POLICY - On Mexico Policy-Making Chaos is Now - Who is Making Washington 28 June 1980 - Number 1841

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Aurora

POLICY-MAKING chaos in Washington is examined through dated commentary dated 28 June 1980, Number 1841, questioning who actually sets U.S. policy toward Mexico, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Afghanistan. It scrutinizes congressional and executive claims of success and “acceptability,” contrasts them with reported violence, executions, and prisoners, and challenges the logic behind continuing aid and “bailouts.” The text repeatedly asks who benefits when exposure of fraud and disorientation becomes unavoidable.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages5

Reading Time13 min

AccessFree to download

IDENTICAL VIEWS FOR PRIVATE SECTOR?

MEXICAN VIEW?

IDENTICAL VIEWS WITH PARALLEL VIEWS

AFGHANISTAN?

EXECUTIONS AND POLITICAL PRISONERS

CON MUCHA PREOCUPACION

Dear Sir: COMPLETE POLICY? ON MEXICO? POLICY? ON EL SALVADOR? POLICY-MAKING CHAOS IS NOW WHO IS MAKING WHO IS MAKING WASHINGTON 28 June 1980 Number 1841 "We have been more successful inE1 Salvador...In E1 Salvador,withAID assistance,a beleagured moderategovernment has fended off both rightistand leftist attacks largely on thestrength of an agrarian reform thatputs land in the hands of the tillers.".Douglas J.Bennett,Jr.,ay 23,198or of AiD "I believe that the Sandinista leadershave ideas consistent with our own -and therefore we can together build onthese ideas -human dignity,1ibertyand justice." ...House Majority Leader James Wright. For the New York banks which,not so long ago,were protesting thatDISORIENTATIONWashington must share its superior(sic)political information with them,MOUNTSlest their foreign lending prove disastrous,the growing disorientationin Washington should be extremely disturbing. How generously do you rol1 over loans and even make new ones when apolitical situation in a Latin American country is "not acceptable"to the Congress ofthe United States or to the Executive Branch? And even worse,when it is,in the face of ample contrary evidence,de-clared by the House Majority Leader,obviously brain washed by the State Department,to be "consistent with the ideas of the United States?" When the detritus hits the fan,who will be holding the bag? The policy chaos in Washington is now complete. Who is making policy?Are there any limitations on the pro-consuls being assigned to takeover direction of the government in individual Latin American Countries?Does the pronouncement that "success has been achieved"actually helpin the country which knows it has not been achieved,or is it merelya self-delusion? The Chairman of the Western Hemisphere Affairs Subcommittee of theSenate Foreign Relations Committee announces that he has acquired from"confidential sources"two documents -one of them having to do withU.S.-Mexican relations -which convinced him that Brzezinski has beena maker of policy in his own right,and not just a coordinator of themaking of policy The National Commander of the American Legion in an excellent reviewof the deteriorating situation notes:"What was of greater interestwere his(the former Ambassador's)comment to a Congressional stafferthat Robert Pastor(Brzezinski's Latin American adviser at the NationalSecurity Council)has asked him to testify.So,while top-rankingofficials of the Departments of State and Defense were publiclysupporting the Administration's reprogramming funds for E1 Salvador, ## IDENTICAL VIEWS: FOR PRIVATE SECTOR? the principal adviser on Latin American affairs in the White House was subvertinghis President's policies by asking a witness to testify in opposition." The truth is,of course,that when the Agency for International Develop-ment boasted that success had already been achieved in E1 Salvador -and pointedly asa result of the reforms laid down by our pro-consu1(as Senator Javits labelled him)-this was a dangerously incorrect reading. But take the case of Nicaragua:Secretary of State Muskie's warningNICARAGUA:that "we are on the threshold of a foreign policy failure"if the Con-PARALIELgress does not vote the funds requested for Nicaragua stems from theVIEWS WITHsame briefing that was given the House Majority Leader,namely,that theU.S?Sandinistas share the ideas and objectives of the United States. Note wel1:this is not the Cuban brigade case where first a situationwas deemed "not acceptable"by the United States and then without a satisfactory explan-ation was judged "acceptable."In the Nicaraguan case,a situation is being labelled"acceptable"because the ideas and the objectives of the Sandinistas are identicalwith those of the United States. But what happens when the fraud is exposedby developments?What then?Does exposure of the fraud need to wait? (1)The United States had declared that "the naked agression againstIDENT

FAQs

What core question does the text raise about U.S. policy-making in Washington?

It asks who is making policy and whether the claimed success and “consistent” ideas actually reflect reality or are self-delusion.

How does the text treat the idea of “identical views” regarding Sandinistas and the United States?

It argues that labeling Sandinista ideas and objectives as identical is dangerously incorrect, especially given reported conditions in Nicaragua.

What evidence does the text cite to challenge U.S. claims connected to aid and reprogramming?

It references warnings and accounts of executions, political prisoners, and escalating violence, questioning whether continued funding can be justified.

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Aurora