trc@hou5a.UUCP (Tom Craver) (01/06/84)
Andy Berman: He [Jackson] has just performed a beautiful inspiring moral action, with wonderful political implications. He proved that good diplomacy, moral appeal, and direct contacts can be infinitely more effective than the mightiest weaponry. Perhaps - but I am suspicious of his methods. Last night on "The MacNeil Lehrer News Hour", one of the ministers that went along with him was interviewed. The interviewer repeatedly tried to get him to say, or even hint at, what Mr. Jackson had said or done to get the pilot released. After avoiding the question numerous times, he finally put off the question by saying that he was not there during the conversation(s) that resulted in the pilot's release. How likely is it that this man would be important enough to Jackson to take him along on such a trip, yet not be important enough to be informed of the simple "what was said", if it were all "above board"? It seems much more likely that Jackson and his collegues do not want to reveal what was said, in order to avoid something that would hurt his political chances. The easiest thing he could have done to have gotten the pilot released would be to say "Do it to hurt Reagan, and to to help me get elected, and I will be sure to do X for you" - in short, a straight - forward *political* deal. This would *not* be "diplomacy", nor "moral appeal". It would be "direct contact", but do we *want* such "contacts" to result in changes in our foreign policy? In effect, it would allow candidates and nominees to "sell an option" on US foreign policy to foreign governments that are basically inimical to the US, in return for some good publicity. He has shown that Americans who are fighting for economic and social justice at home command great respect abroad. This is only true if the pilot was released because the Syrians were impressed by Jackson, not by a deal he might have offered. In fact, I doubt very much that many foreigners care much about our "economic and social justice" (whatever that is - I get the idea that you dont mean "getting what one has earned".) in the U.S. The leader of Syria is likely to care even less. He has created a politcal climate wherein millions of unregistered citizens will register, seeing for the first time in ages, a meaninful alternative, a voice that speaks to the soical and economic needs of the American people, a voice that lashes out against blind militarism, that stands up for justice, and a voice that can perform, where others have failed! Perhaps - I supposed that the first real minority presidential candidate will encourage a huge registration drive among his minority. Jackson is an alternative, and perhaps that means something - but that doesnt necessarily mean he is a *good* alternative. And means, as well as ends, must be examined in any grading of performance. Tom Craver hou5a!trc (One of the funnier spectacles was Reagan and Jackson making speeches together beside the pilot. Reagon used the opportunity to talk about what *he* was now doing (letter to Syria, etc), and Jackson used it to emphasize that the only thing Reagan had to do with the rescue was not interfering with Jackson. I just pity the poor pawn - oops, I mean pilot.)
ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) (01/08/84)
Tom Craver suggests that Jackson said something like, "Do it to hurt Reagan, and to to help me get elected, and I will be sure to do X for you." This strikes me as unlikely because Jackson has no real chance of winning, and the Syrians must surely know that. I'm not saying that Syria wasn't acting out of self interest; the favorable publicity for Syria created by the release may make it easier for Syria to pur- sue its foreign policy goals in the Middle East. Jackson may have pointed out to them that releasing the pilot would tend to tie Reagan's hands with Congress. Alternatively, Syrian officials may have already decided to release the pilot, and Jackson just happened to be the first person to ask. Kenneth Almquist