baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (04/05/85)
I'm a little amazed at some of the arguments used to justify and/or criticize the US's attempts to overthrow the government of Nicaragua. It does not matter how free or fair their elections were. The last Mexican elections were at least as rigged, yet I hear no one advocating a US-backed overthrow of the PRI. Many nations find favor with the US without having even a pretense of democracy. It does not matter how free their press is. There are plenty of countries in the world with less press freedom than Nicaragua, some of which are our allies. What matters is that the Sandinistas overthrew a regime installed and supported by the United States, and that they have subsequently allied themselves with enemies of the United States. It is the judgement of the Reagan administration that such a state cannot be allowed to exist in Central America. It is reasonable to debate the seriousness of the strategic problem posed by Nicaragua, and whether or not the armed overthrow of the Sandinistas is the best solution. But the degrees of personal and political freedom in Nicaragua are, alas, phony issues. Baba
berman@ihlpg.UUCP (Andy Berman) (04/08/85)
-------------------------------------------------------- >I'm a little amazed at some of the arguments used to justify >and/or criticize the US's attempts to overthrow the government >of Nicaragua. It does not matter how free or fair their elections >were. The last Mexican elections were at least as rigged, yet I >hear no one advocating a US-backed overthrow of the PRI. Many >nations find favor with the US without having even a pretense >of democracy. It does not matter how free their press is. >There are plenty of countries in the world with less press >freedom than Nicaragua, some of which are our allies. > >What matters is that the Sandinistas overthrew a regime installed >and supported by the United States, and that they have subsequently >allied themselves with enemies of the United States. It is the >judgement of the Reagan administration that such a state cannot >be allowed to exist in Central America. It is reasonable to >debate the seriousness of the strategic problem posed by Nicaragua, >and whether or not the armed overthrow of the Sandinistas is the best >solution. But the degrees of personal and political freedom in >Nicaragua are, alas, phony issues. > > Baba ------------------------------------------------------------ It certainly is refreshing to hear someone on the net lay it on the line. I beleive Baba's cool-headed views really do reflect the mode of thinking that has governed the foreign policy of our country for far too long. Democracy, liberty, material well-being of a nation's people are seen as quite irrelevant. What matters, what ONLY matters, is the position that nation plays in the chessboard game of international politics. Thus dictators, petty and not-so-petty fascists are tolerated if they're on "our" side. PInochet, Botha, Marcos are fine examples. On the other hand, regimes that make earnest efforts at economic reforms, and perhaps seek trade and assistance from the eastern bloc are seen as dangerous. Ortega, Bishop, Allende are prime examples. Alas, there are still some folks in this country who beleive that US foreign policy OUGHT to be governed by loftier aims: It should encourage economic development on whatever economic model chosen by the underdeveloped nations of the world. It should cease fearing Third World revolutions in and of themselves. It should support, not hinder, Nicaragua in its admirable efforts to develop economically and a build a pluralistic political system. Some of us are naive enough to believe in the ideas of liberty and social justice. We're naive enough to think that America can still stand for these principles despite their prostitution by crass politicians in Washington. We're naive enough to insist that the debate over foreign policy be conducted in these terms, not Baba's.. And we still have faith that the American people, once informed, will fight for them too. Andy Berman
gtaylor@lasspvax.UUCP (Greg Taylor) (04/09/85)
Right on Andy and Baba. The sad part of this whole argument insofar as anyone with an interest in rural development is concerned is that those naughty Sandinistas are the *ONLY* nation in all of Central America that have a viable, working program of agrarian land reform that breaks the traditional cycle of [0-4]% of the country owning [90-99]% of the productive land. Their advances in rural health care are also a model (uh oh, Socialized medicine....) of a decent working system. Try asking those leftists in Christian organizations like, say, "Bread for the World" how Nicaragua stacks up to some of our real allies like Guatemala (the country will be much more stable once the government finishes exterminating the Indian populations....) or Chile stack up. Being a Christian organization, they're bound to be crusading for the Right, right? Go on, ask. Make my day (sorry, couldn't resist).