Читать книгу Toppling Foreign Governments - Melissa Willard-Foster - Страница 9

CHAPTER 2

How States Impose Regime Change

States can pursue regime change in a variety of ways, each with its own set of costs and risks. Some strategies, aimed at remaking the target state’s institutions, require considerable investment up front but may give the foreign power greater control over the long term. Other strategies, aimed at replacing the leadership, can be cheaper to effect in the short term but can leave former regime members with the power to influence policy in the target state. As a result, the foreign power might spend more to ensure the new regime’s cooperation over the long term.

Understanding the various ways in which foreign powers impose regime change is important, because the strategy chosen can affect whether—and in what way—regime change succeeds. Yet almost no research addresses how states pursue regime change. Some studies focus on certain types of regime-change operations, such as covert missions or wartime campaigns.¹ These may explain why policymakers adopt particular methods, but they cannot explain the full range of methods. Others adopt a narrow definition of regime change, limiting it only to cases in which the target’s political institutions, rather than just its leaders, change.² This approach mistakenly presumes that only institutional transformation produces policy change. Many attempts at policy change, however, rest on changing only the leader. In fact, the leader’s ouster can lead to institutional change if the newly installed leader dismantles the state’s political institutions. The United States, for example, helped to transform political institutions in Guatemala (1954) and Chile (1973) by facilitating coups that brought to power new heads of state willing to undo each country’s democratic institutions. Rather than limit the definition of regime change, a more useful approach is to explain the conditions under which states either oust leaders or transform political institutions to obtain their policy objectives.

In this chapter, I explain how strong states choose between what I refer to as full regime change—the transformation of the target state’s political institutions—and partial regime change—the removal of the target state’s leader and/or top policymakers. I use the terms partial regime change and full regime change rather than more commonly used terms, such as leader FIRC and institutional FIRC, to avoid conflating how regime change is carried out with the end results. Partial regime change may lead to institutional change, either immediately or over time, or it could preserve the state’s institutional structure altogether.

I argue that the choice between full and partial regime change depends on the relative strength of the external and internal opposition in the target state. When the external opposition is strong, foreign powers prefer to partner with it to effect full regime change, which tends to produce more reliable allies. When such opposition is lacking, however, the foreign power may pursue partial regime change, either by conspiring with the internal opposition to oust the leader in a coup or by directly pressuring the leader to relinquish power. I also explain why foreign powers generally prefer orchestrating coups to forcing leaders to resign and under what conditions they will seek a leader’s resignation as an option of last resort.

The only instance in which a foreign power might attempt full regime change, despite the absence of a strong external opposition group, is when the target state is expected to gain or regain military power rapidly. Under these circumstances, the internal opposition is more likely to prove an unreliable ally over time. Because the leader’s internal rivals often share some of the leader’s policy preferences, they may revert to the former leader’s policies once equipped with the military means to resist the foreign power. Rather than incur the long-term costs of ensuring compliance from such leaders, the foreign power may prefer to bear the greater short-term costs of installing the weak, but more reliable, external opposition.

Although policymakers sometimes achieve their objectives through regime change at relatively low cost, they also at times find themselves caught in quagmires with little hope of reward. In this chapter, I also address how policymakers estimate costs, why their estimates are sometimes off, and how their goals can influence their odds of success. I also explain why failed missions sometimes convince policymakers to choose a different approach to regime change rather than abandon the task altogether.

Partnering with the Opposition

For states to see regime change as worth their while, they must have some assurance that the opposition in the target state will help them achieve their foreign policy objectives. This is likely to be the case whenever the opposition—internal or external—has preferences that are at least marginally closer than the leader’s preferences to those of the foreign power. Although the foreign power may still have to incentivize the opposition’s compliance, the costs of doing so will be less than the costs associated with coercing the leader. Of the two types of opposition, the external opposition’s preferences are typically closer to those of the foreign power. For this reason, the stronger the external opposition is militarily, the more likely the foreign power will be to use it to carry out full regime change. In the sections that follow, I detail why the external opposition tends to share the foreign power’s preferences and explain why leaders cannot simply change their policies to convince the foreign power to abandon regime change.

Full Regime Change

When a foreign power pursues full regime change, its priority is to transform the target state’s domestic political institutions. By structuring those institutions such that only certain actors can attain political power, the foreign power can ensure that only actors who share its preferences determine policy. At the same time, the foreign power can also ensure that those opposed to its preferences are denied political power, which means that only by overthrowing the political system could they reverse the foreign power’s policies. Full regime change thus increases the likelihood of longer-lasting policy change.

The stronger the external opposition, the more likely it is that the foreign power will collaborate with it to bring about full regime change. External opposition groups are more likely than internal opposition groups to accommodate the foreign power’s policy preferences. Unlike the internal opposition, the external opposition appeals to a different set of supporters from that on which the current leader relies for power. Because the interests of these supporters rarely overlap with those of the leader’s supporters, it is unlikely the foreign power’s demands would harm the interests of this group. Indeed, in some instances, the external opposition’s interests may overlap entirely with those of the foreign power. The external opposition may share an ideology, ethnicity, or religion with the foreign power or adhere to similar political values. Yet, even when neither side shares an identity, the external opposition may view the foreign power as a natural ally due to its shared antipathy for the targeted leader. Because the external opposition is disadvantaged by the existing political system, it may also be able to convince its followers to compromise their policy preferences to attain the foreign power’s help in overthrowing the system. Thus, the same policy changes that the current leader’s supporters would reject might be embraced by the external opposition and its supporters in order to attain power.

The external opposition not only relies on different supporters from the current leader, it also often prefers very different political institutions. External opponents of an authoritarian leader, for example, often prefer more representative institutions that will ensure their power. Opponents vying with a democratic regime, in contrast, often favor more autocratic forms of government to protect their personal interests. In either case, the external opposition’s desire to transform institutions enables it to accommodate the foreign power’s demands in ways neither the current leader nor internal opposition can. Whereas authoritarian leaders might jeopardize their power by relenting to foreign demands for elections, an external opposition group that favors popular rule would face fewer costs when complying with such demands. Indeed, instituting these reforms may be their goal. Though Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega could not hold free and fair elections without risking his political power, his popularly supported opposition was seeking to institute democratic rule and, therefore, could embrace such elections.

Just as it is more costly for dictators to comply with demands to liberalize than it is for their popularly supported opponents, so too is it more costly for popular rulers to accommodate foreign demands for unpopular policies.³ King Charles Albert of Piedmont-Sardinia, who attempted to fashion himself as a popular monarch by instituting representative government, discovered the difficulty of trying to maintain domestic popularity while placating the regional hegemon. In 1848, he went to war against Austria-Hungary to win independence, but after suffering defeat on the battlefield, he accepted an armistice. In the months following the defeat, Charles Albert found himself under domestic political pressure from leftist revolutionaries agitating for a return to war. He relented to their pressure and reneged on the armistice, only to be defeated again by the Austrians. This time, he was forced to abdicate. Learning from his father’s experience, his son suppressed the leftists and restored the monarchy’s power.⁴

Targeted leaders cannot prevent regime change simply by persuading their supporters that placating the foreign power is an unfortunate necessity. Although the leader could submit to the foreign power’s demands once assured domestic political support, the leader’s supporters will only accept the need for concessions when convinced that resistance is pointless. To convince them of this, the foreign power must threaten to make resistance more costly than compliance. Threats of an invasion accompanied by war preparation measures, for example, might persuade the leader’s supporters that concessions are necessary. But if the foreign power wants to avoid the various costs of those actions, it may never undertake them. Instead, it may avoid the costs of using direct force altogether by using covert or indirect measures to oust the leader. Without a visible or even verbal threat from the foreign power, the leader’s supporters will continue to see capitulation as unnecessary and will punish the leader for conceding. Hence, unlike the external opposition, the leader cannot accommodate the foreign power and dissuade it from pursuing regime change without incurring political costs.

Though partnering with a targeted leader’s external opposition can have its advantages, a foreign power may at times be forced to look elsewhere for help in overthrowing a leader. First, in some instances, the external opposition’s policy preferences may be more opposed to those of the foreign power than to those of the current leader. Such groups may still threaten the leader, prompting the leader to resist the foreign power, but they will be of little help to the foreign power in overthrowing the leader. Second, the external opposition can also be costly to install in power. Even when external opposition groups share the foreign power’s preferences, as political outsiders, they cannot engineer coups from within the political system. The only exceptions are when the leader has already tried to co-opt them by bringing them into the government or when they partner with the internal opposition, which leads the coup. More typically, the external opposition must rely on military force to overthrow the standing regime. This means that outside powers may have to fund an insurgency, support a popular rebellion, or conduct a military invasion to effect full regime change. Due to these potentially high costs, the foreign power’s preference for full regime change depends on the external opposition’s strength. The stronger it is, the more likely the foreign power will pursue full regime change, as long as the external opposition remains marginally more willing than the leader to comply. Otherwise, foreign powers may look for less costly ways to overthrow the targeted leader.

My argument thus far suggests the following testable hypothesis:

H1a4: When a state seeks to effect regime change in another state, it is more likely to pursue full regime change when the external opposition to the targeted leader is strong relative to the targeted leader.

Partial Regime Change

When external opposition to the targeted leader is too weak to make full regime change feasible, the foreign power may instead settle for partial regime change—the removal of the targeted leader. Partial regime change can be carried out in one of two ways. Foreign powers can either conspire with the leader’s internal opposition to remove the leader or pressure the leader directly to step down from power. I address each in turn in the next sections.

COUPS

States can pursue partial regime change by urging internal rivals of the targeted leader to undertake a coup. The leader’s internal opposition is composed of political rivals who compete for power based on the established rules governing the existing political system.⁵ They may work directly alongside the leader as members of a ruling coalition, party, or junta, or they may head opposition parties that compete for power in accordance with the established rules. To carry out a coup, a rival must convince both the military and at least some of the leader’s supporters to abandon the leader.

Orchestrating a coup can be a relatively cheap way for a foreign power to bring about regime change. Because the internal opposition can use its power and influence within the existing political system, it may not need outside military aid to spearhead a popular revolt or insurgency, as the external opposition would.⁶ The leader’s internal rivals could, for example, seize power by using their bureaucratic privileges to conduct purges and isolate the leader. Or, they could use their proximity to the leader to kill or imprison him or her. If members of the military, they could also use their weapons to forcibly take control. All told, the internal opposition’s ability to seize power from within means the foreign power can use less costly covert or indirect force to facilitate regime change.

Figure 3. Policy Positions of the External Opposition, Internal Opposition, Leader, and Foreign Power

The disadvantage to installing the leader’s internal rivals in power is that they may share some of the deposed leader’s policy preferences. The leader’s internal rivals compete with the leader for the same set of supporters and so will tend to promote policies that will satisfy those supporters. For partial regime change to be worthwhile for the foreign power, the foreign power must convince the leader’s rivals not only to overthrow the leader but also to abandon some of their traditional supporters and move closer to the foreign power’s policy position. Figure 3 shows the conditions under which the foreign power may see advantage in partnering with the internal opposition. In this scenario, the external opposition (EO) is too weak to help the foreign power (FP) impose full regime change. The leader (L) maintains power by appealing to a critical number of supporters (S) whose policy preferences lie between S_Left and S_Moderate (e.g., within range 1).⁷ Members of the leader’s internal opposition (IO) compete with the leader for power by attempting to lure some of the leader’s supporters into a new coalition, for example, within range 2. Because this coalition also includes new supporters with preferences closer to the foreign power, the rival can make concessions to the foreign power that the leader would refuse (i.e., policies lying within the portion of range 2 that does not overlap with range 1).

The foreign power can often convince the leader’s rivals to undertake a coup by exploiting their desire for power. Much like the external opposition, the rivals may only need the promise of material support to move against the leader. In some cases, rivals from within might already be willing to oust the leader, and they seek only the foreign power’s tacit support. Generals in South Vietnam, for example, had attempted to oust President Ngo Dinh Diem several times before seeking American support in August 1963. President John F. Kennedy and his administration needed only to consent to the plot and withdraw US support for Diem to facilitate the coup against him.⁸ Although a targeted leader can attempt to buy off his or her rivals by offering them greater political power or perquisites, the leader cannot compete with offers from a foreign power to help the rivals take power for themselves. As a result, the leader cannot easily preempt his or her internal rivals from conspiring with the foreign power to stage a coup.

To orchestrate a successful coup, the foreign power and the leader’s rivals require the cooperation of two pivotal players. First, the target state’s military must be convinced either to acquiesce to or lead the coup. Otherwise, the targeted leader could simply use the military to preempt or overturn the coup. Second, the foreign power must also convince at least some of the leader’s supporters to abandon the leader. Without their support, the rival may not be able to acquire a sufficiently strong political base to seize power.

To obtain the cooperation of these two groups, the foreign power often attempts to drive a wedge between them and the leader. Although the primary interest of most leaders is to retain power, the supporters and military are more interested in retaining the goods the leader provides them.⁹ The state seeking regime change can often weaken the leader’s ability to provide these goods by using economic sanctions, covert political action, propaganda, and displays of force.¹⁰ Though the military and supporters of the targeted leader might remain loyal under the status quo, if these measures damage their interests sufficiently, both parties may conclude that they are better off abandoning the leader. In some cases, the leader’s supporters may not even be aware their defection will facilitate a foreign-backed coup. In Chile, for example, US President Richard Nixon tried to undermine popular support for the democratically elected president, Salvador Allende, by using sanctions to “make the economy scream.”¹¹ Although these measures failed to secure Nixon’s immediate goal—to prevent Allende’s inauguration—the administration continued its economic pressure, combining it with covert political action to divide Allende’s supporters and organize his opposition.¹² These efforts helped generate resentment toward his regime, which encouraged his opponents in the military to move against him.¹³

Once a critical number of the leader’s supporters become willing to accept the foreign power’s demands, hypothetically, the leader could reshape his or her coalition, abandoning supporters that oppose the foreign power and picking up ones who do not. The leader might then be able to appease the foreign power without suffering domestic political punishment. However, the foreign power may not accept the leader’s concessions, because once it withdraws its threat, the leader could cease cooperation, reverting back to the status quo ante or, at the very least, offering incomplete compliance. The Soviet Union encountered this problem during its 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia. Moscow had launched the invasion anticipating that it would prompt pro-Moscow Czechs to oust the reform-minded Czech leader Alexander Dubček. But when it became apparent that hardliners lacked the following to do this, the Soviets arrested Dubček and his fellow reformers, brought them to Moscow, and pressured them to accept Soviet demands for “normalization.”¹⁴ Although Dubček was returned to power and gradually began overturning the reforms, his pace was too slow for Moscow. When an anti-Soviet riot erupted six months later, Moscow insisted on regime change. It used the threat of another invasion to demand Gustav Husák be installed. Husák had been among the reformers brought to Moscow and had since adopted the view that conceding to Moscow’s demands was an unfortunate necessity. Once in power, he became a loyal ally to Moscow, purging the party of its reformers and completing the process of “normalization.”¹⁵

Convincing a member of the internal opposition to construct a new coalition closer to the foreign power’s policy position, however, may not be enough to make regime change worthwhile for the foreign power. Just like the former leader, these new leaders could also face political pressure to abandon their new coalition and revert to the status quo ante. They are less likely to reverse course, however, when they transform the state’s political institutions. By rewriting the rules governing access to power, new leaders can diminish the political influence of the former regime’s supporters and guarantee that of their new coalition. Accordingly, they become more likely to comply with the foreign power’s policy preferences over the long term because their ability to maintain power now depends on satisfying constituents who support those policies. As a result, foreign powers that use partial regime change typically choose internal rivals who can and will implement institutional change. Husák, for example, completely abandoned his reformist ideas and reinstituted authoritarian rule in Czechoslovakia. In Chile, General Augusto Pinochet established a dictatorship, brutally cracking down on Allende supporters. In Iran, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi transformed Iran’s political system twice. He first agreed to rule as a constitutional monarch following his father’s ouster in 1941; twelve years later, he consolidated authoritarian control after the CIA coup against Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq.

In some instances, internal opponents, once in power, cannot transform the political system without undermining their own political interests. When this is the case, regime change may ultimately do little to alter the target state’s policies. In Panama, for example, George H. W. Bush had initially considered orchestrating a military coup against Noriega, but Colin Powell, chair of the JCS, advised against it, noting that a new military leader would likely rule much as Noriega had.¹⁶ President Bush agreed that an invasion would be necessary to overhaul the current regime and democratize Panama. Whether the foreign power encounters a leader who is willing to transform the target state’s institutions, or whose interests lie in preserving them, depends on several variables. These can include the nature of the foreign power’s demands, its offer of assistance to the new leader, and the domestic political strength of groups hostile to the foreign power. These contingencies can affect the likelihood of producing a stable, reliable regime when working with the external opposition too. However, the difference remains that the leader’s external opposition has a much stronger incentive to overhaul the existing political order. As a result, though the internal opposition may be easier to install, the foreign power prefers to partner with the external opposition when possible as it is more likely to accommodate the foreign power’s interests.

LEADER RESIGNATIONS

Internal coups are not always feasible. Ethnic, religious, racial, or class loyalties may prevent supporters from abandoning the head of state, who can deliberately play upon societal divisions to ensure supporters and the military remain loyal.¹⁷ Leaders may also be able to shield supporters and the military from foreign pressure.¹⁸ Under such circumstances, foreign powers may still attempt partial regime change, but instead they may directly pressure the leader into stepping down. By coercing or inducing the head of state to resign, regime change can occur without a military confrontation.

The leader’s resignation, however, can be a costly and risky option for at least three reasons. First, such deals are often unappealing to the leader. Once the leader resigns, the domestic opposition could seek retribution or the foreign power could renege on its promises of amnesty. In fact, even if domestic amnesties could be made credible, the International Criminal Court (ICC) does not guarantee they will be respected.¹⁹ Further, resignation deals tend to be pursued when the foreign power is reluctant and the external opposition, though popularly supported, lacks sufficient military force. The leader is, therefore, in a relatively strong position and knows that the costs for resisting the deal will be low. Given the risks of conceding power, leaders have little incentive to accept such deals unless the foreign power can demonstrate that forced removal is the leader’s only other option. In Haiti, for example, the George H. W. Bush and Clinton administrations tried but failed to convince the military junta to step down by using sanctions. It was not until President Clinton mobilized forces for an invasion that the junta agreed to return power to deposed president Jean-Bertrand Aristide.²⁰ States may, therefore, have to bear the costs of signaling their willingness to depose a targeted leader militarily before they can succeed in convincing that leader to step down.

A second reason resignation is often the foreign power’s option of last resort is that it leaves the leader’s coalition of supporters intact but with little incentive to accept the new regime. In contrast to an internal coup, in which at least some of the leader’s supporters are first induced or coerced to accept it, the leader’s resignation does not require their consent. Although the foreign power can pressure a new leader to co-opt the former one’s supporters, both sides may resist cooperation. Haiti’s President Aristide, for example, reneged on his promise to offer amnesty to opposition members once back in power.²¹ Former leaders can also capitalize on their supporters’ grievances to return to power or use them to meddle in politics back home. Liberia’s Charles Taylor continued to interfere in Liberian politics after his exile to Nigeria. His meddling later led the United States to demand his extradition for trial at the ICC.²² Finally, due to the lack of a credible foreign threat, leaders may only step down when offered a deal that effectively preserves their power. The deal the Reagan administration offered Panama’s Noriega was, according to Marlin Fitzwater, Reagan’s acting press secretary, like “getting the fox out of the henhouse, then giving him quarters next door.” Even with these inducements, Noriega refused to step down.²³

Finally, the leader’s resignation is more likely to leave behind a new regime that is either unstable or uncooperative. Because states only tend to pursue the leader’s resignation when reluctant to forcibly install the external opposition, their preference for a low-cost approach may incline them to skimp on aid that the new leader needs to consolidate power. This aid can involve more than just money; foreign troops may be necessary too. For example, the United States tried to reduce its costs of using American troops to stabilize Haiti by working with the Haitian army to maintain order, even though the army had been complicit in the coup against Aristide.²⁴ Without sufficient support from the foreign power, political instability may persist. Aristide’s efforts to reconsolidate power divided his supporters, some of whom later joined with former members of the Haitian army to oust him in 2004.²⁵ Ultimately, the leader’s resignation often fails to address the sources of instability in the target state that precipitated regime change in the first place.

Because leader resignation is typically an option of last resort, rarely do foreign powers successfully coax leaders to step down without a fight. When leaders do step aside, their supporters have usually already defected or rebels are poised to seize power. In these cases, regime change is primarily undertaken by domestic actors. Though the foreign power may play a supporting role in negotiating the leader’s departure, these are not true instances of FIRC, because the leader would be removed regardless of the foreign power’s actions. For example, although Aristide claimed the United States ousted him in 2004, armed rebels were already on the verge of removing him from power.²⁶

When foreign powers are primarily responsible for the leader’s resignation, their efforts tend to be aimed at helping a popular but militarily weak external-opposition group attain power. In these cases, the foreign power is often under domestic or international pressure to act but has only nonvital interests at stake and so is unwilling to bear the high military costs of directly installing the external opposition. As such, the foreign power often seeks the leader’s resignation as a quick-fix, low-cost solution to the crisis. The ouster of Haiti’s military junta in 1994 and Liberia’s Taylor in 2003 exemplify this approach. Both were largely humanitarian efforts to remove leaders accused of human rights violations. Unfortunately, as both cases also illustrate, a leader’s removal may not ensure lasting political stability.

In sum, when the external opposition lacks sufficient strength, foreign powers can pursue one of two types of partial FIRC, coups or leader resignations. Coups are more effective because some of the leader’s supporters are convinced to abandon the leader and support the new regime. When the leader resigns, in contrast, those supporters may not only lack incentive to support the new regime, but they may also retain the ability to challenge it. Accordingly, instances of successful foreign-coerced leader resignation are rare. Finally, as I explain in the next section, foreign powers pursue partial regime change only when the targeted state is not expected to rapidly gain or regain military power. Otherwise, they may persist in seeking full regime change. All told, my argument suggests the following hypotheses on partial regime change:

H1a5: When the external opposition to a targeted leader is weak and the internal opposition is strong, states seeking regime change are more likely to pursue coups in target states that are not expected to rapidly gain or regain military power.

H1a6: When the internal opposition to a targeted leader is weak and the popularly supported external opposition requires military assistance, states seeking regime change are more likely to pursue the leader’s resignation if they lack a strategic motive to use military force.

The Exception of Rival Powers

Foreign powers generally prefer to install the external opposition, when feasible, because it is the most effective way to minimize the influence of those who prefer the policies of the former regime. The high military costs of installing the external opposition, however, can be a deterrent. But there is an important exception. When foreign powers anticipate that the target could rapidly gain or regain power, they may prefer the high cost of installing a weak external opposition to the higher long-term costs of installing the potentially unreliable internal opposition. This is most likely to occur when the target state is either a defeated rival power or is expected to acquire nuclear weapons.

Foreign powers know that internal opposition members could revert to the previous leader’s policies to win greater domestic support once in power. Although the foreign power can use positive and negative incentives to ensure their compliance, this strategy presumes the target state is weak enough that the leader might respond to such incentives. Should the target state rapidly gain or regain military power, however, the costs of incentivizing the new leader’s cooperation could rise. No longer vulnerable to military pressure or in need of aid, the newly installed leader could refuse to comply and revert to the former regime’s policies. In effect, internal rivals face a commitment problem. Although they may accept the foreign power’s terms when their state is militarily weak, they may later renege on those promises once their state acquires greater military capabilities.

In theory, this commitment problem could be resolved. The foreign power could demand and enforce settlement terms that keep the target state weak in perpetuity. The disarmament clauses of the Treaty of Versailles, for example, were intended to incapacitate Germany militarily to ensure it would never again pose a threat.²⁷ Such punitive settlements, however, will be deeply unpopular in the target state. The new leadership, therefore, has an especially strong incentive to renege on them. Consequently, the foreign power may have to take active enforcement measures, such as using its own troops to carry out the terms or to monitor the target’s compliance with them. France and Belgium, for example, occupied the German Ruhr region to force Germany’s compliance with the reparation terms following the Treaty of Versailles.²⁸ In addition, as the memory of war recedes and concerns over new postwar threats arise, the foreign power’s own domestic public and allies may question the need for such strict enforcement measures. This was the case in the United Kingdom after World War I, where the Labour Party championed the notion that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh, particularly its reparation terms. Forcing Germany to pay them, critics of the treaty argued, could bring about the collapse of the German economy, endanger international trade, and imperil the United Kingdom’s economic recovery.²⁹ Foreign powers may also encounter international criticism for punishing a weak adversary that can no longer pose a threat. Confronted with these political, diplomatic, and reputational costs, future policymakers may acquiesce to the target’s attempts to alter the postwar settlement. Once they do, the target state can regain its power, as Germany ultimately did after World War I, at which point the target may become too costly to coerce.

To avoid this outcome, policymakers may choose to bear the greater expense of effecting full regime change at the outset. By installing the more reliable external opposition, they can save themselves the high costs of enforcing a punitive settlement indefinitely. Indeed, the Allies’ decision to impose full regime change on Nazi Germany reflected the lessons of the post–World War I era, particularly the difficulty of enforcement. It was widely believed that failure to enforce the postwar settlement had led to Germany’s revival. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was an especially firm believer that no German leader could credibly commit to upholding a settlement that kept Germany weak.³⁰ Thus, the only way to secure lasting peace was to transform Germany by imposing full regime change.

What made partial regime change especially unattractive to Roosevelt was that the only opposition to Adolf Hitler that stood a chance of ousting him came from within his regime. Several high-level German military officials, mainly from the Prussian aristocracy, had tried on various occasions to contact the Allies to discuss the possibility of a coup and a settlement. Roosevelt, however, steadfastly refused to deal with “these East German Junkers.”³¹ The Prussian elite had played a major part in making the decisions that led to World War I. Some had also initially supported the Nazi Party and advocated noncompliance with the Treaty of Versailles.³² In that context, Roosevelt saw the anti-Nazi Germans as no better than the Nazi Party. Accordingly, he refused to recognize them, insisting instead on unconditional surrender, which would allow the Allies to impose a completely reformed regime led primarily by the relatively weak external opposition.³³ In short, when faced with a state expected to gain or regain power, strong states are more likely to pursue full regime change. The internal opposition is a less reliable partner that could become too costly to coerce later on.

My argument suggests the following testable hypothesis:

H1a7: When a state seeks to effect regime change in another state, it is more likely to pursue full regime change if the targeted state is expected to gain or regain military capabilities in the near future.

Estimating the Costs of Regime Change

My argument assumes actors base their choice of strategy on estimates of relative costs. I do not assume that their estimates are correct, only that any other rational actor with complete information would arrive at a similar estimate. Of course, policymakers can, and sometimes do, miscalculate. But this does not mean that miscalculation drives regime change. Indeed, by showing that even rational actors with access to complete information may choose regime change, I argue that miscalculation is not necessary for regime change to occur. More accurate cost estimates might affect the success of an operation, but they will not necessarily prevent it from occurring. Even if leaders could perfectly predict costs, this knowledge might only affect how they bring about regime change. In this section, I discuss how policymakers estimate costs, why their estimates are sometimes wrong, and why, despite a questionable record of success, states continue to pursue regime change.

How Leaders Estimate the Costs of Regime Change

The high costs and seemingly modest benefits of recent regime-change operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya have rightly raised questions concerning the wisdom of overthrowing foreign leaders. Regime change, however, does not always fail. Although success can be defined in a number of ways, states sometimes do achieve their primary objectives when installing foreign regimes. These objectives may include installing democratic allies, as when the United States pursued regime change in Germany, Japan, and Panama, or installing a puppet that will serve the foreign power’s interests, as when the United States toppled leaders in Chile, Guatemala, and Iran. Nevertheless, even when states achieve their central aims through regime change, their success is often qualified, at best. The United States, for example, may have turned Iran into an ally after the 1953 coup, but the CIA’s involvement inspired anti-Americanism that came to a head twenty-six years later with the Iranian Revolution. How is it then, that despite a modest record of success, policymakers come to believe regime change is the cheapest way to attain their aims?

When policymakers choose regime change, they do so on the basis of relative costs. They do not necessarily expect that regime change will be cheap but that it will be cheaper than the alternative—namely, coercing the leader into a deal. Policymakers seeking regime change may also have direct experience with that alternative, having tried to coerce or induce their targets first. If their efforts met with resistance, they may have already concluded that coercion is costly. In contrast, because the foreign power has not yet tried overthrowing the regime, its cost estimates for deposing the leader come with a wider margin of error. The long-term costs of a regime-change operation may be especially unclear. These costs can depend on events and developments that arise during the post–regime change phase, and that can be difficult to predict. Rebel leaders, for example, may turn out to be better at fighting than governing. Likewise, tactical errors that let former regime members escape or that antagonize the population could have costly consequences down the line. Even when policymakers anticipate these developments, they may overestimate their ability to manage them. This may lead policymakers to favor the more uncertain costs of regime change to the “known” high costs of coercion.

Policymakers consider more than just the relative costs when making their decisions; they also consider the relative odds of success. In this respect, policymakers may still be tempted to seek regime change, because coercion has a lackluster track record as well. Although some coercive measures may be more effective than others, the academic literature on coercion suggests its overall success rate is low.³⁴ The case of Serbian leader Slobodan Milošević illustrates the difficulties associated with coercing foreign leaders. NATO’s bombing campaign against Serbia during the Bosnian War (1992–1995) ultimately succeeded in bringing about a settlement in that conflict, but it did not deter Milošević from launching another ethnic cleansing campaign in Kosovo just three years later. Milošević later backed down again, but only after another NATO bombing campaign.³⁵ Thus, like regime change, coercion is not necessarily doomed to fail, but the expense required to ensure its success can lead policymakers to seek out other options, such as regime change.

States, of course, could give up on both coercion and regime change and do nothing. But the costs of inaction can also convince policymakers that some kind of action is required. When Ugandan dictator Idi Amin ordered an invasion of Tanzania’s Kagera Salient region, Tanzanian president Julius Nyerere concluded that inaction would only encourage Amin’s aggression.³⁶ The same was true for Vietnam, whose 1978 invasion of Cambodia was prompted by the massacre of hundreds of Vietnamese civilians during Khmer Rouge border attacks.³⁷ Policymakers may, therefore, opt for regime change, not because they see it as cheap and effective, but because they have concluded that leaving the leader in power is more costly and ineffective.

Why Policymakers Sometimes Get the Costs Wrong

Although policymakers do not always underestimate regime-change costs, the historical record is full of instances in which policymakers assumed erroneously that they could install a foreign leader at little cost to themselves. Policymakers are especially likely to misjudge the costs of regime change when they rely on the targeted leader’s domestic opposition for intelligence. External and internal opposition groups alike may give rosy estimates of what it will take to dislodge the leader in an effort to convince the more powerful nation to aid them. Saddam Hussein, for example, relied on the advice of exiled Iranian politicians and generals in planning Iraq’s 1980 invasion of Iran. Eager to recover the livelihoods they had lost, these exiles assured him that the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s regime lacked popular support.³⁸ Saddam thus believed his troops would be greeted as liberators, as did the administration of George W. Bush when American troops invaded Iraq twenty-three years later.

When a foreign power bases its estimates on its own intelligence and/or experience, it is less likely to be led astray by opposition groups seeking foreign assistance. In 1861, for example, Mexican conservatives petitioned the United Kingdom, Spain, and France for assistance in establishing a monarchy, but only France took up their cause. The United Kingdom’s Lord Palmerston explained that, while he believed a monarchy would be “much more stable than a Republic,” he knew that the Mexican conservatives were weak.³⁹ When they had previously approached the British government, “it came out that they required … many millions sterling, and 20,000 European troops to give any chance of success.”⁴⁰

Still, policymakers may back the domestic opposition for several reasons, even if its claims of a low-cost mission lack credibility. First, when faced with time pressure, policymakers may act on the information available to them rather than take the time to cultivate reliable intelligence. For Napoleon III, the American Civil War created a unique opportunity to install a friendly government in Mexico at a time when the United States could not afford to counter a French invasion.⁴¹ Second, if relations between the stronger state and its target have been poor for some time, the stronger state may have withdrawn its representatives, inhibiting its ability to gather intelligence. Without a reliable intelligence network, the foreign power may be forced to rely on third parties, such as the opposition, for its information.

Third, even when the foreign power retains its representatives in the target state, these individuals are likely to have close ties to the opposition if their own government has been at odds with that of the target government. As a result, the information they collect may come directly from the opposition, whether or not policymakers back home realize it. The French minister in Mexico, Alphonse Dubois de Saligny, staunchly opposed the government of Benito Juárez. He played an influential role in convincing Napoleon III that the majority, “if not almost all” Mexicans, looked forward to a European intervention.⁴² Mexican representatives protested that Dubois not only had never left the capital, and thus could not comment on opinion in the countryside, but also had hosted reactionaries in his home and was influenced by “an exceptional and eccentric minority.”⁴³

Another reason policymakers may underestimate the costs of regime change is that they may overestimate their ability to manage the political turmoil that led to regime change in the first place. The stability and cooperation of the new regime, much like the former one, depends on whether it can eliminate or co-opt its opposition. This opposition could come either from remnants of the former regime or from the same group that plagued the former leader. In Vietnam, for example, the Buddhist activists, whose confrontations with Diem had precipitated the 1963 coup against him, continued to agitate against the post-Diem leadership. The attempts by successive governments to deal with this powerful political force helped inspire many of the coup attempts that followed Diem’s overthrow.⁴⁴

If the foreign power fails to provide the new leadership sufficient aid to manage these threats, the leader may attempt to survive by buying off the opposition and granting it concessions contrary to the foreign power’s interests. In Afghanistan, for example, former President Hamid Karzai refused to sign a long-term security agreement with the United States, released Taliban militants, and accused American forces of war crimes. It was later revealed that Karzai had been negotiating in secret with the Taliban, whose threat NATO forces had been unable to eliminate.⁴⁵ Thus, the very domestic instability that inspired the foreign power to pursue regime change in the first place can complicate its attempts to install a stable, cooperative government.⁴⁶

The task of eliminating or co-opting the new leader’s opposition may be even more difficult when the foreign power seeks to install a democracy. Not only must the new leader build political coalitions across a society that may already be deeply divided, but also democratic norms may limit the leader’s ability to crack down on opposition. Potential opponents to the new regime could take advantage of the greater freedoms a democracy allows, as well as its constraints on the use of force, to organize opposition to it. Even attempts at co-opting the opposition may prove difficult. The opposition may reject these offers if it anticipates it can seize full power simply by waiting for the foreign power to withdraw. In Vietnam, post-Diem rulers avoided cracking down on the Buddhist movement as Diem had done, for fear of suffering the same fate. American policymakers ultimately grew frustrated by the restraint Vietnamese leaders showed and came to favor rulers whose methods were similar to Diem’s.⁴⁷ Thus, when foreign powers seek to install democracies, their political goals may conflict with their goal for a stable government. The greater the tension between these two aims, the more likely the foreign power is to encounter unexpected costs as it tries to reconcile them.

States may also underestimate costs when imposing democracy because they tend to assume the target population will welcome their efforts. And, indeed, the population may welcome regime change in the wake of a humanitarian crisis or after years of a brutal dictator’s rule. But once that dictator is gone or the crisis is over, opposition groups may begin vying for political power. Even in the relatively successful case of Panama, the heads of the new democratic government began fighting among themselves within a year of Noriega’s removal.⁴⁸ Domestic groups may not be the only ones to cease cooperation once the dictator is gone or the crisis ends. The foreign power may also lose interest in making the kind of long-term investment necessary to build a viable democratic regime once domestic or international pressure to act has abated. In sum, the foreign power’s actions during the course of a regime change operation can affect just how much the actual costs and success of the operation diverge from expectations.

How Past Failures Affect Future Endeavors

Although policymakers may err in their cost estimates, this does not necessarily mean that they would have avoided regime change had their estimates been more accurate. Even when the costs of regime change are high, policymakers may still regard the costs of a settlement or inaction as still higher. For this reason, previous failed attempts at regime change may simply prompt policymakers to adopt a different approach to regime change rather than to abandon it altogether. They may, for example, forsake their goal of establishing democracy and settle for a “strongman” capable of providing stability, as the United States did before withdrawing from Vietnam. Or, they may swap their military tactics for new ones. The First Anglo-Afghan War, for example, ended disastrously for the United Kingdom in 1842. But in 1878, British India’s viceroy, Lord Lytton, launched another attempt to install a pliant Afghan emir, believing he could avoid the mistakes of his predecessor by using more competent military commanders.⁴⁹

Past failures can also prompt the foreign power to shift from partial to full regime change or to change its level of force. The memory of the Vietnam War, for example, did not prevent American leaders from attempting regime change in the decades that followed. Instead, the experience in Vietnam changed how they pursued it. With the exception of Grenada, the Reagan administration looked to topple foreign governments by funding insurgents indirectly rather than directly.⁵⁰ In 1977, Vietnam abandoned its indirect regime change strategy, after failing to generate an internal uprising against Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge. Instead, Hanoi adopted a direct strategy focused on an invasion. The Vietnamese foreign minister insisted that there were still at least nine battalions and twenty provincial leaders in Cambodia sympathetic to Hanoi who would assist in the invasion.⁵¹ Simply put, although policymakers’ cost estimates are sometimes wrong, more accurate ones would not necessarily cause them to forsake regime change. As long as the targeted leader appears not only resistant, but also susceptible to overthrow, FIRC will remain a constant temptation.

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have argued that whether the foreign power seeking regime change replaces the target state’s institutions or leader depends on the relative strength of the external and internal opposition to the targeted leader. States seeking regime change prefer to align with strong external opposition groups because those groups are more willing to accept the foreign power’s terms. When the external opposition to the targeted leader is weak, however, the foreign power may instead encourage the leader’s internal rivals to launch a coup. Although foreign powers can also pressure the leader to step down, resignation is less likely to resolve the political instability in the target state. For this reason, it tends to be an option of last resort, pursued when the external opposition has popular support but requires direct military aid, which the foreign power is unwilling to provide. The only instance in which the foreign power might pursue full regime change despite a weak external opposition is when the target is expected to rapidly gain or regain military power. Because the internal opposition can be a less reliable ally, the foreign power is often reluctant to install it when the target state may recover the means to resist militarily.

Table 2. Hypotheses on Foreign-Imposed Regime Change

The Effects of Domestic Opposition

H1a: The Causes of FIRC

1. When states’ interests diverge, the stronger one side’s internal or external opposition is, the greater the probability that the opposing side will pursue FIRC.

2. The greater the military vulnerability of one state in a dispute, the more likely it is that the stronger state will attempt regime change when the weaker state’s leader faces domestic opposition.

3. When a foreign power confronts a domestically weak leader, a major event or crisis can serve as a catalyst for the decision to impose regime change.

4. When a state seeks to effect regime change in another state, it is more likely to pursue full regime change when the external opposition to the targeted leader is strong relative to the targeted leader.

5. When the external opposition to a targeted leader is weak and the internal opposition is strong, states seeking regime change are more likely to pursue coups in target states that are not expected to rapidly gain or regain military power.

6. When the internal opposition to a targeted leader is weak and the popularly supported external opposition requires military assistance, states seeking regime change are more likely to pursue the leader’s resignation if they lack a strategic motive to use military force.

7. When a state seeks to effect regime change in another state, it is more likely to pursue full regime change if the targeted state is expected to gain or regain military capabilities in the near future.

H1b: Responses to FIRC

1. All else equal, targeted leaders without domestic opposition will make more concessions than those with opposition.

2. A targeted leader is more likely to adopt defensive actions when the foreign power threatens regime change but does not signal the intention to use direct force.

Alternative Hypotheses

H2: Psychological Bias

FIRC is more likely to occur between two states engaged in a dispute when psychological bias causes policymakers to view the opposing side’s leader as the source of that dispute.

H3: Bureaucratic or Interest-Group Pressure

FIRC is more likely to occur between two states engaged in a dispute when bureaucrats or interest groups push for the removal of the opposing side’s leader.

H4: Credible-Commitment Problem

FIRC is more likely to occur when conditions undercut the ability of one or both sides in a dispute to prove their commitment to an agreement.

H5: Incomplete-Information Problem

FIRC is more likely to occur when conditions undercut a foreign power’s ability to credibly threaten a target state in a dispute.

Table 2 presents a summary of the hypotheses proposed by my argument and those of alternative ones. In Chapter 3, I test several of these hypotheses using quantitative data. A statistical approach allows me to test my argument across a large number and diverse array of cases, while controlling for the effects of alternative arguments. Statistical tests, however, have their limitations. They are less helpful in proving a causal relationship or testing hypotheses that defy quantification. Some of my argument’s hypotheses are indeed difficult to test quantitatively. In particular, the hypotheses on the effects of major events or crises (H1a3), the leader’s response to regime change (H1b₁ and H1b2), and the foreign power’s preference for partial versus full regime change (H1a4 through H1a7) require a more nuanced understanding of conditions and events surrounding each case. Accordingly, I test these hypotheses in the case studies that follow Chapter 3. If my argument is valid, we should observe that domestic opposition in the target state increases the risk of FIRC. In particular, we should find that it constrains the leader’s ability to make concessions to the foreign power, while at the same time making the leader more vulnerable to overthrow. Leaders without such opposition will not necessarily make concessions, particularly if they have the military means to resist making them. But their stronger base of domestic support should nevertheless cause the foreign power to prefer a settlement by making regime change too costly to pursue.