riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (03/29/85)
> > While violent revolutions can sometimes result in imrprovements for the > > people, they are also frequently taken over by the most radical and > > extreme elements of those supporting a revolution. > > Yeah, so why do you oppose constructive engagement in South Africa, > aid to oppose a "violent revolution" in El Salvador, and military aid to > give Pinochet the time to "become more liberal in a gradual way?" Or why > didn't you argue for "gradual" change in Nicaragua, Iran, or any other > reprehensible regime, in order to "insure stability and some continuity?" > These violent revolutions you now fear so much are being planned or carried > out in Pakistan, the Philippines, Chile, and Guatemala, among other places -- > why haven't you complained before, or called for action to halt them? There are lots of us who fear violent revolutions in all the places you named, which is a large part of why we oppose current U.S. policy toward them. To answer your shopping list: Constructive engagement is a sham and only succeeds in propping up apartheid for a few more years, making the ultimate changes that will come in South Africa even bloodier. Many people in the Central American solidarity movement in this country agree with the aims of the revolution in El Salvador but are saddened by its tactics, and we wish that the U.S. would repudiate the even more violent oligarchy that made the peasants of that country turn to violence in the first place. I sincerely hope that Pinochet "becomes more liberal in a gradual way," but I see no sign that he intends to do so, and no reason to reward him in the meantime with arms. Neither do I advocate his violent overthrow. I did argue for "gradual" change in Nicaragua and Iran, and feel that those countries would not be in their respective sad situations had not the U.S. supported the "reprehensible regimes" there until violent revolution was inevitable. Democratic opposition forces in the Philippines stand a real chance of setting that country on a stabile and just course, but every year we delay Marcos' fall gives the extremist revolutionary opposition (both Muslim and Marxist) that much more time to grow in power. Armed struggle in Guatemala is still just a shadow next to the butchery practiced by the authorities there, and just a shadow of what it will become if that butchery doesn't stop soon. In short, many people who oppose the policies you seem to support *are* believers in other forms of change than violent revolution. But where injustice is so great that change of one form or another is inevitable, and when our response to that looming change is to tighten the screws and prevent non-violent democratic change, the result is that the change will be even more violent and unpredictable when it does come. --- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") --- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle --- riddle@ut-sally.UUCP, riddle@ut-sally.ARPA, riddle%zotz@ut-sally