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!mjkholt@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