If there's one thing that Atkins, Mora, and Hey have taught me, it's that Reagan was completely mad. After so much tragedy and death in Central America, you'd think that any plan that proposed not only peace but democratic reform would be a boon to the stability of the Central American region and, by extension, the United States. To be sure, it turned out that Arias's plan for Central American peace was successful, but only after so much resistance from Washington.
I'm obviously not well-versed on this situation, but the first appearance is that the U.S. failed to act properly to promote peace, instead sticking to its own arrogant anti-Communist zeal and prolonging the death and devastation of the Central American region.
As always, there are two sides to every story. If anyone knows why Reagan's barriers to peace are defensible, please help me to form a better image of that president in my mind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Because what you are referring to as Reagan's barriers to peace were really Reagan's efforts to ensure peace. The Arias plan represented a compromise or an appeasement of a regime that was perceived by some as clearly not committed to the principles of freedom and individual rights. Hence, a "peace" plan of this sort, was too risky a plan to support.
Furthermore, legitimizing the Sandinistas in Nicaragua through this peace plan would be an intolerable risk to US security by endorsing a regime clearly hostile to the US and thus paving the way to perhaps even greater assaults on U.S. security and freedom.
Post a Comment