I must, respectfully of course, disagree. It is true that the whole
US good guy vs. bad guy scenario is a rather blatant over-
simplification, but the view, based on the examples you gave, that the
US always has “nothing but contempt for democratically elected
governments that do not dance to our tune” is an equally glib
remark. There is much much more to the examples that you gave,
especially when viewed in the context of the Cold War.
It is true that in 1954 CIA aided a coup to overthrow
Guzman. “Sponsored”, I believe, is the wrong word. The primary area
of CIA involvement was a listening/slash propaganda post on a
nearby island. The CIA did nothing more than support an already
very strong movement within the country. Yes, Guzman
was “democratically” elected, but what you did not mention was that
those elections were highly suspect, and of the thousands that died,
most were not as a result of CIA involvement. Guzman rounded up
and killed hundreds of his own citizens. I used to live in Central and
South America. I spent some time in Guatemala, Guzman was a truly
barbarous man, and very very few there mourned his passing.
The situation that you mentioned in Nicaragua is similar. Yes,
the US did sponsor Somoza, and yes he was a dictator and he was
corrupt, but he did not take away human rights and arbitrarily imprison
and even kill citizens as the Sandanistas did. Between taking a few
bribes or murder which would you prefer? The Sandanistas started out
as a somewhat popular rebel resistance group to Somoza, but after
they gained power, with huge aide and support from the Soviets,
things changed. When I was in Ecuador, my best friend’s father had
been a pilot in the Nicaraguan air force. He refused to fly missions for
the Sandanistas after they took power, and, after they siezed his
house and all his property and threatened to jail his entire familt, he
was forced to flee the country with his family, and his story is by no
means unique. The 1984 “election’ that you quote to give the group
legitimacy is a joke. There was absolutely nothing free or open about
them, and, of course, it always helps when your party is the only one
on the ballot. Of the “thousands that died as result” the
overwhelming majority was killed by the Sandanistas before there was
any US intervention.
I could go on with every one of your examples, especially the
ones about UNITA and Pinochet, there is much much more to the story
than what you mentioned, but in the interest of brevity I will stop
here. And I really don’t want this to be a hostile post, just another
point of view on the issues. I will end by talking about you closing
statement about “narrow-minded self interests” of US foreign policy.
Well, of course. The US acts in its own self interest. Every powerful
nation, or any other nation for that matter, acts primarily in its own
self interest. But the US often helps out other nations while in the
process of acting out self-interest. A perfect example of this was the
Marshall plan. After World War II, the US had all the world’s money.
That is an over simplification but it is basically true. The economies of
Germany and Japan were in ruins and all of the allies, such as Britain
and France, were deeply in debt to the US. According to the Marshall
plan, the US forgave many of those debts and almost single-handedly
rebuilt the economies of Germany and Japan. This was , of course,
now wholly altruistic, we wanted a strong Europe to hold the Soviets at
bay. But it does show that America is not always so narrow-minded
and selfish. Again, this is just another point of view.
I am just wondering if you would still stand by what you said in your
post if you took same time and read a few of the essays that have
presented by same intellectuals and journalist from around the world
about the situations that you have just commented upon at the
following web site.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/
alexis
I obviously cannot comment on your personal experiences and anecdotes. I could, however, spend
a lot of time and effort quibbling with each of the points you raised. I will refrain from doing so
and confine my response to Nicaragua.
The US tried to disrupt the electoral process in Nicaragua by urging the oppostion parties to boycott
the elections in 1984. In an effort to cast doubts on the legitimacy of the elections, and since they
were doomed to lose anyway, they did so. However, the election results were hailed by international
observers as being free and fair. The US chose to ignore these impartial findings.
For the next six years Nicaragua was subjected to aggression from the contra rebels who were
backed by the Reagan and Bush administrations (in defiance of a congressional ban). In the
elections of 1990, seeing no other way to end the US sponsored aggression, the Nicaraguan people
voted for Violetta Chamorro and the opposition parties. This is where your argument falls on its
face. The fact is that the Sandinistas held free and fair elections. And what is more important, when
they lost those elections they abided by the results and turned power over to the opposition. How
many dictators relinquish power through the electoral process? The answer is none. The fact that
the Sandinistas did so proves that they were commited to the democratic process in Nicaragua.
They have continued to abide by the results of the Nicaraguan electoral process ever since.
Now I will grant that mistakes were made by the Sandinistas during their years in power. They
sometimes replied with a heavy hand when faced with contra aggression. Many people became
alienated. But their misdeeds paled in comparison to the ones commited by Somoza's notorious
Guardia Nacional. Somoza wasn't just some dottering old banana-republic-strongman who took an
occaisional bribe. He was a ruthless dictator who terrorized the Nicaraguan people. There was a
reason they rose up against him and kicked him out.
In closing, I would just like to say that I never meant to give the impression that the US *never*
did any good in the international sphere. That would be foolish. But underneath their rhetoric about
democracy, they have commited some vile acts against democratic processes around the world. I
think it would behoove us to clean a few skeletons out of our own closet before we demand other
nations do the same.
First of all, thank you for replying to my post. I am always happy
to talk about history and politics in an intelligent conversation, which
you are obviously more than capable of doing. I have absolutely no
doubt that you could raise issue and make some valid points against
what I said, that was, afterall, the whole point of my post, there are
other sides and valid points of view to most issues. As far as the
Nicaraguan elections of 1984, I will take your word for it. There is
documented suspicion over the elections here in the States which is
why I made the claim in my post. I was aware of the international
body that observed the elections, but I was not aware of its official
results or even which one it was( as I’m sure you know there are
many), so, as I mentioned, I will take your word that the elections
were found to be clean.
Secondly, I must apologize if I gave the impression of Somoza
as some harmless old dictator, I certainly didn’t mean too. In point of
fact, he was, of course, much the opposite. We can probably agree on
the fact that neither he nor the Sandinistas was a great prize as far as
governments go. He did indeed terrorize the Nicaraguan people, but I
would argue (and with a minimal amount of research could probably
find some primary source documentation to at least superficially
support it) that the crimes of the Sandinistas were as great as those
of Somoza. Either way it is a small point, like arguing over the lesser
of two evils, both parties were responsible for innocent deaths and
that is deeply regrettable.
Yes, the Reagan and Bush administrations did support the
contras despite a congressional mandate not to do so. In much the
same way, the Soviets supported the Sandanistas. Though I must
admit, I do not know the exact extent to which we supported the
contras in terms of arms and money, you might be able to fill me in
on that one. I know much more on the extent to which the Soviets
supported the Sandinistas, and most of it was during the early 80’. By
the late 80’s and the election of 1990 the Soviets were struggling just
to keep their own heads above water much less support anyone else,
though there is evidence to support the claim that support continued
via Castro. You are entirely correct that the Sandinistas gave up
power after they lost the elections of 1990, my argument to your point
would simply be they did not so out a particularly altruistic motivation.
It is, I admit, a minor point. Either way the outcome remains the
same, the Sandinistas, for whatever reason, did the right thing gave
up power without a lot of bloodshed.
In closing, I agree with you that the US is by no stretch of the
imagination perfect in its foreign policies and has made some rather
grievous mistakes in the past, but I would argue that there is much to
be proud of on the international scale as well
I would like to thank you in return for a well thought out post. As you said, it is always a pleasure
to have an intelligent conversation with someone. Once again I could argue some of the points you
raise, but it is doubtful that much would be accomplished by this. At this point I am content to
leave the issue as it stands and wish you good luck in your games.
LOL!
Wouldn't a good liberal give away not just their own pieces, but other peoples
pieces too? All for the greater good, mind you....
Maggoteer,
who once fell asleep and dreamed he was a Conservative who fell asleep and
dreamed he was a Liberal. Upon awakening, he did not know if he was a Liberal
who had dreamed he was a Conservative, or a Conservative who had dreamed he
was a Liberal.
My apologies to Lao Tzu.
A woman once drove me to drink & I never had the decency to thank
her.
Working is the curse of the drinking classes
I'm not going to get married again... I'll just find a woman I don't like
& give her my house (Rod Stewart)
An intelegent man sometimes has to drink so he can comunicate with
the masses
24 cans in a case, 24 hours in a day... coincidnece..? I think NOT
(Steve Write)
There are many more but it's 5.30am & I'm too drunk
Jon - the mine of useless information