rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (08/12/85)
************************** PSEUDO-SANDINISM UNMASKED? ************************** John Silber, controversial president of Boston University & a member of the President's National Bipartisan Commission on Central America (the Kissinger Commission), wrote the following review of Shirley Christian's NICARAGUA: REVOLUTION IN THE FAMILY, a brand-new study of revolutionary Nicaragua, and possibly the definitive expose' of Sandi- nista tyranny and deceit that's been lacking for so long. Is Silber's review accurate? Is Christian's critique valid? Get a copy of the book and read it! I am. I'll post synopses when I finish reading it. I'm cross-posting to net.religion because of information about "libe- ration theology" & Sandinist manipulation/persecution of religion, & to net.motss, because many lesbian & gay activists have expressed support for the regime, believing it was different from Cuba's. Greater Boston residents: Wordsworth's in Harvard Square, Cambridge, carries the book, probably at its usual discount. Better well-read than Red, Ron Rizzo [ Reprinted in its entirety from Boston Sunday Globe, 8/11/85, pp. A10-11 without permission. ] DEMYTHOLOGIZING THE SANDINISTAS =============================== NICARAGUA Revolution in the Family By Shirley Christian. Random House. 337 pp. $19.95. By John R. Silber It would have been useful if, through some time warp, the members of the Kissinger Commission had had Shirley Christian's "Nica- ragua: Revolution in the Family" as we sat in Managua listening to Nicaragua's foreign minister, Father Miguel D'Escoto, blame the United States for the sins of the Sandinistas. He was lying, and we told him so. But Christian's book would have made the refutation definitive and public: She cuts through mendacity and obfuscation with a powerful combination of thorough research, eyewitness experience and reportorial savvy. Christian shows that the history of our involvement in Nicaragua is not a subject for endless breast-beating but for honest appraisal. She reminds us that William Walker, the freebooter who took over the country just before the Civil War, was opposed by major US business interests and by our government, which refused to receive his ambassador. She thoroughly demythologizes Augusto Cesar Sandino, whom the Sandinistas use to give Marxism-Leninism a Nicaraguan accent, pointing out his stubborn and vociferous anticommunism. Sandino despised communism for its inter- nationalism, a prescient attitude, considering Nicaragua's present status as a pawn of the Soviet Union and Cuba. She also shows that the early presence of the United States was not mere imperialism, but an attempt to stabilize the country in response to a genuine threat of foreign influence. Sandino himself, refusing to lay down his arms because his liberal party was not guaranteed a suffi- cient share of power, twice offered to come to terms if the US Marines would remain in Nicaragua and run it until elections were conducted. By contrast, Christian writes, "The leaders of the Sandinista Front intended to establish a Leninist system from the moment they marched into Managua." She clearly shows that long before the revo- lution, the Sandinistas were Marxist-Leninist in thought and action. She details the deceits and opportunism by which they alternately flaunted and obscured their intentions. Anyone who thinks a Marxist- Leninist regime can be trusted or who finds it hard to conceive of ostensibly "progressive" rulers committed to deceit, rigid ideology and the ruthless exploitation of others, should read this book. Christian limns superbly the attitudes and personalities of the players, and the locales and ambiance in which they appear. She has been told or has witnessed some very interesting stories. Reading her book, one hears clearly the voices of genuine democracy: an earnest, wounded Arturo Cruz, analyzing his mistaken support of the Sandinistas; the dignity, courage and sorrow of Violeta Chamorro; the spunk and intelligence of the market women who continue to defy Sandinista harassment and brutality; or Adolfo Calero telling Somoza, whom he opposed, that he had better change fast, because "You're going to lose your best friends, the gringos. They are going to try and get your ass." A "liberation" church service Christian strikingly juxtaposes the hollow rhetoric of Marxist adventurers such as the Sandinista secret police chief, Tomas Borge, with the genuine concern of religious leaders and human-rights activists forced out of the country. Her protrait of a "liberation" church service at which, for an audience of foreign visitors, various members of "the people" perform like trained seals, is devastating. So is her account of a Sandinista "intellectual seminar" in which participants explain to each other what Sandino "would have said" if he had only understood Marxism. Christian's book is less instructive about the future. There has been and will be a continuing effort by the Soviet Union and Cuba to influence the course of events in our hemisphere. This played an important role in the Nicaraguan revolution and in US perception of it. Internal politics (the "family" referred to in Christian's sub- title) played a major role in bringing about the revolution. But the revolution's consequences will be determined not by the family, but by the Soviet Union and Cuba, by conditions in Nicaragua and by the United States. Christian correctly says that the revolution against Somoza was not a phenomenon of class struggle. She goes into some detail on the frustrations of the Sandinistas as they tried to stir up peasants and agitate the working class. "One of the first priorities of the Sandinistas," Eden Pastora recently told one of my associates with tongue in cheek, "is to turn peasants and farmers into proleta- rians. They will do this," he added more seriously, "by starving them." The 1979 uprising succeeded because the press, the middle class and organized labor in Nicaragua deserted Somoza. They were subsequently used as dupes and front men by the Sandinistas, whose years of Leninist study finally paid off. Carter administration faulted On the issue of US intervention, Christian rightly faults the Carter administration for trying to have it both ways. When President Carter appeared before the Kssinger Commission, we asked him why he had denied support to the democratic forces after the revolution. His answer was that this would have been intervention. He was justly proud, however, of his withdrawal of support for Somoza - an intervention as consequential as that he rejected. Christian concludes that "The Sandinista Front would have become a footnote to history had a moderate regime been able to assume power in Nicaragua before the end of 1978. But the Carter Administration could not make the decision to do what was necessary to bring this about." Our failure proved tragic for the Nicaraguan people: With Somoza stripped of US support, and the democratic forces weaponless, the triumph of the Marxist-Leninists was inevi- table. Although she does mention the Sandinistas' New York public relations firm, Christian plays down a subject on which she has been eloquent elsewhere: the role played by the media in romanticizing the Sandinistas. In a 1982 article on the Washington Jounalism Review, she demonstrated the extent to whic the press had been responsible for sweetening the image of the Sandinistas. Neither the Carter Administration nor the Reagan Administration was under any such illusions, but some members of Congress were. And congressional vacillation was a reflection of congressional and public misperception of the Sandinistas. The words Christian applied in 1982 to the US media apply equally well to the public and the Congress: "Intrigued by the decline and fall of Anastasio Somoza, they could not see the coming of Tomas Borge."
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (08/14/85)
In article <1520@bbncca.ARPA> rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) writes: >************************** >PSEUDO-SANDINISM UNMASKED? >************************** > >John Silber, controversial president of Boston University & a member >of the President's National Bipartisan Commission on Central America >(the Kissinger Commission), wrote the following review of Shirley >Christian's NICARAGUA: REVOLUTION IN THE FAMILY, a brand-new study of >revolutionary Nicaragua, and possibly the definitive expose' of Sandi- >nista tyranny and deceit that's been lacking for so long. > >Is Silber's review accurate? Is Christian's critique valid? Get a >copy of the book and read it! I am. I'll post synopses when I finish >reading it. > >I'm cross-posting to net.religion because of information about "libe- >ration theology" & Sandinist manipulation/persecution of religion, & >to net.motss, because many lesbian & gay activists have expressed >support for the regime, believing it was different from Cuba's. I've browsed through Ms. Christian's book, and have seen similar views. Silber's review, as reprinted here by Ron, is more about how the Sandinistas have deceived the US than how they've deceived their own people. Ms. Christian's book uses the same rhetorical theme throughout: by showing that the US has been deceived about the political stance of the Sandinistas, she wants us to believe that Nicaraguans have been deceived too. But one doesn't follow from the other. Most evident from Ms. Christian's book is how the Sandinistas have NOT hidden the political agendas of their leadership from the people, but have made those agendas explicit and frequently mentioned in rallies and speeches. If the US wants to act as if it's been deceived by all this, that's its problem. It's no crime to deceive people who have no business meddling in your affairs. Ms. Christian is wrong if she means to describe the success of the Sandinistas as the success of a Marxist-Leninist conspiracy. Not because it has no Marxism-Leninism, but because it never acted in a conspiratorial fashion towards the Nicaraguan people. Even businesspeople and bourgeois who worked with the Sandinistas always recognized its Marxist background and agenda. And her interviewing mode tells us nothing about why the Nicaraguan PEOPLE might support the Sandinistas over their contra alternatives. All her book is is a set of interviews, again with the rhetorical logic that if we find out that the Sandinistas are Marxist-Leninists, obviously we should then know from our knowledge of Communism that the people of Nicaragua could never support them. Ron Rizzo uses this logic too; he knows Marxism is tyranny, hence no people could support it, hence Christian's critique is final and conclusive. But Christian does nothing to prove this, she just assumes it. Blech. Finally, her book tells us nothing about how Nicaragua would run its country in a Marxist manner. The facts are that the USSR will not bankroll or defend Nicaragua, its economy is open, it's surrounded by hostile neighbors and it's a small country. These simple facts strictly limit the ability of Nicaragua to be doctrinare in any direction, even if its leaders want this (which I doubt). How Christian can imply that Nicaragua will be just like the other USSR-dominated nations and ignore these commanding environmental differences is beyond me. The books' facts, interviews, and chronology are magnificant and well-explained. I would recommend the book as a history of recent Nicaragua. But the argumentation and predictions which Christian wants to peddle from these facts are just pathetic. The book is journalism at its best and at its worst. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (08/16/85)
Let's continue this discussion in net.politics. I know, it's my
fault it's in net.motss. I'll just make a couple of points here.
Tony should read the book, not browse. He seems to have seen
only what he wanted to. It's simply false that:
1 The book is only a series of interviews. Christian
has covered & witnessed events in Central America for
years & read most of the available documents and other
literature. She's won a Pulitzer & another prize as a
a Central American correspondent. What other possible
sources of information are there --- direction revelation
from the Party?
2 The book only shows Americans, not Nicaraguans, were
deceived (I find this claim particularly bizarre).
Christian clearly documents Sandinista deceit and
manipulation of NICARAGUAN politicians, interest
groups, labor, the church, etc. Eg, during the 70s
they promised their goal was political pluralism &
democracy and toleration of private enterprise. They
told this to moderate & conservative allies; to heads
of state in Costa Rica, Venezuela (who armed the Sandi-
nistas at crucial moments); assorted foreign sympathi-
sers around the world; Eden Pastora (who was a non-
Marxist Christian), etc. It's clear from Christian's
narrative of events that belief in these promises
was crucial for the assorted support that made possible
the success of the 1979 revolution & of the Sandinistas.
Without it, the FSLN would've remained a small (200 or
fewer members) Marxist-Leninist guerilla band. Tony,
you'd better learn more about Nicaragua & Nicaraguans.
BTW, Tony, are you admitting that the FSLN is/has always been
Marxist-Leninist?
I've read enough pro-Sandinist apologies by North Americans to be
familiar with their arguments. Defenses usually consist of denying
the junta is strictly Marxist-Leninist, & blaming the US for its
excesses. It's interesting Tony's abandoned that approach in order
to be able to criticize Christian's book.
But thanks for taking the book seriously, even if your purpose in
reviewing (browsing?) it was to find an easy handle by which you
could dismiss it.
Better well-read than Red,
Ron Rizzo
"U.S. out of my pants!"lkk@teddy.UUCP (08/30/85)
Here is a rebuttal to Shirley Christian's book (taken from another
network):
-lk
-------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 85 08:14:15 PDT
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill)
Subject: Nicaragua, ctd.
Here is a partial reply to the book review JoSH posted. I may be
confused, though, JoSH. Perhaps you posted the original review as
commentary, rather than as a pointer to an important book. I will
respond soon to the substance of that review, but for now I would just
point out that the Kissinger Commission and the previous,
well-opinionated reviewer, spent a matter of hours (6?) in Nicaragua
on their "fact-finding" tour.
"A Contra's-eye View of Nicaragua", by Dan Bellm
San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday, August 18, 1985.
reprinted without permission
-----
Nicaragua's Sandinista government, now six years old, is deeply mired in a
war waged on its borders by counterrevolutionaries, or Contras. The Contras'
dependence on U.S. dollars and CIA coordination, and the danger that the war
may escalate, make it urgent that we learn what has been happening in Nicaragua
and why. We could use a well-researched study of Nicaragua's past history and
its six-year revolution, a book motivated by a desire for truth rather than
political loyalty, either to the Sandinistas or to their armed opponents.
"Nicaragua: Revolutioon in the Family", by Shirley Christian, a foreign
affairs reporter for The New York Times, is not that book. Although the
jacket notes promise "an insider's experience" and "an objective reporter's
analysis," Christian's bias emerges soon. The central characters in her
Nicaragua are landowners and urban business leaders, a privileged minority
who hoped the overthrow of the dictator Somoza in 1979 would involve little
more than a change of leaders. Since several of these people -- Adolfo Calero,
Alfonso Robelo and Arturo Cruz -- now lead the Contras, Christian's book reads
like a publicity drive on their behalf.
This campaign involves considerable rewriting of history. Since the
Contras include many of Somoza's former National Guardsmen -- a bothersome
"image question", Christian admits -- she is careful to downplay the brutality
of the Guard and of the Somoza family itself. This is her summary of the
record: "The government bureaucracy and National Guard interfered little in
the lives of most Nicaraguans. As authoritarian regimes go, this one ceded to
its political enemies and critics a relatively large amount of space to act in
public life." Elsewhere: "What mattered most to Anastasio Somoza Garcia was
amassing and enjoying wealth, and Nicaraguans generally allowed him to do
that." Was there a choice?
What's wrong with this picture of Nicaragua is that most of the people are
missing: the rural landless poor who had everything to gain from a sweeping
change and almost nothing to lose. Decades of Somoza rule left Nicaraguan
peasants hungry, underemployed, illiterate and prone to early death from
disease, yet their voices -- what they hope for or fear, what they now think
of the country's changes -- are entirely absent here. (Christian encourages the
view that Nicaragua was ruled merely by an annoying autocrat, that nothing was
wrong fundamentally with its distribution of political power, land and food.
"Nicaragua" develops the thesis that during the late 1970s, when a broad
opposition movement favored Somoza's overthrow, a vacillating Carter
administration failed to produce a moderate replacement and allowed a small,
nearly irrelevant clique of Leninists -- the Sandinista Front -- to seize
control. Since 1979, the argument runs, the Sandinistas have built the
totalitarian state they envisioned from the start, without regard for political
or economic pluralism, religious freedom or other human rights.
Christian gathers useful information on the Sandinistas' mistakes, and
there have been plenty -- notably their censorship of the opposition newspaper
La Prensa and their relations with the Miskito Indians -- but one needn't be a
Sandinista to notice an imbalance. Christian failed to interview any
Sandinista supporters in order to gather their views of the 1978-79
insurrection or of developments since then. She nearly ignores the social
reforms that have led most Nicaraaguans to favor the revolution: the 1980
Literacy Crusade that taught over a million people to read, the proliferation
of health centers and schools in even the remotest rural areas, the elimination
of polio.
Christian's book is weakest on current developments. Her sympathy for the
Contras forces her to whitewash their awful record of destroying what are
primarily civilian targets, well-documented by Americas Watch and other
international human rights observers. Most critically, Christian sidesteps the
question of whether the U.S. has an obligation, or even a right, to intervene
in another country's political disputes -- especially after Nicaragua's
November, 1984 election, which she is unable to discredit. Nor does she
consider seriously the Contadora process, a major diplomatic effort by Mexico,
Colombia, Venezuela and Panama to end the war.
"Nicaragua, Revolution in the Family" may be a useful reference on the
motivations of the Contra leadership, but its distortions make it otherwise
unreliable.
--
Sport Death,
Larry Kolodney
(USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk
(INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa