There is a certain arrogance involved in the thought process that just because we (arguably) operate under a democratic banner that we are somehow better than anyone else. England, for example, is a Monarchy. Vatican City in Rome is a Theocracy. Neither of these are democratic nations by the strict definition. Every nation is entitled to their own interior security and surveillance is a part of that agenda.
We assume that "democracy" means a good form of government, and that other versions of government are inferior or more evil. This is simply not true. There is nothing about a democracy that insures your privacy rights are respected. The U.S. Government routinely uses surveillance technology in an illegal fashion. Along the same line, there's no guarantee that governments that are not democracies will invade the privacy of their citizens.
Everyone should be able to but what ever it is they want that's for sale. It should not matter what country they are from. Everyone has the same right to purchase things. Whether it be a republican country or a non democratic, the choice is always up to the one who wants to purchase.
I understand that this question comes with lots of assumptions. The first is that a non-democratic country would more than likely use this equipment for harm and the other is that we, a democratic country should work to protect all countries freedoms. With regards to the first point, there should be no issue with a government wanting to use technology to guard against people wanting to take or damage their property. They could also use this for protecting of borders. If a government uses this to harm people, then there are issues that the people and the United Nations must take. The biggest of these two are the people. We have learned in the past that some people could careless if their freedoms are being taken away as they live simple lives and do not want to change it too much. Now when it comes to foreign nations working to prevent crimes against humanity, we must walk lightly on this topic. We must go to the government first, seek allies to that country, and work to make sure that the country feels safe while making sure they are keeping their own people safe.
The idea that democratic nations such as the US would be able to stop non-democratic countries from purchasing surveillance equipment is false. If these countries do not find the equipment they want through approved means, they will simply use others means to acquire such. The other option for these countries is to develop their own equipment.
No, I do not think that non-democratic countries can be trusted when it comes to purchasing surveillance technology. I think that only those countries who are truly democratic can be deemed trustworthy enough to come into possession of surveillance technology, since non-democratic countries may use the technology for usage that does not benefit the country.
Democratic countries already have problems with their government monitoring and abusing their civil rights, so states that have no inkling of republic or democratic process don't often fare any better than our governments. Supplying surveillance to tyrannical states would be aiding and abetting them in their abuse of the people.