The Death of the Reagan Doctrine

The Reagan doctrine for US-Latin American relations has died.

With the democratic electoral win for the FMLN in El Salvador, the Latin American left dominates politics throughout Central and South America. The FMLN in El Salvador. The Sandinistas in Nicaragua. The South American left wing governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay and other nations.

Back in the 1980's, a dominant part of Reagan's foreign policy was to support right wing dictators and right wing death squads in Latin America to topple existing left wing governments (e.g. Nicaragua) or to prevent a left wing take over (e.g. El Salvador). The atrocities Reagan was willing to accept from his proxies were disgusting. The rape and murder of nuns. The destruction of entire villages. Torture and terrorism worse than anything Saddam Hussein ever perpetrated. And remember that Reagan was even willing to deal with Iran in order to keep weapons flowing to his brutal anti-communist proxy armies.

Many of the civil wars this policy perpetuated were horrific affairs. Possibly none more so than the civil war in El Salvador. Reagan's policies in Latin America represent something of a low point for American foreign policy and was responsible for a great deal of hatred worldwide against America. It was part of the decline in respect that many people around the world had for America because we were willing to tolerate atrocities in the name of fighting communism and we were willing to violate US law and international law.

Now across Latin America left wing governments are being democraticly elected. These elections are the model of fairness according to observers. The governmetns elected are popular and are improving the conditions for the average citizen at least when compared with the practices of the right wing governments they replace, though often that standard is rather low.

Left wing governments are not all the same. In the 1980's the Sandinistas were reasonably moderate, tolerating considerable dissent within Nicaragua, although their policies towards the Miskito Indians was similar to that of any colonial-derived government towards a native population. In America we were told lies about the Sandinistas and the brutal contra rebels were called freedom fighters (Note: many elements of the contras were brutal right wingers...some elements were not and were more moderate...Reagan did not distinguish between these elements). In the end, the Sandinistas called elections, lost fair and square, and surrenderec power peacefully. To me that was the ultimate denunciation of Reagan's policies. His biggest bugbear, the Sandinistas, had proven to be accepting of true democracy.

The FMLN were a different breed. The right wing government they were fighting was far worse, arbitrarily murdering, raping and destroying villages. But the FMLN were more than willing to use brutality as well. I never trusted the FMLN, though I did see them as at least marginally better than the government they were fighting. But I always wondered if they were more likely to behave like the Khmer Rouge than the Sandinistas. But however they were back then, that was 20 years ago. I never expected that the Salvadoran civil war could ever be peacefully ended because of the brutality on both sides. The desire for revenge would, I thought, be too great. Yet a peace agreement was signed and kept by both sides for 20 years. And now a peaceful, democratic change of government has occurred with the FMLN now taking power. And the leader of that faction of the FMLN has shown considerable moderation since the civil war days.

I am not pro-communism. I do not believe communism is, in any pure form, a viable economic system and is almost synonymous with dictatorship as a government system. This does not mean I automatically support any right wing dictator who says he's anti-communist. Far right wing dictators, whether Samoza in Nicaragua, Pinochet in Chile, or the right wing governments of Guatamala and El Salvador in th 1980's, are often far worse than all but the most brutal of communist governments. No one can beat the brutality of the Khmer Rouge or North Korea. But many right wing dictators do their best to out do these communist regimes both for keeping their people in poverty and for brutality. I believe in mixed economies like in Western Europe and democratic systems of government. One party states of either the left or the right are generally pretty bad. But what we are seeing in Latin America is a true interplay between left and right in fair democratic elections (even in Venezuela, from what independent observers say) with sometimes the right winning, and sometimes the left winning. THAT is the true victory and is the true defeat of the Reagan doctrine which generally supported dictatorships. I should note it also is the defeat of the Krushchev doctrine, if I may call it that, that wanted a spread of left wing dictatorships. Instead of either the left or the right winning, we have democracy winning with two or multi-party systems and fair elections. And in general, possibly with Hugo Chavez aside, the left wing governments elected today are more moderate than they would have been in the 1980's, both economically and in style of government.

I believe that electoral battles between left and right with neither side permanently winning is the best system because it balances the two doctrines while avoiding the tendency towards dictatorship both the left and the right have. So congratulations to Latin America for overcoming the Cold War years where the Reagan and Krushchev doctrines supported the worst of both left and right. Congratulations to democracy for ultimately defeating the ditatorial tendencies of both the left and the right and for moderating those who fought in those bad old days of Cold War driven civil war.