In this modern era of globalization, traditional conceptions of national sovereignty have changed, focusing now on international economic concerns based largely upon free-trade. In this new period of international relations between the United States and Latin America, militaristic interventions to restore political democracy are simply not prudent or necessary; the cold war has drawn to an indomitable close, democracy has been satisfactorily safeguarded, and regional conflicts are(thankfully) no longer in danger of being fueled or exacerbated by superpower competition and intervention(Bouzas, pps. 171-173).
The greatest international change affecting U.S.-Latin American relations today is perhaps the steady transformation of the world economy from a series of loosely connected national markets to an increasingly interdependent global one(Lowenthal, pp. 66). In this, the nature of multilateralism in international relations is changing; in an environment of collective action and free trade organizations, it is an increasingly difficult task to define the role of the United States in the burgeoning economy of the Western Hemisphere. Specifically, are collective action, national sovereignty, and United States leadership compatible goals in this new configuration? If we confine our interests abroad specifically to the achievement of economic(and not necessarily political) harmony, perhaps the United States may continue to enjoy its superpower status for decades to come.
First, it is necessary to consider whether a multilateralist approach to Latin America will diminish the role of the United States in the region. As it stands today, the United States does adhere to the multilateral approach in dealing with market access and unfair trade practices(Garten, 1995, pp. 50). Interestingly, in recent years, the U.S. has sustained criticism from foreign leaders who claim that American trade practices have moved away from multilateral...