Democracy, War, and Covert Action

Abstract

It is well established that stable industrialized democracies do not use overt force against each other. But do democracies ever use covert force against other elected governments? This article confirms the US threat or use of forcible covert action against a series of elected non-European governments during the Cold War: Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Indonesia (1955), Brazil (1960s), Chile (1973), Nicaragua (1980s). There are other examples of US covert non-forcible action against elected governments. Three types of analysis are offered for this pattern. On the most obvious level, the US acted on the basis of an expansive conception of its perceived security interests, fearing future developments that would work to the advantage of the USSR, even though the US was not faced with clear and present dangers to its territorial integrity and political independence. A deeper unique explanation is that, as Michael Hunt has argued, the US was encouraged in these covert actions by an informal ideology entailing beliefs in US greatness, fears of social revolution, and racism. A deeper theoretical explanation is that the targeted regimes did not qualify as mature liberal regimes showing the characteristics of neo-Kantian liberalism: representative and specialized democracy, democratic alliance, and extensive private commerce. Moreover, the neo-Kantian reliance on representative decision-making to avoid major war did not affect secret decisions involving probabilty of few US deaths.

An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace

“…Consider, for example, the United States invasions of the Dominican Republic, Panama or Grenada Other actions that do not qualify as wars are also inconsistent with the norms argument. The analyses of covert operations by James and Mitchell (1995) and Forsythe (1992) demonstrate that democratic leaders often have undertaken violent acts against other democracies when the costs of such actions are low. It is di±cult to reconcile such patterns of behavior with democratic political culture.…”

The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory

“…The first reason is that the target states were not democratic enough to be trusted and respected (Forsythe 1992;Russett 1993, 120-24). This claim is not entirely convincing.…”

“…It was precisely because these states were democratic that successive administrations had to act covertly rather than openly initiate military operations. Knowing that their actions were illegitimate, and fearing a public backlash, American officials decided on covert action (Forsythe 1992;Russett 1993, 120-24). This defense fails to address some important issues.…”

Democratic Jihad ? Military Intervention And Democracy

“…In a theoretical model James & Mitchell (1995) allow democratic hegemons to coerce weaker democracies that are trying to break out of structural dependency, but there is no systematic empirical evidence for this. As Forsythe (1992) concedes in discussing the frequently cited examples of US covert action against Cuba, Nicaragua, and others, the target states were hardly model democracies and the level of violence was insufficient to record these episodes as armed conflict even by the Uppsala criteria. 4 While there is compelling evidence for the dyadic democratic peace, and the opposition voices are receding, the nation-level relationship remains more controversial.…”