Nicaragua’s New Constitution

Elliott Abrams reached new heights of cynicism and political myopia when he claimed in his article (Editorial Pages, Jan. 20), “A Constitution Bows to Repression,” that the new Nicaragua constitution “is really nothing more than a legal facade with which the Soviet-backed regime can try to mask its totalitarian rule.” Perhaps the British Tories back in 1789 described the new U.S. Constitution as a legal facade with which the French-backed regime tried to mask its totalitarian rule.

Abrams’ cynicism flows from the fact that he feels no shame for what the Reagan Administration, in which he is assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, has done to Nicaragua. His pretended concern for the Nicaraguan people who lack adequate food supplies and our freedoms is truly amazing; he claims to be alarmed that they have become dependent on the Soviet Unon, yet doesn’t feel any personal remorse for driving the Sandinistas to their present situation.

Apparently the Reagan Administration is so far to the “right” that it has become “left” by forcing its enemies to adopt positions it ostensibly disapproves.

An elementary political fact of life is that any government can be expected to defend itself from foreign attack and to take aid from any source whatever.

In the U.S. War for Independence in 1776 our Founding Fathers accepted aid from autocratic and monarchical France. Lafayette was an aristocrat who had little in common with the principles of the U.S. Constitution.

Now Abrams feigns ignorance of political facts of life. Perhaps he would say, “We didn’t do it and we won’t do it again.”

WILLIAM SPENCE

Agoura