Public Diplomacy and International Conflict Resolution: A Cautionary Case from Cold War South America

Christopher Darnton

doi:10.1093/fpa/orz003

Public Diplomacy and International Conflict Resolution: A Cautionary Case from Cold War South America

Darnton, Christopher 2020-01-01 00:00:00 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 Foreign Policy Analysis (2020) 16,1–20 Public Diplomacy and International Conﬂict Resolution: A Cautionary Case from Cold War South America CHRISTOPHER DARNTON Naval Postgraduate School Can public diplomacy help resolve protracted international conﬂicts? Both rationalist and constructivist traditions identify signiﬁcant domestic obstacles to international peacemaking. However, Robert Putnam’s con- cept of “reverberation” implies that diplomats can expand their adver- saries’ win-sets for cooperation by engaging foreign publics. This paper analyzes a most-likely case, with archival evidence: Argentine Ambassador Oscar Camilión’s unsuccessful quest for Argentine-Brazilian rapproche- ment in 1976–77. Although the two countries later overcame rivalry, public diplomacy contributed negligibly to this success: internal Argentine divi- sions created mixed messages toward Brazil, Brazilian leaders launched a competing public relations operation, and these two currents obstructed and nearly terminated Camilión’s mission. This case illuminates the para- doxes of Argentine foreign policymaking under military rule and offers a cautionary tale for scholars and practitioners of public diplomacy and conﬂict resolution. Can public diplomacy resolve international conﬂicts and, if so, under what condi- tions? How stable and signiﬁcant are the preferences of domestic political actors as an obstacle to international cooperation, and how amenable are they to persua- sion and mobilization? From rationalist arguments emphasizing costly signals to constructivist ones privileging symbolic gestures and reconciliation, international relations theories maintain that conﬂict resolution between rival countries requires diplomatic engagement to break the ice. Scholars have focused on such outreach primarily in state-to-state or leader-to-leader terms (Armstrong 1993; Kydd 2005; Kupchan 2010; Nincic 2011). However, to the extent that protracted conﬂicts are driven by perceptions, identity, ideology, anger, or mistrust (Haas 2005; Hassner 2009; Hopf 2012; Hall 2015), ofﬁcial diplomatic outreach to the opposing citizenry might be able to alter conﬂict outcomes by changing minds, whether through pro- paganda and persuasion aimed at concessions or by opening political space for con- ﬂict resolution (see Pratkanis 2009; Mor 2012). And if conﬂicts are rooted in the opposing interests of dominant domestic groups, then two-level bargaining models Christopher Darnton is an associate professor of national security affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School. He works on foreign policy decision-making and regional security in the Americas and is the author of Rivalry and Alliance Politics in Cold War Latin America (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014). For comments on previous drafts, he thanks David Mares and the anonymous reviewers; for interviews that catalyzed research on this case, he thanks Argentine and Brazilian diplomats, especially Oscar Camilión. The views in this article are those of the author and do not represent the position of the US Navy or any other government entity. A specialized literature on “Track Two” or citizen-to-citizen diplomacy largely bypasses the state, with mixed results (Kaye 2007; Fisher 2005). Darnton, Christopher (2020) Public Diplomacy and International Conﬂict Resolution: A Cautionary Case from Cold War South America. Foreign Policy Analysis, doi: 10.1093/isafpa/orz003 Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Studies Association 2019. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 2 Public Diplomacy and International Conﬂict Resolution (Schelling 1960, 19, 24–28, 202; Putnam 1988, 438–41, 444, 450–52) suggest that engagement with foreign publics could expand an opponent’s win-set (spectrum of politically acceptable negotiated outcomes) and enable cooperation. In short, pub- lic diplomacy offers a mechanism for achieving foreign policy breakthroughs and conﬂict resolution but one that has not yet been either theoretically articulated or empirically tested. The ﬁrst section of this paper elaborates the theoretical interface between pub- lic diplomacy and conﬂict resolution, deﬁnes core concepts, and outlines potential channels of diplomatic inﬂuence. Subsequent sections frame, analyze, and draw conclusions from a most-likely case: Argentine Ambassador Oscar Camilión’s efforts to build domestic support within Brazil for a peaceful resolution of the Argentine- Brazilian rivalry after the Argentine military coup of March 1976 and before formal negotiations with Brazil commenced in September 1977 over the protracted hydro- electric dispute that was the core issue in their regional rivalry. This should have been fertile ground for a public diplomat. A strategic rivalry between regional powers with similar regimes, ideologies, and alliance portfolios, and without an indivisible territorial dispute or recent bloodshed that could in- ﬂame nationalist passions and empower hardliners, provided powerful structural incentives to overcome rivalry and an opportunity for creative diplomacy to tip the scales for peacemaking. Moreover, rivalry was in fact overcome by the decade’s end, and Camilión (2000, 203–4, 208, 221) later claimed credit for his public diplomacy in resolving the conﬂict, presenting an opportunity for process tracing in a seem- ingly successful case. Camilión’s memoirs (2000) have become a standard source for scholars of Argentine-Brazilian relations during the Cold War, but the recent publication of several important oral history interviews with Camilión’s Brazilian counterparts allows researchers to cross-check his accounts. Additionally, I present new declassiﬁed evidence from the Argentine Foreign Ministry archives, including correspondence between Camilión and his superiors in Buenos Aires. These documents reveal that despite an apparently promising environment, Camilión’s efforts failed to produce state-to-state negotiations, let alone rapproche- ment, and, on at least two occasions, nearly cost him his job. I argue that public diplomacy failed not because the target (Brazilian) population was unreceptive but rather because political divisions within the home (Argentine) government created inconsistent messages and because Brazil eventually mobilized a public opinion counteroffensive. This case offers sobering grounds on which to rethink the do- mestic politics of international conﬂict resolution and the conditions for successful public diplomacy. Furthermore, unpacking Camilión’s predicament through primary sources helps to illuminate the paradoxes of foreign policy and national security decision- making under Argentine military rule. Known as the Process of National Reor- ganization (the Proceso, for short), the 1976–83 Argentine junta was vehemently anti-Communist yet traded with the Soviet Union and fought the Jimmy Carter ad- ministration’s human rights agenda. The regime was authoritarian but riven by in- terservice rivalries. It promoted neoliberal economic reforms to shrink the state, even as the state’s repressive apparatus proliferated. It cooperated enthusiastically with neighboring right-wing dictatorships against shared leftist enemies through Operation Condor, and it ultimately achieved rapprochement with Brazil in 1980. However, ideology proved no barrier to violent conﬂict, as the 1978 standoff with Chile over the Beagle Channel and the disastrous 1982 war with Britain over the Falklands/Malvinas demonstrate. Overall, Argentine foreign policy making under These archives are relatively untapped, particularly for the Cold War period (exceptions include Resende-Santos 2002; Darnton 2014, chapter 3); scholars frequently analyze Argentine-Brazilian relations through memoirs and inter- views (Oelsner 2005) or Brazilian archives (Moniz Bandeira 2003; Cervo 2001). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 CHRISTOPHER DARNTON 3 the Proceso is one of the great puzzles in international security both within and beyond the Americas. Conﬂict Ripeness and the Diplomacy of Icebreaking Public diplomacy consists of efforts by elements of one state’s foreign policy appara- tus to engage another country’s population rather than its government. Although societal outreach may have once been dismissed as “low politics” or viliﬁed as pro- paganda (and in either case, as beneath the dignity of professional diplomats), it is increasingly seen as a vital foreign policy tool. According to the US State Depart- ment, “The mission of American public diplomacy is to support the achievement of U.S. foreign policy goals and objectives, advance national interests, and enhance national security by informing and inﬂuencing foreign publics and by expanding and strengthening the relationship between the people and Government of the United States and citizens of the rest of the world” (State Department 2018). Prac- titioners and contemporary US foreign policy concerns have dominated the writ- ing on public diplomacy, and the subject is struggling to ﬁnd an academic home (see Gregory 2008). Scholarly studies of public diplomacy have primarily focused on the United States and other Western industrialized countries’ diffuse efforts re- garding branding and image-building among foreign populations (Chiozza 2009; Goldsmith and Horiuchi 2009; Hayden 2012; Hart 2013), usually emphasizing “soft power” (Nye 2004) and increasingly examining nongovernmental actors as foreign affairs protagonists, rather than states’ more focused lobbying initiatives to build support within the target country for speciﬁc policies (cf. Nye 2004,105–8;what Nancy Snow [2009, 6] calls “traditional” public diplomacy). This specialization is unfortunate because public diplomacy, both as a foreign policy practice and as a research program, has much to offer the ﬁeld of conﬂict resolution and because contemporary interstate conﬂicts often involve developing countries with different diplomatic traditions and objectives. In particular, public diplomacy might help counteract two sources of pessimism about the prospects for international peace and cooperation: domestic interests and state identities. In rationalist traditions, both sides of debates over domestic vetoes, audience costs, and foreign policy generally assume ﬁxed, exogenously given prefer- ences for each actor (Fearon 1994; Snyder and Borghard 2011). The consequences for international cooperation are stark, as Helen Milner (1997, 241, 251) explains: “actors’ interests are primordial,” and as such, “the assumption of polyarchy”—that is, that multiple domestic actors share power and can inﬂuence or veto foreign policies—“never makes cooperation more likely than it is in the anarchic game between two unitary states. The addition of domestic politics has negative conse- quences for international cooperation.” However, if preferences are sometimes en- dogenous to interaction (Gerber and Jackson 1993), then public diplomacy might be able to build domestic support within the target country for measures such as dispute resolution or economic integration. Therefore, domestic political dynam- ics might sometimes enhance, rather than obstruct, the likelihood of international cooperation. In constructivist approaches, as well, much hinges on how leaders and peoples actually change one another’s identities, narratives, role prescriptions (Malici and Walker 2017), and perceptions and whether they can do so intentionally, strategi- cally, as entrepreneurs (Keck and Sikkink 1998; Finnemore 2003) or whether, as Alexander Wendt argued (1999, 277–78), states can be tightly locked into a cultural Excellent English-language introductions include Romero 2004; Feitlowitz 1998. On relations with Brazil and Chile, see Resende-Santos 2002; Oelsner 2005. On relations with the United States, see Schmidli 2013; Sheinin 2006, chapter Six. On Operation Condor, see McSherry 2005; Kornbluh 2004. On Falklands/Malvinas, see Welch 2002; Levy and Vakili 1992. Work on ethnic lobbies (Mearsheimer and Walt 2007; de la Garza and Pachon 2000) offers a partial exception. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 4 Public Diplomacy and International Conﬂict Resolution or normative structure of Hobbesian conﬂict. Whether scholars view public diplo- mats as lobbyists trying to shift the preferences of a rational interlocutor (or his or her constituents) or as entrepreneurs seeking to transform the beliefs and desires of a socially embedded neighbor, diplomats’ ability to reshape international inter- actions through creative individual agency deserves new research (Copeland 2009; Sharp 2009). Two points from conﬂict resolution studies are particularly relevant for under- standing these diplomatic predicaments: ripeness and engagement. First, for rival countries to resolve their disputes and develop a new cooperative framework, they need to negotiate with each other, but ﬁrst they have to agree to come to the table at all, which can be the most difﬁcult step (Cohen 1997,45; Limbert 2009, 179, 193). Extensive scholarship emphasizes the structural factors underpinning “ripe moments” for conﬂict resolution attempts, including economic and military crises, policy failures, and compatible governing regimes in both countries (Rock 1989; Haass 1990). Much of this is driven by costs: as states acquire information about their worsening circumstances, they search for mutual rather than unilateral advan- tage. Thus, prenegotiation can help to minimize risk and cost, share information, and set the agenda. Second, when ripeness has almost but not quite emerged, there is a power- ful opportunity for individual agency to ﬁnish the job. Structural forces have in- determinate effects; leaders choose whether to react to crises with escalation or de-escalation, and their domestic and personal concerns inﬂuence those choices (Lebow 1997, 158, 163–74). Skillful leaders interested in negotiated conﬂict res- olution have several communicative tools, from exploiting personal relationships to creatively framing grand bargains (or, conversely, fractionating issues), to send- ing costly signals and making symbolic gestures that demonstrate their cooperative objectives (Armstrong 1993; Long and Brecke 2003; Kydd 2005; Kupchan 2010). Paradigmatic examples include Richard Nixon’s visit to China, Anwar Sadat’s to Is- rael, and West German Chancellor Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik. Even more powerful than signals or symbols to correct misperceptions, or framing to alter payoffs, lead- ers may be able to transform the other country’s interests and preferences (Nincic 2011). These efforts are politically fraught for national leaders, so the vital prelim- inary tasks of reaching out to a suspicious rival, establishing the possibility of ne- gotiations, and setting the agenda often fall to envoys. Ambassadors face the enor- mous political cross-pressures of having to satisfy both the home government and the host one, playing “two-level games” (Putnam 1988, 433), in which success may have more to do with structural conditions than with diplomatic skill, but tactical missteps might still scuttle the enterprise. Public diplomacy might be an attractive approach for these aspiring peacemakers. Robert Putnam’s (1988, 435–37) two-level games model depicts the difﬁculty an envoy faces in seeking an international agreement that is acceptable both to his or her foreign counterpart (Level I) and to a domestic audience back home (Level II, which Putnam primarily illustrates with congressional ratiﬁcation of a previously ne- gotiated treaty, although he recognizes that diplomats often have to play both games simultaneously rather than sequentially). Putnam (1988, 437) deﬁnes a “win-set” as “the setofall possibleLevel Iagreements thatwould ...gainthe necessary major- ity among the [Level II] constituents—when simply voted up or down.” Whereas a larger win-set increases the probability of reaching a cooperative agreement at Level I, a smaller win-set increases bargaining leverage and makes it more likely that if a Level I agreement is reached, it will align closely with one’s core preferences. For a country attempting to build interstate cooperation, it is advantageous for the other side to have as large a win-set as possible. This is where public diplomacy comes in. To bridge the unfortunate divide between international relations research on conﬂict resolution and on public diplomacy, analysts should revive Robert Put- nam’s concept of reverberation.As Putnam (1988, 454) observed, “governments do Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 CHRISTOPHER DARNTON 5 Figure 1 Inﬂuence and diplomacy in two-level games. Note: Depicts narrative descriptions of two-level games (Putnam 1988: 435–437), public diplomacy (Nye 2004: 105–108; Snow 2009: 6–8), and reverberation (Putnam 1988: 454– 455). seek to expand one another’s win-sets. Much ambassadorial activity” involves “seek- ing to relax domestic constraints that might otherwise prevent the administration from cooperating with their governments.” Public diplomacy is perfectly suited to this kind of outreach: engaging and conciliating the foreign public to build a pro- cooperation coalition expands the adversary’s win-set (Copeland 2009, 163). Not all public diplomacy efforts necessarily seek reverberation—they might achieve na- tional goals strictly by working with, within, or against foreign societal actors, rather than by leveraging those actors’ relations with their own government. Reverbera- tion, however, is a particularly important subset of public diplomacy, in which a state uses societal allies abroad to bring their government to the table or to empower that government to make particular concessions. (Figure 1 depicts the two-level game, public diplomacy, and reverberation.) Reverberation can also be thought of as the inverse of Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink’s (1998, 12–13) boomerang model of transnational activism. Both models involve coordination between Home Govern- ment and Target Society (in the terms of Figure 1) to press Target Government for concessions but with the direction of inﬂuence reversed: activists in Target Society recruit Home Government (via the activists’ connections in Home Society) to put “boomerang” pressure on Target Government. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 6 Public Diplomacy and International Conﬂict Resolution Reverberation received scholarly attention in studies of interstate negotiations shortly after Putnam’s article (Odell 1993; Snyder 1993). The most sustained analysis of this strategy demonstrates that it was an enduring hallmark of Soviet prenegotiation behavior on arms control (Grifﬁths 1989). Importantly for conﬂict resolution, reverberation was a critical component of Sadat’s concessions toward Israel and the successful negotiation of the Camp David accords (Stein 1993)and was later tantalizingly suggested as a possible source of rivalry termination elsewhere (Hensel 1999). However, it has largely (and unfortunately) vanished as a research agenda, even though the international relations discipline would seem well posi- tioned to revive it. After all, the two-level games concept is now canonical in studies of trade negotiations (Milner 1997; Silva 2007; Fernández de Castro and Leycegui 2015), and even political realists increasingly take a “neoclassical” approach in- corporating domestic political pressures and constraints on decisionmakers (Rose 1998; Ripsman et al. 2016). Reverberation, and two-level games more broadly, involves several dilemmas and paradoxes—for instance, just as leaders have incentives to expand their opponent’s win-set by building a pro-cooperation coalition within the opponent’s country, they also have incentives to reduce their own win-set by undermining pro-cooperation coalitions at home. This creates potential contradictions in foreign and domestic policy, and inconsistencies or weak popular support can undermine policy effective- ness (see Copeland 2009, 167). And international threats to build domestic support, signal preferences, and reduce one’s win-set invite reciprocity, create dangerous spirals, and undermine the potential for negotiated compromises (unless such threats raise the opponent’s relative costs of not negotiating, or induce a third party to intervene) (Mares 2001). Studies of public diplomacy and conﬂict resolution have much to offer one another, by exploring the practice and unintended conse- quences of reverberation. The Puzzling Intractability of Argentine-Brazilian Rivalry Can public diplomacy, through reverberation, help resolve international conﬂict? More concretely, among the population of protracted interstate rivalries, where might outreach to foreign publics succeed? Ideally, a public diplomat would like a situation of stasis that is open to creativity, where structural factors suggest a ripe climate but where hostility is not so severe that it calls for excessive heroism. Least-likely cases include territorial disputes, particularly those over sacred space; conﬂicts with recent or severe bloodshed, which lead to hostile identities, trauma, or narratives of victimhood; and mutual misperceptions (see Leng 2000; Hassner 2009). In such circumstances, unreciprocated cooperation can be politically fatal (Colaresi 2004) and apologies can lead to blowback at home (Lind 2008). Relatively nonviolent rivalries, particularly positional strategic rivalries (Colaresi, Rasler, and Thompson 2007) offer a set of most-likely cases. Regime type and alliance portfolio also affect the likelihood of cooperation: where a totalitarian North Korea, allied with China, faces off against a US-allied, democratic South Korea, public diplomacy faces tall odds. Similar regimes with a shared great power ally, however, offer more promising terrain for peacebuilding. The relationship between Argentina and Brazil in 1976–77 met all of these cri- teria. If public diplomacy can help resolve interstate conﬂicts, it should have suc- ceeded there. First, in contrast to neighboring rivalries, like those of Ecuador and Peru, Bolivia and Chile, or Argentina and Chile, the Argentine-Brazilian rivalry fo- cused on nonterritorial issues and had not endured a military clash for genera- tions. In the mid-1970s, the most sensitive dispute involved competing hydroelec- tric power projects on the Paraná River and its tributaries: Brazil was constructing a dam with Paraguay on their shared border, which would affect the availability of water downstream and potentially endanger the viability of Argentina’s proposed Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 CHRISTOPHER DARNTON 7 dam along its own border with Paraguay. Although the hydroelectric dispute pro- vided the main focus for debate and for the negotiations leading to rapprochement in 1979–80, Argentina and Brazil also competed in several other domains: for US favor, for regional inﬂuence and leadership, for military readiness under what their armed forces called the “hypothesis of conﬂict,” and for technological superior- ity and prestige regarding nuclear energy (Darnton 2014, chapter 3). As a result, the technical disagreements over turbines, dam heights, and the international le- gal treatment of waterways took on highly political signiﬁcance and stood in for an underlying relationship of strategic rivalry. However, none of these issues was indivisible or sacred; all were in principle negotiable and amenable to diplomatic overtures. Second, the two governments had several common features and interests. Both Argentina (after the 1976 coup) and Brazil were changing several policies to correct a pattern of failures, which should have contributed to ripeness for conﬂict resolu- tion. The Argentine junta set its central objectives as correcting civilian errors, rang- ing from economic crisis to political polarization to open insurgency. And in Brazil, the military regime initiated foreign policy shifts and domestic political “decom- pression” after the October 1973 oil shock, in recognition of cracks in the so-called “Brazilian miracle” of authoritarian development. Moreover, the two regimes had similar ideologies with respect to the Cold War and had a number of subregional cooperative and communications channels open, from the River Plate Basin diplo- matic summits after 1968 to the military and intelligence network of Operation Condor after 1974. Economic downturn, debt, and inﬂation by the decade’s end surely contributed to ripeness and rapprochement (Resende-Santos 2002; Oelsner 2005). And costs may have pushed Brazil to change its negotiating stance even be- fore this, with Brazil’s failure to coerce Argentina and to reward Paraguay sufﬁ- ciently, such that a unilateral approach bore signiﬁcant opportunity costs relative to regional negotiation (Soares de Lima 1986). However, the inability of both parties to agree to negotiate for nearly a year and a half after the Argentine coup, despite all of these incentives, needs further explanation. Finally, public diplomacy was actually attempted, and rivalry was eventually over- come, making this case particularly important for Latin American diplomatic his- tory as well as offering a valuable and apparently positive case for theory testing. Res- olution of the hydroelectric dispute in October 1979 paved the way for decades of political cooperation, economic integration, and strategic alliance. However, reach- ing an accord and even getting to the table took years of surprisingly difﬁcult and protracted diplomatic wrangling. These delays are particularly surprising because the protagonists were two anti-Communist military regimes with several common interests, including countering the perceived threat of leftist subversion. Initial Ar- gentine overtures to Brazil failed, and the road to the 1979 rapprochement featured intermittent stalemate and backsliding. Argentine Ambassador Oscar Camilión’s strategy of public diplomacy to outﬂank the obstructionist bureaucracy and engage potential supporters of Argentine-Brazilian cooperation unintentionally mobilized opposition in the foreign ministries of both countries and nearly led to his dis- missal. If structural factors incentivized cooperation, and if motivated agents tried to tip the scales further in that direction, why did prenegotiations drag out for over a year (to say nothing of the two years of negotiations that followed)? Why are some cooperative gestures self-defeating? The Perils of Public Diplomacy: Camilión in Brasília The Argentine junta that took power on March 24, 1976, faced two acute problems in foreign policy: the hydroelectric conﬂict with Brazil and a territorial dispute with Chile. To deal with Brazil, the junta appointed Oscar Camilión (a journalist and former diplomat who had pushed for Argentine-Brazilian cooperation in the early Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 8 Public Diplomacy and International Conﬂict Resolution 1960s) as ambassador. In his memoirs, Camilión recalls receiving “quadruple offer,” since the heads of each military service and the chief of the Higher Joint Staff sep- arately asked him to take up the post in Brasília; “It was a kind of message” that the military wanted the hydroelectric dispute resolved, telling him “in the most categor- ical manner: ‘You will have total freedom of action. You will determine the policy to follow in Brazil so that Argentina obtains a reasonable solution to the problem of the rivers’” (2000, 190). Camilión sought to “overcome all the anachronistic inher- itances of the past,” recognizing “no contradiction between the execution and ful- ﬁllment of the principal national objectives of Brazil and the principal objectives of Argentina” (2000, 197). Thus, Camilión explained, “my strategy upon taking charge of the embassy” was to “replant the Argentine-Brazilian relationship in the sense of the total advantage of an organic friendship between the countries” (2000, 197). In short, Camilión set out to forge a rapprochement and believed he had the domestic backing to do so. However, other accounts suggest that Camilión’s mandate was less ironclad. One of the few books drawing on interviews with Argentina’s president, General Jorge Videla, explains that he personally selected key ambassadors, while the Navy com- mander appointed an admiral, César Guzzetti, as foreign minister (Seoane and Muleiro 2001, 242). And an account using Brazilian Foreign Minister Azeredo da Silveira’s oral history and personal archive relates that Camilión’s nomination involved Videla holding a meeting “unprecedented in the annals of Argentine diplomacy” with three ex–foreign ministers (notably, not his current foreign min- ister, Guzzetti) and Camilión May 12, 1976, to work out a road to cooperation with Brazil, and the Foreign Ministry sent Camilión’s nomination to Brazil’s Min- istry of Foreign Relations the following day (Spektor 2001,161).Thisapparently established a dual mandate in foreign policy toward Brazil. Camilión politely re- calls that Guzzetti and his successor (yet another admiral), Oscar Antonio Montes, “did not create obstacles, but neither were they an engine in favor” of cooperation (Camilión 2000, 216). However, one review of Silveira’s oral history suggests a lin- gering suspicion that Camilión “did not have the unrestricted support of Buenos Aires” (because an ambassador, in Silveira’s own words, “does not have his own judgment. He follows instructions”) and concludes that the Brazilians essentially misperceived how much authority Camilión really had (Spektor 2001, 163). A key problem for Camilión’s initiatives would be not simply building Brazilian support for rapprochement but securing the uniﬁed support of his own government. Scholars know a good deal about the gap between Argentine and Brazilian posi- tions circa 1976 and about Camilión’s efforts to bridge this through public diplo- macy and reverberation. Brazil, and particularly Silveira, maintained that there was no dispute to resolve (while working to build its hydroelectric dam as a fait accom- pli) (Moniz Bandeira 2003, 423–24). Brazilian President Geisel related in an oral history interview that he extensively delegated foreign policy decision-making to Silveira, who handled relations with Argentina (the hydroelectric dispute takes up just two of Geisel’s 464 pages of interview transcripts) (D’Araujo and Castro 1997, 346–47, 359; Spektor 2010, 303–4). Silveira’s June 1976 farewell remarks to Camil- ión’s departing predecessor indicate Brazil’s position: the countries were expanding their commerce more than ever, so surely the bilateral relationship, already strong, would only improve (Resenha 1977a, 146). In contrast, Jornal do Brasil reported on the eve of Camilión’s arrival that he “defends a more direct understanding with the Brazilian Government,” especially on the hydroelectric issue (July 2, 1976, 2). Facing a uniﬁed Brazilian governmental refusal to negotiate, Camilión spear- headed an Argentine effort to outﬂank the Brazilian Foreign Ministry’s obstruction- ism and boost domestic support in Brazil for cooperation with Argentina—in other words, to use reverberation to expand Brazil’s win-set (Camilión 2000, 196, 200, My translation (as are all Spanish- or Portuguese-language sources except where noted). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 CHRISTOPHER DARNTON 9 215). This struck Silveira as exceedingly unprofessional, since “in diplomacy it is pre- cisely that which is not noticed that matters. Effectiveness has to be achieved with- out the excessive notoriety of the ambassador’s activities” (quoted in Spektor 2001, 163). The contest between Camilión and Silveira became an “intense battle in the area of communications media,” a “battle for public opinion” that escalated in 1977 and involved Silveira replacing his press advisor in order to match Camilión’s tactics (Camilión 2000, 198, 203). The replacement advisor, future foreign minister Luiz Felipe Palmeira Lampreia, recalled that Camilión’s willingness and ability to “work the Brazilian press” (primarily female reporters, Lampreia observed) was “driving Silveira crazy” (Lampreia 2010, 79). According to Camilión, the episode “is studied as a special case study” by the Brazilian Foreign Ministry and has been considered “the most difﬁcult negotiation that Brazil made in the twentieth century” (2000, 204). Did Camilión’s public diplomacy actually create a constituency for coopera- tion and expand Brazilian leaders’ win-set and why or why not? What has not yet been clariﬁed, and what new archival research can demonstrate, are the differences in position and worldview among Argentine decisionmakers and what impact these had on the ability of public diplomacy to achieve formal negoti- ations (i.e., Level I talks, in Putnam’s model). Argentine Foreign Ministry records from June and July 1976 reveal clearly divergent perspectives between Camilión and his superiors in Buenos Aires, not only regarding what each hoped to achieve with Brazil but also what they meant by a global view of the bilateral relationship. For the Foreign Ministry, the ultimate goal was to achieve particular Argentine interests on disputed issues; to achieve this, negotiations with Brazil were necessary, and to maximize negotiating leverage and get Brazil to the table, limited cooperative over- tures would be tactically useful. Thus, in June, the head of the Argentine Foreign Ministry’s Latin America Department recommended “reformulating our political strategy toward the neighboring country, not from a strictly bilateral standpoint, but from a global perspective, in the belief that everything that is executed from a universal-regional level will directly inﬂuence the Argentine-Brazilian connection” (AHCA 1976a). Thus, limited outreach to Brazil on less-conﬂictual issues would be instrumental: “The creation of a climate of conﬁdence in Argentine-Brazilian rela- tions or at least, not of generalized controversy, could make itself viable through joint treatment of issues that do not present greater difﬁculties, within the com- plex of matters to negotiate simultaneously and globally” (AHCA 1976a). Camil- ión’s appointment would help maximize Argentine interests: “The designation of a new Ambassador in Brasília opens a new negotiating stage,” although it is “nec- essary that our country ﬁrst deﬁne with clarity its objectives in order to strengthen its negotiating capacity,” while pursuing “the immediate objective of improving the current position of weakness . . . in which our country ﬁnds itself in relation to Brazil”; thus, having “[d]iscarded a policy of confrontation, limiting and counter- productive for our bilateral interests and for our global diplomatic action . . . a new dialogue” might be useful, “without giving up in the defense of our fundamental national interests” (AHCA 1976a). However, Camilión’s ﬁrst major report from Brasília emphasized friendship, con- versation, and engagement, rather than negotiation. Camilión noted that the bilat- eral relationship had tremendous press and that “in practically unanimous form, the tone of this material has been positive and in many cases, directly friendly.” As expected, Silveira, when Camilión presented his credentials, was “very cordial in personal terms but eluded in careful manner any reference either to issues between Brazil and Argentina or even to bilateral relations” (AHCA 1976b). Camilión pro- ceeded indirectly, which would characterize his operations for years, asking Silveira “about some things related to organizational aspects of” the Foreign Ministry, “an old vocation of the chancellor—and subsequently I shifted the conversation to the Argentine situation, over whose favorable evolution he expressed courteous hope” (AHCA 1976b). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 10 Public Diplomacy and International Conﬂict Resolution Camilión’s eagerness for cooperation, and readiness to detect Brazilian reci- procity, are clear in his discussion of meeting President Geisel. Because Geisel’s “austere condition . . . is known, as is his scarce propensity to exaggerations,” “the evident decision to emphasize the ceremony and to give it prestige should be noted as a political act” (AHCA 1976b). Geisel “was very cordial” and “ex- pressed in clear form his objective of closer relations with Argentina . . . He was clear also in the mention of those who work to create obstacles in the bi- lateral relationship and very direct in the suggestion that he would see it di- rectly each time that it was needed” (AHCA 1976b). Camilión outlined the “pro- posals of the Argentine government relative to the relations with Brazil” and underlined “the great national priority that in these moments the ﬁght against subversion represents,” to which Geisel “expressed his hope in a swift victory against terrorism and violence” (AHCA 1976b). The overall “climate of cor- diality has been promoted, in the ﬁrst place, by President Geisel himself and the [Foreign Ministry] has not dissented,” either in person or in the press, al- though “the basic attitude of the Brazilians is that of expectancy” (emphasis in orig- inal), due to perceptions that Argentina had not been a valid interlocutor and con- cerns “that the Argentine government could try to ‘manufacture’ a conﬂict with Brazil as a diversion operation, given our internal difﬁculties” (AHCA 1976b). Thus, Camilión planned to promote “a positive attitude that will improve the climate, reestablish conﬁdence, win adepts in the inﬂuential social circles, and neutralize the spokesmen of extreme positions, in particular those who have access to the press” (AHCA 1976b). He concluded that cooperation required “an objective and frank appreciation of the global reality of Argentina and Brazil, not always summed up within the viewpoint of their respective [foreign ministries]” (AHCA 1976b). Camilión and his superiors began with divergent assumptions, which boded poorly for effective diplomacy. A global perspective, for the Foreign Ministry, meant considering several linked issues, including some outside the bilateral relationship, to address through comprehensive negotiations. For Camilión, a global perspective meant transcending the foreign ministries, engaging the press and public opinion, and emphasizing a holistic bilateral relationship rather than a negotiated push for national advantage. As a result, when Camilión’s public diplomacy offended the Brazilian government, contributed to mixed messages about Argentine positions, or simply attracted intense press coverage, he needed to justify his activities—and his continued employment—to Buenos Aires. Only three days after Camilión’s tri- umphant July 13 report, he delivered an obsequious and defensive (if not actu- ally chastened) letter to Foreign Minister Guzzetti, explaining that his press con- ference “was equivalent to a sort of mortal leap over a narrow net. The meeting was incisive and full of dangerous questions”; moreover, Camilión says he was of- ten misquoted (the examples, if accurate, would certainly have upset the Argen- tine junta), but the press overall acted in “good faith” and as a “positive and con- structive stimulus ...onwhich the ﬁrst course of ourmanagementcan in good measure depend” (AHCA 1976c). Presumably this smoothed things over, since Camilión kept his job and even sought to expand his public outreach beyond the capital, informing Brazil’s Foreign Ministry of his “special interest” in ofﬁcially visiting Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo in August (AHCA 1976d). However, the diplomatic impasse continued until two-level tensions erupted more forcefully the following year. Meanwhile, in late 1976, the primary locus of prenegotiations shifted to the min- isterial and presidential levels, toward formal Level I channels rather than pub- lic diplomacy. Videla telegrammed Geisel in August as a goodwill gesture, sur- prising the Brazilian Foreign Ministry and giving a new impulse to bilateral con- versations (Memoria 1976,32; Resenha 1977b, 114). An apparent sign of progress came in December, with the River Plate Basin countries’ foreign ministers’ meet- ing in Brasília, at which Guzzetti and Silveira got along well (Resenha 1977c, 37–60; Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 CHRISTOPHER DARNTON 11 Memoria 1976, 32). Two major documents from mid-1977 recall this as a high point of prenegotiations that subsequently collapsed. A memorandum on Brazil policy by the new head of the Argentine Foreign Ministry’s Latin America Department brieﬂy noted Camilión’s arrival in Brazil but suggested that the foreign ministries authored the major diplomatic achievements of 1976; the December meeting in particular “laid the ‘bases’ to handle the existing problems with a new ‘tone,’ identi- fying themes of common interest that would universalize the connection and would avoid the particularized analysis of the pending issues” ((emphasis in original), AHCA n.d. a). Similarly, Foreign Minister Oscar Montes (who replaced Guzzetti in May 1977 after the latter was grievously wounded in an assassination attempt [Camilión 2000, 188]) reported to Videla that at the December meeting, “the bases of a new understanding between Argentina and Brazil were laid,” and when the chancellors met “for the ﬁrst time, the acceptance that problems existed regarding the exploitation of shared rivers was achieved, and it was agreed that it was necessary to overcome these through negotiated formulas,” which produced “a new climate . . . more propitious for the search for a concerted solution” (AHCA 1977a). Meanwhile, the Carter administration, inaugurated January 1977, unintention- ally catalyzed Argentine-Brazilian coordination by pressuring both countries over human rights abuses and nuclear programs; in March, Brazil canceled its mili- tary accords with the United States, symbolically rupturing a partnership dating to World War Two (Resenha 1978a, 93, 113; Veja 1977a). Camilión declared Argen- tine support for Brazil’s nuclear ambitions, exploiting the breach with the United States to promote Argentine-Brazilian rapprochement; however, he did so without instructions from Buenos Aires and was nearly ﬁred (Camilión 2000, 202–3). Pres- idential and ministerial efforts continued: in March 1977, Argentina proposed tri- lateral negotiations (Brazil did not respond immediately, although Paraguay ap- proved), and in April Geisel and Videla met separately with Paraguayan dictator Alfredo Stroessner to discuss hydroelectric issues (Memoria 1977, 40, 42, Jornal do Brasil, April 12, 1977). However, these overtures did not resolve the Argentine-Brazilian impasse, and Ar- gentine decisionmakers grew increasingly frustrated. One Foreign Ministry report criticized Brazil’s “attitude of systematic intransigence,” by which “the expectations” built by the December meeting were “gradually defrauded by a series of gestures or acts seemed intent on bringing the relationship back to levels more negative even than those reached since 1973”; Brazil apparently employed “a truly dilatory policy intended to dissemble the real objective: presenting consummated and ir- reversible deeds” through its dam construction (AHCA n.d. a). Likewise, Foreign Minister Montes observed that when Camilión sought an answer to the March note proposing trilateral talks, Silveira “showed himself opposed to trinational negoti- ations” and suggested only “secret bilateral conversations” but without explaining what these would entail (AHCA 1977a). If presidential and ministerial encounters could not deliver negotiations, then Argentine-Brazilian relations were back to where they had been when Camilión was appointed a year earlier. Once again, he must have found public diplomacy attrac- tive (despite setbacks in July 1976 and February 1977), since the Brazilian govern- ment seemed willing to yield the stage. In May, Geisel echoed Silveira’s traditional stance that media outreach leads people to “to confuse publicity with negotiations” (quoted by Spektor 2001, 163). Within the Brazilian Foreign Ministry, the attitude was that “diplomacy is not made with ﬂoodlights” (Lampreia 2010, 81). (For Camil- ión, of course, ﬂoodlights were the key to suasive reverberation and ultimately rap- prochement.) Two further press scandals—both involving leaks leading to mutual recriminations—apparently changed Silveira’s mind. First, Silveira’s infamous May “secret speech” to Brazil’s Senate Committee on Foreign Relations blamed Argentina for the lack of negotiation. The speech was hardly secret, since Silveira’s Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 12 Public Diplomacy and International Conﬂict Resolution testimony was announced in advance and summarized in detail (and brieﬂy quoted) in the next day’s papers (Jornal do Brasil, May 17, 1977, 5; May 18, 1977, 3). The speech’s release produced mixed congressional reactions (Resenha 1978b, 93–94) and newspaper editorials critical of Silveira, creating pressures (including among military leaders) for Geisel to ﬁre him. The Argentine Foreign Ministry expressed “the displeasure of our government” concerning the speech, both via Camilión in Brasília and to the Brazilian ambassador in Buenos Aires (AHCA 1977a). Second, in July, leaked Argentine-Brazilian communiqués in a Brazilian paper caused the Argentine Foreign Ministry to protest, deny responsibility, and warn that such an “anomalous act . . . should be analyzed with great thoroughness to avoid situations that lend themselves to any mal-intentioned interpretation . . . [T]exts of this nature should be published by common accord” (AHCA 1977b). After this, Brazil’s Foreign Ministry openly entered the lists, counteracting Camil- ion’s reverberation efforts with its own societal outreach to line up public support for the Brazilian government’s existing position, essentially minimizing its win-set to strengthen its negotiating position with Argentina. In July, Silveira switched press advisors and strategies (Jornal do Brasil, July 12, 1977, 3). The new spokesman, Luiz Felipe Lampreia, recalls that Silveira gave him “carte-blanche” to emulate and de- feat Camilión;Lampreiadecidedthat“what wasessential ...was to do what Camil- ión was doing, that is to say, it was to give information, it was even to expose oneself, it was to reason with the press, it was to try to capture them, right?” (Lampreia 2010, 79). Thus, two of Silveira’s deputies, future foreign ministers Lampreia and Ramiro Saraiva Guerreiro, argue in oral histories that Silveira defeated Camilión by adopting his tactics (Guerreiro 2010, 259–63; Lampreia 2010, 78–85). With the press campaigns at an impasse, both governments lurched toward ne- gotiations. The standoff symbolically peaked with the July 27 publication of Brazil’s leading newsweekly, Veja—the cover depicted Argentine and Brazilian ﬂags, mov- ing in opposite directions with giant arrows in the national colors. The headline, “Argentina-Brazil: The Disagreement” (o desencontro more literally means “the fail- ure to meet”) led to a cover story, “The Tough Search for Peace,” which con- cluded a decades-long summary of the bilateral dispute and of contemporary ac- cusations and frustrations by wryly observing, “At least in relation to one point, Brazilians and Argentines ﬁrmly agree—the necessity of keeping the channels of understanding open so that the ‘instrumental differences’ . . . are not converted into an undesirable political confrontation” (Veja 1977b). Silveira announced that Argentina would respond to a Brazilian note seeking negotiations, although Brazil maintained several preconditions (Jornal do Brasil, July 28, 1977, 14); the follow- ing day, Argentina proposed technical conversations on the hydroelectric dams (Resenha 1978c, 155). Camilión returned from Buenos Aires and, amazingly, of- fered no comment on the “reinitiation” of dialogue beyond calling it “extremely constructive” (Jornal do Brasil, August 1, 2). Lampreia announced that after Chan- cellors Silveira and Montes exchanged notes (through Brazil’s embassy in Ar- gentina), tripartite talks (including Paraguay) would occur, although the format, level, and preconditions had not been determined (Jornal do Brasil, August 2, 1977, 4). The Level I diplomatic channels, though frustratingly gradual and technical, seemed to bear more fruit than the mobilization of societal opinion through public diplomacy. The following week involved claims of victory and new risks of defeat. First, both diplomats managed to declare success and save face. Lampreia conﬁrmed that tri- partite negotiations were a Brazilian proposal that Argentina had accepted (Jornal do Brasil, August 3, 1977, 1, 4). However, because Argentina had proposed trilat- eral talks in May and Brazil rejected them, Camilión declared that Brazil’s decision to include Paraguay was a “positive attitude” and that Argentina had “always con- sidered a tripartite reunion valid” (Jornal do Brasil, August 4, 1977, 2). However, another batch of communiqués between Montes and Silveira appeared in the press, followed by Argentine accusations and Brazilian denials (Jornal do Brasil, August 6, Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 CHRISTOPHER DARNTON 13 1977, 1, 12–13, August 10, 1977, 2; Lampreia 2010, 79). Finally, on August 26, Brazil formally accepted Argentina’s proposal for technical tripartite conversations to be- gin in September in Paraguay (Resenha 1987c,155). Again, archival records between May and July 1977 suggest ongoing divisions among Argentine worldviews that complicated policymaking toward Brazil and un- dermined Camilión’s efforts to build a Brazilian constituency for rapprochement. In particular, Foreign Minister Montes’ discussion of motivations for Argentina’s out- reach to Brazil differed markedly from Camilión’s understanding. Where Montes had seen openness and concessions as tactical, to undermine Brazilian resistance to negotiations, using cooperative gestures to pave the way for accords conform- ing to Argentine positions, Camilión believed that Argentina’s goal was coopera- tion itself—that is, rapprochement. In June, Montes told Videla that Argentina’s “attitude, inclined toward dialogue and concord, helps place the Brazilian authori- ties in an uncomfortable situation against their public opinion and other sectors of power of that country, more favorable to the understanding with Argentina” (AHCA 1977a). Regarding Silveira’s speech, Argentina tried “to facilitate the adjustment of Brazilian foreign policy, without trying for the possible ‘containment’ of [Silveira] and his eventual removal, or adopting a policy of hardening that would make the re- turn to constructive channels difﬁcult” (AHCA 1977a). In contrast, Montes claimed that Silveira used “intransigent external postures to consolidate his personal situa- tion,” probably trying to push Argentina to adopt “a hard-line or confrontational position, which would justify the non-realization of negotiations”; reciprocally, “the constructive and ﬁrm attitude maintained by Argentina . . . weakens the position of [Silveira] against his public opinion and other sectors of power” (AHCA 1977a). Camilión, however, still believed public diplomacy and reverberation were essen- tial to resolving the dispute with Brazil. Since the 1976 coup, Camilión argued to Montes, “Argentina attempted . . . to replant its relationship with Brazil,” to “giv[e] those relations a positive character” since “the confrontation with Brazil did not re- spond to any national interest” and was “sterile” and “based on anachronistic crite- ria of regional supremacy” (AHCA 1977c). A paramount goal was “gaining allies in [Brazil] for the cause of an understanding with Argentina”; Camilión claimed that his “veritable strategy of indirect rapprochement” involved “an intense diplomatic action to appreciate the value of Argentina . . . and to persuade Brazil—beginning with groups of decisive inﬂuence—of the necessity of establishing a globally positive connection with our country” (AHCA 1977c). Public diplomacy was useful because “Usually countries understand one another through their social summits, and they mistrust one another in their bases. Between Argentines and Brazilians the opposite more truly occurs,” whereas at the government level Brazil’s Foreign Ministry “(at least Silveira) does not have interest in a global cooperative action with Argentina” (AHCA 1977c). As tensions peaked in July, Camilión’s objectives still varied starkly from those of the Argentine Foreign Ministry, with the former emphasizing the overall relation- ship and the latter seeking relative advantage. Camilión reported that the Brazilian military was uncomfortable with Silveira’s and the Foreign Ministry’s stonewalling Argentina and that “a high chief who occupies a charge of great weight in the mili- tary circles expressed to me his serious preoccupation with the state of the bilateral relationship. He directly put the responsibility on [the Foreign Ministry] for the stateofthings...Shortly,headded, ‘headswill roll’ ...there isno-one in the Armed Forces who wants anything but a good and growing positive relationship with Argentina” (AHCA 1977d). In contrast, the head of the Argentine Foreign Ministry’s Brazil Division argued that a transportation dispute, though minor compared to the hydroelectric issue, was politically important as an “indicator of the ﬁrmness with which the country is capable of confronting other negotiations—over transcendental issues” (emphasis in original) with Chile and Brazil, which sought “advantage from the eventual Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 14 Public Diplomacy and International Conﬂict Resolution disagreements” among Argentine decisionmakers; Argentina should “offer thus a united front to the task that, in inverse sense, the Embassies of those countries develop” (AHCA 1977e). Although the transportation issue hurt Argentine trade in the short run, “other negotiations . . . over which the image of ﬁrmness will reverberate—jeopardize the national economy (and even sovereignty over its own resources) with a signiﬁcance much greater than that” (AHCA 1977e). Conversely, press attacks on Silveira gave “an advantage in favor of Argentina that it should not fail to take advantage of,” while any economic risks to Argentina “award an interest- ing margin of negotiation against the current damages that Brazil suffers” (empha- sis in original; AHCA 1977e). An internal report after bilateral transportation talks in August reiterated this perspective, calling the meeting “a lucky trial by ﬁre for the negotiating capacity of both countries on the important issues”; reaching minor compromises on technical issues showed “that the will (especially Argentine) was to demonstrate the possibility of reaching satisfactory accords for both parties” on more important matters (AHCA n.d. b). Although Camilión’s efforts contributed to bilateral dialogue toward ofﬁcial ne- gotiations, this hardly signaled the end of rivalry. Tripartite talks began September 1977 in Paraguay (Resenha 1978d, 135). However, negotiated resolution of the hy- droelectric dispute, like getting to the table initially, required two tortuous years of backsliding, accusations of bad faith, and standoffs. The Argentine Foreign Min- istry’s annual report for 1977 struggled to offer a positive interpretation of the year’s bilateral events, claiming as accomplishments only “the continuation of dialogue . . . communication . . . [and] the information necessary to understand better the technical aspects of the respective projects” (Memoria 1977, 27). The following year’s summary (Memoria 1978, 23) begins with a terse sentence: “As in 1977.” Moreover, the contribution of public diplomacy to even this limited shift is dubi- ous. Camilión’s efforts were undermined by his superiors in Argentina and eventu- ally put in check by their Brazilian counterparts. Although Camilión recalled that in 1977 a Brazilian diplomat told him over a game of golf that “You’ve just won the battle of the press,” this should hardly be taken as deﬁnitive (2001, 203). Ironi- cally, Camilión, who had tried to improve relations rather than drive hard bargains, nearly fell victim to a goodwill gesture himself: Montes’ successor as Argentine For- eign Minister in 1978, Carlos Washington Pastor, offered Silveira Camilión’s head (according to Silveira: Spektor 2010, 247). Both Camilión and Silveira, who entered their positions intending to resolve the dispute for their own reasons, were unable to do so (Lampreia 2010). The hydroelectric treaty was signed by Silveira’s succes- sor, Ramiro Saraiva Guerreiro, and by Washington Pastor, who had largely sidelined Camilión. Reverberation Revisited During his mission in Brazil from 1976 to 1981, Argentine Ambassador Oscar Camil- ión faced a series of ironic dilemmas. He felt his assignment was to deliver rap- prochement, but the Argentine Foreign Ministry really wanted only limited cooper- ation with Brazil in order to gain leverage for competition in other areas. He tried to resolve disputes with Brazil over hydroelectric power, but the Brazilian Foreign Ministry refused to admit that there was anything to negotiate (a negotiating tactic in itself). And given bureaucratic resistance, he chose a public diplomacy strategy, appealing to the Brazilian public for support for a more cooperative bilateral rela- tionship, but he nearly lost his job several times over scandals in the press. Camil- ión sought what Robert Putnam (1988, 455) calls “suasive reverberation,” mobiliz- ing domestic societal pressure within Brazil to expand Brazil’s win-set for conﬂict Lampreia suggests that Camilión sought the Argentine presidency and Silveira wanted a feather in his diplomatic cap. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 CHRISTOPHER DARNTON 15 resolution with his home country of Argentina. However, this reverberation failed to materialize, and the conﬂict was later resolved through other channels. How should researchers assess Camilión’s impact on Brazilian opinion, and on speciﬁc governmental and societal actors? Ulimately, Camilión’s goal of bilateral rapprochement was achieved, and he subsequently served as Argentine foreign min- ister. However, the Brazilian allies he identiﬁed—particularly the armed forces and the general public—seemed already sympathetic to his cause (and responsive to evolving domestic and international circumstances), rather than yielding to his per- suasion. Camilión’s cables were determinedly optimistic, and his diplomatic out- reach was omnivorous (military and civilian, societal and governmental), but his strategy and progress reports remained opaque on leveraging speciﬁc engagements for actors’ policy support. Because archival sources and memoirs are purposive doc- uments (George and Bennett 2005, 101–8) that serve their authors’ interests, fre- quently claiming personal success and redirecting blame, scholars might expect public diplomats to take credit swiftly when any channels of inﬂuence bear fruit. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (for instance, future work should examine Brazilian archives), so some caution attends these ﬁndings, but Argen- tine records of Ambassador Camilión’s ﬁrst eighteen months in Brasília yield sur- prisingly little process-tracing indication of suasive reverberation. Camilión kept dialogue alive and deserves remembrance as an ardent promoter of Argentine- Brazilian rapprochement. However, he encountered great difﬁculty moving the levers of public diplomacy. This case suggests three main ﬁndings, and attendant directions for future re- search, about the conditions under which diplomats can appeal successfully to foreign publics to build a constituency for peace and cooperation. First, intragov- ernmental divisions complicate diplomatic signaling and the construction of over- lapping win-sets essential for international cooperation, even among authoritarian states. Building on studies of institutional variation within authoritarian regimes and their resulting conﬂict behavior (Weeks 2014) scholars might examine how those features affect bargaining, diplomacy, and peacemaking. Silveira’s secret testi- mony in May 1977 “afﬁrmed that the greatest difﬁculty for resolving the impasse on the Rio Paraná is Argentina deciding deﬁnitively what it wants” (Jornal do Brasil,May 18, 1977, 2). This was an old canard, and Camilión and his superiors found it out- dated and offensive; Montes wrote to Videla that such allegations “create a false and inconvenient image of duality with respect to [Argentine] position” and “favor the non-negotiating will of Brazil” (AHCA 1977a). However, Silveira’s accusation had some truth to it: different Argentine foreign policy actors knew what they wanted but wanted different things. Power struggles between Argentine military branches impacted the autonomy and direction of the civilian bureaucracy including the For- eign Ministry, which the press and foreign governments observed; these conditions proved perilous for public diplomacy. Brazil accurately recognized these Argentine schisms; in other Cold War relationships, though, such mixed signals could be mis- perceived as vacillation, hard bargaining, or irrationality. For instance, US leaders often saw anything but lockstep compliance by Latin American governments as a warning sign of communism, whereas greater attention to Latin American intragov- ernmental divisions and domestic politics could have been mutually beneﬁcial. Re- latedly, although Latin American leaders were often acutely aware of US domestic dynamics, Washington may not have appreciated how much its bureaucratic and executive-legislative divisions broadcast mixed signals across the Americas. Second, future work on public diplomacy should analyze not only facilitat- ing conditions but also active countermeasures. Brazil’s Foreign Ministry was ini- tially reluctant to enter a public relations competition that Camilión initiated but subsequently handled such efforts with aplomb. This suggests that the power to I thank an anonymous reviewer for emphasizing this point. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 16 Public Diplomacy and International Conﬂict Resolution minimize one’s own win-set may be greater than the power of one’s interlocutor to expand it. (In fact, Thomas Schelling’s discussion (1960, 28) of leaders engaging publics emphasized the constriction rather than expansion of win-sets.) This might comfort leaders, who are better positioned than their rivals to persuade their own constituents. Relatedly, studies of US public diplomacy and anti-Americanism may be undercounting public diplomacy’s success rate and potential, if the seeds of out- reach are uprooted by alarmed target governments rather than simply failing to take root in society. More broadly, international relations arguments about the power of domestic lobbying groups or public opinion over foreign policy (Reiter and Stam 2002; Mearsheimer and Walt 2007) should investigate governments’ ability to cre- ate offsetting pressure groups, either at home or abroad, and leaders’ capacity to reshape or escape from public opinion (Schuessler 2015). Third, studies of public diplomacy and two-level games could specify how principal-agent dynamics complicate diplomatic overtures (see Hutchings and Suri 2015, 15–16; Putnam 1988, 456). (In ﬁgure 1, this would disaggregate Home Gov- ernment to look at intrastate bargaining.) Putnam (1988, 431–36) carefully ad- dressed complexity in negotiation, discussing envoys rather than presidents as diplomatic actors, mentioning bureaucratic politics and conﬂicting preferences within central governments, and noting that negotiators face multiple constituen- cies rather than a single Level II game; however, his “stylized” treatment of Level II as “ratiﬁcation” (435), exempliﬁed by legislative approval of treaties, could mis- leadingly imply that ambassadors are the extension of uniﬁed executive leadership rather than agents in their own right. As the case of Oscar Camilión suggests, this simplifying assumption is problematic. Argentine archival documents indicate not only that Camilión was more committed to rapprochement with Brazil than his su- periors were but also that public diplomacy reﬂected his initiative rather than his instructions. To what extent were senior Argentine decision makers aware of, and intentionally wielding, the different perspective of their ambassador in Brazil? In the complex world of principal-agent relations, an ambassador might be most use- ful when given instructions that he is not meant to fulﬁll or leeway to experiment in ways that could later be disavowed. In Camilión’s case, it is difﬁcult to say whether the difference of views between embassy and ministry was intentional (which might explain why Camilión kept his job and subsequently became foreign minister) or incidental (which might explain the close scrutiny and feedback on Argentine po- sitions). All of this supports recent studies on the importance of governmental credibil- ity, consistency, and coordination (as well as the dangers of hypocrisy) in public diplomacy (see Cull 2012, 180–92; Seib 2009,240–41). However, it presents a more dispiriting conclusion for conﬂict resolution, suggesting that scholars now need to analyze what many diplomats already confront (very much at their own risk): a heav- ily circumscribed set of scope conditions for successful engagement with foreign public opinion. The beauty of reverberation, as a metaphor, is twofold: it attests to the diplomatic art of indirection rather than frontal engagement, but it also sug- gests that policy initiatives reﬂect in complex and unintended ways off of political actors and their environment. Reverberation matters, but it is difﬁcult to control and harder still to wield in the service of international peace. References Archivo Histórico de la Cancilleria Argentina (AHCA), Fondo 47 (América Latina 1950–1985). n.d. a (no date) a. Bulto 64, Box “Brasil 1975–77,” Binder “1975/76/77 Brasil relación política con Argentina I,” Tab “Trabajo S/ Brasil, Emb. [Federico] Barttfeld, Sec. López Pellegri, Sec. J[orge] Faurie,” Secreto, undated, signed Barttfeld, p. 15. AHCA. n.d. b. Bulto 24, Box “Brasil 1973 1975–76 Notas,” Binder “Brasil 1975–76 Memos,” Memoran- dum “Reunion especial de la Subcomisión de Transporte de CEBAC,” undated, p. 3. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 CHRISTOPHER DARNTON 17 AHCA. 1976a. Bulto 64, Box “Brasil 1975–77,” Binder “1976 Brasil Providencias,” Tab DGPE, Nota DAL 1752, Nereo Melo Ferrer to Dirección General de Política, June 2, 1976, p. 1. ——. 1976b. Bulto 65, Box “Brasil 1975–77,” Binder “1975/76/77 Brasil relación política con Argentina I,” Nota 691, Secreto, Camilión to Guzzetti, July 13, 1976, p. 12. ——. 1976c. Bulto 144, Box “Brasil 1977 Santa Cruz de la Sierra 1975,” Nota 716, Reservado, Camilión to Guzzetti, July 16, 1976, p. 2. ——. 1976d. Bulto 144, Box “Brasil 1977 Santa Cruz de la Sierra 1975,” Nota 137, Embassy in Brasília to Brazilian Foreign Ministry (Cerimonial), July 19, 1976, p. 1. ——. 1977a. Bulto 9, Box “Bolivia La Paz Parte 1,” Folder “Reseña del cumplimiento de la directiva presidencial R.I. 30/76 Referente a la compatibilización de las obras de Corpus e Itaipú,” Secreto, June 7, 1977, p. 15, plus cover letter (Nota 105 Secreto, Montes to Videla, June 9, 1977). ——. 1977b. Bulto 64, Box “Brasil 1975–77,” Binder “1975/76/77 Brasil relación política con Argentina I,” “Comunicado prensa dia 5/7/77 s/Notas Argentino y Brasileño,” p. 1. ——. 1977c. Bulto 64, Box “Brasil 1975–77,” Binder “1975/76/77 Brasil relación política con Argentina I,” Nota 583 Secreto, Camilión to Montes, June 22, 1977, p. 20. ——. 1977d. Bulto 64, Box “Brasil 1975–77,” Nota 652 Secreto, Camilión to Montes, July 7, 1977, p. 4. ——. 1977e. Bulto 24, Box “Brasil 1973 1975–76 Notas,” Binder “Brasil 1975–76 Memos,” Memoran- dum “Transporte internacional terrestre. Tema: Problemas suscitados con Brasil y Chile a raíz de la utilización del Túnel las Cuevas-Caracoles,” unsigned (ﬁrst typed initials JMF), July 11, 1977, p. 5. ARMSTRONG,TONY. 1993. Breaking the Ice: Rapprochement between East and West Germany, the United States and China, and Israel and Egypt. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace. CAMILIÓN,OSCAR. 2000. Memorias políticas: De Frondizi a Menem (1956–1996). Buenos Aires, Argentina: Planeta/Todo es Historia. CERVO,AMADO LUIZ. 2001. Relações internacionais da América Latina: Velhos e novos paradigmas.Brasília:FU- NAG/IPRI. CHIOZZA,GIACOMO. 2009. Anti-Americanism and the American World Order. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. COHEN,RAYMOND. 1997. Negotiating across Cultures: International Communication in an Interdependent World, revised ed. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace. COLARESI,MICHAEL. 2004. “When Doves Cry: Unreciprocated Cooperation and Leadership Tenure.” Amer- ican Journal of Political Science 48: 555–70. COLARESI,MICHAEL,KAREN RASLER, AND WILLIAM THOMPSON. 2007. Strategic Rivalries in World Politics: Space, Position and Escalation. New York: Cambridge University Press. COPELAND,DARYL. 2009. Guerrilla Diplomacy: Rethinking International Relations. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. CULL,NICHOLAS. 2012. The Decline and Fall of the United States Information Agency: American Public Diplomacy, 1989–2001. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. D’ARAUJO,MARICA CELINA, AND CELSO CASTRO,ORGS. 1997. Ernesto Geisel. Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Getúlio Vargas. DARNTON,CHRISTOPHER. 2014. Rivalry and Alliance Politics in Cold War Latin America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. DE LA GARZA,RODOLFO, AND HARRY PACHON, eds. 2000. Latinos and US Foreign Policy: Representing the “Home- land”? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleﬁeld. FEARON,JAMES. 1994. “Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes.” Ameri- can Political Science Review 88 (3): 577–92. FEITLOWITZ,MARGUERITE. 1998. A Lexicon of Terror: Argentina and the Legacies of Torture.New York:Oxford University Press. FERNÁNDEZ DE CASTRO,RAFAEL, AND BEATRIZ LEYCEGUI. 2015. “Economic Statecraft through the Use of Two- Level Games: Mexico’s Successful Diplomacy in NAFTA and the Paciﬁc Alliance.” In Foreign Policy Breakthroughs: Cases in Successful Diplomacy, edited by Robert Hutchings and Jeremi Suri. New York: Oxford University Press. FINNEMORE,MARTHA. 2003. The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. FISHER,RONALD, ed. 2005. Paving the Way: Contributions of Interactive Conﬂict Resolution to Peacemaking.Lan- ham, MD: Lexington Books. GEORGE,ALEXANDER, AND ANDREW BENNETT. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. GERBER,ELISABETH, AND JOHN JACKSON. 1993. “Endogenous Preferences and the Study of Institutions.” Amer- ican Political Science Review 87 (3): 639–56. GOLDSMITH,BENJAMIN, AND YUSAKU HORIUCHI. 2009. “Spinning the Globe? US Public Diplomacy and Foreign Public Opinion.” Journal of Politics 71 (3): 863–75. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 18 Public Diplomacy and International Conﬂict Resolution GREGORY,BRUCE. 2008. “Public Diplomacy: Sunrise of an Academic Field.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616: 274–90. GRIFFITHS,FRANKLYN. 1989. “The Soviet Experience of Arms Control.” International Journal 44 (2): 304–64. GUERREIRO,RAMIRO SARAIVA. 2010. Ramiro Saraiva Guerreiro (depoimento, 1985). Rio de Janeiro: CPDOC. HAAS,MARK. 2005. The Ideological Origins of Great Power Politics, 1789–1989. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. HAASS,RICHARD. 1990. Conﬂicts Unending: The United States and Regional Disputes.New Haven,CT:Yale University Press. HALL,TODD. 2015. Emotional Diplomacy: Ofﬁcial Emotion on the World Stage. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. HART,JUSTIN. 2013. Empire of Ideas: The Origins of Public Diplomacy and the Transformation of US Foreign Policy. New York: Oxford University Press. HASSNER,RON. 2009. War on Sacred Grounds. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. HAYDEN,CRAIG. 2012. The Rhetoric of Soft Power: Public Diplomacy in Global Contexts. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. HENSEL,PAUL. 1999. “Domestic Politics and Interstate Rivalry: An Empirical Analysis.” Presented at Amer- ican Political Science Association, Atlanta. HOPF,TED. 2012. Reconstructing the Cold War: The Early Years, 1945–1958. New York: Oxford University Press. HUTCHINGS,ROBERT, AND JEREMI SURI. 2015. “Introduction.” In Foreign Policy Breakthroughs: Cases in Successful Diplomacy, edited by Robert Hutchings and Jeremi Suri, New York: Oxford University Press. Jornal Do Brasil. Selected issues 1976–1977 (daily). Rio de Janeiro. Via Google News, https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=0qX8s2k1IRwC&dat=19920614&b_mode=2. KAYE,DALIA DASSA. 2007. Talking to the Enemy: Track Two Diplomacy in the Middle East and South Asia. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. KECK,MARGARET, AND KATHRYN SIKKINK. 1998. Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Poli- tics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. KORNBLUH,PETER. 2004. The Pinochet File: A Declassiﬁed Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability.New York:The New Press. KUPCHAN,CHARLES. 2010. How Enemies Become Friends: The Sources of Stable Peace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. KYDD,ANDREW. 2005. Trust and Mistrust in International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. LAMPREIA,LUIZ FELIPE. 2010. Luiz Felipe Lampreia (depoimento, 2008). Rio de Janeiro: CPDOC. LEBOW,RICHARD NED. 1997. “Transitions and Transformations: Building International Cooperation.” Secu- rity Studies 6: 154–79. LENG,RUSSELL. 2000. Bargaining and Learning in Recurring Crises: The Soviet-American, Egyptian-Israeli, and Indo-Pakistani Rivalries. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. LEVY,JACK, AND LILY VAKILI. 1992. “Diversionary Action by Authoritarian Regimes: Argentina in the Falk- lands/Malvinas Case.” In The Internationalization of Communal Strife, edited by Manus Midlarsky, Lon- don: Routledge. LIMBERT,JOHN. 2009. Negotiating with Iran: Wrestling the Ghosts of History. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace. LIND,JENNIFER. 2008. Sorry States: Apologies in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. LONG,WILLIAM, AND PETER BRECKE. 2003. War and Reconciliation: Reason and Emotion in Conﬂict Resolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. MALICI,AKAN, AND STEPHEN G. WALKER. 2017. Role Theory and Role Conﬂict in US-Iran Relations: Enemies of Our Own Making. New York: Routledge. MARES,DAVID. 2001. Violent Peace: Militarized Interstate Bargaining in Latin America. New York: Columbia University Press. MCSHERRY,J.PATRICE. 2005. Predatory States: Operation Condor and Covert War in Latin America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleﬁeld. MEARSHEIMER,JOHN, AND STEPHEN WALT. 2007. The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. MEMORIA DE LA CANCILLERIA ARGENTINA. 1976. Buenos Aires. ——. 1977. Buenos Aires. ——. 1978. Buenos Aires. MILNER,HELEN. 1997. Interests, Institutions, and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. MONIZ BANDEIRA,LUIZ ALBERTO. 2003. Conﬂito e Integração na América do Sul: Brasil, Argentina e Estados Unidos (Da Tríplice Aliança ao Mercosul), 1870–2003, 2nd ed. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Revan. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 CHRISTOPHER DARNTON 19 MOR,BEN. 2012. “Credibility Talk in Public Diplomacy.” Review of International Studies 38 (1): 393–422. NINCIC,MIROSLAV. 2011. The Logic of Positive Engagement. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. NYE,JOSEPH. 2004. Soft Power. New York: PublicAffairs. ODELL,JOHN. 1993. “International Threats and Internal Politics: Brazil, the European Community, and the United States, 1985–1987.” in Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics, eds Peter Evans, Harold Jacobson and Robert Putnam. Berkeley: University of California Press. OELSNER,ANDREA. 2005. International Relations in Latin America: Peace and Security in the Southern Cone.New York: Routledge. PRATKANIS,ANTHONY. 2009. “Public Diplomacy in International Conﬂicts: A Social Inﬂuence Analysis.” In Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, edited by Nancy Snow and Philip Taylor. New York: Routledge. PUTNAM,ROBERT. 1988. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games.” International Organization 42 (3): 427–60. REITER,DAN, AND AND ALLAN STAM. 2002. Democracies at War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. RESENDE-SANTOS,JOÃO. 2002. “The Origins of Security Cooperation in the Southern Cone.” Latin American Politics and Society 44 (4): 89–126. RESENHA DE POLÍTICA EXTERIOR DO BRASIL. 1977a. No. 9 (April-May-June). Brazil, Ministry of Foreign Rela- tions. ——. 1977b. No. 10 (July-August-September). Brazil, Ministry of Foreign Relations. ——. 1977c. No. 11 (October-November-December). Brazil, Ministry of Foreign Relations. ——. 1978a. No. 12 (January-February-March). Brazil, Ministry of Foreign Relations. ——. 1978b. No. 13 (April-May-June). Brazil, Ministry of Foreign Relations. ——. 1978c. No. 14 (July-August-September). Brazil, Ministry of Foreign Relations. ——. 1978d. No. 15 (October-November-December). Brazil, Ministry of Foreign Relations. RIPSMAN,NORRIN,JEFFREY TALIAFERRO, AND STEVEN LOBELL. 2016. Neoclassical Realist Theory of International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press. ROCK,STEPHEN. 1989. Why Peace Breaks Out: Great Power Rapprochement in Historical Perspective. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ROMERO,JORGE LUIS. 2004. A History of Argentina in the Twentieth Century, Trans. James Brennan. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. ROSE,GIDEON. 1998. “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy.” World Politics 51: 144–72. SCHELLING,THOMAS. 1960. The Strategy of Conﬂict. New York: Oxford University Press. SCHMIDLI,WILLIAM MICHAEL. 2013. The Fate of Freedom Elsewhere: Human Rights and US Cold War Policy toward Argentina. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. SCHUESSLER,JOHN. 2015. Deceit on the Road to War: Presidents, Politics, and American Democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. SEIB,PHILIP. 2009. “Conclusion: The Task for Policy Makers.” In Toward a New Public Diplomacy: Redirecting US Foreign Policy, edited by Philip Seib. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. SEOANE,MARIA, AND VICENTE MULEIRO. 2001. El dictador: La historia secreta y pública de Jorge Rafael Videla,3d edition. Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamericana. SHARP,PAUL. 2009. Diplomatic Theory of International Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press. SHEININ,DAVID M. K. 2006. Argentina and the United States: An Alliance Contained. Athens: University of Georgia Press. SILVA,LAURA CRISTINA. 2007. “El proceso de negociación del TLC entre Colombia y Estados Unidos.” Colombia Internacional 65: 112–33. SNOW,NANCY. 2009. “Rethinking Public Diplomacy.” In Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy,editedby Nancy Snow and Philip Taylor. New York: Routledge. SNYDER,JACK. 1993. “East-West Bargaining over Germany: The Search for Synergy in a Two-Level Game.” In Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics, edited by Peter Evans, Harold Jacobson and Robert Putnam, Berkeley: University of California Press. SNYDER,JACK, AND ERICA BORGHARD. 2011. “The Cost of Empty Threats: A Penny, Not a Pound.” American Political Science Review 105: 437–56. SOARES DE LIMA,MARIA REGINA. 1986. The Political Economy of Brazilian Foreign Policy: Nuclear Energy, Trade, and Itaipú. PhD diss., Vanderbilt University. SPEKTOR,MATIAS. 2001. “O Mundo de Oscar Camilión.” Cena Internacional 3: 153–72. SPEKTOR,MATIAS, ORG. 2010. Azeredo da Silveira: Um depoimento. Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Getúlio Vargas. State Department. 2018. “Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.” Accessed January 12, 2018. https://www.state.gov/r/. STEIN,JANICE GROSS. 1993. “The Political Economy of Security Agreements: The Linked Costs of Failure at Camp David.” In Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics, edited by Peter Evans, Harold Jacobson and Robert Putnam. Berkeley: University of California Press. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 20 Public Diplomacy and International Conﬂict Resolution VEJA. 1977a. São Paulo, Brazil. March 16, 1977. ——. 1977b. São Paulo, Brazil. July 27, 1977. WEEKS,JESSICA. 2014. Dictators at War and Peace. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. WELCH,DAVID. 2002. “Culture and Emotion as Obstacles to Good Judgment: The Case of Argentina’s Invasion of the Falklands/Malvinas.” In Good Judgment in Foreign Policy: Theory and Application,edited by Stanley A. Renshon and Deborah Welch Larson, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleﬁeld. WENDT,ALEXANDER. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Foreign Policy Analysis Oxford University Press http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/public-diplomacy-and-international-conflict-resolution-a-cautionary-Pz7ZpxyGNk

Loading next page...

References (81)

Russell Leng (2000)
Bargaining and Learning in Recurring Crises: The Soviet-American, Egyptian-Israeli, and Indo-Pakistani Rivalries
Elisabeth Gerber, John Jackson (1993)
Endogenous Preferences and the Study of Institutions
American Political Science Review, 87
Tony Armstrong (1993)
Breaking the ice : rapprochement between East and West Germany, the United States and China, and Israel and Egypt
John Spanier, R. Haass (1990)
Conflicts Unending: The United States and Regional Disputes.
Political Science Quarterly, 105
M. Nincic (2011)
The Logic of Positive Engagement
Philip Seib (2009)
Conclusion: The Task for Policy Makers
M. Midlarsky (2014)
DIVERSIONARY ACTION BY AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES: ARGENTINA IN THE FALKLANDS/MALVINAS CASE
Laura Silva (2007)
EL PROCESO DE NEGOCIACIÓN DEL TLC: entre Colombia y Estados Unidos
Colombia Internacional
Andrea Oelsner (2013)
International Relations in Latin America: Peace and Security in the Southern Cone
G. Chiozza (2009)
Anti-Americanism and the American World Order
Óscar Camilion, Guillermo Gasió, Camila Charvay (2000)
Memorias políticas : de Frondizi a Menem, 1956-1996
Justin Hart (2013)
Empire of Ideas: The Origins of Public Diplomacy and the Transformation of U. S. Foreign Policy
Rafael Castro, Beatriz Leycegui (2015)
Economic Statecraft through the Use of Two-Level Games
John Limbert (2009)
Negotiating with Iran: Wrestling the Ghosts of History
R. Lebow (1997)
Transitions and transformations: Building international cooperation
Security Studies, 6
Todd Hall (2015)
Emotional Diplomacy: Official Emotion on the International Stage
(2002)
Culture and Emotion as Obstacles to Good Judgment: The Case of Argentina's Invasion of the Falklands/Malvinas
Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs
T. Hopf (2012)
Reconstructing the Cold War: The Early Years, 1945-1958
Matias Spektor (2001)
O Mundo de Oscar Camilión
K. Maxwell, L. Romero, J. Brennan (2002)
A History of Argentina in the Twentieth Century
(2009)
Diplomatic Theory of International Relations
R. Putnam (1988)
Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games
International Organization, 42
Copeland (2009)
10.1515/9781685856793
A. George, A. Bennett (2005)
Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences
John Odell (1993)
8. International Threats and Internal Politics: Brazil, the European Community, and the United States, 1985-1987
A. Rapoport, T. Schelling (1961)
The Strategy of Conflict.
Journal of the American Statistical Association, 56
Jennifer Lind (2008)
Sorry States: Apologies in International Politics
Francesca Polletta, M. Keck, Kathryn Sikkink (1998)
Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics
Contemporary Sociology, 28
Haass (1990)
10.12987/9780300241884
Darnton (2014)
10.1353/book.31451
Jessica Weeks (2014)
Dictators at War and Peace
Ron Hassner (2009)
War on Sacred Grounds
João Resende-Santos (2002)
The Origins of Security Cooperation in the Southern Cone
Latin American Politics and Society, 44
Benjamin Goldsmith, Y. Horiuchi (2009)
Spinning the Globe? U.S. Public Diplomacy and Foreign Public Opinion
The Journal of Politics, 71
A. Pratkanis (2008)
Public Diplomacy in International Conﬂicts: A Social Inﬂuence Analysis
J. Yen (2004)
Introduction
Commun. ACM, 47
J. Fearon (1994)
Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes
American Political Science Review, 88
W. Long, Peter Brecke (2002)
War and Reconciliation: Reason and Emotion in Conflict Resolution
Marguerite Feitlowitz (1998)
A lexicon of terror : Argentina and the legacies of torture
Foreign Affairs, 77
D. Kaye (2007)
Talking to the Enemy: Track Two Diplomacy in the Middle East and South Asia
H. Milner (2020)
Interests, Institutions, and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relations
M. Finnemore, Randall Schweller (2004)
The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force
International Journal, 59
(1993)
East-West Bargaining over Germany: The Search for Synergy in a Two-Level Game
(1999)
Domestic Politics and Interstate Rivalry: An Empirical Analysis
M. Lima (1986)
Political Economy of Brazilian foreign policy: nuclear energy, trade, and Itaipu
Mark Haas (2005)
The Ideological Origins of Great Power Politics, 1789–1989
D. Sheinin (2006)
Argentina and the United States: An Alliance Contained
F. Griffiths (1989)
The Soviet Experience of Arms Control
International Journal, 44
Hopf (2012)
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199858484.001.0001
Bruce Gregory (2008)
Public Diplomacy: Sunrise of an Academic Field
The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616
Andrew Kydd (2018)
Trust and Mistrust in International Relations
J. Stein (1993)
3. The Political Economy of Security Agreements: The Linked Costs of Failure at Camp David
J. Schuessler (2015)
Deceit on the Road to War: Presidents, Politics, and American Democracy
R. Garza, H. Pachon (2000)
Latinos and U.S. Foreign Policy: Representing the 'Homeland?'
Alexander Wendt (1999)
Social Theory of International Politics
D. Copeland (2009)
Guerrilla Diplomacy: Rethinking International Relations
Michael Colaresi (2004)
When Doves Cry: International Rivalry, Unreciprocated Cooperation, and Leadership Turnover
American Journal of Political Science, 48
Peter Kornbluh (2003)
The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability
Nancy Snow (2008)
Rethinking Public Diplomacy
Alexander Wendt (1999)
Social Theory of International Politics: Frontmatter
Christopher Darnton (2014)
Rivalry and Alliance Politics in Cold War Latin America
Sharp (2009)
10.1017/CBO9780511805196
W. Schmidli (2013)
The Fate of Freedom Elsewhere: Human Rights and U.S. Cold War Policy toward Argentina
Jack Snyder, Erica Borghard (2011)
The Cost of Empty Threats: A Penny, Not a Pound
American Political Science Review, 105
R. Fisher (2005)
Paving the way : contributions of interactive conflict resolution to peacemaking
Hutchings (2015)
Introduction
Gideon Rose (1998)
Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy
World Politics, 51
Robert Dallek, Stephen Rock (1990)
Why Peace Breaks out: Great Power Rapprochement in Historical Perspective
Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 21
María Seoane, Vicente Muleiro (2002)
El dictador : la historia secreta y pública de Jorge Rafael Videla
Vingtieme Siecle-revue D Histoire
Ben Mor (2011)
Credibility talk in public diplomacy
Review of International Studies, 38
Donald Abelson (1997)
Negotiating Across Cultures: International Communication in an Interdependent World
The Journal of Asian Studies, 57
D. Mares (2001)
Violent Peace: Militarized Interstate Bargaining in Latin America
Nicholas Cull (2012)
The Decline and Fall of the United States Information Agency
Kydd (2005)
10.1515/9780691188515
Nicholas Cull (2012)
The Decline and Fall of the United States Information Agency: American Public Diplomacy, 1989-2001
C. Kupchan (2010)
How Enemies Become Friends: The Sources of Stable Peace
J. Mearsheimer, S. Walt (2006)
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
John F. Kennedy School of Government Faculty Research Working Paper Series
J. Mcsherry (2005)
Predatory States: Operation Condor and Covert War in Latin America
P. Sharp (2009)
Diplomatic Theory of International Relations: Traditions of international thought and the disappointments of diplomacy
Dan Reiter, A. Stam (2002)
Democracies at War

Publisher: Oxford University Press
Copyright: Copyright © 2022 International Studies Association
ISSN: 1743-8586
eISSN: 1743-8594
DOI: 10.1093/fpa/orz003
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 Foreign Policy Analysis (2020) 16,1–20 Public Diplomacy and International Conﬂict Resolution: A Cautionary Case from Cold War South America CHRISTOPHER DARNTON Naval Postgraduate School Can public diplomacy help resolve protracted international conﬂicts? Both rationalist and constructivist traditions identify signiﬁcant domestic obstacles to international peacemaking. However, Robert Putnam’s con- cept of “reverberation” implies that diplomats can expand their adver- saries’ win-sets for cooperation by engaging foreign publics. This paper analyzes a most-likely case, with archival evidence: Argentine Ambassador Oscar Camilión’s unsuccessful quest for Argentine-Brazilian rapproche- ment in 1976–77. Although the two countries later overcame rivalry, public diplomacy contributed negligibly to this success: internal Argentine divi- sions created mixed messages toward Brazil, Brazilian leaders launched a competing public relations operation, and these two currents obstructed and nearly terminated Camilión’s mission. This case illuminates the para- doxes of Argentine foreign policymaking under military rule and offers a cautionary tale for scholars and practitioners of public diplomacy and conﬂict resolution. Can public diplomacy resolve international conﬂicts and, if so, under what condi- tions? How stable and signiﬁcant are the preferences of domestic political actors as an obstacle to international cooperation, and how amenable are they to persua- sion and mobilization? From rationalist arguments emphasizing costly signals to constructivist ones privileging symbolic gestures and reconciliation, international relations theories maintain that conﬂict resolution between rival countries requires diplomatic engagement to break the ice. Scholars have focused on such outreach primarily in state-to-state or leader-to-leader terms (Armstrong 1993; Kydd 2005; Kupchan 2010; Nincic 2011). However, to the extent that protracted conﬂicts are driven by perceptions, identity, ideology, anger, or mistrust (Haas 2005; Hassner 2009; Hopf 2012; Hall 2015), ofﬁcial diplomatic outreach to the opposing citizenry might be able to alter conﬂict outcomes by changing minds, whether through pro- paganda and persuasion aimed at concessions or by opening political space for con- ﬂict resolution (see Pratkanis 2009; Mor 2012). And if conﬂicts are rooted in the opposing interests of dominant domestic groups, then two-level bargaining models Christopher Darnton is an associate professor of national security affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School. He works on foreign policy decision-making and regional security in the Americas and is the author of Rivalry and Alliance Politics in Cold War Latin America (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014). For comments on previous drafts, he thanks David Mares and the anonymous reviewers; for interviews that catalyzed research on this case, he thanks Argentine and Brazilian diplomats, especially Oscar Camilión. The views in this article are those of the author and do not represent the position of the US Navy or any other government entity. A specialized literature on “Track Two” or citizen-to-citizen diplomacy largely bypasses the state, with mixed results (Kaye 2007; Fisher 2005). Darnton, Christopher (2020) Public Diplomacy and International Conﬂict Resolution: A Cautionary Case from Cold War South America. Foreign Policy Analysis, doi: 10.1093/isafpa/orz003 Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Studies Association 2019. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 2 Public Diplomacy and International Conﬂict Resolution (Schelling 1960, 19, 24–28, 202; Putnam 1988, 438–41, 444, 450–52) suggest that engagement with foreign publics could expand an opponent’s win-set (spectrum of politically acceptable negotiated outcomes) and enable cooperation. In short, pub- lic diplomacy offers a mechanism for achieving foreign policy breakthroughs and conﬂict resolution but one that has not yet been either theoretically articulated or empirically tested. The ﬁrst section of this paper elaborates the theoretical interface between pub- lic diplomacy and conﬂict resolution, deﬁnes core concepts, and outlines potential channels of diplomatic inﬂuence. Subsequent sections frame, analyze, and draw conclusions from a most-likely case: Argentine Ambassador Oscar Camilión’s efforts to build domestic support within Brazil for a peaceful resolution of the Argentine- Brazilian rivalry after the Argentine military coup of March 1976 and before formal negotiations with Brazil commenced in September 1977 over the protracted hydro- electric dispute that was the core issue in their regional rivalry. This should have been fertile ground for a public diplomat. A strategic rivalry between regional powers with similar regimes, ideologies, and alliance portfolios, and without an indivisible territorial dispute or recent bloodshed that could in- ﬂame nationalist passions and empower hardliners, provided powerful structural incentives to overcome rivalry and an opportunity for creative diplomacy to tip the scales for peacemaking. Moreover, rivalry was in fact overcome by the decade’s end, and Camilión (2000, 203–4, 208, 221) later claimed credit for his public diplomacy in resolving the conﬂict, presenting an opportunity for process tracing in a seem- ingly successful case. Camilión’s memoirs (2000) have become a standard source for scholars of Argentine-Brazilian relations during the Cold War, but the recent publication of several important oral history interviews with Camilión’s Brazilian counterparts allows researchers to cross-check his accounts. Additionally, I present new declassiﬁed evidence from the Argentine Foreign Ministry archives, including correspondence between Camilión and his superiors in Buenos Aires. These documents reveal that despite an apparently promising environment, Camilión’s efforts failed to produce state-to-state negotiations, let alone rapproche- ment, and, on at least two occasions, nearly cost him his job. I argue that public diplomacy failed not because the target (Brazilian) population was unreceptive but rather because political divisions within the home (Argentine) government created inconsistent messages and because Brazil eventually mobilized a public opinion counteroffensive. This case offers sobering grounds on which to rethink the do- mestic politics of international conﬂict resolution and the conditions for successful public diplomacy. Furthermore, unpacking Camilión’s predicament through primary sources helps to illuminate the paradoxes of foreign policy and national security decision- making under Argentine military rule. Known as the Process of National Reor- ganization (the Proceso, for short), the 1976–83 Argentine junta was vehemently anti-Communist yet traded with the Soviet Union and fought the Jimmy Carter ad- ministration’s human rights agenda. The regime was authoritarian but riven by in- terservice rivalries. It promoted neoliberal economic reforms to shrink the state, even as the state’s repressive apparatus proliferated. It cooperated enthusiastically with neighboring right-wing dictatorships against shared leftist enemies through Operation Condor, and it ultimately achieved rapprochement with Brazil in 1980. However, ideology proved no barrier to violent conﬂict, as the 1978 standoff with Chile over the Beagle Channel and the disastrous 1982 war with Britain over the Falklands/Malvinas demonstrate. Overall, Argentine foreign policy making under These archives are relatively untapped, particularly for the Cold War period (exceptions include Resende-Santos 2002; Darnton 2014, chapter 3); scholars frequently analyze Argentine-Brazilian relations through memoirs and inter- views (Oelsner 2005) or Brazilian archives (Moniz Bandeira 2003; Cervo 2001). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 CHRISTOPHER DARNTON 3 the Proceso is one of the great puzzles in international security both within and beyond the Americas. Conﬂict Ripeness and the Diplomacy of Icebreaking Public diplomacy consists of efforts by elements of one state’s foreign policy appara- tus to engage another country’s population rather than its government. Although societal outreach may have once been dismissed as “low politics” or viliﬁed as pro- paganda (and in either case, as beneath the dignity of professional diplomats), it is increasingly seen as a vital foreign policy tool. According to the US State Depart- ment, “The mission of American public diplomacy is to support the achievement of U.S. foreign policy goals and objectives, advance national interests, and enhance national security by informing and inﬂuencing foreign publics and by expanding and strengthening the relationship between the people and Government of the United States and citizens of the rest of the world” (State Department 2018). Prac- titioners and contemporary US foreign policy concerns have dominated the writ- ing on public diplomacy, and the subject is struggling to ﬁnd an academic home (see Gregory 2008). Scholarly studies of public diplomacy have primarily focused on the United States and other Western industrialized countries’ diffuse efforts re- garding branding and image-building among foreign populations (Chiozza 2009; Goldsmith and Horiuchi 2009; Hayden 2012; Hart 2013), usually emphasizing “soft power” (Nye 2004) and increasingly examining nongovernmental actors as foreign affairs protagonists, rather than states’ more focused lobbying initiatives to build support within the target country for speciﬁc policies (cf. Nye 2004,105–8;what Nancy Snow [2009, 6] calls “traditional” public diplomacy). This specialization is unfortunate because public diplomacy, both as a foreign policy practice and as a research program, has much to offer the ﬁeld of conﬂict resolution and because contemporary interstate conﬂicts often involve developing countries with different diplomatic traditions and objectives. In particular, public diplomacy might help counteract two sources of pessimism about the prospects for international peace and cooperation: domestic interests and state identities. In rationalist traditions, both sides of debates over domestic vetoes, audience costs, and foreign policy generally assume ﬁxed, exogenously given prefer- ences for each actor (Fearon 1994; Snyder and Borghard 2011). The consequences for international cooperation are stark, as Helen Milner (1997, 241, 251) explains: “actors’ interests are primordial,” and as such, “the assumption of polyarchy”—that is, that multiple domestic actors share power and can inﬂuence or veto foreign policies—“never makes cooperation more likely than it is in the anarchic game between two unitary states. The addition of domestic politics has negative conse- quences for international cooperation.” However, if preferences are sometimes en- dogenous to interaction (Gerber and Jackson 1993), then public diplomacy might be able to build domestic support within the target country for measures such as dispute resolution or economic integration. Therefore, domestic political dynam- ics might sometimes enhance, rather than obstruct, the likelihood of international cooperation. In constructivist approaches, as well, much hinges on how leaders and peoples actually change one another’s identities, narratives, role prescriptions (Malici and Walker 2017), and perceptions and whether they can do so intentionally, strategi- cally, as entrepreneurs (Keck and Sikkink 1998; Finnemore 2003) or whether, as Alexander Wendt argued (1999, 277–78), states can be tightly locked into a cultural Excellent English-language introductions include Romero 2004; Feitlowitz 1998. On relations with Brazil and Chile, see Resende-Santos 2002; Oelsner 2005. On relations with the United States, see Schmidli 2013; Sheinin 2006, chapter Six. On Operation Condor, see McSherry 2005; Kornbluh 2004. On Falklands/Malvinas, see Welch 2002; Levy and Vakili 1992. Work on ethnic lobbies (Mearsheimer and Walt 2007; de la Garza and Pachon 2000) offers a partial exception. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 4 Public Diplomacy and International Conﬂict Resolution or normative structure of Hobbesian conﬂict. Whether scholars view public diplo- mats as lobbyists trying to shift the preferences of a rational interlocutor (or his or her constituents) or as entrepreneurs seeking to transform the beliefs and desires of a socially embedded neighbor, diplomats’ ability to reshape international inter- actions through creative individual agency deserves new research (Copeland 2009; Sharp 2009). Two points from conﬂict resolution studies are particularly relevant for under- standing these diplomatic predicaments: ripeness and engagement. First, for rival countries to resolve their disputes and develop a new cooperative framework, they need to negotiate with each other, but ﬁrst they have to agree to come to the table at all, which can be the most difﬁcult step (Cohen 1997,45; Limbert 2009, 179, 193). Extensive scholarship emphasizes the structural factors underpinning “ripe moments” for conﬂict resolution attempts, including economic and military crises, policy failures, and compatible governing regimes in both countries (Rock 1989; Haass 1990). Much of this is driven by costs: as states acquire information about their worsening circumstances, they search for mutual rather than unilateral advan- tage. Thus, prenegotiation can help to minimize risk and cost, share information, and set the agenda. Second, when ripeness has almost but not quite emerged, there is a power- ful opportunity for individual agency to ﬁnish the job. Structural forces have in- determinate effects; leaders choose whether to react to crises with escalation or de-escalation, and their domestic and personal concerns inﬂuence those choices (Lebow 1997, 158, 163–74). Skillful leaders interested in negotiated conﬂict res- olution have several communicative tools, from exploiting personal relationships to creatively framing grand bargains (or, conversely, fractionating issues), to send- ing costly signals and making symbolic gestures that demonstrate their cooperative objectives (Armstrong 1993; Long and Brecke 2003; Kydd 2005; Kupchan 2010). Paradigmatic examples include Richard Nixon’s visit to China, Anwar Sadat’s to Is- rael, and West German Chancellor Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik. Even more powerful than signals or symbols to correct misperceptions, or framing to alter payoffs, lead- ers may be able to transform the other country’s interests and preferences (Nincic 2011). These efforts are politically fraught for national leaders, so the vital prelim- inary tasks of reaching out to a suspicious rival, establishing the possibility of ne- gotiations, and setting the agenda often fall to envoys. Ambassadors face the enor- mous political cross-pressures of having to satisfy both the home government and the host one, playing “two-level games” (Putnam 1988, 433), in which success may have more to do with structural conditions than with diplomatic skill, but tactical missteps might still scuttle the enterprise. Public diplomacy might be an attractive approach for these aspiring peacemakers. Robert Putnam’s (1988, 435–37) two-level games model depicts the difﬁculty an envoy faces in seeking an international agreement that is acceptable both to his or her foreign counterpart (Level I) and to a domestic audience back home (Level II, which Putnam primarily illustrates with congressional ratiﬁcation of a previously ne- gotiated treaty, although he recognizes that diplomats often have to play both games simultaneously rather than sequentially). Putnam (1988, 437) deﬁnes a “win-set” as “the setofall possibleLevel Iagreements thatwould ...gainthe necessary major- ity among the [Level II] constituents—when simply voted up or down.” Whereas a larger win-set increases the probability of reaching a cooperative agreement at Level I, a smaller win-set increases bargaining leverage and makes it more likely that if a Level I agreement is reached, it will align closely with one’s core preferences. For a country attempting to build interstate cooperation, it is advantageous for the other side to have as large a win-set as possible. This is where public diplomacy comes in. To bridge the unfortunate divide between international relations research on conﬂict resolution and on public diplomacy, analysts should revive Robert Put- nam’s concept of reverberation.As Putnam (1988, 454) observed, “governments do Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 CHRISTOPHER DARNTON 5 Figure 1 Inﬂuence and diplomacy in two-level games. Note: Depicts narrative descriptions of two-level games (Putnam 1988: 435–437), public diplomacy (Nye 2004: 105–108; Snow 2009: 6–8), and reverberation (Putnam 1988: 454– 455). seek to expand one another’s win-sets. Much ambassadorial activity” involves “seek- ing to relax domestic constraints that might otherwise prevent the administration from cooperating with their governments.” Public diplomacy is perfectly suited to this kind of outreach: engaging and conciliating the foreign public to build a pro- cooperation coalition expands the adversary’s win-set (Copeland 2009, 163). Not all public diplomacy efforts necessarily seek reverberation—they might achieve na- tional goals strictly by working with, within, or against foreign societal actors, rather than by leveraging those actors’ relations with their own government. Reverbera- tion, however, is a particularly important subset of public diplomacy, in which a state uses societal allies abroad to bring their government to the table or to empower that government to make particular concessions. (Figure 1 depicts the two-level game, public diplomacy, and reverberation.) Reverberation can also be thought of as the inverse of Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink’s (1998, 12–13) boomerang model of transnational activism. Both models involve coordination between Home Govern- ment and Target Society (in the terms of Figure 1) to press Target Government for concessions but with the direction of inﬂuence reversed: activists in Target Society recruit Home Government (via the activists’ connections in Home Society) to put “boomerang” pressure on Target Government. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 6 Public Diplomacy and International Conﬂict Resolution Reverberation received scholarly attention in studies of interstate negotiations shortly after Putnam’s article (Odell 1993; Snyder 1993). The most sustained analysis of this strategy demonstrates that it was an enduring hallmark of Soviet prenegotiation behavior on arms control (Grifﬁths 1989). Importantly for conﬂict resolution, reverberation was a critical component of Sadat’s concessions toward Israel and the successful negotiation of the Camp David accords (Stein 1993)and was later tantalizingly suggested as a possible source of rivalry termination elsewhere (Hensel 1999). However, it has largely (and unfortunately) vanished as a research agenda, even though the international relations discipline would seem well posi- tioned to revive it. After all, the two-level games concept is now canonical in studies of trade negotiations (Milner 1997; Silva 2007; Fernández de Castro and Leycegui 2015), and even political realists increasingly take a “neoclassical” approach in- corporating domestic political pressures and constraints on decisionmakers (Rose 1998; Ripsman et al. 2016). Reverberation, and two-level games more broadly, involves several dilemmas and paradoxes—for instance, just as leaders have incentives to expand their opponent’s win-set by building a pro-cooperation coalition within the opponent’s country, they also have incentives to reduce their own win-set by undermining pro-cooperation coalitions at home. This creates potential contradictions in foreign and domestic policy, and inconsistencies or weak popular support can undermine policy effective- ness (see Copeland 2009, 167). And international threats to build domestic support, signal preferences, and reduce one’s win-set invite reciprocity, create dangerous spirals, and undermine the potential for negotiated compromises (unless such threats raise the opponent’s relative costs of not negotiating, or induce a third party to intervene) (Mares 2001). Studies of public diplomacy and conﬂict resolution have much to offer one another, by exploring the practice and unintended conse- quences of reverberation. The Puzzling Intractability of Argentine-Brazilian Rivalry Can public diplomacy, through reverberation, help resolve international conﬂict? More concretely, among the population of protracted interstate rivalries, where might outreach to foreign publics succeed? Ideally, a public diplomat would like a situation of stasis that is open to creativity, where structural factors suggest a ripe climate but where hostility is not so severe that it calls for excessive heroism. Least-likely cases include territorial disputes, particularly those over sacred space; conﬂicts with recent or severe bloodshed, which lead to hostile identities, trauma, or narratives of victimhood; and mutual misperceptions (see Leng 2000; Hassner 2009). In such circumstances, unreciprocated cooperation can be politically fatal (Colaresi 2004) and apologies can lead to blowback at home (Lind 2008). Relatively nonviolent rivalries, particularly positional strategic rivalries (Colaresi, Rasler, and Thompson 2007) offer a set of most-likely cases. Regime type and alliance portfolio also affect the likelihood of cooperation: where a totalitarian North Korea, allied with China, faces off against a US-allied, democratic South Korea, public diplomacy faces tall odds. Similar regimes with a shared great power ally, however, offer more promising terrain for peacebuilding. The relationship between Argentina and Brazil in 1976–77 met all of these cri- teria. If public diplomacy can help resolve interstate conﬂicts, it should have suc- ceeded there. First, in contrast to neighboring rivalries, like those of Ecuador and Peru, Bolivia and Chile, or Argentina and Chile, the Argentine-Brazilian rivalry fo- cused on nonterritorial issues and had not endured a military clash for genera- tions. In the mid-1970s, the most sensitive dispute involved competing hydroelec- tric power projects on the Paraná River and its tributaries: Brazil was constructing a dam with Paraguay on their shared border, which would affect the availability of water downstream and potentially endanger the viability of Argentina’s proposed Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 CHRISTOPHER DARNTON 7 dam along its own border with Paraguay. Although the hydroelectric dispute pro- vided the main focus for debate and for the negotiations leading to rapprochement in 1979–80, Argentina and Brazil also competed in several other domains: for US favor, for regional inﬂuence and leadership, for military readiness under what their armed forces called the “hypothesis of conﬂict,” and for technological superior- ity and prestige regarding nuclear energy (Darnton 2014, chapter 3). As a result, the technical disagreements over turbines, dam heights, and the international le- gal treatment of waterways took on highly political signiﬁcance and stood in for an underlying relationship of strategic rivalry. However, none of these issues was indivisible or sacred; all were in principle negotiable and amenable to diplomatic overtures. Second, the two governments had several common features and interests. Both Argentina (after the 1976 coup) and Brazil were changing several policies to correct a pattern of failures, which should have contributed to ripeness for conﬂict resolu- tion. The Argentine junta set its central objectives as correcting civilian errors, rang- ing from economic crisis to political polarization to open insurgency. And in Brazil, the military regime initiated foreign policy shifts and domestic political “decom- pression” after the October 1973 oil shock, in recognition of cracks in the so-called “Brazilian miracle” of authoritarian development. Moreover, the two regimes had similar ideologies with respect to the Cold War and had a number of subregional cooperative and communications channels open, from the River Plate Basin diplo- matic summits after 1968 to the military and intelligence network of Operation Condor after 1974. Economic downturn, debt, and inﬂation by the decade’s end surely contributed to ripeness and rapprochement (Resende-Santos 2002; Oelsner 2005). And costs may have pushed Brazil to change its negotiating stance even be- fore this, with Brazil’s failure to coerce Argentina and to reward Paraguay sufﬁ- ciently, such that a unilateral approach bore signiﬁcant opportunity costs relative to regional negotiation (Soares de Lima 1986). However, the inability of both parties to agree to negotiate for nearly a year and a half after the Argentine coup, despite all of these incentives, needs further explanation. Finally, public diplomacy was actually attempted, and rivalry was eventually over- come, making this case particularly important for Latin American diplomatic his- tory as well as offering a valuable and apparently positive case for theory testing. Res- olution of the hydroelectric dispute in October 1979 paved the way for decades of political cooperation, economic integration, and strategic alliance. However, reach- ing an accord and even getting to the table took years of surprisingly difﬁcult and protracted diplomatic wrangling. These delays are particularly surprising because the protagonists were two anti-Communist military regimes with several common interests, including countering the perceived threat of leftist subversion. Initial Ar- gentine overtures to Brazil failed, and the road to the 1979 rapprochement featured intermittent stalemate and backsliding. Argentine Ambassador Oscar Camilión’s strategy of public diplomacy to outﬂank the obstructionist bureaucracy and engage potential supporters of Argentine-Brazilian cooperation unintentionally mobilized opposition in the foreign ministries of both countries and nearly led to his dis- missal. If structural factors incentivized cooperation, and if motivated agents tried to tip the scales further in that direction, why did prenegotiations drag out for over a year (to say nothing of the two years of negotiations that followed)? Why are some cooperative gestures self-defeating? The Perils of Public Diplomacy: Camilión in Brasília The Argentine junta that took power on March 24, 1976, faced two acute problems in foreign policy: the hydroelectric conﬂict with Brazil and a territorial dispute with Chile. To deal with Brazil, the junta appointed Oscar Camilión (a journalist and former diplomat who had pushed for Argentine-Brazilian cooperation in the early Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 8 Public Diplomacy and International Conﬂict Resolution 1960s) as ambassador. In his memoirs, Camilión recalls receiving “quadruple offer,” since the heads of each military service and the chief of the Higher Joint Staff sep- arately asked him to take up the post in Brasília; “It was a kind of message” that the military wanted the hydroelectric dispute resolved, telling him “in the most categor- ical manner: ‘You will have total freedom of action. You will determine the policy to follow in Brazil so that Argentina obtains a reasonable solution to the problem of the rivers’” (2000, 190). Camilión sought to “overcome all the anachronistic inher- itances of the past,” recognizing “no contradiction between the execution and ful- ﬁllment of the principal national objectives of Brazil and the principal objectives of Argentina” (2000, 197). Thus, Camilión explained, “my strategy upon taking charge of the embassy” was to “replant the Argentine-Brazilian relationship in the sense of the total advantage of an organic friendship between the countries” (2000, 197). In short, Camilión set out to forge a rapprochement and believed he had the domestic backing to do so. However, other accounts suggest that Camilión’s mandate was less ironclad. One of the few books drawing on interviews with Argentina’s president, General Jorge Videla, explains that he personally selected key ambassadors, while the Navy com- mander appointed an admiral, César Guzzetti, as foreign minister (Seoane and Muleiro 2001, 242). And an account using Brazilian Foreign Minister Azeredo da Silveira’s oral history and personal archive relates that Camilión’s nomination involved Videla holding a meeting “unprecedented in the annals of Argentine diplomacy” with three ex–foreign ministers (notably, not his current foreign min- ister, Guzzetti) and Camilión May 12, 1976, to work out a road to cooperation with Brazil, and the Foreign Ministry sent Camilión’s nomination to Brazil’s Min- istry of Foreign Relations the following day (Spektor 2001,161).Thisapparently established a dual mandate in foreign policy toward Brazil. Camilión politely re- calls that Guzzetti and his successor (yet another admiral), Oscar Antonio Montes, “did not create obstacles, but neither were they an engine in favor” of cooperation (Camilión 2000, 216). However, one review of Silveira’s oral history suggests a lin- gering suspicion that Camilión “did not have the unrestricted support of Buenos Aires” (because an ambassador, in Silveira’s own words, “does not have his own judgment. He follows instructions”) and concludes that the Brazilians essentially misperceived how much authority Camilión really had (Spektor 2001, 163). A key problem for Camilión’s initiatives would be not simply building Brazilian support for rapprochement but securing the uniﬁed support of his own government. Scholars know a good deal about the gap between Argentine and Brazilian posi- tions circa 1976 and about Camilión’s efforts to bridge this through public diplo- macy and reverberation. Brazil, and particularly Silveira, maintained that there was no dispute to resolve (while working to build its hydroelectric dam as a fait accom- pli) (Moniz Bandeira 2003, 423–24). Brazilian President Geisel related in an oral history interview that he extensively delegated foreign policy decision-making to Silveira, who handled relations with Argentina (the hydroelectric dispute takes up just two of Geisel’s 464 pages of interview transcripts) (D’Araujo and Castro 1997, 346–47, 359; Spektor 2010, 303–4). Silveira’s June 1976 farewell remarks to Camil- ión’s departing predecessor indicate Brazil’s position: the countries were expanding their commerce more than ever, so surely the bilateral relationship, already strong, would only improve (Resenha 1977a, 146). In contrast, Jornal do Brasil reported on the eve of Camilión’s arrival that he “defends a more direct understanding with the Brazilian Government,” especially on the hydroelectric issue (July 2, 1976, 2). Facing a uniﬁed Brazilian governmental refusal to negotiate, Camilión spear- headed an Argentine effort to outﬂank the Brazilian Foreign Ministry’s obstruction- ism and boost domestic support in Brazil for cooperation with Argentina—in other words, to use reverberation to expand Brazil’s win-set (Camilión 2000, 196, 200, My translation (as are all Spanish- or Portuguese-language sources except where noted). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 CHRISTOPHER DARNTON 9 215). This struck Silveira as exceedingly unprofessional, since “in diplomacy it is pre- cisely that which is not noticed that matters. Effectiveness has to be achieved with- out the excessive notoriety of the ambassador’s activities” (quoted in Spektor 2001, 163). The contest between Camilión and Silveira became an “intense battle in the area of communications media,” a “battle for public opinion” that escalated in 1977 and involved Silveira replacing his press advisor in order to match Camilión’s tactics (Camilión 2000, 198, 203). The replacement advisor, future foreign minister Luiz Felipe Palmeira Lampreia, recalled that Camilión’s willingness and ability to “work the Brazilian press” (primarily female reporters, Lampreia observed) was “driving Silveira crazy” (Lampreia 2010, 79). According to Camilión, the episode “is studied as a special case study” by the Brazilian Foreign Ministry and has been considered “the most difﬁcult negotiation that Brazil made in the twentieth century” (2000, 204). Did Camilión’s public diplomacy actually create a constituency for coopera- tion and expand Brazilian leaders’ win-set and why or why not? What has not yet been clariﬁed, and what new archival research can demonstrate, are the differences in position and worldview among Argentine decisionmakers and what impact these had on the ability of public diplomacy to achieve formal negoti- ations (i.e., Level I talks, in Putnam’s model). Argentine Foreign Ministry records from June and July 1976 reveal clearly divergent perspectives between Camilión and his superiors in Buenos Aires, not only regarding what each hoped to achieve with Brazil but also what they meant by a global view of the bilateral relationship. For the Foreign Ministry, the ultimate goal was to achieve particular Argentine interests on disputed issues; to achieve this, negotiations with Brazil were necessary, and to maximize negotiating leverage and get Brazil to the table, limited cooperative over- tures would be tactically useful. Thus, in June, the head of the Argentine Foreign Ministry’s Latin America Department recommended “reformulating our political strategy toward the neighboring country, not from a strictly bilateral standpoint, but from a global perspective, in the belief that everything that is executed from a universal-regional level will directly inﬂuence the Argentine-Brazilian connection” (AHCA 1976a). Thus, limited outreach to Brazil on less-conﬂictual issues would be instrumental: “The creation of a climate of conﬁdence in Argentine-Brazilian rela- tions or at least, not of generalized controversy, could make itself viable through joint treatment of issues that do not present greater difﬁculties, within the com- plex of matters to negotiate simultaneously and globally” (AHCA 1976a). Camil- ión’s appointment would help maximize Argentine interests: “The designation of a new Ambassador in Brasília opens a new negotiating stage,” although it is “nec- essary that our country ﬁrst deﬁne with clarity its objectives in order to strengthen its negotiating capacity,” while pursuing “the immediate objective of improving the current position of weakness . . . in which our country ﬁnds itself in relation to Brazil”; thus, having “[d]iscarded a policy of confrontation, limiting and counter- productive for our bilateral interests and for our global diplomatic action . . . a new dialogue” might be useful, “without giving up in the defense of our fundamental national interests” (AHCA 1976a). However, Camilión’s ﬁrst major report from Brasília emphasized friendship, con- versation, and engagement, rather than negotiation. Camilión noted that the bilat- eral relationship had tremendous press and that “in practically unanimous form, the tone of this material has been positive and in many cases, directly friendly.” As expected, Silveira, when Camilión presented his credentials, was “very cordial in personal terms but eluded in careful manner any reference either to issues between Brazil and Argentina or even to bilateral relations” (AHCA 1976b). Camilión pro- ceeded indirectly, which would characterize his operations for years, asking Silveira “about some things related to organizational aspects of” the Foreign Ministry, “an old vocation of the chancellor—and subsequently I shifted the conversation to the Argentine situation, over whose favorable evolution he expressed courteous hope” (AHCA 1976b). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 10 Public Diplomacy and International Conﬂict Resolution Camilión’s eagerness for cooperation, and readiness to detect Brazilian reci- procity, are clear in his discussion of meeting President Geisel. Because Geisel’s “austere condition . . . is known, as is his scarce propensity to exaggerations,” “the evident decision to emphasize the ceremony and to give it prestige should be noted as a political act” (AHCA 1976b). Geisel “was very cordial” and “ex- pressed in clear form his objective of closer relations with Argentina . . . He was clear also in the mention of those who work to create obstacles in the bi- lateral relationship and very direct in the suggestion that he would see it di- rectly each time that it was needed” (AHCA 1976b). Camilión outlined the “pro- posals of the Argentine government relative to the relations with Brazil” and underlined “the great national priority that in these moments the ﬁght against subversion represents,” to which Geisel “expressed his hope in a swift victory against terrorism and violence” (AHCA 1976b). The overall “climate of cor- diality has been promoted, in the ﬁrst place, by President Geisel himself and the [Foreign Ministry] has not dissented,” either in person or in the press, al- though “the basic attitude of the Brazilians is that of expectancy” (emphasis in orig- inal), due to perceptions that Argentina had not been a valid interlocutor and con- cerns “that the Argentine government could try to ‘manufacture’ a conﬂict with Brazil as a diversion operation, given our internal difﬁculties” (AHCA 1976b). Thus, Camilión planned to promote “a positive attitude that will improve the climate, reestablish conﬁdence, win adepts in the inﬂuential social circles, and neutralize the spokesmen of extreme positions, in particular those who have access to the press” (AHCA 1976b). He concluded that cooperation required “an objective and frank appreciation of the global reality of Argentina and Brazil, not always summed up within the viewpoint of their respective [foreign ministries]” (AHCA 1976b). Camilión and his superiors began with divergent assumptions, which boded poorly for effective diplomacy. A global perspective, for the Foreign Ministry, meant considering several linked issues, including some outside the bilateral relationship, to address through comprehensive negotiations. For Camilión, a global perspective meant transcending the foreign ministries, engaging the press and public opinion, and emphasizing a holistic bilateral relationship rather than a negotiated push for national advantage. As a result, when Camilión’s public diplomacy offended the Brazilian government, contributed to mixed messages about Argentine positions, or simply attracted intense press coverage, he needed to justify his activities—and his continued employment—to Buenos Aires. Only three days after Camilión’s tri- umphant July 13 report, he delivered an obsequious and defensive (if not actu- ally chastened) letter to Foreign Minister Guzzetti, explaining that his press con- ference “was equivalent to a sort of mortal leap over a narrow net. The meeting was incisive and full of dangerous questions”; moreover, Camilión says he was of- ten misquoted (the examples, if accurate, would certainly have upset the Argen- tine junta), but the press overall acted in “good faith” and as a “positive and con- structive stimulus ...onwhich the ﬁrst course of ourmanagementcan in good measure depend” (AHCA 1976c). Presumably this smoothed things over, since Camilión kept his job and even sought to expand his public outreach beyond the capital, informing Brazil’s Foreign Ministry of his “special interest” in ofﬁcially visiting Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo in August (AHCA 1976d). However, the diplomatic impasse continued until two-level tensions erupted more forcefully the following year. Meanwhile, in late 1976, the primary locus of prenegotiations shifted to the min- isterial and presidential levels, toward formal Level I channels rather than pub- lic diplomacy. Videla telegrammed Geisel in August as a goodwill gesture, sur- prising the Brazilian Foreign Ministry and giving a new impulse to bilateral con- versations (Memoria 1976,32; Resenha 1977b, 114). An apparent sign of progress came in December, with the River Plate Basin countries’ foreign ministers’ meet- ing in Brasília, at which Guzzetti and Silveira got along well (Resenha 1977c, 37–60; Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 CHRISTOPHER DARNTON 11 Memoria 1976, 32). Two major documents from mid-1977 recall this as a high point of prenegotiations that subsequently collapsed. A memorandum on Brazil policy by the new head of the Argentine Foreign Ministry’s Latin America Department brieﬂy noted Camilión’s arrival in Brazil but suggested that the foreign ministries authored the major diplomatic achievements of 1976; the December meeting in particular “laid the ‘bases’ to handle the existing problems with a new ‘tone,’ identi- fying themes of common interest that would universalize the connection and would avoid the particularized analysis of the pending issues” ((emphasis in original), AHCA n.d. a). Similarly, Foreign Minister Oscar Montes (who replaced Guzzetti in May 1977 after the latter was grievously wounded in an assassination attempt [Camilión 2000, 188]) reported to Videla that at the December meeting, “the bases of a new understanding between Argentina and Brazil were laid,” and when the chancellors met “for the ﬁrst time, the acceptance that problems existed regarding the exploitation of shared rivers was achieved, and it was agreed that it was necessary to overcome these through negotiated formulas,” which produced “a new climate . . . more propitious for the search for a concerted solution” (AHCA 1977a). Meanwhile, the Carter administration, inaugurated January 1977, unintention- ally catalyzed Argentine-Brazilian coordination by pressuring both countries over human rights abuses and nuclear programs; in March, Brazil canceled its mili- tary accords with the United States, symbolically rupturing a partnership dating to World War Two (Resenha 1978a, 93, 113; Veja 1977a). Camilión declared Argen- tine support for Brazil’s nuclear ambitions, exploiting the breach with the United States to promote Argentine-Brazilian rapprochement; however, he did so without instructions from Buenos Aires and was nearly ﬁred (Camilión 2000, 202–3). Pres- idential and ministerial efforts continued: in March 1977, Argentina proposed tri- lateral negotiations (Brazil did not respond immediately, although Paraguay ap- proved), and in April Geisel and Videla met separately with Paraguayan dictator Alfredo Stroessner to discuss hydroelectric issues (Memoria 1977, 40, 42, Jornal do Brasil, April 12, 1977). However, these overtures did not resolve the Argentine-Brazilian impasse, and Ar- gentine decisionmakers grew increasingly frustrated. One Foreign Ministry report criticized Brazil’s “attitude of systematic intransigence,” by which “the expectations” built by the December meeting were “gradually defrauded by a series of gestures or acts seemed intent on bringing the relationship back to levels more negative even than those reached since 1973”; Brazil apparently employed “a truly dilatory policy intended to dissemble the real objective: presenting consummated and ir- reversible deeds” through its dam construction (AHCA n.d. a). Likewise, Foreign Minister Montes observed that when Camilión sought an answer to the March note proposing trilateral talks, Silveira “showed himself opposed to trinational negoti- ations” and suggested only “secret bilateral conversations” but without explaining what these would entail (AHCA 1977a). If presidential and ministerial encounters could not deliver negotiations, then Argentine-Brazilian relations were back to where they had been when Camilión was appointed a year earlier. Once again, he must have found public diplomacy attrac- tive (despite setbacks in July 1976 and February 1977), since the Brazilian govern- ment seemed willing to yield the stage. In May, Geisel echoed Silveira’s traditional stance that media outreach leads people to “to confuse publicity with negotiations” (quoted by Spektor 2001, 163). Within the Brazilian Foreign Ministry, the attitude was that “diplomacy is not made with ﬂoodlights” (Lampreia 2010, 81). (For Camil- ión, of course, ﬂoodlights were the key to suasive reverberation and ultimately rap- prochement.) Two further press scandals—both involving leaks leading to mutual recriminations—apparently changed Silveira’s mind. First, Silveira’s infamous May “secret speech” to Brazil’s Senate Committee on Foreign Relations blamed Argentina for the lack of negotiation. The speech was hardly secret, since Silveira’s Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 12 Public Diplomacy and International Conﬂict Resolution testimony was announced in advance and summarized in detail (and brieﬂy quoted) in the next day’s papers (Jornal do Brasil, May 17, 1977, 5; May 18, 1977, 3). The speech’s release produced mixed congressional reactions (Resenha 1978b, 93–94) and newspaper editorials critical of Silveira, creating pressures (including among military leaders) for Geisel to ﬁre him. The Argentine Foreign Ministry expressed “the displeasure of our government” concerning the speech, both via Camilión in Brasília and to the Brazilian ambassador in Buenos Aires (AHCA 1977a). Second, in July, leaked Argentine-Brazilian communiqués in a Brazilian paper caused the Argentine Foreign Ministry to protest, deny responsibility, and warn that such an “anomalous act . . . should be analyzed with great thoroughness to avoid situations that lend themselves to any mal-intentioned interpretation . . . [T]exts of this nature should be published by common accord” (AHCA 1977b). After this, Brazil’s Foreign Ministry openly entered the lists, counteracting Camil- ion’s reverberation efforts with its own societal outreach to line up public support for the Brazilian government’s existing position, essentially minimizing its win-set to strengthen its negotiating position with Argentina. In July, Silveira switched press advisors and strategies (Jornal do Brasil, July 12, 1977, 3). The new spokesman, Luiz Felipe Lampreia, recalls that Silveira gave him “carte-blanche” to emulate and de- feat Camilión;Lampreiadecidedthat“what wasessential ...was to do what Camil- ión was doing, that is to say, it was to give information, it was even to expose oneself, it was to reason with the press, it was to try to capture them, right?” (Lampreia 2010, 79). Thus, two of Silveira’s deputies, future foreign ministers Lampreia and Ramiro Saraiva Guerreiro, argue in oral histories that Silveira defeated Camilión by adopting his tactics (Guerreiro 2010, 259–63; Lampreia 2010, 78–85). With the press campaigns at an impasse, both governments lurched toward ne- gotiations. The standoff symbolically peaked with the July 27 publication of Brazil’s leading newsweekly, Veja—the cover depicted Argentine and Brazilian ﬂags, mov- ing in opposite directions with giant arrows in the national colors. The headline, “Argentina-Brazil: The Disagreement” (o desencontro more literally means “the fail- ure to meet”) led to a cover story, “The Tough Search for Peace,” which con- cluded a decades-long summary of the bilateral dispute and of contemporary ac- cusations and frustrations by wryly observing, “At least in relation to one point, Brazilians and Argentines ﬁrmly agree—the necessity of keeping the channels of understanding open so that the ‘instrumental differences’ . . . are not converted into an undesirable political confrontation” (Veja 1977b). Silveira announced that Argentina would respond to a Brazilian note seeking negotiations, although Brazil maintained several preconditions (Jornal do Brasil, July 28, 1977, 14); the follow- ing day, Argentina proposed technical conversations on the hydroelectric dams (Resenha 1978c, 155). Camilión returned from Buenos Aires and, amazingly, of- fered no comment on the “reinitiation” of dialogue beyond calling it “extremely constructive” (Jornal do Brasil, August 1, 2). Lampreia announced that after Chan- cellors Silveira and Montes exchanged notes (through Brazil’s embassy in Ar- gentina), tripartite talks (including Paraguay) would occur, although the format, level, and preconditions had not been determined (Jornal do Brasil, August 2, 1977, 4). The Level I diplomatic channels, though frustratingly gradual and technical, seemed to bear more fruit than the mobilization of societal opinion through public diplomacy. The following week involved claims of victory and new risks of defeat. First, both diplomats managed to declare success and save face. Lampreia conﬁrmed that tri- partite negotiations were a Brazilian proposal that Argentina had accepted (Jornal do Brasil, August 3, 1977, 1, 4). However, because Argentina had proposed trilat- eral talks in May and Brazil rejected them, Camilión declared that Brazil’s decision to include Paraguay was a “positive attitude” and that Argentina had “always con- sidered a tripartite reunion valid” (Jornal do Brasil, August 4, 1977, 2). However, another batch of communiqués between Montes and Silveira appeared in the press, followed by Argentine accusations and Brazilian denials (Jornal do Brasil, August 6, Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 CHRISTOPHER DARNTON 13 1977, 1, 12–13, August 10, 1977, 2; Lampreia 2010, 79). Finally, on August 26, Brazil formally accepted Argentina’s proposal for technical tripartite conversations to be- gin in September in Paraguay (Resenha 1987c,155). Again, archival records between May and July 1977 suggest ongoing divisions among Argentine worldviews that complicated policymaking toward Brazil and un- dermined Camilión’s efforts to build a Brazilian constituency for rapprochement. In particular, Foreign Minister Montes’ discussion of motivations for Argentina’s out- reach to Brazil differed markedly from Camilión’s understanding. Where Montes had seen openness and concessions as tactical, to undermine Brazilian resistance to negotiations, using cooperative gestures to pave the way for accords conform- ing to Argentine positions, Camilión believed that Argentina’s goal was coopera- tion itself—that is, rapprochement. In June, Montes told Videla that Argentina’s “attitude, inclined toward dialogue and concord, helps place the Brazilian authori- ties in an uncomfortable situation against their public opinion and other sectors of power of that country, more favorable to the understanding with Argentina” (AHCA 1977a). Regarding Silveira’s speech, Argentina tried “to facilitate the adjustment of Brazilian foreign policy, without trying for the possible ‘containment’ of [Silveira] and his eventual removal, or adopting a policy of hardening that would make the re- turn to constructive channels difﬁcult” (AHCA 1977a). In contrast, Montes claimed that Silveira used “intransigent external postures to consolidate his personal situa- tion,” probably trying to push Argentina to adopt “a hard-line or confrontational position, which would justify the non-realization of negotiations”; reciprocally, “the constructive and ﬁrm attitude maintained by Argentina . . . weakens the position of [Silveira] against his public opinion and other sectors of power” (AHCA 1977a). Camilión, however, still believed public diplomacy and reverberation were essen- tial to resolving the dispute with Brazil. Since the 1976 coup, Camilión argued to Montes, “Argentina attempted . . . to replant its relationship with Brazil,” to “giv[e] those relations a positive character” since “the confrontation with Brazil did not re- spond to any national interest” and was “sterile” and “based on anachronistic crite- ria of regional supremacy” (AHCA 1977c). A paramount goal was “gaining allies in [Brazil] for the cause of an understanding with Argentina”; Camilión claimed that his “veritable strategy of indirect rapprochement” involved “an intense diplomatic action to appreciate the value of Argentina . . . and to persuade Brazil—beginning with groups of decisive inﬂuence—of the necessity of establishing a globally positive connection with our country” (AHCA 1977c). Public diplomacy was useful because “Usually countries understand one another through their social summits, and they mistrust one another in their bases. Between Argentines and Brazilians the opposite more truly occurs,” whereas at the government level Brazil’s Foreign Ministry “(at least Silveira) does not have interest in a global cooperative action with Argentina” (AHCA 1977c). As tensions peaked in July, Camilión’s objectives still varied starkly from those of the Argentine Foreign Ministry, with the former emphasizing the overall relation- ship and the latter seeking relative advantage. Camilión reported that the Brazilian military was uncomfortable with Silveira’s and the Foreign Ministry’s stonewalling Argentina and that “a high chief who occupies a charge of great weight in the mili- tary circles expressed to me his serious preoccupation with the state of the bilateral relationship. He directly put the responsibility on [the Foreign Ministry] for the stateofthings...Shortly,headded, ‘headswill roll’ ...there isno-one in the Armed Forces who wants anything but a good and growing positive relationship with Argentina” (AHCA 1977d). In contrast, the head of the Argentine Foreign Ministry’s Brazil Division argued that a transportation dispute, though minor compared to the hydroelectric issue, was politically important as an “indicator of the ﬁrmness with which the country is capable of confronting other negotiations—over transcendental issues” (emphasis in original) with Chile and Brazil, which sought “advantage from the eventual Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 14 Public Diplomacy and International Conﬂict Resolution disagreements” among Argentine decisionmakers; Argentina should “offer thus a united front to the task that, in inverse sense, the Embassies of those countries develop” (AHCA 1977e). Although the transportation issue hurt Argentine trade in the short run, “other negotiations . . . over which the image of ﬁrmness will reverberate—jeopardize the national economy (and even sovereignty over its own resources) with a signiﬁcance much greater than that” (AHCA 1977e). Conversely, press attacks on Silveira gave “an advantage in favor of Argentina that it should not fail to take advantage of,” while any economic risks to Argentina “award an interest- ing margin of negotiation against the current damages that Brazil suffers” (empha- sis in original; AHCA 1977e). An internal report after bilateral transportation talks in August reiterated this perspective, calling the meeting “a lucky trial by ﬁre for the negotiating capacity of both countries on the important issues”; reaching minor compromises on technical issues showed “that the will (especially Argentine) was to demonstrate the possibility of reaching satisfactory accords for both parties” on more important matters (AHCA n.d. b). Although Camilión’s efforts contributed to bilateral dialogue toward ofﬁcial ne- gotiations, this hardly signaled the end of rivalry. Tripartite talks began September 1977 in Paraguay (Resenha 1978d, 135). However, negotiated resolution of the hy- droelectric dispute, like getting to the table initially, required two tortuous years of backsliding, accusations of bad faith, and standoffs. The Argentine Foreign Min- istry’s annual report for 1977 struggled to offer a positive interpretation of the year’s bilateral events, claiming as accomplishments only “the continuation of dialogue . . . communication . . . [and] the information necessary to understand better the technical aspects of the respective projects” (Memoria 1977, 27). The following year’s summary (Memoria 1978, 23) begins with a terse sentence: “As in 1977.” Moreover, the contribution of public diplomacy to even this limited shift is dubi- ous. Camilión’s efforts were undermined by his superiors in Argentina and eventu- ally put in check by their Brazilian counterparts. Although Camilión recalled that in 1977 a Brazilian diplomat told him over a game of golf that “You’ve just won the battle of the press,” this should hardly be taken as deﬁnitive (2001, 203). Ironi- cally, Camilión, who had tried to improve relations rather than drive hard bargains, nearly fell victim to a goodwill gesture himself: Montes’ successor as Argentine For- eign Minister in 1978, Carlos Washington Pastor, offered Silveira Camilión’s head (according to Silveira: Spektor 2010, 247). Both Camilión and Silveira, who entered their positions intending to resolve the dispute for their own reasons, were unable to do so (Lampreia 2010). The hydroelectric treaty was signed by Silveira’s succes- sor, Ramiro Saraiva Guerreiro, and by Washington Pastor, who had largely sidelined Camilión. Reverberation Revisited During his mission in Brazil from 1976 to 1981, Argentine Ambassador Oscar Camil- ión faced a series of ironic dilemmas. He felt his assignment was to deliver rap- prochement, but the Argentine Foreign Ministry really wanted only limited cooper- ation with Brazil in order to gain leverage for competition in other areas. He tried to resolve disputes with Brazil over hydroelectric power, but the Brazilian Foreign Ministry refused to admit that there was anything to negotiate (a negotiating tactic in itself). And given bureaucratic resistance, he chose a public diplomacy strategy, appealing to the Brazilian public for support for a more cooperative bilateral rela- tionship, but he nearly lost his job several times over scandals in the press. Camil- ión sought what Robert Putnam (1988, 455) calls “suasive reverberation,” mobiliz- ing domestic societal pressure within Brazil to expand Brazil’s win-set for conﬂict Lampreia suggests that Camilión sought the Argentine presidency and Silveira wanted a feather in his diplomatic cap. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 CHRISTOPHER DARNTON 15 resolution with his home country of Argentina. However, this reverberation failed to materialize, and the conﬂict was later resolved through other channels. How should researchers assess Camilión’s impact on Brazilian opinion, and on speciﬁc governmental and societal actors? Ulimately, Camilión’s goal of bilateral rapprochement was achieved, and he subsequently served as Argentine foreign min- ister. However, the Brazilian allies he identiﬁed—particularly the armed forces and the general public—seemed already sympathetic to his cause (and responsive to evolving domestic and international circumstances), rather than yielding to his per- suasion. Camilión’s cables were determinedly optimistic, and his diplomatic out- reach was omnivorous (military and civilian, societal and governmental), but his strategy and progress reports remained opaque on leveraging speciﬁc engagements for actors’ policy support. Because archival sources and memoirs are purposive doc- uments (George and Bennett 2005, 101–8) that serve their authors’ interests, fre- quently claiming personal success and redirecting blame, scholars might expect public diplomats to take credit swiftly when any channels of inﬂuence bear fruit. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (for instance, future work should examine Brazilian archives), so some caution attends these ﬁndings, but Argen- tine records of Ambassador Camilión’s ﬁrst eighteen months in Brasília yield sur- prisingly little process-tracing indication of suasive reverberation. Camilión kept dialogue alive and deserves remembrance as an ardent promoter of Argentine- Brazilian rapprochement. However, he encountered great difﬁculty moving the levers of public diplomacy. This case suggests three main ﬁndings, and attendant directions for future re- search, about the conditions under which diplomats can appeal successfully to foreign publics to build a constituency for peace and cooperation. First, intragov- ernmental divisions complicate diplomatic signaling and the construction of over- lapping win-sets essential for international cooperation, even among authoritarian states. Building on studies of institutional variation within authoritarian regimes and their resulting conﬂict behavior (Weeks 2014) scholars might examine how those features affect bargaining, diplomacy, and peacemaking. Silveira’s secret testi- mony in May 1977 “afﬁrmed that the greatest difﬁculty for resolving the impasse on the Rio Paraná is Argentina deciding deﬁnitively what it wants” (Jornal do Brasil,May 18, 1977, 2). This was an old canard, and Camilión and his superiors found it out- dated and offensive; Montes wrote to Videla that such allegations “create a false and inconvenient image of duality with respect to [Argentine] position” and “favor the non-negotiating will of Brazil” (AHCA 1977a). However, Silveira’s accusation had some truth to it: different Argentine foreign policy actors knew what they wanted but wanted different things. Power struggles between Argentine military branches impacted the autonomy and direction of the civilian bureaucracy including the For- eign Ministry, which the press and foreign governments observed; these conditions proved perilous for public diplomacy. Brazil accurately recognized these Argentine schisms; in other Cold War relationships, though, such mixed signals could be mis- perceived as vacillation, hard bargaining, or irrationality. For instance, US leaders often saw anything but lockstep compliance by Latin American governments as a warning sign of communism, whereas greater attention to Latin American intragov- ernmental divisions and domestic politics could have been mutually beneﬁcial. Re- latedly, although Latin American leaders were often acutely aware of US domestic dynamics, Washington may not have appreciated how much its bureaucratic and executive-legislative divisions broadcast mixed signals across the Americas. Second, future work on public diplomacy should analyze not only facilitat- ing conditions but also active countermeasures. Brazil’s Foreign Ministry was ini- tially reluctant to enter a public relations competition that Camilión initiated but subsequently handled such efforts with aplomb. This suggests that the power to I thank an anonymous reviewer for emphasizing this point. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 16 Public Diplomacy and International Conﬂict Resolution minimize one’s own win-set may be greater than the power of one’s interlocutor to expand it. (In fact, Thomas Schelling’s discussion (1960, 28) of leaders engaging publics emphasized the constriction rather than expansion of win-sets.) This might comfort leaders, who are better positioned than their rivals to persuade their own constituents. Relatedly, studies of US public diplomacy and anti-Americanism may be undercounting public diplomacy’s success rate and potential, if the seeds of out- reach are uprooted by alarmed target governments rather than simply failing to take root in society. More broadly, international relations arguments about the power of domestic lobbying groups or public opinion over foreign policy (Reiter and Stam 2002; Mearsheimer and Walt 2007) should investigate governments’ ability to cre- ate offsetting pressure groups, either at home or abroad, and leaders’ capacity to reshape or escape from public opinion (Schuessler 2015). Third, studies of public diplomacy and two-level games could specify how principal-agent dynamics complicate diplomatic overtures (see Hutchings and Suri 2015, 15–16; Putnam 1988, 456). (In ﬁgure 1, this would disaggregate Home Gov- ernment to look at intrastate bargaining.) Putnam (1988, 431–36) carefully ad- dressed complexity in negotiation, discussing envoys rather than presidents as diplomatic actors, mentioning bureaucratic politics and conﬂicting preferences within central governments, and noting that negotiators face multiple constituen- cies rather than a single Level II game; however, his “stylized” treatment of Level II as “ratiﬁcation” (435), exempliﬁed by legislative approval of treaties, could mis- leadingly imply that ambassadors are the extension of uniﬁed executive leadership rather than agents in their own right. As the case of Oscar Camilión suggests, this simplifying assumption is problematic. Argentine archival documents indicate not only that Camilión was more committed to rapprochement with Brazil than his su- periors were but also that public diplomacy reﬂected his initiative rather than his instructions. To what extent were senior Argentine decision makers aware of, and intentionally wielding, the different perspective of their ambassador in Brazil? In the complex world of principal-agent relations, an ambassador might be most use- ful when given instructions that he is not meant to fulﬁll or leeway to experiment in ways that could later be disavowed. In Camilión’s case, it is difﬁcult to say whether the difference of views between embassy and ministry was intentional (which might explain why Camilión kept his job and subsequently became foreign minister) or incidental (which might explain the close scrutiny and feedback on Argentine po- sitions). All of this supports recent studies on the importance of governmental credibil- ity, consistency, and coordination (as well as the dangers of hypocrisy) in public diplomacy (see Cull 2012, 180–92; Seib 2009,240–41). However, it presents a more dispiriting conclusion for conﬂict resolution, suggesting that scholars now need to analyze what many diplomats already confront (very much at their own risk): a heav- ily circumscribed set of scope conditions for successful engagement with foreign public opinion. The beauty of reverberation, as a metaphor, is twofold: it attests to the diplomatic art of indirection rather than frontal engagement, but it also sug- gests that policy initiatives reﬂect in complex and unintended ways off of political actors and their environment. Reverberation matters, but it is difﬁcult to control and harder still to wield in the service of international peace. References Archivo Histórico de la Cancilleria Argentina (AHCA), Fondo 47 (América Latina 1950–1985). n.d. a (no date) a. Bulto 64, Box “Brasil 1975–77,” Binder “1975/76/77 Brasil relación política con Argentina I,” Tab “Trabajo S/ Brasil, Emb. [Federico] Barttfeld, Sec. López Pellegri, Sec. J[orge] Faurie,” Secreto, undated, signed Barttfeld, p. 15. AHCA. n.d. b. Bulto 24, Box “Brasil 1973 1975–76 Notas,” Binder “Brasil 1975–76 Memos,” Memoran- dum “Reunion especial de la Subcomisión de Transporte de CEBAC,” undated, p. 3. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 CHRISTOPHER DARNTON 17 AHCA. 1976a. Bulto 64, Box “Brasil 1975–77,” Binder “1976 Brasil Providencias,” Tab DGPE, Nota DAL 1752, Nereo Melo Ferrer to Dirección General de Política, June 2, 1976, p. 1. ——. 1976b. Bulto 65, Box “Brasil 1975–77,” Binder “1975/76/77 Brasil relación política con Argentina I,” Nota 691, Secreto, Camilión to Guzzetti, July 13, 1976, p. 12. ——. 1976c. Bulto 144, Box “Brasil 1977 Santa Cruz de la Sierra 1975,” Nota 716, Reservado, Camilión to Guzzetti, July 16, 1976, p. 2. ——. 1976d. Bulto 144, Box “Brasil 1977 Santa Cruz de la Sierra 1975,” Nota 137, Embassy in Brasília to Brazilian Foreign Ministry (Cerimonial), July 19, 1976, p. 1. ——. 1977a. Bulto 9, Box “Bolivia La Paz Parte 1,” Folder “Reseña del cumplimiento de la directiva presidencial R.I. 30/76 Referente a la compatibilización de las obras de Corpus e Itaipú,” Secreto, June 7, 1977, p. 15, plus cover letter (Nota 105 Secreto, Montes to Videla, June 9, 1977). ——. 1977b. Bulto 64, Box “Brasil 1975–77,” Binder “1975/76/77 Brasil relación política con Argentina I,” “Comunicado prensa dia 5/7/77 s/Notas Argentino y Brasileño,” p. 1. ——. 1977c. Bulto 64, Box “Brasil 1975–77,” Binder “1975/76/77 Brasil relación política con Argentina I,” Nota 583 Secreto, Camilión to Montes, June 22, 1977, p. 20. ——. 1977d. Bulto 64, Box “Brasil 1975–77,” Nota 652 Secreto, Camilión to Montes, July 7, 1977, p. 4. ——. 1977e. Bulto 24, Box “Brasil 1973 1975–76 Notas,” Binder “Brasil 1975–76 Memos,” Memoran- dum “Transporte internacional terrestre. Tema: Problemas suscitados con Brasil y Chile a raíz de la utilización del Túnel las Cuevas-Caracoles,” unsigned (ﬁrst typed initials JMF), July 11, 1977, p. 5. ARMSTRONG,TONY. 1993. Breaking the Ice: Rapprochement between East and West Germany, the United States and China, and Israel and Egypt. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace. CAMILIÓN,OSCAR. 2000. Memorias políticas: De Frondizi a Menem (1956–1996). Buenos Aires, Argentina: Planeta/Todo es Historia. CERVO,AMADO LUIZ. 2001. Relações internacionais da América Latina: Velhos e novos paradigmas.Brasília:FU- NAG/IPRI. CHIOZZA,GIACOMO. 2009. Anti-Americanism and the American World Order. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. COHEN,RAYMOND. 1997. Negotiating across Cultures: International Communication in an Interdependent World, revised ed. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace. COLARESI,MICHAEL. 2004. “When Doves Cry: Unreciprocated Cooperation and Leadership Tenure.” Amer- ican Journal of Political Science 48: 555–70. COLARESI,MICHAEL,KAREN RASLER, AND WILLIAM THOMPSON. 2007. Strategic Rivalries in World Politics: Space, Position and Escalation. New York: Cambridge University Press. COPELAND,DARYL. 2009. Guerrilla Diplomacy: Rethinking International Relations. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. CULL,NICHOLAS. 2012. The Decline and Fall of the United States Information Agency: American Public Diplomacy, 1989–2001. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. D’ARAUJO,MARICA CELINA, AND CELSO CASTRO,ORGS. 1997. Ernesto Geisel. Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Getúlio Vargas. DARNTON,CHRISTOPHER. 2014. Rivalry and Alliance Politics in Cold War Latin America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. DE LA GARZA,RODOLFO, AND HARRY PACHON, eds. 2000. Latinos and US Foreign Policy: Representing the “Home- land”? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleﬁeld. FEARON,JAMES. 1994. “Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes.” Ameri- can Political Science Review 88 (3): 577–92. FEITLOWITZ,MARGUERITE. 1998. A Lexicon of Terror: Argentina and the Legacies of Torture.New York:Oxford University Press. FERNÁNDEZ DE CASTRO,RAFAEL, AND BEATRIZ LEYCEGUI. 2015. “Economic Statecraft through the Use of Two- Level Games: Mexico’s Successful Diplomacy in NAFTA and the Paciﬁc Alliance.” In Foreign Policy Breakthroughs: Cases in Successful Diplomacy, edited by Robert Hutchings and Jeremi Suri. New York: Oxford University Press. FINNEMORE,MARTHA. 2003. The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. FISHER,RONALD, ed. 2005. Paving the Way: Contributions of Interactive Conﬂict Resolution to Peacemaking.Lan- ham, MD: Lexington Books. GEORGE,ALEXANDER, AND ANDREW BENNETT. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. GERBER,ELISABETH, AND JOHN JACKSON. 1993. “Endogenous Preferences and the Study of Institutions.” Amer- ican Political Science Review 87 (3): 639–56. GOLDSMITH,BENJAMIN, AND YUSAKU HORIUCHI. 2009. “Spinning the Globe? US Public Diplomacy and Foreign Public Opinion.” Journal of Politics 71 (3): 863–75. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 18 Public Diplomacy and International Conﬂict Resolution GREGORY,BRUCE. 2008. “Public Diplomacy: Sunrise of an Academic Field.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616: 274–90. GRIFFITHS,FRANKLYN. 1989. “The Soviet Experience of Arms Control.” International Journal 44 (2): 304–64. GUERREIRO,RAMIRO SARAIVA. 2010. Ramiro Saraiva Guerreiro (depoimento, 1985). Rio de Janeiro: CPDOC. HAAS,MARK. 2005. The Ideological Origins of Great Power Politics, 1789–1989. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. HAASS,RICHARD. 1990. Conﬂicts Unending: The United States and Regional Disputes.New Haven,CT:Yale University Press. HALL,TODD. 2015. Emotional Diplomacy: Ofﬁcial Emotion on the World Stage. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. HART,JUSTIN. 2013. Empire of Ideas: The Origins of Public Diplomacy and the Transformation of US Foreign Policy. New York: Oxford University Press. HASSNER,RON. 2009. War on Sacred Grounds. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. HAYDEN,CRAIG. 2012. The Rhetoric of Soft Power: Public Diplomacy in Global Contexts. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. HENSEL,PAUL. 1999. “Domestic Politics and Interstate Rivalry: An Empirical Analysis.” Presented at Amer- ican Political Science Association, Atlanta. HOPF,TED. 2012. Reconstructing the Cold War: The Early Years, 1945–1958. New York: Oxford University Press. HUTCHINGS,ROBERT, AND JEREMI SURI. 2015. “Introduction.” In Foreign Policy Breakthroughs: Cases in Successful Diplomacy, edited by Robert Hutchings and Jeremi Suri, New York: Oxford University Press. Jornal Do Brasil. Selected issues 1976–1977 (daily). Rio de Janeiro. Via Google News, https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=0qX8s2k1IRwC&dat=19920614&b_mode=2. KAYE,DALIA DASSA. 2007. Talking to the Enemy: Track Two Diplomacy in the Middle East and South Asia. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. KECK,MARGARET, AND KATHRYN SIKKINK. 1998. Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Poli- tics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. KORNBLUH,PETER. 2004. The Pinochet File: A Declassiﬁed Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability.New York:The New Press. KUPCHAN,CHARLES. 2010. How Enemies Become Friends: The Sources of Stable Peace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. KYDD,ANDREW. 2005. Trust and Mistrust in International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. LAMPREIA,LUIZ FELIPE. 2010. Luiz Felipe Lampreia (depoimento, 2008). Rio de Janeiro: CPDOC. LEBOW,RICHARD NED. 1997. “Transitions and Transformations: Building International Cooperation.” Secu- rity Studies 6: 154–79. LENG,RUSSELL. 2000. Bargaining and Learning in Recurring Crises: The Soviet-American, Egyptian-Israeli, and Indo-Pakistani Rivalries. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. LEVY,JACK, AND LILY VAKILI. 1992. “Diversionary Action by Authoritarian Regimes: Argentina in the Falk- lands/Malvinas Case.” In The Internationalization of Communal Strife, edited by Manus Midlarsky, Lon- don: Routledge. LIMBERT,JOHN. 2009. Negotiating with Iran: Wrestling the Ghosts of History. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace. LIND,JENNIFER. 2008. Sorry States: Apologies in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. LONG,WILLIAM, AND PETER BRECKE. 2003. War and Reconciliation: Reason and Emotion in Conﬂict Resolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. MALICI,AKAN, AND STEPHEN G. WALKER. 2017. Role Theory and Role Conﬂict in US-Iran Relations: Enemies of Our Own Making. New York: Routledge. MARES,DAVID. 2001. Violent Peace: Militarized Interstate Bargaining in Latin America. New York: Columbia University Press. MCSHERRY,J.PATRICE. 2005. Predatory States: Operation Condor and Covert War in Latin America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleﬁeld. MEARSHEIMER,JOHN, AND STEPHEN WALT. 2007. The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. MEMORIA DE LA CANCILLERIA ARGENTINA. 1976. Buenos Aires. ——. 1977. Buenos Aires. ——. 1978. Buenos Aires. MILNER,HELEN. 1997. Interests, Institutions, and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. MONIZ BANDEIRA,LUIZ ALBERTO. 2003. Conﬂito e Integração na América do Sul: Brasil, Argentina e Estados Unidos (Da Tríplice Aliança ao Mercosul), 1870–2003, 2nd ed. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Revan. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 CHRISTOPHER DARNTON 19 MOR,BEN. 2012. “Credibility Talk in Public Diplomacy.” Review of International Studies 38 (1): 393–422. NINCIC,MIROSLAV. 2011. The Logic of Positive Engagement. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. NYE,JOSEPH. 2004. Soft Power. New York: PublicAffairs. ODELL,JOHN. 1993. “International Threats and Internal Politics: Brazil, the European Community, and the United States, 1985–1987.” in Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics, eds Peter Evans, Harold Jacobson and Robert Putnam. Berkeley: University of California Press. OELSNER,ANDREA. 2005. International Relations in Latin America: Peace and Security in the Southern Cone.New York: Routledge. PRATKANIS,ANTHONY. 2009. “Public Diplomacy in International Conﬂicts: A Social Inﬂuence Analysis.” In Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, edited by Nancy Snow and Philip Taylor. New York: Routledge. PUTNAM,ROBERT. 1988. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games.” International Organization 42 (3): 427–60. REITER,DAN, AND AND ALLAN STAM. 2002. Democracies at War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. RESENDE-SANTOS,JOÃO. 2002. “The Origins of Security Cooperation in the Southern Cone.” Latin American Politics and Society 44 (4): 89–126. RESENHA DE POLÍTICA EXTERIOR DO BRASIL. 1977a. No. 9 (April-May-June). Brazil, Ministry of Foreign Rela- tions. ——. 1977b. No. 10 (July-August-September). Brazil, Ministry of Foreign Relations. ——. 1977c. No. 11 (October-November-December). Brazil, Ministry of Foreign Relations. ——. 1978a. No. 12 (January-February-March). Brazil, Ministry of Foreign Relations. ——. 1978b. No. 13 (April-May-June). Brazil, Ministry of Foreign Relations. ——. 1978c. No. 14 (July-August-September). Brazil, Ministry of Foreign Relations. ——. 1978d. No. 15 (October-November-December). Brazil, Ministry of Foreign Relations. RIPSMAN,NORRIN,JEFFREY TALIAFERRO, AND STEVEN LOBELL. 2016. Neoclassical Realist Theory of International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press. ROCK,STEPHEN. 1989. Why Peace Breaks Out: Great Power Rapprochement in Historical Perspective. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ROMERO,JORGE LUIS. 2004. A History of Argentina in the Twentieth Century, Trans. James Brennan. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. ROSE,GIDEON. 1998. “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy.” World Politics 51: 144–72. SCHELLING,THOMAS. 1960. The Strategy of Conﬂict. New York: Oxford University Press. SCHMIDLI,WILLIAM MICHAEL. 2013. The Fate of Freedom Elsewhere: Human Rights and US Cold War Policy toward Argentina. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. SCHUESSLER,JOHN. 2015. Deceit on the Road to War: Presidents, Politics, and American Democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. SEIB,PHILIP. 2009. “Conclusion: The Task for Policy Makers.” In Toward a New Public Diplomacy: Redirecting US Foreign Policy, edited by Philip Seib. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. SEOANE,MARIA, AND VICENTE MULEIRO. 2001. El dictador: La historia secreta y pública de Jorge Rafael Videla,3d edition. Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamericana. SHARP,PAUL. 2009. Diplomatic Theory of International Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press. SHEININ,DAVID M. K. 2006. Argentina and the United States: An Alliance Contained. Athens: University of Georgia Press. SILVA,LAURA CRISTINA. 2007. “El proceso de negociación del TLC entre Colombia y Estados Unidos.” Colombia Internacional 65: 112–33. SNOW,NANCY. 2009. “Rethinking Public Diplomacy.” In Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy,editedby Nancy Snow and Philip Taylor. New York: Routledge. SNYDER,JACK. 1993. “East-West Bargaining over Germany: The Search for Synergy in a Two-Level Game.” In Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics, edited by Peter Evans, Harold Jacobson and Robert Putnam, Berkeley: University of California Press. SNYDER,JACK, AND ERICA BORGHARD. 2011. “The Cost of Empty Threats: A Penny, Not a Pound.” American Political Science Review 105: 437–56. SOARES DE LIMA,MARIA REGINA. 1986. The Political Economy of Brazilian Foreign Policy: Nuclear Energy, Trade, and Itaipú. PhD diss., Vanderbilt University. SPEKTOR,MATIAS. 2001. “O Mundo de Oscar Camilión.” Cena Internacional 3: 153–72. SPEKTOR,MATIAS, ORG. 2010. Azeredo da Silveira: Um depoimento. Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Getúlio Vargas. State Department. 2018. “Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.” Accessed January 12, 2018. https://www.state.gov/r/. STEIN,JANICE GROSS. 1993. “The Political Economy of Security Agreements: The Linked Costs of Failure at Camp David.” In Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics, edited by Peter Evans, Harold Jacobson and Robert Putnam. Berkeley: University of California Press. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/16/1/1/5380601 by DeepDyve user on 20 July 2022 20 Public Diplomacy and International Conﬂict Resolution VEJA. 1977a. São Paulo, Brazil. March 16, 1977. ——. 1977b. São Paulo, Brazil. July 27, 1977. WEEKS,JESSICA. 2014. Dictators at War and Peace. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. WELCH,DAVID. 2002. “Culture and Emotion as Obstacles to Good Judgment: The Case of Argentina’s Invasion of the Falklands/Malvinas.” In Good Judgment in Foreign Policy: Theory and Application,edited by Stanley A. Renshon and Deborah Welch Larson, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleﬁeld. WENDT,ALEXANDER. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Journal

Foreign Policy Analysis – Oxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2020

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Public Diplomacy and International Conflict Resolution: A Cautionary Case from Cold War South America

Public Diplomacy and International Conflict Resolution: A Cautionary Case from Cold War South America

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Public Diplomacy and International Conflict Resolution: A Cautionary Case from Cold War South America

Public Diplomacy and International Conflict Resolution: A Cautionary Case from Cold War South America

References (81)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies