ABSTRACT
Since World War II, American foreign policymakers have debated the extent to which the United States should trade off its commitment to democracy abroad for the perceived political stability of dictatorships. In the Cold War, stability mattered more. In this chapter, we examine some of the widely held perceptions that underlie the debate, and we attempt to apply the lessons that can be drawn from American diplomacy in the post-World War II era to the problems that plague the world today. In the process, we make two overarching arguments. First, autocracy, poverty, and conflict are a package deal. The relationship is tangled, but autocracies are more likely than democracies to generate both poverty and conflict. Poor countries, meanwhile, are breeding grounds for conflict. The global threat of radical Islamic terrorism is a new strain of this autocratic pattern. Global terrorist organizations find havens and most terrorists are bred in autocracies. Second, U.S. policy decisions to support autocratic governments in the name of stability have, at times, contributed to this vicious circle. The long-term negative effects stemming from these misconceived alliances are more persistent than is generally recognized and have been especially pronounced in recent decades. This, in part, reflects the changing nature of the types of autocratic governments the United States has
supported. Until we recognize the autocratic dimension of this violent cycle, we will at best be chasing our proverbial national security tail. At worse, we may be greatly increasing the level of risk we face.
