From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_western_support_of_dictators
Alleged western Support of dictators refers to the alleged support of the Western powers for dictators oriented with Western interests. 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. As another instance, the United States and its allies supported state terrorism and mass murder throughout the Cold War. 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. 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.
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. 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. The Economist Democracy Index classifies many of the forty-five current non-democratic U.S. base hosts as fully "authoritarian governments."
Background
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. 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.
America's role
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." 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." 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."
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.
Media coverage
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."
Rationale
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. According to Hermann and Kegley, military interventions have boosted democracy in other nations. 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" 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.
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. 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.
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.
Blowbacks
Some believe that having bases under repressive regimes is critical to deterring "bad actors" and advancing "US interests." 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. 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. 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. 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.
Targeted areas
Fascism
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. 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." 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.
Radical Islam
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. 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.
Indonesia
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. 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.
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. 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." 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.
Israel
Although the international community deems Israeli settlements to be illegal under the international law, the draft resolution condemning the illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories since 1967 has been vetoed by the United States. 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.
Saudi Arabia
.jpg)
To reinstate President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, who was ousted by the Houthi rebels, the Saudis invaded Yemen in March 2015. The Saudi-led coalition has been waging this war to repress the rebel Houthi movement with the support of Washington and London. 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. Australian mercenaries also sent by the United Arab Emirates to Yemen have actively participated in the Saudi-led offensive. 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." 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.
Iraq
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 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, 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.
Iran
After World War II, the British influence in Iran dwindled and was gradually replaced by American influence. 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. 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."
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. However, in multiple polls, Arab people have indicated that they do not see it as a serious threat. They consider Israel and America a danger.
Cuba
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." Internally, the U.S. intelligence also cited the Monroe Doctrine, according to which the U.S. should rule the hemisphere. 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." Therefore, the Cubans must pay the price for their effective defiance. 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.
