mjk@tty3b.UUCP (09/03/83)
Dave Holt (and a number of others) fail to make a distinction between foreign and domestic policy. There is not question that the U.S. is one of the most civil libertarian countries in the world domestically. There is much more basis for civil liberties here than in, for example, the Soviet Union. Much of this derives from the differing histories of the two countries. Those who condemn the Soviets for human rights abuses are right to do so. It does seem odd that so many who condemn the Soviets are unwilling to condemn the Marcos government in the Philippines, South Africa's apartheid, or Chile's Pinochet dictatorship. That's where the foreign policy distinction comes in to play. While the U.S. has this wonderful civil libertarian domestic stance, we support all three of those governments. We (in the person of Vice President George Bush) even proclaim Ferdinand Marcos a "defender of democratic principles". There is excellent evidence (it always amazes me that more people don't know this) that the U.S. government played a direct, crucial role in the toppling of Salvadore Allende's socialist government in Chile in 1973, and the subsequent installation of Augusto Pinochet as dictator. A House investigation into the assassination is one of the things that resulted in the "curbing" of the CIA in the mid 70's. What is the point of this litany? Just that the U.S. plays just as dirty in foreign policy as any other superpower. Of course, here in the U.S. one hears much more about USSR abuses than those of our own government. But anyone who looks will find some pretty bad things in the history of U.S. foreign policy. So it makes no sense to me to say "things are terrible in the USSR so we should try to overthrow the Nicaraguan government because otherwise things will soon be terrible in Nicaragua." The U.S. has no plans of installing a nice civil libertarian government in Nicaragua; if we did, why did we support Somoza? The problem with the Sandinistas is that they won't walk lockstep with U.S. policies, and that's simply not allowed in "our hemisphere". Europeans can, to a certain extent, follow their own policy. But in this hemisphere, you either do what the U.S. government wants you to do, or the U.S. government will find someone who will to replace you. That's what's happening in Nicaragua now. All this stuff about exporting revolutions and Soviet bases is just a smokescreen. The Soviets "export" revolution in the same way the U.S. exports counter- revolution: with military force, as in Afghanistan (Vietnam) or Poland (El Salvador). The revolutions in Cuba, Nicaragua, etc. are home grown. They result much more from U.S. policies than Soviet policies. If the U.S. accepted the change, chances are the Sandinistas would often cooperate with us -- they have no choice but to do so. That's "co-operate", not act as a puppet. We're just too used to puppets to accept anything close to a sovereign government with its own aims and policies. Until we reach that point, we will constantly be fighting militarily and covertly in Central America. Mike Kelly ..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk
holt@parsec.UUCP (09/09/83)
#R:tty3b:-20900:parsec:40500007:000:2061 parsec!holt Sep 8 09:09:00 1983 Mike Kelly accuses me of linking Superpower domestic policy with their foreign policy. He then states in so many words that such a link is unwarrented and incorrect. The remainder of his article deals with how the US supports governments who repress the civil rights of their citizens. I must start out by saying that I do not want the US to prop up corrupt regimes or regimes which restrict their citizens' rights. A quote from the article where Mike found my name follows: "Currently I'd vote for ending military aid to Marcos in the Philipines." Secondly, I would like to draw an analogy. The United States is like a person with a conscience. The USSR is like a person without a conscience. The electorate in the US will not stand for blatent disregard for human values. Our top governmental officials make decisions based upon what is "politically" most acceptable. The US electorate is the United States' conscience. The Soviet leadership is answerable to noone. It will do what it pleases. It doesn't even give a damn about world opinion in some cases (KAL flight 007). I think that this reflects both on the domestic and foreign policies of the two nations. So, whereas foreign policy is not directly linkable to domestic policy, both are a manisfestation of the political system they are attached to. The article which I presented was an attempt to provide a new and hopefully valuable insight into life in the USSR. I believe that the absence of human values and individual freedoms awarded by the Soviet government to its own citizens says a lot about that government's mentality. That is the link which I was trying to portray. Suppose that there is a person who has radiation poisoning, and is losing weight and hair. I would not say that the person is losing weight because he is losing his hair, rather both are effects caused by the radiation poisoning. Foreign and domestic policy are both symptoms of the political system which produces them. Dave Holt {allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs}!parsec!holt