Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttrdc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!ttrdc!mjk
From: mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Nicaraguan Self-determination (question for Matthews)
Message-ID: <152@ttrdc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Apr-85 14:34:23 EST
Article-I.D.: ttrdc.152
Posted: Thu Apr 25 14:34:23 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Apr-85 09:11:55 EST
References: <129@ttrdc.UUCP> <1411@amdahl.UUCP> <921@uwmacc.UUCP>, <1438@amdahl.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Teletype Corp., Skokie, IL
Lines: 62

From: dss00@amdahl.UUCP (dss00)
 >Right of Nicaraguans (or of their government) to determine their
 >own foreign policy directly affects economic and security interests
 >of the U.S.. When economic and security interests of the U.S. are
 >threatened, no ideological/ethical/moral argument will affect the
 >eventual policy of the administration. It will be and should be
 >determined by the self interests of the U.S.

HOW does Nicaragua affect economic and security interests of the U.S.?
60% of the economy is in public hands.  U.S. corporations continue to
do business in Nicaragua, although they must do so under Nicaraguan laws --
just like they must operate in the U.S. under American laws.  Nicaragua
is the best performer on foreign loans of any Central American country.  (As
an aside, by the way, you might ask yourself whether *you* would have
assumed the debts of an illegitimate government you had overthrown, loans
which benefited the country bearly at all.   The Sandinistas did.)

If the Soviets were installing missiles in Nicaragua, I might accept that
as a threat to the U.S.  But they aren't.  If the Soviets were sending in
massive troop and arms shipments to Nicaragua, I might accept that as a
threat to the region.  But they aren't.  So tell me: what threat does this
nation of three million present to the most powerful military nation in the
world?

 >As regards your other comments, you seem to miss the main point of my
 >posting. I had merely stated a fact as to what governs the foreign
 >policies of a government. Remember that this is true of all governments,
 >not just the U.S..

Ah, but you ignore something.  We're better.  We tell people that all the
time, and it may surprise some on the net, but I really believe that.  I
really believe the U.S., at its best, has a lot of good to offer the world.
The trouble is, the attitude that everyone else is nasty so we have to be
nasty, too, is ultimately self-defeating.  The best way for the U.S. to
export democracy and freedom to the world is to deal with other countries
in a fair way.  Unfortunately, we often don't, and Central American contains
some of the ugliest examples of that.

 >I too feel sorry for the people in Nicaragua. They are but only pawns
 >in his world power politics. My only point was that if the U.S. opts out
 >of Nicaraguan politics, that will not neccessarily mean that the people
 >of Nicaragua will have the government of their choice. I believe that
 >either way they are doomed. 

Why don't you let *them* worry about that?  The Nicaraguans never asked the
U.S. to guarantee them a good government; it just asked the U.S. to deal
fairly with them.  If you feel sorry for the people of Nicaragua, you will
surely oppose sending millions of American dollars to train and supply 
terrorists who only make the situation worse.  If these people have any
popular support, they will win.  The point, of course, is that their
popular support is very thin and they desparately need U.S. money to have
any chance of success in overthrowing the government.

I don't want the world's impression of the U.S. to be a bully country that
goes around overthrowing governments with which it doesn't agree and training
terrorists to do the dirty work.   Saying "that's the way the world is" just
isn't very convincing to me.  That's a rationalization, not a reason.
If you think it *shouldn't* be that way, what
are you doing to change it?

Mike Kelly