Basic HTML Version
~~PAPER
TIGER''
(Cont inued from page 6)
new approach when he wrote in a
1970 book,
Between Two Ages:
"To–
day the old framework of interna–
tional politics. . . . with spheres of
influence, military alliances between
na tion states, the
fiction
of sovereign–
ty, doctrinal conflicts arising from
19th-century crisis- is clearly no
longer compatible with reality."
Did the Soviet Union share this
new "reality"? Obviously not. But,
according to Brzezinski, that was
only because of the "delayed devel–
opment" of Soviet society. l t would
su rely "mature" to see things from
this new "global perspective" rather
than from traditional national self–
interest.
This erroneous belief that there
exists a common fundamental ap–
proach to world problems colors
everything the Administration does
with regard to the Kremlin. h sur–
faced during the recent Cuban crisis.
Mr. Carter decided not to press the
issue of the Soviet troops so as not to
endanger the SALT
11
treaty. The
entire issue, he claimed, is "certainly
no reason for a return to the cold
war. ... The greatest danger to all
the nations of the world is a break–
clown of a
common e.ffort
to preServe
the peace...."
But "can two walk together,
except they be agreed"? (Amos
3:3.)
Amorphous " Forces"
Along with this new approach to
Moscow carne a new approach to the
world in general: a type of fatalistic,
deterministic approach. No more
clear cause-and-effect relationships;
no rclative good versus obvious evil;
rather, a sort of "situation ethics"
approach to world affairs.
According to this philosophy,
people-especially people supported
by the Kremlin- are no longer
responsible for world tensions; rather
the tensions are dueto complex (nev–
er simplistic), difficult-to-grasp, im–
personal "forces."
The determination to see the world
in this view discourages an active
American response because the U.S.
40
is perceived as being powerless to
control these "forces," which are said
to be "searching for viable forms of
government."
In a remarkable article entitled
" Diétatorship and Double Stan-
\dards" in the November 1979 issue
of
Commentary,
Jeane Kirkpatrick,
a,
political scientist at Georgetown
University, writes: "Yiewed from this
leve! of abstraction, it is the 'forces'
rather than the people that count. So
what if the 'deep historical forces' at
work in such diverse places as Iran,
the Horn of Africa, Southeast Asia,
Central America, and the United
Nations look a lot like Russians or
Cubans?
"What can a U.S. President faced
with such complicated, inexorable,
impersona l processes do? The an–
swer, offered again and again by the
President and his top officials, is, not
much. Since events are not caused by
human decisions, they cannot be
stopped or altered by them.
Brzezinski, for example, has said:
'We recognize that the world is
changing under the influence of
forces no government can con–
trol. .. .'
"Where once upon a time an
American P\esident might have sent
Marines to assure the protection of
American strategic interests, there is
no room for force in tbis world of
progress and self-determination."
America, its citizens were told
officially, was "powerless" to in–
fluence deteriora ti ng events in l ran
that ultimately led to the downfall of
an American a lly in one of the most
strategic a reas of the world. As soon
as the Shah got in trouble, the U.S.
backed off, lest it be guilty of stand–
ing in the way of "forces" said to
reflect the true feelings of the
people.
The result? According to Dr. Kis–
singer, the collapse of the govern–
ment of lra n a nd exile of the Shah
resulted in " the biggestSoreign poli–
cy debacle of the United States in a
generation." He said the Shah's ous–
ter "shifted the balance of power in
the Middle East to radical forces."
America's fickleness toward the
Shah was evident in that only a year
earlier he had been praised by Mr.
Carter on a visit to Tehran for his
wise, "enfightened" rule over a
nation called at that time an "island
of stability" in a volatile part of the
world.
A similar situation occurred later
in the year in Nicaragua, when
Soviet and Cuban-backed guerrillas
r epresent in g themselves as the
"forces of democracy" launched an
all-out campaign against the govern–
ment of Anastasio Somoza. The
American response-to shrink back
from a government (however imper–
fect) it had earlier supported- was
the same.
Now the $andinista ·revolutionar–
ies are purging nonradical "counter–
revolutionaries" from their ranks.
In nearly every case, Washington
overestimates the power of the "mod–
erates" and "democrats" in the oppo–
sition movement and underestimates
the strength of the well-organized
Marxists or other radicals (the ones
who eventually come to the fore and
who have adopted a position hostile
to the U.S.).
"The American commitment to
change in the abs tract," says Kirkpa–
trick, "ends up by aligning us tacitly
with Soviet clients a nd irresponsible
extremists like the Ayatollah Kho–
maini, or in the end, Yasser Ara–
·rat."
T he same trend can be expected
elsewhere in the future-until the
United States is isolated without a
friend lcft in the world.
· " Misleaders " lnstead of Heroes
America's leadership has lost its way.
God, prophesying through the pen of
lsaiah, said:
" 0 ,
my people, your
leaders
mis/ead
you, and confuse the
course of your paths" (lsaiah 3: 12).
Of our society, God says that "the
whole head is sick, and the whole
heart faint. ... t-here is no soundness
in it" ( lsaiah 1:5-6). The "head"
means the government; the "heart"
refers to the "soul" of the country, its
na tiona l morale and character.
Domestically we have become–
and are proud to be, in a ll too many
cases- a perverse society ("They
proclaim their sin like Sodom, they
do not hide it"- lsaiah 3:9). As a
result of our appalling national sins,
God has taken away "the mighty man
and the soldier, the judge and the
The
PLAIN TRUTH