[net.politics] Contadora, Nicaragua and Reagan:facts for Jan

orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (12/03/85)

I don't know if Jan has been hiding in a hole or what-his
comments seem to imply so:
> [-- Jim Balter (ima!jim)]
> >>>The fact is that it is the U.S. that  is  totally  isolated  from
> >>>world  opinion  concerning Nicaragua, and that rejects the Conta-
> >>>dora process.
> 
> >>You are out of date on both points.
> 
> >You don't say?  Elaborate please.
> 
> US government had some initial  hesitation  about  the  Contadora
> process;  then  it  decided to endorse it. It has been officially
> supporting it now for years. You are a genuine Rip van Winkle.
 
Oh really, Jan? Yes, the Reagan administration *was* supporting
Contadora as a stick to bit Nicaragua with: until a draft treaty
was drawn up last year which called for the withdrawal of *ALL*
foreign military forces both Soviet-Cuban and American.
Nicaragua agreed to the draft treaty: the Reagan administration
promptly reversed years of breast-beating about Contadora and
opposed it.  Since then it has gone nowhere - primarily because
of Reagan administration opposition.  It is one thing for the
Soviets to withdraw from advising Nicaragua and another for the US
to withdraw from Central America militarily.  The famous double
standard so oft-repeated.
> 
> The isolation of US on the Nicaraguan issue ended later
> than that. But it did end.
> --In Europe, the press - left, center and right of center -
> used to be very critical of USA on this issue. Now (judging
> from stray issues of several periodicals), centrist and
> right-of-center press is more critical of Nicaragua than the USA.
> That change occurred even before Oct 15 decrees, though they clinched
> it. (BTW, right-left axis here concerns foreign policy, so that, e.g.
> Mitterand is not on the left).
 
I have no doubt that the predominately democratic left everywhere
(as usual) is conscientious in criticizing the Oct. 15 decrees
for their movement away from democracy.  So am I.  However that does
not mean anyone but the militaristic right-wing supports armed
terrorism as any solution to that problem: if anything it either
provides an excuse or forces such action.  I would like to see quotes
from leftist journals saying that, yes, the US has every right to
fund terrorism in Nicaragua.  I bet you find NADA.
Jan's distortion is shown in the following:
 
> --Finally - just happened to read in today's (Nov 26) NY Times
> an article by a liberal democratic congressman. It is entitled:
> Bridging the Gap With Nicaragua. The content corresponds to the
> title: as you can see, his position is much nearer yours than
> mine. He argues thus:
> 
> >We have nothing to lose; perhaps the Sandinistas are now 
> >ready to deal. Mr Ortega surely must recognize that Nicaragua
> >is growing more and more isolated...
> 
 
I read that piece, Jan, and the Congressman said that he now
regretted voting for aid to the contras: that if anything the
militarized response of the US is forcing the Nicaraguans
away from their previous steps towards democracy.
              tim sevener  whuxn!orb