Readers are invited to address letters to: Comment, NACLA, 151 W. 19th Street, 9th floor, New York, NY 10011. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. Implicity Pro-Soviet In the May/June issue of the Report you present Sandinista foreign policy as a struggle for non-alignment. But is it not true that the Sandinista leader- ship supported martial law in Poland in December 1981 and January 1982? If so, it would certainly be pro-Soviet, not non-aligned. In any case, I missed reference to Poland in your article (while you did use the example of Af- ghanistan to support your own argu- ment). In general, the tone seemed implic- ity pro-Soviet, unlike the usual NACLA independence. For example, on page 16, "the Soviet Union has generally supported [non-alignment and the non-aligned movement]." This implicity accepts that the words of Soviet foreign policy are also its substance, and not a tool of its strug- gle with U.S. dominance. Paul Zarembka Editor, Research in Political Economy Buffalo, NY The authors respond: While it is true that the FSLN news- paper Barricada supported the impos- ition of martial law in Poland, it still appears to us that Professor Zarembka is guilty of the same fallacy of which he accuses us: namely, accepting that "the words" of Sandinista foreign policy are also its "substance." Nicaragua's efforts at non-alignment cannot be reduced to its position on the Polish Solidarity movement. As Zarembka suggests, rhetoric in inter- national forums is not usually the best yardstick for judging a nation's for- eign policy. Our analysis examined the pattern of Sandinista rhetoric and behavior and concluded that it did not com- promise Nicaragua's non-aligned status. Peru, for example, has fol- lowed Soviet votes in the United Nations more closely than has Nicaragua and it has received consid- erably more Soviet military equip- ment and assistance than Nicaragua, yet nobody in Washington questions Peru's non-aligned status or its right to exist. In the UN Nicaragua gener- ally votes with the Third World "Group of 77." Sometimes this means that it votes with the USSR, but not always. Nicaragua voted for the suspension of nuclear testing, while the USSR abstained. It voted with the United States for sending re- construction relief to Chad, which the USSR opposed. It has, as our Report pointed out, abstained on the Af- ghanistan issue and argued for non-in- tervention during the relevant debates. We stated in our supposedly pro- Soviet article that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan "challenges the Soviet commitment to its founding princi- ples" (p.16). Our statement that the USSR has generally supported non-alignment was not based simply on Soviet rhetoric, but on commonly accepted facts with which most scholars would agree. Since most countries which embraced non-alignment did so to dis- tance themselves from their former Western colonial masters, the USSR tended to view a country's entry into NAM favorably since it would be a loss for the West. This was not, of course, the case with Yugoslavia. In- deed, superpower approval or disap- proval of a country's non-alignment depends considerbly on that country's past status. While The New York Times, for example, recently dis- played alarm at the thought that An- dreas Papandreou might "try to run Greece into a non-aligned one-party state," it also called for "interna- tional pressure" to induce Cambodia "to permit a nonaligned, broadly- based regime." We are baffled by Professor Zarembka's assertion that "in gen- eral, the tone of our articles seemed implicitly pro-Soviet." While it is clear that there are, for Nicaragua, positive aspects of its relations with the USSR and its allies, there are also a number of negative aspects which we described in our articles. These in- clude the problems of poor quality socialist country technology (see pages 14, 43, 49); the socialist coun- tries' inability to pay hard currency for Nicaraguan products and their lack of flexibility in trade relations (p.43); the limited relevance of central plan- ning to Nicaragua's mixed economy and the "lack of comprehension" of some Eastern European economic ad- visers (p.48); and the higher interest rates of socialist country loans (p.42). We also noted that FSLN activists have a history of independence from Moscow-oriented Marxism (p.14, 20, 35). We assure Professor Zarembka that pro-Soviet publications are loathe to discuss these issues. Breaking New Ground I was extremely impressed by your excellent article on "Nicaragua and the Socialist Countries." In what was in my view the best issue of the Re- port in a long time, Marc Edelman's contribution stood out because of the major piece of original research on which it was based and for its reada- bility and persuasive line of analysis. Richard Gillespie Department of Politics, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, England. Legitimizing Despots? I would like to express strong ob- jections to the publication of "A Talk with Eric Gairy" (March/April). A progressive periodical should not pro- vide a forum for the despotic former dictator of Grenada, regardless of how amusing or "bizarre" you may find his comments. The legitimizing of a man judged by the international com- munity as a buffoon, whose name evoked fear in the hearts of Grenada's masses for more than two decades, would be expected from a right-wing think tank, not from NACLA. There are many pressing topics concerning Grenada. Dessima Wil- liams, Grenada's former ambassador to the OAS and a leading spokesper- son abroad for the Grenadian people's aspirations, has been harassed by U.S. immigration authorities and needs our support. INS has stated its intention to appeal a recent decision allowing her to remain in this coun- try-the same country which gave Gairy refuge for more than four years while the People's Revolutionary Government tried to extradite him to face criminal charges in Grenada. Doris Kitson New York, NY George Black responds: I am sorry that anyone should have taken the publication of Sir Eric Gairy's lunatic ramblings as "legitimizing" him editorially. But I am even sorrier that the Left seems so determined to add its own humorless- ness to the formidable list of real ob- stacles it already faces. As George Or- well once remarked, socialism is cer- tainly the answer, but its biggest prob- lem is "the dreary tribe of high- minded people" who flock to its cause. The greatest irony is that the revolutionaries in places like Gre- nada, who actually suffer under the likes of Gairy, invariably do so with more humor and equanimity than their pious supporters abroad. A quick con- versation with almost any former PRG official in St. George's will prove the point. Of course, Gairy's rule was corrupt and brutish, and most Grenadians spent it in abject poverty. Far more useful and disturbing, however, than invoking the "fear in the hearts of Grenada's masses," is to explore the baffling mystery of why, after four and half years of revolution, those same masses should have given 35% of the vote to this buffoon, who re- mains visibly the most popular politi- cian on the island. It was only the fear of Gairy's return to power that gave birth to Herbert Blaize's rickety U.S.- engineered alliance. And it is that same fear that is primarily responsible for keeping the alliance in one piece today. As we go to press, in fact, Blaize is being threatened by an all- out strike called by Gairy. The photograph on page five of our July/ August issue, "Mare Nostrum," was in- correctly credited. Our apologies to Rick Reinhard, who took the photo in Morazin, El Salvador.
