Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In the past we saw active role was played to remove Allende, and tried its best to remove Castro also.

We also know about Saddam Hussain and Muammar Gaddafi and now Bashar-Al-Asad.

And, no role is being played to remove North Korean regime.

Why didn't World-Powers bother to remove Mr. Mubutu Sese Seko or Mr. Robert Mugabe, despite their oppression, autocracy and overwhelming corruption?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by astabada, Mark C. Wallace, DVK, Sardathrion, Steven Drennon Jun 12 '13 at 2:45

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Because the US didn't have much to gain in the area? –  Yannis Jun 10 '13 at 15:49
Is this question a better fit for history or for politics? –  Mark C. Wallace Jun 10 '13 at 15:52
While I know nothing of the two individuals in question, I would be willing to be that the alternatives/opposition were less credible and/or less desireable. –  Mark C. Wallace Jun 10 '13 at 15:54
I voted to close, because it is unclear what do you mean by "World-Community". When I look at your examples of intervention, I cannot but notice that it was different actors who tried to oust Allende (largely the USA), Castro (virtually the USA alone) Saddam Hussein (USA, UK, ... but not France) Gaddafi (USA, UK, ... including France). –  astabada Jun 11 '13 at 13:12
In addition, you do not specify what Allende, Castro, Hussain, Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad have in common with the North Korean government, as well as with Mubutu and Mugabe. Why the world powers did not bother to remove Ahmadinejad, Putin, Sarkozy, Al Thani, ...? –  astabada Jun 11 '13 at 13:16

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

It wasn't the "world community" but rather the United States that effected most of these "regime changes."

Castro conquered Cuba, a country only ninety miles from the United States. The Americans suspected that he was hostile as early as 1961 (when they tried to remove him). Just over a year later, they were vindicated, when Castro allowed the Soviet Union to place missiles in his country, leading to a blockade, the Cuban missile crisis, and the removal of those missiles.

Allende made the "mistake" of getting on the wrong side of ITT (International Telephone and Telegraph) who wanted to use Chile, and its copper mines, as a "springboard" for expansion over all of Latin America. The Nixon Administration lent the support of the CIA to help ITT thwart the left-leaning government of Allende, to discourage the rise of leftist leaders in Peru, Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, and elsewhere in South America.

The U.S. had far fewer direct interests in Zaire and Zimbabwe. It is also noteworthy that the Democratic Clinton Adminstration was (mostly) in power in the U.S. when the Seso Seko and Mugabe questions came up. Allende had the misfortune to be elected during the Republican Nixon regime, as opposed to the Democratic Carter (and human rights) regime. Kennedy was a Democratic President who had tried to "out-Nixon" Nixon on foreign policy during their Presidential campaign.

share|improve this answer
of course not just the US did a lot to topple regimes it didn't like, the British and Soviets did a lot as well (though the Soviets were often a lot more sneaky about it, funding terrorist groups and "revolutionaries" through their proxies like Cuba and Vietnam). Think Afghanistan, El Salvador, Peru, most all of Africa, Cuba... –  jwenting Jun 11 '13 at 5:31

Tom's answer is good. I also think that perhaps the fact that Mobutu and Mugabe were leading post-colonial regimes provided them with some sort of indulgence which was not available to the other miscreants you've mentioned...

share|improve this answer
I'm pretty sure all of the leaders mentioned in the question were leading post-colonial regimes. –  Joe Jun 12 '13 at 19:04

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.