Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site harvard.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!matthews
From: matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Nicaraguan Self-determination (question for Matthews)
Message-ID: <39@harvard.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 15-Apr-85 14:31:35 EST
Article-I.D.: harvard.39
Posted: Mon Apr 15 14:31:35 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Apr-85 04:19:41 EST
References: <129@ttrdc.UUCP>
Organization: Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard
Lines: 36

> Jim, do you believe the Nicaraguans have a right to a foreign policy
> independent of U.S. influence?  Or do you think the U.S. should have
> veto power over Nicaraguan allies (e.g. Cuba and USSR)?
> 
> Do you think that any election in which a Marxist party gains control
> is automatically rigged?  Do you believe a country has a right to
> choose a socialist development path without U.S. interference?
> 
> These, I think, are the key questions in Nicaragua.
> 
> Mike Kelly

	I do *not* believe that these are key questions in the
formation of our policy toward Nicaragua.  The concept of nations
having "rights" is a slippery one that does not lend itself to creating
international peace.  Governments, such as the U.S.S.R., Cuba, and  
Nicaragua, which pursue revolutionary foreign policies are by choice
outside the realm of international law and its corresponding "rights."
The question that remains for us is how to deal with revolutionary
powers.  We could decide to treat them with kid gloves, or perhaps we
could try to pressure them into changing their policies.  Neither
approach, as I see it, is illegitimate.  It just depends on whether
the chosen policy will lead to stability and peace.
	As for elections, I suppose they could be fair but I've yet
to hear of Marxist-Leninist success in an election commonly regarded
as fair.  My view of Nicaragua as a totalitarian state in the making
has little to do with the way they conducted their elections, except
that the elections were an example of the Sandinistas giving in to
U.S. pressure.  As for a "socialist development path", I don't think
that's the issue.  Sweden, Norway, and France have all made steps in
that direction without suffering U.S. retaliation.  When the issue is
revolutionary socialism, however, with all it's international implications,
then of course it's a matter of concern to the U.S.

Jim Matthews
matthews@harvard