Imagine
the following: you and your family decide to remodel your kitchen. Your
neighbor, also the principal at your children’s elementary school,
hears of the plan and immediately states his opposition. He argues that
the remodeling project is not the sort of investment your family needs
and hints that carrying it out would jeopardize his friendship.
Deciding to move ahead with the remodeling anyway, you and your family
begin removing the kitchen cabinets one day, but are interrupted by a
knock at the door. Your neighbor enters and grimly announces to the
entire family that if the remodeling is carried out as planned, he will
see to it that your children do not pass another grade in his
elementary school.
Your
neighbor’s behavior, however far-fetched it may seem, is no more
ridiculous or offensive than the treatment U.S. political figures have
been giving their neighboring Nicaraguans in the last several days.
Nicaragua is currently gearing up for its national elections on Sunday,
November 5. For the last year, Nicaragua’s complicated electoral
panorama has been further convoluted by a string of U.S.
representatives endeavoring to ward off an electoral victory by
Sandinista (FSLN) leader and former president Daniel Ortega. U.S.
officials have publicly censured Ortega, attempted to unify his
opposition, and threatened that an Ortega win would endanger U.S.
financial support. The continuous intervention, however, has failed to
unite Nicaragua’s divided right or significantly detract from Ortega’s
base. Now U.S. meddlers are flustered and desperate in the face of
recent polls revealing that Ortega is within a few percentage points of
clinching the presidential office.
In a
last-ditch effort to undermine Ortega, U.S. Congressman Dana
Rohrabacher, chairman of the House’s International Relations
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, sent a letter on Friday,
October 27, to Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security.
Rohrabacher enjoined Chertoff “to prepare in accordance with U.S. law,
contingency plans to block any further money remittances from being
sent to Nicaragua in the event that the FSLN enters government.” The
nearly half million Nicaraguans currently living in the U.S. send
around $500 million each year to their family members in Nicaragua,
according to Nicaraguan economist Nestor Avendaño.
Nicaraguans
have reason to believe Rohrabacher may not be bluffing. In the buildup
to Nicaragua’s 1990 elections, the United States promised Nicaraguan
voters that it would continue fueling the decade-old contra war and
maintain its economic embargo on Nicaragua, both of which were wreaking
havoc on Nicaragua’s economy, if Daniel Ortega were reelected as
President. Beleaguered by a crippling war, food rationing, and empty
supermarket shelves, Nicaraguans opted for U.S.-backed Violeta Chamorro
over Ortega. Satisfied, the U.S. then released its stranglehold on the
Nicaraguan economy.
Seeing
that the FSLN now has a chance to return to power, Rohrabacher seems
eager to once again target Nicaraguans’ stomachs with callous pressure.
Thousands of Nicaraguan families depend on remittances to augment the
meager wages paid for picking coffee, sewing jeans in assembly
factories, or selling water at intersections. In an economy sacked with
underemployment, stagnant salaries, and rising costs, remittances keep
Nicaragua afloat by generating an income equivalent to 70% of the
country’s total annual exports, according to the most recent estimates.
Avendaño projects that a U.S. embargo on remittances would prove as
disastrous for Nicaraguans as the U.S.-imposed trade embargo of the
1980’s. Once again, the hardest hit would be the impoverished majority.
Nicaraguan
voters are not unaware of this reality. Nor is Rohrabacher, no doubt.
Nicaraguans’ direct dependence on remittances is what makes his open
threat particularly potent. In the face of a potential Ortega victory,
Rohrabacher is striving to make longstanding U.S. interference more
personal by pushing Nicaraguans to see a vote for Ortega as a vote
against their own pocketbooks.
Rohrabacher’s
letter is but one voice in a recent cacophony of U.S. meddling.
Headlines of the last week have been laden with unsolicited U.S.
opinions on Daniel Ortega and the sort of President Nicaraguans should
want. The day after Rohrabacher sent his letter, Florida governor Jeb
Bush authored a letter published in a La Prensa paid ad. Bush’s letter
declares that Nicaraguans must choose between a “tragic step towards
the past,” which he identifies as the “totalitarianism” of the
Sandinistas, and “a vision towards the future.” Jeb Bush’s own vision
for Nicaragua’s future is revealed at the bottom of the ad, where the
Alianza Liberal Nicaraguense party, which is running the U.S.-preferred
presidential candidate Eduardo Montealegre, is named as the ad’s
sponsor.
Just
a few pages away from Bush’s ad appears an article in which Adolfo
Franco, USAID’s Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the
Caribbean, warns that a FSLN victory next week could limit USAID
support for Nicaragua, citing worries that Daniel Ortega might
significantly alter Nicaragua’s current economic model. USAID’s
admonition piggybacks on US Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez’s
more explicit pressure in an interview publicized one week earlier.
Gutierrez threatened that an Ortega win could preclude a $230 million
combined investment from three foreign companies that would generate
123,000 jobs, a $220 million aid package promised through the Millenium
Challenge Account, and implementation of CAFTA in Nicaragua.
On
October 29, the day after printing Jeb Bush’s letter, La Prensa
published an editorial by Otto Reich, former Assistant Secretary of
State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, in which he accuses the FSLN of
maintaining ties with terrorist groups, a claim that Reich does not
attempt to substantiate. Though Reich does not currently hold a
position in the U.S. government, he writes as if he does, stating, “If
the Sandinistas control the government of Nicaragua, there will be
strong pressure in Washington to review all aspects of the bilateral
relationship, including remittances.” Reich equates a Sandinista
victory with “a return to a past of poverty and international
isolation.” Such a dismal outcome indeed seems likely if the U.S., as
the party responsible for the isolation of the past, would implement
Reich’s thinly cloaked threat of aid and remittance cutoffs.
Ironically,
Reich precedes all the above statements with the disclaimer, “No one
can tell [Nicaraguans] who to vote for.” Jeb Bush, Adolfo Franco, and
other outspoken U.S. figures have similarly acknowledged Nicaraguans’
sovereign right to pick their own leaders. Unfortunately, such
statements come across as meaningless niceties when subsequently
contradicted with threats and admonishments against choosing a
president not to the U.S.’s liking. As Nicaraguans make their way to
the polls on Sunday, they must not only consider “What will this
candidate do for my country if elected?” but also “What will the U.S.
do to my country if this candidate is elected?” The product of
relentless outside interference, this sad reality is profoundly
undemocratic.
With
numerous internal challenges posed by this election, Nicaraguans do not
need to be further encumbered by fears of U.S. reprisal. If U.S.
representatives truly wish to see free, unfettered elections in
Nicaragua on November 5, they would do well to keep their mouths shut.
Ben Beachy is an educator with Witness for Peace
in Nicaragua. Witness for Peace is a politically independent,
grassroots organization that educates U.S. citizens on the impacts of
U.S. policies and corporate practices in Latin America and the
Caribbean.
|
