The Ceausescu's were often deemed merely "problematic fave's" of the West. Take for example, this 1970 NYTimes pieces where Nicolae is called a "friend of the U

The Ceausescu's were often deemed merely "problematic fave's" of the West. Take for example, this 1970 NYTimes pieces where Nicolae is called a "friend of the US": > This final touch to Mr. Ceausescu's two‐week coast‐to coast tour served to symbolize his independent role in international affairs, which President Nixon described in a White House dinner toast last night as “rather unique.” > A friend of the United States, North Vietnam, the Soviet Union and Communist China, the soft‐spoken President Ceausescu came to Washington to offer Mr. Nixon his view of the world from his special vantage position in the Communist community. https://www.nytimes.com/1970/10/28/archives/ceausescu-ends-us-visit-after-meeting-with-nixon.html https://www.nytimes.com/1970/10/28/archives/ceausescu-ends-u... Ceausescu was also given an honorary knighthood. I think this article from 1990 (not even a full year after the fall of their regime) gives better context, though it is scathing. In particular, I think it's hard to argue that everything bestowed on the Ceausescu's was "forced". Quid pro quo, more like. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517004-500-forum-let-us-now-praise-a-famous-woman-the-questionable-wisdom-of-british-institutions-in-honouring-elena-ceausescu-in-the-late-1970s/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517004-500-forum-le... > At the time of the Ceausescus’ state visit to Britain in 1978, the Callaghan government was anxious to finalise a lucrative deal with British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce. Like other Western governments, it also laboured under the delusion that Ceausescu was a latter-day Tito and turned a blind eye to an appalling record on human rights. Edit: I've just noticed that this is listed as a source in the OP -- still, I think it's a better source. More context, giving a better understanding. Just a bit less color.