📜 Post with us on Reddit
📝 Create a new article
🏭 Create a company page
🇬🇧 - in English
🇫🇷 - en Français (FR)
🇵🇹 - em Português (PT)
🇩🇪 - in Deutsch (DE)
🇯🇵 - 日本語で (JA)
Sponsored articles

You can edit almost every page by Creating an account. Otherwise, see the FAQ.

Alleged western support of dictators

From EverybodyWiki Bios & Wiki


Chilean leader Augusto Pinochet shaking hands with Henry Kissinger in 1976.

Alleged western Support of dictators refers to the alleged support of the Western powers for dictators oriented with Western interests.[1] Right-wing authoritarian regimes and dictatorships supported by the Western powers are said to have committed atrocities and mass killings comparable to those committed in the communist world. Examples are the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–1966 and the murders connected to Operation Condor in South America.[2] As another instance, the United States and its allies supported state terrorism and mass murder throughout the Cold War.[3][4] This was ostensibly done to keep communism in check, though in effect it advanced U.S. business interests and spread capitalism and neoliberalism throughout the Global South.[3] A justification for the Western support of dictators is that the resulting stability would facilitate economic progress, and that democratic institutions could be gradually encouraged and built.[1]

In cases like the 1953 Iranian and the 1973 Chilean coup d'états, Western powers participated in overthrowing democratically-elected governments in favor of dictators aligned with the West.[1] U.S. officials have been accused of collaborating with oppressive regimes and anti-democratic governments to secure their military bases from Central America to Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.[5] The Economist Democracy Index classifies many of the forty-five current non-democratic U.S. base hosts as fully "authoritarian governments."[5]

Background[edit]

During the Cold War, the leaders of developing countries received political and economic benefits in exchange for their alliance with one of the two superpowers, namely, the United States and the Soviet Union. The advantages for these rulers included financial support and military assistance. As a result, some dictators amassed fortunes at the expense of their nations and were able to maintain their rule by building formidable armies. In turn, the Soviet Union and the United States gained access to markets for their manufactured goods and locations for their military bases and missile stations. In particular, the two superpowers supplied weapons to dictators which strengthened their armies and helped in quelling uprisings.[5] Military bases in non-democratic states were often rationalized during the Cold War by the U.S. as a necessary but undesirable side effect 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 with the collapse of the Soviet Union.[6]

America's role[edit]

According to the journalist Glenn Greenwald, the American diplomat Henry Kissinger initiated the U.S.'s arms-for-petrodollars program for the autocratic regimes of Saudi Arabia and pre-revolutionary Iran, supported coups and death squads throughout Latin America, and supported the Indonesian dictator and close U.S. ally Suharto. Greenwald notes that Jeane Kirkpatrick, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. under President 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."[7] Regarding the Shah of Iran, President Carter remarked, "Iran, because of the great leadership of the Shah, is an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world."[6] When Egypt’s defense minister Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, overthrew that country's first elected government, United States Secretary of State John Kerry hailed him for "restoring democracy."[6]

The presence of U.S. bases in nations with oppressive or militaristic administrations often receives little attention from the media, writes David Vine. The United States' desire to maintain the status quo on these bases is something authoritarian leaders are often well aware of. As a result, he asserts, they often use military bases for their political gain. American officials often minimize their criticism of repressive governments so as not to endanger their bases there. Despite repeated attacks on pro-democracy protesters in the Kingdom of Bahrain, which has hosted the U.S. military since 1949, the Obama administration expressed only the mildest condemnation of the monarchy for its oppression.[6]

Media coverage[edit]

On the occasion of the death of the U.S.-backed military dictator, Augusto Pinochet, who had ruled Chile after overthrowing the democratically elected leftist president, a Washington Post editorial page praised Kirkpatrick and Pinochet. The Post praised "the free-market policies that produced the Chilean economic miracle" while acknowledging that the Chilean dictator was "brutal: more than 3,000 people were killed by his government and tens of thousands tortured," concluding that "Kirkpatrick, too, was vilified by the left. Yet by now, it should be obvious: She was right." After Venezuela's elected left-wing President Hugo Chávez was temporarily ousted in a right-wing coup in 2002, the New York Times editorial page hailed the event as a victory for democracy: "With yesterday's resignation of President Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator. Mr. Chávez, a ruinous demagogue, stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader."[7]

Rationale[edit]

A longstanding justification for maintaining military installations worldwide for the United States is that a military presence abroad by the U.S. promotes and strengthens democracy.[5] According to Hermann and Kegley, military interventions have boosted democracy in other nations.[8] The majority of academics, however, concur with professor of international politics Abraham Lowenthal that American efforts to spread democracy have been "negligible, often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive"[8] [9][10] JoAnn Chirico believes that the U.S. military presence and installations are often considered responsible for suppressing democracy in countries such as Cameroon, Chad, Ethiopia, Jordan, Kuwait, Niger, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.[5]

According to Los Angeles Times, American authorities also believe that assisting authoritarian regimes or what they refer to as "friendly governments" benefits the United States and other nations.[11] Journalist Glenn Greenwald states that the strategic justification for American support of dictatorships around the world 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.[7]

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

Blowbacks[edit]

Some believe that having bases under repressive regimes is critical to deterring "bad actors" and advancing "US interests."[6] According to Andrew Yeo, foreign bases contribute to the general good by ensuring security or financial stability. Additionally, bases support the local economy by creating jobs.[13] Alternatively, Bradley Bowman, a former professor at the United States Military Academy, argues that 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 US bases and al-Qaeda recruitment. These bases are often cited by opponents of repressive governments to provoke anger, protest, and nationalistic fervor against the ruling class and the United States. This in turn, according to JoAnn Chirico, raises concerns in Washington that a democratic transition could lead to the closure of bases, which often encourages the United States to extend its support for authoritarian leaders. This study suggests that the outcome could be an intensifying cycle of protest and repression supported by the United States.[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". Eisenhower also discussed what he called 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.[14] In this vein, the head of the Council of Foreign Relations terrorism program believes that the American support for repressive regimes such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia is undoubtedly a major factor in anti-American sentiment in the Arab world.[15]

Targeted areas[edit]

Fascism[edit]

The rise of fascism raised concerns during the interwar period, but, Chomsky writes, it was largely viewed positively by the U.S. and British governments, the corporate community, and a significant portion of the elite. This was because the fascist interpretation of extreme nationalism allowed for significant economic influence in the West while also destroying the left and the hated labor groups. Hitler, like Saddam Hussein, enjoyed strong British and U.S. support until his direct action, which severely damaged British and U.S. interests.[16] William Philips, the American ambassador to Italy, was "greatly impressed by the efforts of Benito Mussolini to improve the conditions of the masses" and found "much evidence" In support of the fascist stance that "they represent a true democracy in as much as the welfare of the people is their principal objective."[17] He found Mussolini's achievements "astounding [and] a source of constant amazement," and greatly admired his "great human qualities." United States Department of State enthusiastically agreed, praising fascism for having "brought order out of chaos, discipline out of license, and solvency out of bankruptcy" as well as Mussolini's "magnificent" achievements in Ethiopia. According to Scott Newton, by the time the war broke out in 1939, Britain was more sympathetic to Adolf Hitler for reasons centered on trade and financial relations as well as a policy of self-preservation for the British establishment in the face of growing democratic challenges.[17][18]

Radical Islam[edit]

As the British historian Mark Curtis writes in his book Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam, Britain has been accused of consistently supporting radical Islam to combat secular nationalism. Because the secular nationalists threatened to seize the resources of their countries and use it for internal development, which was not accepted by England.[19] The United States, like Britain before it, has been accused of historically supporting radical Islam in the face of secular nationalism, seen as a major threat to Western colonial dominance. Chomsky and coauthors accuse Israel of destroying Egypt and Syria in 1967, two bastions of secular Arab nationalism opposed to Saudi Arabia, which they view as the leader of radical Islam.[20]

Indonesia[edit]

The Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975, which was considered a genocide, was allegedly supported by the United States, Australia, Britain, and other Western powers.[21] After that, Clinton finally ordered the Indonesian generals to stop and the conflict ended within a day, which according to Chomsky could have been stopped 25 years before it; but there was not enough pressure.[21]

Also Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66 was allegedly supported by the United States. The massacre occurred when Suharto accused the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) of planning a brutal coup. The party had openly participated in the Indonesian political system as a legal and unarmed party. Elections and community participation had given it influence, but it was still seen as a rebellion. Over one million Indonesians were systematically killed over the following months for being members of the party or suspected of having Marxist sentiments. Later leaked documents showed that Suharto's purge was supported by U.S. officials. U.S. embassy officials were informed of the executions and offered to help prevent media coverage.[22] According to historian John Roosa, documents made public by the US embassy in Jakarta in 2017 confirm that "the U.S. was part and parcel of the operation, strategizing with the Indonesian army and encouraging them to go after the PKI."[22] Geoffrey B. Robinson, a historian at UCLA, contends that the Indonesian Army's policy of mass murder would not have taken place without the assistance of the United States and other strong Western nations.[23]

Israel[edit]

Although the international community deems Israeli settlements to be illegal under the international law,[24][25][26][27] the draft resolution condemning the illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories since 1967 has been vetoed by the United States.[28] Mark Heller, the lead research associate at Tel Aviv's Institute for National Security Studies, however, believes that the American public opinion has shifted over time against Israel and predicts that the relations between the country with Western Europe and with the U.S will deteriorate in the future. To compensate for this loss, he suggests that Israel should strengthen its ties with key Asian countries instead, because, in his view, the major Asian countries "don't seem to indicate much interest about how Israel gets along with the Palestinians, Arabs, or anyone else." He believes that countries like China, India and Singapore would be less committed to the types of liberal and humane concerns that occasionally affect Western policy and are less inclined to protest Israel's unlawful settlement construction and its persecution of Arabs.[29]

Saudi Arabia[edit]

Protest against the U.S. involvement in the military intervention in Yemen, New York City, 2017

To reinstate President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, who was ousted by the Houthi rebels, the Saudis invaded Yemen in March 2015.[30] The Saudi-led coalition has been waging this war to repress the rebel Houthi movement with the support of Washington and London.[31] The United States has been accused of complicity in war crimes through its support for the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen, leading to the 2016–18 Yemen cholera outbreak and humanitarian crisis with millions suffering from famine.[32][33][34] Australian mercenaries also sent by the United Arab Emirates to Yemen have actively participated in the Saudi-led offensive.[31] Additionally, the United States supports the Saudi Air Force with weaponry, targeting intelligence, and refueling. "The United States is part of this coalition" according to Chris Murphy, who says, "the bombing campaign that has caused the cholera outbreak could not happen without us."[33] The United States accordingly runs the risk of being considered a party to the Yemeni conflict under international law if it continues to refuel and support Riyadh's air force.[35]

Iraq[edit]

John F. Kennedy is said to have sponsored the military coup in 1963 that installed Saddam Hussein's Baathist party in power. Despite Hussein's atrocities[lower-alpha 1] against the Kurds, the Iraqi people, and Iran, the United States continued to support Saddam Hussein throughout his reign. After the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein crushed a Shia rebellion without any reaction from Bush I,[36] because, according to Chomsky, Washington sought a military junta that would rule the country with an "iron fist," and if no alternative is available, Saddam would have to do. The rebels failed because "very few people outside Iraq wanted them to win"—meaning Washington and its local allies, who held the "strikingly unanimous view" that "whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression." According to Chomsky, the U.S. sought to instigate coups by groups it controlled, since a popular rebellion (a rebellion of people not under U.S control) could not place the United States in power.[37]

Iran[edit]

After World War II, the British influence in Iran dwindled and was gradually replaced by American influence.[38] In the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, Mohammad Mosaddegh's democratically-elected government was overthrown by a joint British-American coup in favor of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi who was more favorable to the west.[1][39][40] One of the results of the 1953 coup was that the U.S. took about 40% of Britain's share of Iranian oil as part of the wider transition from British to American dominance in the region, and indeed worldwide. In an editorial celebrating the coup, the New York Times stated, "Underdeveloped countries with rich resources now have an object lesson in the heavy cost that must be paid by one of their number which goes berserk with fanatical nationalism."[41]

While the non-aligned nations had actively supported Iran's right to enrich uranium for years, the U.S. and E.U. assert that Iran poses the greatest threat to international peace. The United States has reported Arab support for its stance on Iran here.[lower-alpha 2] However, in multiple polls,[lower-alpha 3] Arab people have indicated that they do not see it as a serious threat. They consider Israel and America a danger.[41]

Cuba[edit]

The masterplan of Dwight D. Eisenhower for the Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961) was to remove the Cuban leader Fidel Castro in favor of a government "more devoted to the true interests of the Cuban people and more acceptable to the U.S."[42] Internally, the U.S. intelligence also cited the Monroe Doctrine,[38] according to which the U.S. should rule the hemisphere.[lower-alpha 4] They argued that the Castro regime's very existence "represents a successful defiance of the United States, a negation of our whole hemispheric policy of almost a century and a half."[43][44] Therefore, the Cubans must pay the price for their effective defiance.[38] While the American corporate system—agribusiness, energy, and pharmaceuticals—has long wanted to resume normal trade relations with Cuba, Washington has banned the relationship, claiming it must punish Cuba.[lower-alpha 5][38]

Footnotes[edit]

  1. ↑ See Burns, John F. (2003-01-26). "How Many People Has Hussein Killed?". The New York Times. Retrieved 2020-10-05. Also writing in The New York Times, Dexter Filkins appeared to echo but misrepresent Burns's remark in October 2007: "[Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. ... His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead." See Filkins, Dexter (2007-10-07). "Regrets Only?". The New York Times. Retrieved 2016-12-04. In turn, Commentary writer Arthur L. Herman accused Saddam of "kill[ing] as many as two million of his own people" in July 2008. See Herman, Arthur L. (2008-07-01). "Why Iraq Was Inevitable". Commentary. Retrieved 2016-12-04. A
  2. ↑ Arab leaders saw Iran as the biggest threat to regional peace, according to diplomatic cables that were leaked in 2010. Despite this, they refused to speak publicly, privately warning US officials that doing so would put them in danger of domestic unrest.(see Trager, Eric. "Behind the Arabs' Iran double talk". New York Post.) According to the cables, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain were in favor of a military strike against Iran to halt its nuclear development.(See "Wikileaks Exposed Iran's Weak Foreign Policies, Says Opposition". Haaretz.)
  3. ↑ See for example 2008 Annual Arab Public Opinion Poll, which says Arab people in six countries believe that Iran has the right to have its nuclear program and should not be pressured to stop this program.
  4. ↑ The Americas and Europe were divided into two distinct spheres of influence by Monroe. The Western Hemisphere's independent nations would fall under the exclusive control of the United States. In return, the United States agreed to refrain from interfering in the political affairs of Europe.(See "Monroe Doctrine, 1823". Office of the Historian, Foreign Service Institute United States Department of State.) see also "352 – The President's News Conference August 29, 1962 response to Q[21.]". Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.
  5. ↑ The same thing is said about Iran according to Chomsky. "The energy corporations would like to get back into Iran. They don’t want to leave it to the Chinese, but the government’s going to forbid them to do so because we have to punish Iran."[38]

References[edit]

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Chirico 2014, p. 71.
  2. ↑ Aarons, Mark (2007). "Justice Betrayed: Post-1945 Responses to Genocide". In Blumenthal, David A.; McCormack, Timothy L. H. (eds). The Legacy of Nuremberg: Civilising Influence or Institutionalised Vengeance? (International Humanitarian Law). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 71 and 80–81. ISBN 9004156917 Search this book on ..
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Blakeley, Ruth (2009). State Terrorism and Neoliberalism: The North in the South. Routledge. pp. 21 & 22. ISBN 0415686172 Search this book on .
  4. ↑ Bevins, Vincent (2020). The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World. PublicAffairs. pp. 238–243. ISBN 978-1541742406. Search this book on
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Chirico 2014, p. 70.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Vine 2017.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Greenwald 2017.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Hermann, Margaret G.; Kegley, Charles (1998). "The U.S. Use of Military Intervention to Promote Democracy: Evaluating the Record". International Interactions. 24 (2): 91–114. doi:10.1080/03050629808434922.
  9. ↑ Lowenthal, Abraham (1991). The United States and Latin American Democracy: Learning from History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 243–65. Search this book on
  10. ↑ Peceny, Mark (1999). Democracy at the Point of Bayonets. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. p. 183. ISBN 0-271-01883-6. Search this book on
  11. ↑ "U.S. Support of 'Dictators'". Los Angeles Times.
  12. ↑ Wright 2007, p. 29.
  13. ↑ Yeo, Andrew (2011). Activists, Alliances, and Anti-U.S. Base Protests. ‎ Cambridge University Press. p. 3. ISBN 1107002478. Search this book on
  14. ↑ Chomsky 2001, p. 112-113.
  15. ↑ Chomsky 2003, pp. 142-143.
  16. ↑ Chomsky 2003, p. 46.
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Chomsky 2003, pp. 46-47.
  18. ↑ Chomsky 2003, p. 47.
  19. ↑ Chomsky & Vltchek 2013, p. 115.
  20. ↑ Chomsky, Wainwright & Nir 2003, p. 357.
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 Chomsky & Vltchek 2013, p. 144.
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 Bevins 2017.
  23. ↑ Robinson, Geoffrey B. (2018). The Killing Season: A History of the Indonesian Massacres, 1965-66. Princeton University Press. pp. 22–23, 177. ISBN 9781400888863. Search this book on
  24. ↑ Roberts, Adam (1990). "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967" (PDF). The American Journal of International Law. 84 (1): 85–86. doi:10.2307/2203016. JSTOR 2203016. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-02-15. Unknown parameter |s2cid= ignored (help)
  25. ↑ Pertile, Marco (2005). "'Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory': A Missed Opportunity for International Humanitarian Law?". In Conforti, Benedetto; Bravo, Luigi. The Italian Yearbook of International Law. 14. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 141. ISBN 978-90-04-15027-0. Search this book on
  26. ↑ Barak-Erez, Daphne (2006). "Israel: The security barrier—between international law, constitutional law, and domestic judicial review". International Journal of Constitutional Law. 4 (3): 548. doi:10.1093/icon/mol021.
  27. ↑ Drew, Catriona (1997). "Self-determination and population transfer". In Bowen, Stephen. Human rights, self-determination and political change in the occupied Palestinian territories. International studies in human rights. 52. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 151–152. ISBN 978-90-411-0502-8. Search this book on
  28. ↑ Charbonneau, Louis; Dunham, Will (18 February 2011). "U.S. vetoes U.N. draft condemning Israeli settlements". Reuters. Archived from the original on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 20 February 2011. Unknown parameter |url-status= ignored (help)
  29. ↑ Chomsky, Wainwright & Nir 2003, pp. 363-364.
  30. ↑ Strobel, Warren; Landay, Jonathan. "Exclusive: As Saudis bombed Yemen, U.S. worried about legal blowback". Reuters.
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 Savoulian 2017.
  32. ↑ Warren Strobel, Jonathan Landay (5 August 2018). "Exclusive: As Saudis bombed Yemen, U.S. worried about legal blowback". Reuters.
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 Emmons 2017.
  34. ↑ "PBS Report from Yemen: As Millions Face Starvation, American-Made Bombs Are Killing Civilians". Democracy Now!. July 19, 2018.
  35. ↑ Strobel, Warren; Landay, Jonathan. "Exclusive: As Saudis bombed Yemen, U.S. worried about legal blowback". Reuters.
  36. ↑ Chomsky 2005, pp. 162-163.
  37. ↑ Chomsky 2003, p. 94.
  38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 38.2 38.3 38.4 Chomsky & Vltchek 2013, pp. 113-114.
  39. ↑ Wright 2007, p. 94.
  40. ↑ Chomsky 2005, p. 43.
  41. ↑ 41.0 41.1 Chomsky & Vltchek 2013, pp. 123-124.
  42. ↑ Chomsky 2003, p. 55.
  43. ↑ Chomsky 2005, p. 44.
  44. ↑ "Study Prepared in Response to National Security Study Memorandum 15". NSC–IG/ARA. July 5, 1969. Retrieved August 4, 2010.

Sources[edit]


This article "Alleged western support of dictators" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:Alleged western support of dictators. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.


Retrieved from "https://en.everybodywiki.com/index.php?title=Alleged_western_support_of_dictators&oldid=2970661"
License CC BY-SA 3.0
Powered by MediaWiki
Powered by Semantic MediaWiki