ddw@cornell.UUCP (David Wright) (08/13/83)
From: ddw (David Wright)
To: net-politics
Mike Kelly has weighed in with some observations of his own on Central
America. I think he's trying to cast me as either a bad guy or a fool,
but I'm not sure. Not yet, anyway; we'll see if he follows up.
Have you noticed that there's an obligatory disclaimer offered by every
liberal who criticizes Reagan's Central American policy, from Chris Dodd
to Dave Wright. It goes something like this: "Of course, nobody wants
a Communist outpost in our hemisphere, but..." There are two key parts:
(1) "a Communist outpost", and (2) "our hemisphere".
I've just gone back and reread all of my submissions on Central America,
and I can't find anything like this. In fact, I never even used the word
"hemisphere." I did say that I wasn't happy with the leftward slide of the
Nicaraguan government (and I'm not), but that's about it. Kelly is welcome
to back whatever ideology he likes, but I wish he'd leave me out of it unless
he's representing me accurately. (By the way, boopsie, anyone who calls \me/
a liberal gets trouble. We meet at dawn. Choose your weapons: pistols,
swords, coke bottles, water balloons, you name it.)
Were I stating my position on this issue, I'd probably say something to
the effect that I don't want a \Russian/ outpost in \this/ hemisphere. I
might say "our" hemisphere, but only in the sense that it's the one we live
in. I'm perfectly aware (and have been for a long time) that this "Inter-
national Communist Conspiracy" stuff is bullshit.
The Soviets certainly exploit opportunity, as they are no doubt doing in
Nicaragua now. But it is the U.S. which offers them that opportunity.
It sure is, which has been one of my points (our blinkered foreign policy).
Does anyone doubt that the U.S. is similarly exploiting opportunity in
Afghanistan and Poland?
Trying to make some political hay out of it, but "exploiting" is too strong
a word. The comparison is not a good one, since the Russians are trying to
gain a satellite, which there is no chance that we will do in the case of
either Poland or Afghanistan. (This is not to say that we wouldn't if we
could, of course.)
I agree with many of Kelly's other comments about the causes of revolution,
so I won't go into that. I also agree that the Monroe Doctrine is obsolete,
so let's skip that as well. (Although the Monroe Doctrine was not necessarily
"a silly idea" when it was proposed.)
There's a good argument to be made that at least part of Cuba's economic
problems are due more to official U.S. harassment than "the inherent
inefficiency of communism". Imagine being a tiny country 90 miles off the
coast of the world's richest country, a country that refuses to trade with
you, refuses to let its people visit you, and even lauches blockades of your
ports.
There are other factors; for example, the fact that so much of Cuba's economy
is based on agriculture, particularly on overproduced commodities like sugar.
Also, the only blockade I'm aware of is the one during the Cuban Missle Crisis.
Have there been others? How many? When? (Honest request for info.)
Of course, there are historical reasons for why the U.S. has never supported
a popular revolution. This has much more to do with preserving U.S.
corporate interests than protecting against Soviet incursion. But foreign
policy can be changed -- there's nothing that says the corporations will run
the show forever -- so people should keep trying to pressure Congress into
doing so.
Hoo boy. This is much too big an issue to be tackled in a net message. Also,
it's too broad to be easily discussed. If we can nail down our terms and our
examples I'd be willing to give it a try, though. (Personally, I have this
fantasy about all the corporations disappearing and the world still being in
a mess, which it would be. Who would the Marxists and their ilk blame then?)
David Wright
{vax135|floyd|allegra|decvax|ihnp4|uw-beaver}!cornell!ddw
ddw.cornell@udel-relay
ddw@cornell (Arpanet and CSnet)