Missing Link in St. Andrews
Evo Morales, president of Bolivia, has recently sparked off a near civil-war with the rightist opposition, a result of his plans to alter Bolivian history by implementing a radical constitution designed to empower Bolivia’s indigenous majority. Hugo Chavez, boisterous president of oil-rich Venezuela has financially and politically boosted leftist governments across the region, adamantly pledging to hail in ‘socialism of the twenty-first century.’ The EZLN guerrilla army in Mexico has gained worldwide recognition for its demand for indigenous rights, while former Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega, long-time dissident of the US, has shocked many by emerging as the new Nicaraguan president. In short, Latin America has become a whirlwind of change and transformation, much of which has come to challenge the US’s supremacy in its own backyard.
Yet where can the enthralled observer go to find out more? It appears that the best bet is Wikipedia, given the black-hole of coverage available in the mainstream British media. Unfortunately, the intrigued St. Andrews International Relations (IR) student will also be forced to look elsewhere. Surprisingly, within the university department designed to teach world (emphasis added) politics, Latin America seems to have sunk into the Atlantic Ocean and vanished from the map. The logistics behind this decision become even more mysterious given the fact that it is quite possible for IR students to choose any other significant region-based module on the map. Political hotbeds such as the Middle East boast numerous available courses to students, while modules dedicated to Asia continue to expand. Even Africa has its own slot of importance, not to mention the staples of Europe and the USA. Yet when it comes to any sort of critical examination of the cacophony of Latin American voices, the IR department appears to have turned a deaf ear.
Is there a link between both the British media and the school of International Relations that could illuminate the cause behind the lack of acknowledgment granted to this forgotten region? Or, is it more likely that the University’s inability to take up the Latin American banner has been entirely the product of those age-old dampers: staff and funding. In order to address the roots of this problem, this journalist spoke with Dr. Alison Watson, head of the school of International Relations, and corresponded via email with Dr. Mark Imber, Director of Teaching.
When asked why Latin America failed to make the IR module handbook cut, Dr. Watson responded quite simply, “we don’t actually have the staff. We don’t have anybody on the staff with a particular expertise in Latin America.” She argued that the IR department did not in fact overtly decide to exclude Latin America from the curriculum, and instead the Latin American question was in reality more of a non-decision. “It’s not that we’ve taken a strategic decision not to have one,” said Dr. Watson, “it’s just not anything we’ve had staff come along to do… It’s interesting because say for example, before Professor Taylor came here we didn’t have African modules, so when he came it was very attractive for us to have those modules, for him to do them, and certainly if someone came along in the future appointments that had that Latin American focus then, yeah, we would have it. It’s not something that we’ve said we wouldn’t want.”
This would imply that the question could be open for debate at some future time, though it does not entirely explain why there has been a general disinterest in research in this area amongst the present IR staff members.
If Latin America is as interesting and politically vibrant as previously mentioned, then why has it not even scratched the surface of any current dialogue in the school of IR in terms of new appointments?
According to Dr. Imber, Latin America missed the boat due to the direction of development the department has taken. “From the earliest days in the 1980′s we made appointments in European and Middle Eastern politics, the first an obvious outgrowth of domestic and regional British interests, the latter as a zone of intense international conflict, at the top of the global agenda and with strong historical British interests and responsibilities,” he said. “We decided to concentrate on growth and excellence in these two areas, and to strategically/geographically ‘link’ them by appointments in the late 1990′s, on Eastern Europe, the (former USSR) and thus Central Asia… When in the early 2000′s we were licensed to make new appointments a clear preference was agreed to develop African and Asian competences, the latter including both Indian and Chinese foreign policies.”
It would seem than that while there are many factors influencing the Latin American question, it is apparent that the growth of the department has branched out from a focus on British national interests. Europe has obvious ties to the UK, as does it plausibly follow that research on the USSR and Asia could be expanded from this initial premise. Additionally, both the Middle East and Africa have been former British colonial enterprises. As Dr. Imber has said, “Latin America has long been acknowledged to be a minority interest in British diplomacy and scholarship for a very long time.”
The strategy of development as outlined by Dr. Imber can hardly be perceived as anything less than a logical and efficient approach toward the expansion of appointments over the years. Yet it does not excuse the fact that Latin America continues to be excluded from a department that maintains as its purpose the study of world politics.
Latin America seems to be the most obvious choice for the next point of expansion, yet this is not the most popular view. When Dr. Watson was asked whether she believed this topic had been overlooked by the department, she said, “It’s a difficult thing to explain, I think you’re assuming that at some point we’ve sat there and said we want this specialist or that specialist. We haven’t done that. We just always want the people that are best for the jobs, and it has happened that nobody that has applied has had that area interest.” Consequently, any possibility of developing a Latin America module in IR would have to spring from a popular interest in the subject in British academia. As Dr. Watson has said, “it’s possibly the case that in the academy as a whole there hasn’t been the interest in Latin America and that than has had a knock-on impact on who we recruit.”
So there it is. Latin America continues to be ignored because Britain simply does not care enough. This may be because as Dr Imber has said, there is an “absence of historical, Commonwealth, linguistic trading and foreign policy priorities.” Dr Imber has described the appointment strategy within the IR department as a university policy. “The St Andrews tradition is doing incremental moves properly with a cluster of staff rather than one-person appointments which are prone to falter with resignations/staff leaves and the professional isolation such solo work induces.” Unfortunately, the implication here is that if the IR department continues to base their module choices on their staff’s research interests, than its unlikely in the near future that a professor raised on British institutionalism will verge from the norm and delve into the study of a political area outside the box of British diplomacy.
So what do the students think? In the words of IR student Sofia Kerridge, “I’m actually in Venezuela right now and there’s so much going on I find it so aggravating that the IR department seems to think it’s irrelevant to the rest of the world!” Another student, Bettina Trueb has stated, “I’ve been annoyed about this for a long time but have resigned myself to wiggling my way around it by doing a Latin America-related dissertation couched in IPE terms and taking LatAm modules on my year abroad.” These were some of the responses to an informal poll that asked honours IR students whether they would be interested in a Latin American module. Some 20 students out of approximately 300 responded to the poll.
The students that did take the time to reply have displayed a deep enthusiasm for the possibility of adding a Latin American module, yet the numbers do not indicate an overwhelming demand. Moreover, student demand must also be complemented by research demand. “You have courses at the moment being taught where there is an obvious student demand for those.” said Dr. Watson. “Now, if the member of staff left that was teaching those courses, you would need to replace that person because you’ve got the demand there already. But I imagine the decision to go into Latin America would be made on the basis of a teaching demand as well as a research demand.” On top of this inhibitor, Dr. Watson has said, it also “depends if we would be able to get the funding.”
In light of these obstacles, what is to be done? Well if the International Relations department is to live up to its reputation it would be fitting for the school to pioneer this important subject area, despite its failure to pierce the heart of the British mainstream. The outlook may be hopeful in the future, as Dr. Watson has conceded that “the present situation is not the final one.” However, this line of thinking must at least require a definite student interest. While it is evident that student demand is not the only mitigating factor determining the possibility of opening up an IR module on Latin America, it is undoubtedly a valued aspect of the departments’ decisions. Essentially, it is up to the students to make their voices heard.
