A recent radio commentary by a man who admitted to being an anti-Vietnam War agitator of the 1960s revealed the double standard and the self-deception practiced by the liberals. He admitted to being vociferously opposed to the governments of Presidents Diem and Thieu of South Vietnam, of the Shah in Iran, and of Somoza in Nicaragua.
This commentator is now trying to explain away to himself and to the public the facts that Vietnam and Iran have less democracy since their governments were overthrown, and that the same fate may be in store for Nicaragua in the post-Somoza era. The commentator’s name doesn’t really matter because his sentiments are typical of liberals generally.
The liberals carried on loud and long about the alleged dictatorship of elected President Diem of South Vietnam, and then later about the alleged dictatorship of elected President Thieu. But there weren’t any boat people trying to escape from Diem and Thieu. Today, South Vietnamese are desperately trying to escape their Communist dictators even though they know their chances of mere survival are only about one out of three, and their chances for a life as good as they knew under Diem or Thieu are only a fraction of that.
The liberals carried on a worldwide campaign against the alleged dictatorship of the Shah of Iran. Yet the interferences with personal freedom and privacy under the Ayatollah Khomeini are far worse than under the Shah, and Khomeini has executed hundreds after secret midnight trials.
We heard much about the dictatorship of Chiang Kai-Shek when he was on Mainland China, but we hear mighty little about the 50 million murders committed by the Communist regime which replaced him. We heard much about the so-called corrupt dictatorship of Batista in Cuba, but hear almost nothing about Castro’s Communist atrocities.
We heard a steady din about how repressive colonialism was when the Belgians ran the Congo, the French ran Algeria, and the Portuguese ran Angola and Mozambique. But the current native or Communist regimes are far more destructive of human rights and we hear little, if any, criticism of them.
The turn for the worse in all those unhappy countries can rightfully be blamed on the liberal activists and publicists. With their wide access to national media of large and influential circulation, and using their strong ties with the federal bureaucracy, the liberals helped to make the U.S. decisions that put our country’s policy on the side of overthrowing all those anti-Communist governments.
The most recent and outrageous example was Secretary of State Cyrus Vance publicly demanding the ouster of Somoza, the elected head of state of a friendly Central American government. Examples of how the U.S. State Department worked covertly to overthrow other anti-Communist dictatorships include the “let the dust settle” policy which cut off American aid to the Republic of China while Russia was aiding the Communists, and the “unleash the generals” cablegram which resulted in the murder of President Diem of South Vietnam.
The liberals may try to claim that they consistently oppose all dictatorships, but that argument won’t wash. They oppose anti-Communist dictatorships with a mighty roar, while they oppose Communist and pro-Communist dictatorships with a feeble whimper, if at all.
President Carter is demanding that Somoza resign, but makes no such demands on Castro even though Castro’s sins include sending troops to Africa and weapons to Nicaragua. Carter refuses to buy from Rhodesia even the chrome which we badly need because Ian Smith will not give one-man-one-vote to pro-Communist terrorists. But Carter goes to Vienna and publicly kisses Brezhnev who rules over one of the most repressive regimes in all history.
There is, indeed, a consistency in the liberals! and the Carter Administration’s foreign policy. Communist dictatorships are acceptable. But non-Communist dictatorships must be overthrown immediately, even if they will be replaced by a Communist dictatorship, terrorism, or anarchy.
