Time and time again, during times of conflict, we often see interventionist strategies employed by powerful democratic countries. These countries work under the guise of democratization, where they ‘benevolently‘ take actions to implement democracy into less powerful, formerly non-democratic (or struggling democratic) countries. The outcome differs from country to country, some still struggling against corruption years later while some are on the path to becoming a strong democracy themself. This begs the questions: Should these foreign countries intervene? Are they only exploiting the vulnerability and trying to gain more power? Does this practice even work?
Foreign Intervention Fails? A Brief History of Afghanistan
From the beginning of the 20th century, Afghanistan seems to have been constantly in a struggle to establish its own form of government. This began in 1919, when the country became officially independent from Great Britain. For the next 50 years, Afghanistan saw many types of governments and rulers: a monarchy, a Prime Minister, a constitutional monarchy, and a republic installed by a military coup. After this time period, foreign involvement in the governing of Afghanistan truly began.
For most of the 1980s, the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan and influenced its government. This is when the first United States involvement occurs, as they work to provide military aid to the mujahideen, who engage in guerilla warfare in attempts to retake the Afghan government. Other foreign countries, such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and China, provide aid to the opposition as well. The Soviet invaders were driven out with the signing of the Geneva peace accords and Afghanistan is free to run its government how it chooses. For the moment, this intervention was a success!
Unfortunately, this soon turned into a classic case of conflict leaving behind a gaping power vacuum. In 1996, the Taliban rose to power, but did not rule democratically. Terrorist attacks were launched against the United States, which prompted retaliation and reignited the urge among foreign countries to instate democracy in Afghanistan. In this instance, foreign intervention was mainly concerned with preventing the spread of communism. Later, when democracy did not spontaneously appear, those same countries who intervened were forced to exert even more efforts to prevent further conflict.
Little to No Foreign Intervention, it Worked! (Kinda) In the Case of Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso is an example of a young democracy whose path was riddled with disagreements and coups, but not much major foreign intervention. After gaining independence in 1960, the country started off democratically with a President as the executive leader. This was followed by a military coup, a Prime Minister, a multi-party constitution, and, in the 1980s, an assortment of coups. A promising president is elected in 1990. This president goes on to engage in executive aggrandizement, manipulating the democratic institutions and allowing himself to remain in power until 2014 when citizens’ protests become ubiquitous. Although the leader manipulated the systems originally, the people were still able to express their discontent with the government and enact change. Despite the lack of intervention, Burkina Faso was mostly able to secure democracy on its own.
Intervention Does Lead to Democracy! Ghana’s Election Efficacy
Similar to Burkina Faso, Ghana gained independence from previous colonial rule during the mid-20th century, in 1957. In the years that followed, the government is handed back and forth amidst military coups and presidential elections. Finally, In 1996, “the United States, Canada, the European Union, and the Netherlands extended around $12 million… to enhance its capacity to facilitate free and fair elections.” These efforts helped to solidify belief in the legitimacy of the election among citizens. In this case, intervention helped to strengthen the civic culture in the democratizing country. What stands out in this example is that foreign aid was provided specifically to build and strengthen the democratic institutions, not to overthrow a non-democratic leader or wage a war.
Intervention is Good Within Reason
Obviously, among strong democratic countries, there will likely also be a strong belief that democracy is the best form of government and should be implemented everywhere. This does not mean that all countries should be democratic and that strong democracies should spread their influence. But, In some cases foreign intervention is necessary to get democracy started in a country. As seen in all of the above examples, the foreign country contributed financial or military aid in an effort to bolster democratization. However, the methods of intervention are critical. As we have seen, institutions don’t build themselves. Every country has a unique culture. Instead of solely launching military vendettas, it is essential that the democratic institutions are specialized and built to work for the specific country, and that a belief in the efficacy of the institutions be established. If this practice is not upheld, the democratizing country in question will be left with a shell of a democracy when the foreign support departs.
Camille, I really enjoyed your post and it definitely made me think a bit deeper about how democracy is spread. I am a fervent believer in the supremacy of democracy, and as such would love nothing more than for every nation on Earth to enact some form of democracy. That being said, it is clear to me after reading your post and through my coursework over the last four years that democracy is not something that can be forced upon a nation. In my opinion, for a thriving democracy to be born and survive through various turmoil, it must grow organically. In class, we have talked extensively about how democracy requires the buy-in and support of the people who are under the regime. Western nations attempting to install democratic regimes, even in states who call for this help, undermine the sanctity of the process. When democracy grows internally and is fought for and sacrificed for, it is much more sacred and becomes tied to the national identity. The foreign installation of democracy does not seem to create these same links. For one, even if democracy is popular, the idea of a foreign actor creating one’s political order undermines basic faith in the regime and makes democracy harder to tie to national identity as it comes from an ‘other’. On the other hand, as you eluded to, most nations are not in the habit of nation-building for the sake of it. When resources are poured into a foreign nation, one can expect just as many, if not more, to be extracted. Democracy can’t be born from this kind of exchange.
Hey Camille, I really appreciate your choice of topic. Interventionism under the guise of ‘promoting democracy’ can often be used to further the interests of more powerful democracies at the expense of a developing state. I’m currently writing about neocolonialism in Africa for my African politics class, and it is clear that in some cases the United States has deposed leaders in the name of democracy or simply because those African leaders did not align themselves with American interests. However, as you mentioned, in some cases intervention does lead to democracy and supports democratic interests in the host state. Your assessment of interventionism in the name of democracy is accurate; it can be helpful and effective in some cases, and detrimental in others. You made a key point in illustrating that foreign intervention that supports democratic institutions is an effective method at internationalizing democracy, whereas arming rebel groups that promise a transition to democracy is much more risky and ineffective when it comes to promoting democracy. Afghanistan is a good example of that, especially regarding the risks involved with arming unpredictable rebel groups in areas suffering from political and or economic instability. Foreign intervention in the name of democracy is a very subjective issue, but I think that this type of intervention should never include military aid or technology. It is not the responsibility of the US or any other major democracies to convert every state across the globe to the democratic system.
You make a great point about interventionism in your response. It is very difficult for a country with such a troubled relationship with democracy like America to actively promote democracy abroad. We have overthrown democratically elected regimes all over the world, and democracy in our own country is flawed to say the least. I think an important part of your response is about how we have overthrown leaders not because their policies were not benefiting the people, but rather their policies weren’t attractive enough for business interests.
Take Guatemala for example. When President Jacobo Árbenz’s policies clashed with the economic interests of the United Fruit Company, they lobbied the US government to have him overthrown. Even though he was anti-communist, his redistribution policies and desire to reduce dependence on foreign aid got him taken it. In his place, they installed right-wing dictator Carlos Castillo Armas, who needless to say was a true autocrat that wasn’t afraid to bust unions and oppress opposition by any means necessary. He was the first of a series of dictators in the country. In this instance, there was intervention, but it wasn’t in promotion of democracy. It was in the name of neocolonialism.
Democracy is a powerful tool. In its truest form, it can benefit the people in ways that authoritarian regimes cannot. But when it is used as a disguise for nefarious purposes, it is inevitably going to receive criticism. People like stability, they don’t generally take risks unless they know for sure the rewards will outweigh the consequences. It is not easy to convince a population to just adopt democracy all of a sudden. It has to be cultivated over time. For now, our best bet is most likely funding education and non-governmental organizations that specialize in fighting poverty and corruption, and generally seek to improve conditions in the country. Once there is a stable base, it is more likely for democracy to succeed. I absolutely agree with you, it is not our job to convert every country into a democracy. But that does not mean we should simply do nothing. We should prove our benevolence, and work to correct our mistakes of the past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#:~:text=In%20the%20latter%20half%20of,American%20and%20Philippine%E2%80%93American%20wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Castillo_Armas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobo_%C3%81rbenz
Hi Camille! I love that you chose this topic to write about as it’s something I don’t know a lot about but am very interested in learning more. In thinking about foreign intervention, I’ve struggled to decide what I think as I can see ways that it could both help and harm another country. I think using Afghanistan as an example was a great choice, especially because of how recent the United States withdrawal from Afghanistan was. It was also really interesting to hear about U.S. involvement in the country before 9/11 as I was not aware of this history. After reading your post, I still feel that foreign intervention is a very nuanced process, and that it is not absolutely good or absolutely bad. However, I think I would err on the side of little foreign intervention, for many of the reasons you provided. In the case of Afghanistan, the democratic institutions that were built in the country fell almost as soon as the United States left the country, returning them to Taliban control. Although intervention has been successful in some countries, it is due to many important factors, including citizens’ willingness and ability to maintain the democratic institutions once they are in place. Without this desire and capability, the institutions are destined to fail. If democracy is to succeed in a country, more has to be done by foreign countries and the home country itself than simply design the institutions. They have to be set up for success in order to ensure they continue on once the foreign country is no longer a part of the process. Although I won’t get into it here, there is also much to say about the lasting effects of colonialism and how this has impacted a country’s ability to be successful. Your post has definitely inspired an interest in me to do further research on the effects of foreign intervention and will keep me interested to see what countries, specifically the United States, choose to do in the future.
Thanks for sharing Camille! I think the topic of foreign intervention is complex. It is hard to predict the potential successes and failures of foreign aid prior to intervention. Reflecting on the examples listed, I question, what is the cost of spreading democracy through foreign intervention?
In the case of Afghanistan, that cost was the loss of the lives of thousands of Americans. The United State’s intervention in Afghanistan was defined by many missteps. U.S. intervention intended to fight the spread of communism and move Afghanistan closer towards democracy. However, as soon as the threat of communism was thwarted, the United States abandoned Afghanistan, leaving behind unsound democratic infrastructure, American trained militants, and a resentment for the west.
This same pattern of western intervention and failure can be observed across many developing countries, such as Syria and Libya. Based on this pattern of limited impact and failed foreign intervention, I believe that many instances of foreign intervention are the result of western arrogance and overconfidence, as well as a lack of reflexive action by western states.
I really liked your comments on intervention and how the US promoting democracy abroad can be something that’s so flawed considering how the state of our own system is so disadvantageous to US citizens. Oftentimes, our spread of democracy is illegitimate and instead of a way for us to promote our own economy or beliefs. In regard to Afghanistan, this was a show of intervention failing, especially after the US withdrew. That absence led to an unstable political climate and a government system in disarray, resulting in extremist actions that had a lasting effect on both countries. Western influence on other countries is something that can and should be looked at with an eye of skepticism. Democracy is something that is well-loved by us, but the execution of it worldwide is something that is far from perfect and thus foreign intervention in regard to democracy should be criticized and monitored.
Camille, I really liked your point that not all countries should be democratic, at least according to western definitions of democracy. I think Afghanistan is an interesting case study in this. I think it is safe to say that despite spending nearly two decades of American occupation in the region the “democracy building” project was an abject failure. The rapid surrender and retreat of the Afghani army, followed by the rapid Taliban takeover that met little resistance, are both proof that neither the institutions nor people of Afghanistan are, at the moment, willing to pursue democracy. Democracy building takes a long time and organic willingness to participate in politics that neither military occupation nor imposition of economic/ political sanctions effectively produce. I do think however there should be a distinction in your analysis between foreign intervention and foreign interference. Burkina Faso is a good example of this: many of the coups you reference, like that which deposed Thomas Sankara, were heavily supported by the French and Belgian governments. The promising president elected afterwards that you reference, Blaise Compaoré, played a key role in organizing and executing the aforementioned coup. I think there is a difference between organizing and supporting a coup with aims of exploiting and supplying education/ training with aims of promoting stability and self-autonomy. While I am not a total isolationist, I personally think that given the current state of the American political economy, our money and resources would be better spent shoring up our own democratic institutions than other governments we wish to share interests with. Moving forward, I believe the US government is better suited supplying already successful and growing democratic movements than they are going into countries and imposing controversial policies.
Camille,
I found your blog post both insightful and captivating; foreign intervention and its effects greatly interest me. The three examples of Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, and Ghana well depicted the different outcomes of intervention and its various levels. I agree with you that in cases where intervention happens, it should be used within reason and with specific aims that are appropriate to the local context. Additionally, I believe it imperative to address the adverse United States history of direct and indirect intervention that has led to the democratic backsliding of many countries.
As you stated, foreign intervention in Afghanistan was mainly concerned with preventing the spread of communism due to the Soviet Union influencing its government. Following this, the United States provided military aid but ultimately failed due to the power vacuum it created. When reading this, I thought about how the United States had used the justification of fighting communism in many other countries to intervene when the underlying purpose was for American economic and political interests—for example, the United States’ involvement in Nicaragua in the 1980s during the Reagan administration.
Nicaragua was ruled by the leftist Sandinista National Liberation Front, which came to power in a revolution in 1979 that overthrew the dictatorship of Anastasio Somoza. The Sandinistas implemented a range of socialist policies, including land reform, nationalization of industries, and investment in social programs such as education and healthcare, steps toward a more democratic society. However, the Reagan administration supported the Contras, a right-wing rebel group. The U.S. government viewed the leftist Sandinistas as a threat to the economic interests of American corporations in Nicaragua and national security. As a result, Reagan gave the CIA the authority to recruit and support the contras with millions in military aid. The Contras were encouraged to target healthcare clinics for assassination, kidnap, torture, and execute civilians, including children, and seize civilian property, along with many other atrocities. To solicit public support for Reagan’s proven exaggerated allegations about Soviet influence in Nicaragua and communism, they used white propaganda—pro-contra newspaper articles by paid consultants and other media. The U.S. involvement in Nicaragua was highly controversial in the U.S. and internationally. Critics accused the Reagan administration of supporting a brutal insurgency that committed widespread human rights abuses and argued that U.S. policy was driven by Cold War ideology rather than concern for democracy or human rights (Clawson and Tillman; Krueger).
Since independence, most of Central America’s common history still includes dominant periphery control. Foreign intervention has imperiled the development of political and economic democracy and has caused political corruption and vast social & economic disparities. Moreover, globalization has affected Central America by putting severe, unexpected pressure on the new regimes. The United States has a dismal record of intervention in Latin America in order to protect American businesses. They rely on exports, and when a threat challenges the profit of powerful companies, they intervene, even if it harms those countries.
Another example is the 1954 Guatemalan coup d’état, where the CIA overthrew and deposed the democratically elected Guatemalan President Jacobo Árbenz and ended the Guatemalan Revolution of 1944–1954, placing Colonel Castillo Armas as a leader instead. At this time, Guatemala had overthrown the previous military dictatorship and later installed democracy; nevertheless, the U.S. interference caused them to fall back to another military dictatorship (Dahl 148). The V-Dem Institute shows Guatemala having a Liberal Democracy Index of 0.24 during the revolution, pretty much equal to Costa Rica at that time, then falling back down to 0.06 in 1955 after the intervention (Coppedge. et al.). Between Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua from 1948-1982, more than two-thirds of the forty-seven governments gained power by unfair elections or military coups (Dahl 149). Outside forces have left many of these countries vulnerable, making them easy to overthrow as minimal support has been given to recompense; these frequent regime changes have been recognized as one of Central America’s principal problems (Booth et al., ch. 2). Countries like Guatemala very likely would have evolved into consolidated democracies if there had not been American intervention (Dahl 148).
Furthermore, there is an instance in the United States where foreign intervention caused a Central American countries’ Liberal Democracy Index to rise: when Bush ordered “Operation Just Cause.” From 1989 to 1991, Panama rose from 0.08 to 0.52 (Coppedge. et al.). However, it is imperative to look beyond the numbers – yes, they can provide accurate statistics and show trends, but they do not give a comprehensive narrative. In 1989, about thirty years ago, the United States invaded Panama to oust dictator Manuel Noriega. Over five hundred Panamanians lost their lives, and violence increased due to the weapons left after the invasion. Murders jumped from 2.1 murders per 100,000 people in the 1970s & early 1980s to nearly 11 murders per 100,000 in the 1990s, illustrating the damage and ineffectiveness of the intervention (Yao). Past events like these are extreme ethical controversies and should be considered human rights violations. Although it is difficult to weigh what is justified intervention, it cannot be denied that the majority of U.S. invasions were for selfish reasons, not the well-being of the countries that fell victim. The United States’ interactions with these countries and their history have had an extremely negative effect. As a nation, the United States needs to discontinue an elitist perspective because of its more consolidated democratic government and instead incur levels of understanding and acknowledge past mistakes of intervention where hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost.
References:
Clawson, David L., and Benjamin F. Tillman. Latin America and the Caribbean, Oxford University Press, 2018.
Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, Carl Henrik Knutsen, Staffan I. Lindberg, Jan Teorell, Nazifa Alizada, David Altman, Michael Bernhard, Agnes Cornell, M. Steven Fish, Lisa Gastaldi, Haakon Gjerløw, Adam Glynn, Sandra Grahn, Allen Hicken, Garry Hindle, Nina Ilchenko, Katrin Kinzelbach, Joshua Krusell, Kyle L. Marquardt, Kelly McMann, Valeriya Mechkova, Juraj Medzihorsky, Pamela Paxton, Daniel Pemstein, Josefine Pernes, Oskar Rydén, Johannes von Römer, Brigitte Seim, Rachel Sigman, Svend-Erik Skaaning, Jeffrey Staton, Aksel Sundström, Eitan Tzelgov, Yi-ting Wang, Tore Wig, Steven Wilson and Daniel Ziblatt. 2022. “V-Dem [Country-Year/Country-Date] Dataset v12” Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. https://doi.org/10.23696/vdemds22.
Dahl, Robert Alan. On Democracy, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 2008, pp. 145–179.
Krueger, Kimbra. “Internal Struggle over U.S. Foreign Policy toward Central America: An Analysis of the Reagan Era.”
Presidential Studies Quarterly, vol. 26, no. 4, 1996, pp. 1034–46. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27551669.
Miller, Andrew P. Ecotourism Development in Costa Rica: The Search for Oro Verde. Lexington Books, 2014.
Yao, Julio. “Legacies of the U.S. Invasion of Panama.” NACLA Report on the Americas, vol. 45, no. 1, 2019, pp. 70–72., https://doi.org/10.1080/10714839.2012.11722121.
Ziblatt, Daniel. “Chapter 1: Two Patterns of Democratization.” Conservative Parties and the Birth of Democracy, Cambridge University Press, 2019.