From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Nicaragua - documentation
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:18:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.161817.21622@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

>Since Allen has admitted that the contras pursued a policy of terrorism,

I agree that SOME contra elements engaged in terrorism as a matter of
policy.

>I will not discuss them here.  I assume this means that Allen disagrees
>with Reagan's characterization of them as "the moral equivalent of our
>founding fathers" and was against the US support of them since their
>actions were well known at the time. True, Allen?  

I support funding and arming democratic resistance to dictatorships. Under
this policy some Contra elements would qualify and others wouldn't.

>Or do you think it
>is okay to use such tactics for political ends?

I asked first. Let's see Harel's answer.

>I will start with the general characterization of Nicaragua as a
>"totalitarian state" so often heard from Allen and others.  
>The America's Watch report from 1984 says:

1. I never said they where totalitarian. They where an oligarchy with
   asperations to become totalitarian but they never became powerful
   enough.

2. I will respond to as best as I can however I must do so from memory
   since my Nicaragua file was lost in a recent move. I will give approximate
   dates and sources.

   If you choose to conclude from this that my sources never existed, suit
   yourself. With the end of the cold war and more and more countries chosing
   freedom this whole thing is becomming less and less relevant so I no
   longer feel motivated to spend a lot of time on it. Truth be told, I
   mostly just enjoy seeing Harel fly off the handle by posting page after
   page of chomskite analysis in order to avoid answering a simple question.

>	professional associations are not only independent but are 
>	unhesitatingly critical of the government and its leaders. 

And yet Amnesty International list case after case of people arrested
and jailed for membership in these organizations. 

>       Political parties representing a wide spectrum of views not only
>       operate, but...

Yet AW and AI document cases where people have been arrested and jailed
for belonging to these parties. this is in addition to the other abuses
documented.

>	Assembly.  The parties that chose to participate in the 1984 elections -
>	from which no party was banned - were free to be as strident as
>	they chose in attacking the Sandinista Party and its leaders, and

However, they where subject to arrest for doing so.

>	1.  There is not a policy of torture, political murder, or
>	disappearances in Nicaragua.

A 1988 article appearing in the AW newsletter states that there was
evidence to indicate a policy of political killings did exist.

>	7. To state the above is not to disregard or in any way diminish
>	the importance of abuses that have taken place in Nicaragua. [List
>	of abuses deleted to save me typing time include press censorship,
>	expulsions, arrests for peaceful activities, limits on public
>	rallies, intimidation].  Perhaps most disturbing of all, since the
>	revolution succeeded in 1979, there has been an interlocking
>	relationship between the Sandinista Party and the state so that,
>	for example, it is the Popular Sandinista Army that defends the
>	state and it is Sandinista sponsored organizations that choose
>	2 of 3 members of the tribunals that try those accused of a variety
>	of security-related offenses.

Now in light of this, how can you consider these elections free?

>There is some damning criticism here.  It is not a "ringing endorsement".
>It is a balanced statement that shows that abuses were not policy, were not
>continuous, and have been corrected.

Some abuses where indeed policy. All political prisoners where jailed
as a matter of policy by extrajudicial tribuanls operating in clear
view of the Sandinsitas. Press cencorship was policy. 

How can you (not AW but you) consider elections fair when opponents
are jailed wihtout charge and the press is censored?

>	A more troublesome area is that of official censorship.  There was
>	relatively little censorship in Nicaragua until March, 1982, 

This is incorrect. One of the first actions of the Sandinistas was to 
enact a series of decrees. Among them where decrees which made printing
or reporting certain classes of material illegal.

>	news about disruptions of Arturo Cruz's political rallies by FSLN
>	sympathizers in the pre-campaign period was also suppressed.

>[Note that Cruz withdrew from the election prior to the campaign.]

These where not the only disruptions. All where censored from all media.

>	For purposes of this report, it is important to ask whether the
>	press censorship practiced by the government seriously restricted
>	the electoral candidates' freedom of speech or prevented them
>	from getting their parties message to the electorate.  Our
>	delegation concluded that it did not.  

by itself, maybe not. However combined with the arbitrary arrest of 
opposition leaders, and activists, witholding of rations from some opponents,
rule changes dictated by Sandinsitas in the middle of the election and
other abuses together did consitiute serious restrictions.

If you don't agree, then tell me just how many opposition people the
Sandinsitas are allowed to arrest without charge?

>	campaign, each party had been given access to to a total of 22 hours
>	(15 minutes per day) of free, uninterrupted television time,

Execpt the Sandinistas who controlled all the rest of the time.

>Allen recommended the book "Nicaragua - Revolution in the Family" by Shirley
>Christian, a correspondent.  The book regularly criticizes Sandinista action
>while ignoring other evidence, thereby offering a distorted, one-sided, view.

I prefer to view it as a nice ballance to Harel and company's postings.

>however.  While good achievements do not make up for abuses, all facts must
>be considered when examining a governments record; something she apparently
>was not interested in doing.

Here I don't agree with you. Abuses are abuses.

All you have posted says nothing more than 'well, yeah they did abuse
people but not enough to affect the election'. All I want to know is
how they know that? At that time the Sandinsitas had tens of thousands
of political prisoners in jail. How many where they allowed to have and
still be OK? 'Most of their rallies whern't disrupted', OK how many do
the Sandinsitas get to disrupt?

The Sandinsita record is not the record of a group wishing to bring out
democratic reforms. There was no need for them to wait four years to have
elections. There was no need for somebody interested in democracy to
start off by killing and jailing thousands of opponents. Democracies
don't start out by making it illegal to report certain stories in the
press or to hamper creation of opposition parties; the Sandinsitas did.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------227 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+