Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site tty3b.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxj!mhuxl!mhuxv!akgua!sb1!ll1!otuxa!tty3b!mjk
From: mjk@tty3b.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Domestic Policy and Foreign Policy
Message-ID: <209@tty3b.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 3-Sep-83 11:47:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: tty3b.209
Posted: Sat Sep  3 11:47:08 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Sep-83 01:53:34 EDT
Organization: Teletype Corp., Skokie, Ill
Lines: 66


   Dave Holt (and a number of others) fail  to  make  a  distinction
   between  foreign and domestic policy.  There is not question that
   the U.S. is one of the most civil libertarian  countries  in  the
   world domestically.  There is much more basis for civil liberties
   here than in, for  example,  the  Soviet  Union.   Much  of  this
   derives from the differing histories of the two countries.  Those
   who condemn the Soviets for human rights abuses are right  to  do
   so.   It  does  seem odd that so many who condemn the Soviets are
   unwilling to condemn the Marcos government  in  the  Philippines,
   South  Africa's  apartheid,  or  Chile's  Pinochet  dictatorship.
   That's where the foreign policy distinction comes in to play.


   While the U.S. has  this  wonderful  civil  libertarian  domestic
   stance,  we  support  all three of those governments.  We (in the
   person of Vice President George  Bush)  even  proclaim  Ferdinand
   Marcos a "defender of democratic principles".  There is excellent
   evidence (it always amazes me that more people don't  know  this)
   that  the  U.S.  government  played a direct, crucial role in the
   toppling of Salvadore Allende's socialist government in Chile  in
   1973,  and  the  subsequent  installation  of Augusto Pinochet as
   dictator.  A House investigation into the assassination is one of
   the  things  that resulted in the "curbing" of the CIA in the mid
   70's.


   What is the point of this litany?  Just that the U.S. plays  just
   as  dirty  in foreign policy as any other superpower.  Of course,
   here in the U.S. one hears much more about USSR abuses than those
   of  our  own  government.   But  anyone  who looks will find some
   pretty bad things in the history of U.S. foreign policy.


   So it makes no sense to me to say "things  are  terrible  in  the
   USSR  so  we  should  try  to overthrow the Nicaraguan government
   because otherwise things will soon  be  terrible  in  Nicaragua."
   The  U.S.  has  no  plans  of installing a nice civil libertarian
   government in Nicaragua; if we did, why did  we  support  Somoza?
   The problem with the Sandinistas is that they won't walk lockstep
   with U.S.  policies,  and  that's  simply  not  allowed  in  "our
   hemisphere".   Europeans  can,  to a certain extent, follow their
   own policy.  But in this hemisphere, you either do what the  U.S.
   government  wants  you  to  do,  or the U.S. government will find
   someone who will to replace  you.   That's  what's  happening  in
   Nicaragua  now.   All  this stuff about exporting revolutions and
   Soviet  bases  is  just  a  smokescreen.   The  Soviets  "export"
   revolution  in the same way the U.S. exports counter- revolution:
   with military force, as in Afghanistan (Vietnam)  or  Poland  (El
   Salvador).   The  revolutions  in  Cuba, Nicaragua, etc. are home
   grown.  They result much more  from  U.S.  policies  than  Soviet
   policies.   If  the   U.S.  accepted  the change, chances are the
   Sandinistas would often cooperate with us -- they have no  choice
   but  to  do so.  That's "co-operate", not act as a puppet.  We're
   just too used to puppets to accept anything close to a  sovereign
   government  with  its own aims and policies.  Until we reach that
   point, we will constantly be fighting militarily and covertly  in
   Central America.



   Mike Kelly
    ..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk