The United Kingdom imposed an arms embargo on Chile in 1974 but not on Argentina after the 1976 coup, despite brutal military dictatorships in both countries. What explains this difference? What can this difference reveal about the determinants of government decisions regarding arms exports? Using mainly archival evidence, this article demonstrates that this difference is explained by a stronger advocacy network in the United Kingdom campaigning on Chile, which was largely due to a greater identification of the British left with the Chilean struggle. The hub of this network was the Chile Solidarity Campaign, which mediated the influence of the transnational anti-Pinochet movement on the UK government. These findings suggest that shared values or identities make transnational issues more likely to resonate with domestic audiences. Evidence also indicates the importance of activists’ connections with gatekeepers, focus on specific arms deals, and demonstrated causal chains between arms exports and repression.
AndersonK (2000) The Ottawa convention Banning Landmines, the role of international non-governmental organizations and the idea of international civil society. European Journal of International Law11(1): 91–120.
4.
AngellA (1974) Academics for Chile: One year after. Bulletin of the Society for Latin American Studies21: 4–7.
5.
AngellA (1996) International Support for the Chilean Opposition, 1973–1989: Political Parties and the Role of Exiles. London: Oxford University Press.
6.
AngellA (2020) Supporting Exiles: The Role of Academics for Chile. Journal of Refugee Studies. Epub ahead of print 10 December. DOI: 10.1093/jrs/feaa099
BinyonMWoodNWatsonR (1998) Let Pinochet Go, Menem Urges Britain. The Times, 3October, 1.
9.
BobC (2005) The Marketing of Rebellion: Insurgents, Media, and International Activism. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
10.
BoltonMNashT (2010) The Role of Middle Power – NGO Coalitions in Global Policy: The Case of the Cluster Munitions Ban. Global Policy1(2): 172–184.
11.
BryskA (2000) From Tribal Village to Global Village: Indian Rights and International Relations in Latin America. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
12.
BusbyJW (2010) Moral Movements and Foreign Policy, vol. 116. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
CameronMALawsonRJTomlinBW (1998) To Walk without Fear: The Global Movement to Ban Landmines. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
CarpenterRC (2007) Setting the advocacy agenda: Theorizing issue emergence and nonemergence in transnational advocacy networks. International Studies Quarterly51(1): 99–120.
15.
CarpenterRC (2011) Vetting the advocacy agenda: Network centrality and the paradox of weapons norms. International Organization65: 69–102.
16.
ChippindaleP (1973) Chile Links Deplored. The Guardian, 5November, 4.
17.
ChristiaensKGoddeerisIGarcíaMR (2014) European Solidarity with Chile 1970s-1980s. Berlin: Peter Lang.
CollinsJN (2005) Global environmentalism and local politics: Transnational advocacy networks in Brazil, Ecuador, and India. Latin American Politics and Society47(2): 176–180.
20.
CortellAPDavisJWJr (2000) Understanding the domestic impact of international norms: A research agenda. International Studies Review2(1): 65–87.
21.
DubowS (2017) New approaches to high apartheid and anti-apartheid. South African Historical Journal69(2): 304–329.
22.
EckelJ (2014) Allende’s shadow, leftist furor, and human rights: The Pinochet dictatorship in international politics. In: ChristiaensKGoddeerisIRodríguezM (eds) European Solidarity with Chile 1970s-1980s. Berlin: Peter Lang, pp. 67–91.
23.
EricksonJL (2013) Market imperative meets normative power: Human rights and European arms transfer policy. European Journal of International Relations19(2): 209–234.
24.
EricksonJL (2015) Dangerous Trade: Arms Exports, Human Rights, and International Reputation. New York: Columbia University Press.
25.
FairhallD (1981) British cruiser to be sold to Chilean navy. The Guardian, 6October, 32.
26.
FairhallDKeatleyP (1974) Chile Frigate Eludes Embargo Net. The Guardian, 22March, sec. 1.
27.
FingerMPrincenT (2013) Environmental NGOs in World Politics: Linking the Local and the Global. Abingdon: Routledge.
28.
FinnemoreMSikkinkH (1998) International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization52(4): 887–917.
29.
FreireDMeadowcroftJSkarbekD, et al. (2019) Deaths and disappearances in the Pinochet regime: A new dataset. SocArXiv, May31. Available at: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/vqnwu/
30.
GarciaD (2006) Small Arms and Security: New Emerging International Norms. Abingdon: Routledge.
31.
GarciaD (2009) Arms Transfers beyond the State-to-State Realm. International Studies Perspectives10(2): 151–168.
32.
GarciaD (2011) Disarmament Diplomacy and Human Security: Regimes, Norms and Moral Progress in International Relations. Abingdon: Routledge.
33.
HaesebrouckTMelloPA (2020) Patterns of political ideology and security policy. Foreign Policy Analysis16(4): 565–586.
34.
HansenSTMarshN (2015) Normative power and organized hypocrisy: European union member states’ arms export to Libya. European Security24(2): 264–286.
35.
HartleyK (2000) The Benefits and Costs of the UK Arms Trade. Defence and Peace Economics11(3): 445–459.
36.
HawkinsD (2002) Human rights norms and networks in authoritarian Chile. In: KhagramSRikerJVSikkinkK (eds) Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social Movements, Networks, and Norms. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 47–70.
37.
HirschS (2016) ‘A quarrel of limited concern to the people of this country’? The British labour movement and Chile solidarity. Labour History Review81(3): 237–257.
38.
HofmannSC (2013) European Security in NATO’s Shadow: Party Ideologies and Institution Building. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
JonesA (2014) No Truck with the Chilean Junta! Trade Union Internationalism, Australia and Britain, 1973-1980. Canberra, ACT, Australia: ANU Press.
45.
KeckMESikkinkK (1998) Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
46.
KellyPW (2013) The 1973 Chilean coup and the origins of transnational human rights activism. Journal of Global History8(1): 165.
47.
KlotzA (1995) Norms Reconstituting Interests: Global Racial Equality and US Sanctions against South Africa. International Organization49(3): 451–478.
48.
KlotzA (1999) Norms in International Relations: The Struggle against Apartheid. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
49.
KrauseK (2002) Multilateral diplomacy, norm building, and UN Conferences: The case of small arms and light weapons. Global Governance8: 247–263.
50.
KrauseK (2004) Facing the challenge of small arms: The UN and global security governance. In: PriceRMZacherMW (eds) The United Nations and Global Security. New York: Springer, pp. 21–38.
51.
KrauseK (2014) Transnational civil society activism and international security politics: From Landmines to Global Zero. Global Policy5(2): 229–234.
52.
LauranceEJ (1992) The International Arms Trade. New York: Free Press.
53.
LegroJW (1997) Which Norms Matter? Revisiting the ‘Failure’ of Internationalism. International Organization51: 31–63.
54.
LevinePSmithR (2003) The Arms Trade, Security and Conflict. Abingdon: Routledge.
55.
LitfinKT (2000) Advocacy coalitions along the Domestic-foreign Frontier: Globalization and Canadian climate change policy. Policy Studies Journal28(1): 236–252.
56.
LivingstoneG (2018) Britain and the Dictatorships of Argentina and Chile, 1973–82: Foreign Policy, Corporations and Social Movements. New York: Springer.
57.
LivingstoneG (2020) British campaigns for solidarity with Argentina and Chile. Bulletin of Latin American Research39(5): 614–628.
58.
LowryS (1975) Chile is one big prison. The Guardian, 11September, 9.
59.
Mc LoughlinK (2017) Socially useful production in the defence industry: The Lucas aerospace combine committee and the labour government, 1974–1979. Contemporary British History31(4): 524–545.
60.
MercauE (2019) The Falklands War: An Imperial History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
61.
MoraesRFD (2021) Transnational Activism and Domestic Politics: Arms Exports and the Anti-Apartheid Struggle in the UK-South Africa Relations (1959-1994). Foreign Policy Analysis.
62.
MoravcsikA (2013) The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Abingdon: Routledge.
63.
NaplesNADesaiM (2004) Women’s Activism and Globalization: Linking Local Struggles and Global Politics. Abingdon: Routledge.
64.
PallisterD (1977) Chilean torture victims march in protest. The Guardian, 9February, 5.
PetrovaMH (2016) Rhetorical entrapment and normative enticement: How the United Kingdom turned from spoiler into champion of the cluster munition ban. International Studies Quarterly60(3): 387–399.
67.
PhythianM (2000) The Politics of British Arms Sales since 1964: To Secure Our Rightful Share. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
68.
PriceR (1995) A genealogy of the chemical weapons taboo. International Organization49(1): 73–103.
69.
PriceR (1998) Reversing the gun sights: Transnational civil society targets land mines. International Organization52(3): 613–644.
70.
RapportARathbunB (2020) Parties to an alliance: Ideology and the domestic politics of international institutionalization. Journal of Peace Research58(2): 279–293.
Risse-KappenT (1994) Ideas do not float freely: Transnational coalitions, domestic structures, and the end of the cold war. International Organization48(2): 185–214.
73.
RoppSCSikkinkK (1999) International norms and domestic politics in Chile and Guatemala. In: RisseTRoppSCSikkinkK (eds) The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 172–204.
74.
RutherfordKR (2000) The evolving arms control agenda: Implications of the role of NGOs in banning antipersonnel landmines. World Politics53(1): 74–114.
ShawkiN (2011) Organizational structure and strength and transnational campaign outcomes: A comparison of two transnational advocacy networks. Global Networks – A Journal of Transnational Affairs11(1): 97–117.
77.
SikkinkK (1996) Nongovernmental organizations, democracy, and human rights in Latin America. In: FarerT (ed.) Beyond Sovereignty: Collectively Defending Democracy in the Americas. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, pp. 150–168.
78.
SoysaIDMidfordP (2012) Enter the Dragon! An empirical analysis of Chinese versus US arms transfers to autocrats and violators of human rights, 1989–2006. International Studies Quarterly56(4): 843–856.
79.
SperlingVFerreeMMRismanB (2001) Constructing global feminism: Transnational advocacy networks and Russian Women’s activism. Signs26(4): 1155–1186.
80.
StohlRGrillotS (2009) The International Arms Trade. Vol. 7. Cambridge: Polity Press.
81.
WalkerM (1983) Chile navy likely to buy hermes. The Guardian, 15June, 26.
82.
WallaceB (1974) 22 Chileans refused entry. The Guardian, 27April, 4.
WhallHPytlakA (2014) The role of civil society in the international negotiations on the arms trade treaty. Global Policy5(4): 453–468.
85.
WilkinsonMD (1992) The Chile solidarity campaign and British Government policy towards Chile, 1973-1990. Revista Europea De Estudios Latinoamericanos Y Del Caribe [European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies] 52(June): 57–74.
86.
Yarhi-MiloKLanoszkaACooperZ (2016) To arm or to ally? The Patron’s dilemma and the strategic logic of arms transfers and alliances. International Security41(2): 90–139.
