U.S. policy toward authoritarian governments

During the Cold War, leaders of developing countries received political and economic benefits, such as financial support and military assistance, in exchange for their alliance with either the United States of the Soviet Union. As a result, some dictators amassed fortunes at the expense of their nations and were able to maintain their rule by building substantial militaries. The Soviet Union and the United States gained access to markets for their manufactured goods, and locations for their military bases and missile stations. According to Chirico, the two superpowers supplied weapons to dictators, which strengthened their armies and helped quell uprisings.[5] The U.S. often rationalized the siting of its military bases in non-democratic nations as a necessary but undesirable product of defending against the communist threat posed by the Soviet Union. Few of these bases have been abandoned since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union.[6]

After World War II, the United States was in opposition to the Soviet Union, which it regarded as totalitarian and expansionist. During the U.S.'s global effort to organize the Western Bloc and oppose communist expansion, the People's Republic of China was also seen as an expansionist, totalitarian dictatorship.[7]

According to Osita G. Afoaku, in the Middle East, Asia, Latin America and Africa, the U.S. supported authoritarian governments such as those of the Shah of Iran, Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, the Somoza dynasty of Nicaragua, Fulgencio Batista of Cuba, Mobutu Sese Seko of the Republic of the Congo, and Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia.[3]

According to journalist Glenn Greenwald, American diplomat Henry Kissinger initiated the U.S.'s arms-for-petrodollars program for the autocratic governments of Saudi Arabia and pre-1979 Iran, supported coups and death squads throughout Latin America, and supported Indonesian dictator and close U.S. ally Suharto. Greenwald notes Jeane Kirkpatrick, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (U.N.) under President Ronald Reagan, was praised for her open support of pro-Western and right-wing oppressors including the Shah of Iran and Nicaragua's military dictator Anastasio Somoza, both of whom "were positively friendly to the U.S., sending their sons and others to be educated in our universities, voting with us in the United Nations, and regularly supporting American interests and positions even when these entailed personal and political cost".[8]

According to Claude Ake, while the U.S. continued to present itself as the leader of the free world in the 1990s, it sold more weapons to developing countries than all other arms traders combined. According to U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney and Senator John Kerry; "[d]espite rhetorical pledges to promote democracy and constrain the spread of weaponry worldwide, the Clinton administration has continued the Cold War and Bush administration policy of providing substantial amounts of weapons and training to the armed forces of non-democratic governments".[lower-alpha 1][9] In a 1997 report, Demilitarization for Democracy (DFD) said while democratic governments received 18 percent ($8 billion), non-democratic governments received 82 percent ($36 billion) of the $44.0 billion in arms and training provided to countries with U.S. Government approval during President Clinton's first four years in office. The authors concluded; "[t]he United States is increasingly dependent on the developing nations to keep its high share of the global arms market".[9]

According to Los Angeles Times, American authorities believe assisting authoritarian or "friendly" governments benefits the U.S. and other nations.[11] According to Glenn Greenwald, the strategic justification for American support of dictatorships has remained constant since World War II:

In a world where anti-American sentiment is prevalent, democracy often produces leaders who impede rather than serve U.S. interests ... None of this is remotely controversial or even debatable. U.S. support for tyrants has largely been conducted out in the open, and has been expressly defended and affirmed for decades by the most mainstream and influential U.S. policy experts and media outlets.[8]

In his essay, Dictatorships and Double Standards, Kirkpatrick says although the U.S. should encourage democracy, it should be understood premature reforms may cause a backlash that could give communists an opportunity to take over. For this reason, he considered it legitimate to support non-communist dictatorships, saying a successful, sustainable democratic process is likely to be a long-term process in many cases in the Third World. The essence of the Kirkpatrick Doctrine is the use of selective methods to advance democracy and contain the wave of communism.[12][13]

Some believe locating military bases in repressive nations is critical to deterring "bad actors" and advancing U.S. interests.[6] According to Andrew Yeo, foreign bases contribute to the general good by ensuring security or financial stability, and support local economies by creating jobs.[14] Bradley Bowman, a former professor at the United States Military Academy, said these facilities and the forces stationed there serve as a "major catalyst for anti-Americanism and radicalization". Other studies have found a link between the presence of the U.S. bases and al-Qaeda recruitment. Opponents of repressive governments often cite these bases to provoke anger, protest, and nationalistic fervor against the ruling class and the U.S. This, according to JoAnn Chirico, raises concerns in Washington a democratic transition could lead to the closure of bases, which often encourages the U.S. to extend its support for authoritarian leaders. This study says the outcome could be an intensifying cycle of protest and repression supported by the U.S.[6]

According to the United States National Security Council, the U.S. supports corrupt and brutal governments that hinder democracy and development out of concern "to protect its interest in Near East oil". Dwight D. Eisenhower discussed the "campaign of hatred against us" in the Arab world "not by the governments but by the people". Wall Street Journal reached a similar conclusion after surveying the views of wealthy and Western Muslims after September 11 attacks.[15] The head of the Council of Foreign Relations terrorism program said American support for repressive regimes such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia is a major factor in anti-American sentiment in the Arab world.[16]

According to Afoaku, the Cold War provided much justification for U.S. arms transfers to developing countries in the 1970s and 1980s. Proponents of the traditional paradigm assumed a rapid decline in U.S. arms and training transfers to these countries after the collapse of the Soviet Union. U.S. arms transfers have doubled to an average of $15 billion per year, 85 percent of which has gone to non-democratic governments since 1990. This doubling of arms transfers, in the absence of a compelling strategic rationale, was the result of determined, costly lobbying by arms manufacturers, who wanted to replace their small U.S. military orders with foreign orders. The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), a Washington, D.C.-based association representing more than 50 major manufacturers, coordinated the lobbying and successfully pressured President Bush to approve the sale of F-15E fighter jets to Saudi Arabia. As a result of Israel's agreement to the contract, it also received the F-14E. AIA companies have succeeded in subverting U.S. policy of linking arms sales to human-rights improvements.[17]

• Criticism of United States foreign policy

• Afoaku, Osita G. (2000). "U.S. Foreign Policy and Authoritarian Regimes: Change and Continuity in International Clientelism". Journal of Third World Studies. University Press of Florida. 17 (2): 13–40. JSTOR 45198191.
• Greenwald, Glenn (2017). "Trump's Support and Praise of Despots Is Central to the U.S. Tradition, Not a Deviation From It". The Intercept.
• Chirico, JoAnn (2014). Globalization: Prospects and Problems. SAGE Publication Ltd. p. 71. ISBN 9781483315447.
• Vine, David (2017). "How U.S. Military Bases Back Dictators, Autocrats, And Military Regimes". HuffPost.
• Wright, Steven (2007). The United States and Persian Gulf Security. Ithaca Press. ISBN 978-0-86372-321-6.
• Chomsky, Noam (2001). 9-11 Was There an Alternative. The Open Media.
• Chomsky, Noam (2003). Hegemony or survival : America's quest for global dominance. Henry Holt and Company, LLC. ISBN 0-8050-7400-7.

• French, Howard W. (2022). "The Echoes of America's Hypocrisy Abroad Decades of Western support for dictators have caused a crisis of democracy". Foreign Policy.
• Owen IV, John M.; Poznansky, Michael (2014). "When does America drop dictators?". European Journal of International Relations. 20 (4): 1072–1099. doi:10.1177/1354066113508990. S2CID 145293142.
• Rang, Lee (December 2016). "Authoritarianism as a driver of U.S. foreign policy: the cases of Myanmar, Vietnam, and North Korea". Naval Postgraduate School.