bdp (12/09/82)
Charles Wetherell has suggested that I share a recent exchange of letters
with you folks. His letter and my response follow:
While I do not want to defend adventurism, nothing in the US's recent history
remotely approaches the internal cruelty of the Soviet government either
in the 30's or after WWII (read Solzenytsin's (sp?) Gulag books). And
I read about Peter the Great as well. There does seem to be a strain
of barbarism in the Russian governments going back to prehistory
that other societies have managed (at least at times) to control or
curtail.
Also, do not commit the fallacy of excusing the sins of the criticized
because the critic is imperfect.
You are probably right about international morality or lack of it.
Charles
I guess I should have been more explicit: I had in mind a comparison between
the internal cruelty of those fun-loving countries to which we've listed
so much support and the Soviets. I would never want to condone the
attrocities of the Soviets (or Russians, if we want to get ethnic about this)
against their own people. The problem is that Mr. Mammel was suggesting
that we should have no business with those Barbarous Russians without
mentioning the fact that we still do business with those Barbarous
El Salvadorans, those Barbarous Philipinos, those Barbarous Red Chinese.
What I dislike here is the implication that these are Good Barbarians and
the Soviets are Bad Barbarians. I make no distinction.
What *should* be our policy is that we do business with such Barbarians
in order to pressure them into reform. Unfortunately our experience with
such efforts has not been good. The Soviets are highly vulnerable
to any such contact with us for the simple reason that their populace
is enamored with the West. This was perhaps the most dangerous part of
the Helsinki accords: there was supposed to be a free exchange of
culture between West and East. For the Eastern European and Russian
people to know the truth about their military, their economy, and
their politics might have resulted in a popular revolt. The bad news is
that the results were a general crackdown on dissidents and a restriction
of activity with the West. *sigh*
So, should we ignore them despite the rejection? I think not. The
policy of detente is no great thing, but to back away from any contact
with them would result in at best no reforms and at worst an increasing
polarization between East and West. We have no choice.
I would also not want to be accused of an ad hominum fallacy.
Please accept my apologies if my point appeared so.
Bruce Parker
BTL Pissthataway