| Summary/Abstract |
In this article, we test one explanation of the causes of adoption of destabilization as a foreign policy. Destabilization, a risky policy which targets the political leadership of another sovereign state, is a widely-used foreign policy practice. But under-conceptualization, specifically around the causes of destabilization, has thus far limited its use in scholarly analysis of foreign policy. This paper aims to remedy that deficiency. Building on Taliaferro's (2004) balance-of-risk theory, we examine the rapid decay and adoption of destabilization in relations between the US and Cuba as a critical empirical test of this theory. We argue that the risky decision to adopt destabilization is the result of perceived crisis of security, economic and ideological interests. Our findings have implications for other scenarios and times, because they provide a better understanding of destabilization as a practice of governments against one another.
|