mjk@tty3b.UUCP (08/11/83)
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". This "Communist outpost" stuff goes back to the idea that there's some international co-ordination of Marxist guerillas. The favorite focal point of this is Moscow (which also happens to be the "focus of evil in the world", according to some). 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. Does anyone doubt that the U.S. is similarly exploiting opportunity in Afghanistan and Poland? Does that mean the U.S. is "controlling" Solidarity or the Afghan guerillas? Nope, just that the Soviets offered the U.S. an opportunity to make some points with the locals. So we aren't fighting Yuri Andropov, but Ernesto Sandino. Or, as commentator Rod MacLeash said it, "The man with a gun in the hills of Central America is not there because Yuri Andropov or Fidel Castro sent him there. He has a grievance; there is something he wants." Let's be clear: what we are fighting against is this man's grievance. What we want to prevent is popular socialist regimes in Central America. That leads to the second point. "Our Hemisphere" goes back to the Monroe Doctrine. It was a silly idea when it was first proposed, and it is only more silly today. It was designed to keep the British and French fighting in Europe and leave us alone. There were two halfs: you stay there and we'll stay here. Well, we haven't stayed here, so why should anyone else "stay there"? According to the Monroe Doctrine, we have no interest in Europe, Africa or Asia. However, it is true that the U.S. has enormous influence in this hemisphere. 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 worlds richest country, a country that refuses to trade with you, refuses to let its people visit you, and even lauches blockades of your ports. That's the situation Cuba's been in for 20 years. And it looks like Nicaragua is being forced in the same direction. That is, the U.S. refuses to trade with the countries, refuses to offer any aid, and then points the finger and shouts "Ah ha!" when the countries are forced to turn to the other superpower for help. 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 corporation's will run the show forever -- so people should keep trying to pressure Congress into doing so. tty3b!mjk Mike Kelly