Peace plan disorients antiwar movement

Scan page 3

NoUS Intervention im Central lAmenica & the Caribbean Eneezerand Reverserthel Nuclear Arms Race The international and domestic situation is growing more perilous for the Nicaraguan Revolution. The U.S. financedcontra war, dependence on erratic foreign aid, and constant economic disruption by Nicaraguan capitalists have created a severe crisis.

But perhaps the most significant challenge to the revolution has gone unnoticed. It is the political consequences of the Central American peace plan.

The Esquipulas II Peace Plan, which was adopted last August by the five Central American presidents, is being used as a shield for demanding that the Nicaraguan government allow greater freedom of movement for the contras. These demands are no different than the ones raised repeatedly by the U.S. government and the contras in their seven-year war against the revolution.

Rehashed demands to "democratize" gain greater authority, however, when raised by Central American governments participating in the peace plan. Thus, through skillful use of the peace plan, the imperialists have largely succeeded in shifting the debate over policy in Central America.

The axis of the discussion no longer centers on the source of the problem-the U.S. war on Nicaragua. Suddenly, the spotlight is on the Sandinista government to make more and more concessions to the contras.

No national protests The misplaced euphoria over the Central American peace plan has disoriented many activists, preventing them from recognizing this dangerous shift. As a result, not one national peace or solidarity organization has called for nationally coordinated mass protests this spring against U.S. intervention.

A whole series of mistakes in judgment, flowing from a misunderstanding of the peace plan, have been made. Support of the peace plan by liberal Democrats, for example, has been misread as some sort of commitment to oppose contra aid.

Thus, false hopes have been placed in capitalist politicians to stop contra aid. This means that money, energy, and resources are being diverted from independent anti-intervention protests into various liberal Democratic Party election Jobs and Justice, Not War March and Rally in San Francisco PLATOR Assemble: 11:00am March: 12 Noon or solidarity organization has agreed to a proposal by the Northern California Mobilization for Peace, Jobs and Justice for nationally coordinated local area spring actions on April 30, 1988. [See box.] June 11 protests The U.S. Peace Council, the Mobilization for Survival, the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES), the National Nicaragua Network, and the Pledge of Resistance all claimed that the Mobilization date of April 30 conflicted with a June 11 action proposal for New York City.

But there was more than a difference over dates. The Mobilization's April 30 date had as one of its central demands "No U.S. Intervention in Central America and the Caribbean." The April 30 date also meant that activists would be building the demonstration as the contra aid debate unfolded in Washington.

Clearly, the national organizations that rejected the Mobilization proposal disagreed with its premise that the U.S. war on Nicaragua was at a critical point.

Despite assurances by some June 11 organizers that the issue of Central America would be mentioned, the June 11 draft proposal by national antiwar leader Sid Peck did not contain one word about Nicaragua or El Salvador. The organizers of June 11 want their demonstration to focus exclusively on nuclear disarmament