It appears that Uruguay has neither notion nor conscience [] of how much has happened in the world.

Various United Nations organizations and representatives have released declarations about the deterioration of the Venezuelan and Nicaraguan situations since 2017. The United Nations Security Council, the General‐Secretary, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights have been particularly active on these issues. The positions of the selected institutions and their representatives were diverse, and sometimes contradictory, and the polarized contexts in which such declarations have been made emphasized diversity. Based on a sociological approach of international organizations, this article demonstrates that the United Nations as an actor is not a coherent and unique entity. To understand the difficulties the organization faces in dealing with the Venezuelan and Nicaraguan crises, it seems indispensable to go beyond the traditional dichotomy between states and institutions, and power politics. Indeed, institutions are plural—the United Nations through states is conservative and cautious, whereas the United Nations through the individuals and staff is more assertive and critical of the Venezuelan and Nicaraguan governments.

Latin American PolicyVolume 11, Issue 1 p. 165-174 Perspective The Persistent Crisis in Venezuela José Briceño-Ruiz, Corresponding Author bricenoruiz@hotmail.com Search for more papers by this author José Briceño-Ruiz, Corresponding Author bricenoruiz@hotmail.com Search for more papers by this author First published: 20 May 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/lamp.12183Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume11, Issue1May 2020Pages 165-174 RelatedInformation

This article provides insight into Mexico’s experience with network diplomacy by highlighting the role of the Directorate General for Liaison with Civil Society Organizations within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We take the Directorate as coordination central or a focal point for channeling specific interests on the part of civil‐society organizations to different areas within the ministry dealing with multilateral issues, which facilitates and keeps a track record of growing demands for inclusive diplomacy. Our research takes stock of legal–institutional provisions for the Directorate, and its outreach activities from 2012–2018; it includes a brief examination of its engagement with civil‐society organizations in the design of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. We find evidence of an evolution of network diplomacy in Mexico, and the intensification of the role of the Directorate. Meanwhile, the shift toward network diplomacy challenges more traditional understandings of Mexican diplomacy in a wider context of rapid change and proliferation of civil‐society organizations seeking to participate in global governance.

This article examines expulsions of U.S. diplomats from Latin America and the Caribbean between 1991 and 2016. Employing an original data set of expulsions of U.S. diplomatic personnel, the analysis focuses on the number of first‐mover expulsions—cases where the Latin American government was the first to expel a U.S. diplomat in a year. The models are estimated with pooled negative binomial regression with robust standard errors. The results suggest there were more first‐mover expulsions in countries governed by radical, populist‐left presidents. For the radical, populist Left, expulsions offered a low‐cost mechanism to pursue opposition to U.S. influence in Latin America while also giving executives an opportunity to strengthen ties to their electoral base. Results also show that presidential election years had a positive and significant effect. Prior retaliatory expulsions, alleged U.S. interference, other types of executive‐party control, and economic ties with the United States and China had no effect on expulsions. Oil exports to the United States were associated positively with higher expulsion counts, which we attribute to the unwillingness of radical populists—and of the United States—to escalate diplomatic tensions into wider economic conflicts.

Latin American Policy’s (LAMP) second volume for 2018, collects eight brilliant papers assessing current and potential public-policy challenges for Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) countries. Peter Ward and Robert Wilson set the scope of these challenges in the findings of their article. After interviewing 50 “key informants,” they map out some of the current problems afflicting the region and trace those that loom in the foreseeable future. Betsy Smith’s paper deals with one of the challenges that could potentially become more pressing—the failure of the institutions of the Organization of American States (OAS) to protect democratic systems throughout LAC countries. In this same vein, Victor Mijares’ contribution addresses the shortcomings of the South American Defense Council in launching regional-security policies that reflect the interests and concerns of its members. The remaining five articles included in this volume cover sensitive issues reflected currently in some key countries. Anthony Jordan and John Tuman analyze the political rationale of expulsions of U.S. diplomatic personnel from LACs, focusing especially on left-wing governments. Lorena Oyarzún-Serrano’s contribution highlights the role played by Chile in the Pacific Alliance, as a means to defend “open regionalism” at a time when Donald Trump is burying it. Wilfredo Flores’ paper deals with energy scenarios in Honduras after the putsch of 2009. José Antonio Hernández and David Argente, and Gabriela Muñoz and Marcela López-Vallejo make their respective contributions on Mexico. The first two authors analyze clientelistic practices and capacities, suggesting that capacities are important to understand the political success of these practices. The final two authors present a thought-provoking contribution suggesting the need to build a transregional governance architecture to integrate better the electricity market already operating between California and Baja California. We hope our growing readers will enjoy these eight contributions and find them inspiring. Isidro Morales is a researcher and professor in the School of Government and Public Transformation at the Tecnológico de Monterrey, and an external fellow of the Mexico Center at Rice University’s Baker Institute.

This article identifies the most likely public policy challenges and agenda items that policymakers will confront in Latin America 10 years from now. While many of today’s challenges will continue to be salient within the public‐policy agenda—the “known knowns”—our goal is to drill down and highlight the most likely sub‐issues and specific policy imperatives and challenges in the medium term (the “known unknowns”). Fifty intensive key informant interviews were conducted with senior and experienced individuals from a range of professional settings, including scholars and academics, agency directors, top think‐tank analysts, heads of non‐governmental organizations, public intellectuals, and senior board members. The article reports on unstructured, one‐on‐one “listening sessions” in which respondents have offered their views on the specific but thus far largely latent public policy issues that they anticipate will need to be addressed looking beyond the status quo ante.

In the past two decades, many Latin American countries incorporated direct‐democracy mechanisms (e.g. initiatives and referendums) into their constitutions. By expanding the room for citizens' political participation, direct democracy was meant to reduce the gap between citizens and government and create a more‐inclusive form of governing, but was it really the case? This article asks, to what extent can citizens use direct democracy to shape public policy in Latin America? It argues that constitutions in Latin America provide an ambiguous basis for the use of referendums and initiatives, which allows governments to shape and limit their use during the agenda‐setting stage. By specifying the limitations on the types of mechanisms used, the issues that cannot be decided via direct democracy, and the barriers to placing mechanisms on the ballot, governments can control the direct democracy process to a greater extent than has heretofore been acknowledged.