----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:57 AM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
>> Well, there's the Phillipeans, Tawain, and South Korea, and Panama, to >> name countries outside of Europe. >The Philippines, Taiwan , South Korea and Panama are not examples of the US >promoting democracy. For many long decades they were examples of the US propping >up dictatorships For many long decades the US was willing to live with anti-communist dictatorships. Yet, if you look at the Phillipeines, Taiwan, and South Korea, they are, after Japan, the best examples of strong representative government. If you want to argue that the US cut these dictatorships too much slack, and that we didn't push enough for democracy in these countries, I'd agree. But, I don't think it is just coincidence that these countries are the best examples of representative government, after Japan, in the far east. >Germany and Japan were the examples of the US promoting democracy. This was >in large measure due to the constitutions put in place. It was also, in large measure, a reflection of the ability of the US to force a governmental form on those countries. In the other countries, the US was not in the same position to do so. > > Times were probably a bit simpler as well. There were no pro-Nazi or > > pro-Hirohito terrorist training camps; the context and the nature of > > the enemy have both changed considerably in the last six decades. > > But, there were pro-Nazi terrorists for a couple of years. We had a lot > tighter control there than in Iraq, so I don't think they could hide a > camp, but there were terrorists. >Actually a review of the occupation history shows almost no terrorist >activity. There were no US military deaths after the war in Germany due to >terrorists. It was minimal...but there were a bit more than a score of combat deaths in the months following VE day. >> It is. But, one question I asked myself is whether our willingness to >> directly assult a dictator in Panama increased our influence in getting >> other dictators to retire elsewhere in Latin America. >We propped up, supported and paid a dictator in Panama. When he began not >following orders Reagan ordered him removed. Actually, Bush was in power...I mentioned it because the timing is actually important. >There may have been an indirect influence in promoting democracy as older >dictators in Latin America saw there were limits to their power. The reason I think the timing is important is what transpired between Reagan happily dealing with Noreaga, and Bush removing him. The Cold War was won between those actions. For over 40 years, we were willing to support right wing dictatorships because we feared the alternative might be a Communist takeover. One exception to this was when we decided to drop support of Bastidas around '59. I think it is fair to say that was considered an object lesson by many. Now, I agree with the arguement that we were willing to look the other way far too often when our allies acted in an inhumane manner. Chile comes to mind here. But, until the end of the Cold War, I think it is fair to say that an arguement could be raised that we needed to allign with right wing dictatorships as the least bad option. In the '70s and early '80s, the swift victory of the US in the Cold War was not seen as inevitable. But, once the US won, this excuse for supporting right wing dictatorships vanished. The US no longer had a reason to fear that the removal of a right wing dictatorship would result in another Russian ally. Thus, it was the perfect time to assess whether the Cold War was an flimsey excuse for supporting right wing dictators, or whether the US would change policy now that this risk had been removed. Latin America was the perfect test case because the influence of the US was so strong. Unlike the Middle East, we and Western Europe have little dependance on Latin America. Panama, with the US interest in the canal staying open, and US soldiers in the canal zone, was good test case. I think the message that was sent was, now that the Cold War is over, we have no reason to have to accept right wing dictatorships. We now consider them against our interests. For the most part, I think the message was received. >> I guess one of the questions that is under debate is whether >> representative government was just first developed in the West >>(in the US to be specific) or if the desire for representative government is an >>artifact of Western Civilization, with many other people preferring dictatorships, >> monarchies, oligarchies, etc. I, as you could guess, would argue for the former. >There is an interesting Turtledove short, one of his best, where the Greeks >were conquered by Persia and generations later a historian is trying to >discover who their rulers were and what was all these records of them >counting to make decisions. I thought this was one of the best alternate >histories. What I've read indicates that the Greek democracies bore little resemblance to our own. The patriarchs of the families got to vote, not the free males. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
