President what was happening. This isnthe most shocking part of the story.nAfew of the many examples: in earlyn1983, when jeane Kirkpatricknmade a tour of Central America with anletter from Reagan outlining his policy,nThomas Enders, assistant secretary ofnstate for Latin America, sent a letter tonall area ambassadors to ignorenKirkpatrick because a new policy, thenState formula, was about to be adopted.nIn 1985, Schultz tried to persuade allnLatin American ambassadors appointednby Reagan to resign, so that they couldnbe replaced by career Foreign Servicenofficers chosen by himself. Ambassadorsninvolved had to resort to notes passednthrough Ed Meese and commercialntelegrams to get word to Reagan. Repeatedly,nState officials would hold secretntalks with the Sandinistas and drawnup complete peace treaties without evernshowing the documents to the President.nEven when these efforts werenblocked, word would spread around thenregion, breeding fear of an impendingnsell-out. Without American leadershipnand support, no one can be expected tonrisk a confrontation with the Soviet-nCuban-Nicaraguan axis.nRobert McFarlane, as head of thenNSC, was co-opted by Schultz to blocknON DEATHnDeath meets us everywhere, and is procurednby every instrument, and in allnchances, and enters in at many doors; bynviolence and secret. influence; by thenaspect of a star and the stink of a mist; bynthe emissions of a cloud and the meetingnof a vapour; by the fall of a chariot andnthe stumbling at a stone; by a full mealnor an empty stomach; by watching at thenwine or by watching at prayers; by thensun or the moon; by a heat or a cold; bynsleepless nights or sleeping days; bynwater frozen into the hardness andnsharpness of a dagger; or water thawedninto the floods of a river; by a hair or anraisin; by violent motion or sitting still; bynseverity or dissolution; by God’s mercynor God’s anger; by everything in providencenand everything in manners; byneverything in nature and everything innLIBERAL ARTSnchance. Eripitur persona, manet res; wentake pains to heap up things useful ton28/CHRONICLESnformal NSC interference. Messagesnfrom ambassadors, the NSC staff. Republicanncongressmen, Defense SecretarynWeinberger, and even the heads ofnforeign governments were lost or delayednif sent by normal bureaucraticnchannels. Michael Deaver, who wantednto build a new Reagan image as a “mannof peace,” also worked with Schultz tonadvance State proposals. And whenevernthe Sandinistas provoked an outcry onnCapitol Hill by invading Honduras orncrushing dissent, a cabal swung intonaction to delay any votes on contra aidnuntil the crisis had passed. State officialsnwould trot out a new “peace process”ndevelopment that the Democrats wouldnuse as an excuse for doing nothing.nEventually, Kirkpatrick, Weinberger,nBill Casey at CIA, and even Mengesnleft government. The NSC was “disgraced”nby the Iran-contra affair.nMeanwhile, Schultz and the State careeristsnplodded on, finally gaining victorynwith the 1987 Arias Plan that soldnout the contras for empty promises andna Nobel Prize.nThough Menges concentrates onnCentral America, he also observes hownState worked for similar negotiated settlementsnof other issues: a desire to tradenSDI for limits on Soviet offensive weapons;na cutoff in aid to anticommunistnour life, and get our death in thenpurchase; and the person is snatchednaway, and the goods remain. And allnthis is the law and constitution of nature;nit is a punishment to our sins, thenunalterable event of Providence, andnthe decree of Heaven. The chains thatnconfine us to this condition are strong asndestiny, and immutable as the eternalnlaws of God.nI have conversed with’ some mennwho rejoiced in the death or calamity ofnothers, and accounted it as a judgmentnupon them for being on the other side,nand against them in the contention; butnwithin the revolution of a few monthsnthe same man met with a more uneasynand unhandsome death; which when Insaw, I wept, and was afraid; for I knewnthat it must be so with all men; for wenalso shall die, and end our quarrels andncontentions by passing to a final sen­ntence.n—from Holy Dying by Jeremy Taylornnnforces in Angola and Afghanistan fornpromises of future Cuban and Sovietnwithdrawals but continuing Communistnregimes (both plans advanced in thensettlements rushed through in 1988);nthe constant attempts to buy Sovietngoodwill through expanded trade financednon credit.nMenges calls this last point the “shallowneconomic determinism” shared bynthe departments of State and Commerce.nMenges does not pursue thisnpoint as far as he should. It is a powerfulnploy for co-opting otherwise “conservative”nbusinessmen and intellectuals.nThe conservative movement has reliednso much on classical liberal rhetoric innits defense of capitalism that it no longerngives due regard to the’larger context ofnthis philosophy. Thus the State Departmentnhad no problem embracing andnpromoting Reagan’s “free trade” policy,nas it is based on the same liberal view ofna world of peace and harmony, andndenies that other nations might be tryingnto gain an advantage.nMenges argues that the State Department,nthough wrong, thinks it isndoing the right thing, and Lord speaksnof a difference in “culture” at State, butnneither explores the philosophical rootsnof the problem. State’s house creed isnliberalism. The often cited differencenbetween “classical” and “modern” liberalismnis irrelevant here, because continuitynexists in liberal thought on internationalnrelations stretching back to thenEnlightenment. The basic notion is thatnpeace is the norm, conflict an aberration.nThe purpose of diplomacy is notnto advance national interests, but only tonclear up misunderstandings before theynget out of hand (as Stanley Hoffmannposed it, “world order” should be chosennover American “primacy”). It isnthus important never to overreact (orneven react at all). An occasional corruptnor insane ruler may cause problems, butnthere are no basic or permanent causesnfor animosity between peoples. All conflictsnof interest can be settled by compromise.nReason will out. The idea thatnambition or ideology can pit entirencivilizations against each other in annongoing struggle is totally unacceptable.nWhat else explains the airy belief thatn”talks” will bring peace between Israelnand the PLO? What is there to talknabout except a “Palestinian state” thatnwould pose a mortal threat to Israel?nThat Schultz’s “land for peace” formu-n