Coercive Measures Military intervention, foreign aid, and sanctions
Dec 16, 2015
I. Military Intervention
A. Predicting intervention1. Interstate War Escalation: Joining an
ongoing armed conflicta. Best predictor: Prior third-party intervention
b. Alliance portfolios predict side choice
What is an alliance portfolio?
All of the allies of a state
Similar portfolios generally reduce conflict / increase cooperation Better predictor
than dyadic alliance!
I. Military Intervention
A. Predicting intervention1. Interstate War Escalation: Joining an
ongoing armed conflicta. Best predictor: Prior third-party intervention
b. Alliance portfolios predict side choice
c. More likely when existing parity between combatants
I. Military Intervention
A. Predicting intervention1. Interstate War Escalation: Joining an
ongoing armed conflicta. Best predictor: Prior third-party intervention
b. Alliance portfolios predict side choice
c. More likely when existing parity between combatants
d. Great powers intervene much more frequently!
2. Intervention in Civil Wars
Predictors (all prior to intervention): Battle-Deaths, Refugees/Displacement, Media
Reporting (US all types), Duration Cold War, Bilateral Colonial Ties, Contiguity, Civil
War State’s Rivals and Rivals’ Rivals, Parity, Bilateral FDI (military intervention only!), Prior Intervention.
Stronger rebels attract more pro-rebel intervention.
2. Intervention in Civil Wars
Inhibiting factors: Economic/Military power of target (government), Oil exports of CW state, Population/Density, Prior Great Power Intervention, Victory
Tough calls: Democracy of intervener and target (mixed – leans positive), Bilateral Trade (mixed)
B. When does intervention work?1. Who wins interstate wars?
a. Who started it? Initiators win most wars quickly, but tend to lose long wars.
b. Bigger economy usually wins (GDP outperforms military predictors)
c. Bigger military also helps – parity makes victory less likely for both sides (stalemate)
2. Intervention in Civil Wars
No Pro-Rebel Intervention
Pro-Rebel Intervention
No Pro-Government Intervention
119(60.41%)
24(12.18%)
Pro-Government Intervention
29(14.72%)
25(12.69%)
2. Intervention in Civil Wars
Probability of Compromise, 1816-1997
Intervention for government
No intervention
2. Intervention in Civil Wars
a. Does intervention lead to compromise? Yes
b. Does intervention prolong wars?
2. Intervention in Civil Wars
a. Does intervention lead to compromise? Yes
b. Does intervention prolong wars? Yes
c. Is intervention getting more common?
Intervention Over Time
1825 - 1849
1850 - 1874
1875 - 1899
1900 - 1924
1925 - 1949
1950 - 1974
1975 - 1997
Number of Civil Wars 22 28 16 23 21 39 43
InterventionFrequency 36% 25% 31% 35% 24% 49% 51%
2. Intervention in Civil Wars
a. Does intervention lead to compromise? Yes
b. Does intervention prolong wars? Yes
c. Is intervention getting more common? Yes
d. The intervenor’s dilemma: Saving lives vs. Justice
i. Want to end the war quickly? Help the strong crush the weak
ii. Want to find a compromise? Write off another 10,000 people
II. Sanctions and Pressure
A. Predicting Sanctions1. US Sanctions: Best single predictor is target’s
relationship with USa. Domestic factors, target characteristics almost irrelevant
b. Interesting: Belligerence towards US after threat reduces chance that US imposes sanctions
II. Sanctions and Pressure
A. Predicting Sanctions1. US Sanctions: Best single predictor is target’s
relationship with USa. Domestic factors, target characteristics almost irrelevant
b. Interesting: Belligerence towards US after threat reduces chance that US imposes sanctions
2. General: Asymmetric dependencea. If I depend on you, I am unlikely to sanction you
b. If you depend on me, I am more likely to sanction you
c. Problem: Measuring dependence is hard
Example: US-South Africa
1984: Asymmetric Interdependence? US = 15% of S.A. trade, but S.A. = only 1% of US trade
Issue: Apartheid US backs South Africa,
vetoes UN resolutions for sanctions
US imposes minor sanctions only (to forestall larger ones)
Question: Why not sanction?
F-100 Engine Use of Imported Metals(F-15 and F-16 aircraft – key to air defense in 1980s)Titanium
5,366 lbs77%(Australia, South Africa)
Cobalt910 lbs73%(Norway, Finland)
Tantalum3 lbs80%(China)
Columbium171 lbs100%(Brazil)
Aluminum720 lbs100%(Australia)
Chromium1,656 lbs80%(South Africa)
Nickel5,024 lbs63%(Canada)
(Note: Metals indicated are used in more than one place in engine) JetEngine.wav
Best case: end trade = price increases
Worst case: end trade = inferior hardware
Example: US-South Africa
No: Fear of resource conflict nuclear proliferation 1957: US provides nuclear reactors, enriched uranium 1970s: Insecurity in southern Africa = security-based rationale for
atomic bomb (South Africa fears Soviet influence) 1975-1976: US cuts off nuclear cooperation over NPT dispute; UK
terminates bilateral defense treaty over apartheid “laager mentality:” Fear of Soviet invasion, need to force Western
defense, conventional arms embargoes, isolation proliferation 1977-1979: US-Soviet pressure fails to prevent probable nuclear
test (possibly joint Israeli-South African test) 1980s: Six atomic bombs constructed 1990: White government dismantles arsenal before majority rule
Example: US-South Africa Did South Africa’s Minerals Make It Secure?
B. Do sanctions work?
1. The basic problem: The “best” sanctions are never imposed (game theory)
2. Keys to successa. Sanction must be large % of target’s GDP
b. Sanction must not harm sender (very much)
c. Problem: Trade is mutually beneficial. Cutoff will always harm sender
3. Success usually takes less than 5 years
III. Foreign Aid
A. Predicting foreign aid1. In general (who gets the most aid?)
a. Free market countries (especially during Cold War)
b. Post-Colonial states (especially during decolonization)
c. Poverty and Debt
2. Specific relationshipsa. US: Egypt, Israel, Iraq (since 2003)
b. Japan: “Friends of Japan” – similar UN voting and trade
c. Western Europe: Former colonies
3. Top Three Recipients of US Aid: FY 2001 – FY 2009 (And 2010 Request)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
1st Israel Israel Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Israel Israel Israel
2nd Egypt Egypt Israel Israel Israel Afgh Afgh Egypt Egypt Afgh
3rd Jord Pak Egypt Afgh Afgh Israel Israel Afgh Afgh Egypt
Israel and Egypt were the top two from 1979 to 2002 and in the top five ever since 9/11 (along with Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan – countries where US forces have been fighting). Why?
C. Does foreign aid work?
1. Aid and corruption: No overall correlation, positive or negative
a. More corrupt countries tend to attract US aidb. Less corrupt countries tend to attract aid from
Australia and Scandinavia
2. Aid and growtha. “Good policies:” Aid may have positive effectb. “Bad policies:” Aid has no effectc. Problem: Hard to establish effect of aid on
growth. Why?