From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: 1984 Elections in Nicaraugua
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:32:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.195216.21618@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

>>Sure. There are mass graves full of Sandinista opponents killed by...

>Of all the things you listed above, the only one I remember is the banning
>of strikes.  Chamorros paper wasn't shut down for a few years.

Any Amnesty publication from the time should be able to document everything.
As to Chamorros paper, it may not have been shut down but it was still
subject to censorship.

>I remember reading complaints from the business people primarily about
>the economic policies.

Among other things. These economic policies actually show the inept
things the Sandinsitas did. I know of a sugar farm which wasn't
allowed access to foreign currency and wasn't allowed to buy spare
parts. When the machines began to break down production slipped and
the Sandinistas labled it economic sabotage and took the farm away.

They replaced it with a Soviet style farm collective which, needless
to say, didn't produce anything.

Over the years the Sandinsitas used their control of imports and
wholesaling to destroy selected private enterprises and replaced 
them with inefficient state enterprises.

>>In Nicaragua, the Sandinsitas didn't permit those same civil rights to
>>it was the right, even duty, for the people to overthrow the Sandinistas.

>I still don't accept this.  

That changes nothing. When the Sandinsitas came into power their first
acts where to kill or jail opponents, suppress dissent, and consolidate
their power. These abuses where far far worse then anything the US
suffered at the hands of King George. These abuses happened at a time
when there where no contras and the Sandinistas where receiving millions
in US aid.

The human rights of the people where ignored by the Sandinistas so they
had every right to engage in violent revolution.

>The switch to
>democracy from totalitarianism is difficult as current examples in
>Eastern Europe show.  

The economic problems are daunting but the political problems aren't.
Most had opposition parties organized days after gaining freedom and
elections happened a few months later.

The only place where it has taken years is where they remain dictatorships.

>Is there a source where I can see these laws? 

I would recommend: "Nicaragua: A Revolution in the Family" by
Shirley Christian.

>Many countries wait a number of years after the a totalitarian government
>is overthrown if they are trying to set up a countries first election.

for example?

>Many countries cancel elections during a war.  The U.S. almost did during
>the Civil War.  

but we didn't.


>When the opposition is strongly constituted of the overthrown government, the
>delay is justified 

so the people shouldn't be allowed to vote for who they want?

>to permit other peaceful opposition to coalesce.  

This doesn't work since the Sandinsitas where too busy jailing opponents.
they passed too many laws making opposition illegal.

>The contra war prevented this from ever happening.

We are speaking of events which happened LONG before there where any
Contras. The Contras are a result of Sandinista repression.

>40% of the people voted for the Sandinistas in 1990.  

More than that voted for Hitler. Just because a large portion of
the population supports them doesn't make them nice.

>>I have read lots and lots of papers and books calling for the violent
>>overthrow of the Consitiution. None of the authors or publishers where
>>convicted to my knowledge.

>Were they supporting an existing and powerful revolutionary group?

Sure.

>>>>Why not? there where supporters of the Crown in the Continental Congress.
>>>>Remember, the revolution was going for over a year before the Declaration
>>>>of Independance.

>What actions were these supporters taking?  

Well for one thing they held up the Declaration of Independance for over
a year after the revolution began.

>There was no violent action
>against the U.S. by the British immediately after the war.

But there was an insurgency in the Hudson valley and the eastern
part of Delaware.

>I didn't miss your point.  The issue in contention here is what level
>of abuses occurred by the Sandinistas prior to contra activity.  Contra
>activity started soon after the revolution though it didn't pick up
>until the U.S. started supporting them.  

The first Contra operation happened over two years after the Sandinistas
took over. The Sandiistas began jailing and killing opponents from day
one.

>Carter initially
>provided some aid to the Sandinistas, but Reagan was soon elected.

US aid halted under Carter because of:
1. The continuing Sandinista arms buildup when there was no threat.
2. Human rights abuses.
3. Sandinista supply of arms to the FMLN in El Salvador.

>>OK then how about Somoza? If Sandinista repression was justified by
>>the Contras then isn't Somoza's repression justified by the Sandinsitas?

>The elder Somoza massacred opposition decades earlier, soon after he was
>installed.

Doesn't matter. If the Contra insurgency was enough to justify
Sandinista repression then the Sandinista insurgency should be enough
to justify Somoza's repression. You can't have it both ways.

Now you can try and play the 'he hit me first' game but that isn't
as easy as it looks. Political strife has been common in this region
for a very long time.

   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?"                               |
+----------------------239 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+