mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (04/25/85)
Sorry, I said 60% of the economy is in public hands; that should be *private* hands. The Sandinista's have publicly committed themselves to a mixed economy. The reaction of Soviet officials to charges of "Marxist" Sandinistas is laughter. To them, the Sandinistas are reformists and bourgeois social democrats. Mike Kelly
ekrell@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/29/85)
In article <153@ttrdc.UUCP> mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) writes: > The reaction of Soviet officials to charges of "Marxist" Sandinistas >is laughter. To them, the Sandinistas are reformists and bourgeois social >democrats. > >Mike Kelly If that's the case, then what is doing Daniel Ortega (The Sandinista leader) in Moscow asking for 200 million dollars?. Since when does the USSR give money away to "bourgeois social democrats"? ... -- Eduardo Krell UCLA Computer Science Department ekrell@ucla-locus.arpa ..!{sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!ekrell
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (04/29/85)
PBS' Front Line installment on Nicaragua claimed I believe that 50% of the Nicaraguan economy is private. Do the Soviets think the Sandinists are Marxist-Leninists (many are obviously Marxists of one flavor or another; read their public state- ments)? Does it really matter (for Soviet policy toward Nicaragua)? According to Arkady Shefchenko, the highest Soviet official ever to defect, in the early 60s, after careful scrutiny & much guessing, Soviet officialdom concluded Castro wasn't even a Marxist, though his brother Raoul was a Communist. That judgment didn't prevent Cuba from becoming an economic dependent of the USSR.
mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (04/30/85)
>From: rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) >Do the Soviets think the Sandinists are Marxist-Leninists (many are >obviously Marxists of one flavor or another; read their public state- >ments)? Does it really matter (for Soviet policy toward Nicaragua)? Good point; probably not. However, I think that it is clear to anyone who looks at the evidence that Soviet involvement in Nicaragua in particular, and Central America in general, is pretty minimal. This fact doesn't stop the Reagan Administration from raising the Soviet boogeyman. (Of course, facts have got in the way of very little the Reagan Administration wants to do, but that's another article...) What the Reagan Administration clearly seeks is the same authority over Central America the Soviet Union has over Eastern Europe. It holds to itself the right to veto any government it disagrees with (viz Grenada), forcibly if need be. The evil is not the Marxists in the Nicaraguan government (I never said there weren't any, just that the government policies are not Marxist), but the morally bankrupt policy the Reagan Administration has taken towards all of Central America. Where were such noted fans of Central American democracy as Ronald Reagan, George Schultz and Cap Weinberger when the Somoza regime was ruling Nicaragua with active U.S. support? Where was their concern about fair and free elections then? It is little surprise to me that the Nicaraguan government isn't too crazy about the U.S. If I were them, I'd be pissed as hell at a government that supported a dictatorship in my country for decades. But that's beside the point, and most people in the Nicaraguan government realize that. They seek friendly relations with the U.S. They do not seek to be a U.S. puppet. Nor do they seek to be a Soviet puppet. Despite Reagan Administration rhetoric, which seems to equate acceptance of any Soviet assistance with mainlining heroin, only U.S. actions will drive the Nicaraguans into the Soviet bloc. Tell me, what choice does that government have when the Reagan Administration: - funds terrorists dedicated to overthrowing the country, - mines its harbors, - cuts off all economic assistance, - pressures its allies to freeze out the Nicaraguans (mostly unsuccessfully, thank goodness, which is further testimony to how isolated the Reagan policy is in the world), - *and now* talks about an economic blockade because the Administration is in a snit over loosing a funding battle in Congress. The U.S., by the way, accounts for about 20% of Nicaragua's foreign trade. An economic blockade would be pretty serious. It's becoming a matter of *survival* for the Nicaraguan government. I agree that it wasn't very politic of Ortega to go to Moscow the day after the contra vote, but I understand wanting to send the message. My God, imagine the feeling of impotence knowing that the future of your country was being debated in Washington, where you have no influence. It's hard to consistently pass up the little ways you have of thumbing your nose at the emperor. Mike Kelly
matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews) (05/01/85)
> Good point; probably not. However, I think that it is clear to anyone > who looks at the evidence that Soviet involvement in Nicaragua in > particular, and Central America in general, is pretty minimal. Could you back that up? The evidence I've seen indicates that the Soviets send 20 times as much aid to the region as we do (this includes Cuba, of course). > > It is little surprise to me that the Nicaraguan government isn't too > crazy about the U.S. If I were them, I'd be pissed as hell at a > government that supported a dictatorship in my country for decades. What do you mean by "supported"? The Carter administration gave the Sandinistas more government aid in one year than the U.S. had given Samoza in three decades. The U.S. cannot be held responsible for the tyranny of every pro-U.S. dictator around the world, especially when we give them no substantial support. > Tell me, what choice does > that government have when the Reagan Administration: > > - funds terrorists dedicated to overthrowing the country, > - mines its harbors, > - cuts off all economic assistance, > - pressures its allies to freeze out the Nicaraguans (mostly > unsuccessfully, thank goodness, which is further testimony > to how isolated the Reagan policy is in the world), > - *and now* talks about an economic blockade because the > Administration is in a snit over loosing a funding battle > in Congress. The U.S., by the way, accounts for about 20% > of Nicaragua's foreign trade. An economic blockade would > be pretty serious. The Sandinista military buildup, establishment of a one-party junta, and institution of relocation camps all antedate the actions you describe. Ortega and Tommy Borge went off to be educated in Moscow *before* all these things. The Sandinistas adoption of an openly anti-American national anthem happened while we were sending them aid. The "we drove them to the Soviets" argument just doesn't hold water. > > Mike Kelly Jim Matthews matthews@harvard
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (05/01/85)
<followup to Mike Kelly>
Reagan : Central America :: USSR : Eastern Europe??
I don't think the analogy holds at all. Economic imperialism and
chronic political interference (19th century American adventurers
invading Nicaragua, US marines in this century, supporting dictators)
is not the same as totalitarian control and massive military occupa-
tion. All of Eastern Europe is occupied by Soviet armies & tanks.
Sandinist policies aren't Marxist-Leninist? The use of "mass organi-
zations", political control of the military by a party rather than a
government, single massive gov't organizations such as a labor federa-
tion, a youth organization, etc. to monopolize all organizational and
political initiatives (combined with repression of independent organi-
zations), lawless rule (the state of emergency, political control of
courts, cops, & paramilitary units), subversion of elections and harass-
ment of political expression ("turba" gangs, etc.), heavy censorship,
close ties to Cuba & now the USSR, incessant ideological mobilization
of the population, residential block spies (Sandinist Defense Committees),
etc. Phew! It sures looks like left-totalitarianism to me. I posted
New Republic (10/8/85) articles by Robt & Sam Leikin to document this.
It's not surprising people aren't too aware of what is going on inside
Nicaragua. The reporting of the North American press has been lazy and
mediocre. The fact that there is still some diversity, visible protest,
& "mix" in the economy & elsewhere is an artifact of the 1979 revolution:
it was very broadly based. But the direction of the Managua regime is
clear to anyone willing to read the signs.
Regards,
Ron Rizzogtaylor@lasspvax.UUCP (Greg Taylor) (05/02/85)
In article <> ekrell@ucla-cs.UUCP (Eduardo Krell) writes: > If that's the case, then what is doing Daniel Ortega (The Sandinista leader) >in Moscow asking for 200 million dollars?. Since when does the USSR give money >away to "bourgeois social democrats"? ... Uh...how's this Eduardo-Ortega is shopping for money because the Reaganistas have been muscling the international lending institutions to turn down any loans to the Nicaraguans. Where else they gonna go for a loan? And besides-suppose you're a good Russkie (heaven forbid) who sees a chance to encourage a mixed-market economy to head a little more in your direction by sending a little "aid" (yeah, I know. Funny looking aid, huh? We do it too.) It would sound like a good deal to me. My new theory is that we should all start spelling Contadora as CONTadoRA (after some of us learn to spell it correctly). Perhaps the powers that be will be thinking that the little portmanteau sneaker 'looks' like it deserves the same kind of dogged support as the moral equivalent of our founding fathers. How about it? -- ________________________________________________________________________________ Once I was young:once I was smart:now I'm living on the edge of my nerves:-Japan Gregory Alan Taylor:162 Clark Hall:Cornell University:Ithaca,NY 14850:USA USENET: {cmcl2,decvax,ihnp4}!cornell!lasspvax!gtaylor ARPANET: gtaylor@lasspvax.arpa BITNET: gtaylor@crnlthry.bitnet ________________________________________________________________________________
mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (05/04/85)
>From: rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) > >The Sandinists have said they wanted normalization of relations with >the US to foster trade and even economic aid, but that administration >support for the contras stood in the way of such normalization. Last >Wednesday the US Congress voted down aid to the contras. Yet Sunday, >a mere 4 days later, Ortega flew to Moscow to ask for aid. First, it is absurd to imply that only Administration support for the contas stands in the way of normalization of relations. What stands in the way of normalization is the stated U.S. goal of "removing the Nicaraguan government in its present form." Let's hear Reagan renounce that statement; then we can talk about normalization. The Nicaraguans are still willing to talk, though, even with that repugnant statement from our President hanging in the air. But the Administration insists they talk with the contras; as Ortega rightfully says, when someone sics a dog on you, you don't talk to the dog, you talk to its owner. It is obvious to anyone who follows the news that it is the U.S. Administration that has refused to negotiate. For those fans of unsubstantiated allegations (i.e. lies), rrizzo offers the following: >As is longstanding Communist diplomatic practice, >nothing was said about military aid, though most observers are sure >this is included; the Sandinists have been shopping for fighter jets >for some time now. > >The Soviet navy will gain use of the Pacific port of Corinto ... >This seriously complicates, even compromises, the strategic security >of the US in its OWN hemisphere. Bye bye, Monroe doctrine! > >Iran is shipping arms to Nicaragua via North Korea (shades of the >1930s: the nastiest regimes find common cause). > First, phrases like "most observers" are designed to deceive. *Which* observers? The U.S. embassy? I don't doubt it. Furthermore, given the massive U.S. presence in Honduras -- including fighter jets -- I think that acquisition of such equipment by Nicaragua can easily be understood as defensive. For Chrissakes, there's a *war* going on. It is understandable that those who want the Sandinista's to lose don't want them to buy any weapons. But the best way to stop the regional weapons buildup is to sign the Contadora agreement and get the U.S. troops *out* of Central America, as well as all other foreign troops; the Nicaraguans have already initialled the Contadora Agreement. Why hasn't the U.S.? The Monroe Doctrine, morally bankrupt when it was initially declared over a century ago, has long since expired. If you remember, Ron, it said "You stay on your side of the Atlantic, we'll stay on our side, and anyone can go in the middle." By the Monroe Doctrine, there would be no NATO. Furthermore, for your information, this is not "our" hemisphere. We share it with about fifty other countries. The U.S. wouldn't put up with them pushing us around, and there's no reason they should put up with the opposite (despite the fact that they've had no choice given our over- whelming military superiority.) Now we know what happened to all the bullies of our youths; they joined CIA, AID and the State Department. Mike Kelly