interesting, complex article "Nicaragua: Sandino to Chavez"

Submitted by webtrainer on 3 October, 2005 - 16:16.

Greetings all:

Very interesting article describing Nicaragua's current political situation in context of it's history and linking Sandino to Chavez (in a positive manner).

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8861

I am interested to know other's opinions on this.

The point I get is that the U.S. still is in control of the country to a great extent, that true autonomy is still a threat to the established order. The writer believes that the current political darlings Montealegre and Lewites are really tools for the same sort of centrist social democratic-types that will, if and when one of them wins in 2006, will continue to play ball with the U.S. Embassy and will never really address the huge issues that are really facing the Nicaragua people, like water privatization, education, and health policy.

The author is, to me, basically saying that the "Pacto" that politicos are railing against is kind of a joke in that, as soon as the anti-pacto people gain power, they will still adhere to the larger "Pacto" which is basically, "what can we do for you, U.S.A.?"

In a sense, when we moan about the corruption of the Nicaraguan government, we are being hypocrites and weakening Nic. autonomy, because it is certainly in the U.S./Socialist Corporate State's interest to do so. Same sort of stuff goes on in European gov'ts and no one is shocked or appalled or tempted to intervene in some way.

The story concludes by saying that Chavez in Venezuela is the only one really in a position to challenge the corporate state by organizing Latin America, and that is what Sandino was trying to do, build Latin American dignity and autonomy.

Comments?

‹ News about Nicaraqua Theater of the Absurd? ›
( categories: )

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"NicaNix" & "Mikito Alan"

Submitted by Miskito Alan on 8 October, 2005 - 14:34.

had their picture taken together with the two of them & Chavez.

Steve has not published the photo -- but, will be coming soon.

____________________________________________________________________

Complex

Submitted by fyl on 4 October, 2005 - 05:45.

Based on the three comments I see so far, it looks like your title should have been "Warning: this article/situation is complex". A comment from someone who hasn't even tried reading the article doesn't exactly offer deep analysis.

I am not sure what type of comments you expected/wanted but I would be very intrested in people pointing out the flaws in the logic. I am used to arguments with my mother where he final answer in a disagreement was "it just is". To me, the article seems well-researched and well thought-out.

Much of the information in the article I know. That is, I have done enough homework to see that it is fact. Argentina's economic meltdown is a good example of this.

On the Nicaragua end, I do wonder about the Lewites statement. Maybe he has/will sell out but I can't help but thinking his candidancy is a good thing. With his long support of the FSLN it could be a good thing to show Ortega followers that, for whatever reason, the revolution got off track.

The other potentially amusing piece is how the U.S. government will play his campaign. Supporting it is essentially supporting a Sandinista. Him running as the FSLN candidate, of course, would be more of a problem for the U.S. to talk around.

Unlike the single-party system of the U.S., I see a lot of real alternatives in Nicaragua. The national elections certainly attract a lot of external influence but with proportional representation in the National Assembly and individual candidates, regardless of their party affiliation, able to win at the local level, things aren't that bad. That is, in practice, I see the government to be more representative of the majority than any other place I have lived.

I also see the work that Chavez is doing to unite Latin America as a good thing. For 500 years, Latin America has been a place for the first world to play games for their benefit. Initially this was Europe but for the last 100 years it has been primarily the U.S. A united Latin America would likely put an end to this game.

thanks Phil

Submitted by webtrainer on 4 October, 2005 - 12:13.

yeah, that's what I'm looking for, some feedback from other's perspectives on this.

I am not too familiar with the Nicaraguan political scene, and found this article interesting when it indicates, as you point out, specifically Lewites as some sort of would-be sell out. I find it to be sad if it is true that he and Montealegre would be basically just playing the same game as the PLC did (and would love to again if they got into power with the Aleman-selected candidate). Especially if that means that the ONLY candidate at least aligned on some level with Chavez is Ortega. I can't stand that guy . . .

-webtrainer

ok flaws.

Submitted by trat123 on 4 October, 2005 - 10:12.

Well the author is trying to tell us about how good it would be to unite central america. It is a moot point though because the article implies that whoever tries will be assasinated by the US(which I find a little paranoid). Catch22.

I think this is what John is saying below, but I am not certain.

Not necessarily assassinated

Submitted by fyl on 4 October, 2005 - 11:46.

First, I think the article is talking about Latin America in general rather than just Central America. Now, not every Latin American leader that the U.S. disagreed with has been assassinated but certainly some have.

Sometimes the leader just "ran away" (Arbenz in Guatemala, for example). Others were "removed" (Noriega, a U.S. creation, in Panama). Still more are still around because assassination attempts failed (Castro and Chavez).

There are also lots of cases of using economic destabilization (Cuba, Nicaragua), mercenary armies (Nicaragua, Columbia) and just general propaganda.

It's a hard fight for individual countries. The whole idea behind offering a united approach is that Latin America becomes a significant economic and political force making it harder to "pick off" individual countries.

If you look at what Chavez is doing internationally (meaning in Latin America) today it is very much like what the U.S. has tried to do. That is, build a block of countries that work together for their common good. The difference is that the U.S. and "outside" multinational corporations are not included in the block. This doesn't mean that the plan is anti-multinational or even anti-U.S. It just means that their desires are secondary to the countries of Latin America.

If you grew up in the U.S. you likely learned there were some very black and white situations. Capitalism=good. Communism=bad. Democracy=good. Dictatorship=bad. ... Unfortunately this leaves no room for asking the hard questions that are covered in this article.

Maybe this quote from Larry Flynt will help illustrate my point:

Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.

Utter crap

Submitted by no longer registered on 3 October, 2005 - 21:05.

I stopped reading Toni Solo's crap months ago. There isn't a problem on earth, including in-grown toenails, that she doesn't (or won't) blame on the US, the IMF, the World Bank, Israel, etc.

Actually, I am surprised she isn't a member here considering some of the drivel we see every day...

Tears

Submitted by trat123 on 3 October, 2005 - 21:46.

I am crying(inside) because finally someone else seems to feel the way I do.

what i get

Submitted by trat123 on 3 October, 2005 - 20:39.

About all I got out of it is that all politicians are corrupt. Whether legally or illegally. Yeah, the US and many other countries from around the world influence some third world politicians to play ball...but these politician's own greed makes them play happily.

You are always going to have corporations exploiting others; that is their function. It does not matter where the investors are from(external or internal) they want money, power, and special treatment.

Hell, if one wants a for profit company or business(like many people on this site do) than you are going to take advantage of every available resource to make it happen. Once again, it is a trade off...nothing is for free.

If I should move to Nicaragua and start a business, it would be not for profit. As in, all the workers would own the company. I think this encourages better labor and gives more distributed wealth to the people. Alas, it could give the locals an incentive to take advantage of every available resource for more profit and you are back to the problem.

How do you prevent this from happening I do not know. I do think it is key to any developing nation to spread the wealth initially. This prevents class divides and prevents some people(rich) from taking advantage of others(poor). You will find historically this is the case. Can you guess who is in control politically?

Yeah that is right, the rich!

Please John

Submitted by no longer registered on 4 October, 2005 - 07:10.

With all due respect John, please keep your logical theories to yourself. You are cluttering up the board and making it harder to read all the great information about the evil US...

Thank you for your cooperation!

LOL . . .

Submitted by webtrainer on 4 October, 2005 - 12:04.

The evil ee.uu . . . cluttering up the board . . . good one PdA.

---------- Quote: "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not really out to get you." ----------

I find it hard to deny that the politics of personal destruction are alive and well in the States, and one could extrapolate that they can get away with even worse activities abroad . . . just my opinion.

Sandino to Chavez

Submitted by cole on 5 October, 2005 - 13:32.

Watching all of this from afar, but having some small investments in Nicaragua, AND being a political nut, it's great theater.

Lewites for me is the wild card... Very interesting candidate. Is he nominally a Sandinista or not? Seems he's got quite a few capitalist trappings -- major mall in Managua, Intercontinental Hotel, supports CAFTA, etc.

Maybe the appropriate comparison is to Lula in Brazil... Leans socialist, but understands importance of economic development. I can tell you that even our State Dept. didn't curl their toes when I asked the Nica desk recently about a Lewites administration... they seemed relatively sanguine.

The bigger question mark is Chavez... When the energy crisis was in the news in La Prensa, I predicted that Chavez and the Sandinistas would cut some sort of deal to provide cheap oil, and that the Sandinistas would use this for political leverage. that seems to be exactly what happened, although i've heard that the offer was conditioned on supplying the oil to STATE owned refineries.

I could very easily picture Chavez mucking around big time in the elections by promising cheap oil (a chicken in every pot?) and all of this accruing to the Sandinistas benefit.

If el pacto pushes the impeachment stuff, the U.S. will withdraw the MCC aid and the forgiveness of $4bn in debt. that seems like a good bit of leverage... And the charges against Bolanos and his aides do appear to be trumped up. So, what it comes down to in my estimation is cheap oil vs. economic development... In a sense they go hand in hand, but the prospect of "pariah status" for Nicaragua at least as far as the U.S. and U.S. investors is concerned tips the scales slightly in Bolanos' favor...

Maybe

Submitted by fyl on 5 October, 2005 - 19:07.

Lewities is clearly "a Capitalist in Sandinista clothing". But, I don't think he is alone. The trick (meaning right mix) is, I think, what Chavez is doing. Capitalism is not bad but not delivering services to the rural poor (health and education in particular) means they will move to the city looking for the "better life" and create a bigger problem. It costs less to educate them and let them feed them selves than have shantytowns next to major cities.

I don't have the numbers on this but I am guessing that you could make a pretty good case for Venezuela being less socialist than the U.S. There are huge amounts of money spent in the US on bad education systems, highways to allow truckers to run railroads out of business, welfare and such. Growing up in Los Angeles I saw lots of people who had moved there because they expected a better life and ended up on welfare roles. Offering them health care and education where they were from would have saved the U.S. a whole bunch of money.

My understanding on "cheap oil" is that it really just means direct delivery cutting out the middle man. Venezuela is charging the same price as for anyone else. Sure, the Sandinistas will use this as political fodder but I can't blame them. To me it just means that Bolaños is now forced to actually address the energy price problem.

As for the "state refinery" issue my understanding is that it is just an issue of someone has to store the stuff. Petronic was picked and they are at least partly state owned. I really can't see an alternative as 55 gallon drums in the back yards of the bus drivers just isn't going to work.

"Please don your flame-proof suits"

Submitted by no longer registered on 8 October, 2005 - 12:45.

This is not a politically correct post, so for those of the PC-stripe, or for those with somewhat weaker constitutions, please do not read this post.

My own observations in-country is that what we from the evil-US would call "sexual abuse", particularly with minors, is a foreign concept. With a bit of time, I could probably identify at minimum 20 "child molesters" in my small town of Boaco. By our (evil-US) standards, sex with a "child" is grotesque. But, to paraphrase that paragon of morals, (Slick Willy) Clinton, it depends on what your definition of "child" is.

Again, based upon my own observations, after the quincera (and all too often, before), any young "woman" is fair game. Brings to mind a vulgarity re: bleeding/breeding. It is not unusual to see 16-year-olds with 50-somethings. No, I'm not talking about the evil-US sex predators that come here, but rather about the customs of some of the Nicaraguan people.

As for my buddy, Danny-boy: I believe he could personally decapitate Bolaños on live TV and suffer little or no consequence.

Remember, Danny-boy's power is not based on public support (see here for details) but rather on his meglomaniacal control of various political, judicial, and social institutions.

and so it goes...