Military coups can throw entire nations into civil and political turmoil overnight, often causing scenes of violence and destruction. However, there is a hidden layer of influence that most forget to consider, the impact of international actors on these coups and their role in shaping the future of such nations in chaos. In this article, we’ll examine the role such external actors play and how much of a difference they can make. But before we get into all that, let’s start with the most basic question
What is a coup?
Soldiers blocking protest during Myanmar coup, 2021. Source: Reuters
The dictionary definition of a ‘coup d’état’ seems reasonably straightforward to most: a sudden illegal, often violent, overthrow of the existing government. However, defining a coup exactly is more difficult than we might imagine for most democratic nations, let alone dealing with it sensibly.
This is made evident by considering the case of Egypt in 2013. After a period of public unrest, the Egyptian military overthrew the democratically elected government headed by Mohammed Morsi at the time. This action was immediately labelled a coup by the European Union, the African Union and France; in fact, Egypt was then suspended from the African Union as they have anti-coup regulations.
The United States, on the other hand, made a rather curious decision, they decided not to label the incident as a ‘coup’, and instead continued to maintain ties with the post-coup government of Egypt, even though the United States had an actual law that requires them to suspend all aid when there is a coup. The then State Department Press Secretary Jen Psaki explained the decision, saying, “The law does not require us to make a formal determination...as to whether a coup took place, and it is not in our national interest to make such a determination.” She also said, when questioned about why the United States government was not using the term “coup,” that “each circumstance is different. You can’t compare what’s happening in Egypt with what’s happened in every other country.”
What was being referred to in this statement was the fact that the erstwhile Morsi government had been under severe criticism by the people of Egypt prior to the coup. There had been huge demonstrations with millions of people protesting against the government, accusing Morsi of subverting the democratic system to stay in power. This now makes things more difficult for us; while our original definition of a coup still does technically stand true, it’s clear that it does not encompass many factors that could change our perception of a coup. Who exactly took power, and from whom? Did their ends justify their means? These are all questions countries will have to ponder before deciding how to respond to such events, and we will explore these implications further at a later point.
Who are international actors in a coup?
This is yet another question that appears to be straightforward at first glance but is a lot more complex than it seems. A layperson would say that an “international actor” in a coup would simply be any country that is directly or indirectly involved in the events of a coup. This could be in terms of direct military action, political involvement or simply supplying aid. This is the kind of intervention in coups that is usually publicised the most and therefore most people are aware of; examples include US intervention in Iran and Venezuela as well as Soviet Union intervention in Afghanistan to name a few.
However, other aspects aren’t usually considered. Let’s go back to our earlier case study of Egypt in 2013, and the decision of the US to maintain ties with the new government as well as not considering the incident a coup. The decision was taken on the reasoning that tighter relationships with the fledgling government would give the United States more of a say on the future political trajectory of Egypt, which is a very important regional state in Africa. In the words of Eliot Engel, the top-ranking Democrat of the House Foreign Affairs Committee at the time, “If you’re ... pulling away (from them), then their attitude is going to be, ‘Well, why do we have to listen to you?’” Engel suggested that distancing themselves from Egypt at that point would not only alienate them towards the US but also from resuming a democratic form of government. President Obama largely agreed with this viewpoint, which led to the US not labelling the incident as a coup. What followed was a period of extreme civil unrest in Egypt, with the populace divided between supporting the military takeover and the old government under Morsi.
Anti-American protests in Egypt after the US decided to support the coup. Source: Los Angeles Times
Now here’s the question, would things have turned out as they did if the US had instead chosen to ostracise Egypt like others, and freeze the 1.5 billion USD aid sum that it was supplying to the Egyptian government? It is hard to say what would have happened exactly of course, but there’s no doubt it would have been significant. This line of thought gives us some additional insight and forces us to redefine our definition of what an international actor really is.
Thus, a better definition for an international actor in this context would be any nation or international entity that could have a significant effect on not just the events of the coup, but the perception of the coup both within the country in which it occurs as well as to the world at large. Any entity with this level of influence can have an impact (for better or worse) on the coup itself, as well as the country in the aftermath of the coup.
What impact can international actors have?
While direct external involvement for or against a coup can be directly linked to the coup’s success or failure, our now extended definition of international actors gives us a lot more to think about rather than just monetary aid or military intervention. Let’s explore some of these aspects.
Variation in post-coup responses from external actors. Source: Thyne and Hitch, 2020
While talking about what exactly a coup is, we’ve established that the circumstances under which a coup occurs can vary wildly. We could be talking about a case like Egypt in 2013, where the populace had been dissatisfied with the existing government for an extended period prior to the coup; in contrast, we could also be talking about a case like Myanmar in 2021, where the military detained prominent political leaders just hours before the new parliament was set to convene, which sparked massive protests across the country.
In direct correlation to this, we see that the response of external actors also varies wildly depending on the circumstances the coup occurred in as well as their national interests. The erratic nature of external responses makes them difficult to account for or count on, unlike most domestic responses to a coup which are usually predictable and thus easier to factor in for the new government post-coup. This means that any external reaction, whether in support of or against the new government, can have a strong impact on post-coup political trajectories for the region.
This is especially true with regard to democratisation. Given that coups are inherently undemocratic in nature and that they usually overpower authoritarian regimes, support from external democratic actors can be crucial in steering the region towards a democratic mode of government. States coming out of authoritarian rule are unlikely to have any immediate democratic history, which means that instituting a democratic government is a huge task fraught with many difficulties for the junta effecting the coup. In such situations, the experience and resources that international democratic actors bring to the table can prove invaluable.
Support of such actors also helps to provide some legitimacy to the junta in the eyes of the local populace; keep in mind that even if the coup has been effective against authoritarian or unjust rule, the violent nature of the coup can still foster distrust and rebellion among the people. That such support is integral to the formation of new democracies is seen in the democratisation of states like Namibia and East Timor.
US military forces in Haiti to put an end to the coup. Source: Wikipedia
Conversely, negative responses from international actors can have a strong impact on the lifetime as well as the legitimacy of a post-coup government for the same reasons we discussed above. For this reason, most regimes born out of coups are unwilling to risk the consequences of foreign intervention and often choose to cede power before such a situation arises. This is seen in the case of Haiti in 1991. President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was overthrown by the Haitian armed forces, an action condemned by the Organisation of American States (OAS) as well as the United Nations. Trade embargoes were quickly instituted by both organisations and after the approved deployment of 20,000 US marines, the military junta headed by Raoul Cédras was forced to step down.
It is worth noting that such effects of external responses are not always guaranteed. We’ve already seen that external responses are erratic, and are more likely to be based on the interests of the actors themselves rather than the best interests of the state the coup occurred in. There are also cases where providing aid proves to be futile or even detrimental. This is especially true when we look at the rather more problematic situation where a coup is effected against a government that was already democratic; a case in point being the situation in Egypt that we’ve already examined. Despite the aid from the US to the post-coup government, Egypt quickly sank into civil and political turmoil, largely due to the division of opinions among the populace. This demonstrates the effect mixed responses (both external and internal) can have. A coup with international support may yet fail if it incites local animosity, while a coup with local public support can withstand external condemnation.
John Bolton, ex-US National Security Advisor, publicly supported Venezuelan opposition calls for the military to remove the President from his position. Source: Reuters
National security is another vital aspect that can be influenced by external actors. Oftentimes to compensate for their lack of domestic legitimacy, coup makers crave international validation, even at the expense of their own state’s security. This makes it very easy for international actors to gain power in these states and eventually compromise their sovereignty, something that unfortunately already has plenty of historical precedence. Coups also frequently lead to countercoups or civil wars, and the weak internal military strength of typical post-coup governments are ill-equipped to deal with either. Thus, coup leaders also reach out to external actors to improve their short-term security, which again may compromise their security long term. One only needs to look at the long list of coups and post-coup governments the United States has orchestrated to see evidence of this fact.
Conclusion
We’ve seen that the involvement of international actors in military coups is not as one-dimensional as we might have thought. The responses of these actors are deeply significant, and can often determine the success or failure of the coup as well as influence the civil and political landscape of the affected nation.
It is imperative that international actors realise the true weight their actions carry in such scenarios. After all, what is a coup but some military actors claiming to be the sole representatives of a state? For such a takeover to work, these military actors need to be recognised – and international actors have a critical role to play in providing such validation. Therefore, international actors play a massive role in both mitigating the occurrences of coups as well as dealing with them effectively. As world citizens, we must push for nations to act responsibly with the better interests of humanity in mind, letting go of short-term gains for long-lasting peace and stability.
Article by:
Advaith Sanil Kumar,
PES MUN Society (RR Campus)
Comments