The role and range of activities of ethnic interest groups in U.S. foreign policy has received relatively little scholarly attention, though in the wake of the Cold War analysis of their activities has increased. The case of the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) during the 1980s suggests, however, that ethnic interest group activity is not new and may be far more complex than our standard conceptualizations allow. We review the literature on the role of ethnic interest groups in U.S. foreign policy and assemble some common assumptions and arguments about their origins, roles and relations with the government, and the conditions that favor their success. Then we examine origins of CANF, its web of relationships with government even during the Cold War, and its role as a near co-executor of policy. We conclude by assessing what the CANF case suggests about standard views of the roles of at least some ethnic interest groups in the process of making U.S. foreign policy, including the need to see how the state may try to use and sponsor such groups to further its policy goals.The study of U.S. foreign policy, and foreign policy analysis more generally, has paid relatively little attention to the role and power of ethnic interest groups and the full range of their activities. Early studies showed these groups to have little influence, and the Cold War contributed to a foreign policymaking process that was largely dominated by the president. Interest group activity in foreign policy seemed relatively unimportant with a few notable exceptions. In the wake of the Cold War, though, scholars and journalists have begun to pay more attention to the activities of these groups in foreign and security policy. In an era when security threats are less pressing, when Congress is more engaged, and when the distinction between "foreign" and "domestic" politics is less clear, many have pointed to the increasing activism, if not always influence,

This paper analyses the role of Cuban Americans and Iraqi Americans as allies of like‐minded public officials in the marketing of contested foreign policies to the United States public. Each of these ethnic exile communities played a traditional lobbying role as would be expected of interest groups, but the argument here is that the interactive relationship between the ethnic interest groups and government officials in advocating policy is the more interesting development in these cases. While there are differences in the two cases, the similarities between marketing an embargo and an invasion suggest that foreign‐policy analysts may want to pay closer attention to the interactive relationship between exile communities and government officials in policy advocacy. I suggest in conclusion that we need to be wary of according defectors and exiles privileged positions in future foreign‐policy debates.

No abstract

No abstract

Among the contentious aspects of the debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was the effect that the trade agreement was likely to have on jobs and wages for workers in Mexico and the United States. Proponents of NAFTA noted that the outcomes would vary by economic sector, but they generally agreed that automobile workers in Mexico would benefit due to the infusion of new capital and greater access to the U.S. market. In this article, I argue that the case of Volkswagen workers in Puebla, Mexico, suggests a different outcome. Evidence is presented that during the period preparing for NAFTA and through the first 3 years of its application, Volkswagen workers' rights have been weakened and their wages reduced. Preliminary support is offeredfor a thesis of NAFTA-driven downward harmonization for workers on either side of the U.S.-Mexico border