mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (04/08/85)
>From: matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews) > > ... I believe that leaving [Chile, South Africa, and Turkey] to revolution >would give us the worst of both worlds: a country with equally bad or >worse human rights policies *and* a government that isn't friendly (if not >outright threatening) to the the U.S. "Condemning the whole kit and >kaboodle" is not a realistic option for a world power facing other, agressive >world powers. Support for human rights, rather than acting as apologists for fascists, is most definitely a realistic option for a world power. In fact, we'd have a helluva lot more respect if we did so. Remember, the rest of the world doesn't see our actions through the rosy glasses thoughtfully provided by the American media. This is one source of the neutralism emerging in Western Europe. People there see the U.S. in Vietnam and the Soviets in Afghanistan. They see the Soviets condemning Chile and South Africa and supporting Cuba and Poland, while the U.S. does the reverse. My ideal foreign policy would be non-interventionist, but encouraging. For example, I certainly wouldn't send troops against Nicaragua *or* South Africa. But I would deal with the two countries quite differently in economic and other matters. I would start from the belief that it is neither possible nor desirable for the U.S. to impose its will on any other country, but it can express its opinions, and back these up. Use economic sanctions; boycott conferences in the offending countries; basically, do what the U.S. civil rights movement did: refuse to patronize any establishment you don't like, and do so in an organized way. Your article points out another thing: fascist governments have learned that the button to push in Washington is labelled "Communist". Push that button and you just may hit the jackpot on military and economic aid. Turkey isn't jailing and torturing authors and trade union organizers; it's jailing "Communists". The Chilean government isn't repressing a broad coalition of labor and community organizations; it's repressing Communism. The South African government is imposing its racist minority rule on black democrats; it's fighing Godless Communism. Why, it even works in the U.S. Those people opposing the military aid to El Salvador aren't church people concerned about slaughter; they're communists. And those working for the nuclear freeze are obviously communist dupes. I also think you should be very clear about what "threatening to the U.S." means. If what we mean is imposing sovereignity over U.S. business interests, we should say so. Let's not confuse national security with making a buck. Mike Kelly