charliep@tekgds.UUCP (08/20/83)
For a really interesting perspective about recent events in this country, read the recent Playboy interview with the leaders of that country. I think it is in this month's issue. Three things still stand out in my mind about this interview: 1. These guys would very much prefer to get along with US. 2. What they say is refreshingly different from the broad evasions and misrepresentations so often heard from OUR elected and non-elected officials. 3. They seemed very honest. I hope that doesn't mean that they are even more skilled actors that R. Reagan. Charles Perkins
myers@uwvax.ARPA (Jeff Myers) (08/21/83)
I would agree with Charles Perkins' assessment of the Playboy interview of various Sandanista leaders. The seemed very candid and even admitted to *mistakes* in their governments handling of the Miskito Indians. You'll like the nude picture of Ortega, too. His cloven hooves show prominently. :-) Jeff myers@uwvax
ka@spanky.UUCP (08/22/83)
To deal with your points in reverse order: They may have seemed honest, but I doubt if they were. I recall that they denied shipping arms to the rebels in El Salvedor; and I don't think that there is any real doubt that they have done exactly that. 2. What they say is refreshingly different from the broad evasions and misrepresentations so often heard from OUR elected and non-elected officials. Yes, compared with the Reagan administration, they came off pretty well. There certainly was a period when Reagan was making even the Russian propaganda machine sound like the voice of reason and common sense on the issue of arms control. But of course Reagan is not a particularly strong believer in the truth; note the administration complaints that the Voice of America spends too much time putting out facts rather than propaganda. 1. These guys would very much prefer to get along with US. Does anyone out there know enough about the history of US/Nicaraguan relations to evaluate this claim? It is obvious that the Nicaraguan government has taken actions which the US views as hostile. It has shipped arms to rebels in El Salvador. It has imported large numbers of Cuban advisors. And rather than teaching school children that it would be nice to be friends with the US, they teach them that America and Americans are hateful. For its part, the Us has eliminated foreign aid to Nicaragua while giving aid to Nicaragua's neighbors. More im- portant, it is financing Nicaraguan rebels who aim to overthrow the Nicaraguan government. Both sides justify their actions by the hostile actions on the part of the other side. I guess the question is: who was hostile first? The interview unfortunately did not address this question. In particular, no reference was made to Carter's attempts to be friendly with the Sandanistas by either the interviewer or the Sandanistas being interviewed. Kenneth Almquist
larry@grkermit.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (08/23/83)
From ka@spanky:
I recall that [The Nicaraguans]
denied shipping arms to the rebels in El Salvedor; and I don't
think that there is any real doubt that they have done exactly that.
~~~~~~~
What makes you say that? Did you know that for all the money the CIA
is spending on the Contras for the purpose of interdicting arms
shipments to El Salvador they have yet to stop one single arms shipment?
Its amazing how effective the "Big Lie" really is.
The Nicaraguans want to be friends with us because that is their only
viable option. The Soviets are not willing to spend $8 million a day
on them like they do on Castro, and it's not at all clear they the
Sandanistas want to become another Soviet Puppet anyway. The U.S. so
totally dominates the economy of this hemisphere that they must deal
with us whether they like it or not.
--
Larry Kolodney (The Devil's Advocate)
{linus decvax}!genrad!grkermit!larry
(ARPA) rms.g.lkk@mit-aichristen@hao.UUCP (Kevin Christen) (08/24/83)
Andy Berman says:
Kenneth Almquist's comment that they
[the Nicaraguans] are "teaching school
children that America and Americans are
hateful" is the kind of Neanderthal remark
that bears so little resembleance to truth
that it warrents little comment. It does
reflect well upon the desperate need in some
quarters to create fantasies to justify the
very hostile actions of our government against
Nicaragua.
The latest issue of National Review (Aug. 19 I think) reveals
that the Nicaraguan national anthem calls the U.S. "the enemy
of mankind." Don't believe everything you read in Playboy.
Kevin Christennotes@ucbcad.UUCP (09/05/83)
#R:hao:-61200:ucbesvax:7500034:000:3463 ucbesvax!turner Sep 4 04:47:00 1983 The Nicaraguan national anthem is not very complimentary to the "Yankees", as they are referred to in that song. That should not be used as evidence that schoolteachers imported from Cuba are teaching children to hate Americans, however. Rather, we should think of how such phrasing worked its way into a song intended to stir the hearts of patriots. Could it be that (no, shudder!) the U.S. actually did something BAD down there? Could Sandino have led a huge popular rebellion against a U.S. puppet regime, only to have it crushed by U.S. Marines? And that the memory of this slaughter left a bitter taste, and a desire to be free of foreign domination? How odd. Totally inexplicable. I suppose they should rewrite their national anthem, emphasizing their love for the misguided Yankee, and how they would like to have as much IMF development credit as the Phillipines enjoys. Getting real again (I hope): look what's going on now. "Free of foreign domination" is trickling down the drain. The USSR is dumping its bargain- basement tanks and SAM's into Nicaragua, while the US is slowly steaming into local waters, and positioning troops in nearby not-so-friendly Honduras. I give it till December. I have a no-longer-so-little brother in the Marines right now, and I'm frankly worried for him. The conservative (i.e., administration) line on all this is that they are *preventing* another Vietnam. How they plan to do this by retracing their footsteps right down into the quicksand is a little beyond me. Of course, they don't go into the details. Covert action, y'know. The CIA? Hey, we NEED those guys. And now Jimmy Carter comes out and "reverses" himself on El Salvador. He says, now, that he favors the hard line. Reverses himself!? He got us INTO this. And Haig, recently talking about how the problem down there is Terrorism (equals Communism). The White Hand, hacking people up with machetes--no, no, they're not terrorists. He means REAL Terrorists. Some people in this newsgroup are speaking favorably of a Sandinista, because he came here and sounded reasonable. Can you (I'm talking to you conservatives out there in netland) really blame them for wanting to hear something that sounds like reason, after the miserable flaming on the part of our national "leaders" on the subject of Nicaragua? Are you never embarassed by the pattern of lies, distortion and hysteria that Reagan and his ideological cohort rely on to persuade the U.S. public of their position on Central American revolution? YOU CANNOT "EXPORT" REVOLUTION. YOU CAN DIVERT IT, SELL IT OUT, CO-OPT IT, OR DISSOLVE IT IN BLOOD. BUT YOU CANNOT MAKE IT HAPPEN WHERE THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS DO NOT EXIST. PEOPLE DO NOT OFFER THEIR LIVES FOR ANY CAUSE OTHER THAN WHAT THEY PERCEIVE AS THEIR OWN DIGNITY AND FREEDOM. El Salvador is not on the "U.S. Mainland". (Geography lesson here for Caspar Weinberger.) It is on the North American mainland. And I am not a "Yankee". I am a U.S. citizen. Caspar Weinberger, on the other hand, IS a Yankee. I am not insulted by the Nicaraguan national anthem, because it does not refer to me. You "interventionaries" out there should only be glad that a devoutly Catholic nation is disinclined to use stronger language in expressing its national revulsion against decades of bullying. NOW do you know what "Yankee" means? National Review will never translate it for you. Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)
eich@uiuccsb.UUCP (09/09/83)
#R:tekgds:-126600:uiuccsb:11000013:000:30 uiuccsb!eich Sep 8 19:06:00 1983 You got number three right.
eich@uiuccsb.UUCP (09/09/83)
#N:uiuccsb:11000016:000:2830 uiuccsb!eich Sep 8 20:01:00 1983 ... /***** uiuccsb:net.politics / ucbesvax!turner / 4:52 pm Sep 4, 1983 */ > Getting real again (I hope): look what's going on now. "Free of foreign > domination" is trickling down the drain. The USSR is dumping its bargain- > basement tanks and SAM's into Nicaragua, while the US is slowly steaming > into local waters, and positioning troops in nearby not-so-friendly Honduras. [nb]> I give it till December. I have a no-longer-so-little brother in the > Marines right now, and I'm frankly worried for him. > ... > Are you never embarassed by the pattern of lies, distortion and hysteria that > Reagan and his ideological cohort rely on to persuade the U.S. public of > their position on Central American revolution? This person is flaming against hysteria? Oxymoronic flaming (please document instances of lying--primary sources please, not Mother Jones). > YOU CANNOT "EXPORT" REVOLUTION. YOU CAN DIVERT IT, SELL IT OUT, CO-OPT > IT, OR DISSOLVE IT IN BLOOD. BUT YOU CANNOT MAKE IT HAPPEN WHERE THE > NECESSARY CONDITIONS DO NOT EXIST. PEOPLE DO NOT OFFER THEIR LIVES FOR > ANY CAUSE OTHER THAN WHAT THEY PERCEIVE AS THEIR OWN DIGNITY AND FREEDOM. > You "interventionaries" out there should only be glad that > a devoutly Catholic nation is disinclined to use stronger language in > expressing its national revulsion against decades of bullying. > ... > Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner) /* ---------- */ And you "isolationaries" can keep your rhetorical paws off of the phrase "devoutly Catholic." The Sandinistas calculatingly disrupted Pope John Paul II's outdoor mass with the most noxious kind of Marxist hagiography. Huge banners of the bloodthirsty likes of General Sandino draped behind altars are NOT devoutly Catholic, they're grotesquely idolatrous. Unless you're the kind of simpleton who believes that beneath every anti-American slogan there lives a simple, justly agrieved consciousness yearning for the blissful peace of socialism, you know that, at the very least, all is not right in Nicaragua. By the way, we are supporting an indiginous revolution: the one led by Eden Pastora against the Mercedes-equipped Directorate in Managua. They fight for a moral cause: the restoration of the liberties promised by the Sandinistas to the multifarious moderate groups who helped them overthrow Somoza. And I'd say the treatment of the Meskito indians, not to mention their now-admitted support of the 5000-odd Cuban-trained, anti-democratic guerillos in El Salvador, is reason enough to support Pastora. Brendan Eich p.s. This issue won't be resolved in debate by citing the blood spilled by ideologues on either side, because I can flame on quite a bit from second- hand experience about the grotesqueries served up by the left in Central America, and I'm almost mad enough to do so.
grunwald@uiuccsb.UUCP (09/10/83)
#R:tekgds:-126600:uiuccsb:11000017:000:702 uiuccsb!grunwald Sep 9 13:45:00 1983 Even our own government admits that arms shipments from N. to El Salvador have been minimal since at least the beginning of the year. The U.S. has had border patrols, sea patrols + spy planes in that area, but they have not uncovered a well docuemnted shipment of weapons to El Salvador. I don't doubt that N. ships arms to El Salvador -- I don't even think that it's terrible that they do. However, I do object to this attitude that if you repeat something often enough, evryone will believe it's true. Now, a documented fact, on the other hand, is the fact that the Salvadorian rebels buy most of their weapons from the El Salvadorian government through corrupt officials and soldiers.
brener@milrat.DEC (09/11/84)
i find it very exciting that computer professionals are taking an interest in the productive development of nicaragua as demonstrated in Bernard Winter's recent report. i however would be interested in a report addressing the committment of the sandanista government to the welfare of the nicaraguan people from those who have been there, and if they think that the mass media here manipulates the truth. (are we victims of a propaganda campain?) steve b
robertsb@ttidcb.UUCP (Robin Roberts) (09/25/84)
Mike Kelly quotes a New York Times article which implies that Nicaragua has a better human rights record than does El Salvador. He uses this to justify his assertion that we are supporting the wrong side. Both he and the writer he quotes are ignoring all stories that do not conform to their versions of reality. Most of the counter-revolutionaries in Nicaragua are Nicaraguan peasants, or Miskito or Misura indians against whom the Sandinista government is pursuing a genocidal campaign. Further there have been many reports ( all of which have been ignored by Amnesty International since they don't match THEIR illusions either ) of imprisonment and torture of men, women and children in their pursuit of ideological purity. The Nicaragua government now has an armed force over three times the size of Somoza Guardia Nacional and armed with much heavies weapons such as artillery and tanks than Somoza's ever had. The Sandinista revolution began as a wide based one but has since resulted in a government representing only the minority Marxist element. Somoza was a dictator who was justifiably overthrown but he has been replaced by a government even more repressive. We are supporting the correct side(s) in Central America. The left-leaning press in this country does not understand the region and does us no good in their slant of the news.
baba@flairvax.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (09/29/84)
(A friend of mine has been working in Honduras and Costa Rica for the last
few years, and has traveled in Sandinist Nicaragua. Thought I'd pass along
some of his observations in my own words based our conversations.)
The Sandinist revolution in Nicaragua was remarkably broad-based and popular,
and was generally supported by the people of the surrounding countries. There
is no question of the legitimacy of the Sandinist government.
Many Nicaraguans are unhappy with the turn of events since the revolution.
The political base of the government narrowed to the left, and "Danielito"
Ortega has been taking on strongman trappings. The influence and privilege
of the Cubans is resented, though the Cuban aid in reconstruction is generally
appreciated. The quality of life has never recovered from the revolution.
There are shortages of food and jobs. The anti-religious bent of the government
(despite the presence of a priest in the directorate) bothers the more devout,
especially in rural areas, where support for the Contras is stronger than most
press reports would indicate. This is not to say that the Sandinistas would
necessarily loose a fair election, but they have cause to fear one.
The Miskito Indians of the Atlantic coast, who speak an English dialect and
who have remained culturally distinct, are regarded with suspicion by the
Sandinistas. The Miskitos resent the government's (Spanish) literacy
campaigns and attempts to organize them into co-operatives. The Sandinistas
fear a Miskito revolt and/or independence movement as much as they fear the
Contras. There have been forced relocations ("out of combat zones") and
political repression, though not necessarily on a genocidal scale.
Hondurans and Costa Ricans are alarmed by Nicaragua's militarization.
Nicaragua has about as many men under arms as Mexico, a country with
20 times Nicaragua's population.
(BTW, My friend is teacher and former Peace Corps volunteer and is opposed to
almost every facet of Reagan's foreign policy *except* in Central America!)wall@ucbvax.ARPA (Steve Wall) (09/29/84)
I'm sorry, but I can't stand it anymore. Person1 quotes the N.Y. Times, then Person2 denounces Person1 by quoting the Wall St. Journal, then Person1 denounces Person2 by quoting The Nation, etc, etc... How about *thinking* about what is written, *critiquing* what is written, or *discussing* what is written, rather than jockeying back and forth. I think we can all agree that it is *very* hard to get a clear picture about what is going on in C. America, but let's do the best we can with what we have to work with. Here are some thoughts of my own to (perhaps) get some things going: >From: robertsb@ttidcb.UUCP (Robin Roberts) >Subject: Re: nicaragua >Most of the counter-revolutionaries in Nicaragua are Nicaraguan >peasants, or Miskito or Misura indians against whom the Sandinista government >is pursuing a genocidal campaign. Yes, the Miskito Indian situation. True, the Miskitos were not really part of the revolution, mostly because their culture is quite different from the more populated west coast, and there is a large mountain range and dense jungle between the two coasts. Thus, the Sandinista's definitely were interested in integrating the Miskitos into the revolutionary society. They tried to teach them some of the revolutionary ideas through the literacy campaign of 1980, although this didn't seem to work too well. Now, a few questions: *When* did the relocations/persecutions of the Miskitos begin? My sense is that it was not immediately after the revolution. Anyone have any ideas? *Why* did the Sandinistas relocate the Miskitos? Obviously, one of their main concerns was the Honduran border problem. The Somacistas gathered their forces on the Honduran border, and the Sandinistas responded by strengthening the border area. Thus, they had to deal with the Miskito population. Would the Sandinistas have relocated the Miskitos if the Honduran border had not been such a sensitive strategic area? I don't think so, and I think that the Somacistas knew this when they chose to gather their forces in that area. What do you think? *Who* are the Somacistas? My impression is that they are ex-national guardsmen (under Somoza), foreign mercenaries (who, for some reason, like to play jungle war games), and parts of the Miskito Indian population. My impression is that there are not a lot of peasants within the ranks of the Somicistas. Most peasants have benefitted from the land reform programs implemented by the Sandinistas, although because the economy is so weak, many peasants might be upset because their standard of living has not improved as much as they might want. What is the goal of the Somacistas? It seems pretty clear that they want to overthrow the Sandinistas. Is this also the US/CIA's goal? The administration says that they are only interested in cutting off the flow of arms to the guerillas in El Sal. Is there still a large flow of arms from Nic. to El Sal? Has the administration showed the American public *proof* that there are such shipments? Should the American public ask for such proof before their tax dollars are sent to the Somacistas? Also, I really feel inside that the Sandinista government has tried to improve the living situation for the many poor people in Nicaragua. By implementing the land reform programs, they have given poor peasants a chance to own land; these same peasants were wage laborers before the revolution, and they didn't exactly make a lot of money. The literacy rate dropped from ~52% to ~8%. Health care and housing was improved. The Sandinistas broke the oligarchy, thus more people are sharing the wealth and land distribution is more equal. There *have* been failures, but the intentions, I believe, were good. I think that most people in Nicaragua have the same impression, and that's why the revolution has survived up to this point. There seems to be a pretty strong backing for the Sandinistas. One more point. I just noticed that the population of Nicaragua is 2,300,000. Estimates say that the Somacistas number between 10-15,000; That leaves 2,280,000 people who either support the Sandinistas, or feel that the Sandinistas are better than the Somacistas. Please don't suggest to me that 2,280,000 support the government in fear of repression if they criticize the government; I really can't swallow that. I'm sorry if this article is too long, but if we're going to *discuss* the situation rather than acuse one another of "not knowing the facts", then the articles have to be somewhat lengthly. Also, I *do* have my biases (you can probably tell from the above comments), but I'm trying to avoid "accusations" and "attacks". I feel that the issue is not as black and white as it is sometimes portrayed, and thus needs as much discussion as possible. Thanks for listening, Steve Wall ..!ucbvax!wall
brener@milrat.DEC (10/01/84)
Some of us remember a picture that Al Haig showed us a few years back as "proof" of Miskito genocide due to the Sandanistas. Amnesty International just so happened to have a copy of this picture which turned out not to be a Sandanista raid, but a raid by the Samosa forces. As far as Nicaragua running guns to the Salvadoran rebels: About two months back as reported in the N.Y. TIMES the CIA officer in charge of the surveilance of arms flow in C.A., specifically assigned to the task of monitoring and coming up with evidence of the alleged arms flow from Nicaragua to the El Salvadoran rebels quit in disgust. He said that after three years of surveillance there was no flow as far as CIA could determine. If you are interested his name is David C. MacMichaels. steve b
hope@gatech.UUCP (Theodore Hope) (10/01/84)
>From: wall@ucbvax.ARPA (Steve Wall) >Subject: Re: nicaragua (long article, but *please* read) >One more point. I just noticed that the population of Nicaragua is >2,300,000. Estimates say that the Somacistas number between 10-15,000; >That leaves 2,280,000 people who either support the Sandinistas, or >feel that the Sandinistas are better than the Somacistas. Please don't >suggest to me that 2,280,000 support the government in fear of repression >if they criticize the government; I really can't swallow that. You mean you can't swallow the thousands of 'desaparecidos' in Argentina or the countless numbers of Russians who have been shipped off to Siberia for speaking out? The 2,280,000 people that 'support' the government, as you say, may not in reality do so. Yes, entire populations remain silent out of fear. Just look at the USSR: how many people over there get away with criticizing the government? The same is true for many countries in Latin America and other parts of the world. The situation is not polarized; we can't separate the Nicaraguans into those a) supporting the government and not supporting the guerrillas and b) supporting the guerrillas and not supporting the government. A large portion of the population remains silent and publicly unsupportive of the guerrilla movement for fear of government repression. -- Theodore Hope School of Information & Computer Science, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet: Hope @ GATech ARPA: Hope%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!hope ...!{rlgvax,sb1,uf-cgrl,unmvax,ut-sally}!gatech!hope
brener@milrat.DEC (10/02/84)
>Samosa was a dictator who was justifiably overthrown but he has been >replaced by a government even more repressive. Be serious, if the Sandanista government were more repressive than the Samosa regime (an impossible event to imagine) by now most of the population would have been executed. To refresh your memory, Samosa ordered the Air Force to run bombing raids on the civilian population.If any sort of event of this nature is occuring in Nicaragua it would be on the front page of every paper in this country every day (why don't they talk about Guatemala, Chile,Zaire, etc., is it because they are"open and friendly"?).Yes, the forced relocations of the Miskito Indains was undesirable,they were isolated from the revolution and felt that the Sandinistas were trying to invade their culture, but the Sandanistas have realized their mistake and are trying to cooperate. It would be a good idea to talk to some people who have traveled there as an educational experience, Nicaraguans welcome Americans to spend time in Nicaragua so they may determine the truth for themselves instead of relying on a maligned press. After fighting so hard and sustaining such casualities (50,000 dead during the course of the struggle) the people are not likely to settle for a government "even more repressive". steve b
pollack@uicsl.UUCP (10/03/84)
>Most of the counter-revolutionaries in Nicaragua are Nicaraguan >peasants, or Miskito or Misura indians against whom the Sandinista government >is pursuing a genocidal campaign. No. The Honduras-based terrorists are mostly former National Guards who were exiled instead of shot, since the Sandinista's outlawed Capital Punishment. A Miskito contingent exists, led by Steadman Fagoth, who is well documented as a highly paid CIA "Informant". Never any evidence of genocide, several border villages were moved, under international observation. >Further there have been many reports ( all of which have been ignored by >Amnesty International since they don't match THEIR illusions either ) of >imprisonment and torture of men, women and children in their pursuit of >ideological purity. Well, Amnesty international has illusions which cause it to overlook Mr. Roberts hysterical belief in communist torture, has it? They have found about a dozen things to complain about in Nicaragua (like bad food in prison), which puts it on the same scale as the U.S. and Western Europe; Far better than Guatemala, South Africa, Israel, Turkey, or the Soviet Union. >Somoza was a dictator who was justifiably >overthrown but he has been replaced by a government even more repressive. Let's see: The Sandinistas are missing some of Somoza's crucial features, like Death Squads, family control of 60% of the country's resources, a company which exported human blood, ... >We are supporting the correct side(s) in Central America. The left-leaning >press in this country does not understand the region and does us no good in >their slant of the news. If We supported the stable (?) governments in both El Salvador and Nicaragua, or if we asserted that both governments were bad, and supported the rebels, you might be able to squeak by with a statement like that. As it is, we are supporting whichever side is more bloodthirsty and promises better tax structures for our corporations. -------------------------- You Know, sometimes I wish that such a devout beliver would argue the real right-wing position, which is that the profits from exploitation of peasants in Central America are good for our country, and, thus, a rise in the prices of coffee or bananas is contrary to our national security. That way, the millions spent in the efforts to overthrow progressive governments could be justified as a long-term investment, whose goal is the reinstitution of a "good business climate." This can be justified to the American people by asserting they will have lower banana prices in the future. Then the national debate would rise from the level of the RED SCARE to a sensible discussion of economic priorities. Didn't the Vietnam war finally end because finally some powers realized it to be a bad "investment?" I mean, the Utilities justify rate increases to cover cost overruns in constructing Nuke Plants -- we can put another line on our 1040 forms: 1% tax for "Deconstruction Work in Progress". For Bananas, I'd Rather Pay than Slay, Jordan
myers@uwvax.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (10/05/84)
> >Samosa was a dictator ... > > Be serious, if the Sandanista government ... Please, folks, it is SOMOZA and SANDINISTA.