‘Nicaragua: Words, Words’

Elliott Abrams’ article on contra aid illustrates that it is possible to become assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs without having prior knowledge of either Central American history of previous U.S. policies toward Central American nations.

Abrams apparently was unaware of the fact that an unescorted delegation of the U.S.-based Latin American Studies Assn. (LASA) observed the 1984 elections in Nicaragua and noted that they were both orderly and democratic. Of the 75% of the Nicaraguan electorate who voted, 67% favored the Sandinistas. Thus, while the Sandinista government has alienated the upper classes through its pursuit of radical domestic policies, there is widespread support within Nicaragua for revolutionary change aimed at ameliorating the plight of Nicaragua’s impoverished masses.

Abrams’ assertion that “we want to help Nicaraguans achieve democracy” gives added depth to the meaning of hypocrisy especially when one considers the U.S. military occupation of Nicaragua from 1912 to 1933 and subsequent American support of the Somoza family and their U.S.-trained National Guard. However, if Abrams uses “democracy” as a euphemism for “right-wing dictatorship” then the reasons for backing the contras become patently clear. It is therefore not surprising that the contras have never had much support from the Nicaraguan people.

With regard to the Miskito Indians, Abrams might be interested to know that their forced relocation into Honduras and into the Nicaraguan interior has occurred as a result of the initial contra strategy of militarily occupying eastern Nicaragua and not because of any Sandinista hostility toward the Miskito Indians.

In sum, Abrams’ analysis of the situation in Nicaragua is characterized by the type of distortion of facts that one would expect to find in Pravda or Izvestia. It is regrettable that such fallacies continue to form the basis of U.S. policy toward Nicaragua.

JEFF CRIDER

Pacific Grove