Regime Change in the West

Summary

Aquarter​ of the way through this century, regime change has become a canonical term. It signifies the overthrow, typically but not exclusively by the United States, of governments around the world disliked by the West, employing for that purpose military force, economic blockade, ideological erosion, or a combination of these. Yet originally the term meant something quite different, a widespread alteration in the West itself – not the sudden transformation of a nation-state by external violence, but the gradual installation of a new international order in peacetime. The pioneers of this conception were the American theorists who developed the idea of international regimes as arrangements assuring co-operative economic relations between the major industrial states, which might or might not take the form of treaties. These, it was held, developed out of US leadership after the Second World War, but superseded it with the formation of a consensual framework of mutually satisfactory transactions between leading countries. The manifesto of this idea came in Power and Interdependence, a work co-authored by two pillars of the foreign policy establishment of the time, Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane, whose first edition – it went through many – appeared in 1977. Though presented as a system of norms and expectations that helped assure continuity between different administrations in Washington by introducing ‘greater discipline’ into American foreign policy, Nye and Keohane’s study left no doubt about the pay-off for Washington. ‘Regimes usually are in America’s interest because the United States is the world’s foremost commercial and political power. If many regimes did not already exist, the United States would certainly want to invent them, as it did.’ By the early 1980s, books along these lines were tumbling off the presses: a symposium entitled International Regimes, edited by Stephen Krasner (1983); Keohane’s own treatise, After Hegemony (1984); and a host of learned ar...