 |
|  |
 |
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999 time: 23:36
|
|
quote: 1. A couple of right wing congressmen is not credible. Changing the law would be difficult.
2. The comments from Reich, etc, saying an FMLN victory would effect relations with the US are frankly true. One didnt need to hear them say it to know it. Just as the ARENA victory probably hasnt helped relations with Cuba and Venezuala.
3. Of course people who wanted ARENA said he would help relations with the US. Just as advocates for Kerry said that his election would improve US relations with the rest of the world. Nonetheless ARENA was winning elections in El Salvador back when Clinton was President in the US, and Otto Reich was in the private sector. |
Let's go over this again. A vital part of ARENA's campaign was to scare folks into saying that remittances, which make up an enormous part of the economy, would be cut off. The media played into this sentiment. Two Congressmen, fairly powerful, explicitly said that. The Administration never specifically disabused the Salvadorans of that notion, and even said that there would be substantial negative changes in diplomatic relaitons in the event of an FMLN victory.
I'm not arguing that opposition that revulsion to d'Aubisson et al.'s death squads is a fundamental driver of politics in that society, but it certainly pissed a lot of people off. And to imbue ARENA's extorted victory in '03 with democratic will is absurd.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:36
|
|
quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The Sandanistas weren't a dictatorship. Everyone in the world but the U.S. recognized that Nicargaua had free and fair elections, |
and some folks who actually lived there at the time
Violetta Chammoro:
"On June 26, 1986, in a note just two lines long, the Sandinista government of Nicaragua notified me that our newspaper, El Diario La Prensa, was closed down indefinitely.
With this action, Nicaraguan authorities institutionalized the state’s contempt for freedom of thought, speech, private property, religion and all norms of democratic government. La Prensa had already experienced four consecutive years of brutal censorship, in which 80 percent of the material submitted for publication was suppressed every day by order of the Sandinista military censors.
I tell of this, not as a long complaint of melancholy, but rather as testimony for all democracies to take notice.
II
The case of La Prensa is evidence of the worst sort of tyranny of our time, hidden by the workings of a Sandinista propaganda network that deceives many people of goodwill in the United States and throughout the world. The extensive and suffocating daily censorship of the press is sometimes excused by world public opinion as a logical consequence, given Nicaragua’s state of war. These justifications are unfair to the Nicaraguan people, who are thereby denied their right to be informed.
The excesses of the censorship department at the Ministry of the Interior have not been clearly recognized. They are measures aimed not at national security, but at the systematic destruction of an independent newspaper such as ours, and of Nicaraguan freedoms.
At root there always has been a determination on the part of the Sandinista commanders to impose total dictatorship and prevent the most minimal expression of free thought. Just like General Anastasio Somoza, who despised anyone who contradicted him, the Sandinistas cannot tolerate a dissenting voice or the expression of a contrary political idea.
No one is indifferent to the tragedy in Central America or to Sandinista repression, but I am concerned that Nicaragua’s case has been viewed outside our country through two prisms which ultimately distort the reasons behind our struggle for a free press.
Some assert that we oppose the Sandinista regime because we want to return to Somocism. Others say we oppose the Sandinistas because we support the declared policy of the President of the United States against the Sandinista regime. But the foreign policy of the Reagan Administration is obviously concerned with its own national security interests, and Nicaraguan opinion does not count for much in the decisions made in Washington.
No one can suppose that we of La Prensa are nostalgic for the Somoza period, when we struggled with our lives to defeat the Somoza dictatorship. My late husband and editor of La Prensa, Pedro Joaquín Chamorro Cardenal, was one who gave his life for this cause, in January 1978. Since the time of the Somoza dictatorship, when La Prensa opposed that government’s policies, our only aspiration has been to achieve democracy in Nicaragua. Later, when La Prensa denounced the repression and abuses of the Sandinista government, its totalitarianism, its Marxist-Leninist impositions, we did so not from a desire to retreat into a past that nobody wishes to remember, but to realize the goals that had . . . "
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36. Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|