>But in the first three post-WWII decades the U.S. "allowed" the development
>of political democracy (and economic prosperity) in western Europe, and
>more recently the U.S. has "allowed" movements toward political democracy
>(and economic prosperity) in East Asia...
>
>The explanation that the U.S. always and everywhere seeks to create poverty
>and dictatorship--and has the power to do so--seems to me to be simply
>wrong.
If I gave the impression that this was my position, then I must apologize. I don't accuse the US of "always and everywhere" trying to create poverty and dictatorship, irregardless of whether it has the power to do so or not.
That is not my position, and I would argue against someone who advocated it.
The issue is somewhat different - I agree with Chomsky that the US is really interested in maintaining a "Grand Area" which services the economic needs of the west in general and the US in particular. So a democracy is OK as long as US investors are given free access to the economy and the US has access to the resources of foreign nations. But if the only way US planners envision maintaining access to foreign assets and resources is to create poverty and dictatorship, then that is what we will do, without hesitation or remorse.
The US recognizes that it has limits. It has never wanted or attempted to bring poverty or dictatorship to western europe. But the US was very concerned about not letting socialist or communist elements gain power in these countries, and DID participate in repression of these elements in order to ensure they would not gain power.
The reasons for the lack of more violent intervention in western europe include, but are probably not limited to: 1) racism - its tougher to justify brutality against white western europeans, many of whom have strong business, social and familial ties to the US, to the US public than against some African nation few have ever heard of, or some Latin American country few particularly care about. 2) power - we simply weren't powerful enough ot interfere in european politics like we could in much poorer, weaker third world nations. This is also why we couldn't interfere in eastern europe - the Soviet presence prevented it because they were too powerful militarily to tangle with safely
>To reach this conclusion you have to close your eyes to the differences
>between South and North Korea, Japan and China, Taiwan and Vietnam, Greece
>and Bulgaria, Italy and Hungary, and West and East Germany throughout most
>of the post-WWII period.
As I've said, I don't argue for the conclusions you've attributed to me. And I want to make it clear that North Korea (or other former or current Communist countries) certainly isn't a great model of economic development or a very libertarian society. But this just says that countries who were under Soviet influence didn't do very well either - it doens't necessarily justify US actions or mean the model of development we imposed on the third world was necessarily the best course for the populations of these countries.
If I cut off your arm, and then try to argue that you should be glad because the other neighborhood thug would have killed you, should you be grateful? Most sane people would ask why they couldn't have been left alone to lead a full life with the use of all their limbs.
In fact, the socialist countries with the best track records are also the ones with the most independence from the Soviet Union, like Cuba and Nicaragua under the Sandinistas. They might not be examples of paradise, but if I had to be a peasant in the third world I would choose to live under these regimes than under any surrounding gov'ts the US was supporting (like El Salvador or Honduras).
I will also reiterate the point I made earlier, which you seem to have ignored, that some of the countries you put in the non-western camp owe many of their problems to western violence. You bring up Vietnam again in your response, but how can you meaningfully discuss the Vietnamese situation without a discussion of the atrocities committed against Vietnam first by the French, and then the US? The same holds for Cambodia. Pol Pot is partially (if not largely) a monster created by US violence. You mention Castro as being quite beneficent, but imagine how much more prosperous Cuba would be if it didn't have to suffer under the US embargo.
>I do think that in Latin America (and to a great extent in Africa) United
>States policy has--wrongly--bet on authoritarian thugs rather than
>democratic socialist reformers, and that Latin America has suffered greatly
>from it--that Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, Argentina,
>Colombia, and several others would be much better off if not for the United
>States.
I mostly agree here, but I find your language disturbing. The US never "bet" on authoritarian thugs. By and large we installed the thugs after killing the democratic socialist reformers, or had the reformers killed once the thugs were firmly in power. _If_ the reformers were willing to allow US capital relatively free reign, then the reformers could be tolerated (as in Costa Rica, for example). Otherwise they were brutally put down.
>But others disagree:Jeanne Kirkpatrick, for example, says: (i) that
>revolutionary leaders like Salvador Allende who are attractive to
>pinko-bleeding-heart-liberal-San-Francisco-social-democrats like myself
>never come out on top once the revolution has rolled through to its
>completion; (ii) that the leaders of the communist dictatorship that the
>revolution ends in are people like Josef Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot,
>Enver Hoxha, Josip Tito; (iii) that someone like Fidel Castro is at the
>benificent end--way at the benificent end--of the possibilities of what
>might happen after the revolution; (iv) that a Latin America ruled in the
>1970s and the 1980s by a couple of Castros, a few Zhivkovs, a Kadar or two,
>plus a Hoxha and a Pol Pot would have led to a world vastly inferior to the
>one we have; and (v) that the illusions about the possibility of acceptable
>regimes to the left of Sweden under which I suffer were allowable back
>before Kronstadt but today indicate nothing more than a softness of the
>brain.
Jesus, Brad. Kirkpatrick is the same woman who described the Sandanista persecution of the Miskito Indians as the worst human rights disaster in Central America, or some such nonsense, somehow ignoring the butchery of the El Salvadoran gov't she supported. In fact, she actively tried to _suppress_ information about these and other atrocities committed by US client states. She is a hack, an ideologue, and apologist for US power, plain and simple.
But fine, we should concentrate on the argument, not the person advocating it. So,
i) Salvador Allende was never given a chance to come out on top, largely becaue of the US violence Kirkpatrick tried to cover up. Same holds true for Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. And how does she explain the longevity of Castro in Cuba?
ii) There are a number of things to say here. It is certainly possible that revolutions can lead to repressive, dictatorial regimes. But not always. Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro (and for that matter, Ho Chi Minh) must also be explained, and Kirkpatrick seems at a loss to do so, other than to claim that these are somehow "exceptions."
Furthermore, at least one of the guys you (she) mention, Pol Pot, is partially if not mostly a creation of the US. And indeed, was even SUPPORTED by the US after the Vietnamese invasion, and should therefore not be listed as purely a creation (or even the inevitable result) of a communist revolution.
Finally, even some of these tyrants compare favorably to many of the client states the US supports. Would you rather live in the former Yugoslavia under Tito, or in Nicaragua under Somoza? Or Haiti under Trujillo? Even granting the fact that some of these commies are pretty ugly, Kirkpatrick ignores the crimes of dictators in the supposedly "free world," often less free than countries behind the iron curtain.
iii) I dispute her claim, based on my points given above.
iv) this is an empty claim. By what measure would the world be vastly inferior? The number of people killed? Maybe, but maybe not. This claim demands justification, and none is given.
v) This is ideological nonsense and cannot stand up to the historical record. Again, such a claim must be justified, and Kirkpatrick does not do so, primarily because she can't. She might be correct if you assume that the US will simply crush by force any such regime, but that has nothing to do with the merits or practicality of this kind of society.
Brett