----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 3:57 AM Subject: Re: Requests for Proposals
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:39:15 -0500, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 12:03 PM > Subject: Re: Request for Proposals <snip> > > Panama is better, the family of a former dictator still runs the > > country but they hold elections. > > > > I haven't noticed any changes toward right dictatorships under Bush 1 > > and Bush 2 except for turning against the former US supported > > creations that went too far - Noriega and Saddam. > > Why don't the data convince you? Are you arguing that its coincidence that > there are far fewer military dictatorships in Latin America now than before > the Cold War ended? Right now, Haiti is the one I can think of....which is > what you cover below...which I can get to. >We are talking about Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2. I see no indication >that the Bush's were interested in overturning dictatorships except >for Panama and Iraq. The rise of democratic governments worldwide has >been seen as a consequence of fewer conflicts, the rise of the >information age, the increasing scrutiny of bank accounts, and the >refusal of other countries to offer safe havens. >Why do you think increasing American military power has anything to do >with the decline of Latin American dictatorships? Because of the obvious correlations. The US has little leverage over Arab countries, due to the West's dependence on oil. The only representative government in the region is Israel, with whom the US has had a lot of influence. The US has minimal influence in Africa. Thus, while there have been some democracies, there have also been ruthless dictatorships. In Asia, the US's influence has been strongest in Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan. These all have fairly advanced representative governments. It has no influence in China, which is a dictatorship. The US had tremendous influence in the rebuilding of Western Europe. It had mostly representative governments....Spain was the only real exception for a while. After the Iron Curtain fell, the US was strongly involved in East Europe. Its military intervention in the Balkans was clearly the most striking example, but it was not the only one. So, if one does a scatter plot of relative US influence and type of government, you would have seen a correlation even during the cold war. It became markedly stronger after the end of the cold war. The leverage the US had after the end of the cold war was markedly stronger too. Groups who wanted to take over the country could no longer count on the Soviet Union to fund and equip them. The US was the only superpower game in town. Thus, right wing military dictatorships did not have the "if you don't support us the country will fall to the Communists" card. > I won't argue with your claim about Noriaga, but I don't see the > justification for your claim about Hussein. Andrew Paul made the same > claim, and I responded as follows: > > "I would very much appreciate help in understanding how the US set up the > Bathe party...or how we ensured Hussein rose in it." > > I didn't see an answer from him on this. If you could enlighten me on > this, > >Always glad to help. I read your arguments, as well as looked at web sites Andrew provided. Only one, UPI, looked as though it had any track record to go on. It seems that the data suggested that the US did have some dealing with Hussein early on. But, that is far different from the US being the one who put him where he is. The Cold War was a very unusual kind of war in that it was fought with restraint on both sides, because neither side felt it could afford an all out war. The US's strategy was to contain the Soviet Union until it fell from its own internal weaknesses. The strategy of the Soviet Union was to continue to expand its sphere of influence until the US was virtually isolated. Both fought this war by trying to influence and aid groups that they thought might be friendly to them and have some chance of gaining power. It is a tremendously murky affair, with limited influence on both sides. Parties could take money from one side, and then decide the other was more to its liking and switch sides. Once groups actually started running governments, alliances became clearer. The countries that got weapons from the Soviet Union were aligned with them; those that got them from the US were aligned with the US. So in the Middle East; the Bath Party was clearly aligned with the Soviet Union with both Syria and Iraq flying MIGs, while Saudi Arabia was aligned with the US, flying F-16s. Iran was, until 1979, aligned with the US, and then it became an entity unto itself. > > > (AP) - Despite objections from the United States and Haiti, the > > Organization of American States opened the way for an investigation > > into the ouster of Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. > > > > The OAS General Assembly also called for elections in Haiti as soon as > > possible. But the debate over a probe into the coup went for hours > > until the body on Tuesday night finally approved a resolution calling > > Aristide's ouster unconstitutional and allowing an assessment of what > > occurred. > > Which seems quite reasonable. I'm not arguing that the US was flawless in > this; but I can sympathize with the unwillingness to use US troops to stop > the rebels. > > > Aristide accuses the United States of forcing him from office - a > > charge Washington denies. A U.S.-supplied jet flew Aristide to the > > Central African Republic on Feb. 29 as [- US armed] rebels advanced on > > the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince, and he is now in asylum in > > South Africa after spending several weeks in Jamaica. > > Is there any evidence that the US actually supported the coup instead of > simply refusing to use its troops to fight it? With all due respect, > unsubstantiated claims by Aristide is not really evidence. > > Dan M. >Common knowledge is that Aristide's opponents were financed, armed and >supported by the CIA. Well, there are a lot of false things that are common knowledge. I appreciate you giving the data you did, but let me tell you why I'm not sure something as strong as you stated has verisimilitude. The real question for me is motive. Haiti is a desperately poor country that's going backwards economically. The commercial potential in Haiti is chump change for US corporations. Haiti has been a thorn in the US side because it is so bad there that there have often been flotillas of refugees trying to get to the US. The CIA is scrambling to get its head above water with regard to terrorism. We know that certain operatives were reluctant to use lethal force against Bin Ladin from the 9-11 commission. Given this, what in the world would be the motivation to mess around in Haiti? It can't be big profits for US corporations; there are none to be had. It can't be anti-communism; we beat communism. Given that the US and the CIA had more fires to put out than they could handle, and given Bush's laser like focus on Iraq, why pick a new fight? Now, if you made a weaker argument, that the US wasn't firm enough with people it had contact with among the rebels and gave the impression that it would look the other way in a revolt because the country was seen to be falling apart under Aristide, then I would find that much more believable. One thing that I've noticed among those highly critical of normative US foreign policy is a tremendous belief in the power of the US to influence the world. Dan M.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
