Wright is right
I agree wholeheartedly with the editorial ``Press for peace,'' Nov. 17, admonishing the Reagan administration for failing to support the Central American peace plan. Foreign policy may be largely the role of the executive in the United States government, but in consideration of the repeated failures of the Reagan contra aid policy it is obvious that the US needs a leader such as Speaker Jim Wright. As the editorial stated, ``The administration has left a vacuum for advocates for peace to fill.''
It is imperative that a representative of the US fulfill the obligation to support any plan that could provide stability in the Western Hemisphere. Costa Rican President Oscar Arias's proposal could do this.
Contra aid has encouraged the restriction of civil liberties in Nicaragua, and it has alienated the rural population through the military strategy of the contras.
The Reagan administration has encouraged Soviet intervention, and Sandinista leaders have been forced to go abroad for military assistance in response to contra aid and US military assistance to Nicaragua's neighbors. The contra aid policy has been a failure for seven years and is based on false presuppositions by the administration.
For these reasons, it is fortunate that the US has individuals such as House Speaker Wright to preserve its international image where the actions of the Reagan administration have tried to destroy it. Paul Olson Seattle
I wish Mr. Wright would run for president. I believe he represents a school of thought that, in conjunction with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, would be a start toward lasting peace and an end to the arms race in all categories. President Reagan firmly believes that the Sandinistas cannot be trusted in a peace plan and desires a military solution.
The $270 million aid to the contras which Mr. Reagan is pushing is clearly an absurd mix with the peace plan. Wright knows this only too well. William Gilchrist Brunswick, Maine
Another Marshall Plan I was alarmed by the article ``Latin leaders seek unity on debt,'' Nov. 27.
By concentrating mainly on Nicaragua, the US is ignoring the other Latin American nations and is consequently allowing its ties with them to deteriorate.
If the US wants to maintain these ties, it must help them alleviate their exorbitant mound of debts - amounting to $350 billion.
The eight countries attending the summit in Acapulco, Mexico, have already begun the effort. They have agreed upon a plan to provide aid to Central America's five nations suffering the most because of the war.
However, these nations are also suffering economically. Thus, the US must provide economic aid to help pay for the remainder.
Just as the Marshall Plan was constructed to rebuild the economies of the Western European nations after World War II, a plan could be devised to pay the debts of the ``war torn'' Central American nations.
If the US fails to initiate such a program, the Latin American nations will be left with an open wound, completely susceptible to communist influence.
The Latin American nations have begun negotiations to bring peace to Central America. But only with the help of the US will economic stability and peace result in the region. Vijay Khant Windsor, Conn.
Guiding the Hatch Act In calling the revision of the Hatch Act misguided, the editorial ``Hatch Act,'' Dec. 3, is truly misguided.
Why must an entire class of citizens be barred from political life to protect them from political coercion, as though there are no other possible ways to prevent such coercion? Why must federal employees be considered the only persons vulnerable to political pressures?
The argument that federal workers should stay out of politics in order to perform their functions impartially is really a justification for political disfranchisement of those who work for government.
Many countries have a larger governmental or public sector than the United States. Under that criterion a substantial proportion of their citizens would be denied political participation. In communist countries, the great majority work for the government or state. Does the Monitor's argument mean that the lack of political participation in these countries is entirely justified in the name of neutral service? Louvan Nolting Lewes, Del.
