The reasons why I ask, is because the doctrine probably came long before Ms. Kirkpatrick. And it was used by Democrats too. IIRC, Democrat President Jimmy Carter used it to support the genocidal Shah of Iran before he was overthrown. I also know the doctrine was rumored to be supported by American multi-national corporations, who wanted the US to protect their economic interests around the world.
Well, Carter used it. Where does President Obama stand on the matter?
Did you miss the part where it says “during the Cold War”? I’m guessing the last three Presidents haven’t needed to have a position of the Kirkpatrick Doctrine.
Really? Can you offer an example of an official government position that’s opposed to communism in general rather than a specific regime?
You’re arguing the reason we opposed communism was because corporations control the government and we must still be opposed to communism because the corporations still exist. You’re offered two premises, neither of which you’ve proved individually, as proof of each other.
A little reality check: American corporations have never had any problem making deals with communist regimes. Current business relations with China are certainly proof of that. But even during the Cold War, plenty of American companies were willing to work with communist regimes.
I don’t know, I am largely going by what I remembered from that time (the Shah was overthrown while I was still in grade school or hs). All I remember is, they said (presumably in the media) that the Shah was even worst than Hitler, because unlike Hitler he killed his own people. I will try to find a cite if I can. But even before I do, I remember the reference I made quite well.
Again, I assume we are still opposed to communism because this fact is well-known. Take Cuba. We still have never normalized relations with Cuba, even though it clearly would be in both of our best interests to do so.
You’re right, it is pretty hard to prove corporate dominance of the US govt. But again, I assume that is what most people know or believe anyways.
Related to what I’ve proposed about flaws in the US foreign relations, here is an interesting article on Henry Kissinger.
Hilton and Sheraton are big American corporations. I GUARANTEE they’d rush to build beachfron hotels in Cuba if they could.
Some geologists believe Cuba has lage depositis of offshore oil. I GUARANTEE that Exxon and Chevron would love to cut a deal with Castro to pump it out.
And I guarantee that all the big American banks would line up to finance those new hotels and oil rigs.
Big business was happy to do business with Lenin and Mao, and would be equally delighted to do business with Fidel.
If American corporations were ideologically opposed to trade with communist Cuba, then there would be no need for the government to enforce an embargo, because it would be done voluntarily.
Of course it’s nonsense. Corporations will do business where they think they can make a profit.
Many people have the idea that Cuba is somehow cut off from the global economy. That is nonsense. Canada, Mexico, Japan, China, and Europe all trade normally with Cuba, and all kinds of multinationals do business there, just not American ones. But the Cuban government firmly controls the terms of business, and requires that the Cuban government be majority owner of all developments. Plus things like it is illegal for Cubans to own a car, unless it’s one they owned before the revolution, which is why you still see ancient American cars from the 50s held together with baling wire. If the Cuban government allowed it, Cubans could buy cars from Europe or Japan.
So anyone imagining that the second we normalize relations with Cuba American businesses and mobsters are going to move in and take over are just being silly. Cuba has a strong central government that doesn’t allow European or Japanese or Canadian corporations or mobsters to take over, so why would they allow Americans to take over?
I think the Kirkpatrick Doctrine is a poor joke that makes the US morally bankrupt in the face of overwhelming evil. We were not right in the support of those unholy leaders that terrorized their own peoples and caused endless suffering throughout the world simply because the country had an irrational phobia of certain others. History has shown that we were wrong in this, and the doctrine short-sighted and flawed, but because history is written by the victors, everyone still believes, erroneously, that N*Sync should have had a real reunion instead of that joke they perpetuated on us at the VMAs a few nights ago.
The relevant facts on Hitler’s and the Shah’s respective atrocities are quite accessible on Wikipedia and elsewhere so I don’t see why you need to rely on thirty-year old childhood memories for your argument. And Hitler certainly did kill his own “people”-even if you don’t count German Jews, Sophie Scholl would beg to differ.
Essentially I think that is what I am saying. Gore Vidal also hinted darkly at the Military-Industrial Complex which (according to him) began with Pres. Truman.
I realize there has been more discussion on this thread since you asked. But this is the answer to your question FWIW:).)
How about China? If the American government had a policy against having normal relations with communist countries, how do you explain China?
As I wrote, the American government doesn’t have a blanket policy on communist regimes. Our embargo with Cuba is directed at that specific regime. The United States government is currently applying sanctions against six nations, only two of which are communist. Three of these nations are predominantly Islamic, but that doesn’t mean the United States is opposed to Islam. (Although you could probably make a better argument for that nowadays. You really need to update your anti-government rhetoric.)
The military industrial complex goes back a lot further than Eisenhower. He just gave it a fancy new name. Munitions makers and weapons makers have been upping the ante since the stone age morphed into the bronze age, into the iron age, into the gunpowder age up until the drone age.
These people have a vested interest in selling lots of weapons and always the newest and latest and most deadly products. And they have done so throughout history. They are not the only cause of war, but as with any catastrophe, ask “qui bono”, and you will see that the arms merchants always put indirect pressure on the their friends in government who are inclined to be warlike.
