3
initiatives, such as peacekeeping operations. Conversely, Mexico’s very recent democratization
process has not yet affected civil-military affairs in any meaningful way; if anything the Mexican
armed forces continue to evade objective and institutional civilian control. Consequently, the
degree of civilian control explains why some countries (such as Brazil) can and are more willing
to participate in international peacekeeping operations, while others (like Mexico) continue to
resist demands for international engagement.
In order to develop the main argument this paper will proceed with a discussion of the
empirical puzzles raised by the Brazilian and Mexican cases. Then it will critically review the
alternative explanations. Finally, it will discuss how the three mechanisms (bureaucracy, civil-
military relations and party politics) operate in the Brazilian and Mexican cases. This paper will
employ the method of difference, analyzing cases with similar general characteristics and
different values in the dependent variable, seeking causes by asking if values on the study
variable correspond across cases.
Similar structures and divergent policies: The Empirical Puzzles
A comparative analysis of Brazil’s and Mexico’s policies in the UN reveals three sets of
puzzles. First, if Mexico and Brazil are both considered regional powers in Latin America, then it
is expected that both countries will perform very active roles internationally and even compete
with each other for relevance in international organizations. However, only Brazil assumes a
regional power role, while Mexico has a passive international profile. According to Andrew
Cooper’s model of middle-power foreign policy behavior, intermediate powers constitute a
category of states that have the ability and willingness to adopt an activist, initiative-oriented
diplomatic approach to effectively engage the international system through international
institutions and other non-military means. It is expected that this type of countries should be
active in using diplomatic capabilities, relying on highly professional foreign policy
bureaucracies and international coalitions in multilateral fora. (Cooper 1997, 1-24)
Convention