Debate on Nicaragua
THE SECOND issue of Czech Inprekor, published on May 1, 1986, contains a series of articles on Nicaragua. Included in this dossier is an open letter to Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega from Czechoslovakian human rights activists, who have previously signed statements defending Nicaragua against US aggression.
This open letter is reproduced here, along with a response to it which was published in French Inprecor. (Translation by Intercontinental Press).
JEAN-PIERRE RIEL and HUBERT SANDOR tries, but it is also urgent. Even if it cannot fully exist in a society that is still poor and where there is inequality on the social and cultural planes, democratization of all aspects of people's daily life, their growing, collective and individual responsibility, must guide the acts and measures undertaken by a revolutionary government.
We are convinced that this is a revolution's best defence against its internal and external enemies.
But we also fully recognize the right of such a society to defend itself against its aggressors. All the so-called developed and democratic societies have censored calls for desertion during wartime [such calls were made by the magazine of the Nicaraguan bishops, which was prohibited by the government].
In defence of the laws recently enacted by the government of Nicaragua, Jean Ziegler, representing the Socialist International, pointed to the draconian legal measures [prohibition of the right to strike and the right of assembly] carried out by his country, Switzerland, during the last world war, even though it was officially neutral. A country at war
Before discussing in detail this or that measure adopted by the government of Nicaragua, we therefore feel it is indispensable to point out that Nicaragua is at war. And not solely against an armed external intervention: the real maintenance of forms of mixed economy allows speculators to use the formidable weapon of money, when that is rare International Viewpoint 16 June 1986
In the countries of so-called "real socialism" • they always refer to Nicaragua as "a small country exposed to imperialist aggression and fighting for its dignity" , and so on. But who really cares about it? Who has the intellectual courage to ask whether, despite the official propaganda, it isn't in fact true that this is a small country strangled by the US government and "fighting for its dignity"?
Who now have the simple courage not to limit themselves to introspection, but rather to try to act to correct what appears to be bad, and in so doing, to encroach on the regime's private preserve: its monopoly over politics?
Ten Czechoslovak citizens had that courage in the letter we are publishing here. We are making this letter known because it raises real questions and is of interest to all those in the world who support the revolution in Nicaragua.
We state first of all that we are in agreement with the basic points of the letter:
Yes, "the fight for human dignity and freedom, the fight for social justice and the fight for equal rights of peoples and nations are one and the same struggle; the emancipatory battles in Eastern Europe and Latin America are part and parcel alke or that struggle"
Yes, too, to the idea that the main strength of a revolution lies in the conscious mobilization of its "free supporters".
Yes, also, to the assessment that any internal evolution that implies a negation of the ideals, under the pretext of "saving" the revolution, can only lead sooner or later to the de20 mobilization of the population and the establishment of a bureaucratic dictatorship, a "new system of repression and manipulation" We are convinced, based on the record of Stalinism, that industrialization and the satisfaction of the needs of a society that starts out neo-colonialized and largely backward are accomplished at a considerable price in material, human, cultural and political terms if the state apparatus is left uncontrolled. In other words, in our view economic and political democracy is not simply a balm for the spirit - something good for the developed countries. Democracy is certainly difficult to achieve in the "backward" counMatagalpa market (DR)
and mobilized for the front. Radio Catolico was not closed for stating that "freedom is a great gift from God", but rather for repeatedly broadcasting homilies against military service.
Radio Catolico's "pacifist" propaganda should not bring down any administrative repression, but only on one condition: that the others, the contras, also limit themselves to propaganda. But the contras wage war, not sermons. In this respect there is a division of labour within the perspective of developing a real civil war.
Overall, our disagreement with the text of the open letter is undoubtedly more a question of a concrete evaluation of the situation in Nicaragua than a disagreement over principles.
The state of emergency is not, or is barely, applied in Nicaragua, which still lives within the framework of a pluralism of the press and the media that is quite remarkable for a poor country, and one at war. This is, moreover, a country that, in contrast to Vietnam for example, is very largely open to the activities of international commissions of inquiry from all sides.
No one of good faith can, in the present circumstances, deny the Sandinista government the right to decree the state of emergency, that is, certain forms of limiting freedoms, including prohibiting strikes or meetings. But at the same time, the independent organization and free mobilization of the actors of the revolution is the only solution not only to establish a future society that is worth the trouble, but also to win the war now.
This raises a terrible, almost insoluble, difficulty. Was it necessary to make such a general formulation of the prohibition of the right to assembly and the right to strike, a formulation that in the hands of a Stalinist regime would surely mean the death of the revolution? Even
Open
ACCORDING to a Voice of America ember 1, 1985 (the Czech language