The Power and the Money

The limits of empire

 The world really needs a good game-theoretic model of informal empire.  I suppose Bruce Bueno de Mesquita already has one, but I’d like to see something more specific. 

What’s informal empire?  Well, if “empire” happens whenever one sovereign state exerts its authority over an area previously under a different sovereignty (or none at all) then that empire is “formal” when the imperial state exerts its authority through a bureaucratic chain-of-command that runs from the imperial executive through the local government and down to the person in the street in the new territory.   (Similarly, an empire has formal characteristics if judicial decisions can be appealed upwards to courts in the center, or if the imperial legislature can pass laws for the subordinate territory.) 

Since 1898, the United States has generally eschewed formal empire.  The exceptions are Haiti in 1915-34, the Dominican in 1916-24, Japan in 1945-52, Germany in 1945-55, Okinawa in 1945-72, and Iraq in 2003-04.  (The European Union exercises formal authority over parts of the governments of Bosnia and Kosovo.)  The U.S. has relied on a combination of treaty arrangements, sanction mechanisms, and moral suasion to get its satraps to do what the government of day wants them to do.  The famous SOFAs kinda sorta sometimes formalize quasi-imperial arrangements by giving U.S. troops special privileges inside host countries, including sometimes the right to shoot people, but that is not the same thing as giving the American government the right to give local bureaucrats direct orders under the threat of unemployment or imprisonment.

Sometime informality works and sometimes it doesn’t.  Right now, informal empire has hit its limits in Afghanistan and Honduras.  The U.S. can’t make President Karzai crack down on corruption, form a coalition with Abdullah, or negotiate with the Taliban.  Considering both the number of troops we’ve got running around the country and the number of dollars we pour into its government budget, the lack of influence (let along control) is pretty depressing.  What kind of an empire is that?

In Honduras, the recent agreement between Micheletti and Zelaya appears to have collapsed.  The Honduran legislature has not voted to reinstate Zelaya, and Micheletti is continuing his modus operandi of “what the hell?” by picking a fight over who will lead the interim cabinet until Congress votes.  Washington may be able to pick something up out of this mess, but U.S. leverage is limited.  Aid is suspended and visas were as well until recently; stronger sanctions, meanwhile, will just sock it to a lot of very poor people.  We could give up and run out the clock, which would be the best option if the rest of the hemisphere agreed.  They don’t, so something had to be done, and a few days ago it looked as though the Secretary of State had done it, by brokering a solution.

Only now Micheletti keeps going off the reservation, and there seems to be no quiet easy way to keep him on it.  There is still something a little ridiculous about the lack of American leverage.  What kind of an empire is this?

Not much of one, actually.  To be honest, I suspect that the U.S. will be able to knock some sense into Micheletti.  If pushed, I’d bet on the agreement coming back to life.  But still, the limits of informality are clear.  Even in Afghanistan, let alone Honduras, local political actors are autonomous, and the threats that the U.S. could use to sanction them are not credible. 

Running an informal empire is complicated, and running a formal one is often impossible.  The implications are left as an exercise for the reader. 

Honduran crisis over?

 It seems as though we may have an agreement to allow Zelaya back into office until the election.  Emphasis on “may.”  Congress and the Supreme Court need to approve it, and we still don’t know what limits it will place on Zelaya’s executive authority.  That said, the crisis may be over.

Once the Brazilians signed on to the Secretary General’s declaration that the clock won’t run out with the November 29th presidential election, some sort of resolution became imperative.  Yesterday the U.S. declared that it backed the Brazilian position, and a resolution become inevitable. 

One of the most striking things about the entire imbroglio has been the utter political incompetence of Roberto Micheletti.  Maybe he wasn’t responsible for the idiot decision to put Zelaya on an airplane out of the country instead of placing him under house arrest, but every dumb move after that lands on his desk.  He tried to justify the ouster with a fake letter of resignation from Zelaya.  He imposed and removed and imposed and removed restrictions of civil liberties that he had to know would neither stick nor intimidate the opposition.  He went head-to-head with Brazil for God’s sake, with an empty threat to storm their embassy. 

Honduran politics ain’t beanbag.  How did such a political incompetent ever get anywhere?  I mean, one usually expects politicians to be good at politics, right?

Not that the OAS (or even Brazil) showed itself to be particularly slick.  We’ll know more details later.  Still, I understand why the Brazilian government chose not to be slick.  The OAS, well, I have less sympathy for Insulza. 

Anyway, it does look as though the United States may have brought this mess to an end.  Of course, some idiots seem to think that we should have angrily backed Micheletti, regardless of the whole plane-packing  and opposition-from-rest-of-hemisphere issues.  Thank God that didn’t happen. 

Passing the buck

  Most of you probably know by now that Manuel Zelaya has returned to Honduras and taken up residence in the Honduran embassy.  That is unexpected, but neither good nor bad.  What is both unexpected and bad is the reaction from the United Nations:  Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon just declared that the U.N. “does not believe that the conditions exist to organize credible elections that will bring peace and stability.” 

The good thing is that Lula is going to meet with President Obama in Pittsburgh to discuss the crisis.  If the U.S. is smart about this, and I have every reason to believe that our government will be, then we will defer to Brasilia.  It is probably true that our beloved hemisphere still needs a hegemon to preserve stability and insure prosperity.  It is also true that it would be better for my beloved country that said hegemon (a) not be the United States; (b) be a country a lot like the United States; and (c) be at the end of the day somewhat less powerful than the United States. 

Considering the low import of this crisis, I would once again recommend exactly the opinion what probably cost me my shot at a State job that I would not have accepted:  the United States does not need a Latin America policy ... as long as Brazil has one.

Then again, I have been blindsided by the possibility that this crisis might outlast the Honduran election.  So I ask you, gentle readers, what should Washington do about the situation in Honduras?  What should Brasilia do?

Waterloo on the Choluteca?

  This is not helpful.  It isn't that I'd expect thoughtful foreign policy analysis from Senator DeMint, but holding up our ambassador to Brazil in order to try to get the Administration to oppose the policy supported by entire rest of the hemisphere does nothing for anybody.  Is there really a domestic return to this sort of posturing?

In my own fair and balanced way, however, I'll add that the absolutist stance recently taken by the Brazilian foreign minister is also not helpful.  Like Senator DeMint's calls to have the U.S. back Micheletti, Celso Amorim's demand for “the unconditional return of the deposed Honduran to the presidency” is also aimed at some domestic audience.  I suppose that the Brazilians should enjoy their ability to make such statements unworried about their international consequences; with the country's relative power growing, and the U.S. slowly withdrawing, they won't have that freedom much longer.

The Honduran government just expelled Venezuelan diplomats.  It's sort of funny, in a way, since those diplomats didn't recognize the Honduran government to begin with.  That, at least, is comic opera.  What is more worrisome is the recent statement by said diplomats that they aren't leaving.  Meanwhile, Zelaya is in Nicaragua making vague threats and stirring up some anger on the part of that country's beleaguered opposition. 

I think the pressure is going to get ratcheted up.  One possible sanction that the U.S. could quietly impose without tanking the Honduran economy would be to suspend business and tourist visas.  Of course, what we don't know is whether the block to a compromise is on Micheletti's side or on Zelaya's ... and without that knowledge, it's hard to figure out the best way forward.

UPDATE, JULY 22:  The recent compromise talks have collapsed.  The Supreme Court appears to have rejected a proposal put forward by a representative of the Micheletti government.  Then again, the attorney-general has issued a 16-page indictment against Manuel “Mel” Zelaya.  Congress has approved a budget of $5.9 billion, eight percent lower than last year.  It counts on $554 million in foreign financing; it isn't clear how the sanctions on Honduras by multilateral lending institutions will affect that, since they seem to be counting on around $100 million in such financing, and access to other private funds is often contingent on lending by the multilaterals. 

For those of you who want a run-down on what to read:  El Heraldo is the conservative newspaper.  Consider these two simultaneous headlines:    “People’s bloc opts for neighborhood protests” versus “Today, great march for patriotism and valor.”  No points for guessing which favors what.  La Tribuna is a little more fair and balanced, although it is also fairly conservative by American standards.  El Tiempo is okay, I'm not thrilled by its coverage. 

An admonition to Micheletti supporters and an admonition to his opponents

  In a previous post, I mentioned Mexico in 1936 and Argentina in 1945 as possible parallels for what the Honduran military was thinking when it exiled President Zelaya instead of simply arresting him.  Steven Taylor mentions a third parallel, a cautionary tale:  Colombia in 1953. 

He raises a good point:  breaking the law in order to save it is always risky and often stupid.  But the specific parallel doesn't apply.  General Gustavo Rojas Pinilla took power in 1953 and established a dictatorship that lasted four years; Roberto Micheletti ascended to the interim presidency with a vote of Congress and seems to be waiting until the November election to hand over power to either Elvin Santos or Porfirio Lobo. 

In other words, the typical historical parallels really don't apply in this situation.  An inability to recognize that is the main reason why the OAS is botching the diplomacy.  (As opposed to the U.S., which is playing it very well ...  but very much in the national interests of the United States and nothing else.)  They keep seeing Pinochet when what they've really got is an unelected Liberal government marking time until they can hand over to an elected government ... preferably also Liberal.  If the OAS diplomats can recognize that, then they can get inside the other guy's head (and his decision loop) and start brokering compromises that will allow everyone to win.

But I have my doubts that insisting on constitutional purity and making absolute demands will accomplish anything.  Demanding that some soldiers be punished, or agreeing that Zelaya should be tried while remaining titular president, those could get somewhere.  But so far that isn't the tack the OAS is taking. 

See also my comment and Steven's response here.  The short version below the fold.

Bad politics at the OAS, updated

  It strikes me that the diplomats trying to reinstall President Zelaya, particularly Secretary General José Miguel Insulza of the Organization of American States, are employing a lousy strategy.  The problem is that Honduras is a still a democracy.  The new government is conducting everything with an eye to the November elections, and unless the diplomats recognize that, they won't succeed.

You can't understand the coup in the context of a military takeover, because the military has not taken over and does not appear to be calling the shots.

The interim government needs to be persuaded that any compromise or backdown on their part will be a vote-winner.  There are a number of ways that could be accomplished.  The government could agree that Zelaya's expulsion was unconstitutional, give one of the military leaders a slap-on-the-wrist, and invite Zelaya back to reassume the presidency while facing trial.  (The same way, say, President Clinton faced trial.)  They could have Zelaya reassume the presidency after issuing a public apology for violating the Supreme Court order.  They could sit down and hammer out a third compromise.

The problem right now is that the OAS seems to have only sticks.  Getting hit with sticks, however, might just increase Liberal support at the polls in November; nationalist sentiment tends to work that way.  Delegitimization is a good prod, but Micheletti can't only be offered a choice between admitting his party is undemocratic and running out the clock, because he'll choose the latter.

Instead, we have Insulza in Tegucigalpa refusing to negotiate with anyone.  The military has admitted that it screwed up in banishing the President, and the OAS can't figure out a way to broker a compromise.  Instead, we've got a tragedy:  the death of an innocent. 

Anatomy of a coup

  The op-ed for Forbes is up. 

 I co-authored it with Steve Haber of Stanford University.  When I say we co-authored, I really mean co-authored:  Steve and I write by continuously tossing ideas past each other, dissecting them to death (and usually rejecting them) scribbling and re-scribbling versions, reading out loud to each other, and then finally finishing.  It's a lot of fun.  

The more expanded analysis is below the fold.  It takes into account some (surprisingly heated!) discussions with colleagues, Steven Taylor's blogging, and several of the comments on this blog.  I don't think I'll be dropping this issue anytime soon, so more comments and questions are highly welcome.

The importance of form

  The heat is turning up on Honduras’s new government.  Ambassadors are leaving, the borders are closed, World Bank money is gone, as are the U.S. military’s training programs.  Meanwhile, the hemisphere is united against the new government.

There would seem to be three lessons here.  (Note my weasel phrasing!  It isn’t accidental, as all three regular readers know by now.)  First, form matters.  Steven Taylor alluded to this point, and I think he’s correct.  Now, I don’t think that he’s correct about the underlying legality.  The Honduran constitution makes no provision for calling a second constitutional convention.  The Supreme Court, therefore, was completely within reason to tell Zelaya to knock it off with the referendum. 

Nor (given the facts so far) am I sure that Taylor is right as a matter of domestic political strategy.  If it was simply a matter of domestic calculus, a Supreme Court order followed by a quick bundling of the president out of the country might have been the best way to avoid worse conflict.

But Professor Taylor is completely right that hustling the President out of bed at 3am looks terrible. In retrospect, it was certain to produce a bad international reaction, even though I wouldn’t’ve predicted how bad beforehand.  (Hey, I was wrong.  Yes Bernard, I’ll get to Ecuador one of these days.) 

What the Honduran military and Supreme Court and I missed was the reverse Chávez effect.  Once Hugo (inevitably) started tub-thumping and threatening war, the best way for the United States to undercut him was to walk back its initial position and bandwagon on the international opprobrium.  And man, has the United States been successful.  Nobody seems to note that Washington was behind the international curve. 

In short, Honduras has gotten itself into a pickle.  The Supreme Court and military should have thought more about the politics.  The confused messages about resignations and drug-dealing and all the rest did not help; it was propaganda aimed at five-year olds, people who watch Glen Beck, not serious observers.  Now, it would have been damned risky for the Court to issue an order removing and arresting the President, but it would have been much better to have done that (preferably with a concurring Congressional vote ) and hope that Zelaya would be a little slow in mobilizing support, giving you time to bundle him off to Costa Rica after having crossed all the constitutional T’s ... or at least having seemed to. 

Form matters, even when the substance is uncertain and impossible to determine.  Perhaps especially so.  And that goes double in a hemisphere where electoral democracy enjoys the contradictory status of being simultaneously hegemonic and fragile. 

A lack of leverage

  The U.S. really doesn't give a whole lot of aid to Honduras.  Look at the figures, including military aid, from the USAID Greenbook:

That isn't a whole lot of leverage.  Of course, small amounts of aid may make it more likely that they'll be yanked, since such yanking won't wreck the national economy.  But that is the problem with using aid as an instrument of empire.  Contingent bribes — e.g., do good and we will give you more money — are fairly easy to administer.  Contingent threats — do what we want or the cookie jar will be taken away — are a lot harder.  You need to be giving enough money for the recipient to care, but not so much that withdrawing it would cause drastic adjustments that would reverberate back upon the donor. 

To put the above figures in perspective, remittances from the U.S. averaged 16% of GDP over the same period, peaking at 21% in 2006. 

In short, the U.S. didn't have a whole lot of leverage to keep the military-Court combo from ousting President Zelaya, even if the Obama Administration had wanted to.

(Say, should I add a “Honduras” tag to the blog?) 

A dog not barking in Honduras

  The fact that none of my posts about the Honduran coup carry the “Empire” tag is remarkable, considering the history of U.S. involvement in Latin American politics.  Even more remarkable is the idea that should events evolve in such a way as to warrant such a tag (which I consider unlikely), it will probably be either due to either direct meddling by the Alba countries or pressure from Unasur/Río Group/Brazil, not the interference of the United States.  That is quite a shift. 

Of course, the U.S. is still quite hip-joined to Honduras.  There is Soto Cano Air Base.  There is CAFTA.  There is the Millenium Challenge Account.  There are remittances.  Honduras isn’t dollarized, but it is a great case for dollarization, what with remittances above 14% of GDP, a fixed exchange rate and about 24% of all loans denominated in U.S. currency.  And we train its military. 

But Washington isn't leading events.  Sure, maybe it could, but it’s resisting temptation.  (Thank God!)  And that is a very big change. 

More on the Honduran constitution

  Hmm.  My opinion of the coup is moving back towards legal. 

In November 2003, the Honduran government (still under President Maduro) amended the constitution.  (You can find a history of all Honduran constitutional reforms here.)  The reason, ironically, was that they wanted to repeal the traditional absolute immunity held by high government officials in both the executive and legislative branch.  Thus, they repealed Article 205, clause 15, which had read: 

[Congress has the power] To declare if there is cause against the President, presidential delegates, Congressional deputies, Supreme Court justices, members of the National Electoral Tribunal, Chief of the Armed Forces ... and Subdirector of Administrative Probity.

They also altered Article 313, clause 2, as follows:

Original:  [The Supreme Court of Justice has the power] To begin initial proceedings against high state officials, when the National Congress has declared cause.

New:  [The Supreme Court of Justice has the power] To begin initial proceedings against high state officials and deputies.

The implication, I think, is that the Supreme Court has the power to remove officials from office when it determines that they have broken the law.  President Zelaya pretty clearly broke the law when he refused to obey an order from the Supreme Court to call off the referendum, and as I pointed out earlier, the Honduran constitution clearly (if stupidly) bans any consultatory referenda touching on presidential term limits. 

So my new version is:  Zelaya broke the law, the Supreme Court called him on it, and the military took the initiative in enforcing the Court's order.  (Maybe too much initiative.)  That interpretation will depend on how closely the armed forces and the Supreme Court cooperated in the ouster.  (The more it looks like the Court got the ball rolling, the more legal the coup will seem.)  Given the legal fog, the Obama Administration seems to be taking a pitch-perfect tone here.  Some other governments, like Brazil and Colombia, may have walked themselves into positions that they are going to regret. 

Be sure, though, to take my positions with a grain of salt.  I change them as the facts change, and as radically as necessary.  For a subtler discussion of the implications of the coup, go here.                            _{(Photo courtesy of Steven Taylor.)}

UPDATE:  The whole mess is filled with judgment calls.  Zelaya wanted to call a constitutional convention, which he publicly admitted would be intended to change the constitution to allow for re-election.  The referendum question that the Supremes kiboshed, however, only called for a convention, with no other stipulations.  So ... were the Supremes justified?

It all comes back to the problem that a constitution which declares procedural matters to be forever inalterable is a badly-written constitution.

An Andrew Jackson moment

  “The decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.”
                                                                        —President Andrew Jackson

The common misquote of the above is much sexier:  “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”  Which is not a bad summary of Manuel Zelaya’s throwdown when his country’s Supreme Court told him that he could not go ahead with his planned referendum on repealing term limits.  Zelaya’s “No one will stop Sunday’s vote!” is on a par with Jackson’s aphorism.

In fact, it is worth considering what was in Zelaya’s televised speech on Sunday, after the Honduran Supremes slapped him down.  “The Court of Justice, which makes justice only for the powerful, the bankers and the rich of this country, has declared illegal the people’s participation in a legitimate and constitutional poll ... What a shame for all Hondurans, this Court of Justice!  We’re in the presence of a technical coup d’état.  It’s a swipe at Honduran democracy.  I want to appeal to the commanders of the Armed Forces, the officers and the soldiers.  They are part of the people, they should not play this game of the media elite and economic oligarchy, of a deviant bourgeoisie.”

Why is this significant?  Because Honduras could have avoided this crisis with a better constitution.  The Honduran constitution had two major flaws.  First, it took re-election off the table forever.  I mean that quite literally.  Read: 

Article 5:  Voting in advisory plebiscites is mandatory.  Projects intended to reform Article 374 of this constitution will not be objects of referenda or plebiscites.

Article 373:  The National Congress can alter this Constitution in ordinary session with two-thirds of the votes of all members. 

Article 374:  In no case can be reformed the previous article, this article, the constitutional articles that refer to the form of government, the national territory, the presidential term, the prohibition that no citizen can again be president who has carried out the role under whatever title, and the one referring to those who cannot become president of the republic for the subsequent period.

It is a bad bad idea to declare any procedural part of a constitution to be forever inviolable.  The U.S. constitution does this in respect to the apportionment of the Senate, and that is a bad idea that may yet come back to haunt us. 

The Honduran constitution then added insult to injury with its second flaw:  a complete lack of procedures by which the courts, legislature, or popular opinion could remove a sitting president for breaking the law.  The closest is Articles 321-327, which lay out the responsibility of public servants and organisms that break the law and cause civil damages to individuals, or Article 233, which lays a pretty draconian anticorruption law.  But neither really apply in this situation. 

In short:  Zelaya broke a stupid constitutional clause.  Twice, in fact, first by firing an officer who refused to administer an unconstitutional referendum and second by proceeding with the referendum anyway.  Congress could not do anything.  At that point the increasingly-angry military, acting in concert with the Supreme Court, decided to extraconstitutionally remove the president from office. 

I do not like it.  But I am also not sure that this is an abrogation of democracy either.  Judging by their statements, the Obama Administration is equally torn:  they would like Zelaya back, but they aren’t going to wade into another country’s Andrew Jackson moment. 

What do you think?

P.S.  I am not a fan of Andrew Jackson.

Coup in Honduras, updated

  It seems as though the Honduran military just deposed President Manuel Zelaya.   That said, this is not a stereotypical South American coup:  Congress appears to have ratified the Army's action, and a civilian is taking control. 

In an unsurprisingly pointless move, Hugo Chávez put his military on alert.  (Or at least he says that he did; it would not surprise me to find that no official orders have been given.)  He went on to declare, “The people of Alba are in combat, because this does not end today.”  The leaders of the Alternative Bolivariana have condemned the “coup” and its leaders will hold a summit in Nicaragua today. 

But Alba's declaration is less political than it sounds.  Unasur, the OAS, and the United States have all condemned the ouster, although the U.S. is not calling for Zelaya to be reinstated.   

I don't know why the military moved before Congress did, or why the new leaders are going through this charade of pretending that Zelaya resigned before he actually resigned.  But I do know that Zelaya ignored a Supreme Court ruling on June 25th that ordered him to reinstate the general that he had fired because the general refused to use to the Army to organize an unofficial referendum on abolishing term limits.  (I met Zelaya's predecessor about a year ago;  he didn't have a lot of good to say about his successor.)   I'll add here that Article 374 of the Honduran constitution, stupidly, declares that the ban on re-election can not be reformed in any way, no how, forever and ever.  A dumb provision, however, is still a provision. 

For what it's worth, my guess is that the coup will stand.  There is enough of a fig leaf of legality about it to allow OAS governments to walk back their condemnation.  Now, escalating street protests could force the U.S. to pressure the Honduran congress into reversing its vote.  But if I had to bet right now, based on what I've heard from Tegucigalpa, Zelaya will remain out of power.

UPDATE:  The legality of the situation is shakier than the above implies.  Hell, it seems to be blatantly illegal, a good old-fashioned coup.  Why have I changed my mind?  Well, as far as I can figure, the Honduran constitution has no provision for the congressional removal of the president.  The closest provisions are as follows:

Article 205, Section 12:  [Congress has the power to] accept the constitutional oath of office of the elected President and Vice-president of the republic, and other appointees they select; grant them permissions and accept or reject thier resignations and fill vacancies in the case of the complete absence of one of them;

Article 205, Section 20:  [Congress has the power to] approve or disapprove the admistrative conduct of the executive branch;

Article 242:  In the case of a temporary absence of the the President of the Republic, the Vice-president will carry out the functions of the President.  Should the Presidency be permanently vacant, the Vice-president will exercise the powers of the executive branch for the remainder of the constitutional term.  Should the Vice-presidency also be vacant, the powers of the executive branch will be exercised by the president of the National Congress.

Thus, the need to declare that President Zelaya had “resigned” before giving the executive powers over to Roberto Micheletti.  (The office of Vice-president is currently vacant, so having the power pass to Micheletti is kosher ... it's the whole removing of Zelaya what appears to be illegal.)  Note that while Micheletti says that everything is constitutional, this article from the Honduran press cites no clauses or precedents. 

The whole thing looks much shakier upon skimming the text of the constitution in the light of day, or least what passes for it in this, the fourth straight week of rain in New England.  I'll go ahead and call it a “coup.”  It's chances of standing are less than I originally believed.