Why the U.S. Benefits from Tyrants Around the World?

The United States has long been involved in complex relationships with authoritarian regimes, particularly in Africa and Asia. These alliances often involve the exchange of arms and military support for access to valuable natural resources, raising critical questions about the ethical implications and long-term impacts on global stability and human rights.​

Arms Sales to Authoritarian Regimes

In 2022, the U.S. approved weapons sales to nearly 60% of the world's authoritarian countries. This statistic highlights a pattern where strategic interests often overshadow democratic ideals. By supplying arms to these regimes, the U.S. not only bolsters authoritarian leaders but also secures geopolitical advantages and economic benefits. ​

Case Studies: Resource-Rich Nations

• Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC): The U.S. has been negotiating multibillion-dollar deals with the DRC to develop its abundant natural resources, including cobalt, gold, diamonds, and copper. While these initiatives aim to foster economic growth, they also risk entrenching the power of local elites and perpetuating cycles of conflict, especially in regions plagued by militant groups. ​

Strategic Interests vs. Human Rights

The U.S.'s engagement with authoritarian regimes is frequently driven by strategic interests, such as countering rival powers like China and Russia, securing military bases, or ensuring the steady flow of critical resources. However, this realpolitik approach often comes at the expense of promoting democracy and human rights. For instance, the U.S. has continued arms sales to Saudi Arabia despite its involvement in the Yemen conflict and the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. 

Economic Implications

The defense industry significantly influences U.S. foreign policy. Major defense contractors, such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing, benefit from lucrative deals with foreign governments, including authoritarian regimes. For example, Lockheed Martin's stock price stands at $454.78, reflecting the profitability of ongoing defense contracts. These economic incentives can sometimes overshadow considerations of ethical foreign policy.​

Consequences and Criticisms

Critics argue that supporting authoritarian regimes can lead to long-term instability and damage the U.S.'s reputation as a proponent of democracy. Historical examples, such as U.S. support for dictators during the Cold War, demonstrate that short-term strategic gains can result in enduring negative consequences, including fostering anti-American sentiment and contributing to regional conflicts. ​

Conclusion

The U.S.'s relationships with authoritarian regimes in Africa and Asia are complex and multifaceted, often balancing strategic interests with ethical considerations. While these alliances may offer immediate benefits in terms of security and economic gains, they also pose significant risks to global stability and the promotion of democratic values. A reassessment of these policies could lead to more sustainable and ethical international relationships.​