Understanding And Interrupting Authoritarian Collaboration

Regional studies scholars were among the first to prioritize understanding authoritarian collaboration, and a growing body of research has drawn cross-regional lessons about the drivers and consequences of authoritarian collaboration. Although autocrats historically have joined fewer formal international organizations (IOs)—those with three or more member states and a permanent headquarters and staff, or regional organizations (ROs)—IOs that also have a geographical condition and delimitation for membership—than their democratic counterparts, they nonetheless engage strategically in multilateral cooperation.¹³Today’s autocrats collaborate through a variety of formal and informal channels at the bilateral, regional, and, increasingly, global multilateral levels.

There are several reasons why authoritarian regimes would cooperate through formal multilateral IOs (especially ROs). Participation in authoritarian IOs/ROs--defined here as IOs/ROs in which authoritarian governments comprise the majority of member states--has been positively linked to the longevity of authoritarian regime¹⁴ similar to the finding that collaboration in democratic-state-led IOs supports democracy’s longevity in their member states.¹⁵ By cooperating through IOs under authoritarian government control, autocrats can also pool resources; develop mechanisms for routine coordination; and speak with one voice to legitimize member state policies.¹⁶ Pooling resources within authoritarian-led IOs entails centralizing resources in the organization--whether for project lending, emergency liquidity, or collective security--to distribute to members facing threats to regime stability. IOs are also important sites of coordination where members can harmonize their policy positions. Authoritarian-led IOs are central actors in much of the work on collaborative legitimation of authoritarian regimes. They help member states frame crackdowns against civil society as efforts to counter terrorism or maintain regional stability, lending their legitimacy to "launder" member state policies.¹⁷ Authoritarian IOs are also useful for legitimating members' policies in part due to their ability to mimic practices established by liberal IOs/ROs--or IOs/ROs dominated by democratic members. As described in subsequent sections of this paper, authoritarian ROs have participated in the production of pro-regime propaganda and have become ubiquitous at elections in some autocracies, where they deploy monitors to lend a veneer of legitimacy to rigged elections. Authoritarian IOs thus help to stabilize authoritarian regimes.

Autocrats also increasingly collaborate within existing global multilateral IOs founded and dominated by coalitions of liberal states or with mixed regime membership, including those created for ostensibly liberal purposes. While in the past, autocrats often focused on defending and deflecting criticism from these democracy-led organizations, today they increasingly seek to alter official procedures as coordinated members. "Hijacking" well-established global organizations from within appeals more to autocrats than leaving or refusing to join such organizations, in part, because these IOs have the potential to lend additional legitimacy to authoritarian practices through the stamp of membership.

Collaboration among groups of authoritarian regimes does not exclusively take place in formal international organizations; coalitions of authoritarian regimes also establish private written or verbal agreements or convene informal forums. In fact, authoritarian regimes that neglect their formal ROs are often highly involved in informal regional cooperation. For example, although absolute monarchs in the Middle East establish few formal treaties, they cooperate through secret, cartel-like arrangements.¹⁸ Particularly in the wake of the Arab Spring, Gulf monarchs were interested in cooperating on cross-border policing and punishing citizens critical to any monarchy in the region, but publicizing their cooperation against dissidents through a formal agreement would both be controversial with domestic audiences and reveal their willingness to flout international human rights agreements.¹⁹ Because secretive informal cooperation among autocrats is difficult to track over time, the literature on informal coalitions of autocrats is limited.

Authoritarian regimes also collaborate bilaterally on a variety of issues relevant for boosting regime security. Authoritarian regimes are more connected than ever before through formal agreements regulating bilateral investment, trade, bureaucratic exchanges, weapons sales, cross-border policing, and aid flows. China's Belt and Road Initiative, most notably, has created a web of bilateral investment and aid agreements with authoritarian regimes across Asia, Africa, and Latin America.²⁰ Bilateral ties incentivize well-resourced, powerful authoritarian states to support the longevity of weaker authoritarian regimes.²¹

Lastly, authoritarian regimes support each other through informal bilateral cooperation. This includes making supportive statements about their counterparts' policies and sending their leaders on high-level visits. Visits from foreign leaders – and particularly leaders of powerful countries-- communicate foreign leaders' respect, confidence in their counterpart's grasp on power, and commitment to maintaining strong relations.²² Demonstrations of solidarity, whether through speeches or visits, may help autocrats deter their opponents from mounting challenges to their regime.²³

Authoritarian collaboration has and continues to evolve in response to common threats to autocratic rule. Such threats to an authoritarian leader include pro-democracy groups (particularly when involved in transnational networks) and domestic opponents, stigmatization and illegitimacy of authoritarian norms, aid or loan conditionalities from "traditional" lenders (e.g., the World Bank or International Monetary Fund), and security-related threats (e.g., from insurgents or coup leaders). Authoritarians have been collaborating with one another to enhance regime stability in response to such threats (see Table 2).