U.S. policy toward authoritarian governments

United States foreign policy regarding authoritarian governments

United States President Jimmy Carter meeting with Iranian Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi at the White House in November 1977

Throughout its history and up to the present day, the United States has had close ties with authoritarian governments.[1][2] During the Cold War, the U.S. backed anti-communist governments that were authoritarian, and were often unable or unwilling to promote modernization.[3] U.S. officials have been accused of collaborating with oppressive and anti-democratic governments to secure their military bases in Central America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. The Economist Democracy Index classifies many of the forty-five currently non-democratic U.S. military base host countries as "authoritarian governments".[4]

In cases like the 1953 Iranian, 1954 Guatemalan and the 1973 Chilean coups d'état, the United States participated in the overthrow of democratically elected governments in favor of dictators who aligned with the United States. The justification for the U.S.'s support of authoritarian right-wing governments was the resulting stability that would facilitate economic progress and the idea that democratic institutions could be encouraged and built.[4] Some critical scholars and journalists argue that this was done to reinforce Western business interests and to expand capitalism into countries of the Global South who were attempting to pursue alternative paths.[5][6][7]

## Background

[edit]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "U.S. policy toward authoritarian governments" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (April 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

|

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 or 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.[8] According to a 2017 blogpost by anthropologist David Vine, 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.[9]

In The Jakarta Method, Vincent Bevins writes that the Cold War violence of the United States, in particular coups and the propping up of pro-capitalist military despots throughout the Global South, has deeply shaped the world we live in today, a "worldwide capitalist order with the United States as its leading military power and center of cultural production." Much of this violence was not directed against governments and movements aligned with the Soviet Union, but the Third World movements which were attempting to build something different, and thereby "destroyed a number of alternative possibilities for world development." He argues that contrary to the popular notion that much of the developing world peacefully and willingly adopted the capitalist system advocated by the United States and its allies, it's possible that without this violence, "many of these countries would not be capitalist at all," or at the very least would have banded together to "insist on changing the rules of global capitalism."[5]

Ruth J Blakeley argues that the U.S. justification given for facilitating state terrorism and coups and installing military dictators, the containment and defeat of Communism, paints a distorted picture as it was also a means by which to buttress the interests of US business elites and to promote the expansion of capitalism and neoliberalism in the Global South.[6]

## Examples

[edit]

The U.S. government provided military, logistical and other aid to the Chinese government led by Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang (KMT) in its civil war against the indigenous Chinese Communist Party (CCP) led by Mao Zedong. Both the KMT and the CCP were fighting against invading Japanese forces, until the Japanese surrender to the United States in August 1945. This surrender brought to an end the Japanese Puppet state of Manchukuo and the Japanese-dominated Wang Jingwei regime.[10]

After the Japanese surrender, the US continued to support the KMT against the CCP. The US airlifted many KMT troops from central China to Manchuria. Approximately 50,000 U.S. troops were sent to guard strategic sites in Hubei and Shandong. The U.S. trained and equipped KMT troops, and also transported Korean troops and even former Imperial Japanese Army troops back to help KMT forces fight, and ultimately lose, against the People's Liberation Army.[11] In his memoirs, President Harry Truman justified deploying Japanese troops against the CCP: "It was perfectly clear to us that if we told the Japanese to lay down their arms immediately and march to the seaboard, the entire country would be taken over by the Communists. We therefore had to take the unusual step of using the enemy as a garrison until we could airlift Chinese National troops to South China and send Marines to guard the seaports."[12][non-primary source needed] Within less than two years after the Second Sino-Japanese War, the KMT had received $4.43 billion from the United States—most of which was military aid.[11][13]

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.[14]

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 Zaire, 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".[15]

Nigerian political scientist Claude Ake stated that 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".[a][16] 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 Bill 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".[16]

U.S. military support for a selected number of non-democratic countries (1993–96)[b][17] Country | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996

|
|
|
|

Bahrain | $96,412 | $38,773 | $53,949 | $98,741
Chile | $11,263 | $1,778 | $5,325 | $3,277
Egypt | $491,778 | $453,956 | $1,082,824 | $1,485,005
Indonesia | $33,423 | $11,944 | $13,068 | $34,202
Jordan | $18,298 | $41,713 | $16,175 | $221,030
Kuwait | $2,874,967 | $183,335 | $84,455 | $241,862
Mexico[c] | $17,502 | $52,221 | $19,633 | \

Morocco | $14,887 | $18,216 | $19,633 | $9,247
Saudi Arabia | $12,066,943 | $1,630,773 | $965,206 | $1,311,705
Singapore | $424,252 | $593,563 | $204,903 | $311,715
Taiwan[d] | $6,610,237 | $618,489 | $204,570 | \

Thailand | $401,946 | $240,465 | $704,180 | $516,998
Tunisia | $23,366 | $22,402 | $13,322 | $7,771
United Arab Emirates[e] | $77,908 | $258,522 | $15,090 | $3,321

## Rationale

[edit]

According to Los Angeles Times, American authorities believe assisting authoritarian or "friendly" governments benefits the U.S. and other nations.[18] According to Glenn Greenwald, the strategic justification for American support of dictatorships has remained constant even before and 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.[15]

In her 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, she 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.[19][20]

David Vine believe locating military bases in repressive nations is critical to deterring "bad actors" and advancing U.S. interests.[9] According to Andrew Yeo, foreign bases contribute to the general good by ensuring security or financial stability, and support local economies by creating jobs.[21] 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[which?] says the outcome could be an intensifying cycle of protest and repression supported by the U.S, according to David Vine.[9]

Dwight D. Eisenhower discussed the "campaign of hatred against us" in the Arab world "not by the governments but by the people". The Wall Street Journal reached a similar conclusion after surveying the views of wealthy and Western Muslims after September 11 attacks.[22] The head of the Council of Foreign Relations terrorism program[who?] said that American support for repressive regimes such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia is a major factor in anti-American sentiment in the Arab world.[23]

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[clarification needed] 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.[24]

## See also

[edit]

* Criticism of United States foreign policy

## Footnotes

[edit]

1. ^ Cynthia McKinney and John Kerry, Foreword: The Arms Transfer Code of Conduct, in Demilitarization for Democracy, Dictators or Democracies?: U.S. Transfers of Weapons and Military Training to the DEVELOPING World During President Clinton's First Term, Third Annual Edition, (Washington D.C., 1997), pp. I-ii.
2. ^ Figures Expressed in Thousand U.S. Dollars; Source: Demilitarization for Democracy, Dictators or Democracies?: US. Transfer of Weapons and Military Training to the Developing World during President Clinton's First Term, Washington, D.C., October, 1997.
3. ^ Mexico was classified as a democratic country in 1996
4. ^ Taiwan was classified as a democratic country in 1996
5. ^ The UAE was classified as a democratic country in 1996

## References

[edit]

1. ^ Schmitz, David F. (1999). Thank God They're on Our Side: The United States and Right-wing Dictatorships, 1921–1965. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-4773-2. (review)
2. ^ "Loving Dictators Is as American as Apple Pie". Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved April 2, 2023.
3. ^ a b Afoaku 2000, p. 13.
4. ^ a b Chirico 2014, pp. 70–71.
5. ^ a b Bevins 2020, pp. 238–243.
6. ^ a b Blakeley 2009, pp. 21–22.
7. ^ Hickel, Jason (2018). The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions. Windmill Books. p. 140\. ISBN 978-1786090034. "If we dig behind the rhetoric, it becomes clear that Western support for right-wing coups had little to do with Cold War ideology, and certainly nothing to do with promoting democracy (quite the opposite!); the goal, rather, was to defend Western economic interests. The veil of the Cold War has obscured this blunt fact from view."
8. ^ Chirico 2014, p. 70.
9. ^ a b c Vine 2017.
10. ^ Ferris, John; Mawdsley, Evan (2015). The Cambridge History of the Second World War, Volume I: Fighting the War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. ^ a b Nguyễn Anh Thái (chief author); Nguyễn Quốc Hùng; Vũ Ngọc Oanh; Trần Thị Vinh; Đặng Thanh Toán; Đỗ Thanh Bình (2002). Lịch sử thế giới hiện đại (in Vietnamese). Ho Chi Minh City: Giáo Dục Publisher. pp. 320–322. 8934980082317. `{{cite book}}`: `|author=` has generic name (help)
12. ^ Harry S. Truman, "Memoirs, Vol. Two: Years of Trial and Hope," 1946–1953 (Great Britain 1956), p. 66
13. ^ p. 23, U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, William Blum, Zed Books 2004 London.
14. ^ Bundy, William P. (1975). "Dictatorships and American Foreign Policy". Foreign Affairs. 54 (1). Council on Foreign Relations: 55. doi:10.2307/20039554. JSTOR 20039554.
15. ^ a b Greenwald 2017.
16. ^ a b Afoaku 2000, pp. 31–32.
17. ^ Afoaku 2000, p. 33.
18. ^ "U.S. Support of 'Dictators'". Los Angeles Times.
19. ^ Cook, Steven A. (2019). "Loving Dictators Is as American as Apple Pie". Foreign Policy.
20. ^ Wright 2007, p. 29.
21. ^ Yeo, Andrew (2011). Activists, Alliances, and Anti-U.S. Base Protests. Cambridge University Press. p. 3\. ISBN 978-1107002470.
22. ^ Chomsky 2001, p. 112-113.
23. ^ Chomsky 2003, pp. 142–143.
24. ^ Afoaku 2000, p. 32-34.

## Bibliography

[edit]

* Afoaku, Osita G. (2000). "U.S. Foreign Policy and Authoritarian Regimes: Change and Continuity in International Clientelism". Journal of Third World Studies. 17 (2). University Press of Florida: 13–40. JSTOR 45198191.
* Bevins, Vincent (2020). The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World. PublicAffairs. ISBN 978-1541742406.
* Blakeley, Ruth (2009). State Terrorism and Neoliberalism: The North in the South. Routledge. ISBN 978-0415686174.
* 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.

## Further reading

[edit]

* 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 (Thesis).