Upcoming Elections in Nicaragua and Washington’s Alleged Neutrality

Analyses of Nicaraguan events - with a presidential election slated for November 7 - cannot minimize the importance of U.S intervention. Indeed, Washington's role in promoting regime change has to be in the center of any serious discussion of the topic. John Bolton's claim, for instance, that Nicaragua belonged to the Axis of Evil made in November 2018 injected a big dose of adrenaline in the veins of the opposition, and for good reason: it signaled an escalation of Washington's commitment to oust Daniel Ortega by any means possible.

The November issue of “Latin American Perspectives” features a symposium on Nicaragua with one main article along with nearly a dozen Comments. The Comments by Dan Kovalik – long- time activist and analyst of the Second Cold War - and myself criticize the main article which denies that US intervention is playing a major role and emphasizes convergences between the Sandinista government and Washington. The following is my symposium Comment.

 

Héctor Cruz-Feliciano [in his “Whither Nicaragua Three Years On?”] presents hard evidence to refute accounts that minimize the repressiveness of government actions and the number of casualties resulting from the protests beginning in April 2018. What he does not deal with is the considerable evidence that the protests had a dual character. While young idealists protested pacifically, a second component consisting of violent and in some cases paid protesters was responsible for at least 10 police deaths and gruesome harm inflicted on Sandinista supporters. If this account is accurate, then the protests resembled the Venezuelan guarimbas of 2014 and 2017, partly spearheaded by the right-wing Voluntad Popular party, more than the popular mobilizations against Latin American neoliberal governments in 2019–2020. Cruz-Feliciano underestimates the magnitude of U.S. opposition to the Ortega government. He claims that the NICA Act of 2018, which blocks loans from multilateral financial institutions, was a mere electoral ploy with no intention to “asphyxiate” Nicaragua. He offers no proof regarding the limited effects of the act, which was implemented at a time of serious economic difficulty. He attributes the allegedly bland reaction from Washington to Ortega’s probusiness strategy, including agreements with the IMF. But policy makers are not a monolithic group. Neocons among others are more concerned with geopolitics than with economics. Certainly Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Bob Menendez, and Eliot Engel, who were among the main drivers of the NICA Act in Congress, are not known for their restraint in dealings with countries considered to be U.S. adversaries. Cruz-Feliciano recognizes the major role played by China (which was to finance the interoceanic canal) and Venezuela, which in itself was enough to earn the enmity of influential sectors in Washington. 

In his attempt to play down U.S. support for the protests, Cruz-Feliciano claims that “a causal relationship has yet to be established between the [democracy-promotion] money and the protests themselves.” Direct relationships, however, usually do not exist in these cases, but influence is undeniable. He then states that NED and USAID funding for Nicaraguan groups is “often significantly less” than elsewhere but fails to provide statistics. Pro-Sandinistas have attempted to document tens of millions of dollars channeled from abroad to Nicaraguan foundations, nongovernmental organizations, and media groups that have been combating the Sandinistas since their return to power. In another attempt to play down the Ortega government’s leftist credentials, Cruz-Feliciano points out that apart from their votes in favor of Nicaragua at the UN, China, Venezuela, and Russia have refrained from carrying out “compelling action in defense of Ortega and Murillo” in the face of U.S. sanctions. He fails to indicate what he means by “compelling action.” Certainly, political support within international institutions cannot be dismissed as insignificant. 

Cruz-Feliciano ends by pointing out that the youth protesters have greater moral standing than the pro- and anti-Sandinista politicians. He concludes: “In time, I venture to say, April 19 is likely to be known as the door leading to a new era of progressive change.” This upbeat forecast, however, ignores past experiences from the Arab Spring to the social protests in Latin America in the democratic transition period of the 1980s. In both cases the upshot was far different from what Cruz-Feliciano hopes for, as pro-elite organized groups and institutions and not social movements ended up on top. Predictions need to be based on realistic assessments, not wishful thinking. Indeed, the possibility that the fall of the Sandinista government may lead to a radical neoliberal government and terror unleashed against Ortega’s followers with the blessing of Washington cannot be dismissed.

SO MUCH TALK ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. BUT SO LITTLE TALK ABOUT THE REAL ISSUES

One more example of how the ruling elite skirts the real issues concerning climate change. This is straight out of Google: “Train travel is so expensive in the United States because Amtrak, the national provider of passenger rail service, receives very little funding from the government compared to its counterparts, such as roadways and airports.”

In some cases, it is more expensive to ride Amtrak than it is to fly. This is the case with rapid transportation between Washington DC and NYC.

All the talk about climate change, and yet the politicians and the commercial media avoid discussion-debate over the need to upgrade public transportation vis-à-vis private transportation in order to combat climate change. I am convinced that a country has to choose between an efficient private transportation system and a viable system of public transportation. It’s one or the other. Unfortunately, you can’t have both. And if global warming is recognized as the number one priority for the nation and the world, then choice can’t be that hard to make.

 

KEVIN MCCARTHY’S CROCODILE TEARS OVER THE US PULLOUT FROM AFGHANISTAN: A RED HERRING IF THERE EVER WAS ONE

House Minority leader Kevin McCarthy’s emotional call for “accountability” for the blunder in the U.S. pullout from Afghanistan is a red herring, a tactic continuously used by duplicitous politicians in Washington. What about accountability for the 20-year fiasco of the Afghanistan War in which millions of lives were broken: death and injury of innocent Afghanistan civilians and U.S. soldiers, and the massive displacement due to U.S. intervention?

McCarthy’s crocodile tears draw attention away from the real issue which few in Washington are willing to deal with. It’s about the disaster of U.S. interventionism in country after country throughout the world. It’s about the false claim that the Westphalia system dating back to 1648 that guarantees national sovereignty is no longer applicable in the age of globalization. The fallacy in that line of thinking is that there is no existing international body that can replace the people of a given country to decide on that country’s destiny. If no such body exists, then it’s the United States that fills the gap. Those that spur the right of national sovereignty (for all nations except the U.S., that is) end up justifying the U.S.’ right to unilaterally intervene (and if not unilaterally, then with the endorsement of Washington’s European allies) wherever it pleases, or rather wherever U.S. economic or geopolitical interests are being undercut.

This is the same Kevin McCarthy who openly defends the right of Israel to define its national borders and take over the West Bank. And it’s the same McCarthy who used bullying against fellow Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar for their support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement by saying that if Democrats don’t take action against them “I think you'll see action from myself.” Threats against the lives of these two courageous women ensued.

In that case, McCarthy’s slogan of “accountability” deceptively used in the case of the U.S. pullout from Afghanistan should be used against him for his irresponsible threats against Tlaib and Omar.