In the aftermath of American operations in Grenada, Panama, and the post-World War II occupations of Germany and Japan, a common view has held that the use of armed force to promote democratic regimes abroad benefits America’s security and economic interests. This conventional wisdom, which has been repeated by many administrations, continues to shape policy discussions about regime change even as the academic literature increasingly discredits its legitimacy.
Using a broad definition of regime change, scholars have found that foreign intervention to remove or replace a government rarely succeeds as envisioned and often triggers negative unintended consequences. These include sparking civil wars, encouraging higher levels of repression, and drawing the intervener into lengthy nation-building missions that ultimately erode their own security. Moreover, engaging in regime change undermines the effectiveness of other tools for promoting democracy and human rights around the world and harms America’s ability to secure its own interests.
Some arguments based on micro-processes and the “choice of winner” suggest that different countries are predisposed to a particular kind of regime. These theories are limited, however, in that they do not consider the underlying conditions that lead to the choice of regime. For example, the choice of regime might be influenced by historical institutions that have evolved to protect property rights, as in nineteenth-century Latin America where landed elites worried that democracy would lead to confiscation of their estates.
A second argument is based on the legitimacy of regime change under international law, specifically Article 51 of the United Nations Charter’s right to self-defence. But, as the recent history of covert regime change operations demonstrates, such efforts often spiral into costly and extended military conflicts that do not advance America’s interests. Rather, addressing China’s coercive domestic policies through non-military means—such as accepting more asylum seekers, supporting civil society groups without covert aid, and engaging with allies through cooperation—is a more prudent way to promote democracy and advance American interests.