U.S. interference versus leadership

Re “History lesson: stop meddling,” Opinion, May 13

Stephen Kinzer is right. Our attempts to impose new governments on other countries, whatever our motives, inevitably backfire. Conservatives, who correctly cite the Law of Unintended Consequences in their critique of expensive, heavy-handed domestic policy, have developed a blind spot to this same phenomenon in foreign affairs.

The best way to promote American values abroad is by example. Look at China. Without a single U.S. soldier entering Beijing, the world’s biggest communist country is turning into the world’s biggest capitalist country. Why? Because when even the most die-hard commies had to admit that their system had failed, they looked around to see what worked. And they saw us.

FREDERICK SINGER

Huntington Beach

*

Kinzer gives a brief recap of American “meddling.” He forgets American meddling in Hitler’s Nazi Germany or in Korea’s affairs. Without American meddling in these two situations, Europe would not be what it is today, and South Korea would probably look just like North Korea. Neither case of meddling was of any imperialistic nature.

Kinzer says: “This looming crisis [with Iran] might be resolved by direct and unconditional negotiations between Washington and Tehran, but American leaders refuse to bargain with the mullahs.” The Bush administration refuses to negotiate unconditionally with Iran and Hamas until they acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. Unconditional negotiations with either Iran or Hamas would cause great harm to human rights around the world. With unconditional negotiations with Iran, “Never again” would enter the dustbin of history.

ROY FASSEL

Los Angeles