Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpg.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ihlpg!berman
From: berman@ihlpg.UUCP (Andy Berman)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Those Naughty Sandinistas
Message-ID: <358@ihlpg.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Apr-85 10:01:28 EST
Article-I.D.: ihlpg.358
Posted: Mon Apr  8 10:01:28 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Apr-85 02:15:03 EST
References: <162@spar.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 53

--------------------------------------------------------
>I'm a little amazed at some of the arguments used to justify
>and/or criticize the US's attempts to overthrow the government 
>of Nicaragua.  It does not matter how free or fair their elections 
>were.  The last Mexican elections were at least as rigged, yet I 
>hear no one advocating a US-backed overthrow of the PRI.  Many 
>nations find favor with the US without having even a pretense 
>of democracy.  It does not matter how free their press is. 
>There are plenty of countries in the world with less press 
>freedom than Nicaragua, some of which are our allies.
>
>What matters is that the Sandinistas overthrew a regime installed
>and supported by the United States, and that they have subsequently
>allied themselves with enemies of the United States.  It is the
>judgement of the Reagan administration that such a state cannot
>be allowed to exist in Central America.  It is reasonable to
>debate the seriousness of the strategic problem posed by Nicaragua,
>and whether or not the armed overthrow of the Sandinistas is the best 
>solution.  But the degrees of personal and political freedom in 
>Nicaragua are, alas, phony issues.
>
>					Baba
------------------------------------------------------------
    It certainly is refreshing to hear someone on the net lay it
on the line. I beleive Baba's cool-headed views really do reflect
the mode of thinking that has governed the foreign policy of our
country for far too long. Democracy, liberty, material well-being
of a nation's people are seen as quite irrelevant. What matters,
what ONLY matters, is the position that nation plays in the
chessboard game of international politics.  Thus dictators,
petty and not-so-petty fascists are tolerated if they're on
"our" side. PInochet, Botha, Marcos are fine examples.
     On the other hand, regimes that make earnest efforts at
economic reforms, and perhaps seek trade and assistance from the
eastern bloc are seen as dangerous. Ortega, Bishop, Allende
are prime examples. 
    
    Alas, there are still some folks in this country who beleive
that US foreign policy OUGHT to be governed  by loftier aims:
It should encourage economic development on whatever economic
model chosen by the underdeveloped nations of the world. It should
cease fearing Third World revolutions in and of themselves. It
should support, not hinder, Nicaragua in its admirable efforts to
develop economically and a build a pluralistic political system.
     Some of us are naive enough to believe in the ideas of liberty
and social justice. We're naive enough to think that America
can still stand for these principles despite their prostitution by
crass politicians in Washington. 
     We're naive enough to insist that the debate over foreign policy
be conducted in these terms, not Baba's..  
      And we still have faith that the American people, once informed,
will fight for them too.
                                  Andy Berman