Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Experimentation and Danger
Message-ID: <1948@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 30-Dec-85 10:51:39 EST
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1948
Posted: Mon Dec 30 10:51:39 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 31-Dec-85 21:56:41 EST
References: <344@pedsgd.UUCP> <28200281@inmet.UUCP> <817@mmintl.UUCP> <1772@teddy.UUCP> <878@mmintl.UUCP> <1822@teddy.UUCP> <914@mmi
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 80

> In article <914@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
> >>What Jack Kemp and others who support aiding UNITA are asking us to do
> >>is get the United States involved in a tribal conflict that is
> >>certainly none of our business.  But I digress...
> >
> >Your analysis (which I deleted) is correct as far as it goes.  But the
> >fact is that nations which are our enemies are supporting that govern-
> >ment, hoping to gain and cause us to lose thereby.  That makes it our
> >business.  The fact that it is a local, tribal conflict does make it
> >only a local, tribal conflict; the presence of Cuban soldiers makes it
> >something more.  (Which is not to say we should intervene.  Just that
> >there is some reason for intervention.)
>
>
> Since you admit there is no MORAL imperative in Angola (i.e. neither side
> is per se superior), you need to justify American action there by a
> STRATEGIC analysis.
>
> Your strategic analysis is that the presence of Cubans in Angola is some
> justification for American intervention.  By that line of thinking, you
> could justify Soviet interference in Central America, Europe, and the Far East.
>
> Needless to say, the U.S. regularly expresses outrage over unsubstantiated
> COVERT Soviet interference in Central America.
>
> Who's pointing fingers at whom?
> --
> Sport Death,       (USENET) ...{decvax | ihnp4!mit-eddie}!genrad!panda!lkk
> Larry Kolodney     (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
> --------
> Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.
> - Helen Keller

I have a single objection, Larry.
Since in Black Africa tribalism etc. dominates over any other
political motives, it is difficult to find "nice guys",
who would share our democratic values.  Does it mean that US
should give up seeking any influence over there?

Secondly, one may object to Soviet interference from two points of view:
a.  it is immoral;
b.  it is not ours.

The world being imperfect as it is, one should not scorn the second point
of view to lightly.

However, I personally would prefer our polititians to engage in different
kind of debate.  Currently, the dispute is where to send:
a.  military aid;
b.  loans and other kinds of traditional help.

None of the above makes US a particularly valuable ally.  USSR may
match US easily in a., with some effort even in b.

What is most striking is the futility of Western/Eastern help to the
majority of the countries of the thirld world.  To be an attractive
ally, US should be able to help in the areas of real need, like

a.  controlling the population in a non-totalitarian manner;
b.  increasing the agricultural production in a way which would
    utilize local resource and be not overly dependent on imported
    machines, fertilizers, chemicals etc, one could think about
    improving local staple crops, increasing productivity of rural
    labor with minimal capital expenditures, etc.
c.  introducing new sources of energy, like small hydro, wind, fuel
    from plants etc;
d.  increasing internal sector of the economy (as opposed to export-
    - import oriented, export being dependent on few raw commodities;
e.  improving trnsportation network (the waterways and railroad of
    our ally, Zaire, are in worse shape than during colonial times);
f.  etc.

Once US and our friends (like French) will be able to provide genuine
help (which may even cost less than the current innefective aid),
government of all sorts will flock to participate.  Covert aid for
Savimbi, overt aid, no aid, none of these provides any clue about
the state of those nations (like Angola) in ten years from now.

piotr berman