[Dear editor, I'd like to comment on a…]
1988 1988-06Read it in the scan (PDF at ETOL), page 16 →
Read from the scan by machine and not corrected: expect misread words, and now and then a caption or a line from a neighbouring story. For anything you quote, read the scan.
Scan page 16
Dear editor, I'd like to comment on a recent article which appeared in the April 1988 issue, titled "Nicaragua ceasefire." While I completely support, of course, the article's call for a complete end to aid to the contras, I found unsatisfactory the article's discussion of demands "put forward last December by a bloc of 14 political opposition parties."
These 17 constitutional demands include amnesty for all political prisoners and ex-Somoza National Guardsmen; an end to Sandinista party control over the armed forces, the electoral process, and the judiciary; the creation of a nonSandinista army and police; and provisions to strengthen private property.
The article states (without further explanation) that these reforms amount to a call for the Sandinista government to undo the gains of the revolution and capitulate to the U.S.-backed mercenary army.
Instead of such a summary dismissal, I think what is needed on the left today is a nuanced critique of such demands, along with the recognition that some elements of these demands-put forward as they are by both the non-Sandinista right and left-might be legitimate.
By failing to make such a critique, we make it easier for the contras to exploit such demands to their own Draconian, capitalistimperialist ends.
For example ... what about the alternative of a citizens' army, whose internal structure is democratic and which is answerable to assemblies and councils of the people-the majority being workers and peasants-themselves?
Why shouldn't the major political decisions of Nicaraguan society be made by assemblies-national, regional, and local—of democratically elected and revokable delegates of all the Nicaraguan people, rather than by the nine-man, Sandinista-controlled National Directernal supporters have nothing in common with the demands for workers' democracy which you correctly spell out toward the end of your letter —The editor Atomic War Dear editor, In his January 1988 article in Socialist Action, Nat Weinstein correctly identifies Gorbachev's foreign policy as Stalinist-stemming from the theories of "socialism in one country" and "peaceful coexistence." And he correctly warns of the possible betrayal of Nicaragua.
However, Weinstein's argument about the inevitablity of atomic war is pessimistic and contradictory. He says, "So long as capitalist economic forces dominate the world, the arms race can only end in nuclear annihilation of life on earth."
But later he says, "Gorbachev announced last January that 11 U.S. corporations have already agreed to enter into joint ventures Francisco on Aug. 4-7.
on Saturday, Aug. 6.
former Nicaraguan Consul in San Francisco. in the months ahead.
early August, where they will be voted on.
on this page.—The editors