From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Thu Apr 03 2003 - 02:16:30 MST
Damien Sullivan responded to me:
"Points I'd make: the influence of the US is larger than the actions of its
government. I'd say the major part of any American influence toward democracy
is simply from existing, and from saturating the world with our popular
culture, and being so big that everyone has to pay attention to us. When you
have arrested people in other countries screeching for their Miranda rights
you know we've done something good."
I would agree in large part with what you have said here. However, I would
qualify that by offering that this is far more true now than during the Cold
War era, in which our existence and our government both provided vital roles
for the continued spread of democracy abroad.
"When you look at government action it's much less rosy. Sure, we're better
than the Soviet Union. That doesn't take much. (And for the record, the
Soviet bloc seemed to have better education than we do.)"
This is a point that could be debated further, but even if it were true, I
would say "so what?" I'm sure the Soviets had far more organized bread lines
too, but that hardly would make their system better than ours. But more to
the point, there was more to what I was saying than just our quality of life
was (and is) better than our Soviet counterparts. The foreign policy
decisions of the United States government during the Cold War era must be
viewed from a perspective that includes the corresponding decisions made in
Moscow, and a general acknowledgment that the world of that era was one in
which democracies were in the distinct minority.
"We've also overthrown elected governments, propped up dictators, trained
death squads,
and turned a blind eye to abuses by our allies."
All of these accusations are to some degrees true. However, I do not see any
perspective given to any of these judgments you have passed. For instance,
the United States "propped up" the regime of Syngman Rhee in South Korea in
1950. Rhee was certainly an authoritarian and a thug. For instance, he had
executed in 1950 2000 of his own subjects without trial because they were
believed to be aiding the Communists. Should the United States not have
"propped up" this authoritarian? Would a more preferable outcome in your view
have been one in which the United States washed their hands of the unsavory
Rhee regime and allowed Kim Il Sung's North to forcibly reunify that nation?
I would simply ask would you prefer that the US not dealt with this
authoritarian, at the cost that all of Korea today would be undemocratic?
Certainly over the course of the last fifty years the United States has made
decisions abroad that are quite difficult, if not impossible, to defend. But,
when looked at in terms of the very real Cold War dynamic that existed during
that time, most of them can be understood.
"The State Department's report on human rights came out yesterday, and Human
Rights Watch said "it's a fine report, but is the US guided by it the other
364 days of the year?" Sometimes
we speak up, sometimes we don't. We isolate Cuba, but trade with China, which
I think is a worse regime."
Let me say that it can be persuasively argued that our approach to Cuba
should be re-examined. But let me also say that it is absurd to blame the
decades of inequality and poverty suffered by the Cuban people on the United
States and not the Castro regime and the Soviets which propped him up for
four decades. I would also suggest that it is not realistic to apply the same
standards with regard to our behavior toward Cuba and China. China is the
world's most populous nation, has achieved nuclear status, and is an emerging
world and economic power. The United States cannot realistically be expected
to give more than lip service toward its internal human rights violations,
just as was unfortunately the case with the Soviet Union.
"And US influence, or US government action in the past, isn't a full
determinant of what the US government is doing now or will do. One could
believe the US has done tons of great things in the past and also believe the
Bush administration is wrecking that record right and left."
This is certainly a legitimate point worth debate. I obviously do not
subscribe to it, however. I cannot place the Bush administration's decision
to forcibly remove a tyrannical regime in Iraq for defensive purposes next to
the crushing of the Prague Spring by the Soviets, for example.
> States is deplorable. The freedoms that each and every human enjoys on this
> planet (those fortunate enough to enjoy some) can all be attributed to some
> degree to the United States. Yet some insist that merely because the US (or
"They can also be attributed to some degree to Great Britain which spawned
us,
and to France which spread Revolutionary values throughout Europe. I know you
didn't say the US was the unique fount of freedom, but I thought I'd make the
points anyway."
I did not say the United States was, nor would I ever. Despite that, your
point here is something that should be noted.
> any other country) is powerful and in a dominant world position, than it is
> bad, or "might makes wrong", in huMania's words. This position too is not
"power corrupts" in the usual formulation.
Perhaps it is the usual formation, but it is not universally applicable.
> acceptable in any form to many on this list, and the record of the United
> States as compared to other major world powers, most notably the Soviet
Union
> or Nazi Germany, is a necessary part of illustrating why the position of
> "might makes wrong" is not appropriate in all cases.
"We have a better record; yay us. It's not a perfect record."
Nor have I ever said it was, however, I think it inappropriate to dismiss out
of hand with a "yay us" the significant and vital role the United States has
played in helping to promote and sustain viable democracies in the 20th
Century. For starters, there are 70 million people now living in Taiwan and
South Korea who would not have democracy today if not for the actions in the
past and present of the United States. This is a fact worth far more than a
footnote.
"And I think it's a legitimate fear is that if we've resisted the corrupting
effect of power
until now, it's finally come to bite us. Or at least to bite the neocons who
dream of American empire."
This is at best speculation, and at worst a simple partisan attack. The
"world community" saw fit to demand that Saddam Hussein disarm, whatever
their differences in opinion on how best that goal should have been
accomplished. The United States was not going to leave a few hundred thousand
troops on Mr. Hussein's doorstep so Hans Blix could continue to collect a
paycheck and hope that the regime disarmed. It will take far more than the
removal of an obstinate tyrant to validate your claims of "neocon dreams of
empire."
> Illustrating that the United States helped foster and make possible
> democracy in Taiwan, Greece, South Korea, Japan, etc. is not "holding up a
"Greece was democratic. Then it had a military coup in the 1960s or 1970s.
Then at some point it wandered back to democracy. What role, if any, did we
play in that?"
I would respectfully suggest that the over 400 million dollars that the
United States provided in economic and military aid to the royalist
government of Greece during their civil war of 1947-49 with the Communists
"had something to do with it." It is highly unlikely that Greece would have
been able to "wander back to democracy" from a Communist system before the
fall of the Soviet Union. Perhaps you would disagree, but I would then ask
that you provide some examples in which Communist regimes willingly gave up
power prior to the fall of the USSR.
Indeed, the removal of the Allende regime in a CIA supported coup in Chile,
often trumpeted by those who perpetually criticize United States foreign
policy, provides an interesting contrast between the US and Soviet camps.
Perhaps Salvadore Allende might have presided over a prosperous and healthy
Chile and willingly surrendered power. That will be never be known. It cannot
be argued, however, that Allende's programs of nationalizing businesses and
initiating "land reform" was met with widespread protest and demonstrations
by his people. Nor should it be surprising that these steps concerned the
United States. The decision by our government to support the tyrannical
Pinochet regime can and should be rigorously debated. However, it should be
noted that Pinochet's regime promulgated a constitution that eventually
called for democratic elections and that he was in fact voted out of office.
I am still waiting for the first democratic elections in Vietnam, Laos, and
North Korea.
dominated by the USSR, while a great many proxies of the United States did
> indeed develop lasting and stable democracies. It is completely legitimate
"For example, Iran, a US proxy, had a revolution and established a democracy
which while highly imperfect is real and more than most of the Middle East
has."
I will certainly strenuously argue with your contention if need be, but I
would first ask if you seriously believe that the Mullahs are in anyway
vulnerable to losing their 24 year grip on power through this "democracy" you
suggest is present in Iran.
Regards,
Max Plumm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 03 2003 - 02:23:59 MST