cowan@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (07/20/86)
Return-Path: <COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU> Date: Tue 17 Jun 86 18:55:21-EDT From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU> Subject: RE: Third World Dictatorships To: ametek%walton@CSVAX.CALTECH.EDU, arms-d@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU From: Steve Walton <ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>: I'm afraid that Jeanne Kirkpatrick's distinction between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes is both accurate and useful, and submit as evidence recent events in the Phillipines and Haiti as contrasted with the far worse repression in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. The latter group's governments have not, and will not fall due to internal popular uprisings. Perhaps I am wrong, but I suspect a double standard in the way you define the "falling" of a government. When talking about the governments of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, I suspect you mean the overthrow of socialism and/or the removal of these countries from the Soviet sphere of influence. When talking about the Phillipines and Haiti, you definitely mean the transfer of power without any change in social system or sphere of influence. The difference is crucial. Neither the Filipino nor the Haitian uprisings produced changes we'd consider revolutionary if they happened in a USSR-backed country. Even if Aquino has good intentions, the peasants who were exploited under Marcos will not get substantially better standards of living unless someone pays for it: the corporations who they ultimately work for, the landowners in the Phillipines, or the American taxpayer. This would be unlikely. And the Haitian "revolution" was accompanied by cluster of US warships off the coast of that island to insure a smooth transition to a less corrupt leader who would still guarantee US interests. Both leaders were evacuated on United States planes. I'm not willing to rule out a popular "revolt" in Soviet-backed countries which simply has the outcome of installing a new puppet who can sell the Soviet system more effectively to the people. And I agree that the Soviet system is extremely repressive when threatened by unrest within countries threatening to leave its sphere of influence. But the United States is also repressive when countries under its sphere of influence threaten to leave, as history has shown time and time again in Latin America. -rich ------- -------