Log in

View Full Version : US propoganda wins out in Nicuragua



Paul
7th November 2001, 15:13
Remember 1986, (15th anniversary this year, )? The World court found in favour of Nicuragua, US were fined Millions of dollars. US ignored the ruling because, back then, countries were either with the US, or against them, in the fight against the Evil Empire, and noone said anything as the US violated international law and ignored rulings against them.

Now, with the US again able to use the "Them and US, with us or against us" rhetoric, the world can once again be shaped according to American "ideals" of freedoms and democracies.

(from http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/...4293535,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4293535,00.html) )

Nicaragua's election showed the US still won't allow a free vote

While the United States government radar may seem to have been pointed in the direction of Afghanistan and the Middle East, the state department and many American politicians and officials still found time over the last few weeks to use money, free food and propaganda to try to influence the vote in Nicaragua.

In the summer, Ortega was running some six or seven percentage points ahead of his nearest rivals and might, it seemed, return to power.

The US dispatched a state department official who told the local chamber of commerce how damaging this would be to the country. Pressure was successfully put on the third party candidate, the Conservative Noel Vidaurre, to drop out in order to prevent the splitting of the anti-Ortega vote. The US ambassador, kitted out in a Liberal party baseball hat, embraced the Bolanos election campaign and invited the candidate to join him on an emergency food-aid distribution trip. (Think the US ambassador to the Court of St James dressed in Tory T-shirt, handing out free choc ices in Swansea or Sheffield shoulder to shoulder with Iain Duncan Smith.)

John Keane, the US's acting deputy assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs, said last month that the Sandinistas included people responsible for "abominations" of human and civil rights. Such has been the official US rhetoric that former president Jimmy Carter, in Nicaragua to oversee a fair election, was moved to say last week: "I personally disapprove of statements or actions by another country that might tend to influence the votes of people of another sovereign nation."

Jeb Bush, the US president's brother and governor of the state of Florida, home of the one of the dodgiest election results in recent history, wrote an article in the Miami Herald last month in which he attacked Ortega because he "neither understands nor embraces the basic concepts of freedom, democracy and free enterprise". Bush jnr added: "Daniel Ortega is an enemy of everything the United States represents. Further, he is a friend of our enemies. Ortega has a relationship of more than 30 years with states and individuals who shelter and condone international terrorism." The article was duly reprinted last week as an ad by the Liberal party in the Nicaraguan daily, La Prensa, under the headline "The brother of the president of the United States supports Enrique Bolanos". As satirist Tom Lehrer said on the occasion of Henry Kissinger winning the Nobel peace prize - who needs irony?

Then, last week, three US politicians: Jesse Helms, the North Carolina Republican, Bob Graham (Democrat, Florida) and Mike DeWine (Republican, Ohio) put a resolution to Congress calling on the president to re-evaluate his policy towards Nicaragua if the Sandinistas were to win - effectively suggesting the further impoverishment of an impoverished country if the wrong result came through. The resolution was duly reported in the Nicaraguan press.

Ortega, sadly, was no Nelson Mandela. Now that he has lost, some of the idealistic souls who once stood beside him in what was, by any standards, a brave revolution may now return to the political arena. Other younger, untainted politicians may emerge. But just at the moment when the US needs to be convincing the world that they do not impose their will to protect their commercial interests with little regard to local people's desires, the events of the past few weeks in Nicaragua will serve to create more cynicism.

The Sandinistas, a small, disorganised party in one of the world's poorest countries, posed no threat to the US. To link them to terrorism in the wake of September 11 was a cheap and dishonest shot. The next time Barbara Walters asks Karen Hughes why do they hate us, she can add one small but not insignificant cause.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/ame...000/1639876.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1639000/1639876.stm)


The United States has praised the people of Nicaragua after the country's former left-wing president, Daniel Ortega, was defeated by his conservative rival, Enrique Bolanos, in the presidential election.
A State Department spokesman said Nicaraguans had demonstrated an "unwavering commitment to democracy".

"Fear was used, a dirty campaign was employed, a terror campaign was used," said Mr Ortega on Monday.



(Edited by Paul at 4:16 pm on Nov. 7, 2001)

Paul
7th November 2001, 17:11
and yes, i know i spelt propaganda wrong

AgustoSandino
7th November 2001, 22:20
You know what is funny, Ortega was a capitalist now anyway?

vox
8th November 2001, 05:03
Ortega made overt gestures toward market capitalism.

Agusto, why did the US spend money to defeat him?

vox

AgustoSandino
8th November 2001, 05:14
show me the money spent to defeat ortega in election 2001. The US as a sovereign nation can choose to impose sanctions on Nicaragua, especially if Nicaragua nationalizes US assets. And US politicians as individuals, with or with out pressure from the government, can make comments about their preferences in the election. The facts are again straightfoward, voters chose to reject ortega because, the majority, reject the past he represents.

AgustoSandino
8th November 2001, 05:29
show me the money spent to defeat ortega in election 2001. The US as a sovereign nation can choose to impose sanctions on Nicaragua, especially if Nicaragua nationalizes US assets. And US politicians as individuals, with or with out pressure from the government, can make comments about their preferences in the election. The facts are again straightfoward, voters chose to reject ortega because, the majority, reject the past he represents.

vox
8th November 2001, 05:33
I recently read an article in an actual, physical newspaper about the Bush administration being able to take time off of the war to spend money in Nicaragua. I can't find the article online.

However, isn't it typical for foreign governments not to endorse a candidate? Of course it is.

Canadian politicians don't talk about who should be the US president. Tony Blair doesn't support a party in Belgium. But, Agusto, you support the US politicians, right?

By the way, with every post about Nicaragua, your name becomes funnier, or more obscene, depending upon your point of view. Do you support the killing of US marines, Agusto Sandino?

vox

Jurhael
8th November 2001, 06:22
No one here said that Ortega was the ideal leader in the Sandinista Party, he was just the most available. If he DID become a capitalist, it would likely have been a very liberal one. Remember what the article said, "he was no Nelson Mandella".

So, the US can impose sanctions on Nicaraqua if it nationalizes US "assets", eh? So, I guess the US making money is more important than the welfare of a poor country. Good gods...

(Oh, btw, suuure, nationalization is a bad word for many left-winger, BUT only blind people would ignore it's advantages).

I say it's pretty damned low to economically bully a small, third world country into submission once again.

CheGuevara
8th November 2001, 06:33
Besides leaning towards capitalism, or at least publicly, he has also autocratically maintained contol of the Sandinista party, causing a great deal of long-standing members to leave.

AgustoSandino
8th November 2001, 06:39
show me the money spent to defeat ortega in election 2001. The US as a sovereign nation can choose to impose sanctions on Nicaragua, especially if Nicaragua nationalizes US assets. And US politicians as individuals, with or with out pressure from the government, can make comments about their preferences in the election. The facts are again straightfoward, voters chose to reject ortega because, the majority, reject the past he represents.

Paul
8th November 2001, 14:33
Quote: from AgustoSandino on 2:39 am on Nov. 8, 2001
voters chose to reject ortega because, the majority, reject the past he represents.

no arguement there. it's less than 20 years since the US demostrated to the people of Nicuragua what happens if they step out of line. The majority of voters probably have relatives, or friends killed by the US backed contra's. In the last month, the US made very clear that people remembered the past. Not the first 5 years of Sardinsta control, of course. They dont want them to remember how the Sardinistas reduced unemployment from 70 to 20%, how they reduced infant mortality, (in 79, nicuragua had the highest number of infant deaths in Cent.Am, by 84 they had the lowest), how they built schools and clinics, literacy programs, vaccine programs. No, they made sure they remembered the late 80's, the sanctions, the mining of harbors, the contra's, the dead.

(Edited by Paul at 10:36 am on Nov. 8, 2001)

Anonymous
8th November 2001, 16:24
US gives nicaragua and the rest of latin america for that matter the "freedom" to do the right thing. But if they irresponsibly use that "freedom" to "step out of line" with the intressts of the yankee capitalist elite, then they reserve the right to unilateraly use terrorism as a from of persuasion. If Mr.Bush wants to fight terrorism he should start by carpet boming Washinton and consider shooting him self in the head.

vox
8th November 2001, 18:14
"Voters in Nicaragua, queuing at the polls last Sunday to elect a new government, might have been forgiven a wry smile on hearing those words. While the United States government radar may seem to have been pointed in the direction of Afghanistan and the Middle East, the state department and many American politicians and officials still found time over the last few weeks to use money, free food and propaganda to try to influence the vote in Nicaragua. In the short term, they may have succeeded - the US's favored candidate, the 73-year-old entrepreneur and landowner Enrique Bolanos of the ruling Liberal party, defeated the Sandinista leader and onetime guerrilla Daniel Ortega - but who knows what the long-term effect will be?"

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1107-03.htm

vox