Finding the Blame

2001-10-13 20:38:00

Larry,
Time prevents me from giving a full explanation of your questions. I wish to finish my writing in this series and move back to the Alice A. Bailey writings. I sense an impatient vibration with some of our readers.

If this banter continues I will take it to the Shoot the Breeze forum as Rick recommends.

I will cover a few things and then hope to discuss this subject in more detail the next time we meet face to face. I feel confident at that time that we will see eye to eye.

There is a point of importance to consider in understanding what I am trying to do here. I am not attempting to whitewash the United States because of some misplaced patriotism or allegiance. Even though it may appear that way to some, the fact is I am attempting to get at the truth no matter where that lies.

If the United States is at fault on a matter I am willing to accept this, but neither will I accept blame, just because the majority believes it so.

Every nation on the planet makes some good decisions and bad decisions. Because the U.S. is considered to be imperialistic by some, China considered to be communistic by others, or some nation even seen as the beast should not prejudice us into seeing all their decisions as through a jaundice eye.

The key to understanding my point is that there is a major difference between making a good decision and then how that decision is carried out.

A decision can be pure, holy and just, but if it is carried out by the ruthless means of the beast then disaster can often be the result.

Even so, the United States often has made good decisions in supporting the lesser of two evils, but the means to carry out those decisions have often been through the unjust authority of the beast.

That said I will make some comments on your posts.

Larry:
In my view the facts you have presented are very one sided and superficial, leading mostly to a self justifying rationalization of American actions. That is how I see it.

JJ:
Instead of saying my facts are "superficial" or I am "rationalizing" I would appreciate examples instead that point such things out. It is difficult to counter generic allegations.

If you search the internet you find that about 99% of all writings condemn the United States for its stand against the government of Allende. Remember what I said about taking what the vast majority are saying and then looking in the opposite direction for the truth?

The conclusions that you have reached here are similar to those reached by close to 100% of those posting this type of data on the internet.

When I see this I always ask the question - what's the other side to the story? Everyone sings praises for Allende and condemns Pinochet. While it is obvious that Pinochet was a ruthless leader that needs to be prosecuted, perhaps there is more to the story than meets the eye.

I did some research and discovered, as I usually do, that neither side is giving the clear picture and the point of truth in the middle is completely ignored.

The United States and other nations involved were justified in their decision to influence a change in government, but were incorrect in the means to achieve that end.

On the other hand, Allende was not this innocent angel that the enemies of the United States paint him out to be. He was largely responsible for creating the political situation that made a Pinochet possible.

Larry:
In the first place what was implemented in Chile was not, technically speaking, communism. It was a democratically elected socialist government.

JJ:
This is not a correction of what I said, but in agreement with it.

Allende indeed ran as a socialist, but he personally saw no difference between Marxism and socialism. There were many hard line Marxists in his government coalition who believed that he was progressing too slowly toward communism. Some of these felt that the main reason they had such financial disaster was because Allende was too timid about converting the country to a second Cuba.

Near the end of Allende's rule there was actually a competition between him and Pinochet for control of the military. Now why did Allende want to become the head of the military if he was merely interested in democratic rule?

What would have happened if the military had thrown its support behind Allende?

I think the same thing would have happened on the left as happened on the right under Pinochet. If Allende didn't have the stomach to put thousands of dissidents to death then he would have been replaced by hard-liners who would have and it is quite possible that Chile would have become a second Cuba under Soviet control.

It is also possible that this would have shifted the balance of power to the degree that the Soviet Union would not have fallen.

Little things can often make a major difference. Remember the effect of 130 votes in Florida?

Larry:
Another example of a democratic socialist government is Sweden.

JJ:
Yes, but the correspondence is weak because the Swedish government has not (to my knowledge) stolen business investments from other nations, nor has it stolen property from its own people as did Allende's government.

Sweden's socialism has certainly produced problems that you can read about at: http://home.nuclei.com/phil/evil/sweden.html

Larry:
It may be the case that Allende did not receive a majority of the vote, but then given the political fragmentation of Chile at that time no candidate was likely to achieve a straightforward majority. In any case he was elected democratically in free elections, a process which you admire.

JJ:
Yes, the process of free elections is the best we can get, but there is safety in the two party system. Hitler was elected by a minority just as Allende was within a framework of numerous parties. In this situation you can get an extremist elected which can run the country contrary to the will of the people and destroy democracy.

Larry:
However the greatest flaw in your argument is the claim that American investments in Chile and other South American countries could serve as a moral justification for overthrowing a democratic government, even one founded on socialist principles.

JJ:
Again, you need to argue with what I say, not with what I do not say.

I said that the theft by Chile of our businesses justifies our nonsupport for the government and the support of alternatives. I did not use the word "moral" or "overthrowing."

I stated that the means we used was not right but the withdrawal of support from a hostile nation is.

Do you really think it is OK for a nation to break its agreements with us and steal our businesses from us without compensation? If so where do you draw the line? Do you also think Allende was right in stealing from his own people, in confiscating land from the rich (at first) and later the not-so-rich?

He who will steal from the wealthy will steal from the poor. Neither is right.

If a friend stole your car after you trusted him with it, would you sit back and do nothing, merely because he needs it more than you do (in his opinion)?

It sounds like you're saying here that the United States should just sit back and let whoever desires, to steal from them wholesale? If you are not thinking this then you probably do not disagree with my position to begin with and this conversation is moot.

Larry:
Consider for a moment the reality of many South American countries where a tiny minority of the very rich control most of the land and resources while the vast majority live in poverty. A recurring theme of South American politics in the last century has been calls for a more equitable redistribution of land and resources and the brutal methods used by those in power to suppress popular political movements that call for fairness.

JJ:
This problem always occurs in the natural evolution of a country away from the totalitarian consciousness and into the democratic consciousness.

The temptation is to solve the problem by stealing from the rich and give to the poor. The Bolshevik Revolution attempted to do this and created Communism which was a greater evil than unjust control by wealth.

The key is to guide change, not force change. Change as a result of force and theft always creates a greater evil.

If mankind would cease attempting to force others to do good then an age of peace would be just around the corner.

Larry:
Into that equation comes American businesses and interests that have repeatedly taken a stand to support the very rich and landed interests in South America for their own selfish profit and gain while the American government has helped to train the very death squads used by those landed interests to suppress unionist and agrarian reform movements.

JJ:
Why do you call American businesses selfish? Do you not make a profit from your labor? Is that also selfish? Maybe it is, but it is a necessary selfishness.

Like it or not people do not go into business to feed the poor. That is the job of other benevolent ventures. Since businesses are in business to make money then they have to work where the money is, not where the money is not.

Successful business enterprises wind up helping everyone eventually, but if we had no business at all the alternative is for all to be poor. Not desirable at all.

Training secret death squads is, of course, to be condemned no matter who does it.

Larry:
Unfortunately the equation is not nearly as simple as you have made it appear. It is not simply a case of capitalism vs. socialism (or communism). It is not a simple case of evil socialist governments wanting to nationalize (steal) the honest profits of American corporations and therefore the life savings of small investors.

JJ:
The problem is simple, but I have never stated it is merely "capitalism vs. socialism (or communism)." Again, please argue with what I do say, not with what I do not say. Many of the points with which you think you are in disagreement with me are not disagreements at all.

There are two main points I make around the above:

(1) When a nation or individual is stolen from he has the right to use just influence to get his property back.

(2) If a nation sees that another nation is a threat to its freedom it has the right to use just influence to change the situation.

You site case after case of unjust influence as if this disagrees with what I say. It does not. I do not support unjust measures to create change, even if it seems for the better.

But to be stolen from or have a threat to your freedom arrive at the door and do nothing about it to prevent it from happening borders on insanity.

Larry:
But it is not free enterprise when American corporations combine with repressive governments controlled by a small minority of landed interests to extract illegitimate profits. In my view that is not a legitimate practice of free enterprise.

JJ:
In many countries the choice is not whether to join with a repressive or free government for there is no good government. The choice is whether to join with a repressive government or do nothing. As Melva said, it is often the case that the people are happy to make any money at all and do not desire these "evil" corporations to withdraw. Maybe the laborer is only making $1.00 a day, but that is much better than the $0.00 a day he would make without the job.

Allende's government thought the simple solution was to just steal the assets of the evil U.S. corporations and declare that the wages would be higher. This immediate windfall worked for about a year, but after two years everyone was in much worse shape than ever. After three years Allende's government printed tons of illegal money which caused inflation to hit 500% and set the scene for a military takeover because of the discontent. I believe there would have been a major showdown with or without U.S. involvement.

As I said - without Allende there would have been no Pinochet.

Larry:
For example take United Fruit Co., an American owned company that has made great profits by collaborating with landed interests in many poor South American countries. That company benefits when the governments of those countries use death squads to murder those who would organize unions to at least attempt to bargain for better wages. Similarly American companies benefited when death squads in Chile tortured and murdered political opponents on the left after the American CIA sponsored overthrow of the government of Salvador Allende.

It is not legitimate free enterprise when the profits are tinged with the blood of people murdered by repressive governments.

JJ:
You seem to blaming the businesses (and many businesses from other nations are involved besides the U.S.) for these death squads which are not as rampant as you make it sound. If the CIA sponsors some death squad as you say then some businesses may benefit and others may not. Whatever the case the subversive government involved incurs the responsibility, not the businesses. Not unless a business gives some direct payoff to the government for a subversive act.

After the 911 catastrophe we had many people call our sign company wanting American Flags. Are we evil for selling them and taking "advantage" of the disaster or are we just performing a service as usual?

In my view it is service as usual.

Larry:
But the point is quite simple. There is a clear pattern of American investment in South America that has sided with powerful landed interests at the expense of fairness to the majority of the people of those countries. American interests have repeatedly sided with repressive governments in South America for the sole selfish purpose of enriching a few.

JJ:
Correction. The purpose of business is to make a profit for the company as a whole. Their purpose is not to enrich a few or the many, but to enrich the company. This is the way business has always been and will be for some time to come. The Molecular Business will eventually replace this process, but for the immediate future we must just accept what is and, make the best of it.

Larry:
In support of this the American government has pursued a totally immoral policy of training South American military officers in the School of the Americas and the graduates of that school have been shown time and time again to be the leaders of death squads that have murdered countless opponents of repressive governments.

JJ:
I agree this is immoral, but you cannot blame the actions of the government on business. What the government does is the government's responsibility.

Larry:
In short I do not believe that your arguments are valid and for the most part constitute a rationalization and whitewashing of the actions of American interests in South American in the 20th century.

JJ:
You use some nebulous words here. Valid? Which argument is not valid?

Where did I rationalize? I place blame on the government where it deserves blame, but where it does not deserve it I defend it from blame. I seek the truth wherever that will take us. "Whitewashing" indicates some type of distortion to make things look better than they are. I think this is an unjust criticism as I seek to present things as they are.

Larry:
It is undoubtedly true that many American companies have operated with integrity in South America, however a few very large and powerful ones with connections to the darker side of the American government have greatly stained America's image in South America and many American interests have consistently acted with clear beastly intent in South America (and other parts of the world).

JJ:
I agree with this statement. A few have been obnoxiously selfish, but business is selfish. Selfishness is what makes it work here and abroad to a great extent. But why just dwell on the negative? Many businesses have provided valuable training to numerous individuals in third world countries that will lay the foundation for a future time when their quality of life will exceed that of the present United States.

Larry quotes me as follows: "The answer is simple. In spite of backsliding, the United States and many other democratic countries seek to preserve the gains in freedom, social and scientific progress and free market prosperity that we have achieved for ourselves and the free world."

To this Larry responds:
Again a simple, but wrong answer. The citizens in the United States have sought to preserve their own freedom, progress, and prosperity without much real concern as to how much of the third world fared. Americans have been more than willing to support a system that gave them inexpensive jeans made in sweat shops in Bangladesh and the little plastic toys that come in McDonalds "Happy Meals" often made by slave labor in China. Yes, Americans have voiced the ideals of freedom and democracy but they have done little to influence how their government acts around the world. When Americans vote they generally vote for politicians that first and foremost promise them greater prosperity and wealth and foreign policy rarely comes into the equation, unless it is the willingness to protect American financial interests around the world (regardless of whether or not the governments we support are bloody dictatorships).

JJ:
This may be true, but it does not explain why my answer is wrong. It isn't in our power to just give or take away freedom from these foreign countries. They must attain it for themselves. In the meantime we do seek to preserve our own gains in freedom.

Larry quotes me as follows:
"Some wonder why we supported Saddam Hussein when he turned out to be such a threat to peace...Saddam desired our help and we desired to give it in order to diffuse a bothersome enemy. There was no way to know he would turn out the way he did."

Larry responds again:
I think this is a rationalization. Although everything cannot be proven in every detail, there is much evidence that Hussein was an assassin trained and cultivated by our very own CIA and those in the inner sanctums of government had every reason to know exactly what kind of brutal murderer that he was (and is).

JJ:
As you say, we do not know this is true. We had reasons to be suspicious, but even Djwahl Khul says the Masters cannot predict human behavior. Who would have thought that Pinochet, the ruthless tyrant, would have returned Chile to free elections?

Larry:
Also Iran might not have been our enemy if that same CIA had not helped to overthrow another democratically elected government in Iran in the 1950s to replace it with another brutal dictator (the "Shah" of Iran).

JJ:
The CIA cannot overthrow any government unless there is already a large percentage of the people who desire it as evidenced by the fact that Saddam Hussein remains in power.

The fact was that Iran was a hostile state in the days of Jimmy Carter and we had to deal with it. Thinking of what could have been does not alter what we have to do with a current reality.

Should the Allies have lain down and let Hitler run over them because they once financed him, not aware of his intentions?

Larry:
Actually you did not choose one of the "most infamous accusations". One of the most infamous accusations against the United States is that it has actively trained South American officers that were later shown to have led death squads in their own countries.

JJ:
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I was talking about accusations of unjust support of dictatorships. Chile is one of the two or three most discussed.

Larry:
The accusation is that the US sponsored School of the Americas at Ft. Benning, Georgia served the role of training South American military officers in diverse areas such as counterinsurgency, interrogation, and torture. It is no accident that this school was located next to one of America's premier training grounds for "special forces". Whatever the truth, it is an indisputable fact that many of the graduates of that school have participated in horrendous human rights violations.

JJ:
What you say may be true. I have not received verification. If you are right then yes, this should be condemned except in the case that our very survival is at stake.

This has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of anything I have presented. Why are you bringing it up?

Larry:
Of all the examples we have discussed so far Chile is about the only one with a happy outcome, eventually. Therefore for you to claim that you have given a "glimpse of the whole picture" is largely illusion in my view. You have simply "cherry picked" the one case where eventually a decent outcome was realized and ignored the majority where there has been no happy ending.

JJ:
My friend, I did not "cherry pick." I sincerely picked what I thought was the most difficult example and analyzed it.

I do not have time to cover all the cases where the United States is accused of supporting evildoers. I picked one, and even that would take a book to cover in detail. There's no way either you or I can do any of these cases justice as far as supplying all the details.

We do what we can with the time we have.