|Back to Index|
US Foreign Policy: Mexico and Central America
Fabio A Guarnieri comments: "I would like to clarify the position of the Catholic Church ( as a simple member). The Catholic Church is not a political party. So, each member is FREE to decide any TEMPORAL matter as she/he understands best, but following the Christian message. Although, sometimes, there are contradictions coming from lack of information, misunderstanding, weaknesses, etc."
My comment: This freedom apparently is limited, since the Church ordered the Jesuit priest to be silent.
Tim Brown, with whom Russ Bartley strongly disagrees, angrily retorts (we abbreviate): "The debate continues to fascinate. We are now exhorted to listen exclusively to what Marcos says in his propaganda, while ignoring both his actions and the history of all such similar events in Mexico's past, lest we reach false conclusions.
I have tried that for Castro, read only his pre-power propaganda statements. Based on what he promised, his was to be a freely elected representative democracy on the French model. I have done the same for Nicaragua's Sandinistas. Based on what they promised, theirs was to be a sterling democracy modeled on that of Costa Rica But if, instead of uncritically accepting propaganda at face value, I insist on looking at their actions, not words, then I become an unreconstructed Cold Warrior stuck in the past. Is it so wrong to learn from history? I don't think so. Later, when the Sandinistas had captured power, they claimed that it was American opposition that forced them against their will to become socialists. To buttress this argument, for decades they have insisted that theirs was an independent movement founded in Honduras by Carlos Fonseca Amador, and led by Nine Comandantes who were freely elected by their followers. They have also insisted that former Somoza dictatorship thugs hired by the CIA under orders from Ronald Reagan, represented no one but themselves and the Americans. These were key propaganda claims of the Sandinistas, each one a lie. And just in the last two weeks, every single one of them has been labeled as such, not by me or some other "unreconstructed Cold Warrior", but by those who know best. "
My comment: My impression is that Castro is more popular, or less unpopular among the Latin American masses than American-controlled globalization. I would like to see an objective survey. However misguided, this attitude expresses resentment at the failure of capitalism to remedy gross inequalities.
Ronald Hilton - 3/8/01