rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (12/24/85)
[I tried sending this via personal mail, but failed.] <answering Paul Torek's request for information> Paul, I gave money this year to Oxfam for Ethiopian famine relief. I'd known about them since the early 70s, when they impressed me as being not only scrupulous & intelligent, but aware: ie, they didn't make a fetish out of political neutrality to the point of blindering themselves to the often ugly political realities and how these complicate humanitarianism. This year I'd read a few nasty & slanderous attacks on Oxfam from the far right, accusing them of being dupes of Communism. After donating, I started receiving the Oxfam newsletter, and was rather startled to read fairly glowing articles on Mozambique, Nicaragua, & even Ethiopia on subjects at best tangential to issues of humanitarian aid, & myopic to the point of being immoral, given Oxfam's purpose and probably its own self-image as effective and undeluded. I wonder what's happened since the early 70s? Have I moved to the right, or has Oxfam (or at least, its newsletter) been "captured" by a decidedly leftist faction which has broken with the organization's scrupulous traditions? Or was I blind to similar leanings in Oxfam long ago? I've decided not to give them another cent until they "clean up their act." Amnesty International, they're not; maybe they should be, that is, strictly impartial but morally sensitive. Regards, Ron Rizzo
lkk@teddy.UUCP (12/28/85)
In article <1651@bbncca.ARPA> rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) writes: >After donating, I started receiving the Oxfam newsletter, and was rather >startled to read fairly glowing articles on Mozambique, Nicaragua, & even >Ethiopia on subjects at best tangential to issues of humanitarian aid, >& myopic to the point of being immoral, given Oxfam's purpose and probably >its own self-image as effective and undeluded. I don't know what the newsletter said about Ethiopia, but the governments of Nicaragua and Mozambique HAVE done much to eliminate hunger in those countries. Remembering the goal of Oxfam (elmination of hunger), it is perfectly reasonable for its newsletter to praise a government that has worked towards that end. This doesn't mean that Oxfam supports the political structure in the country, it isn't even its place to make such a judgement. Amnesty International (which you mentioned as a "good" international organization, doesn't protest against government policies which are bad but not classified as human rights violations. Does this make Amnesty suspect as well? Stop > >I wonder what's happened since the early 70s? Have I moved to the right, >or has Oxfam (or at least, its newsletter) been "captured" by a decidedly >leftist faction which has broken with the organization's scrupulous >traditions? Or was I blind to similar leanings in Oxfam long ago? Blind yes, but not as you mean it. > >I've decided not to give them another cent until they "clean up their >act." Amnesty International, they're not; maybe they should be, that >is, strictly impartial but morally sensitive. Well I hope you enjoy basking in your self-righteousness while one more person goes starving because you didn't contribute. -- Sport Death, (USENET) ...{decvax | ihnp4!mit-eddie}!genrad!panda!lkk Larry Kolodney (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa -------- Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing. - Helen Keller
az@ada-uts.UUCP (01/02/86)
> I don't know what the newsletter said about Ethiopia, but the governments > of Nicaragua and Mozambique HAVE done much to eliminate hunger in those > countries. Remembering the goal of Oxfam (elmination of hunger), it is > perfectly reasonable for its newsletter to praise a government that > has worked towards that end. This doesn't mean that Oxfam supports the > political structure in the country, it isn't even its place to make such a > judgement. One wonders if they also praised South Africa for their high standard of living ... Or did they find any kind words for El-Salvador?... Alex Zatsman.
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (01/02/86)
>In article <1651@bbncca.ARPA> rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) writes: >>After donating, I started receiving the Oxfam newsletter, and was rather >>startled to read fairly glowing articles on Mozambique, Nicaragua, & even >>Ethiopia on subjects at best tangential to issues of humanitarian aid, >>& myopic to the point of being immoral, given Oxfam's purpose and probably >>its own self-image as effective and undeluded. >I don't know what the newsletter said about Ethiopia, but the governments >of Nicaragua and Mozambique HAVE done much to eliminate hunger in those >countries. Remembering the goal of Oxfam (elmination of hunger), it is >perfectly reasonable for its newsletter to praise a government that >has worked towards that end. This doesn't mean that Oxfam supports the >political structure in the country, it isn't even its place to make such a >judgement. The Fall 1985 Oxfam America News has articles on Nicaragua, Mozambique, and Ethiopia that implicitly endorse their regimes, & certainly portray them as acting in good faith, contrary to widely-known facts. The articles construe "elimination of hunger" broadly by discussing military conflicts, US foreign policy, etc., yet omit hunger-causing policies and acts of mass starvation committed by these regimes. Most external observers and many ordinary Nicaraguans admit the economy and living standard are considerably worse now than before the 1979 revolution; though civil war and the embargo have worsened the economic situation, the decline under the Sandinistas PRECEDED significant contra activity (see articles by the Leikens in the 10/8/84 New Republic). Nicaragua under Somoza may've been poor but wasn't seriously hungry, unlike many other underdeveloped nations, or even other central American countries. Now everything must be rationed, and food ration cards are blatantly used as weapons by the FSLN to coerce obedience (see Leiken or Shirley Christian or others: I'll soon post an extensive bibliography of articles and books on Central American conflicts that don't echo Sandinist or contra agitprop). Much current Nicaraguan hunger was created, often deliberately, by the Sandi- nistas or their policies. It's well-known that Ethiopia's ruling Dergue (a clique of Marxist-Leninist military officers that slaughtered members of the Selassie regime and have created 1 million Ethiopian exiles abroad who fled for their lives and/or freedom) has deliberately promoted mass starvation of Eritreans, inhabitants of Tigre province and other ethnic groups, because some of them support gue- rilla opponents of the regime: by preventing delivery of food or access for international relief organizations or by letting food rot in storage. There's not a word about this in the newsletter. The Mozambique article describes "the destructive presence of the insurgent Mozambique National Resistance Movement which received support from South Africa and continues its campaign of economic sabotage and terror in much of the country." The MNRM is opposed to Mozambique's Marxist regime, which for many years prior to independence waged a campaign of economic sabotage and terror in much of the country. >Amnesty International (which you mentioned as a "good" international >organization, doesn't protest against government policies which are bad but not >classified as human rights violations. Does this make Amnesty suspect as well? AI certainly doesn't laud nasty regimes simply because it can't currently identify human rights abuses (hard to do for any communist country, given their complete control of information). Oxfam America seems to be systematically ignoring promotion of hunger by some revolutionary regimes. >>I've decided not to give them another cent until they "clean up their >>act." Amnesty International, they're not; maybe they should be, that >>is, strictly impartial but morally sensitive. >Well I hope you enjoy basking in your self-righteousness while >one more person goes starving because you didn't contribute. Now isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle beige! I wonder how long Larry's support of Oxfam America would last if it began criticizing Sandinist or Dergue uses of hunger & starvation? There are two ways to eliminate hunger: 1. Feed the hungry; or, 2. Starve them to death. The regimes Larry admires for their progressive and enlightened social policies are precisely those that have frequently resorted to mass starva- tion, food discrimination, or whose ruinous & antihuman economic programs have destroyed or disabled entire economies, causing hunger and famines that were avoidable: 1 In 1931-2, the Bolsheviks expropriated the harvest of the Ukraine, sealed off its borders, letting none exit or enter, and proceeded to deliberately starve 7-10 million Ukrainians in order to destroy Ukrainian nationalism by destroying Ukrainians (I'll shortly post an article on this, too). It was genocide by planned famine. 2 China's Great Leap Forward in 1958-1962, a piece of sheer folly foisted on the country by Mao, resulted in mass starvation: estimates place the dead at 50 million or more. 3 Partial & gradual, or complete & quick, starvation, as well as planned malnutrition designed to enervate, is a key component of the USSR's gulag, or system of 1000s of concentration camps. Similar gulags exist in Cuba and other communist societies. Food rationing common to communist countries is a principal tool of political control. Larry's hot and indignant response is misplaced. Cheers, Ron Rizzo
midkiff@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (01/02/86)
> Well I hope you enjoy basking in your self-righteousness while > one more person goes starving because you didn't contribute. > > -- > Sport Death, (USENET) ...{decvax | ihnp4!mit-eddie}!genrad!panda!lkk > Larry Kolodney (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa > -------- The original poster did not say he would never again contribute to any organization fighting starvation, only that he would not contribute to Oxfam until they cleaned up their act. I only hope you enjoy basking in your self-righteousness while one more person goes starving because money that could have been spent to feed them was spent on propaganda to prop up governments that spend millions on Scotch and posters of Lenin while their citizens starve. Sam Midkiff {ihnp4 | pur-ee}!uiucdcs!midkiff
lkk@teddy.UUCP (01/03/86)
In article <1657@bbncca.ARPA> rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) writes: > [Discussion of implicit Oxfam support of Marxist regimes ] >The Fall 1985 Oxfam America News has articles on Nicaragua, Mozambique, and >Ethiopia that implicitly endorse their regimes, & certainly portray them as >acting in good faith, contrary to widely-known facts. I know of no widely known facts which indicate that the Sandanistas or the government of Mozambique are not acting in "good faith." You might disagree with their solutions to the problems in those countries, but that is another matter entirely. From what I've heard about Ethiopia, there does seem to be evidence of malfeasance on the part of the Dergue, but considering how little any of us know about the politics of that region, its hard to make a blanket condemnation. > The articles construe >"elimination of hunger" broadly by discussing military conflicts, US foreign >policy, etc., yet omit hunger-causing policies and acts of mass starvation >committed by these regimes. Please explain why the Sandanista or Mozambiquan regime would want to starve THEIR population. > >Most external observers and many ordinary Nicaraguans admit the economy and >living standard are considerably worse now than before the 1979 revolution; >though civil war and the embargo have worsened the economic situation, the >decline under the Sandinistas PRECEDED significant contra activity (see >articles by the Leikens in the 10/8/84 New Republic). The New Republic is hardly a neutral source. Is this where you find "well-known facts"? > Nicaragua under >Somoza may've been poor but wasn't seriously hungry, unlike many other >underdeveloped nations, or even other central American countries. Now >everything must be rationed, and food ration cards are blatantly used as >weapons by the FSLN to coerce obedience (see Leiken or Shirley Christian >or others: I'll soon post an extensive bibliography of articles and books >on Central American conflicts that don't echo Sandinist or contra agitprop). >Much current Nicaraguan hunger was created, often deliberately, by the Sandi- >nistas or their policies. Please do that. Please don't forget to mention how much of the national wealth was taken out of the country by Somoza before he left. > >It's well-known that Ethiopia's ruling Dergue (a clique of Marxist-Leninist >military officers that slaughtered members of the Selassie regime and have >created 1 million Ethiopian exiles abroad who fled for their lives and/or >freedom) has deliberately promoted mass starvation of Eritreans, inhabitants >of Tigre province and other ethnic groups, because some of them support gue- >rilla opponents of the regime: by preventing delivery of food or access for >international relief organizations or by letting food rot in storage. There's >not a word about this in the newsletter. No argument. This is the one instance where you have real evidence of wrongdoing. You are using it to paint all revolutionary regimes as evil. > >The Mozambique article describes "the destructive presence of the insurgent >Mozambique National Resistance Movement which received support from South >Africa and continues >its campaign of economic sabotage and terror in much of the country." The >MNRM is opposed to Mozambique's Marxist regime, which for many years prior >to independence waged a campaign of economic sabotage and terror in much of >the country. For hundreds of years, Mozambique was a Portugese colony. Its wealth exploited by European companies. During most of the 20th century, Portugal and thus Mozambique was ruled by a neo-fascist dictatorship. Wouldn't you use guerilla tactics against such a regime? What evidence do you have of wrong doing in the present day? I've only heard good things about Mozambiquan food policy. Please don't use guilt by association. > >AI certainly doesn't laud nasty regimes simply because it can't currently >identify human rights abuses (hard to do for any communist country, given their >complete control of information). Oxfam America seems to be systematically >ignoring promotion of hunger by some revolutionary regimes. Perhaps they don't want to alienate regimes whose cooperation they require. > >>>I've decided not to give them another cent until they "clean up their >>>act." Amnesty International, they're not; maybe they should be, that >>>is, strictly impartial but morally sensitive. > >>Well I hope you enjoy basking in your self-righteousness while >>one more person goes starving because you didn't contribute. > >Now isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle beige! I wonder how long >Larry's support of Oxfam America would last if it began criticizing Sandinist >or Dergue uses of hunger & starvation? My support of Oxfam will continue as long as they continue to be an effective hunger elimination program. I consider their work to be outside of politics. > There are two ways to eliminate >hunger: > >1. Feed the hungry; or, > >2. Starve them to death. > >The regimes Larry admires for their progressive and enlightened social >policies are precisely those that have frequently resorted to mass starva- >tion, food discrimination, or whose ruinous & antihuman economic programs >have destroyed or disabled entire economies, causing hunger and famines that >were avoidable: > > > [Usual list of Stalinist and Maoist instigated famines ] > I have never expressed admiration for the Stalinist or Maoist regimes. Your redbating paranoia is showing. >Food rationing common to communist countries is a principal tool of political >control. Larry's hot and indignant response is misplaced. Economic policy is a tool of control in all third world countries. I think that has a lot more to do with the nature of third world countries than with Marxism. -- Sport Death, (USENET) ...{decvax | ihnp4!mit-eddie}!genrad!panda!lkk Larry Kolodney (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa -------- Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing. - Helen Keller
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (01/03/86)
Ron Rizzo writes: >The regimes Larry admires for their progressive and enlightened >social policies are precisely those that have frequently resorted to >mass starvation, food discrimination, or whose ruinous & antihuman >economic programs have destroyed or disabled entire economies, >causing hunger and famines that were avoidable: > >1 In 1931-2, the Bolsheviks expropriated the harvest of the Ukraine, > sealed off its borders, letting none exit or enter, and proceeded to > deliberately starve 7-10 million Ukrainians in order to destroy > Ukrainian nationalism by destroying Ukrainians (I'll shortly post an > article on this, too). It was genocide by planned famine. > >2 China's Great Leap Forward in 1958-1962, a piece of sheer folly > foisted on the country by Mao, resulted in mass starvation: estimates > place the dead at 50 million or more. > >3 Partial & gradual, or complete & quick, starvation, as well as > planned malnutrition designed to enervate, is a key component of the > USSR's gulag, or system of 1000s of concentration camps. Similar > gulags exist in Cuba and other communist societies. The first step in understanding any historical situation is to divide the participants into Good Guys and Bad Guys. Since the political leaders of the above-mentioned communist countries are responsible for these atrocities and economic disasters, it is beyond question that they are Bad Guys. Thus, if any policies of, say, the Cuban or Chinese governments appear humane, enlightened, or constructive, this is necessarily an illusion: we know that these countries are run by Bad Guys. I am currently trying to determine whether the Sandinistas are the Good Guys or the Bad Guys in Nicaragua. Any assistance will be appreciated. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (01/04/86)
-- > I am currently trying to determine whether the Sandinistas are the > Good Guys or the Bad Guys in Nicaragua. Any assistance will be > appreciated. > > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes So am I. I've posted a number of articles condemning the Contras, and I nearly went to Nicaragua (through TechNica) to help the Sandinista govt. I never admired the Sandinistas--indeed, I have an implicit distrust of any government whose leader runs around in a military outfit--yet I readily dismissed as right-wing propaganda, or else forgave as fortunes of war, their excesses. But then I read in a UPI news item, mostly dedicated to the Sandinistas' complete shutting down of Radio Catolica (3 Jan 86): ...Earlier Wednesday, [President Daniel] Ortega congratulated Yasser Arafat on the 21st anniversary of the Palestine Liberation Organization and expressed support for the Palestinians' "just struggle." Well, gentle reader, if you are one of the folks I jumped on for your condemnation of the Sandinistas, I do sincerely apologize. The Sandinistas and the Contras deserve each other. And neither deserves any aid from anybody. Not *the* bad guys, Richard. Just bad guys. (Keep posting, Richard! Your stuff is the most informative and enjoyable--in that order--on the net, though I know that's not saying much.) -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 03 Jan 86 [14 Nivose An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
ekrell@ucla-cs.UUCP (01/05/86)
This is taken from today's (sunday 1/5) L.A. Times:
The Colombian government charged that rifles used by guerillas in November's
bloody takeover of the Palace of Justice in Bogota came from the leftist
Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. In a letter to his Nicaraguan counterpart,
Miguel D'Escoto, Colombian Foreign Minister Augusto Ramirez demanded a
"prompt and satisfactory explanation" of how the arms fell into the hands
of M-19 guerillas.
I am wondering what the explanation will be.
--
Eduardo Krell UCLA Computer Science Department
ekrell@ucla-locus.arpa ..!{sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!ekrelltw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (01/06/86)
"Great Horny Toads", as one of my favorite cartoon characters likes to say. My hat is off to Ken Perlow. He too has begun to notice that the Contras and the Sandanistas all seem to be just another shade of grey when it comes to human rights. Whatever happened to the centerists in Nicarmessedup? Did they all jump country to await the final battle, and to then move back? T. C. Wheeler
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (01/06/86)
> The Colombian government charged that rifles used by guerillas in November's > bloody takeover of the Palace of Justice in Bogota came from the leftist > Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. In a letter to his Nicaraguan counterpart, > Miguel D'Escoto, Colombian Foreign Minister Augusto Ramirez demanded a > "prompt and satisfactory explanation" of how the arms fell into the hands > of M-19 guerillas. > It should be noted that the US IMMEDIATELY stated that the arms came from Nicaragua. Columbia could simply be bowing to considerable diplomatic pressure from the US. Did the article state what proof they had beyond supposition? Guerrilla warfare has been going on for a long while in Columbia -- it's not as if these guys hadn't captured or bought a lot of weapons already. Sounds suspiciously like the claims that the FSLN supplies arms to the FMLN, which has not been proven either. jdm
ekrell@ucla-cs.UUCP (01/08/86)
In article <1875@uwmacc.UUCP> myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) writes: > >It should be noted that the US IMMEDIATELY stated that the arms came from >Nicaragua. Columbia could simply be bowing to considerable diplomatic pressure >from the US. Did the article state what proof they had beyond supposition? There was a followup article a couple of days later when D'Escotto denied the charges. The article stated that the machine guns were traced by their serial numbers. I regret not having the article in hand so I won't try to (mis)quote. -- Eduardo Krell UCLA Computer Science Department ekrell@ucla-locus.arpa ..!{sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!ekrell
gil@cornell.UUCP (Gil Neiger) (01/24/86)
In article <295@pyuxii.UUCP> tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) writes: >Whatever happened to >the centerists in Nicarmessedup? Did they all jump country to >await the final battle, and to then move back? That's close to what's happened. Part of the strategy of the contras is to eliminate any political center in Nicaragua that could possibly be taken seriously either internally or internationally. By a continuous escalation of the war, they have forced any political opposition in the country (center or right) to side with them. The Sandinistas have proclaimed a policy of political pluralism. The elections of November 1984 were said by international observers to be extremely free and open by Latin American standards. Nevertheless, if you were a centrist politician would you want to be someone who tried to work within the system (whether it was fair or not) when the contras march into Managua? Of course not. It's another example of American foreign policy fighting against democracy in Latin America and around the world. -- Gil Neiger Computer Science Department Cornell University Ithaca NY 14853 {uw-beaver,ihnp4,decvax,vax135}!cornell!gil (UUCP) gil@Cornell.ARPA (ARPAnet) ; gil@CRNLCS (BITNET)