From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.latin-america
Subject: U.S. support, if any, for democracy in Lat Am
Date: 20 Nov 92 20:33:51 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

In article <19424@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ez000281@hamlet.ucdavis.edu writes:
>Mark Rosenfelder writes:
>>Consider just a few of the interventions of our democracy-loving government
>>over the years:
>
>>Brazil: U.S.-supported coup ousts elected but left-leaning President Goulart
>
>No evidence of "intervention"

From what I've read, there is evidence that the U.S. supported the coup.
Many of the officers behind it were no doubt also graduates of the U.S.'s
School of the Americas, where they absorbed the doctrine of "National
Security", under which the chief threat to a nation comes from its own
citizens; or perhaps the U.S.'s Office of Public Safety, which had to be
shut down when it became public knowledge that police were being taught
torture techniques there.

>>Cuba: U.S. supports Batista dictatorship; wages war against successor
>>  Castro with invasions and exploding cigars.
>
>The U.S. withdrew all support of Batista once his ruthless bloodshed began.  

After supporting a quarter century of his dictatorship.  I guess you have
to admit that the U.S. government is loyal to its thugs.

>>Chile: U.S. bankrolls opposition to Allende, supports Pinochet's coup
>>  and subsequent brutal repression.
>
>Yeah, and the Soviets and Cubas were bankrolling Allende. You see there are 
>many evil forces working around the planet and we must choose sides at times.

Fine.  I choose the democratic side in any contest between democrats and
totalitarians, left or right.  Opposition to one dictatorship does not
justify support of another.

>>Dominican Republic: U.S. occupies country to prevent an uprising in support
>>  of Juan Bosch, who was elected President but ousted in a CIA-backed coup.
>
>Wrong, the OAS invaded the country in order to avoid the anarchy that ensued 
>and to avoid having comunists take control of the country by way of force.

The straight Cold War party line.  U.S. policy has generally been blinded by 
a tendency to identify anything that objects to the status quo as "Communist." 
Before Communism there were other bugbears: e.g. during WWI there were those 
who asserted that the Mexican Revolution was directed by the Kaiser's Germany.

>>Ecuador: CIA-backed coup ousts elected president Velasco Ibarra.
           ^^^^^^^^^^
>Again, we were just "backing" (if at all).
                      ^^^^^^^
I see you can't contest this one.

Backing the military takeover of an elected government is destroying
democracy, not furthering it.

>>Honduras: U.S. supports and trains Honduran military; death squads active;
>>  Nicaraguan contras based here act as a state within a state.
>
>No, no.  The Honduran government helped the Freedom Fighters by providing the 
>safehaven in their territory. There was no "state within" a state, but rather, 
>just as the vietnamese did in Laos, they were simply "hosting" libertarian 
>forces.

The analogy with the Vietnamese incursions into Laos doesn't exactly help
your case, does it?  I believe the Hondurans were about as thrilled as the
Laotians to play host in these geopolitical games; but with $100 million a
year in military aid at stake they kept their feelings in check.

>>Guatemala: CIA organizes force to overthrow elected president Arbenz Guzman.
>>  Its hand-picked leader Castillo Armas obligingly outlaws political parties,
>>  mandates the death penalty for strikes, and undoes Arbenz's land reform.
>>  Over 100,000 citizens are killed in the subsequent 30 years of dictatorship.
>>  U.S. trains Guatemalans in "counter-terror", including death squads
>>  and aerial bombing of towns suspected of collaboration with rebels.
>
>There was not a single U.S. soldier involved in this conflict against 
>communism in Guatemala, the schoolground for terrorist Ernesto Guevarra.

The nice way of saying this is that you are misinformed.  U.S. Green Berets,
among others, helped train the Guatemalan army in "counter-insurgency
techniques."  U.S. Army Col. John Webber claims that he introduced "the 
technique of counter-terror" to the Guatemalans.  U.S. warships stood by to 
help if needed during a 1960 coup attempt.  The 1954 coup was organized by 
the CIA, which even selected the new Guatamalteco caudillo; it was not 
necessary (yet) to send in the army.  The charge that Arbenz was communist
is more Cold War disinformation.

>>Nicaragua: U.S. backs the Somocista dictatorship (based on the National
>>  Guard founded by the U.S.) for half a century, then wages an undeclared
>>  war against the left-wing Sandinista government (violating its own
>>  laws in order to fund it).
>
>When Somoza turned genocidic we had to support democratic forces within the 
>FSLN, such as Eden Pastora (Comandante Cero) and we took an active role in 
>denunciating the bloody regime.

The question was whether the U.S. supports democracy in Latin America.
By your own account we support dictators instead, abandoning them only when 
they turn "genocidic" (I guess this is an occupational hazard in the 
dictator biz).

>>Panama: U.S. supports and pays Noriega-- until he becomes too uppity.
>
>No, Noriega was not arrested for being uppity, but for shipping drugs to the 
>U.S.  Shame on you for supporting a drug kingpin!!

Huh?  Supporting a...?  Oh, I get it: you read "I" instead of "U.S." in
my posting.  No, Edelmiro, I didn't support and pay Noriega; the CIA did.
Thugs in power in Panama: your tax dollars at work.

>>El Salvador: CIA payrollee Jose Alberto Medrano organizes ORDEN paramilitary
>>  force, considered a precursor of later Salvadoran death squads.
>>  U.S. backs military government, despite murders of over 35,000 civilians,
>>  including the country's archbishop.
>
>And now all human rights violators will be castigated by our leadership in the 
>U.N and our friendly and democratic Cristiani Government.

What are you talking about?

>>Uruguay: U.S. supports military takeover.  The dictatorship is marked by
>>  one of world's highest proportions of citizens held as political prisoners.
>
>Incredible how some countries turn against their own democracy!!

You mean, it's incredible how a democratic country like the U.S. can support
dictatorships among its neighbors?  Or that it's incredible that the military
of "Latin America's Switzerland" could take it into its head to take over
the government and put tens of thousands of innocent people in jail?
It is hard to believe, isn't it?

>>After all this you presume to lecture Latin Americans on democracy?
>>Give me a break.
>
>Better yet, lets give you a lecture on democracy.
>
>>Edelmiro's opinions are nothing new in Latin America either.  In their
>>knee-jerk opposition to communism and subservience to the US, they are
>>mostly the views of the governing elites.
>
>You mean the democratically elected governing elites.  

Since when is the elite of a nation elected?  I will look forward to the
next Election of Elites in Peru.  Perhaps this time the criollos won't win--
maybe the Quechua will become the new elite this election!

If you're talking about elected *governments*, I'd say these have tended
to be *less* right-wing and less subservient to the U.S. than the dictators.

>Now I understand why 
>neo-communists are against neo-liberals in L.A.: they fear democracy will put 
>the masses in control, when in fact they should have some rebel anti yankee 
>dictator in touch with Havanna leading their cause.

A bit of a non sequitur, no es verdad?  Are you forgetting to take 
your lithium?

>>>In many ways, latin-america has been as politically
>>>close-minded as the countries in the middle-east.  They have a faith
>>>that the United States is the great Satan and that only through a
>>>marxist takeover can true salvation come.
>
>>Some Latin Americans may think this way, but most are more realistic.
>>They find much to admire in the U.S.  But that the U.S. is also a threat
>>to their sovereignty, to their economic development, and to their
>>democratic institutions, is not unfounded dogma but somber historical fact.
>
>Come on!  Why don't you quit this yankee guilt and simply admit that the 
>problems of these banana republics have simply been brought upon by no others 
>but themselves?

Because that would be nonsense.  Listen, I have a whole list of crimes
against freedom and against economic progress committed by Latin American
governments all by themselves.  But why close one's eyes to those committed
by the U.S. government?  
Newsgroups: soc.culture.latin-america