A Thinking Reed

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal

Making omelettes

I’m willing to agree that, other things being equal, a pro-capitalist dictator would be preferable to a pro-communist dictator, but I’m not quite sure what this editorial from the Washington Post is supposed to be getting at. Even granting, for the sake of argument, that Pinochet deserves some credit for the Chilean “economic miracle,” does it follow that the US should’ve aided and abetted the overthrow of a democratically elected government, earning complicity for the ensuing reign of terror to boot? That seems like “ends justify the means” reasoning of a pretty base kind. Why not follow a “hands off” policy that allows other countries to determine for themselves whether they’ll be capitalist or communist or whatever?

UPDATE: The Economist does much better than the Post.

3 responses to “Making omelettes”

  1. Elliot

    Reasons of money and power? Opening up American markets?
    That’s all I can think of.

    Reply
  2. Thuloid

    Well, “things were different during the Cold War” seems like a bit of a worn excuse, but there is something to it. At minimum, it helps to understand the reasoning behind certain actions–it’s one thing to allow a given nation, in today’s world, to determine its own fate, and quite another to say that self-determination is an absolute when our experience with nations that “choose” to go communist was that they did so with significant (and often violent) help from other communist states, and having become communist tended to serve as launching pads for the futher (often violent) spread of that ideology into neighboring countries. This is not to say that every dark fantasy of the domino theory was founded, nor that all turns toward communism were of the same sort–but I think it’s worth pointing out that the stakes were seen as much more than just US markets or power.

    Consider the possibility of a Taliban-like regime being elected in a country, from where we expect the same ideology to be exported to neighbors. Would the US be wise in standing by and allowing enemies to multiply in this fashion, or would action exacerbate the problem? Even if it would not, would it be justifiable for the US (or another country of similar outlook and means, also held up as a focus for violent jihad) to act, knowing that the will of the majority in one country was most certainly being thwarted? So there seems to be significant downside to inaction (maybe less significant than the downside to action, but that’s often hard to tell).

    Reply
  3. jack perry

    I guess I’ll take the role of devil’s advocate. I don’t take this all too seriously, but I want to see what response it gets.

    From what I’ve read, Allende himself was preparing some sort of strike against the government at the time of the coup. The popular notion that he was a peaceful, beloved leader is quite mistaken, much as the popular notion that Cuba has seen nothing but happiness and prosperity under Castro’s regime, but for the nasty US’ economic sanctions. Allende had not won a majority of the electorate; within two or three years his leadership had sparked so many strikes that he virtually destroyed the country’s economy; civil unrest was widespread; the Chilean Supreme Court had ruled that Allende was ruling outside the law; and more. Wikipedia’s article on Allende directly states that the US did not aid and abet the overthrow, but aided and abetted the overthrowers once they were in office. Kissinger is quoted as telling Nixon, “We didn’t do it.”

    As for following a “hands off” policy, what course of policy should we pursue when other major powers seek to influence the government of a country? The Soviet Union, along with its proxies in Latin America, was actively funding revolutionary governments and subverting capitalist regimes at the time. Chile was one such place. It’s one thing to say that we shouldn’t interfere in the people’s clear, legitimate choices, but what does one do when the people have made no clear, legitimate source—and someone you know is an enemy seeks to subvert the process?

    Reply

Leave a comment