Democratic interventionism Lecture at HEI, 2 May 2007 Course E 584 Topics in Peace Research

1. Democratic interventionismLecture at HEI, 2 May 2007Course E 584 Topics in Peace Research Nils Petter Gleditsch Centre for the Study of Civil War (CSCW at International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) & Department of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

2. ‘America is a nation with a mission .... Our aim is democratic peace – a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman .... This great republic will lead the cause of freedom. We will finish the historic work of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, so those nations can light the way for others, and help transform a troubled part of the world’ President George W. BushState of the Union Address, 20 January 2004

3. From democratic peace to liberal interventionism • Democracies do not fight each other - and they rarely start new wars - and they rarely have civil wars over government - although they sometimes have enduring territorial civil wars - but these are generally low-fatality wars - they tend to win the interstate wars that they enter - and the loser more frequently changes regime type - and changes are frequently in the direction of democracy - the three waves of democracy follow world wars (including the Cold War) • So why not help democratization along with a bit of judiciously applied force?

4. Main research questions • Do democracies engage in frequent interventionary behavior? • Do they target mainly authoritarian states? • Do democratic interventions promote democratization? • What kind of democratization follows democratic interventions? • Does it make any difference whether interventions are hostile of supportive? • Are there differences between liberal states? • Does it matter if the UN is involved? • Are there selection effects?

5. Main policy questions • Will democracies adopt a military interventionist strategy? • Should they? • What is the role of international law • What is the proper role of the UN? • What attitudes should other countries (and the UN) take after unilateral interventions?

6. Hopes Not just Bush … Margaret Thatcher (1990) ‘democracies don’t go to war with one another’ James Bakes (Secretary of State, 1992): ‘real democracies don’t go to war with one another’ Bill Clinton (1994): ‘Democracies don’t attack each other’ EU External Affairs Commission Chris Patton (1999). Free societies tend not to fight one another or to be bad neighbors The democratic peace as national security: Realist motives may merge with liberal ideas

7. Warnings Layne (1994: 14) : democratic peace theory could be used to legitimize an interventionist democratic crusade Chan (1997: 59): Democratic peace theory may be used to justify a democratic crusade Kegley & Hermann (2002: 19) the democratic peace can encourage belligerent behavior against autocracies Russett (1993: 135–136): the model of ‘fight them, beat them, and make them democratic is irrevocably flawed as a basis for policy Mitchell, Gates & Hegre (1999: 789): Democratic Jihad

8. Defining and measuring intervention Data from Jeffrey Pickering’s update to 1996 of the Pearson & Bauman dataset Intervention = ‘the use of troops or forces to cross borders or the employment of forces already based in a foreign country in pursuit of political or economic objectives in the context of a dispute’ (Pearson, Baumann & Pickering, 1994: 209) Air and naval incursions excluded (’boots on the ground’) Alternative 1: Tillema (only hostile interventions with combat operations, not updated beyond 1991) Alternative 2: Regan (broader set of interventions, but only in on-going civil wars)

9. Empirical studies Pre-Iraq studies: Kegley and Hermann (numerous) + Tures (2001) Meernik (1996) Peceny (1999a, b) Post-Iraq studies: Russett (2005) Peceny & Pickering (2006) Bueno de Mesquita & Downs (2006) Gleditsch, Christiansen & Hegre (2007) Walker & Pearson (2007)

10. The pre-Iraq studies Meernik (1996): US interventions involving ground troops (1948–90): Most interventions led to no change, but when comparing to other crises where the US did not intervene, he concluded that the effect of US military intervention was positive and significant Kegley & Hermann (1995a, b, 1996, 1997a, b, c), Herman & Kegley (1998): Democracies make frequent use of military intervention, they target other democracies quite frequently, and there is a democratizing effect Tures (2001) problem with inaccurate dating in Polity included democratic interventions in support of democratic governments (or ‘partly free states, such as Kuwait, 1990–91) included Rhodesia and South Africa (under apartheid) as democracies in fact democratic interventions in democracies are very rare Peceny (1999a,b): US military interventions (1898–1992) were not decisive in democratization, the important point was active US support for democratization, such as elections

11. The post-Iraq studies Russett (2005): - democracy promotion one of several motives and not always easy to distinguish between them - democracy by force rarely works (no new analysis) - the costs are very high even if it works - alternative methods of democratization are preferable

12. The post-Iraq studies Peceny & Pickering (2006) - interventions by US, UK, France, and UN 1946–96 - distinguish between political liberalization (move towards democracy) and democratization (crossing the threshold) - hostile US interventions promote liberalization and democratization - hostile British interventions promote the opposite - supportive UN interventions promote liberalization and democratization - French supportive interventions promote democratizations and (in the longer term) political liberalization - the results for US and French interventions are dependent on a small number of cases (Dominican Republic 1961, Panama 1989, and Haiti 1994 for the US, the Comoros in 1989 for France) America is unique among the liberal powers, but based on small number of cases The UN is generally more effective, but this is mostly peacekeeping, after the parties agree to stop fighting – possibly selection effect

13. The post-Iraq studies Pickering & Kisangani (2006): - interventions into 106 developing countries 1960–2002 - interventions in democracies (whether supportive or hostile) have little effect - for interventions into non-democracies, supportive interventions promote autocratization, while hostile interventions promote democratization (both in the short and in the long run)

14. The post-Iraq studies Bueno de Mesquita & Downs (2006): - selectorate theory of war: leaders motivated by a desire to stay in power - gains from intervention: security, trade, and access to resources - democracy valued at home but has less value abroad - may even be harmful because it costs more to pay off the larger selectorate - less uncertain and less costly to promote autocracy or rigged-election democracy - even bleaker prospect for the UN; none of the Security Council members are motivated to promote democracy - find a strong democratizing effect ( +10 years) for US intervention, a weaker negative effect for the UN - attribute this to a selection effect: the US takes on the hardest cases - but the effect is there - and after the Cold War the US has seen a clear security effect of democratization

15. The post-Iraq studies Walker & Pearson (2007): - re-analysis of Peceny (1999) - disputes some of the success cases (Cambodia, Grenada) - finds that most of the predictive power for democracy in 1993 is accounted for by democracy in 1944 rather than military intervention - while military intervention is positively associated with high Polity scores and Freedom House scores, but not with Amnesty human rights scores

16. Democratic interventions Period studied 1960–96 A state with 6 or more on Polity2 = a democracy A country-year with an intervention is coded as having a Democratic military intervention if at least one of the intervening actors is democratic An international organization is coded as a democratic actor if at least one member is democratic Other interventions are coded as autocratic

17. INCIDENCE of military interventionby regime type,1960–96

18. ONSET of military intervention byregime type, 1960–96

19. Democratic interventions? Democratic interventions now more frequent than autocratic Mainly because of sharp decline of autocratic interventions after the end of the Cold War Rise in ONSET of democratic intervention before the end of the Cold War, then decline Slight long-term decline in the INCIDENCE of democratic intervention

20. Where do the interveners intervene? • Semi-democracies are targets of democratic interventions roughly twice as often as autocracies and democracies • Autocratic interventions are more likely to target autocracies than democratic interventions are • Democratic interventions tend to target semi-democracies more often than autocratic interventions • Both autocratic and democratic interventions disproportionally target non-developed countries and conflict countries • Regime type of target less important for autocratic interveners

21. Estimated chance of interventionby initial democracy level, 1961–96

22. • Dependent variable: Democratization (Polity IV, a positive change greater or equal to two points on Polity2 from one year to the next) Main independent variable: Recent Democratic Intervention (1-5 years since a democratic military intervention took place in the country) Other effect variables: ─ Democratic interventions involving the US, the UN, occurring after the end of the Cold War, in support of a democratic or autocratic regime Control variables: Democracy Levelprevious year, Proximity of Democratization, Level of Development(Infant Mortality Rate), Social Capital(Memberships of National NGO), International Conflict(no, minor, war), Civil Conflict(no, minor war), Religion(Christians, Orthodox, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus) Time period: 1960–96 5,070 country-years, 166 countries Method: Logistic regression Democratizing interventions?

23. Number of democratizing countries, 1961–96

24. Estimated democratization by initial democracy level and lagged intervention onset, 1961–96

25. Democratizing interventions? • Democratization is most likely to occur in semi-democracies • The democratic makeup of the intervention is important for democratization of a target state • The participation of the US or the UN is not

26. What kind of democratization follows? • There is a net effect of greater democracy, but the democratic group is only marginally strengthened • Most regimes remain in the regime type they had before the democratic intervention • Only 4 of 428 autocratic country-years saw a change to democracy following a democratic intervention, 21 a change to semi-democracy • A higher percentage of the semi-democracies saw a change to autocracy than to democracy

27. Selection effects? • Democratic interventions disproportionally target non-developed semi-democracies that initially have a high probability of democratization • Are the results affected by this selection effect? • Estimation of Heckman probit model for the intervention casesshows that there is no strong selection bias

28. Research conclusions • Democracies intervene frequently and they tend to target semi-democracies • In the short run, democratic intervention does indeed promote democratization • This relationship is robust to the control variables most frequently invoked in studies of democratization • But not to alternative definitions of democratization

29. More conclusions • On a tripartite division, the greatest movement across categories is into the semi-democratic category, which is likely to be less peaceful and less stable • Some recent forced democratizations have occurred in unfavorable neighborhoods • Forced democratization is unpredictable with regard to achieving long-term democracy and potentially harmful with regard to securing peace

30. Policy lessons • Democratization by force should be attempted only in very selective circumstances • Policymakers will be influenced by what they can see, i.e. multivariate analysis < bivariate analysis < salient examples • Germany, Italy, Japan (and Serbia?) provided examples • Vietnam and Iraq provide counterexamples • The costs of military intervention needs to be factored in • Unilateral interventions may provide a poor example

31. Alternative liberal policies Globalization, development, trade, (Weede, 2004) - provide role models for economic development - open up markets for exports from developing countries - provide FDI (and perhaps aid) - take account of neighborhood, development, and tradition (Poland first, Uzbekistan later) UN peacekeeping, DDIR, IGO election monitoring (Russett)

32. References (1) Annan, Kofi, 2001. Why Democracy is an International Issue. The Cyril Foster Lecture, Oxford University, 19 June Bailey, Ronald, 2003. ‘Forcing Freedom. Can Liberalism Be Spread at Gunpoint?’, Reason Online, August–September, www.reason.com/0308/fe.rb.forcing.shtml. Downloaded 7 March 2004 Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce & George W. Downs, 2006. ‘Intervention and Democracy’, International Organization 60(3): 627–649 Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce & Randolph M. Siverson, 1995. ‘War and the Survival of Political Leaders: A Comparative Study of Regime Types and Political Accountability’, American Political Science Review 89(4): 841–855. Bush, George W., 2004. State of the Union Address. Washington, DC, 20 January, www.Whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040120–7.html Caprioli, May & Peter F. Trumbore, 2006. ‘First Use of Violent Force in Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1980–2001’, Journal of Peace Research 43(6): 741–749 Carlsen, Joachim & Håvard Hegre, 2007. ‘Simulating the Evolution of Global Democracy Levels’. Paper presented to the 48th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Chicago, 3 February 28–3 March, available at http://archive.allacademic.com/one/isa/isa07/index.php?cmd=isa07 Epstein, David L.; Robert Bates, Jack Goldstone, Ida Kristensen & Sharyn O’Halloran, 2006. ‘Democratic Transitions’, American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 551–569 Gleditsch, Nils Petter; Lene S. Christiansen & Håvard Hegre, 2007. Democratic Jihad? Military Intervention and Democracy. Post-Conflict Transitions Working Paper, Policy Research Working Paper 0–3815. Washington, DC: Development Research Group, World Bank, in press Gleditsch, Nils Petter & Håvard Hegre, 1997. ’Peace and Democracy: Three Levels of Analysis’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 41(2): 283–310 Hermann, Margaret G. & Charles W. Kegley Jr., 1998. ‘The U.S. Use of Military Intervention to Promote Democracy: Evaluating the Record’, International Interactions 24(2): 91–114. Hook, Steven W., 2002. ‘Inconsistent U.S. Efforts to Promote Democracy Abroad’, in Peter J. Schraeder, ed., Exporting Democracy; Rhetoric vs. Reality. London & Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner (109–128) James, Patrick & Glenn E. Mitchell II, 1995. ‘Targets of Covert Pressure: The Hidden Victims of the Democratic Peace’, International Interactions 21(1): 85–107

33. References (2) Kegley, Charles W. Jr. & Margaret G. Hermann, 1995a. ‘The Political Psychology of Peace through Democratization’, Cooperation and Conflict 30(1): 5–30 Kegley, Charles W. Jr. & Margaret G. Hermann 1995b. ‘Military Intervention and the Democratic Peace’, International Interactions 21(3): 1–21 Kegley, Charles W. Jr. & Margaret G. Hermann, 1996. ‘How Democracies Use Intervention: A Neglected Dimension in Studies of the Democratic Peace’, Journal of Peace Research 33(3): 309–322 Kegley, Charles. W. Jr. & Margaret G. Hermann, 1997a. ‘Putting Military Intervention into the Democratic Peace: A Research Note’, Comparative Political Studies 30(1): 78–107 Kegley, Charles W. Jr., & Margaret G. Hermann, 1997b. ‘A Glass Half Full? US Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy’, Futures Research Quarterly 13(1): 65–84 Kegley, Charles W. Jr. & Margaret G. Hermann, 1997c. ‘A Peace Dividend? Democracies’ Military Interventions and Their External Political Consequences’, Cooperation and Conflict 32(4): 339–368.Mansfield, Edward D., & Jack Snyder, 2005. Electing to Fight. Why Emerging Democracies Go to War. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Lang Jr., Anthony. F., 2002. Agency and Ethics: The Politics of Military Intervention. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press Layne, Christopher, 1995. ‘Kant or Cant’, International Security 19(2): 5–49 Light, Margot, 2001. ‘Exporting Democracy’, in Karen E. Smith & Margot Light, eds, Ethics and Foreign Policy. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press (75–92) Meernik, James, 1996. ‘United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy’, Journal of Peace Research 33(4): 391–401 Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin; Scott Gates & Haavard Hegre, 1999. ’Evolution in Democracy-War Dynamics’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 43(6): 771–792 Pearson, Frederic, S. & Robert A. Baumann, 1993–94. International Military Intervention, 1946–88. Data Collection 6035. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research Pearson, Fredric S.; Robert A. Baumann & Jeffrey J. Pickering, 1994. ‘Military Intervention and Realpolitik’, in Frank W. Wayman & Paul F. Diehl, eds, Reconstructing Realpolitik. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press (205–225)

34. References (2) Peceny, Mark, 1997. ‘A Constructivist Interpretation of the Liberal Peace: The Ambiguous Case of the Spanish-American War’, Journal of Peace Research 34(4): 415–430 Peceny, Mark, 1999a. Democracy at the Point of Bayonets. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press Peceny, Mark. 1999b. ‘Forcing them to be Free’, Political Research Quarterly 52(3): 549–582 Pickering, Jeffrey & Mark Peceny, 2006. ‘Forging Democracy at Gunpoint’, International Studies Quarterly 50(3): 539–559 Pickering, Jeffrey, J., 1999. ‘The Structural Shape of Force: Interstate Intervention in the Zones of Peace and Turmoil, 1946–1996’, International Interaction 25(4): 363–391 Pickering, Jeffrey, 2002. ‘Give Me Shelter: Reexamining Military Intervention and the Monadic Democratic Peace’, International Interactions 28(4): 293–342 Pickering, Jeffrey & Emizet E. Kisangani, 2006. ‘Political, Economic, and Social Consequences of Foreign Military Intervention’, Political Research Quarterly 59(3): 363–376 Pickering, Jeffrey & Mark Peceny, 2006. ‘Forcing Democracy at Gunpoint’, International Studies Quarterly 50(3): 539–559 Preble, Christopher, 2003. ‘The Perils of Global Libertarian Utopianism’, Reason Online, August–September, www.reason.com/0308/fe.rb.forcing.shtml. Downloaded 7 March 2004 Regan, Patrick M., 2000. Civil Wars and Foreign Powers: Outside Intervention in Intrastate Conflict. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press Russett, Bruce, 1993. Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press Russett, Bruce, 2005. ‘Bushwacking the Democratic Peace’, International Studies Perspectives 6(4): 395–408 Russett, Bruce & John Oneal, 2001. Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. New York: Norton Smith, Tony, 1994. America’s Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press Tillema, Herbert K., 2000. Overt Military Intervention in the Cold War Era. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press Tures, John A., 2001. ‘Democracies as Intervening States: A Critique of Kegley & Hermann’, Journal of Peace Research 38(2): 227–235 [see also debate on the following pages] Tures, John A., 2005. ‘Operation Exporting Freedom: The Quest for Democratization via United States Military Operations’, Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations 6: 97–111 Walker, Scott & Fredric S. Pearson, 2007. ‘Should We Really “Force Them to Be Free?”. An Empirical Examination of Peceny’s Liberalizing Intervention Thesis’, Conflict Management and Peace Science 24(1): 37–53 Weede, Erich, 2004. ‘The Diffusion of Prosperity and Peace by Globalization’, Independent Review 9(2): 165–186 Zakaria, Fareed, 1997. ‘The Rise of Illiberal Democracy’, Foreign Affairs 76(6): 22–43

35. Next week – Thursday 10 May The liberal peace – A capitalist peace?