Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1exp 11/4/83; site ihuxm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxm!gjphw
From: gjphw@ihuxm.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Look at the facts
Message-ID: <720@ihuxm.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Nov-83 15:33:41 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxm.720
Posted: Fri Nov 18 15:33:41 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Nov-83 00:15:46 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, Il
Lines: 42



   This brief item is intended to be a further amplification of a point that
 J. Johnson (ihuxl!esj) raised about the foreign policies of all countries.
 While the issue that foreign policies are, and must be, set by a government's
 self-interest certainly appears reasonable, I would like to introduce a point
 about the source for this interest.

   In a book that appeared a few years ago (it might have been titled Inside
 the Company), a former CIA agent made the assertion that the U.S. foreign
 policy was based upon economic self-interest, not purely political interests.
 All too often, the support given to a government by the U.S. was determined by
 their willingness to trade and permit U.S. corporations to operate within that
 country.  In this light, the friendly relations with dictatorial governments
 would be maintained if trade and commerce with U.S. companies were encouraged.
 I would venture to say that most other governments of the world primarily
 follow their political self-interests when determining foreign policy.

   In recent memory, President Carter bucked the trend to place price tags on
 all government operations.  He introduced the concept of human rights
 (whatever that may mean) into the foreign policy making scheme, and really
 rocked the boat.  This insulted some dictatorial governments so that they
 threatened to end the friendly economic arrangements that had been the basis
 for their relationship with the U.S.

   President Reagan has returned to a path which is set primarily by economic
 considerations.  And, if you subscribe to the concept that there exists some
 interrelationship between the law and morality (an essay in a recent issue of
 The Wilson Quarterly argued this point with regard to legislation legalizing
 gambling in many states), then you might be willing to consider that the
 present Administration is busily putting a price tag on morality (e.g., will
 enforcing civil rights laws help or hurt the economy, will antipollution laws
 cost more to industries or insurance companies, what is good for GM is good
 for the country).

   'Nough said.
-- 

                                    Patrick Wyant
                                    AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
                                    *!ihuxm!gjphw