From: ez000281@hamlet.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.culture.latin-america,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Nicaragua: Myth versus Reality (I)
Date: 26 Aug 92 04:18:09 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

In <1992Aug25.191706.26001@vexcel.com> Dean Myerson writes:

>I am not discussing Harel's point.  I am discussing yours.  I fully agree
>that there is a romaticizing of the Sandinista's by supporters in the U.S.

This is an understatement.  The left in this country totally ignored the 
claims of the Misquitos and simply considered them another group of Contras.  
Likewise, they dismissed the politics of assimilation and control over the 
entire Atlantic coast.  Furthermore, they did nothing to criticize the slayings 
at the hands of Sandinistas.  Many of these (now documented) slayings were 
commited against contra simpathizers were civilians and who were butchered by 
officers who were under orders of hard liner Tomas Borge.  Borges does not want 
to comment on the case for it is know that he may be indicated for having 
ordered such death squad massacres.  Instead, he talks about the "excesses" of 
the war and pretends to know nothing about the details of the gory murders. 

Likewise the "left" said nothing of press restrictions and the silencing of 
other leftist parties within Nicaragua (parties which were on many occasions 
towards the left of the Sandinistas, and took the same policy towards Managua 
as that of Cuba: the FSLN/Castro was a "relative" improvement from the previous 
dictatorship of Somoza/Batista, hence deserve our support, and any misbehaviour 
is excusable given the fact that they are under siege/embargo. 

For years we heard stories which claimed that arms shipments into El Salvador 
from Managua and the Soviet Block were fairy tales or fabrications of the CIA.  
The sad thing about this fiasco was that most of the people believing that the 
FSLN was out to do justice for their country believed these tales blindly and 
without suspicion until... the elections.  After years of claiming that they 
had the will of the people behind them and the only dissenters in Nicaragua 
were CIA backed contras, the Sandinistas decided to prove their contention in 
order to continue recieving the needed aid to finance the war.  The elections 
taken everyone by surprise, including the CIA.  They proved that no matter what 
you may think about the causes of the defeat, a secret ballot is the only way 
in which popular support may be decided.  In spite of sandinista thugs bombing 
opposition headquarters, in spite of witnessing scenes simmilar to those 
practiced against the Cuban escoria, or the Panamanian opposition, thousands 
lost their fears at the ballot box and voted for UNO.  Now one could argue as 
Harel and the FSLN and say that they were really under the threat from the CIA, 
and hence voted for UNO under pressure.  

The flaw of this argument is that it underscores the capacity of the populace 
(which now happened to be literate and educated) to reach their own political 
decisions and, most of all, it ignores the fact that in spite of the million 
dollar campaign, the Sandinistas could not convince the population that their 
course of action was the correct one.  And a party which does not convince its 
population does not deserve to represent it (unless you happen to be a 
Leninist/Jabobin).  If the Sandinistas were right in stating that theirs was a 
war against the CIA and that "resistance" should continue, they had to sell it 
as it was, or go back on their word and do as they please in the so called 
benefit of the population.  This last option has led to the most horrendous 
genocides in modern history and, in spite of the "romantic" historians on the 
left, it is a tendency initiated by leninism itself.


>Despite flaws, the Sandinista's showed their interest in democracy by
>losing an election.  They could have cancelled it and continued to
>fight the contras.

Although we must applaued them on their decision to abide by the will of 
Nicaragua, we must not "romanticise" it either.  From my perspective, there 
were two choices facing the FSLN at the moment of their defeat: 

1) Blatantly ignore the popular will and continue laying the groundwork for 
stalinization and the creation of a dictarship a la Castro.  All of this was to 
be done in times of perestroika.  This would have forced them into 
international isolation, would have fueled the contra war which was now gaining 
repectablity amongs the peasants and desertions within the Sandinista Army. 
Above all it would have facilitated direct U.S. intervention, just as was done 
with Noriega a few years before. Given the fact that the majority of the 
UNO/Chamorro votes came from within the Sandinista Army (according to the 
electoral returns from military bases), it would have been a task that even 
Hannibal would not have been able to accomplish, and would certainly have 
turned them into the next Somoza's of Nicaragua (or perhaps the Pol Pots of 
Central America).  Fortunately there was no substantial support within the FSLN 
for this route, which happened to be openly espoused by Tomas Borge and... the 
Cubans (who by the way cut off military aid following the decision to turn 
power over to Chamorro).  Evidently, the Cuban revoultioary model is bankrupt 
in Latin America.  Historians will find interesting the cycle of revolutions 
which began with Guatemala and ended in Nicaragua (part of which were 
documented in the bizzare work of Regis Debray).  The Cuban fiasco will be but 
the icing on the cake.

2) The other half (and majority) of the party seemed to look for appeasement 
and reconciliation is now happening with the FMLN. That's exactly what they got 
from Chamorro: property and money in the greatest class sell out in Nicaraguan 
history, praticularly against whatever organized labor remained.  With the 
turnaround the fantasy island the left had dreamed about became a trash tv 
show.  So, the good will to acceed to the intentions of democratic pluralism on 
behalf of the FSLN must again be put into question.

The future of the FSLN in the area, as a force of social change is nil at 
present, and even if they regain political power again, their credibility has 
been shattered within Nicaragua and abroad as well.  The only  thing the future 
might hold for the Chamorro loving Sandinistas is a mexicanization of their 
party, something of the sort the APRA and other Latin American revoulutionary 
parties went through many years ago when the enjoyed a process of 
institutionalization and acceptablity from the national petty bourgeouise.  A 
same furture which the FMLN pretends to achieve unsuccesfully in El Salvador, 
where, unlike Nicaragua, the power (i.e., military) remains with the military.

Edelmiro Salas
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15935 talk.politics.misc:43807 alt.politics.elections:12450 alt.politics.clinton:4075