Please write a paper of 1,200 – 1,400 words in answering the following prompt (ALL WORK SHOULD BE YOURS OR CITED APPROPRIATELY, OTHERWISE, IF PLAGIARIZED, I'LL DROP THE ASSIGNMENT):

Can dictators play positive roles in the international system? In the past, Washington justified many dictators by emphasizing their loyalty to U.S. interests. Critics maintain that human-rights violations should not be condoned, but the reliance of the major powers on authoritarian leaders continues to this day. After September 2001, Russia, China, and the United States supported authoritarian regimes in Central and South Asia that agreed to suppress the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. Even some who opposed the 2003 U.S. intervention in Iraq turned to realpolitik. They considered Saddam Hussein, despite his oppressive regime, a guarantor of balance in the Persian Gulf. They claim that Iraq without a strong central authority will probably remain unstable and a source of international tensions for years.

What’s your view?

What do you think of conditional support for authoritarian leaders? Would you as president back such leaders, at least in exceptional cases, if they are instrumental to your foreign policy? Explain your position.

Follow this procedure:

According to the Democracy Index complied by The Economist, the most authoritarian countries have been North Korea, Chad, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Burma, Equatorial Guinea, Saudi Arabia, Central African Republic, Iran, and Syria (the list may change when you access it). Update this “list of ten”. Next, establish what type of relations does the United States have with each of these countries? Does Washington support most of them or only few of them? Is it necessary or unnecessary for Washington to maintain good relations with authoritarian governments?