Middle East and Conrad

A mystifying phenomenon of our national scene is the continuing prominence of Jeane Kirkpatrick as a foreign policy guru despite her demonstrated deficiencies of experience and judgment. What entitles a person who has never served outside the U.S. to pontificate about the incredibly sensitive situation in the Middle East (“Baker’s Inappropriate Role As an Evenhanded Broker,” Op-Ed Page, May 28)?

Let’s face it: This academic Amazon has long been the darling of an influential sector of the far right. She first came to the attention of Ronald Reagan by accusing Jimmy Carter of unjustifiably abandoning the Somoza regime in Nicaragua. Also, as a woman and ex-Democrat, she offered some convenient window dressing to a blatantly macho Republican Administration.

As ambassador to the United Nations, she satisfied Reagan’s flag-waving objective by beating up on the often naive and irresponsible critics of the U.S., especially in the largely symbolic General Assembly. On substantive issues, her biases intruded, particularly on human rights, where she sought support for her pet thesis that we might need to consort with “authoritarian”--read anti-communist--dictators. She was much criticized for her opinion that several American nuns may have been at fault in getting themselves killed by a Salvadoran death squad.

Perhaps the most questionable part of her controversial record was her notorious flirtation with Argentina’s last military junta. When she was Reagan’s mentor on Latin America, what role may she have had in involving Argentine “security advisers” in training the Nicaraguan Contras and the Salvadoran police?

If the junta were being invited to play an increasingly important role in our Central American anti-communist crusade, could this have led them to believe we would stand aside while they invaded the Falklands? She acknowledges having favored American neutrality, but she lost and so did the junta.

MARSHALL PHILLIPS

Long Beach