From: David Sangurima <sangu@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.latin-america
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:04 PST
Subject: The CIA and the Miskitos -- and you
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1473800391:000:5547
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!sangu    Nov 11 22:04:00 1992


From: David Sangurima <sangu>
Subject: The CIA and the Miskitos -- and you

/* Written  1:40 am  Sep 30, 1992 by harelb@math.cornell.edu in igc:reg.nicaragua */
/* ---------- "The CIA and the Miskitos -- and you" ---------- */
Subject: The CIA and the Miskitos -- and your tax-dollars
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)

The CIA and the Miskitos -- and your tax-dollars

[From _Is Peace at Hand?_ (see below)]

Shortly after the accords were signed, the CIA offered $3000-a-month
bribes to 14 Miskito Indian leaders to induce them to maintain the
military conflict.  The spokesman for the Indian opposition described
this as "a last-ditch U.S. attempt to undercut their plan to pursue a
negotiated settlement with the Sandinistas," UPI reported, adding that
U.S. intelligence officials "have stressed what they call the
strategic importance of retaining Indian participation in the war to
help gain international support," the usual cynical exploitation of
indigenous peoples.

U.S. government officials quoted in the Mexican press report that the
CIA salaries come from a secret account "for political projects,"
unrelated to the $100 million in congressional funding.@note{Brian
Barger, UPI, @u<Philadelphia Inquirer>, Oct. 22, 1987. @u<Excelsior>
(Mexico City), Oct. 22, 1987.}

The going rate is considerably higher for the wealthy businessmen who
serve as CIA democrats-for-hire, for example, Alfonso Robelo, who
receives $10,000 monthly tax-free, or Arturo Cruz, whose secret
$7000-a-month subsidy was transferred from the CIA to Oliver North's
account for fear that Congress would expose his illegal lobbying and
the fraud he perpetrated as a paid U.S.  agent in connection with the
campaign to disrupt the unwanted Nicaraguan elections of 1984 --
elections that did not take place according to the media, which
regularly contrast the "elected presidents" of the U.S. client states
with the Nicaraguan dictator Ortega, who was not "elected" according
to official doctrine.

Undersecretary of State Elliott Abrams conducted a news conference by
radio in the Central American capitals on Oct. 22, unreported in the
national press, at which he announced that the United States will
"never accept a Soviet satellite in Central America" -- meaning a
country that is not a loyal U.S. satellite -- and that "We're going to
continue the aid to the resistance," to be sure, in violation of the
"indispensable element" for peace [the Peace Accords the Washington
pretended to be in favor or, as Chomsky quoted earlier in this
article, used that term in connection with the pre-requisite that the
U.S. cease arming its proxy "contra" army --HB] .

The Reagan administration announced its intention to seek
congressional backing for its war, and Congress obliged by providing
"humanitarian" aid -- meaning, any form of aid that the government
chooses to send -- in direct violation of the accords.  Secretary of
State George Shultz informed the OAS that the U.S.  would persist in
the unlawful use of force by its "resistance fighters" until a "free
Nicaragua" is established by Washington standards, thus consigning the
[Peace] accords to oblivion, along with international law.  This
announcement was noted in a 140-word item in the @u<Times> stressing
Washington's intent to give the accords "every chance," while a
headline in the liberal @u<Boston Globe> reported approvingly that the
U.S. is "easing stance."@note{AP, Nov. 10; Pamela Constable, @u<BG>,
Nov. 11; AP, @u<NYT>, Nov. 11, 1987, p. 14.}

While the media and Congress took note of Washington's plans for
the future, the actual steps taken to undermine the central
elements of the peace agreements passed in virtual silence, in
accord with the principle that the United States is entitled to
employ violence as it chooses.  The same basic principle explains
the elite consensus, including the most outspoken doves, that
Nicaragua must not be permitted to obtain aircraft to defend its
territory.  The pretense of liberal Congressmen and others that
such aircraft would be a threat to the United States may be
dismissed with no comment.  The real intent is obvious: the
terrorist superpower must be free to penetrate Nicaraguan
airspace at will for surveillance and coordination of the attacks
on "soft targets" by its proxy forces, and to provide them with
arms and supplies.

These crucial facts suffice to demonstrate that in terms of their
irrelevant substance, the accords were dead before the ink was
dry, with the full support of congressional liberals and elite
opinion generally.

[...]

[The suppressed facts surrounding Washington's undermining of the
accords are further detailed in _Is Peace At Hand_]

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From _Is Peace At Hand?_ by Noam Chomsky, premier issue of Z magazine,
January 1988. [Copy by email from harelb@math.cornell.edu; similarly
for more info. about Z magazine]

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    ======================================
    To get a file named FILE NAME from the
    archiver (files are two words  separa-
    ted by a space), send the 1-line message

    GET FILE NAME ACTIV-L

    to: LISTSERV@MIZZOU1.BITNET
    [or: LISTSERV@MIZZOU1.MISSOURI.EDU]
    ======================================

    Use GET with the file ACTIV-L ARCHIVE for a listing of
    files available with the GET command.

e.g., send GET ACTIV-L ARCHIVE ACTIV-L to LISTSERV@MIZZOU1.BITNET to be
emailed the index of archived files.