----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 9:29 PM Subject: RE: An Interview in Pakistan
> Forgive the long and passionate post, but I've been there, talked to the > people, been deeply frightened by realizing that my activities could result > in torture or death. I will never look at the world the same again. Nor > will I accept the lame excuse of fighting communism when what's really going > on is the United States propping up deeply corrupt leaders. > > Nick > >Yes, I am familiar with the history of Latin America. But the >extraordinary level of 20/20 hindsight you're displaying here is, well, remarkable. I'll agree with Nick here. I remember being involved with the discussion at the time too. I didn't know the nuns who were killed in El Salvador personally, but they were friends of friends. I remember you mentioning elsewhere that governments shouldn't feel free to kill Americans. Let me submit that the government of El Salvador felt free to kill Americans who worked with the poor. IIRC, the Reagan administration started by blaming the nuns for their own deaths...saying they probably ran a checkpoint. People who were simply working with the poor were automatically labeled Communists. Even in Venezuela, which was a democracy, my uncle had to court the military to keep working unencumbered in the barrios. Colleagues of his that were not so politically astute were labeled Communists. It wasn't just hindsight, at the time there was a very active debate concerning where the line was between supporting an anti-Communist dictatorship because it was the best available choice, and giving a blank check to any government, so long as it was right wing. Further, it wasn't simply a matter of ethics, it was a matter of the self interest of the United States. You have mentioned many times that the interests of the US coincided with the best interests of most of the people of the world. For the most part, I agree with that. But, a willingness to support right wing dictatorships without any questions undermines this very persuasive argument. For example, you mentioned Turkey being a democracy if you squint. There are other governments that we supported and have called democracies that we had to squint even harder at. I can understand why we do that. However, it would seem reasonable that we apply the standards universally. If a government holds a semi-free election (i.e. there is some skullduggery but the opposition press has been able to print a number of articles critical of the ruling party during the campaign and a number of legislators from opposing parties are in the legislator, then we consider this government an emerging democracy and squint at least a little bit. At the very least, we do not support guerrillas that will probably install a significantly less democratic government. The reason for doing this is not just benign. It was/is a fundamental strength of the US. People in the world, who make an informed choice for their own self interest, should have far and away preferred a US victory over a victory by the Soviet Union. When we violate our own stated principals of international relations, then we open ourselves up to the charge of "you're no better." Even if the charges are not true, even if we still are the best choice (as I always believed), we obscure our own advantage and blunt one of our best weapons when we write blank checks for right wing dictatorships. My understanding of what Nick wrote was that, in many cases, the claim of fighting Communism was just a flimsy excuse for brutal actions by right wing dictatorships that we supported. I agree with that. It is not that the United States decision to fight communism was wrong; it was clearly right. It was that the United States often bought the flimsy excuses for brutal actions. A quote from Mark Twain comes to mind here: Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. It is not that patriotism is wrong; it is usually a good thing. However, it is a darned good hiding place for scoundrels. Anti-communism was the same. Indeed, I'd argue that the scoundrels who hide behind patriotism and anti-communism do more hard to those causes than those who are simply apathetic. Dan M.
