JoSH@RED.RUTGERS.EDU (JoSH) (09/12/85)
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 12 Sep 85 Volume 5 Number 36
Contents: Nicaragua
Comments
2 WSJ Articles
Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 85 10:18:39 PDT
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill)
[If I remember correctly, the force ratio of Nicaragua (number of men
under arms per 1000 population) is three or four times that of any
other country in the region, including El Salvador (which is also
fighting an insurrection). It is 5 or more times that of Finland,
which has been invaded three times this century by the Soviet Union.
If there is interest, I can produce the actual figures. --JoSH]
I imagine that is true. However, it is not arms per unit population which
defends the country, it is arms, period; Nicaragua has roughly 40% fewer
people than El Salvador alone, and faces the hostility of four client states
of the US, plus thousands of US troops indefinitely "under maneuvers" in
Honduras, plus the Contra. Personally, I regret the decisions they have made
to militarize, but they certainly have reasonable justification for them, and I
feel strongly that we have no right whatsoever to judge them.
I would expect you to be the first to notice that Finland has gone belly
up before the Soviets. Nicaragua declines to do the same before the US. Not
surprising given the implacable enmity with which our government regards
theirs.
Steve Upstill
[I went back and looked at the figures, and oddly enough I had badly
understated my case. Here are the force ratios for some countries
in the area:
Colombia *****
Costa Rica ***
El Salvador ***********
Guatemala *****
Honduras ********
Nicaragua ********************************************************
and "F.Y.I."
U.S. ******************
U.S.S.R. *********************************
Finland ***************
Cuba ***********************************************
Yugoslavia **********************
(I mention Yugoslavia because it HAS stood up to the U.S.S.R.
and is politically quite independent of it.)
Numbers are from the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, reproduced
in a current Reason article which is a preview of a paper forthcoming
in Polity. Each star represents a force ratio increment of 0.5.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 5 Sep 85 12:51-EDT
From: Samuel McCracken <oth104%BOSTONU.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA>
Subject: Kissinger Commission in Nicaragua
I served on the staff of a member of the Kissinger Commission during its
work. While it is true that the Commission spent only a day in
Managua, they had immense amounts of staff documents, briefings, and
testimony. The latter included, for example, interviews with
free trade union leaders who were temporarily outside Nicaragua.
The work of the Commission was as much historical as journalistic.
Walter Duranty, Moscow correspondent of the NYT during the 30s, lived
in the USSR for many years and managed to miss every important story--
as history judges them--during his stay there.
------------------------------
Date: 6 Sep 85 09:38:22 EDT (Friday)
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V5 #35
From: Power.wbst@Xerox.ARPA
JoSH
You said:
(If I remember correctly, the force ratio of Nicaragua (number of men
under arms per 1000 population) is three or four times that of any
other country in the region, including El Salvador (which is also
fighting an insurrection).)
I can't let this go by. The majority of arms bearers in Nicaragua are
civilians armed by the government. These are not, by any stretch of
imagination, offensive combat troops. What they are is a bunch of
really pissed off farmers, factory workers, etc. who would like nothing
better than the North Americans to come bumbling into their country the
way we did in Grenada so they can pay us back for their dead brothers
and sisters. (How many oppressive regimes arm their citizens? Russia?
El Salvador? Chile? Red China?)
I am so god-damned tired of idiot right wingers (Reagan and his ilk)
who allow the Soviets to lead them around by the nose, trashing
everything the U.S. stands for. The Soviets are making fools of us
every day, because they know that all they have to do is pull the macho
chain, and Reagan will start up from his senile decay and start
screeching "Evil Empire, Evil Empire". The man is a jerk, and a fool,
and a well intentioned fool is a very dangerous handicap to have around
for eight years.
Why are the Russians able to manipulate us so easily? Because Reagan
and the right wingers never stand for anything. They are paranoids
backed into a corner, afraid that the whole world is against them. And
because they refuse to take the responsibility of being an American by
behaving according to the Ideals upon which this country was founded,
they are making that paranoid delusion into reality. The U.S. is not a
country, it is a pact, and the Falwell's, Reagan's and Helm's of the
government have failed totally in maintaining that pact. They believe
that it's O.K. to behave decently and honestly when we are assured of
victory, but resort to murder for hire when things get tough. And
afterwards, they argue about who is worse, the Russians or Us. It makes
my skin crawl when I see U.S. government officials defend our actions by
pointing out worse Soviet actions. It's as if a mugger defended his
crimes by pointing to Hitler.
Sometimes we may lose. Sometimes we may be in a position where we
can't win, no matter how skillfully we manuver (perhaps this indicates
that we shouldn't be in that position in the first place). But in the
long run, if we govern our policies rationally and in the best tradition
of America, we will win out. If the right wingers don't believe this,
then they should move to Russia or El Salvador, where ideals mean
nothing.
Reagan may have lost us Nicaragua. Short term victory by hiring thugs
to do our dirty work will not work. Anyone that has looked at the
history of our endless interventions in South America should realize
that. We have merely immunized the peoples against military answers by
our increasing doses of gun-fire.
What can we do? Does the country that backs the contras, the butchers
in El Salvador, the American Fruit Company, ad infinitum have any
credibility left? Regrettably, no. It will take years (at least a
decade) of very hard work, with little payback on the domestic political
scene, to show that the U.S. can stand for something.
Who is courageous enough to lead our country on this path? Ronald
Reagan?
[The force ratio figures I am using include only full-time military
personnel. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Fri 6 Sep 85 16:36:16-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis <SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: Nicaragua
Several points:
I am well aware that Reagan considers aid to the contras in Nicaragua
a high priority, which he is willing to expend a lot of political
capital in pursuing. I don't see how that answers Steve's question.
Saying that Reagan must really believe Nicaragua to be a threat is not
going to persuade me or Steve or anyone else who disagrees with him
that he therefore must be right. For one thing, I know that I have
radically different values about foreign policy than he does. In
particular, I believe that God has absolutely forbidden us to make war
with outward weapons (see the Quaker peace testimony for a fuller
explanation of this position). I am, of course, aware that this is a
very debatable position. What is not debatable is that it is
radically different from Reagan's position, and that our different
values would lead to different foreign policy positions even if we
agreed about what the Sandinistas are like.
And even those non-pacifists who oppose Reagan's policies in Central
America are often less interventionist in general in their political
philosophy than Reagan, and so may feel that what he considers an
adequate pretext for intervention is not what they would consider and
adequate pretext. Also, many of us are not convinced that our
administration's reasons for opposing the Sandinistas are as
high-minded as they claim. Perhaps Nicaragua's crime is not being a
threat to its neighbors or suppressing dissent, but defying US power
and being a threat to US business interests. The strength of Reagan's
opposition to the Sandinistas does not prove the purity of his
motives. Nor will it persuade those who think that he is acting out
of kneejerk anti-Communism that he has in fact thought the situation
through.
I do not believe Bukys's contention that we oppose those regimes we
see as expansionist and support those that we see as no threat to
their neighbors. Some cases have already been pointed out where we
have opposed governments that were not very expansionist. I would
also point out that South Africa, one of the non-expansionist
countries mentioned, continues its colonial rule over Namibia despite
international opposition and gives aid to guerrillas in Angola. Its
rhetoric is less expansionist than Nicaragua's. But are its actions?
Why is the (possibly very little) assistance that Nicaragua gives to
the El Salvadoran rebels worse than the assistance that South Africa
gives to the Angolan rebels? Is it because Nicaragua can be more
successful with the support of the Soviet bloc than South Africa can
with the support of nobody, because we like the Angolan rebels better
than the Salvadoran rebels, or is the aid to the Salvadoran rebels is
just a pretext?
I also doubt that the guerrillas in El Salvador are getting the
assistance we claim they are from Nicaragua. I say that they are
getting some assistance because I have read that the Nicaraguan
government has said openly that it gives moral support, office space,
and told the rebels in El Salvador about some of the black market
connections the Sandinistas had used in buying weapons, and that Cuba
said it had sent the rebels a bunch of weapons in 1980 (I don't have
the reference for all this handy, but can give it if anyone wants). I
doubt they get as much as our government says because the massive
amounts of weapons listed in the White Paper do not seem to me to
match with the fact that they only claimed to have intercepted one
truck and to have found one Cessna pilot who admitted to making a
couple of flights with weapons, and because I have read articles
quoting US officials in Central America as saying that Nicaragua is
only channeling a small amount of weapons to the rebels.
I think I know what Bukys is referring to when he talks about the
cadres patrolling neighborhoods. I have a (fairly pro-Sandinista)
friend who spent several weeks in Nicaragua, living with a family
there. She told about a neighborhood group which met and in which the
people took turns patrolling the area at night. I think she attended
at least one of their meetings. I don't recall details of the makeup
of this group or what they were watching for. It didn't strike me at
the time I heard of it as especially sinister; I had thought of it as
something like Neighborhood Watch meetings here, only more active. I
will see if I can get more information about this. I have not heard
of compulsory attendance at rallies or political use of rationing, and
I would like to see these claims substantiated.
I have talked to and read accounts by a number of people who have
visited Nicaragua. Their accounts all clash with the Reagan
administration's picture of a totalitarian Marxist-Leninist regime.
They may be all duped. I doubt it, because their accounts, taken as a
group, also don't give a simple picture of a marvelous revolutionary
government (although some do give just that picture). They express
reservations about the military build-up, the government's treatment
of the Miskito Indians, and the press censorship. They describe
criticism of the government's economic policies and people, and not
just rich people, who say they were better off before the revolution.
Some of them are critical of others for being too naive in their more
glowing reports.
But all of the reports I have read and heard, from the more positive
to the more negative, describe a considerably more pluralistic society
than the Reagan administration seems to want us to believe exists
there. There are opposition political parties, and they did win a
significant portion of the vote in the elections. People do openly
criticize the government, approach the government with complaints, and
critical articles are published in La Prensa. There is a private
sector in the economy; socialism does not seem to have progressed as
much as in many countries. They also report that the Sandinistas have
made great strides in increasing literacy and reducing infant
mortality. Do international human rights organizations report the
same degree of killings and torture in Nicaragua as in El Salvador?
I am not convinced that the Sandinistas are as wonderful as many
visitors report. I am mindful of the possibility that some of them
may be being taken in. But, setting aside for the sake of argument my
pacifist convictions and assuming for the sake of argument that it may
sometimes be acceptable to attempt the military overthrow of a
government, I would say that the burden of proof lies on those who
would advocate military overthrow. Every government I can think of is
sometimes oppressive to its citizens, and many are frequently very
oppressive to their citizens. What makes the Nicaraguan government so
exceptionally bad and threatening that we send aid to soldiers who
rape, torture and kill civilians while trying to overthrow and elected
government?
I don't see the evidence for Reagan's claims, and I am not willing to
take them just on his say-so. Frankly, I think our government is
lying to us again. I don't believe that Nicaragua is an aggressively
expansionist, totalitarian, Marxist-Leninist government which is
intransigent in negotiations. And when our government makes such
extreme accusations with so little evidence to back them up, I doubt
the credibility of our government. I had not set out to be
pro-Sandinista. But I find no middle ground, and I find myself moving
more and more toward the pro-Sandinista camp, because I see among the
supporters of the Sandinistas and attempt to be scrupulous about the
truth and not simply the dupes of the Sandinistas (though they may not
always succeed) and I do not see that same regard for truth on the
part of our government.
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 85 11:14:31 PDT
From: sun!oscar!wild@Berkeley (Will Doherty)
[Sounds like a real fun course-- I don't suppose one can
register only for the lab...? --JoSH]
From: Gail Zacharias <GZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
I think that remark was uncalled for and in very bad taste. But I
suppose you wouldn't mind if people considered your work to be a
joke too.
This is not intended to disparage either Will or his course:
I note that he did not object to the remark himself, and
for all I know he's having a good laugh over it right now.
--JoSH]
I figured that JoSH meant it as a harmless joke, but also feel that many people
might take it otherwise. Basically, I've learned to take all of his postings
with a large grain of salt, probably a healthy sign.
Will Doherty
...sun!oscar!wild
PS: I'd welcome *any and all* jokes, and even constructive suggestions,
about the course.
------------------------------
Date: 6 Sep 1985 12:54:53 PDT
Subject: Misuse of editorial privilege
From: David Booth <DBOOTH@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
I have long been mildly offended at JoSH's practice of using the
editorial privilege to append his own comments and rebuttals to
people's submissions to POLI-SCI, conveniently making him
"lord of the last word" in any discussion. His distasteful joke about
taking only the lab for a gender role course was given much unnecessary
weight by this practise.
Nonetheless, JoSH has done an admirable job of moderating
POLI-SCI, and has added much liveliness to the discussions. With this
in mind, I would like to publicly request that JoSH include his own
comments and submissions to POLI-SCI in the same format as everyone
else's, and reserve the editorial privilege only for inserting
clarifications or corrections in grammar or spelling.
[Thank you for the compliment, but I shall not accede to your request.
The reason is largely convenience--it is considerably less time-
consuming to stick in comments like this than to fabricate a full-
fledged mail header for them. If it helps to know, my model is
a letters-to-the-editor column in a magazine where the editor often
inserts replies directly after the letters they refer to. I never
insert comments into the middle of a letter, only at the end.
Hmmm... Since I've never listed them explicitly, let me make
public the guidelines I follow editorially: Without asking you,
I WILL correct spelling and/or reformat your letter to fit in
80 columns. I WILL NOT correct grammar, alter the text, or delete
or insert anything in your letter. If you specifically request,
I will not append a comment to your letter. I may ellipsize
quoted text if it has already appeared in a Poli-Sci issue.
If you send a letter that violates Arpanet guidelines in being
a political or commercial advertisement, or a chain letter, I will
contact you personally with specifics before proceeding. Otherwise,
absolutely everything goes into the digest. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Monday, 9 Sep 1985 10:13-EDT
From: sde@mitre-bedford.ARPA
Subject: 1)Yellow rain, an update 2)Educationalal alternatives
Wall Street Journal, Fri 85 Sep 06, p. 18, has 2 articles:
1) That the originator of the theory that "yellow rain" was caused by
bee feces has been unable to find any evidence supporting his theory,
but that Sci. Amer. deliberately omitted stating that fact;
2) A totally separate article supporting the idea that teaching and
graduation be unbundled.
David sde@mitre-bedford
------------------------------
Date: Wed 11 Sep 85 17:02:04-PDT
From: D-ROGERS@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA
Subject: RIGHTS & DUTIES
I just found this interest group and have only read the digest thru
5/6/85. Please forgive if my viewpoints have already been covered
between then and now.
>31DEC84 0:42 PST
>From: Martin D. Katz <katz@uci-icse>
>...A third social force involved is the concept that "each
>man is responsible ofr the life of his neighbor," meaning
>that one *should* not let ones neighbor starve.
*emphasis* mine
CONTRADICTION: The option of "should" or "should not" is not available
to one who is responsible. If one bearing a responsibility fails to
perform, he becomes *irresponible*. Furthermore, being responible for
something presumes a certain measure of control over the situation. Since
i have no control over my neighbor's stupidity, for example, i cannot be
responible for his circumstances which result.
Nevertheless, i can be generous and relieve my neighbor's distress, provided
that it does not imperil that for which i AM responsible. e.g. family, other
contractual obligations. On the other hand, there is no generosity involved
if i am forced to contribute to the sustenance of my neighbor at gunpoint
[a' la taxation], rather i, too, become a victim. Indeed they who would
then attempt to distribute largess so acquired, put themselves in a position
of passing stolen property, hardly that of the benefactor they are claimed
to be.
* -- *
RE: BINARY RIGHTS
Most of the comments i have read so far are still missing the point. The
founding fathers understood that *rights* ARE absolute. It may be that they
are often VIOLATED, sometimes WITH the consent of society [zoning laws,
imminent domain] or else WITHOUT it [burglary], but the only real question
is *how much* violation will a particular society tolerate before restraining
the violator(s). This is the logic behind the assertion of Thomas Jefferson
that "that government is best which governs^ least."
^ = impinges upon rights
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------