stg@uvacs.UUCP (10/13/83)
This morning, I heard Bryant Gumble ask a 10 year old to commit suicide: The kid was in Moscow on live TV and Mr. Gumble asked him to say that his government's policies sometimes don't conform to the wishes of his people. The context was in a joint interview with 2 kids in NYC and 2 in Moscow on kids' views on nuclear war. The kid was obviously shaken and claimed not to understand the question until the official sitting beside him could "translate" it for him (more likely, tell him what to say).
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (10/24/83)
In response to the writer who apparently thought it notable (at least worth a net.politics article) that a kid in Moscow was afraid to criticize the Soviet government on American television: So? I'm at a loss to explain why Americans feel it necessary to keep pointing out how repressive the Soviet government is. Most American leftists I know would not disagree. In fact, I'll bet more than 95% of the peace movement would agree. What's the point? The only conclusion I can reach is that it saves those who don't want to argue the hard points from doing so. Instead, they can keep harping on how bad the Soviet government is and avoid the question of, so they're repressive internally; does it necessarily follow that we should (a) become repressive internally too, so as to outdo them in keeping secrets (Reagan policy, according to yesterday's New York Times); (b) engage in a massive arms race to destablilize the world economy and make them even more intolerant of internal dissent; (c) automatically assume that any nation who accepts Soviet aid is a "puppet" and therefore deserving of its very own CIA plot? These seem to be the conclusions of many who feel it necessary to constantly remind us how repressive the Soviets are. My question is, so who's arguing? Mike Kelly ..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk
notes@ucbcad.UUCP (10/26/83)
#R:tty3b:-23300:ucbesvax:7500041:000:3659
ucbesvax!turner Oct 26 04:54:00 1983
Re: Mike Kelly's question ("Re: back in the USSR")
The constant emphasis on the lack of civil liberties in the USSR is in
part a red herring--by focusing attention on the enemy, any equivalent
faults of the U.S. are rhetorically shouldered aside.
There is a related reason, however--I think the conservatives get quite
a bit of ideological leverage out of it. It is that the very lack of
due respect for human rights and tolerance of dissent makes the USSR
that much more formidable as an adversary in world affairs.
A good example is Soviet arms sales and personnel commitment to Syria.
As far as arms, we did much the same for the Shah. But could the U.S.
have made a similar commitment in personnel, without large-scale civil
disobedience at home? I doubt this.
As oppressive as the Shah was, I don't think that the American public
would have been very supportive of some things that Assad has done, like
saturation bombing of one of his own cities in response to a rebellion.
Yet this is just the kind of thing that the Russians are willing to
ignore--even support--and downplay in their own press.
(By contrast, we might look at Indonesia's invasion and virtual genocide
in East Timor, with substantial U.S. armaments. Here, every effort was
made to cover up the incident, and the U.S. press was unusually complacent.
But it couldn't have continued had any attention been focused on it in the
national press. It was just intolerably gross.)
Afghanistan is another fair example: many Russian troops have died there,
and the total troop commitment is comparable to ours in Vietnam. Yet
Vietnam-level internal dissent is scarcely visible, and thus hardly a
factor in determining policy. Even our Korean war had its domestic
political aspect--a surprising element of Nixon's "Checkers" speech is
the near-promise to "bring our boys home."
This whole line of thought is, however, self-bankrupting. By vesting in
the executive branch of our country the war-making initiative of the
comparable levels of Soviet command, we are not going to gain anything.
This is simply adding a few layers of bricks to the wall between the
power of the presidency and the will of the electorate. Another election
will reverse this effect. In the interim, some mess will be made that
will give Soviet foreign policy more leverage, by virtue of the dis-
continuities of American policy. The only way to maintain continuity
is to put the whole nation on a war-footing--suppressing dissent at home
and abroad, and constantly escalating the level of conflict.
This is where the conservative line leads us then: in the face of
Soviet intractibility, we must at least *act* like we are willing to
go to the brink (and beyond) of another world war. We must demonstrate
a willingness to become what the Soviets already are.
That I can't accept. We are *not* defending "freedom" and "unification"
in Lebanon (though I think that Reagan has been hoodwinked into believing
just that). Else, why would we be supporting a government including of
the most divisive element: the Christian Phalange, an organization with
ideological roots in European fascism.
Nor are we defending "freedom" and "political pluralism" in Nicaragua
by funding the most vicious elements of the former regime to the tune
of $50 million. But of course, for this scheme to work, we must be
convinced that it will.
Where does this end? With a situation where we must believe everything
published by the Ministry of Truth, about what the Ministry of Peace is
doing in the World, or else visit the Ministry of Love, to have our
opinions corrected?
---
Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)eich@uiuccsb.UUCP (10/27/83)
#R:uvacs:-98800:uiuccsb:11000035:000:1395
uiuccsb!eich Oct 25 16:41:00 1983
Who's arguing? You are. Look, if the peace movement concedes that the
Soviets are totalitarian, it is lip service (and I haven't heard any
polls supporting your figure). At campuses, in village squares, before
tv cameras, we are told that the caring and thoughtful thing to do is
support a nuclear freeze. In the USSR, the pitiful handful of
disarmament proponents are harrassed and thrown into hard labor (or
psychiatric hospitals, which are worse). Until the totalitarianism is
undone, the words `mutual' and `verifiable' are empty, technical means
of verification to the contrary notwithstanding.
Your second paragraph is an extended non-sequitur. Who cares about
the tendentious views you rattle off any more than about an anecdote
on how repressive the Russian government is? Sounds like a bone got
stuck in you throat. The acid test is the following.
`Of course the government of {Chile,Somoza,Marcos,S.Africa,etc}
is repressive. Who's arguing? But does it necessarily follow
that we should try to destabilize that government, causing
it to be more repressive? That we should cut off all aid to
it and embrace {Cuba,Nujomo,etc} [per McGovern's platform]?
The world doesn't work by such *simplistic*, *Manichaean*,
*black/white* rules. We should not try to force our standards
on small nations just because we are big.'
Fairly gags, doesn't it? Learn how to argue.