Democracy: Latin America and the Caribbean in the Post-Cold War Era, ed. Jorge, I. Domínguez. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. 51–79.Google Scholar
Evangelista, Matthew. 1991 Sources of Moderation in Soviet Security Policy. In Behavior, Society, and Nuclear War, vol. 2, ed. Philip, E. Tetlock et. al. New York: Oxford University Press. 315–16.Google Scholar
Goldblat, Jozef, ed. 1985. Non-proliferation: The Why and the Wherefore. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Goldman, Joe. 1991. Argentina, Brazil Open to Inspections. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 47, 4 (May): 8–10.Google Scholar
Haggard, Stephan, and Beth, Simmons. 1987. Theories of International Regimes. International Organization 41, 3 (Summer): 491–517.Google Scholar
Harrison, Anne H. 1990. Upi News Analysis: Argentine-Brazilian Nuclear Agreement Based in Business. U.P.I. News Service, November 29.Google Scholar
Herspring, Dale H. 1996. Russian Civil-Military Relations. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirst, Monica. 1995. Security Policies, Democratization, and Regional Integration in the Southern Cone. In International Security and Democracy: Latin America and the Caribbean in the Post-Cold War Era, ed. Jorge, I. Domínguez. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. 102–18.Google Scholar
Holsti, Kalevi J. 1996. The State, War, and the State of War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hunter, Wendy. 1997. Eroding Military Influence in Brazil: Politicians Against Soldiers. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Hurrell, Andrew. 1998a. Security in Latin America. International Affairs 74, 3: 210–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurrell, Andrew. 1998b. An Emerging Security Community in South America? In Security Communities, ed. Emanuel, Adler and Michael, Barnett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 243–45.Google Scholar
Hurrell, Andrew, and Louise, Fawcett, eds. 1995. Regionalism in World Politics: Regional Organization and International Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
International Atomic Energy Organization (Iaeo). <http://www.iaea.or.atworldatomProgrammesSafeguards>..>Google Scholar
Job, Brian L. 1992. The Insecurity Dilemma: National, Regime, and State Securities in the Third World. In The Insecurity Dilemma: National Security of Third World States, ed. Job, . Boulder: Lynne Rienner. 11–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, Stuart J. 1994. Organizational Politics and Change in Soviet Military Policy. World Politics 46 (April): 355–82.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 1989. International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 1993. Institutionalist Theory and the Realist Challenge After the Cold War. In Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate, ed. David, A. Baldwin. New York: Columbia University Press. 270–300.Google Scholar
Kessler, Richard J. 1989. Peronists Seek “Nuclear Greatness. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 45, 5 (May): 13–15.Google Scholar
Krasno, Jean. 1994. Non-proliferation: Brazil’s Secret Nuclear Program. Orbis 38, 3 (Summer): 425–36.Google Scholar
Leventhal, Paul L., and Sharon, Tanzer, eds. 1992. Averting a Latin American Nuclear Arms Race: New Prospects and Challenges for Argentine-Brazilian Nuclear Cooperation. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend J. 1971. Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method. American Political Science Review 65 (September): 690–93.Google Scholar
Los Angeles Times . 1990. Brazil Probe Finds a Bomb-Plan. December 7: 2.Google Scholar
Mansfield, Edward D., and Jack, Snyder. 1996. Democratization and the Danger of War. In Debating the Democratic Peace, ed. Michael, E. Brown, Sean, M. Lynn-Jones, and Steven, E. Miller. Cambridge: MIT Press. 301–34.Google Scholar
March, James, and Johan, Olsen. 1984. The New Institutionalism: Organizational Features in Political Life. American Political Science Review 78, 3 (September): 734–49.Google Scholar
Mares, David R. 1991. Escenarios de seguridad en Europa Oriental y en América Latina. Estudios Internacionales 23, 93 (January–March): 19–41.Google Scholar
Martins, Filho, Joào, R., and Daniel, Zirker. 2000. the Brazilian Military under Cardoso: Overcoming the Identity Crisis. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 42, 3 (Fall): 143–70.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J. 1994–95. the False Promise of International Institutions. International Security 19, 3: 5–49.Google Scholar
Milner, Helen. 1992. International Theories of Cooperation. World Politics 44, 3 (April): 466–96.Google Scholar
Moe, Terry M. 1990. Political Institutions: the Neglected Side of the Story. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 6: 213–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew. 1999. The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Liberal Democracy and Political Uncertainty in Postwar Europe. Paper presented at the Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University, December 8.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew. 2000. The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Liberal Democracy and Political Uncertainty in Postwar Europe. International Organization 54, 2: 217–52.Google Scholar
Neuman, Stephanie G. 1998. International Relations Theory and the Third World: An Oxymoron? In International Relations Theory and the Third World, ed. Neuman, . New York: St. Martin's Press. 1–29.Google Scholar
Nohlen, Dieter, and Mario Fernandez, B. 1991. Democratización y política exterior. análisis comparado en torno a tres casos: Argentina, Brasil y Uruguay. Estudios Internacionales 24, 94 (April-June): 229–59.Google Scholar
Norden, Deborah L. 1996. Military Rebellion in Argentina: Between Coups and Consolidation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
O'Donnell, Guillermo. 1988. Challenges to Democratization in Brazil. World Policy Journal 5, 2 (Spring): 281–300.Google Scholar
O'Donnell, Guillermo. 1996. Illusions about Consolidation. Journal of Democracy 7, 3 (April): 34–51.Google Scholar
O'Donnell, Guillermo, and Philippe, C. Schmitter. 1986. Transition from Authoritarian Rule (Tentative Conclusions). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Pion-Berlin, David. 1991. Between Confrontation and Accommodation: Military and Government Policy in Democratic Argentina. Journal of Latin American Studies 23, 3 (October): 543–71.Google Scholar
Pion-Berlin, David. 1998. From Confrontation to Cooperation: Democratic Governance and Argentine Foreign Relations. In Civil-Military Relations: Building Democracy and Regional Security in Latin America, Southern Asia, and Central Europe, ed. David, R. Mares. Boulder: Westview Press. 79–100.Google Scholar
Posen, Barry R. 1984. The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany Between the World Wars. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Preston, Julia. 1991. Brazil’s Leader Brings Vigorous Image, Mixed Record. Washington Post, June 18: A18.Google Scholar
Redick, John R. 1972. Military Potential of Latin American Nuclear Energy Programs. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Redick, John R., Julio, C. Carasales, and Paulo, S. Wrobel. 1995. Nuclear Rapprochement: Argentina, Brazil, and the Nonproliferation Regime. Washington Quarterly 18, 1 (Winter): 107–22.Google Scholar
Reiss, Mitchell. 1995. Bridled Ambition: Why Countries Constrain Their Nuclear Capabilities. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.Google Scholar
Rice, Condolezza. 1989. Gorbachev and the Military: a Revolution in Security Policy, Too Harriman Institute Forum 2, 4: 1–8.Google Scholar
Robinson, Eugene. 1992. South America Steps Back from Atomic Brink: Brazil, Argentina Stand down after Decades of Racing to Obtain Nuclear Arms. Washington Post, January 26: A24.Google Scholar
Rojas Aravena, Francisco. 1994. Security Regimes in the Western Hemisphere: A View from Latin America. In Security, Democracy, and Development in U.S. Latin American Relations, ed. Lars, Schoultz, William, C. Smith, and Augusto, Varas. Coral Gables: North-South Center Press. 171–97.Google Scholar
Russell, Roberto. 1990. Conflicto y armamentismo en America Latina. In Desarme y desarrollo en América Latina, ed. Mónica, Hirst et al. Buenos Aires: Fundacion para la Democracia y la Paz. 61–67.Google Scholar
Russell, Roberto, and Mónica, Hirst. 1987. Democracia y política exterior: los casos de Argentina y Brasil. Estudios Internacionales 20, 80 (October-December): 442–90.Google Scholar
Russett, Bruce. 1993 Grasping the Democratic Peace. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Russett, Bruce, John, R. Oneal, and David, R. Davis. 1998. The Third Leg of the Kantian Tripod for Peace: International Organizations and Militarized Disputes, 1950–85. International Organization 52, 3 (Summer): 441–67.Google Scholar
Schmitter, Philippe C. 1991. Change in Regime Type and Progress in International Relations. In Progress in Postwar International Relations, ed. Emanuel, Adler and Beverly, Crawford. New York: Columbia University Press. 89–124.Google Scholar
Selcher, Wayne A., ed. 1981. Brazil in the International System: The Rise of a Middle Power. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Serrano, Mónica. 1994. Brazil and Argentina. In Nuclear Proliferation After the Cold War, ed. Mitchell, Reiss and Robert, S. Litwak. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press. 231–55.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Ken. 1991. Brazil’s Intelligence Chief Asked to Explain Secret Nuclear Project. Associated Press, August 14.Google Scholar
Snyder, Jack. 2000. From Voting to Violence: Democratization and Nationalist Conflict. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Solingen, Etel. 1998. Regional Orders at Century's Dawn: Global and Domestic Influences on Grand Strategy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stepan, Alfred. 1971. The Military in Politics: Changing Patterns in Brazil. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stepan, Alfred, and Cindy, Skach. 1993 Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic Consolidation: Parliamentarism versus Presidentialism. World Politics 46, 1 (October): 1–22.Google Scholar
Ullman, Richard H. 1991. Securing Europe. Princeton: Princeton Universiy Press.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Weitsman, Patricia A. 1997. Intimate Enemies: the Politics of Peacetime Alliances. Security Studies 7, 1 (Autumn): 156–92.Google Scholar
Wrobel, Paulo S. 1999. From Rivals to Friends: The Role of Public Declarations in Argentine-Brazilian Rapprochement. In Declaratory Diplomacy- Rhetorical Initiatives and Confidence Building, ed. Michael Krepon, Jenny S. Drezin, and Michael, Newbill. Washington, DC: Henry L. Stimson Center. 135–51.Google Scholar
Zagorski, Paul W. 1994. Civil-Military Relations and Argentine Democracy: the Armed Forces under the Menem Government. Armed Forces and Society 20, 3 (Spring): 423–37.Google Scholar
Zaverucha, Jorge. 1998. The 1988 Brazilian Constitution and Its Authoritarian Legacy: Formalizing Democracy While Gutting Its Essence. Journal of Third World Studies 15, 1: 105–24.Google Scholar