> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Nick Arnett > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:26 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Peaceful regime change (was Re: History lessons not learned?) > > - Philippines -- Corazon Aquino, with great support from churches, > defeated Marcos.
You do know that the US military also had a lot to do with this. They said that they would intervene to stop Marcos from killing the people demonstrating against him en mass. The US military had extensive contacts with the military of the Philippines at the time, and convinced them to disobey orders from Marcos. > - Poland -- Solidarity toppled the puppet Communists. ...but only after the US defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Poland and Czechoslovakia both failed before. If the Soviet Union was still a superpower, they would have followed the Brezhnev Doctrine and the Warsaw Pact would have intervened. It's not that there are not bloodless coups. But, well established totalitarian states, such as Iraq or North Korea, or China, or the USSR do not change quickly, simply as a result of internal forces. 50-75 years is fairly common. Revolving door dictatorships that are non-totalitarian do present other opportunities. > > In 1989 and 1990, 14 nations underwent revolutions, all successful except > China and all nonviolent except Romania. They involved 1.7 billion > people. The fall of the Soviet Union was unbelievable peaceful. The idea of containment of the Soviet Union actually worked very well. But, even if one doesn't like Reagan, I think one has to admit that the small chance the Soviet Union had to overtake Western Europe with conventional forces when they were failing was one factor that helped keep it peaceful. And, the world was very lucky that the coup against Gorbachov (sp) failed....if it succeeded, the Soviet Union might have gone with a bang, instead of a whimper. When they failed, they were spending 45% of their GDP on the military, and still falling further and further behind the US. The Soviet Union's failure was, as predicted, inevitable as long as the US contained the Soviet Union. The US made plenty of mistakes in the Cold War, and there were times when nuclear war was a 50%-50% chance, but the combination of luck and skill allowed us to win the Cold War. But, the victory involved many proxy conflicts as well as the threat to bring on Armageddon if the Soviet Union invaded Western Europe. For a good fraction of the Cold War, the assessment was that the NATO would not be able to stop the Warsaw Pact with conventional weapons only. So, I don't think one can divorce the democratization of Eastern Europe from the US winning the Cold War. The latter is the cause of the former. > Yet our history books focus on war as the mechanism of change. It seems > that history books are not much different from television, in that they'll > focus on the dramatic at the expense of the peaceful. It's probably true that wars are overplayed and the events leading up to wars and following wars are underplayed. But, I think that it is a good general rule that one will not overthrow a dictator who got his job by killing the person who was in charge before without force. > Ghandi, King showed that we can provoke non-violent conflict and bring > about change. There is an interesting King quote on this problem. He has said: "if your opponent has a conscience, then follow Gandhi. But if you enemy has no conscience, like Hitler, then follow Bonhoeffer." Gandhi showed courage when he laid on railroad tracks to stop a train. But, he had good reason to believe that the British were likely to stop. Ritu may have input on this, but I know that Gautam is convinced that the Germans, French, or Italians wouldn't. That's one of the reasons that many upper class Indians are Anglophiles...at least according to Gautam. I think the King quote is a very good summary of the question. South Africa was peaceful, after 100 years of rule, because the president at the time had a conscience. The US in the '50s and '60s did too. But, the leaders of the Sudan don't. They will stop the genocide if and only if it is in their own self interest. The world won't intervene seriously, because the minority who runs the country are Arab, while the majority that are being killed are black Africans...and the Arabs have more oil than the black Africans. > What seems to be often lost is that this happens far more often > than most of us are aware, so we imagine that violence is the only path to > peace. We imagine that the world relies on the most militarily powerful > nations to be peacekeepers for the oppressed, only because we fail to > recognize the many instances of non-violent revolution, which is a kind of > story that doesn't play for long on the news. I think it also depends on the timetable that is acceptable. In places like the Philippines, South Korea, or Taiwan, the leaders were not as interested in spying on every citizen as they were in, say, East Germany...where about 25% of the population was paid to spy on someone. While the US didn't do enough to stop political oppression, it was a moderating force. In these instances, peaceful change did turn out to be the best. In Eastern Europe, the US couldn't intervene militarily without starting WWIII. So, it had to wait for the fall of the USSR. In Tibet, the US was not able to intervene....and it is still waiting for China to change its policy. It may need to wait a lot longer. In essence, the question is whether it is reasonable to wait decades for the change to occur. I think that Gandhi waiting was a good decision...given the fact that, with a few exceptions, the British rule was not particularly violent. But, in cases like Cambodia, the Balkans, Rwanda, or the Sudan, not intervening means accepting genocide as the lesser evil. It may actually be the lesser evil sometimes. I don't mean to dismiss those who argue that military intervention is wrong. But, I do think it is imperative that people accept the moral repercussions of their preferred choice with open eyes. Because we didn't intervene in Rwanda when we could have, almost a million people died. The US could have, by violating the international law that protected the genocidal government, stopped the genocide. I think we should have. Hundreds of thousands of lives in my mind are more important than the international laws that protect genocidal government. (I wrote hundreds of thousands because I assumed that we would have intervened only after there was strong evidence that genocide had started.) But, in other instances, standing by while thousands are killed may be the lesser evil compared to getting stuck in a quagmire without a plan for getting out of it....while others die as a result. In short, I think that we have hard decisions when we decide whether or not to use force against another country. The morality of it is dependant on what is likely to happen when each path is chosen. IMHO, Bush's belief that Iraq would be a cakewalk once Hussein was defeated is an error that is the mirror reflection of the erroneous view that gentle persuasion and then diplomatic arm twisting will straightforwardly produce results. The present situation in Iran illustrates this to me. Bombing Iran's nuclear facilities will delay, not stop them. It is clear that China and Russia do not consider sanctions against Iran to be in their self interest. So, the UN will do nothing substantial on this. If Iran does not choose the carrots that are offered (bribes if you will) to not go forward with nuclear weapons design, then they will have a bomb in 2-10 years...and probably a delivery system that will reach Europe in the 5-10 year time frame (definitely one that will reach Israel). My fearless prediction is that Iran will only accept a deal that will allow them to cheat while getting bribed...otherwise, they will go ahead and develop nuclear weapons with no negative consequences. My further fearless prediction is that there will be a nuclear attack by a smallish dictatorship within the next 25 years, with a few cities turned to glass. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
