mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (04/12/85)
Jim, do you believe the Nicaraguans have a right to a foreign policy independent of U.S. influence? Or do you think the U.S. should have veto power over Nicaraguan allies (e.g. Cuba and USSR)? Do you think that any election in which a Marxist party gains control is automatically rigged? Do you believe a country has a right to choose a socialist development path without U.S. interference? These, I think, are the key questions in Nicaragua. Mike Kelly
matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews) (04/15/85)
> Jim, do you believe the Nicaraguans have a right to a foreign policy > independent of U.S. influence? Or do you think the U.S. should have > veto power over Nicaraguan allies (e.g. Cuba and USSR)? > > Do you think that any election in which a Marxist party gains control > is automatically rigged? Do you believe a country has a right to > choose a socialist development path without U.S. interference? > > These, I think, are the key questions in Nicaragua. > > Mike Kelly I do *not* believe that these are key questions in the formation of our policy toward Nicaragua. The concept of nations having "rights" is a slippery one that does not lend itself to creating international peace. Governments, such as the U.S.S.R., Cuba, and Nicaragua, which pursue revolutionary foreign policies are by choice outside the realm of international law and its corresponding "rights." The question that remains for us is how to deal with revolutionary powers. We could decide to treat them with kid gloves, or perhaps we could try to pressure them into changing their policies. Neither approach, as I see it, is illegitimate. It just depends on whether the chosen policy will lead to stability and peace. As for elections, I suppose they could be fair but I've yet to hear of Marxist-Leninist success in an election commonly regarded as fair. My view of Nicaragua as a totalitarian state in the making has little to do with the way they conducted their elections, except that the elections were an example of the Sandinistas giving in to U.S. pressure. As for a "socialist development path", I don't think that's the issue. Sweden, Norway, and France have all made steps in that direction without suffering U.S. retaliation. When the issue is revolutionary socialism, however, with all it's international implications, then of course it's a matter of concern to the U.S. Jim Matthews matthews@harvard
dss00@amdahl.UUCP (dss00) (04/17/85)
> Jim, do you believe the Nicaraguans have a right to a foreign policy > independent of U.S. influence? Or do you think the U.S. should have > veto power over Nicaraguan allies (e.g. Cuba and USSR)? > > Do you think that any election in which a Marxist party gains control > is automatically rigged? Do you believe a country has a right to > choose a socialist development path without U.S. interference? > > These, I think, are the key questions in Nicaragua. > > Mike Kelly Sorry to jump in here, but my experience tells me that the world politics, like all other things in our life, is influenced more by self interest and expediency of the moment than by any thing else. Right of Nicaraguans (or of their government) to determine their own foreign policy directly affects economic and security interests of the U.S.. When economic and security interests of the U.S. are threatened, no ideological/ethical/moral argument will affect the eventual policy of the administration. It will be and should be determined by the self interests of the U.S., rights of anyone else not withstanding. As regards any Marxist party winning in an election, the only problem is that, while the initial win may be genuine and democratic in every sense of the word, it usually is the last election in that country. People no longer can change their mind about it. -- Deepak S. Sabnis ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!dss00 (408) 746-6058 (Usual Disclaimer Here)
mroddy@enmasse.UUCP (Mark Roddy) (04/17/85)
> > Governments, such as the U.S.S.R., Cuba, and > Nicaragua, which pursue revolutionary foreign policies are by choice > outside the realm of international law and its corresponding "rights." Geez, even Ronny has dropped the 'we're just stopping the nicker-rawguians from making revolution in el salvador' crap. There just wasn't any proof that the events in salvador were being directed from managua. I think that the U.N. charter prohibits interventionist foreign policy of any ideology, not just left-imperialism. Many of the world powers violate international laws, in this respect we have a world community of outlaws. It ain't restricted to the commies. > As for elections, I suppose they could be fair but I've yet > to hear of Marxist-Leninist success in an election commonly regarded > as fair. Obviously you forgot Allende of Chile. -- Mark Roddy Net working, Just reading the news. (harvard!talcott!panda!enmasse!mroddy)
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (04/18/85)
> > > As for elections, I suppose they could be fair but I've yet > > to hear of Marxist-Leninist success in an election commonly regarded > > as fair. > > Obviously you forgot Allende of Chile. > -- > Mark Roddy > (harvard!talcott!panda!enmasse!mroddy) Well, Allende was certainly a Marxist, but not a Marxist-Leninist in the traditional sense. Also, Allende wasn't elected fairly -- the US donated $8,000,000 between 1963 and 1973 to opposition parties, and the CIA encouraged a military coup right after Allende was elected by the people, but before he was elected by the legislature. However, General Schneider was killed before the coup really got going. Check out the Church Committee report on CIA activities in Chile and you'll soon be inclined to help kick CIA recruiters off YOUR campus. Also, Arbenz in Guatemala was a reformist-minded, freely elected president who was deposed by a CIA sponsored invasion. -- Jeff Myers The views above may or may not University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of any other Madison Academic Computing Center person or group at UW-Madison. ARPA: uwmacc!myers@wisc-rsch.ARPA UUCP: ..!{ucbvax,allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!myers
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (04/18/85)
> > Right of Nicaraguans (or of their government) to determine their > own foreign policy directly affects economic and security interests > of the U.S.. When economic and security interests of the U.S. are > threatened, no ideological/ethical/moral argument will affect the > eventual policy of the administration. It will be and should be > determined by the self interests of the U.S., rights of anyone else > not withstanding. > > Deepak S. Sabnis ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!dss00 (408) 746-6058 > Then let's change the foreign policy of the US (nuevo-Roman) government. What are you and Amdahl doing to change this self-centered policy? My guess is that you both prefer it to the alternatives. Remember, kiddies, Washington, DC is the center of the universe. -- Jeff Myers The views above may or may not University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of any other Madison Academic Computing Center person or group at UW-Madison. ARPA: uwmacc!myers@wisc-rsch.ARPA UUCP: ..!{ucbvax,allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!myers
ekrell@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/22/85)
> > As for elections, I suppose they could be fair but I've yet > > to hear of Marxist-Leninist success in an election commonly regarded > > as fair. > > Obviously you forgot Allende of Chile. > -- > Mark Roddy Allende was not a Marxist-Leninist. He was a socialist and the leader of the socialist party. He never ran his ticket as a marxist-leninist, not even as a communist. For the elections in 1970, he knew (from having run several times in the 60's) the socialist party couldn't win an election unless they ally with the more extreme left parties, so he created and headed the so-called "Unidad Popular" (Popular Unity), with the socialist and communist parties. Allende always kept his distance from the extreme left but in his alliance with the communist he surrounded himself with communist advisors and ministers. Just setting the record straight, -- Eduardo Krell UCLA Computer Science Department ekrell@ucla-locus.arpa ..!{sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!ekrell
dss00@amdahl.UUCP (dss00) (04/23/85)
> > > > Right of Nicaraguans (or of their government) to determine their > > own foreign policy directly affects economic and security interests > > of the U.S.. When economic and security interests of the U.S. are > > threatened, no ideological/ethical/moral argument will affect the > > eventual policy of the administration. It will be and should be > > determined by the self interests of the U.S., rights of anyone else > > not withstanding. > > > > Deepak S. Sabnis ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!dss00 (408) 746-6058 > > > > Then let's change the foreign policy of the US (nuevo-Roman) government. > What are you and Amdahl doing to change this self-centered policy? > My guess is that you both prefer it to the alternatives. > > Remember, kiddies, Washington, DC is the center of the universe. > > -- > Jeff Myers The views above may or may not > University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of any other > Madison Academic Computing Center person or group at UW-Madison. > ARPA: uwmacc!myers@wisc-rsch.ARPA > UUCP: ..!{ucbvax,allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!myers First and foremost allow me to remind you that my postings to the net do not reflect opinions of my employer (AMDAHL Corp.), its shareholders, or anyone else for that matter. I resent your reckless behaviour in dragging AMDAHL CORP in this debate. This sort of thing is not in the general interest of the net, which lives on *free* usage of facilities of various organizations and institutions supporting it. As regards your other comments, you seem to miss the main point of my posting. I had merely stated a fact as to what governs the foreign policies of a government. Remember that this is true of all governments, not just the U.S.. If you were to go by ideologies alone, communism would be the utopia. However, experience teaches us to judge any *ism by the way it is practiced rather than the way it is preached. I too feel sorry for the people in Nicaragua. They are but only pawns in his world power politics. My only point was that if the U.S. opts out of Nicaraguan politics, that will not neccessarily mean that the people of Nicaragua will have the government of their choice. I believe that either way they are doomed. So much for God's fairness in His Kingdom (Uh Oh! I can see more flames coming my way :-)) -- Deepak S. Sabnis ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!dss00 (408) 746-6058 (Usual Disclaimer Here)
mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (04/25/85)
From: dss00@amdahl.UUCP (dss00) >Right of Nicaraguans (or of their government) to determine their >own foreign policy directly affects economic and security interests >of the U.S.. When economic and security interests of the U.S. are >threatened, no ideological/ethical/moral argument will affect the >eventual policy of the administration. It will be and should be >determined by the self interests of the U.S. HOW does Nicaragua affect economic and security interests of the U.S.? 60% of the economy is in public hands. U.S. corporations continue to do business in Nicaragua, although they must do so under Nicaraguan laws -- just like they must operate in the U.S. under American laws. Nicaragua is the best performer on foreign loans of any Central American country. (As an aside, by the way, you might ask yourself whether *you* would have assumed the debts of an illegitimate government you had overthrown, loans which benefited the country bearly at all. The Sandinistas did.) If the Soviets were installing missiles in Nicaragua, I might accept that as a threat to the U.S. But they aren't. If the Soviets were sending in massive troop and arms shipments to Nicaragua, I might accept that as a threat to the region. But they aren't. So tell me: what threat does this nation of three million present to the most powerful military nation in the world? >As regards your other comments, you seem to miss the main point of my >posting. I had merely stated a fact as to what governs the foreign >policies of a government. Remember that this is true of all governments, >not just the U.S.. Ah, but you ignore something. We're better. We tell people that all the time, and it may surprise some on the net, but I really believe that. I really believe the U.S., at its best, has a lot of good to offer the world. The trouble is, the attitude that everyone else is nasty so we have to be nasty, too, is ultimately self-defeating. The best way for the U.S. to export democracy and freedom to the world is to deal with other countries in a fair way. Unfortunately, we often don't, and Central American contains some of the ugliest examples of that. >I too feel sorry for the people in Nicaragua. They are but only pawns >in his world power politics. My only point was that if the U.S. opts out >of Nicaraguan politics, that will not neccessarily mean that the people >of Nicaragua will have the government of their choice. I believe that >either way they are doomed. Why don't you let *them* worry about that? The Nicaraguans never asked the U.S. to guarantee them a good government; it just asked the U.S. to deal fairly with them. If you feel sorry for the people of Nicaragua, you will surely oppose sending millions of American dollars to train and supply terrorists who only make the situation worse. If these people have any popular support, they will win. The point, of course, is that their popular support is very thin and they desparately need U.S. money to have any chance of success in overthrowing the government. I don't want the world's impression of the U.S. to be a bully country that goes around overthrowing governments with which it doesn't agree and training terrorists to do the dirty work. Saying "that's the way the world is" just isn't very convincing to me. That's a rationalization, not a reason. If you think it *shouldn't* be that way, what are you doing to change it? Mike Kelly