ccs178 Wrote:Quote:The Contra army was formed by the Reagan administration to overthrow the Sandinista government. The Sandinistas were never rebels during the Reagan administration.
The Sandanistas were not democratically elected and did not hold elections until almost half-way through Reagan's administration. If you want to play on semantics then they weren't rebels in the sense of rebelling against the government, but they were far from being the legit government either. When Somoza left they took his place. Dictatorship for dictatorship. The difference? The Sandinistas tried to color it as a social movement to legitimize their assumption of power and denying the people their rights.
The Contras existed before the Reagan administration became involved. They were poorly trained, ill-equipped and barely organized, but formed on their own.
It is not semantics. The Sandinstas took power in 1979. After that point, they were no longer rebels.
Quote:Quote:Consider the comparison with Hussein. Hussein got virtually 100 percent of the vote.
In contrast, one third of Nicaraguans voted for parties other than the Sandinistas in '84 -- and despite the boycott from certain right-wing opposition groups.
On its face, your notion that only Sandinista candidates appeared on the ballots appears a fantasy. And, in fact, I believe even the boycotting right-wingers were still on ballots for that election.
You use throw statistics around rather haphazardly. Why would you know who were on the ballots or stats for Nicaraguan elections that were held 20 years ago, but not know anything about American laws (Boland amendments) you were citing? I'd say you don't know much about either of them. Documentation?
So much of what one sees on the Internet is vociferiously pro- or anti-Sandinista. This appears reasonably neutral:
<a href='http://workmall.com/wfb2001/nicaragua/nicaragua_history_index.html' target='_blank'>http://workmall.com/wfb2001/nicaragua/nica...tory_index.html</a>
This site claims as its source the "Library of Congress Country Studies." I'm not familiar with that as a source, but I think we can assume it wasn't written by (for example) a Cuban Communist.
Relevant excerpts:
In mid-1984, the Electoral Law was passed setting the date and conditions for the election. As was the case with the Political Parties Law, much debate went into the law's drafting. The opposition parties favored the election of a two-year interim president and a six-year legislature that would draft a new constitution. The junta, citing foreign pressure to hold elections early and the added cost of two elections in two years, prevailed with its proposal to simultaneously elect the president and members of the new legislature for six-year terms. The opposition preferred a 1985 date for elections to give it time to prepare its campaign, but the FSLN set the election for November 4, 1984 and the inauguration for January 10, 1985. The law set the voting age at sixteen, which the opposition complained was an attempt to capitalize on the FSLN's popularity with the young. The number of National Assembly seats would vary with each election--ninety seats to be apportioned among each party according to their share of the vote and an additional seat for each losing presidential candidate. The entire electoral process would be the responsibility of a new fourth branch of government, the Supreme Electoral Council. Parties that failed to participate in the election would lose their legal status.
By July 1984, eight parties or coalitions had announced their intention to field candidates: the FSLN with Daniel Ortega as presidential candidate; the Democratic Coordinator (Coordinadora Democrática--CD), a broad coalition of labor unions, business groups, and four centrist parties; and six other parties--the PLI, the PPSC, the Democratic Conservative Party (Partido Conservador Demócratica--PCD), the communists, the socialists, and the Marxist-Leninist Popular Action Movement. Claiming that the Sandinistas were manipulating the electoral process, the CD refused to formally file its candidates and urged Nicaraguans to boycott the election. In October, Virgilio Godoy Reyes of the PLI also withdrew his candidacy, although most of the other candidates for the National Assembly and the PLI's vice presidential candidate remained on the ballot. Other parties reportedly were pressured to withdraw from the election also.
On November 4 1984, about 75 percent of the registered voters went to the polls. The FSLN won 67 percent of the votes, the presidency, and sixty-one of the ninety-six seats in the new National Assembly. The three conservative parties that remained in the election garnered twenty-nine seats in the National Assembly; the three parties on the left won a total of six seats. Foreign observers generally reported that the election was fair. Opposition groups, however, said that the FSLN domination of government organs, mass organizations groups, and much of the media created a climate of intimidation that precluded a truly open election. Inauguration came on January 10, 1985; the date was selected because it was the seventh anniversary of the assassination of newspaper editor Chamorro. Attending Ortega's swearing in as president were the presidents of Yugoslavia and Cuba, the vice presidents of Argentina and the Soviet Union, and four foreign ministers from Latin America.
I've got to tell you, I don't see any smoking guns here. From what is presented here, the two key opposition objections were:
1. The election was coming too soon. (Too soon?)
2. The voting age was 16, not 18.
I don't doubt that the FSLN held enormous sway over most of the insitutions of power at that time. On the other hand, it is clear that the FSLN made a great deal of efforts to protect minorities in the system that was set up (by, for example, ensuring that losing presidential candidates had seats in the national assembly.
The key point: Most observers considered it reasonably fair.
Quote:Go back and read that article. The British Government had no observers there and made no statements about the election. Nor does it quote "most observers." Were you not expecting anybody to actually read the link?
I didn't read it closely.
This is the link again:
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/low/dates/stories/november/5/newsid_2538000/2538379.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/low/dates/...000/2538379.stm</a>
Here is the relevant quote:
Approximately 400 independent foreign observers, including a number of Americans, were in Nicaragua to monitor proceedings.
The unofficial British election observer, Lord Chitnis, said proceedings were not perfect but he had no doubt the elections were fair.
Quote:It wasn't a Sandanista Revolution. Being Anti-Somoza and being Pro-Sandanista are two different things. Just because there was popular support for Somoza's ouster does not mean the Sandanistas had popular support to form their own dictatorship. Can you understand the difference?
I grasp your point. Being anti-Somoza and pro-Sandinista are two different things.
That said, it very much was a Sandinista revolution. More than any other group, the Sandinistas got credit for pushing Somoza from power. They had been working to do so the longest.
Quote:The Sandanistas tried to exploit the popularity of Somozas ouster, but almost immediately ran into resistance due to unpopular agrarian reforms, putting restrictions on the freedom of the press, the freedom to strike, holding political prisoners, and instituting an unpopular military draft. That doesn't sound like a movement with broad popular support to me.
Again, I'd point you to the election, in which they won two-thirds of the vote and two-thirds of the seats in the national assembly.
I said in my first post they weren't angels. Yes, they did place restrictions on the press at times -- although, as near as I can tell, they never assassinated newspaper editors.
I'd love to dig out Amnesty International reports on the Somoza regime and the Sandinista regime. I have seen it asserted that the the situation greatly improved under the Sandinistas. I tend to believe that.
And, yes, the draft was unpopular. Daniel Ortega has said he believes it cost him the 1990 election. On the other hand, the decision to impose a draft was forced upon him, faced with well-financed (by the Americans) rebel armies.
But I wouldn't be so quick to assume the agrarian reforms were unpopular. Nicaragua was -- and remains -- a nation of vast poverty, and the FSLN's base was always the the rural poor.
Here is another excerpt from those Library of Congress Country Studies:
<a href='http://workmall.com/wfb2001/nicaragua/nicaragua_history_consolidation_of_the_revolution_1979_80.html' target='_blank'>http://workmall.com/wfb2001/nicaragua/nica...on_1979_80.html</a>
Quoting here:
The new government enacted the Agrarian Reform Law, beginning with the nationalization of all rural properties owned by the Somoza family or people associated with the Somozas, a total of 2,000 farms representing more than 20 percent of Nicaragua's cultivable land. These farms became state property under the new Ministry of Agrarian Reform. Large agroexport farms not owned by the Somozas generally were not affected by the agrarian reform. Financial institutions, all in bankruptcy from the massive capital flight during the war, were also nationalized.
First of all, think about that: One fifth of the nation's potential farmland was owned by Somoza or his family and friends.
I have my doubts that nationalizing that property and trying to get it into the hands of the rural poor was unpopular at all.
Quote:Quote:(Boland Amendments) You may be right. I have not familiar with this argument.
Shouldn't you be if you are going to cite the Boland Amendments while debating?
I don't know everything. And I have news for you: Neither do you.
Quote:Quote:I am reasonably certain that if the President if Nicaragua were to buy a full page ad in the New York Times endorsing George W. Bush, it would be blatantly illegal.
It was Jeb Bush's ad, not Pres. Bush. President Bush was never even mentioned in the ad,
This was the headline of the ad, in giant, red capital letters:
GEORGE W. BUSH SUPPORTS ENRIQUE BOLAÑOS
Quote:but Florida was mentioned a number of times. Did Jeb do it without Pres. Bush's knowledge and approval? Certainly not, but that hardly makes it illegal. I don't know of any US law against foreign leaders expressing their support of a sitting President during an election. Accepting money from foreign contributors is a no-no, but having one stand up and simply say "He's our friend and I hope he's there next year!" is hardly illegal. Maybe you would care to enlighten us?
Election law is complex.
But, as you say, it is illegal in the United States for a camapign committee supporting a candidate for federal office to accept money from foreign sources.
My take is that current U.S. law would have considered an ad such as Jeb's an "independent expenditure," becuase it seems to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.
It is illegal under U.S. law for "independent expenditures" to include foreign money.
It is my sense that we ought to play by the same rules we impose on others.
I have a real problem with the United States attempting to influence foreign elections, because I know Americans would greatly resent such activity if foreigners were actively trying to influence our elections.
Quote:Quote:That was the year Chamorro came to power.
Bush I made it clear that Nicaragua would not be receiving any aid at all from the United States until the case was discontinued.
Then why didn't they try to have it reinstated when Pres. Bush was voted out of office less than 2 months later?
I'm not an international lawyer.
/
WHAT EFFECT WILL REAGAN"S DEATH HAVE!
