Grand Corruption: 4. A Coordinated Response
How is this actually going to work in practice?
With respect to grand corruption of the kleptocracy kind, previous essays have:
Debunked the leading theory. This belies the idea that there’s nothing we can do.
Spotlighted American complicity. This challenges the belief that it’s not our problem.
Clarified the national security risk. This discards the notion that there is no constitutional basis for action.
For those who doubt the importance of this topic, what follows is a hypothetical case based loosely on actual events in Cuba in the mid-1950s. This is a hypothetical case because several key details have been changed, and thus were not true in the years leading up to Cuba’s revolution in 1959.
For example, I’ve created a fictional U.S. Agency for International Development for the mid-1950s, though in fact it wasn’t created until 1961. This fictional USAID operates in line with draft legislation I’ve proposed. I’ve also introduced a core anti-genocide principle that existed in the 1950s, but wasn’t widely agreed as international law until decades later.
My argument here is that, if USAID had been present in the mid-1950s, and if USAID had been structured then according to the legislation I’ve proposed, then the disastrous revolution in Cuba could have been avoided. Cuba today would be at peace with the United States, poverty in Cuba would by now have been eliminated or significantly reduced, and prosperity in Cuba would now be much more widely shared.
The idea of development is widely misunderstood. This hypothetical case suggests how it’s supposed to work in practice.
Situation Report (Hypothetical)
The President of the United States meets with the Cabinet, asking for a situation report on the latest developments in Cuba. Unrest among both intellectuals and ordinary citizens, many of them desperately poor, has now mounted to alarming levels. Cuba’s well paid military and security forces are doing their best to suppress what the local government calls “anarchists and communist agitators”, but their methods, including torture and summary executions, are arousing popular sympathy in favor of an armed rebel force led by “bearded men” hiding in the remote jungle.
Recently, for example, government soldiers fired into a crowd of unarmed students, killing many. This was reportedly on the direct orders of Cuba’s president, the same president who was gifted a gold-plated tabletop telephone from an American telecommunications company in return for which the Government lifted price controls on basic telephone service. These events have all been widely reported, and have sparked public outrage throughout Cuba.
The American Ambassador to Cuba adds that it now seems inevitable the current regime will be overthrown. Sources suggest the armed and bearded rebels in the jungle are secretly being supplied by the Soviets. As a further sign, Cuba’s president, Fulgencio Batista, apparently knows he’s in trouble, given that he keeps a heavily guarded airplane at the ready, apparently stuffed with millions of dollars in cash, for a quick evacuation.
Option: All In
The Secretary of Defense argues that the United States is already committed to supporting the legitimate government of Cuba, however corrupt it might be, and should thus double down. Too many American business interests are at stake to warrant doing otherwise.
This means sending more arms and ammunition to support Cuban government security forces. The United States should also be prepared to send American soldiers, initially just to protect American property, but should also be prepared to do more if the situation calls for it.
The Defense Secretary firmly believes this show of massive military and political support from the United States will cause Cuba’s opposition to rethink their position. Rather than risk massive destruction, they will be persuaded to cease supporting the armed rebellion, knowing that they cannot win against overwhelming American force. More than anything else, the ordinary Cuban people crave order and security, hence they will welcome America’s intervention.
The CIA Director responds that there is a significant probability that additional support for the Batista regime will backfire, simply driving the insurgency deeper underground. America will then lose its few remaining friends in Cuba.
If the Cuban rebels are ultimately successful, they will almost certainly then be hostile to the United States, perceiving America to have been in cahoots with the defeated Batista regime. American businesses will face nationalization and a complete loss of their assets. The Soviets will be tempted to secure this victory by placing nuclear weapons in the country, just as the United States has placed such weapons in Turkey off the southern border of the Soviet Union.
The Vice President adds that he is worried about the potential loss of American lives if U.S. troops become ensnared in the fight. Body bags arriving in Peoria will not sit well with the American people. Everyone around the table knows that the Vice President is thinking ahead to the next election for the presidency of the United States, which the Vice President is at risk of losing.
Option: Pull Out
The Secretary of State instead urges the President to cut America’s losses and to pull out. Let the Cuban people decide their own future. It must not appear to them that America is taking sides. Under the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation, there is nothing that the United States can do in advance of Cuban citizens taking action for themselves. He adds that this perspective represents the consensus position of America’s leading experts on kleptocracies.
The Secretary of Commerce interjects that the American businesses currently operating in Cuba will not be pleased with a pull-out strategy, and will likely lobby hard against it. Nonetheless, if they perceive that the U.S. Government is truly committed to pulling out, they’ll unhappily but quickly follow suit.
The Secretary of State concludes that, without the flow of American business revenue, the current regime doesn’t stand a chance, and Batista will be forced to flee. After the regime is overthrown, the United States can then step in as friends. The people of Cuba will know that, in the end, America did not support corruption. America can then help with rebuilding Cuba, promising significant reinvestment provided Cuba stays outside the Soviet sphere of influence.
Option: USAID
The Administrator of USAID is the last to speak. He argues that both of the conventional offers now on the table carry with them the likely prospect of great loss of life and destruction of property. There is a third, unconventional possibility that should be considered instead.
1. As a preliminary measure, secure prior support from Congress to impose tariffs and related sanctions on Cuba should Cuba decide not to participate in the design and implementation of a development program, based on the internationally accepted principle that Cuba has a “responsibility to protect” its own people. Explain to Congress that the intent is simply to persuade Cuba to participate in a development program, and that actual legislation should not be required if all goes well.
2. To avoid tariffs and sanctions, offer American businesses (and those from other countries as appropriate) the option of participating in a development program to reform Cuba’s fundamental governance institutions. Engage members of Congress in this exercise.
3. To persuade the current kleptocratic Cuban regime to accept the offer of a development program, advise that the alternative is the pullout of American business and government support, resulting in the scenario just described by the Secretary of State.
4. After the current Cuban regime accepts the development program, meet with the opposition and the armed rebels, offering them a peaceful way to achieve their objectives.
5. With all parties prepared to participate, deploy a multinational team to help them design and implement the development program.
For the current Cuban regime, there is the prospect of retiring with at least some of its dignity and personal wealth intact.
For American businesses currently operating in the country, there is the prospect of holding onto their assets and continuing to do business, albeit on a somewhat less profitable basis in the absense of the kleptocracy.
For the United States, there is the prospect of an increasingly prosperous, friendly, and allied country nearby. The broader American business community, previously locked out by the former corrupt regime, will then have prospets for operations within an increasingly developed economy.
For the people of the country, there is the prospect of reduced poverty and more broadly shared prosperity as a consequence of development. Just as important, they will have escaped a civil war, with all the destruction of life and property that typically accompanies it.
Decision
Based on the CIA assessment, the President is doubtful the “All In” strategy will work, and if it fails, the United States will face grave national security risks. Even if the “All In” strategy does work, the President decides that’s not the kind of country we want America to be, i.e. siding with thieves against the poor.
As for the “Pull Out” strategy, the President suspects it may come to that eventually, but there’s no harm in trying the USAID strategy first. The President thus decides for the USAID strategy. Indeed, it was for just such occasions that Congress created USAID in the first place.
Upcoming Essays
5. Grand Corruption: Countering Opposition at Home
Rest assured, many of America’s most powerful businesses will oppose development assistance when it is structured this way, precisely because it will jeopardize their ability to make profits on the backs of the poor in undeveloped countries they care nothing about. Yet many other American businesses will welcome development assistance because it will permit them to build markets in countries where broad prosperity begins to take hold. We may do well to play one set of businesses against the other in the political arena.
6. Grand Corruption: USAID on the President’s Cabinet
The Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, and State aren’t accustomed to thinking beyond the specific interests of the businesses they see as their core political constituents, even when those businesses behave badly overseas and thereby jeopardize America’s national security. To help these largely mercantilist U.S. Government departments evolve, and then to make the broader case to the President and to Congress, USAID needs a permanent chair in the President’s Cabinet Room.