kel@ea.UUCP (01/24/86)
Earlier this month, Larry Kolodney <lkk@teddy> writes(excerpted): Haiti is the home of one of the most brutal dictatorships in the Western Hemisphere. Its government has been a virtual family feifdom for most of this century. Yet the United States gives $50 million in aid per year to prop up the government. . . . Are we going to wait until there is a Communist revolution in Haiti before we start worrying about human rights there? (end quotes) You shouldn't talk about these cases in isolation. If you include, for instance, Cuba, Guatemala, VietNam, Afghanistan, Chile, Angola, The Phillipines, East Timor, Ghana, Ethiopia, South Africa, Lebanon, Libya, Taiwan, Eastern Europe, Israel, Korea, and Iran, you have a fairly comprehensive sampling of aggressive and terroristic behavior in the Third World, par- ticularly as instigated by "developed nations". Presumably, if you can sort all those facts out, together with the ones you've mentioned, they will speak for themselves. If I've missed a great many Communist aggressions that should be included in my list, do please speak up. However, at this point, and in my humble opinion, the U.S. has built up quite a reputation for installing and supporting "friendly" govern- ments in Third World countries, even though such "friends" be corrupt, despotic, and murderous against their own people; further, that the U.S. supports such governments willfully, knowing their nature. For documentation of a single example of this charge, I refer you to a sworn affidavit to the World Court in the Hague by Edgar Chamorro, a former leader of the Nicaraguan Contras and a former Jesuit priest, dated September, 1985. I do not condone the fact that the Communists espouse revo- lution as an integral component of doctrine. Neither do I endorse the notion that socialism is the logical political successor to capitalism in the world. Communism, whatever its ends, however, has made its inroads in the Third World almost entirely (with bordering states numbering notable exceptions among them, e.g. Afghanistan) by means of popu- larly supported revolution against bad government. The U.S., however, callously disregards human rights issues outside its own borders even as it pays lip service to them, and little more, within its borders. Reagan almost vetoed Martin Luther King day; how's that for hypocrisy? Serious, determined sanctions by the U.S. against Praetoria would break the back of apartheid in a single season, in a state which condones indiscriminate mayhem by its police power against Black natives, who are denied full citizenship by the government Reagan refuses to act against. Where are the offers of U.S. observers to the Phillipine government for their impending elections? Why did it take five years for the U.S. government to undertake support for AIDS re- search? What was the real purpose of invading Grenada? The exploits of the United States' government since WWII are enough to make a classic paranoid's dreams come true. Apparently, the greatest beneficiary of U.S. adventurism has been the U.S. business establishment. This makes excellent sense, as the Constitution was written with the land owner and merchant in mind. It is unfortunate, however, that other values reflected in the Constitution seem to have been sacrificed in favor of enterprise. They are intangible values more firmly espoused in the Declaration of Independence; justice for all, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; notions we were taught were those that made our war of revolution worthy. We, for we are responsible for the acts of those we allow to act on our behalf, have abandoned our heritage of honor and of warrior- hood. We permit our names to be written on black deeds in the pages of history. We are unworthy to be the Americans of our homeland, because George III himself would be aghast at what we have wrought. Therefore, let us discuss not the hypocrisy of the man we have chosen to represent us, without discussing our own hypocrisy in permitting his hypocrisy to be represented as our will. I more than welcome replies and further discussion of this article; flames, however, > /dev/null. Ken Lonquest, kel@ea (To assume that the opinions I express here are, or coincide with, the opinions of Energy Analysts' manage- ment, wuold be both false and manifestly stupid.)
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (01/31/86)
>You shouldn't talk about these cases in isolation. If you >include, for instance, Cuba, Guatemala, VietNam, Afghanistan, >Chile, Angola, The Phillipines, East Timor, Ghana, Ethiopia, >South Africa, Lebanon, Libya, Taiwan, Eastern Europe, Israel, >Korea, and Iran, you have a fairly comprehensive sampling of >aggressive and terroristic behavior in the Third World, par- >ticularly as instigated by "developed nations". Presumably, >if you can sort all those facts out, together with the ones >you've mentioned, they will speak for themselves. >If I've missed a great many Communist aggressions that should >be included in my list, do please speak up. The problem here is that you're not being clear. For instance, does "Israel" refer to Arab aggressions against Israel or US support of alleged Israeli "agressions"? And does "Cuba" mean the Bay of Pigs, or does it mean the Cuban missile crisis, or the human rights situation in Cuba, or the essential control of Cuba by the USSR? Does "Korea" count as an aggression by the US, or the USSR, if either? Also, you seem to be glossing over many Communist agressions here--for instance, "Eastern Europe" covers an awful lot of countries, especially if you count the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, as well as parts of countries (Karelia), and it covers an awful lot of incidents. Lumping all these together as "Eastern Europe" while listing the US-caused ones separately gives the im- pression that the US is much more aggressive, and the USSR much less, than is supported by the evidence. For that matter, you left out the USSR itself completely, even though the USSR has a bad human rights situation, much worse than the US. >... I do not condone the fact that the Communists espouse revo- >lution as an integral component of doctrine. Neither do I >endorse the notion that socialism is the logical political >successor to capitalism in the world. Communism, whatever >its ends, however, has made its inroads in the Third World >almost entirely (with bordering states numbering notable >exceptions among them, e.g. Afghanistan) by means of popu- >larly supported revolution against bad government. The trouble is that often the "popularly supported" revolution isn't, and even if it is the government that then follows is generally worse. And if most inroads of Communism have been in the Third World, so what? Most _countries_ are in the Third World. Also, a Third World country generally has a less stable government of its own, and is thus easier to take over, either directly or by supporting a revolution, then taking over after the revolution. >The U.S., however, callously disregards human rights issues >outside its own borders even as it pays lip service to them, >and little more, within its borders. Reagan almost vetoed >Martin Luther King day; how's that for hypocrisy? Serious, >determined sanctions by the U.S. against Praetoria would >break the back of apartheid in a single season, in a state >which condones indiscriminate mayhem by its police power >against Black natives, who are denied full citizenship by >the government Reagan refuses to act against. Where are >the offers of U.S. observers to the Phillipine government >for their impending elections? Why did it take five years >for the U.S. government to undertake support for AIDS re- >search? What was the real purpose of invading Grenada? >The exploits of the United States' government since WWII >are enough to make a classic paranoid's dreams come true. To take these in order: 1) "Almost" doesn't count. 2) Many people disagree that sanctions are the best way to fight apartheid. If someone believes that they are not, failing to support sanctions is not a "disregard" for human rights, assuming that person is doing whatever he/she feels is best to fight apartheid. They may be mistaken about the ineffectiveness of sanctions, but that means only that they are trying to support human rights in a mistaken way, not that they aren't trying to support human rights. (Of course, this doesn't apply if the people in question are hypocrites, claiming that methods other than sanctions are more effective without actually believing it, just because they don't want sanctions. If you think this is so, please say so.) 3) The US doesn't send observers to a lot of countries, but we don't doubt these countries have free elections. 4) You mean the lack of AIDS research is a violation of human rights? Or are you implying something else? If so, please state it. 5) No matter what you may choose to believe, the vast majority of the Grenadans DID support the US invasion. Obviously the reason wasn't to save the American students, but that doesn't mean the action is a US "aggression". >[blame of the businessmen deleted] It is unfortunate, >however, that other values reflected in the Constitution >seem to have been sacrificed in favor of enterprise. They are >intangible values more firmly espoused in the Declaration >of Independence; justice for all, life, liberty, and the >pursuit of happiness; notions we were taught were those >that made our war of revolution worthy. We, for we are >responsible for the acts of those we allow to act on our >behalf, have abandoned our heritage of honor and of warrior- >hood. We permit our names to be written on black deeds in >the pages of history. We are unworthy to be the Americans >of our homeland, because George III himself would be aghast >at what we have wrought. This is a nice general statement, which would take an exceedingly large amount of space to properly reply to. I'll content myself with these observations: The values you have mentioned here are conspicuously absent in all Communist countries. Honor is only useful against an honorable enemy. (No, I'm not justifying all US actions by this, but it does apply to situations like invading Grenada, even though Grenada is much smaller than the US) I don't consider there to be a US heritage of "warriorhood". And I thought you didn't support US actions that fall into this category, anyway. (at least from what you have written in your article, it seems so.) I am not sure what connection George III has with this. >Ken Lonquest, >kel@ea -- "We are going to give a little something, a few little years more, to socialism, because socialism is defunct. It dies all by iself. The bad thing is that socialism, being a victim of its... Did I say socialism?" -Fidel Castro Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa