Ortega Speaks to UN General Assembly

The previous link points to an AP article on Ortega's speech at the UN. Reuters offers another, similar article. While the articles are similar, the lack of context here only shows a lot of "Ortega is X" messages from NL members. I would like to offer some of the context so maybe we can actually talk about what was said and why.

For those that see this as "Ortega is attacking his biggest trading partner", you don't need to respond here. He is, that is true. For those that see this a another "anti-US" post, you are missing the point. This post is about what "the other people" see and why. Some people may be happy with the direction of US foreign policy (for the last 100 years), I am not. I would rather suggest what is wrong and hope the government can be re-directed rather than continue in a direction that only encourages the creation of a bigger bully.

Ok, here we go.

In his first speech to the U.N. General Assembly for 18 years, Ortega said U.S. leaders continued to dictate what was right or wrong "as if they were God", while poor countries were still afflicted by "oppression and violence and terror".

He was speaking about two hours after George Bush spoke, criticized a lack of human rights in Iran, North Korea, Cuba and other states. Ortega also said, the US "dictated the world economic order" and he questioned why the US, the only country who has used nuclear weapons, has the right to dictate why it should get to control other countries access to nuclear technology and, if they want, weapons. Ortega also said the world is a more dangerous place today than 18 years ago.

Finally,

Ortega said the General Assembly reflected a world where "a capitalist and imperialist minority is imposing global capitalism to impoverish the world, continue to enslave us all and promote apartheid against Latin American immigrants and against African immigrants in Europe".

Now, we could all go down the list of actions each country has taken that is "anti-democratic". All of them (and that certainly includes Nicaragua, China and Cuba as well as the US) would end up with a long list. A second column of check marks could indicate which actions were taken for national interest. What I mean here is to promote your nation at the expense of another.

Sure, there will be lots of "gray areas" here but that is where you can see why Ortega (and many other world leaders) are either "saying it the way it is" or keeping quiet in hope that the US won't stomp on them. Let's toss out some clear examples.

US Actions in Their National Interest

1. US CIA overthrows the Arbenz government in Guatemala.
   • Probably the most democratic government Guatemala had ever had
   • Arbenz was trying to help the poor
   • His actions might have increased the price of bananas in the US
2. US actions against Castro's Cuba
   • Trade embargo
   • Multiple attempts to assassinate Castro
   • Placement of "assets" to foment revolution
3. Contra war in Nicaragua
   • Armed and paid "irregular forces"
   • Training
   • Trade embargo
   • Mined Corinto harbor when embargo didn't see to be working as well as planned
4. Placement of Shah of Iran
5. Invasion of Iraq

There are so many more. In each case, if you treated the nation as "your equal" (meaning it was a sovereign nation and you should not get involved in internal affairs), it is impossible to justify any of these actions with the possible exception of the trade embargoes. That is, you can decide whether to trade with someone or not. Beyond that, it seems like the school playground. Play with those you like and let others play with who they like.

Compared to China

The US likes to label China as anti-democratic (but also likes to buy lots of stuff from them). Yes, there is lots to criticize in the internal operation of China but, that's internal. The most "imperialist" action I can think of China taking is selling AK-47s to the US to arm the Contras in the 1980s. Most would see that as Free Market Capitalism rather than imperialism.

The point: while the government of China is far from a perfect world citizen, its defects tend to be internal. If the US was concerned with human rights, it should embargo trade with China rather than grant it most favored nation trading status.

Ortega's View

Back to where we started, what Ortega said to the UN General Assembly. He spoke after George Bush picked on the internals of some nations. He could have said nothing. I guess "acted more like Panama" might be a good comparison as Panama isn't in CAFTA, tends to nod in agreement when the US government screams and yells and then do whatever they see as best for their national interest.

Ortega didn't do that. He described the US he sees. He didn't talk about the "internal scams" of the US from Enron, Boeing followed by Halliburton "white collar welfare" and such but about what it is like out here for the little guy. How US actions that promote the best interests of the US itself hurt developing nations.

Now, maybe Ortega is wrong but lots of people in the world share this perception. Isn't it about time that rather than shooting the messenger, the US see what it can do to become a better world citizen? This doesn't mean not acting in its national interest--just considering the consequences. Here are a couple of examples.

• Cuba: it seems that if the US opened up trade with Cuba and shipped zillions of Levis jeans (ok, back when they were made in the US) there, Cuba would have long ago "converted to democracy".
• Nicaragua: Rather than funding an anti-Sandinista war, realized there were three active factions of Sandinistas, let nature take its course and watch democracy develop in a country that had been a US-controlled dictatorship for half a century.
• Iran and all so many other countries: Rather than placing "our dictator" in charge, recognize that eventually there will be a backlash and it is better to let governments evolve.