Regime change is the replacement of a nation’s leadership. It’s a contested term in foreign policy and is often used to refer to a covert or overt intervention that attempts to topple an existing regime.
The goal of such interventions is to replace the regime with one that is more palatable, usually aimed at spreading democracy or advancing economic interests. Changing a regime typically requires the use of force, but some nonviolent options are available. This type of intervention represents a serious departure from the principle of Westphalian sovereignty and a violation of international law.
In the past, the United States and its allies have viewed regime change as a vital tool for promoting democracy and advancing American security. After the Cold War, regime change took on a new urgency as many Americans envisioned a world free of violent ethnic hatred and dominated by democratic governments aligned with the United States. The popularity of the theory that democracies are unlikely to go to war with each other made regime change appear like a bedfellow of world peace and helped justify the practice on moral as well as national security grounds.
But the evidence shows that regime change is more likely to make matters worse. A careful examination of the record suggests that the overuse of this tool undermines other, more effective tools for enhancing democracy and human rights abroad and harms America’s own security. Most importantly, it makes other countries more cautious about cooperating with the United States, leading them to retaliate against American efforts.
About the Author
