LETTERS to the Editor.

Letting Galeano Off Easy

David Barsamian's interview with Eduardo Galeano (July issue) was interesting, and I found myself only mildly critical of his comments and perspectives.

But then this comment brought me up short: "The present situation--from the point of view of the poor countries, the outskirts of the world--is much worse than before because with the Soviet Union you had at least a certain balance of power. Now this balance of power has disappeared, and so we have no choices. The possibilities of acting with a sense of independence have narrowed."

This is an extraordinary statement, especially if coupled with the remarks Galeano himself made previously, in which he described the Soviet Union as "an exercise in bureaucratic power with no connection to people. They were acting in the name of people, but they despised them."

How, I wonder, can it be "much worse" for the poor of the world that a regime that despised them is now gone? Galeano mentioned the 100 million killed in the wars from this century. Does he not realize that at least that many deaths can be attributed to the internal brutalities of the communist nations? Does he honestly believe the disappearance of the leading communist regime could be bad for anyone?

I'm assuming Galeano's point is that as bad as the Soviet Union was, an unchecked United States is worse. Why did your interviewer not press him on this?

Galeano complains about North American misperceptions of Latin America as a land either of pristine beaches or of social violence and misery. I would suggest that the left itself is in part responsible for this misperception.

Galeano's failure to credit the limited yet real gains in the region since the collapse of the Soviet Union contributes to such stereotypes. During the Cold War, the U.S. was accused of using anti-communism as a cloak for a policy opposed to any and all democracy and development in Latin America. I would have thought that the recent process of democratization there (which the U.S. has not only opposed but, in fact, supported) would have thrown at least a bit of doubt on that view. Apparently, it has not.

Jonathan Burack Stoughton, Wisconsin

Woo! That last paragraph of the Galeano interview got to me. It boggles my mind that he doesn't understand those who are without belief and are not deluded by hope. And he goes further when he says that he never wants to lose hope, never wants to live a life without expectation and belief. He even declares...