When 'Dictators' Are Convenient: The Hill's Selective Outrage
📰 THE STORY: An opinion piece in The Hill warns against the security risks of 'doing business with dictators,' asserting that economic engagement only strengthens authoritarian regimes and that the U.S. has 'fallen for' this trap before, implying a need for more confrontational foreign policy. 🔍 WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: Historical Context: The U.S. government has historically backed, armed,
and done extensive business with numerous dictatorships when it served strategic and economic interests. In 1976, the U.S. backed a brutal CIA-supported military junta in Argentina responsible for the 'Dirty War' and the disappearance of 30,000 citizens. Similarly, the U.S. armed Saddam Hussein's regime during the Iran-Iraq War from 1980-1988, despite his horrific human rights record, to counter
Iran. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger explicitly endorsed the 1973 CIA coup in Chile, ushering in Augusto Pinochet's brutal dictatorship. Double Standard: The media widely condemns economic ties with countries like Russia, China, or Venezuela, labeling them 'dictatorships' or 'authoritarian.' Yet, there is a deafening silence, or even praise, for robust U.S. and Western economic and military
engagement with Saudi Arabia, despite its absolute monarchy and documented human rights abuses (e.g., the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the bombing of Yemen). The U.S. provides $1.3 billion annually in military aid to Egypt, a country Human Rights Watch has labeled as having overseen 'one of the worst human rights crises in decades' under President Sisi, largely to ensure Sisi's cooperation on