From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!trc
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Balance of Power?
Article-I.D.: houti.249
Posted: Fri Apr 15 09:06:26 1983
Received: Sat Apr 16 06:00:36 1983


Response to Jeff Myers:

There is no such thing as economic coercion.  It is possible to use money 
to arrange for fraud or direct use of physical force, but that is not the 
same thing.  Governments dont have to accept our aid, and would probably
be wiser if they chose to remain free of any outside influence.
Removal of aid is not an aggressive action, nor is it coercion.
The US certainly has a right to decide which types of governments it 
will support.  If a government can't run its country without long term
financial assistance, it is doing something wrong.

There is a big difference between what the US did in the Phillipines and
what the USSR did in Afganistan.  First, the US did not conquer the Phillipines,
it went in there during WWII.  I seem to recall that this was done to 
drive out the Japanese invaders.  Secondly, the government set up there
is at least partially based on principles of individual rights.  So the
means of gaining influence was not imperialistic, and the result was not
imperialistic.  Yes, the US does have influence with that country, but not
control, as would be the case if it were part of an "empire".

I cant address the Chilean question, because I dont have enough facts.
Perhaps you could summarize the proof that shows how the US brought
down Allende.  Or the "strong evidence".

I dont want to argue that the US has never done anything wrong, but
simply that the tradition of respecting people's rights has done far
more to restrain the US than the USSR's power has.  The US's power
has only partially restrained the USSR, and the USSR's respect for
individual rights has restrained them not at all, since it doesnt exist.
Thus I believe that the "balance of power" theory is faulted.

(Unfortunately, the tradition of respect for individual rights is on 
the wane in the US.  Our government no longer sees the Constitution as
something to be obeyed, but as an annoyance to be gotten around.)


	Tom Craver
	houti!trc