281 CHRONICLESntime one has slogged through thisnhands-off-everything recital of dollar diplomacynone cannot help being leftnwith a certain gratitude for US interventionsnon behalf of its borders and threatenednnationals. After all, Russia doesnnot have a hostile island arsenal 90 milesnoff its shores, nor do we indict Japan fornoverseas capital accumulations (innAmerica, no less).nImperialism turns into a merenbuzzword, for there can be no comparisonnbetween Soviet physical coercionnsince World War II and American economicnchess games. Eisenhower, Morleyncites with shock, “refused to trust thenRussians to even the slightest degree.”nThat’s “bourgeois morality” for you. Innshort, the ammunition Morley so assiduouslynassembles for his thesis could, innother hands, support its opposite. Turnnit around and you have ChapmannPincher’s The Secret Offensive.nMorley’s source book shows sociologynonce again as the enemy of free enterprisen(v. David Marsland’s Seeds ofnBankruptcy).nSupported by another university,ngood old Rutgers, Tom Farer’s critiquenof our foreign policy seems to seenRussia as less of a threat than JeanenKirkpatrick. The book is sown withnexcitable attacks on our former UNnambassador, who has “given aid andncomfort to the butchers at the gate ofnchange.” We are told of “the sneeringnbrutality of her own polemics” whichnrest “on an almost demented parody ofnLatin American political realities.” Hernprose is “hysterical” with “a heroicnindifference to detail,” while “her ownninsensitivity to real contexts is stupefying.”nShe is “rabidly dogmatic,” guiltynof “simple mendacity,” and so on.nOne gets the impression that these hatenphrases have been taste-tested for lyricalnmalice on the author’s enviousntongue before committal to print.nDespite this litany of gibes, the booknis an impressive piece of research, ifnsharing in the contradictions it indicts.nIts central section addresses the apparentlyninsoluble conflict between humannrights norms and egalitarian reform,na rural Central Americannpeasantry being tied to the outgoingnoligarchy (even voting for the same),nwhile rights advocacy actually diminishesntheir welfare.nStill and all, it is hard to swallownsome of Farer’s generalizations, e.g.:n”the Mossadeq and Arbenz regimesnhad indisputably democratic credentials.nCertainly, their claim to be representativengovernments was, at a minimum,nno less persuasive than that ofnthe present government of El Salvador.”nIn a ridicule of the dominontheory in Southeast Asia, we learn thatnThailand and Malaysia “have nevernbeen more securely upright.” And thatnMexico is a “conservative capitalist”ncountry. As a general rule, “[s]omenleftist governments may arise. But thenexperience of the last 20 years demonstratesnthat they will pursue their ownninterests and eventually accommodatenwith the West.” Really? When wenfurther read that “authoritariansocialistnregimes do not as a groupndisplay a strong tendency to produceneconomic stagnation” (Cuba being accordedna high economic grade), wenwonder whose is the “demented parody”nhere. Colombia is misspeltnthroughout (except in the index), Brazilnis not properly a Latin country, andnthe absurd Lumumba is lauded.nThe book ends with a detailed sectionnon overseas interventions. Herenone must have serious quarrels. Jean-nFrancois Revel long ago shot down thenequivalence theory, e.g., that US “occupation”nof the Dominican Republicncould in any way be called similar tonthe Soviet invasion of Afghanistann(how many land mines and mutilatednchildren did we leave behind in thenformer?). Reading “that a mobilized,npolitically aware population will not fornlong submit to government by junta,neven a junta which enjoys the glamournof military victory and employs egalitariannrhetoric,” one thinks of Cubanand Guyana. And is it true that “nevernin its entire modern history has thenUnited States supported a revolutionnagainst tyrannies of the Right”? Thenshades of Somoza, Batista, Marcos,nand Duvalier rise up to protest. Despitensuch cavils, I was always interestednin Farer’s book; the trouble was Incouldn’t find anything decisive in it.nNo wonder he was a university president.nThank heavens he was nevernsecretary of state.nTim Ashby could, and should, be.nStill in his early 20’s, this brilliantnHeritage Foundation policy analyst hasnproduced by far the best book of thenthree, a closely researched study ofnRussia in the Caribbean. It is principal­nnnly devoted to Cuban vassalage sincenMoscow started giving the area thenbenefit of its attention circa 1960, withna coda on Soviet power probes intonGrenada, Nicaragua, El Salvador,nHonduras, Guyana, and Suriname. Andepressing lack of resolve on our partnemerges, from Herbert Matthews’nNew York Times comment of 1957nthat “there is no communism to speaknof in Fidel Castro’s 26th of July Movement,”nto Carter’s “no need to panic.”nThe detailed documentation Ashbynadduces of hostile Russian armamentnjust off our southern shores is compellingnand makes books like Farer’s academicnin all senses. Imagine the samenoff Murmansk. And now Nicaragua,nwith by far the largest armed force innCentral America, lies athwart the isthmusnitself. After all, America boughtnthe Virgin Islands for their geostrategicnimportance when its southern flanknwas far less vulnerable than it is today.nOur present answer to this threatnseems to be to appoint as chairman ofnthe House Foreign Affairs Subcommitteenon the Western Hemisphere ancongressman who abstained from then416-0 House vote in 1983 condemningnthe Russian shooting down of KoreannAirlines 007, and who filed suitnagainst Reagan for liberating Grenada.nAshby delineates this situation withnpassion and grace, reminding us thatnoriginally the Cuban Communist Partynworked with Batista (to topple Prio)nuntil Fidel saw Leninism as the road tonpower rather than a mere creedal conviction.nIn a final chapter Ashby strikesna note of cautious optimism despitenrecent developments in Mexico (whichnsheltered Castro’s exile base and assistednthe Ortegas as well as Grenada’snMaurice Bishop). There have beennexternal rescues from proxy communismsn(postwar Malaya, Grenada)nbut none mounted from within, yetnAshby shows that the momentum ofnRussian imperialism has at least beennhalted here and there (Suriname, ElnSalvador, Angola) in a way that augursnsome optimism about Nicaragua. Thenbear’s bank vault is not bottomless. Letnus stretch it all we can. All in all,nAshby’s book is splendid background tondoubtless forthcoming confrontationsnin the field and thoroughly deserves itsnsix printings and book club choice.nResolve is all.n