rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (03/01/86)
DOUBLE STANDARDS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN NICARAGUA?
===============================================
Contents:
Article by TNR's Fred Barnes, "The Sandinista Lobby"
Replies by critics, rebuttal by Barnes
Leiken in NYR on atrocities & Americas Watch
Summary of Cruz in TNR on 1986: the FSLN's crucial year?
The quality of much information on the Sandinistas is not very good.
What about some of the sources of such information? Fred Barnes'
abrasive and polemical article below seizes this issue by the throat,
so to speak, and despite his sometimes broad and half-off-target swipes,
manages to make most of his charges stick.
[ Reproduced without permission from The New Republic, 1/20/86,
pages 11-14. ]
THE SANDINISTA LOBBY: `Human rights' groups with a double standard"
by Fred Barnes [ a senior editor at TNR ]
Last July 1 a man named Alvaro Jose Baldizon Aviles slipped across
the border from Nicaragua into Honduras. He was no ordinary refugee.
Baldizon was chief of the special investigations commission of
Nicaragua's Ministry of Interior. He worked for Tomas Borge, the
interior minister and a powerful figure in the Sandinista government.
Baldizon had an eye-popping story to tell of massive human rights
abuses by the Sandinistas. In September and October, under the
guidance of the U.S. State Department, he told it all over Washington.
Citing specific names, dates, and locations, Baldizon disclosed
hundreds of murders of peasants, prisoners, Indians, businessmen,
and opponents of the Sandinista regime, all of them carried out by
Nicaraguan government soldiers or police. Borge personally ordered
some killings and whitewashed others, Baldizon said. In 1981 Borge
allegedly standardized the practice of murdering political foes by
issuing a secret order allowing `special measures,' the euphemism
for assassinations. He institutionalized the deception of foreign
visitors, appearing before Christian groups in an office with a
crucifix, a statue of Jesus Christ, and a Bible. His real office
is adorned with pictures of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, and copies
of THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO and DAS KAPITAL. Moreover, Borge was
involved in cocaine trafficking, put former criminals in police
jobs, and installed Cuban advisers in operational posts. Baldizon
also said the Sandinistas were training Costa Rican guerillas and
using mobs of young Sandinistas to break up gatherings of political
opponents.
Even by Latin American standards, this was quite an indictment, exactly
the kind of firsthand account likely to trigger outrage by groups
monitoring human rights in Central America. And maybe even spark an
aggressive investigation or two. But not by the Washington Office on
Latin America, which says it "monitors human rights practices and
political developments in Central and South America...[and promotes]
a foreign policy that advances human rights, peace, and democracy in
the hemisphere." Joseph T. Eldridge, the Methodist minister and
former missionary in Chile who is WOLA'sd director, was invited along
with other human rights activists to a session with Baldizon at the
State Department on October 3. Eldridge didn't show. He did call
to ask about a private session with Baldizon, and State Department
officials agreed so long as one of their staff aides was present.
Later, Eldridge canceled the meeting because of a schedule conflict.
He insists he's still trying to meet with Baldizon. But Janice
Barbieri of the State Department's office of public diplomacy says
Eldridge isn't trying very hard; he hasn't even called back to set
up a new time. Whatever the case, it's been months, and Eldridge
has yet to meet with Baldizon.
This indifference to Baldizon and his evidence of systematic abuses
of human rights was not a lapse. On the contrary, it reflects the
selective moral indignation of a phalanx of organizations in Washington
that regularly criticizes the Reagan administration's policy toward
Central America and, in particular, Nicaragua. The ostensible aims
of these groups are high-minded: peace, protection of human rights,
free elections, an end to domination of politics by oligarchies, etc.
And they tirelessly point out how Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras,
and Panama --- all allies of the United States --- come up short.
But Nicaragua, with its increasingly repressive Sandinista regime,
is another story. What criticism these organizations have of
Nicaragua is soft-hitting in the extreme. Mostly they explain away
or ignore abuses by the Sandinistas.
These organizations and their leaders refer to themselves as "the
community." But they've been accused of being something quite
different. A Heritage Foundation paper labeled them "The Left's
Latin American Lobby." A book by the Council for Inter-American
Security attacks them as "The Revolution Lobby." Bruce Cameron,
a former lobbyist for Americans for Democratic Action, says WOLA
at least is a "shill for the Sandinistas." Naturally, WOLA and
other groups disagree. "There is an attitude in [Washington] that
equates opposition to the administration's Central American policy
with support for the Sandinista government," says Eldridge. "This
is an unfortunate and lamentable conclusion."
Maybe so, but WOLA and other organizations haven't exactly gone out
of their way to show that they don't apply a double standard---tough
on right-wing governments and U.S. allies, soft on left-wing regimes.
A good place to start would have been with Baldizon. Juan Mendez of
America's [sic., sp] Watch, a human rights monitoring group, went to
the trouble of taking Baldizon to lunch, where they conferred without
State Department interference. But America's Watch seems more interested
in countering Reagan's attacks on Nicaragua than checking out Baldizon's
evidence. Last July it put out a report evaluating Nicaragua's human
rights record. The logical yardstick was the Sandinista promise of
political pluralism and a mixed economy. Had the Sandinistas delivered
on these? But that wasn't the question asked. Rather, America's Watch
found the one human rights standard that the Sandinistas can meet: is
their human rights record as bad as Reagan says? Nope, America's
Watch concluded.
WOLA doesn't pretend tp be anything but an advocacy organization. It
advocates friendlty, tolerant relations with Nicaragua. But similar
questions arise in the case of legal groups, whose nominal concern is
not policy but the rule of law. Susan Benda of the American Civil
Liberties Union says her only concern is blocking U.S. involvement in
the covert war waged by the CONTRAS. "We're opposed to this covert
war regardless of what the Sandinistas do," she says. "We don't care
if they close down the press. What the Sandinistas do doesn't affect
our opinion on the war."
But at least one legal group is now taking care to avoid the appearance
of a double standard. Amy Young, the director of the International
Human Rights Law Group, now admits that her organization's study of
CONTRA abuses last year should also have looked at Sandinista conduct.
In a new investigation earlhy in 1986---another vote on CONTRA aid
comes in March---both sides will examined, she says. Larry Garber,
IHRLG's project director, characterizes the soft-on-the-Sandinistas
approach of some groups as "avoidance tactics." Although they recog-
nize there are human rights problems in Nicaragua, "they won't go
down and investigate," he says. Why not? "It's no secret some
organizations in town were excited about what happened in Nicaragua
and are still hopeful it will be a revolution that brings lasting
peace and stability. They've been willing to forgive things that
have gone on during a time of transition. That time is over."
Practically no one is more forgiving than the Coalition for a New
Foreign and Military Policy, the umbrella group of "the community."
Its 50-odd members include WOLA, the Council on Hemispheric Affairs,
the Washington office of the Presbyterian Church (USA), the American
Friends Service Committee, and the YWCA. The coalition, along with
the Commission on U.S.-Central American Relation, published what is
called a "basic information" book on Central America. According to
the book, the Sandinistas have done little wrong, and when they have,
it was only because the United Statesdd forced them to.
Take the massive Sandinista arms buildup. It began in 1979, at a
time when the U.S. government was reasonably friendly, and has gone
on unabated. Nicaragua now has by far the largest military force in
Central America. Yet the "basic information" book attributes the
Sandinista buildup to fear of a U.S. invasion. "In short, the Nica-
raguans want to raise the military, and thereby the political cost
of a U.S.-sponsored invasion," it says. Nor do the Nicaraguans
threaten their neighbors. "Despite the difficulty in distinguishing
between offensive and defensive weapons, it is clear that the mili-
tary strengthening that Nicaragua has undergone in the last few years
is primarily defensive, not offensive." Even MIGS from the Soviets,
the book says, wouldn't give Nicaragua "a credible offensive force
capable of invading any country in the region."
The book is vague about the political leanings of the Sandinista
directorate, vague in a way that misleads. Borge, the interior
minister, is described as "a poet and a writer [who] has studied
law at the National University." This is the fellow who confided
to PLABOY magazine in 1983: "I told [my mother] that I would not
be blackmailed by her gentleness and her naivete and that I was a
Communist." Humberto Ortega, the defense minister and brother of
Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega, is described simply as an author.
Yet Ortega doesn't mince words about his ideology. "Marxism-Leninism
is the scientific dictrine that guides our revolution," he said in
1981. "Our moral strength is Sandinismo and our doctrine is that of
Marxism-Leninism."
As the Sandinistas are legitimized by "the community," the CONTRAS
are demonized. Dissenting opinions are not tolerated on this point.
When Bruce Cameron decided that support for the CONTRAS would promote
human rights in Nicaragua, he was no longer welcome in "the community."
[When George Black, NACLA staffer, denounced the November 1984 Nica-
raguan elections as a "travesty" on the NYTimes op-ed page (11/2/86,
"Black's analysis created a furor on the left....NACLA sent out a
letter signed by its staff, responding to the criticism and dissoci-
ating itself from the article. The response was so fierce that Black
felt compelled to explain himself in a three-page open letter in his
own publication." So writes another "community member" Michael Massing
in an article in The Nation ("Hard Questions on Nicaragua," 4/6/85,
395-8), which politely raised the issue of the left's lack of candor about
the FSLN. For this, he in turn like Black got mauled by his peers in
subsequent issues of The Nation (4/20/86, "The U.S Left And Nicaragua:
Responses to Michael Massing & Reply by Michael Massing," 456-462; more
in 5/4/85, Letters, 514; & yet more in 5/11/85, Letters, 546 & 564).
Massing successfully turned aside all the attacks, but not without a
half-hearted "mea culpa" or two.]
The acceptable line on the CONTRAS is that they are old Somoza hands
who have generated no popular support for their insurgency. "Nica-
raguans'" wrote Reggie Norton of WOLA in the coalition's book, "are
justifiably concerned that far from representing a promise to improve
their lives, the contras represent a return to the type of repression
that characterized the Somoza regime." This may have benn true five
years ago, but since then the CONTRAS have been transformed from a
small band of ex-National Guardsmen to a 15,000-man force that has
won the support of such anti-Somoza leaders as Alfonso Robelo and
Arturo Cruz. Mass defections to the CONTRAS, plus their ability to
operate in large areas of Nicaragua, are palpable signs of a surge
in popularity, and evidence of growing disenchantment with the
Sandinistas.
On the subject of elections, Eldridge of WOLA talks scornfully about
the recent elections in Guatemala, which saw a once-exiled dissident
win the presidency. After all, Eldridge says, "elections are one note
in the symphony of democracy.... The gist is it [the Guatemalan elec-
tion] was technically flawless. Hats off. The question is whether
this will wean the military away from its monopoly of power. A lot
of people are skeptical." But the Nicaraguan election in 1984 was "a
political opening," concluded a report by WOLA and IHRLG. Serious
impediments to free choice by the voters were minimized in the report.
There was censorship, but the parties were permitted "to communicate
to the Nicaraguan people" their "vision for the future" and "to criti-
cize freely the performance of the government." Repeated "incidents
of harassment and intimidation" occurred---Sandinista mobs broke up
opposition rallies---but they didn't affect much. The chief opposition
party, the Coordinator, which dropped out charging that the election
wasn't free or fair, acted for "political reasons."
Eldridge says that half the leaders of the Coordinator would rather
have an invasion by U.S. Marines than participate in an election. If
so, then why did the Coordinator accept the Sandinista condition that
the CONTRAS be asked to lay down their arms for the election? In fact,
the Coordinator's candidate, Arturo Cruz, negotiated feverishly for a
postponed election in which the opposition would take part. At the
key moment, thoug, the Sandinistas backed out.
The Sandinista sympathizers continue to insist that political pluralism
is the general rule in Nicaragua. America's Watch proclaimed in July
1985 that "while prior censorship has been imposed by emergency legis-
lation, debate on major social and political questions is robust, out-
spoken, even often strident" in Nicaragua. In fact, just as under
Somoza's regime, debate is allowed only so long as it doesn't threaten
the authorities.
The America's Watch report claims that the group does "not take a
position on the U.S. geopolitical strategy in Central America," then
goes on to do exactly that. There have been abuses of human rights
by the Sandinistas, it says, but "some notable reductions in abuses
have occurred in Nicaragua since 1982, despite the pressure caused
by escalating external attacks." This is exactly what the Sandinistas
say. Baldizon, who was in a position to know, tells a strikingly
different story. So do Protestant preachers who have been arrested
recently in Nicaragua. And last October the Sandinistas suspended
what few civil liberties had been allowed.
One organization that has gone to great lengths to explain away this
new state of emergency is the Central American Historical Institute
at Georgetown University. Tossing out civil liberties "does not
violate the U.N. International Civil and Political Rights Amendment,"
the institute siad in 1984. And the state of emergency doesn't take
away the right to life or justify torture or slavery, or block "free-
dom of thought, conscience, or religion," the institute said. "Nor
is it applied in a discriminatory fashion," it added, suggesting that
political repression is less troubling if it is evenhanded.
The institute poinbts out the impressive turnout of 75 percent for
the election, despite efforts by the Corrdinator to discourage voting.
"This, and the fact that opposition parties won one-third of the valid
votes, contradicts the accusation that the election was merely a rubber
stamp for the [Sandinistas]." Lat May, in its publication UPDATE, the
institute went to great lengths to knock down an article in LA PRENSA,
the frequently censored opposition paper in Nicaragua. Jaime Chamorro,
the paper's codirector, charged that the Sandinistas added 400,000
votes to their tally. The same month the institute said in another
UPDATE that the opposition parties are alive and "kicking" in Nica-
ragua's National Assembly. The Sandinistas like "a give and take
dynamic to prevail so as not to alienate what amounts to a `loyal'
opposition."
The institute frequently attacks the CONTRAS, but is squeamish about
Sandinista abuses. In a rundown of CONTRA leaders, it lists Lucia
Cardenal de Salazar as "widow of Jorge Salazar, wealthy coffee grower
killed in a NOvember 1980 dispute with Nicaraguan police." Shirley
Christian of the NEW YORK TIMES reports in her book NICARAGUA that
Jorge Baldizon confirmed that Sandinista leaders were involved in
plotting and carrying out Salazar's death.
The biggest splash made by "the community" has been with its well-timed
reports of CONTRA abuses. The most famous of these was written by Reed
Brody, a New York lawyer. He charged that the CONTRAS attack purely
civilian targets, and he cited instances of killings of unarmed women
and children, rapes, beatings, kidnappings, forced recruitment of new
troops, disruption of harvests, and intimidation of people joining
government programs. With a congressional vote on aid to the CONTRAS
a few weeks away last spring, the Brody report got big play in the
press. But it was, at best, open to question. A Reagan administration
examination of the report found that six incidents cited by Brody had
been carried out by a CONTRA officer later executed for murdering
civilians and that four incidents occurred before that CONTRAS were
constituted as an organized force. Brody blames the CONTRAS for killing
a French doctor with mortar fire, but the CONTRAS say they had no mortars
in that incident and that Sandinista fire killed him. Moreover, the
administration says 48 rifles and 11,500 roundsd of ammunition were
seized from what Brody describes merely as a farm, and that a "deeply
religious" couple killed by CONTRAS were actually agents of Sandinista
state security. Brody was candid enough to disclose that the idea for
the report came from Reichler & Appelbaum, the Washington law firm that
represents the Nicaraguan government. And he also revealed that in
Nicaragua he was housed and given office space by the Sandinistas. The
government even directed him to witnesses. Still, Brody said, his
investigation was "independent." He made no attempt to probe Sandi-
nista abuses.
A recent Sandinista defector has described Brody's close relationship
with the Nicaraguan government. Mario Jose Guerrero was director of
the National Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
[the regime's own "human rights" organization, formed to compete with
the independent Nicaraguan Permanent Commission on Human Rights].
The commission, Guerrero said, was ordered to give full support to
Brody. Besides office and lodgeing, it paid all his bills and arranged
interviews. Another defector, Bayardo de Jesus Payan, was the chief
budget officer of the commission. He described Brody in action to a
House subcommittee:
I...noticed that many times he showed a photograph in which he
was hugging Commander Daniel Ortega and also that he was con-
stantly calling on the telephone to the foreign ministry and
visiting it. He also made propaganda for the [Sandinistas]
and urged the employees of the instution to vote for Daniel
Ortega, since he was a great supporter of the Sandinistas.
Also, he always spoke badly about the policy of the govern-
ment of hte United States and of President Ronald Reagan.
WOLA and the International Human Rights Law Group found Brody's
evidence compelling, but they were worried that his connection with
the Sandinistas would deprive the report of credibility. They dis-
patched two lawyers, one an outspoken critic of administration
policy, to Nicaragua to check on CONTRA abuses. These representa-
tives also neglected to examine abuses by the Nicaraguan government.
But they managed to corroborate some of the Brody report, and they
declared their support for it. America's Watch supplied a report of
its own, which dealt with sides. It concluded that Sandinista abuses
were mainly in 1981 band 1982, and directed against the Miskito Indians
[this limited "confession of sins," usually qualified as "regrettable
mistakes," is a mainstay of pro-FSLN opinion]. Since then there had
been a "sharp decline" in Sandinista abuses, America's Watch said.
Baldizon, for one, would quarrel with that.
"The community" does make some efforts to demonstrate evenhandedness.
WOLA, Eldridge says, has been "steadfastly encouraging dialogue in
Nicaragua, as in El Salvador." Indeed, WOLA sponsored a visit to the
United States by leaders of El Salvador's guerilla forces. But the
CONTRA leaders in Nicaragua are out of bounds. Eldridge is for a
dialogue between Duarte and his Communist opposition, but not for one
between the Sandinistas and the CONTRAS. The dialogue he wants would
pit only the erratic Eden Pastora, once a Sandinista commander, and
perhaps Arturo Cruz against the Sandinistas. Cruz could be there only
as an individual, not as a leader of the CONTRAS, says Eldridge.
Which means that the main political and military opposition to the
Sandinistas would be excluded, and the Sandinistas be under little
pressure in the talks to make concessions to democracy. Some dialogue.
***********************************************************************
Reaction to Barnes' article appeared as letters in the 2/17/86 issue
of the New Republic, with a rebuttal by Barnes appended (pages 24-25).
[ Reproduced without permission. ]
`THE SANDINISTA LOBBY': AN EXCHANGE
TO THE EDITORS:
Fred Barnes' article "The Sandinista Lobby (January 20) contains
several references to the Americas Watch that are tendentious and
factually wrong.
Barnes writes that "Juan Mendez of Americas Watch... went to the
trouble of taking [Nicaraguan defector Alvaro Jose Baldizon to
lunch....But Americas Watch seems more interested in countering
Reagan's attacks on Nicaragua than checking out Baldizon's evidence."
Actually, Mendez attended the public briefing at which Baldizon
spoke and held two private meetings with him that were difficult to
arrange because the State Department was reluctant to have himn meet
with us. Following those meetings, on December 3, we sent Baldizon a
ten-page letter raising questions about the story he tells. That
letter concludes: "We will continue researching your allegations
by every possible means. In that endeavor, it would be a great
help to us if you could answer these questions in as much detail as
possible, and if you could suggest persons and places to visit, in
Nicaragua or elsewhere, in order to verify your statement."
At this writing, eight weeks later, Baldizon has not responded. Aside
from seeking more detail about Baldizon's chaRGES, our letter asks him
to explain inconsistencies and false assertions. Some of his puzzling
statements are relatively trivial. (Such as his claim that some
Sandinista abuses he says he investigated took place in a mountainous
area ofr northeastern Nicaragua; Mendez, who has visited the area several
times, pointed out to Baldizon that the area is as flat as a pancake.)
Some are more troubling. (Such as why Baldizon told Mendez that he had
never heard of Walpa Siksa, a place where the Americas Watch has reported
that Sandinista soldiers murdered seven Miskito youngsters; Mendez told
Baldizon about it; a few days later, in meeting other human rights acti-
vists who also asked about Walpa Siksa, Baldizon acted as though he
knew all about it and insisted that no one had been punished for the
murders.) What puzzled us most about Baldizon's story is that he
claimed to know many details about Sandinista crimes bercause he
investigated them under the direction of Minister of the Interior Tomas
Borge. He also said that Borge ordered many of those abuses. Why, we
asked Baldizon want his own crimes thoroughly investigated and docu-
mented? In our experience, those engaged in such crimes try to cover
them up.
Barnes also faults the Americas Watch for not measuring Nicaragua's
human rights record against "the logical standard," which, he says,
is "the Sandinista promise of political pluralism and a mixed economy."
Instead, he says, we "found the one human rights standard that the
Sandinistas can meet: Is their human rights record as bad as Reagan
says?"
Actually, "the logical standard" is the same standard that is used to
measure every other country---the standard of "internationally recog-
nized human rights." We don't evaluate economic maters in assessing
any country. QWe do evaluate political pluralism, and such matters as
extrajudicial murders, disappearances, torture, and freedom of expres-
sion. The Americas Watch has published eight reports on Nicaragua
since May 1982; only one of them compares Nicaragua's record with
what Reagan says.
Barnes mentions our assessment that there has been a "sharp decline"
since 1982 in Sandinista violations of the laws of war. To refute
this, Barnews says, "Baldizon, for one, would quarrel with that."
Our response is: so what? We have tried to do a careful and compre-
hensive job in documenting abuses. Whether or not Baldizon quarrels
is less important than whether he produces reliable evidence. Until
he responds to our questions and we have an opportunity to check his
responses, we will suspend judgement.
Aryeh Neier
Vice chairman
Americas Watch
TO THE EDITORS:
Mr. Barnes appears more interested in attacking organizations that
disagree with the Reagan adminstration's interpretation of events
than in pursuing the truth.
The Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), contrary to Mr. Barnes'
allegation, was represented at the October 3 briefing arranged by the
State Department for Mr. Baldizon, the Nicaraguan government defector.
In addition, I spoke to Mr. Baldizon twice---once in person and once
by telephone---and was unable to persuade the State Department to
allow Mr. Baldizon to come to a meeting WOLA wanted to arrange for
him with other human rights organizations. It is appalling that Mr.
Barnes would devote the lead paragraphs of his article to such accusa-
tions when he failed to get the facts.
I have never talked "scornfully" about the Guatemalan elections to
Mr. Barnes or anyone else, as he claims. I joined millions of Guate-
malans in hoping that the election can begin to wean the military from
decades of savage rule. It is deplorable that Mr. Barnes interprets
realism about the character of Guatemala's military as scorn for the
recent elections.
WOLA, moreover, joined with the International Human Rights Law Group
(IHRLG) in sending delegations to observe elections in both Nicaragua
and Guatemala. Mr. Barnes' strong suggestion is that WOLA blesses the
Nicaraguan elections and damns the Guatemalan one. Closer scrutiny
of the facts would have revealed that the reports were prepared by
independent delegations---not WOLA. HAd he read the reports care-
fully, he might have reported their clear conclusions: that although
the elctions were adequate, caution must be exercised about the future
of democracy in both countries.
Over its 12-year history, WOLA has arranged meetings for Latin American
opposition leaders of many political persuasions, including several who
are now Latin American presidents: Jose Napoleon Duarte of El Salvador,
Vincio Cerezo of Guatemala, Alberto Monge of Costa Rica, Salvador Jorge
Blanco of the Dominican Republic, Raul Alfonsin of Argentina, and Julio
Sanguinetti of Uruguay. It would be interesting to consult these
presidents to learn whether or not they agree with Mr. Barnes's con-
clusions about WOLA.
Mr. Barnes asserts that WOLA selectively promotes dialogue and ignores
similar concerns in Nicaragua. As WOLA has arranged meetings for
Guillermo Ungo and Ruben Zamora of the FDR [heads of the political arms
of Salvadorean guerilla groups], WOLA has also arranged meetings for
[Moskito Indian leader] Brooklyn Rivera, [ex-Central Bank president]
Alfredo Cesar, and Antonio Jarquin, prominent Nicaraguan oppostion
leaders [only Rivera is really "prominent"]. However, Mr. Barnes is
so wedded to the CONTRAS that in our conversation he did not even seem
to recognize the names of these influential Nicaraguan opposition
forces.
With distrotion and disregard for the facts, Mr. Barnes does a dis-
service to THE NEW REPUBLIC readership, and tries to disguise propa-
ganda as responsible journalism. In his zeal to condemn WOLA and
other organizations as a "Sandinista Lobby," Mr. Barnes sacrificed
the truth. Such articles poison the political climate, making an
honest and objective debate on the merits of the administration's
position even more difficult.
Joseph T. Eldridge
Director
Washington Office on Latin America
TO THE EDITORS:
Fred Barnes's attempt to smear my report "Contra Atrocities in
Nicaragua" ignores its verified accuracy.
Each account is based on the sworn affidavits of eyewitnesses---
145 in all---who were selected and interviewed with no government
interference. Each eyewitness is identified by name, age, place
of birth, and complete mother's and father's names. This was to
ensure that their accounts could be further verified. Four inde-
pendent groups have done so. Michael Glennon, former chief counsel
to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Donald Fox, a New
York corporate lawyer, after conducting 30 interviews in Nicaragua,
concluded that my report was accurate. The NEW YORK TIMES and
Americas Watch verified incidents chosen at random. And recently
Christopher Dickey of the WASHINGTON POST corroborated one of the most
shocking incidents---the kidnapping, torture, and murder of two elderly
Christian activists from Esteli.
Instead sof using these corroborating reports, Barnes refers only to a
"Reagan administration examination" that apparently questions some of
the witnesses' accounts. Unfortunately, the State Department has
steadfastly refused to make its "examination" public, since it appa-
rently confirms the vast majority of the atrocities. Rather, it has
attempted to peddle the stories of two "defectors" who claim I was in
the pay of the Sandinistas. One of these men---whom Barnes quotes
uncritically---was Bayardo Payan, the half brother of Mike Lima, the
CONTRAS' chief of operations and the alleged perpetrator of some of
the worst CONTRA massacres.
Reed Brody
New York, New York
FRED BARNES REPLIES:
I didn't accuse Americas Watch, WOLA, and the others of serving as
agents, paid or otherwise, of the Sandinista government. I simply
said they apply a double standard on human rights issues, tough on
pro-American countries and on the CONTRAS in Nicaragua, easy on the
Sandinistas. And I suggested they were "Sandinista sympathizers."
That's all.
Regarding specific complaints, I'm blamed for factual errors, but
then none is cited. Certainly Aryeh Neier doesn't cite any. When
I talked to Juan Mendez, he did seem more interested in raising
doubts about Baldizon's charges. Now Neier, in his letter, seems
just as interested in the same thing. Mendez said that Baldizon
made "some mistakes" and "contradictions," amd added that "some
information he professes to know firsthand is really third- and
fourth-hand." Moreover, Mendez said disparagingly that some of
Baldizon's information was "in conflict with other information we
have." It's fine that Mendez followed up with a long list of written
questions for Baldizon. But why was he---and now Neier---knocking
down Baldizon's case even before the man had replied? By the way,
Baldizon has doubts about A.W., too. He tells me that Mendez assured
him that his [Baldizon's] brother had been freed from a Sandinista
jail. Not so, says Baldizon. Anyway, he says he will reply to
Mendez's letter.
I'm glad that only one of eight reports on human rights in Nicaragua
compares that country's record with what Reagan claims. Still, I'd
like to see one that judges El Salvador's performance on human rights
against the case made by its harshest critics on the left. When A.W.
publishes one like that, it will be less vulnerable to the criticism
of a double standard.
Neier dismisses Baldizon's insistence that Sandinista abuses did not
taper off after 1982, as A.W. claims. In truth, Baldizon was in a
far better position, as chief of the special investigations commission
of Nicaragua's Ministry of Interior until July 11985, than Neier or
Mendez has ever been. Would Neier dismiss the word of a defector from
the El Salvador government? I doubt it.
One thing Neier's letter reflects accurately is A.W.'s sanctimony. A.W.
may be cautious in claiming abuses sin Nicaragua, but not in El Salvador.
It has used highly questionable figures there, and only grudgingly has
conceded that President Duarte has improved the human rights situation.
And despite A.W.'s claim that it takes no position on U.S. policy in
Central America, reports authored by an A.W. staffer are included in
the information book of the Coalition for a New Foreign and Military
Policy, which bitterly opposes U.S. policy. One report says there are
"credible" charges that Nicaraguan jailers use "corporal punishement."
In El Salvador, that's known as "torture."
Regarding WOLA, I didn't say it wasn't represented at the session with
Baldizon; I said Eldridge wasn't there. Here was an extraordinarily
important defector, and he sent a minion. Despite meeting with Baldizon
---two conversations so inconsequential that Baldizon doesn't even
remember them---Eldridge has yet to sit down with him for a substantive
talk. That's exactly what I said. Eldridge now says he's waiting for
Baldizon to call back. If you are truly eager to meet someone, waiting
by the phone isn't they way to accomplish it. To prove the point, I
called the State Department on January 22 to arrange a private talk with
Baldizon. I had to call back several times, but on January 24 Baldizon
and I had a two-hour talk. It is not that hard to see him alone, if you
really want to.
Eldridge says his remarks on the Guatemalan elections were not meant
scornfully. I accept that.
I agree with one point Reed Brody makes about the State Department's
examination of his report. The department ought to release it publicly
rather than leak what it says. But I'm not about to turn down leaked
information. And Brody doesn't refute the errors cited by the department.
His report, for all the affidavits, remains open to question. Nor does
he deny the assertions of two Nicaraguan defectors that he is a Sandinista
enthusiast and a critic of U.S. policy. And nobody said he was in "the
pay" of the Sandinistas, only that they picked up the tab for his expenses
in Nicaragua. He disclosed this in the preface to his report.
My main point about the Brody report was that it represents a double
standard. It cpncetrated solely on abuses by the CONTRAS, of which there
have been some. But where is the Brody report on human rights abuses by
the Sandinistas? If Brody's interested in doing one, there's a good place
for him to start---by getting in touch with Baldizon.
**************************************************************************
YET MORE ON ATROCITIES, SKEPTICS, & CRITICISMS OF SKEPTICISM
More on America's Watch: "Americas Watch asserts that "while both sides
have committed serious violations of the laws of war, there has been a
sharp decline in government abuses." A lengthy firsthand investigative
report in THE ATLANTA CONSTITUTION (April 28, 1985) raised questions
about the methodology of the recent human-rights reports and reported
large-scale human-rights violations by the Nicaraguan government."
--- Robert S. Leiken, "The Battle for Nicaragua," NYReview of Books,
3/13/86, page 52.
More on Baldizon: "A recent Sandinista defector trained in police
methods in Moscow, Alvaro Baldizon, estimates that two thousand
Nicaraguans have been kidnapped, tortured, or executed by Sandinista
authorities since the revolution. Baldizon charges that in late 1981
Tomas Borge approved a secret plan for `special measures' --- i.e.,
assassinations --- to be carried out by small squads of no more than
five persons against low- and middle-level opposition activists,
peasants judged sympathetic to the rebels, captured prisoners, and
Miskito Indians. When I interviewed Baldizon he told me that he
personally knew of some six hundred such special assassinations. He
claimed he had verified the existence of clandestine cemeteries for
`special measures' victims in two war zones."
"Baldizon served as a special investigator in Borge's Ministry of
Interior. He says that Borge, concerned by queries from international
human-rights organizations about missing Nicaraguans that often impli-
cated his ministry, and fearful of losing support from friendly Latin
American and European governments, set up a special investigations
committee in December 1982, to which Baldizon was assigned. According
to Baldizon, 90 percent of the allegations against Sandinista security
forces from the families of victims proved accurate. In June 1985
Baldizon fled to Honduras with a large folder of official committee
documents containing information on the committee's handling of the
casesd it considered. The documents include accounts of investiga-
tions of numerous executions and disappearances and a memo from an
officer of the special investigation committe referring to `special
measures.'"
--- ibid, page 52.
More on Americas Watch & Baldizon: "On December 3, Americas Watch,
which is investigarting Baldizon's charges, sent him a letter raising
many questions, particularly about the number of executions he reports
and about what Americas Watch regards as discrepancies in his statements.
Americas Watch director Aryeh Neier believes that
some of Baldizon's information is accurate, and it certainly
should be further investigated, as we are trying to do. So
far, we find his claim that, to his knowledge, the Sandinistas
have killed six hundred [sic., 2000] civilians inconsistent
with the information compiled by the anti-Sandinista Permanent
Commission for Human Rights in Managua, the OAS's Latin American
Commission on Human Rights, as well as Americas Watch. These
organizations have reported information on approximately three
hundred killings and disappearances carried out by the Sandi-
nistas, apart from combat, since 1980.
"Baldizon showed me the draft of a point-by-point reply. According
to him, the apparent discrepancy is explained by the widespread fear
among Nicaraguans of reprisals by the pervasive security apparatus
when they make denunciations to human-rights organizations. The
issues between Baldizon and Americas Watch are still to be resolved.
His story remains deeply disturbing, however, especially since he was
in a position to learn of executions and other abuses that could have
remained unknown to the human-rights organizations."
--- ibid, page 52.
Leiken's long article (pages 43-52), the 2nd of 3 (1st analyzed the
November 1984 elections & FSLN fraud & coercion, last "will consider
America's own entanglement and the bleak prospects for any settlement
of the conflict"), describes the civil war, & is filled with references
to compilations of atrocities & abuses by the FSLN; it also includes
much evidence of genuine popular support for the CONTRAS, especially in
the countryside, & of deep discontent with the FSLN regime. An article
by Arturo Cruz on the FSLN's agenda for what they consider to be the
crucial year of 1986 echoes Leiken's evidence by judging that in the
event of an invasion, the FSLN would immediately lose the support of
the Indian eastern region and the "deeply Catholic" peasant north, which
comprise most of the land area of Nicaragua. They would be hemmed in
along a small stetch of Pacific coast and their survival would crucially
depend on being supplied by Soviet ships via Pacific ports. Cruz claims
the Sandinistas themselves believe this analysis and are now extremely
anxious to forestall an invasion despite past rhetoric, by offering
concessions to international opinion in exchange for binding guarantees
of non-interference in Nicaragua's internal affairs. If true, then the
spectre of a bloodbath resulting from the patriotic rallying of the
population behind the regime caused by an invasion would be just that,
a phantom. It also suggests that the resistance of the FSLN might be
short-lived, if a Soviet sealift failed, or never began. If so, then
even the "bloody flag" of "U.S. intervention" may turn out to be yet
another piece of Sandinista mythology.
Better well-read than Red,
Ron Rizzo