>How much of a "victory" was this, really? Yes, I got a great rush of satisfaction from seeing the right-wing Cuban expats -- who have been ludicrously indulged for so many years and who virtually hijacked U.S.-Cuban policymaking -- humiliated at last. <
Like the historic shot of the AWB militia man spread up against a car after a failed raid on the Moputatswana homeland, minutes before the black guard shot him. That was a turning point in the balance of forces against apartheid.
This victory is not of that level of historic significance but it does mark a shift on several important policy parameters.
Yes it was an open terroristic use of force against the anti-communist Cuban emigree groups who had kidnapped a child from his father. The state is inescapably associated with violence.
Reno has repeated her claim today that an open show of force was necessary to avoid having to use force. In the culture of the USA that Cockburn illustrates, it does not sound an excessive use of force. The boy had to be handed over immediately. What else would have stopped the cousin scuffling with him?
I see also in today's International Herald Tribune that a well placed informant said that he played quite normally with a toy soldier when the psychiatrist gave him one. Force is sometimes necessary in custody cases.
What is really traumatic and opportunist in Clinton's Third Way politics, was the long wait for public opinion to change sides. This put quite unacceptable pressure on a boy who has just been through one tragedy.
We should not be in favour of violence but if we expect the state to do something, that implies, unless we are pacifists or idealists or anarchists, that in certain circumstances force is necessary.
To defend democratic rights against fascism we must also defend the use of force in certain circumstances.
Chris Burford
London