Regimes in sentence

1100 examples of Regimes in a sentence

Assuming that China’s leaders are aware that their relationship with one of the world’s worst-behaved regimes will not further their goal of global engagement, the US should consider how it could influence Chinese policy.

For example, harmonizing insolvency regimes across the continent and reducing tax incentives that favor debt over equity, while entirely logical, strike at the heart of member states' remaining sovereignty, and thus will be extremely difficult to push forward.

Much of the terrorism in Africa in the second half of the 20 th century targeted the colonial powers and the European minority regimes that were their legacy.

Indeed, its political order suffers from the same self-destructive dynamics that have sent countless autocratic regimes to their graves.

As individuals in such regimes ascend the hierarchy, patronage and risk-aversion become the most critical factors in determining their chances for promotion.

Consequently, such regimes grow increasingly sclerotic as they select leaders with stellar resumes but mediocre records.

Long-ruling regimes – think of the Soviet Communist Party, Indonesia’s Suharto, and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak – are typically considered invulnerable, even just before they collapse.

But those who believe that the CCP can defy both the internal degenerative dynamics of autocracy and the historical record of failed one-party regimes might benefit from reading Leon Trotsky, who knew something about revolutions.

It was this strategy’s untenability that led in 2011 to the fall of regimes – in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and elsewhere – that pursued it.

China’s intervention in Sri Lanka, and its visibly mounting displeasure with the North Korean and Burmese regimes, suggests that this calculus has quietly become central to the government’s thinking.

President Donald Trump’s Twitter tirades about “fake news” have given autocratic regimes an example by which to justify their own media crackdowns.

Vaguely worded laws that conflate reporting about terrorism with supporting it provide cover for regimes intent on preventing unfavorable news coverage.

Fighting Terrorism DemocraticallyBombings in London and Turkey have brought to the fore the old ideas that authoritarian regimes are better equipped than democracies to combat terrorism, and that such attacks are the price we pay for liberty.

But a look at the record shows that democracies possess more effective weapons to fight terror than do authoritarian regimes.

The mistake, however, is to assume that open societies are more permissive and vulnerable to terrorism than those who live under authoritarian regimes.

By contrast, authoritarian regimes’ repression of civilians, and their non-differentiation between civilians and killers, provides extremists with fertile recruiting conditions by discrediting the government in the eyes of a significant part of its population.

Corruption takes many forms, but, in emerging markets, a combination of factors has turned it into a cancer that ultimately topples regimes.

But freer political regimes are not a panacea.

The Arab Spring, however, reveals the fragility of repressive political regimes that try to maintain their legitimacy by limiting information flows.

If anything, the Russian system should be characterized as proto-fascist – tamer than European fascist states during the 1920s and 1930s, but still featuring key elements of those regimes.

Short of a North Korean-style dynastic succession, these regimes never outlive the leader, whether in Italy, Germany, Spain, or Portugal.

The Palestinian negotiators’ dangerous deficit of legitimacy – and, indeed, the disorientation of the entire Palestinian national movement – is reflected in the return of the PLO to its pre-Arafat days, when it was the tool of Arab regimes instead of an autonomous movement.

The two countries’ haughty behavior – for example, criticizing tax regimes in Eastern Europe while themselves failing to comply with the European Union’s Stability and Growth Pact – appalled other EU countries, especially the newest members.

Finally, democracies will do better because they have the institutionalized mechanisms of conflict management that authoritarian regimes lack.

The security establishment is driven by US policymakers’ long-standing reliance on military force and covert operations to topple regimes deemed to be harmful to American interests.

The US intervention in Syria can also be traced to decisions taken by the security establishment a quarter-century ago to overthrow Soviet-backed regimes in the Middle East.

As then-Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz explained to General Wesley Clark in 1991: “We learned that we can intervene militarily in the region with impunity, and the Soviets won’t do a thing to stop us… [We’ve] got about five to ten years to take out these old Soviet ‘surrogate’ regimes – Iraq, Syria, and the rest – before the next superpower [China] comes along to challenge us in the region.”

When the Arab Spring protests erupted a decade later, the US security establishment viewed the sudden vulnerability of the Qaddafi and Assad regimes as a similar opportunity to install new regimes in Libya and Syria.

Like the US, Russia has a strong interest in stability in Syria and in defeating the Islamic State; but it has no interest in allowing the US to install its choice of regimes in Syria or elsewhere in the region.

Today, the bigger danger is that an increasing number of smaller countries ruled by unstable or dictatorial regimes will try to acquire nuclear weapons.

Related words