Basic HTML Version
PASTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, MAY 13, 1983
PAGE 8
voted this week not to cut off aid to El Salvador, but to give the President
less than what his experts feel is needed to do the job--with the additional
noose that the Salvadoran government enter into "unconditional" negotia
tions with the guerrillas.
At the same time, aid for anti-Sandinista
forces inside Nicaragua is assured only until the end of September--after
which time those trusting in U.S. support may simply be out of luck.
The United States once held fast to the Monroe Doctrine--a self-proclaimed
1823 manifest that warned European powers to henceforth stay out of the
Western Hemisphere. However, by declaring Soviet-supported Nicaragua "off
limits" the Congress not only pounds one more nail into the Monroe Doctrine
coffin, but unwittingly supports another doctrine--the Brezhnev Doctrine.
Explains THE WALL STREET JOURNAL in its May 11, 1983 lead editorial:
•••It seems that in its wisdom Congress has enacted the Brezhnev
Doctrine into U.S. public law. The Brezhnev Doctrine, originally
announced to justify the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in
1968, holds that once a nation has joined the Communist bloc it
cannot be allowed to change its mind. Congress' version, called
the Boland Amendment, prohibits covert aid "for the purpose" of
overthrowing the Sandinista junta.
A little guerrilla harassment is perfectly OK, in Congress' view,
so long as it doesn't become too serious. The U.S. can finance
and encourage anti-Sandinista Nicaraguans to take up guns and
risk their 1ives, so long as their purpose is not to reclaim
their country from Castroism, but merely to interdict arms
traffic to Marxist guerrillas elsewhere in Central America.••.
For our part, we see no reason in the world that the Brezhnev Doc
trine ought to supplant the Monroe Doctrine. Nothing could bring
peace to Central America so quickly as the overthrow of the
Sandinistas.
If there is a chance that this could be accom
plished through covert aid to a popular uprising, it would be
money very well spent indeed....
"The Hawk Is an Endangered Species"
When Britain's honor was at stake in the Falkland's crisis Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher--"the best man Britain has," many believe--immediately
committed her nation's military resources.
She didn't hesitate for a
minute in dispatching a force to fight a sea battle 8,000 miles from home in
the blustery South Atlantic.
Mrs. Thatcher--up for reelection on June 9 (she is expected to win, but one
third of the electorate is undecided)--is what one today calls a "hawk."
But do such creatures exist any longer in the United States? Peter R. Kann,
associate publisher of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, was moved to write an
outstanding opinion piece in the May 6, 1983 issue of his paper, entitled
"The Hawk is an Endangered Species." Mr. Kann said he looked everywhere-
in vain--for a true hawk. Instead, in the "national political aviary," he
could only find doves, peacocks and assorted other birds of peace such as
gnatcatchers, ravens, ostriches, warblers, cuckoos and albatrosses. Here
are excerpts from Mr. Kann's remarkably insightful article, which confirms,
in allegory form, the truth prophesied in Leviticus 26:19--that America has
indeed lost the pride of its power.