12.13.08
My Comments on Waltzing With a Dictator
I have to return the library book I checked out called, Waltzing With a Dictator, the Marcoses and the Making of American Policy by Raymond Bonner as it has come due. Fortunately, I finally finished reading it about a week ago and will say that I am glad that I read the book. While Bonner’s book helped to give me a better understanding of what the Marcoses did in the Philippines, it also helped me to understand a little more of how the American government works in regards to foreign relations. While I may not completely like how and why the U.S. acts the way it does towards foreign countries, it helps to understand “why” it act as it does.
When I first started to read Bonner’s book, I thought it was going to be mainly about the Marcoses and the U.S involvement with the Philippines. However, as the book progressed it became clearer that Bonner was not only focusing on the Marcoses and what they had done, but also on the U.S. government and how it operates, in general. Bonner explained his purpose for writing the book more clearly in his Author’s Note. He wrote that there was one word that propelled him to write the book, and that word was, “Why?” That is, “Why is it that the United States so often supports dictators?” His following paragraph explains how he embarked on writing Waltzing With a Dictator.
“At one point Jonathan Segal, my editor at Times Books, suggested a book that would look at five dictators who have ruled with America’s support: Batista, Diem, the shah, Somoza, and Marcos. I said, Why not focus on Marcos, as a case study about U.S. relations with dictators? Jon saw the value of such a book immediately, and along the way he was always there.”
The answer to Bonner’s question of “why” does the U.S. often support dictators boiled down to whether the dictator was pro-American or not. Never mind violations of human rights or whether democracy is being undermined in those countries ruled by dictators, so long as those dictators were pro-American and anti-Communist. Communism was the buzz word that rallied the U.S. to send arms and financial support to dictators to fight against Communists, but today it seems the buzz word is now “terrorism.” In addition, if the dictators supported the U.S. economic and political agenda, again, hang human rights or democracy, they would get support. I felt sad to come to that understanding, but it helped to fit some pieces together for me. Bonner obviously does not come from a conspiracy theory angle, but rather approaches from angle of errors of human judgment.
So again, while I realize that we don’t live in a perfect world, it helps to understand it a bit to know where to stand. I find it humbling as well as a reinforcement to be cautious of being “proud” since so often we Americans are encouraged to be “proud to be American.” Are there any really good governments doing what they ought? Reading about governments and how they behave made me think of “what is the purpose of a king (or ruler, in our case)?” Is our government, our rulers doing what it should? As usual, I like to see what the Bible has to say about it. Proverbs 31:9 gives some insight regarding the duty of kings.
“Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.”
To give it a bit more background, I’d like to quote a few verses about Proverbs 31:9, starting with Proverbs 31:3-9:
3 do not spend your strength on women,
your vigor on those who ruin kings.4 “It is not for kings, O Lemuel—
not for kings to drink wine,
not for rulers to crave beer,5 lest they drink and forget what the law decrees,
and deprive all the oppressed of their rights.6 Give beer to those who are perishing,
wine to those who are in anguish;7 let them drink and forget their poverty
and remember their misery no more.8 “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
for the rights of all who are destitute.9 Speak up and judge fairly;
defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
The gist of those verses, from my understanding is that the duty of the king is to advocate for the poor and needy. When I think of it for a moment, it makes a lot of sense because often times, the poor and the needy are trampled underfoot by the rich and the powerful. Often times the poor can’t even read or write to even know their rights, and through their ignorance are taken advantage of by the rich. An example that comes to mind are the American Indians. They knew nothing about the laws and rights of land ownership, and thus were forced to give up their lands unknowingly. A rich man can take a poor man to court and put him through the wringer because his lawyers and advocates know the law, but who is there to protect the poor, illiterate? Likewise with the Marcoses in the Philippines when the farmers worked for $2 a day, while Imelda spent literally “millions of dollars” in “one” day for useless items such as jewelry and furniture. Innocent people (such as those who have opposed dictators) have often been imprisoned without due process, but due to circumstances such as lack of knowledge of the laws or lack of finances, are unable to defend themselves. According to Proverbs 31, it seems that our rulers should be protecting those who are poor and needy so that they are not taken advantage of by the rich. They should be advocating for the poor. Do our rulers do that? Yes, they send financial aid to foreign countries, but does it end up helping the poor and needy, or just the dictators? History has shown that it has been the dictators who have often benefited from the aid, not the poor.
Bonner wrote that as a result of the oppression of the poor, Communism, the very thing that the U.S. was trying to avert, gained a foothold in the Philippines. While the dictators were busying lavishing themselves and their cronies with the country’s wealth, the Communists actually came in and helped the poor by building roads and schools. So naturally, the poor started turning in favor of the Communists because they were actually seeing their help. Did the poor really know what Communism really was all about? I doubt it. I think what the people wanted was to have enough to live. I remember reading John Kerry’s testimony known as the Winter Soldiers. He said something to the effect that when they got to Vietnam, what they found was that the farmers just wanted to live and till their land. So they helped whoever came because they wanted protection. They may have harbored Communists, but it likely wasn’t because they agreed with their philosophy, but because they wanted protection. Yet whole villages would be wiped out because they were harboring Communists. It was Bonner’s contention that wealth should be spread to avoid discontentment between the social classes. Upon reflecting on the idea of “spreading the wealth,” I find that there needs to be more clarification of what it means to spread the wealth. Bonner explained it this way when discussing the ousting of Marcos and what lay ahead in the future:
“Whether the followers of the Communist-led revolution can be persuaded to lay down their arms or withdraw their sympathies will depend on whether the present government addresses the root causes of problems, provides peasants with land, and redistributes some of the wealth. . . “
How wealth is redistributed is a touchy subject, but I think it should be mentioned that all forms of capitalism redistributes wealth. The difference is “how” is the wealth redistributed. Is all the wealth being distributed from the poor to the wealthy? Or the wealthy to the poor? Or fairly with the tide of the market? The Bible seems to indicate that the poor play a very large part in what is the purpose of a king. Personally, I think I will be looking at how well the poor are cared for when deciding upon whether a government is just or not.
Overall I give Raymond Bonner’s book Waltzing With a Dictator, the Marcoses and the Making of American Policy two thumbs up. As a result, I am encouraged to read his other book called, Weakness and Deceit: U.S. Policy and El Salvador.
Marlakins
