tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) (03/08/86)
President Reagan campaigns for Congressional approval of $100
million aid to the Contras, the counter-revolutionary guerrillas
in Nicaragua. He calls his opponents "unwitting allies of the
communists." The qualifier "unwitting" half-heartedly reduces
the sting of the red-baiting. Lacking persuasive arguments some
stoop to the personal smearm and the resort to McCarthyism
backfired even among Presidential supporters. Yet one finds real
irony in Reagan policy which bolsters hard line Marxist-Leninists
in Managua.
Before 1979 the hatred of Nicaraguans was focused mainly on
the Guardia, Somoza's National Guard. And for good reason. They
were killers and torturers, and organized by us. Upon Somoza's
defeat, the Sandinista regime, then still a mix of Democrats and
Marxists, learned that the US-backed government of neighboring
Honduras wouldn't lift a finger against the two thousand Guardia
murderers, rapists, and looters ensconced in refuge across the
Honduran border. And soon these were maintained by the CIA.
Apparently the Carter administration did offer withdrawal of
US-aid to the Contras in return for Sandinista concessions. No
doubt the response was cocky and doctrinaire. What else to expect
from very young men who've just won a war, when we had ceased
support of their enemy at only the last moment? And when Carter
had been chastized for this by soon-to-be President Reagan.
And why should simple justice and removal of a threat on
their border have called for concessions at all?
These events played into the hands of the most radical
Nicaraguan leaders. And they were bound to weaken the hand of
Democratic forces. Conveniently Mr. Borge and Company could point
to the CIA-pimped Guardia as a threat which justified more
Cubans, more Soviet aid, and stronger armed forces.
That suited the folks in Washington who were itching to beef
up the Contras and turn them loose in guerilla war. Now Managua's
hotheads had just what they needed. Our state terrorism, such as
mining their harbors, served as excuse to curtail civil
liberties, trample human rights, mismanage the economy.
If the consequences weren't so grave, it would be amusing to
hear conservatives cry about totalitarians in Managua. Aren't
Conservatives supposed to favor that government which governs
least?
But war, in Nicaragua, just as it did here in the 40's and
the 60's, makes any government more intrusive and oppressive.
And that's why President Reagan is really the Nicaraguan
Communists' best friend.
Tom Schlesinger
Plymouth State College
Plymouth, N.H. 03264
decvax!dartvax!psc70!psc90!tosrb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) (03/20/86)
In the local newspaper there was a large article (UPI?) describing "The Players" in Nicaragua. Among the many groups was a group of "Indians" (indiginous population) which has been recieving little (if any) aid from the U.S., has strongholds within very short distance of many strategic targets (Atlantic harbor, major cities,...), and has some very good reasons to fight (they have been "relocated" several times until they started "fighting back"). Yet, according to the article most of the aid goes to the Samosa "National Guard", who have terrible strategic positions, little support from the local population, and little popular support here in the states. Why? On theory is that the "Indians" are not fighting for the "complete overthrow" of the government, but only a truly democratic system in which opposition parties play a significant role. A two party system if you wish. The Ex-Samosa group want the "Old-Style" democracy. Many of the "Contra" leaders are the same ones who put Sandino to death in the first place, and they are the ones saying that Sandino would like their "democracy" much better than the Sandinista version. How many "One party" democracies do we support. Sure, we let opposition candidates run in El Salvadore. We even "let" Aquino run in the Phillipines. Of course, never mind that "Our" party got access to press and media that reached 90% of the population and the opposition got access to "propaganda sheets" that combined, reached only 10%. Suppose at the 1986 election, when you went to vote, an armed "guard" looked at your party registration and pointed you to the "Democrat" booth, and when you voted (paper ballot) you discovered that the pen you were writing your votes was an eraser-mate pen. You notice on the way out, that the Republicans and independents are using an electronic voting machine. Now, suppose you observed that all "lower class" people were also being sent to the "Democrat" booth. Finally, when the vote comes in, you discover that the ballot for your precinct reports 500/1 Republican. You watched several democrats go in, but appearantly they all voted Republican. Suppose that later that week, Democrat campaign workers were being taken downtown "for questioning". Several seem to have developed drug habits over the week (that's what they are being held for). Others forgot to pay traffic tickets. Others seem to be having trouble with tax audits. Many seem to have been caught in this round of "Lay-Offs" even though the company seems to be making a tidy profit. A few have been fired because of a "bad attitude" (ask your personnel director what the effect of a "bad attitude" referrence is). In the next few months, you find Republican campaign workers are getting promotions in their private sector jobs. Your new boss is a staunch Republican. So is his boss. Now, here come the 1987 primaries, the Democrats ask you to be a campaign worker. Do you really want to risk it? Your boss, the Republican, invites you to the next "Elect Robert Dole" (the most right wing candidate I can think of off hand) rally. Do you really want to turn him down? While you're there, the Department head invites you to be a Dole campaign worker. Would you turn him down, especially after he's just spent 5 minutes talking about how you *might* have a "bright future ahead of you"? If you thought Nixon's "dirty tricks" weren't cricket, take a look at the "back pages" of the newspapers during the next "Democratic Election". Simply review the last 3-6 months of the Phillipine elections. If you think this sounds too far fetched to happen HERE, notice the little chart on page 4 of NewsWeek (Feb 24, 1986) which indicates that "Knowing the Right People" is considered "What it takes to succeed" by 58% of those in government, 31% of those in business, and 32% of those in labor. Also interesting, only 8% of those in business considered "Courage to stand up for beliefs" an asset.