Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Moderation of Danny O.
Former Nicaraguan "dictator in designer glasses" Daniel Ortega learned his lesson. Following his November election, Newsweek said that "all signs suggest the chastened Sandinista firebrand will embrace moderation this time around." His mulligan government promised "moderate economic and social policies and continued ties with the U.S," according to the AP. And the Sandinista leader "sounded pretty moderate" to NPR's Renee Montagne. Well, fool me once...
Ortega turned up in Tehran this weekend sounding—surprise!—exactly like the Sandinista leader of 1979:
Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, who wants more aid from the United States, called on Sunday for a new world order to replace "capitalism and imperialism", at the start of a trip to arch U.S. foe Iran.
...
"We have chosen our friends by our own will and we haven't got permission from anyone," Ortega said shortly after arriving in Tehran, the official IRNA news agency reported.
"In negotiation with America we have explained our personal and political positions towards imperialism ... Imperialism and capitalism should be removed and we should create a peaceful and friendly world," Ortega added.
Ortega, a Cold War-era enemy of Washington, had earlier said he would travel to Iran on a jet loaned to him by Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, a former U.S. foe who has been developing better ties with Washington.
|6.11.07 @ 11:06AM|#
Imperialism and capitalism should be removed and we should
create a peaceful and friendly world," Ortega added.
The standard simplistic, wishful thinking that makes communism so
appealing to the very stupid.
Maybe we should just pass a law to whither the state and we can all
work peacefully at our 30-hour-a-week union jobs at the co-op
personal jetpack factory or flying unicorn stables
Grotius|6.11.07 @ 11:10AM|#
Let's hope that we don't fund a murderous campaign against his
regime (again).
...the
contras were major and systematic violators of the most basic
standards of the laws of armed conflict, including by launching
indiscriminate attacks on civilians, selectively murdering
non-combatants, and mistreating prisoners.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|6.11.07 @ 11:10AM|#
The irony of this statement is that imperialism is anti-capitalistic. Imperialism could not exist in a truly capitalistic society.
PLant Immigration Rights Suppo|6.11.07 @ 11:13AM|#
I wonder if Ortega is going to make a move against Contra
Cafe.
http://contracafe.com/
|6.11.07 @ 11:27AM|#
and we should create a peaceful and friendly
world
Is that what he was trying to do when he imported Hind attack
helicopters labeled "tractors" in the early 80's?
Grotius|6.11.07 @ 11:34AM|#
Lurker Kurt,
I'm not going to defend the Sandinista regime of the 1980s, but
those helicopters were used as a means to fight off contra
attacks. They may have been used for other purposes as well.
Grotius|6.11.07 @ 11:37AM|#
You know, during and right after the 1990 election numerous American officials promised all manner of aid to Nicaragua if the Sandinista's lost the election. Now I'm not a big fan of such aid, but still I wonder how many of these promises came to fruition.
|6.11.07 @ 11:42AM|#
Grotius,
I'm not trying to pick a fight. Perhaps your memory is better than
mine.
I thought the helicopters came first and then the Contras got
organized.
Hopefully, the US will treat Nicaragua government the same way it
is currently treating (and hopefully continues to) Hugo Chavez in
Venezuela: harsh language from the State Department but otherwise
leaving them free to run their economies into the groud.
Hopefully we won't fall into a Cuba-esque sanctions trap where our
economic sanctios are blamed for their miserable economy.
Grotius|6.11.07 @ 11:46AM|#
Lurker Kent,
The Hinds came in 1983 or 1984. U.S. support for the Contras
started in late 1981 through a National Security Directive signed
by Reagan which ordered the CIA to fund, train, etc. them.
|6.11.07 @ 11:52AM|#
Let's be real, people.
The Contras were a coalition of many people -- both former
Somocistas who would've fought AS WELL AS people who did fight for
values that a libertarian would have supported (at least, in the
context of Nicaragua in the 1980s,) such as Commandate Cero.
The Sandanistas were Marxist-Leninists aligned with Soviet Russia
and Castroite Cuba who formed the usual dictatorship of the
proletariat, and whose economic policies represented the usual
economic thuggery that has caused so much pain, suffering, and
death in the Third World.
American policies toward Central America generally and Nicaragua
specifically have not always been wise, and often
counterproductive. But let's not fall over ourselves defending a
group of Marxists thugs who ruled by force, nor condemn the United
States for supporting those who opposed that Marxist brute force
with force of their own. Was it a wise policy? Was it necessary for
American security? Maybe, maybe not. Was it immoral? Hardly.
|6.11.07 @ 12:08PM|#
Hopefully, the US will treat Nicaragua government the same
way it is currently treating (and hopefully continues to) Hugo
Chavez in Venezuela: harsh language from the State Department but
otherwise leaving them free to run their economies into the
groud.
I'll go along with that. At least in Nicaragua's case, they don't
have oil to support their newly revived Worker's Paradise, so we
can expect them to be too poor to cause enough trouble to bother
with.
|6.11.07 @ 12:09PM|#
Oh, and is anyone surprised that Ortega was lying when he was being all Mr. Moderate and Mature Statesman, and is (still) hanging with the worst elements on the planet?
Grotius|6.11.07 @ 12:16PM|#
JKP,
But let's not fall over ourselves defending a group of
Marxists...
No one here is.
You're right, the Contras were a hodge-podge of groups (indeed,
lack of coordination was a major problem of theirs).
At the very least supporting those elements of the Contras who
committed human rights abuses was immoral. In other words, being
"real" includes discussing the activities of "both sides."
|6.11.07 @ 12:51PM|#
I just figured that Ortega was traveling out of Nicaragua to visit Roman Polanski in France. Then the two of them would jet off to Vietnam, to bring Gary Glitter those Alex Chilton CDs he was asking for.
|6.11.07 @ 2:15PM|#
opefully, the US will treat Nicaragua government the same
way it is currently treating (and hopefully continues to) Hugo
Chavez in Venezuela: harsh language from the State Department but
otherwise leaving them free to run their economies into the
groud.
You are kidding, right? The yes twice supported coup against
Chaves. I guess in the era of pre-emptive wars that counts as
"leaving them free to run their economies into the groud".
|6.11.07 @ 3:26PM|#
What is harsh language from the state department supposed to
accomplish? Making us feel better?
During the 1990s, when the streets of Iran were full of people
demanding freedom, when the government was so insecure that they
had to try and convict a senior security apparatchik for killing a
protest leader, the State Department was pursuing a dialogue
through back-room channels with the regime, and talking about
wanting better relations in public.
The State Department should say nothing about Ortega or Chavez.
Maybe put links to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch on
their web page. Playing the Yankee Imperialist, eager to tell
people in other countries how to run their governments, even if
only done rhetorically, just allows these people to pose as brave
resistors.
|6.11.07 @ 3:36PM|#
What is harsh language from the state department supposed to
accomplish? Making us feel better?
The folks at the U.N. seem to think 'strongly worded' resolutions
will accomplish things in North Korea, Sudan, and would have worked
if we had just been a little more patient with Saddam
Hussein.
Sorry if I was being to oblique Joe. When I say the only thing we
should do is have the State Department issue harshly worded
statements I am saying we should do nothing because that is what
'strongly worded resolutioins' do.
|6.11.07 @ 3:40PM|#
And I wasn't being even remotely oblique when I wrote that your strongly-worded telegrams from the State Department do less then nothing - they actually help their target by enhancing his prestige. At least, they do in cases like this.
|6.11.07 @ 3:52PM|#
Ok, for the second time in the same thread, let me say I am not
trying to pick a fight, but do you really think some after
Nicaruaga's economy goes to hell and Daniel O. curtails civil
liberties and the U.S. criticizes him for his mishanlding of the
economy, some poor farmer will think "Well, the economy has gone to
hell since Dan O. has taken power and I see no hope for the future.
But since the U.S. State Departemnt is criticizing him with a
'Strongly Worded' telegram, I find him more prestigious."?
When I talk of using harsh language I am trying (obviously failing)
to be funny and making a subtle reference to Aliens. :-)
Ashish George|6.11.07 @ 3:56PM|#
JKP writes:
"American policies toward Central America generally and Nicaragua
specifically have not always been wise, and often
counterproductive. But let's not fall over ourselves defending a
group of Marxists thugs who ruled by force, nor condemn the United
States for supporting those who opposed that Marxist brute force
with force of their own. Was it a wise policy? Was it necessary for
American security? Maybe, maybe not. Was it immoral? Hardly."
Objecting to U.S. support for violent thugs is not the same thing
as supporting the government those thugs were fighting against. The
human rights violations of the Sandinistas and the Contras are
well-documented. But the idea that meddling in Nicaraguan affairs
was "necessary for American security" is about as plausible as the
Soviets saying their intervention in Afghanistan was necessary for
theirs. Big countries with large, intimidating militaries have
nothing to fear from profoundly impoverished small countries,
though it has always been useful for aggression to be cloaked in
claims stating otherwise.
As a principle of a moral (and libertarian) foreign policy, let's
remember the John Quincy Adams lines Charles Oliver posted a few
days back.
"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or
shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her
prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of
all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
Grotius|6.11.07 @ 4:04PM|#
Lurker Kurt,
In part because of the pressure of the international community
Nicaragua held elections in 1984 and 1990. Then again, the
Sandinistas went through with those elections and actually gave up
power in 1990.
Grotius|6.11.07 @ 4:13PM|#
Lurker Kurt,
And while this puts me in the uncomfortable position of defending
the Sandinistas, the 1984 election in Nicaragua was probably the
first election of free of major corruption in Nicaragua's history.
The 1990 election was even better. Whatever one wishes to say about
them they were a far cry better when it comes to rule of law and
electoral fairness than the Somoza regime.
|6.11.07 @ 4:20PM|#
Grotius,
Don't forget the part where the Reagan administration denounced the
1984 elections as fraudulent, before they ever happened, and the
contras carried out a terrorist campaign against voters and poll
workers in an attempt to get them cancelled.
Yes, I'm eating this up. It's good to see at least one other person
who understands that democratic institutions are more important
than making sure "the right people" are in charge.
I know you've got no love for the likes of Ortega, so tip o' the
cap for your principled stand.
|6.11.07 @ 5:21PM|#
Gag... Joe's got... gag... Joe's got it... er... uh... Joe's got
it right.
There... I said it.
Damn. That didn't hurt after all.
CB
|6.11.07 @ 6:15PM|#
The Contras were a coalition of many people...
So is Hamas.
Was it a wise policy? Was it necessary for American security?
Maybe, maybe not. Was it immoral? Hardly.
If giving money and training to an organization that regularly
commits acts of terrorism isn't immoral, then nothing is
immoral.
Grotius|6.11.07 @ 6:33PM|#
Les,
The eyewitness descriptions of what some elements of the Contras
did to the civilian population aren't too terribly much different
than the sorts of things one hears of Islamic terrorists.
|6.11.07 @ 6:43PM|#
Grotius,
Not too different at all. Torture, rape, all the good stuff. And
I'll remind JKP that we supported this terrorist organization with
the explicit goal of overthrowing a democratically elected
government. You don't have to defend the wretched Sandinistas to
have the stones to condemn our barbaric foreign policy at the time
(and throughout the Cold War).
|6.11.07 @ 7:29PM|#
You don't have to defend Hugo Chavez or Jean-Bertrand Aristide to have the stones to condemn our barbaric foreign policy towards Latin America under Bush, either.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245