From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Myerson)
Subject: Re: Nicaragua: Myth versus Reality (I)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:17:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.132445.21909@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.185016.635@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Myerson) writes:
>
>>Well, Allen, it looks like you are doing what you accuse Harel of, 
>>ignoring facts.  Do you believfe the World Bank statements are wrong?
>>If they are quoted out of context, how so?
>
>I don't believe that the World Bank statements are wrong as such, I
>simply believe that Harel would tend to be rather selective in what
>parts of it he posts. Since the report commissioned by the Sandinistas
>themselves reach different conclusions than what Harel claims the world
>bank reached there is reason to question at least one. Since the Sandinista
>report indicated the Sandinistas where at fault I regard it as the more
>honest one. After all, wouldn't the Sandinistas prefer a report giving them
>a clean bill of health?

Please post, or e-mail to me, these reports.
>
>>Since you seem to feel that the Somoza rule and the Sandinista's were
>>equally bad, why don't you tell us how the 1984 elections compare with 
>>elections under Somoza? 
>
>I don't see much difference. No elections or rigged elections; pretty
>much the same thing. 

Rigged is very different from flawed.  The AI documentation that you
provided shows that there were abuses, which is different from rigged.
Plenty of elections in the U.S. have been flawed, but they weren't rigged.
Why would western European governments indicate that the elections were
good if they were "rigged".
>
>>Aren't you walking away from evidence?  
>
>What evidence? Somoza looted the treasury when he was booted out and the
>Sandinistas looted the treasury when they where booted out.

Somoza left an enormous debt and was one of the richest men in the world.
Where does Ortega end up in the Forbes list?
>
>>Harel has posted plenty of
>>numbers showing improved living conditions during the first five
>>years of the Sandinistas.  
>
>Questionable. The literacy numbers for example have been pretty much
>discredited since various populations where included or excluded to
>make the numbers look better.

Since these numbers were accepted by capitalist organizations that would
not normally be sympathetic to the Sandinistas, I think they should be
considered valid unless you can specifically show otherwise.
>
>In fact, the Sandinista reports indicates that it was their excessive
>spending on both social programs and the military which caused most of
>their problems. BTW, if you plan to blame the military spending on the
>US, don't. The Sandinista military buildup began well before there where
>any Contras and at a time when the Sandinistas where receiving millions
>in US aid. In fact, the Sandinista Army had five times the number of
>tanks as all their neighbors combined a year before the first Contra
>attack, two years before the Contras received any US aid and at a time
>when the US was actually aiding the Sandinistas.

They may have been paranoid that the U.S. would "pull a Grenada" as a
former boss once wished for.  It didn't happen, but the fact that the
U.S. openly supported the contras indicates that the fear was not
unfounded.
>
>>Do you actually believe that the Somoza
>>rule was no better?
>
>The Sandinista report indicates that the standard of living was reduced
>for everybody. So the people had no civil rights under either government
>and the Sandinistas made them poorer.

I would like to see this report.  The effects of the war cannot be
discounted from a measure of std of living.
>
>I don't see much difference.
>
>>I don't idolize the Sandinistas, but they were FAR better than Somoza.
>
>Why?

Its already been said.  Social conditions improved.  The oligarchy of
Somoza was broken.  The civil rights situation was not perfect but was
better than under Somoza.
>
>>>Are you saying they didn't loot the government on the way out? No
>>>doubt good old Danny boy had that mansion given to him 'for the good
>>>of the people'. Yeah, that's it, the people.
>
>>This may be bad, but how does it compare to Somoza's billions?
>
>As a percentage of GNP, I suspect it is about the same. But the point
>is that Harel and company don't seem to see anything wrong with it. It
>is the same double standard.

The same double standard as yours?

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.
Your claim that the Sandinita's were no improvement is what I am
challenging.  I hope conditions continue to improve in Nicaraugua, both
economically and politically.  I claim that such improvements started
with the Sandinista revolution, and required such a revolution in order
to break with their past.
>
>>>Your absolutely correct here Harel. There are lots of abuses by the 
>>>contras and they must be condemned. 
>
>>Do you condemn the U.S. support then?  
>
>Partly. There where democratic elements within the Contras who should have
>recieved more aid. In addition, US efforts to restrain abuses should have
>been stronger.
>
>>Would you have had us leave the
>>Nicarauguans to their own devices after the Sandinista victory?  
>
>The Sandinsitas showed that they had no interest in democracy. It was
>therefore proper for people to overthrow the government violently. I
>have no problem with the US supporting democratic factions working to
>end Sandinista rule.
>
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.
>   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?"                               |
>+----------------------241 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)