“Covert action should not be confused with missionary work.”
I’ve met a number of cynics in my time, Shodan. I’ve never met one yet who didn’t regard himself as hard-headed and realistic.
And the people who were passing out those pamphlets were passing them out because a lot of the Salvadoran priesthood was involved in the revolutionary movement, and because the base communities were primary recruitment centers and training grounds for the Communists.
Do you have a cite for this?
Yes, I will say that the clergy was, by and large, more sympathetic or at least, more tolerant, of the revolutionaries than they were the government.
At the same time, does that really justify the terrorism practiced by the Salvadoran government?
Possibly. I have met several, but perhaps that’s just me.
Jimmy Carter has already been cited in this thread as a man who did not see himself as a cynic. But almost the last phrases I would choose to apply to his foreign policy are “hard-headed and realistic”.
The flip side of that would be a quote from Oscar Wilde, to the effect that:
The US, along with every other country on earth and throughout history, is often confronted in its foreign policy with the choice between bad and worse, where choosing nothing is worst of all.
Witness the war between Iran and Iraq (if Guinastasia will forgive the digression). Who was the right side in that war? Iraq, who started it, and had visions of Middle Eastern empire? Iran, who had already attacked the US, and had visions of Middle Eastern theocratic empire?
We tend to judge foreign policy by its successes or failures. And how we decide what is a success and what is a failure depends very much on what we look for.
Are human rights better today in El Salvador now as the result of US actions overall? It depends on who you ask. Are they better in Cuba? Nicaragua? Iraq? Iran? Afghanistan?
Would they be better off if the US had not done what it did? It is a question that can never be answered for certain.
In foreign policy, those differences persist even after the race is over.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, here’s an article from '89
and there’s this excerpt from Berryman’s report on the history of Liberation Theology in Latin America…admittedly, dealing with Nicagragua, instead of El Salvador
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/40/023.html
From an interview with Fr. Miguel Ventura, a priest at a base community in El Salvador:
As to the more general question, “Does that justify government repression”, but it at least helps to explain it. El Salvador at that time period was violent as all hell. You had the leftist terrorists, who were killing all sorts of people, you had the government which was ordering the army to kill all sorts of people in retribution, you had the army which were killing all sorts of people without orders, and you had the rightist terrorists, who were killing all sorts of people.
Like Shodan says, there weren’t any good guys.
Your depiction of this as a morally neutral situation - just folks killing folks needlessly - is valid only if it were not a situation of a criminal oligarchy ruthlessly opressing the majority, with America’s hearty cooperation. Coming from an American, this is decidedly odd.
My point is though, what do you think they should have done?
Why do you think these people supported communism?
Well, but that depiction of the situation is hopelessly overly simplistic too. You had a oligarchy ruthlessly oppressing the majority since the 1850s. And the coup in 1979 brought to power people who were interested in reform and breaking the power of the oligarchy. Remember, one of the first things the '79 government did was put through a land reform program. Then after the coup in '80, the new government put through another land reform program.
I’m not saying this was a morally neutral situation. On the contrary, this was a morally bad situation. All sides had bad motives, and all sides did some horrible things. So what it came down to is, does the US support the side that is friendly to us, the side that is unfriendly to us, or neither side?
The Salvadorans who supported communism mainly did it because the Communists promised extensive land reform, and the average Salvadoran peasant lived in poverty, due to the concentration of land and wealth in a few hands and the general indifference by the government to the welfare of the Salvadoran poor. That set up the conditions so that the revolutions first in Cuba and then Nicaragua served to inspire revolutionary sentiment in El Salvador.
What do I think who should have done?
The people of El Salvador. If we condemn them for supporting the communists, instead of looking at WHY they did, then we don’t get anywhere.
I guess what I’m getting at is-what leads people (anywhere!) to embrace communism, and how can it be avoided?
An oppressed peasant in El Salvador, or Guatemala, or Nicaragua, did not turn to Communists because of an appreciation of Hegelianism, or a sudden realisation of the significance of dialectical materialism. They turned to the Communists because the Reds offered the help that we would not.
A direct parallel can be drawn to the situation in Viet Nam. The liberation movement did not start with, nor was it dominated by, the Viet Cong. It was the intransigence of the Catholic minority in its oppression of the Bhuddist majority that eventually radicalized the situation.
You are free, of course, to regard this as a matter of interpretation, whereas I regard it as a matter of history.
This seems a little simplistic. The Reds offered help to the rebels, not because they gave a tin shit that they were oppressed - the Reds oppressed people far worse than the US did - but because they were trying to expand their influence. The rebels could have been the worst oppressors on earth, and as long as they were anti-American, or at least anti-whatever government was being supported by America, and the USSR would have been in bed with them.
The USSR was in the business of encouraging anti-US and anti-capitalist revolution. It would be a mistake to view the other side as dedicated to the cause of freedom, regardless of their rhetoric.
Probably the success of the West, politically and economically, has done more than anything else to discredit communism. In other words, the fact that the US won the Cold War is a good thing for human freedom across the world.
There is a great deal to be said for setting a good example, and US aid is not always entirely confined to propping up dictators. As long as the government in place is stable enough, and has friendly relations with the US, they have a reasonable chance of getting some aid and encouragement to develop into a more reasonable society.
See South Africa for an example of a repressive society, that kept out of the Soviet orbit, and had a chance to develop into a majority-led democracy. Name a Marxist country in Africa that did the same.
Regards,
Shodan
Enough history. Everybody on this thread has been arguing about what the U.S. should have done in Central America in the 1970s and '80s, or about whether what the U.S. did do was justified. Never mind all that. We can learn from it, but we can’t do anything about it. It’s in the past.
The important question is, what should we (the U.S.) be doing now? What should our foreign policy (or our covert-action policy) be, under present circumstances, with regard to Cuba? Mexico? Nicaragua? El Salvador? Venezuela? Colombia? Brazil? All countries where the hard left is either in power, or a major contender for it. Does communist ideology still have a vital role to play in these countries? Does liberation theology? And, now that the Cold War is over, why is any of this our business? Perhaps our policy should be strictly hands-off. Or perhaps, at this stage, we should start intervening on the side of the leftists! Does anyone have any opinions?
Um, Shodan, the communist guerillas in El Salvador were actually very much ANTI-Soviet. They were more nationalistic, than anything else.
Maybe, but they got most of their aid from the eastern block countries, through Cuba, Nicragua, and Vietnam. From this article, looking at FLMN weaponry (It’s a PDF file):
http://www.smallarmsresearch.org/abstracts/v2n3FMLN2.pdf
and
From this article in the Communist magaine, The Millitant:
When there was hope this could be solved peacefully the armed forces/death squads decided it was ok to kill the opposition leaders in a total contempt of the rule of law, everybody knew the government to be acquainted with the perpetrators, they did nothing to bring the killers to justice, and the US administration choose to ignore it. Everybody learned a terrible lesson that day.
The death squads, paramilitary groups, and even army groups killed the majority of the --people.
No one, but even a pseudo real politick follower should go for the one that is least evil, somehow pointing at the Miskitos is forgetting that they were also involved in contra activity (I would not blame them) but you are forgetting the mining of harbors (by the US) and speaking of the Sandinistas, you do know they lost the elections and they stepped down? How can you compare them to the antidemocratic Somoza FAMILY indeed? (I guess you don’t know they were literally a dynasty in Nicaragua)
Have you looked at a map of the world recently? Someday I should start a thread describing this syndrome that attacks conservatives: Timeline blindness.
Now that we got back to past history, you conveniently Forget that Batista was there first, paving the way for the next dictator. (As an aside I do agree Castro should go, but history to me (it wont absolve you Fidel) shows an enduring survival of extremism lasting on places the US decided to intervene openly (Vietnam) while “red” countries we decided to engage in other ways, by helping the neighbors develop (this is IMO very important) and not to openly engage them, then the people did not see us as an enemy and they in turn toppled their repressive rulers (in the former soviet block)
I think it is more ugly that the ignorance of many in the US, of those actions, is an important piece of how to make that work.
And yet, those actions (by Carter and the USSR) were a piece too for the eventual collapse of the USSR
Your Marxist comment is ok, in a my cat’s breath smells of cat’s food kinda way.
Stable governments out of military right wing coups? Right…
Middle class? American workers many times had to die to get the rights that ensured the growth of the middle class, or had governments that gave a new deal to the people. (it doesn’t need to be Marxist to get there, you (don’t) know…
I see many in Latin America get elected with platforms that could be described as new deals for the poor, raising the commie boogie man to defeat them is getting tiresome.
Incidentally, after so many years of capitalism before, during, and after communism it doesn’t bother anybody that Latin American nations are still “developing”?
This line is ozzing with ignorance, Guin just mentioned why, I can certify what she said, your interpretation of Romero is one of the most badly informed, unaware, ill-mannered, ill-bred, naive, inexperienced, immature, adolescent, raw, bits of ignorance ever seen in these or any other boards.
BTW: Costa Rica would beg to differ in your mess Central America was, they got rid of their army a long time ago, even before the civil wars, in turn they had a better chance of developing democracy, the US gave aid to the Salvadoran and Guatemalan armies when they were at their worst, I would propose a better effort would be for the US to finance the dissolve of the armies of the area, if not then, now; as to prevent future power grabs, or would the US oppose to such an idea?
Like knowledge, from us to you:
Here is the Truth Commission of El Salvador, ugly on both sides, but damming more to the ones that drew blood first, and caused the most deaths, (hint: it was not the Guerrillas)
http://www.usip.org/library/tc/doc/reports/el_salvador/tc_es_03151993_toc.html
Stares,
Ed.
P.S.:
Captain Amazing, what the communist nations furnished to the guerrillas was hundreds of times less of what the US furnished to the repressive government. Since the majority of the dead were attributed to the paramilitary and rogue (?) military units, It always looked to me that it was more than an insurrection, it was just the common sense of standing up to an effort to kill a group of people, that just wanted peaceful change first.
GIGObuster, thank you.
Another thing I’d like to point out-a lot of the infighting and wars stopped AFTER Reagan left office-and it wasn’t him who brought stability and peace to Central America, but the president of Costa Rica, Oscar Arias. (Who actually came to La Roche, once, from what I understand).
"It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. "
Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.
Also, here is the infamous homily Romero gave a week before he was killed:
There’s a big difference between that and “Power to the people-God agrees with me!”
Romero also told the Pope:
Keep in mind, that when Romero was named to be archbishop, he was considered a very conservative choice. He started out thinking that the repression was exaggerated. However, very quickly, he realized that as a Christian, he had a duty towards the people, and a duty to speak out against what was going on.
The fact that he was shot WHILE SAYING MASS, I think, is very, oh, how should I say it-fitting, almost?
What is the difference between what Romero said to the soldiers, and John Paul today, speaking out against the war in Iraq?
Not much, in my not so humble opinion.