orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/18/86)
Here we go again! Jan Wasilewsky states out of nowhere: > > But you've switched to alloplastic agents *outside* our > society (external enemies). That problem is hard, indeed. > > >It is easier to learn war than to learn peace. > > Read: to "learn" *them* peace. Democratic societies *are* peace- > ful, it is a proven fact. While the planet is always covered > with a rash of wars, there has never been a war between two > democratic countries. They don't even arm against each other. > > The problem of war is solved, in principle: make all nations > as free as (e.g.) Costa Rica. In practice, there are obstacles. > > Jan Wasilewsky This is utterly untrue. As I have pointed out in net.politics, democracies have been just as likely to engage in armed conflicts as other forms of government. To cite an example of "war" between democratic societies in our own century one need only look at the American intervention in Iran against the Mossadegh government, the American intervention in Guatemala, the American intervention in Chile in 1973. Many of these "interventions" have not involved protracted "war" for the same reason the Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia in 1968 did not involve protracted "war" - because the military balance so favored the invading country. In many cases, such as Chile, the US has been able to topple a democratic government by using the native military to do its work. It is also simply untrue that "democratic societies do not even arm against each other". India is a democracy and Pakistan has been a democracy in the past. Pakistan could overthrow General Zia and have elections tomorrow. But if they did that would hardly mean that Pakistan would suddenly join India in totally dismantling their military machines which are aimed primarily at each other. An onset of democracy in Pakistan would hardly mean that anything would have changed in terms of their enmity and distrust of India. What *is* true is that democracies do tend to have much more *domestic peace*. When politicians must face the electorate they are much less likely to put that electorate before the firing squad for arbitrary reasons. Also democratic institutions provide an automatic mechanism for the very tricky problem of the transfer of political power and succession to high office. However the current nationalistic style of democracy does hold lessons for how to extend the *domestic* peace of such democracies to the whole world. This is to try to follow the rule of law in international relations, to allow all nations a voice in international decisions, and move away from the dictatorial sort of attitude expressed by right-wingers who feel that America has the right to rule the world, whether others like it or not. This is the sort of attitude which argues that other nations have no right to vote as they wish in the United Nations, that somehow just because the US doesn't always get its way in the UN that somehow that makes the UN worthless. Please study the most elementary history, Jan. tim sevener whuxn!orb