JoSH@RED.RUTGERS.EDU (JoSH) (09/05/85)
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 05 Sep 85 Volume 5 Number 35
Contents: Nicaragua
Nuclear test "freeze" (ban)
Sex Remark
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 85 12:40:50 PDT
From: mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley (Rick McGeer)
Subject: Nicaragua, etc.
[upstill]:
Here is a partial reply to the book review JoSH posted. I may be
confused, though, JoSH. Perhaps you posted the original review as
commentary, rather than as a pointer to an important book. I will
respond soon to the substance of that review, but for now I would just
point out that the Kissinger Commission and the previous,
well-opinionated reviewer, spent a matter of hours (6?) in Nicaragua
on their "fact-finding" tour.
I think that the author of "Nicaragua: Revolution in the Family" spent some
years in Nicaragua.
Anyway, I'm not going to enter the lists on this one. However, Steve, some
points for you to ponder:
(1) If the Sandinistas are as democratic and open as you claim, why have both
Pedro Chamorro and Eden Pastora left Nicaragua, the latter leading a full-scale
(and not America-backed) revolution? Both were well-known opponents of Somoza,
and neither are particular friends of the United States.
(2) The Reagan administration takes a bath in the press, with the public, and
in Congress every time it goes after Contra aid. After Ortega's trip to Moscow
things got a little easier, but the Contra offensive has still cost the
President political chips that could have been employed for Tax Reform, cuts
in Social Security, or other cuts in non-defense spending. This administration
has shown a genius for walking away from foreign-policy initiatives when the
domestic price mounted. The Reagan administration must believe that Nicaragua
is a threat, and must have very solid ground for that belief; our
administrations have shown that their capacity for wishful thinking will ignore
flimsy evidence.
(3) Whenever I hear people like you come back from Nicaragua and report that
yes, well, the Federal Gov't's got the Sandinistas all wrong, that they're
basically OK and we should stop trying to overthrow them...well, I keep hearing
Jane Fonda praising the NLF, Henry Marshall and Owen Chamberlain reporting on
the dearth of concentration camps in the Soviet Union, and old newsreel clips
of American visitors to Hitler's Germany reporting that Hitler was the saviour
of the German people. I can also hear one other current Berkeley grad student
opine that Castro is not an oppressive dictator....all of these people were
and are honest, loyal Americans. The others were conned, because it's easy to
con people. Can you honestly say that you haven't been conned, as well? Do
you *know* that you haven't?
-- Rick.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 85 10:47:38 PDT
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 85 11:34:51 edt
From: Liudvikas Bukys <bukys@rochester.arpa>
Subject: re: Nicaragua
... Sandinista-lovers, take note. Tell your pals down south that if
they want to be left alone, they should lay off on the "revolution
without borders" stuff for a few years.
Rhetoric aside, it would be nice to hear evidence that the Sandinistas
threaten any of their neighbors. And no fair acting as though their
military buildup is without defensive justification. After all, the
country has been invaded by the United States three times in this century.
On the contrary, it is clear that the Reagan administration would welcome
any agressive acts against Honduras or Costa Rica as a pretext to invade
Nicaragua and overthrow its government.
Maybe if it was accompanied by the abolition of mandatory
attendance at "rallies", political use of rationing, and neighborhood
surveillance by cadre-types, somebody would believe it.
Is it rude of me to ask for substantiation of these claims?
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 85 16:46:48 PDT
From: mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley (Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s))
Subject: who we dislike....
>From: Liudvikas Bukys <bukys@rochester.arpa>
>
>I have a theory which, I believe, explains the behaviour of our
>government toward various other governments. It is simply this:
>We are hostile toward governments which we perceive to be expansionist.
>(Cuba, Nicaragua, USSR)
Bingo. This is actually our stated policy, and has been for
20 years, or thereabouts: it's called the Fulbright Doctrine...
... John Adams said that Americans were friends of liberty everywhere,
but the keeper only of their own.
Would that this were the case, but it's not. Just to name a few examples:
Grenada 1983; Guatemala, 1953; Dominican Republic, 1964; Chile, 1973.
Let me take this opportunity to offer a review:
Book Review
"Reagan and the World"
Jeff McMahan
Monthly Review Press, 1985
"Reagan and the World" is a wide-ranging critique of foreign policy under
Ronald Reagan. While commonplace criticism has it that the Reagan
Administration has no coherent foreign policy, McMahan's book asserts that
American foreign policy is quite clear and consistent, and that only the
variance between rhetoric and reality makes it seem less so. He sets out
to determine just what that policy is, given Administration behavior.
Simply put, the conclusion is that American foreign policy, under Reagan
as well as to a lesser extent his predecessors, exists to project and
maintain American power and influence abroad. While this may correlate
in many cases with support for freedom and democracy, in those cases where
the two goals are in conflict, the former win out every time over the latter.
In tone, the book is rather more understated than that, and the quality of
argumentation is good: juicy quotes abound, documentation is profuse and
occasionally relevant, and the reasoning is generally close and sound.
The book begins with an examination of arms control policy under Reagan,
making it clear that Administration proposals are generally designed to
assure rejection by the Soviets, thus making it possible to maintain an
appearance of reasonability while continuing an unconstrained armament
program. One thing the book makes clear, without overtly stating it, is
the genius this Administration shows in public relations: making it appear
to be serving what the public perceives of as American ideals while
essentially doing what it wants.
What is it that they want? First, maintaining a "global presence": extending
the influence of the United States as far and as deeply as possible. This
involves not only overt military action, but demonstrations of "credibility",
willingness to assert the authority that this influence brings. Thus, El
Salvador is not seen as a particularly important country militarily or
economically, but is important as a demonstration of American resolve. That
is, if America is willing to support a military regime which has slaughtered
50,000 of its own people for no discernible reason, then how much more willing
will it be to defend the Persian Gulf?
The second goal of the Administration is seen as assuring the well-being of
American economic enterprises abroad, to the exclusion of the people in the
effected lands. Therefore, authoritarian regimes capable of suppressing
dissent are to be preferred (as long as appearances can be maintained) to
those in which popular input might reduce the lucrativeness of such
enterprises. Thus we have the example of Guatemala, in which the CIA
overthrew, in 1953, a popularly elected government which had the audacity
to nationalize some fruit company holdings, offering as compensation the
value as declared for tax purposes.
(In both of these goals, one can clearly see the basis for our policy toward
Nicaragua. Obviously, the Nicaraguan government is not about to allow free
reign to foreign companies, and the national iconification of Sandino is a
clear indication that the Sandinistas are not about to be dominated by any
other nation.)
The book devotes chapters to El Salvador, Nicaragua and Grenada, and one to
third-world interventionism in general, in each case arguing persuasively of
the moral vacuity of our nation's behavior. The larger point supported,
again without it ever being stated, is that the struggle between the United
States and the Soviet Union really is simple power politics, and that
superior morality, as claimed by the United States, is a spurious component
of the argument. Morality has little to do with it. While I would be the
first to prefer a world like the United States to a world like the Soviet
Union, I feel we should put our cards on the table and admit that we are
talking power struggles, not morality.
While I have some quibbles about the quality of the logic in this book
occasionally, and the sometimes heavy-handed sarcasm, in general this
is an informative, convincing and depressing exegesis of American antics
abroad. I particularly recommend it for those who can't figure out why
we excoriate the Nicaraguan government if they are not monsters.
CAVEAT: Although it shouldn't be necessary, I would like to point out that
nothing in the above review expresses any sympathy with the Soviet Union
or its clients, and I would appreciate it if respondents to this message
would refrain from claiming it does.
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]
------------------------------
From: jeff@isi-vaxa (Jeffery A. Cavallaro)
Date: 30 Aug 1985 1657-PDT (Friday)
Subject: OLD GUARD vs NEW GUARD
The message "Nuclear Test Freeze" submitted by Richard Foy (foy@AEROSPACE)
is a symptom of what I believe to be an extremely ironic turnabout in today's
superpower arena.
For years, American leadership has been complaining that the Soviet
"OLD GUARD" has been unwilling to honestly and openly negotiate
on ALL facets of world relations. Now, Mr. Gorbachev sits on the red
throne. The recent purges and aggressive planning that have occurred in
Soviet government, social, and economic sectors have earned the Gorbachev
administration the label "NEW GUARD" in the Soviet domestic sense.
Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan is the American president. Mr. Reagan has been
a political figure (latent or otherwise) from the post-war period up to
present day. He can definitely be considered part of the American
"OLD GUARD". In fact, statements from Reagan regarding such things as
the test freeze indicate a very OLD GUARD-ish attitude. The tables
have turned.
This turnabout is even more confusing in that a large portion of the
Reagan leadership (for example, Lugar, Rep-Ind) are relatively young.
In fact, the Republican leadership surrounding Reagan may be the
only check that has prevented us from totally falling into a cold war
mentality such as was exhibited in the 50's.
If one examines the American condition since the post-Carter days, one
would have to conclude that America has gained tremendous strength on
several fronts: economic, military, patriotism, and more. Some of the
credit for these gains has to be given to the attitudes and policies of
the early Reagan administration. During the American "gain period", the
Soviet Union has undergone extensive change. Thus the attitudes towards
the Soviet Union then, may not be valid now. The important question for
American leadership today is:
"Does the NEW GUARD attitude of the Soviet leadership extend from the
Soviet domestic sector to the foreign relations sector?"
If so, President Reagan will have to shed his "OLD GUARD" ideals and
meet the Soviets atleast half-way.
Jeff
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 85 11:37:55 cdt
From: riddle@im4u.UTEXAS.EDU (Prentiss Riddle)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Test Freeze
Keep your eyes open for any recent or upcoming articles by Daniel Ellsberg
on this subject. I heard him speak on August 5th outside the Pantex nuclear
weapons plant near Amarillo. He is extremely depressed these days because
he sees the Soviets' offer as an historic opportunity which the Reagan
administration and the press managed to scuttle with unprecedented speed. I
can't repeat his arguments here, but I imagine they are or soon will be out
in print somewhere. (The only thing I've seen so far is a short summary of
his talk in the latest issue of the "Texas Observer".)
--- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.")
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 85 09:56:08 EDT
From: Gail Zacharias <GZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Poli-Sci Digest V5 #34
To: Josh@RUTGERS.ARPA
[Sounds like a real fun course-- I don't suppose one can
register only for the lab...? --JoSH]
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 was actually posted to me privately, presumably in an attempt
to offer discreet and constructive criticism, which I appreciate.
However, I assume that this can be taken to stand for feelings
on the part of others who did not bother to write (I'm somewhat
surprised I didn't receive other messages), so I'll answer it here.
I *wouldn't* mind if people joked about my work: I often
do so myself. I feel that people in the social sciences
tend to have a deplorable lack of humor about themselves and
their studies.
It is symptomatic of this lack of humor that my remarks
were construed in a disparaging sense. Suppose that Will
had advertised a course in the mathematical dynamics of
water skiing or (this is an actual case where I took the
course and made the same remark) physics of holography--
and I said "Sounds like a fun course-- don't suppose I can
take only the lab?"? Where's the righteous indignation now?
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]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------