Letters

The Sandinistas
As a member of NACLA’s edi-
torial board, I wish to express
in the most explicit way my deep
disappointment with the publica-
tion of Roger Burbach’s “Nica-
ragua: The Pot Boils Over” [Janu-
ary/February 1994]. I will not
argue with Burbach’s piece, since
he does not offer any evidence to
back up his insinuations. I will
argue, instead, with the editors’
decision to publish it in NACLA
Report on the Americas. Burbach
is perfectly free to write and pub-
lish whatever he wants, thinks,
likes or hates; if he wishes, he may
also self-destroy his credentials as
an attentive observer of Central
American affairs. But NACLA is
not forced to publish articles lack-
ing a minimum level of objectivity
as well as basic journalistic and
academic standards. Neither is
NACLA forced to publish pieces
which consist of a set of ambigui-
ties, “might be’s,” half truths–
consequently, half lies-and state-
ments more akin to police reports
than to political analysis. In short, NACLA is not forced to undo its
own prestigious 27-year history as
an independent, critical, progres-
sively oriented, far-reaching maga-
zine.
Not only does Burbach not pro-
vide any evidence to support his
serious accusations against the
Sandinistas, but he also silences
versions of events that point to the
internal struggles of the former
Contras as the explanation for the
killings of both Contra leader
Enrique Bermiidez and Arges
Sequeira, the head of the Associa-
tion of Confiscated Property Own-
ers. Of course, these versions are
just as unsubstantiated, but they
are as convincing or unconvincing
as the ones that Burbach presents
as definitive truths. If NACLA is
going to publish a piece based on
rumor and speculation, the author
should-for the sake of fairness–
have considered these other
hypotheses. Burbach ends up mix-
ing the verified involvement of
Humberto Ortega’s bodyguards in
the apparently unintentional killing
of young J.P. Genie with rumors
and gossip about Sandinista
involvement in the cases of
Bermfidez and Sequeira. NACLA
should also have asked for addi-
tional, more authoritative evidence
with regard to Burbach’s allega-
tion of Sandinista complicity in the
FMLN arms cache that exploded
in Managua last May.
NACLA’s publication of this
piece does not advance our under-
standing of the Nicaraguan conun-
drum. On the contrary, this article
makes it significantly more diffi-
cult to understand.
Carlos M. Vilas
Mexico City, Mexico
Roger Burbach’s “Nicaragua:
The Pot Boils Over” consti-
tutes the most perfect collage of
truths, half truths, unsubstantiated
evidence, and the arrogance of a
know-it-all. The end result is a
propaganda piece that fits perfectly
into the agenda of the enemies of
the Sandinista revolution.
NACLA’s decision to publish this
piece shows unprecedented lack of
seriousness.
Burbach unfairly characterizes
Humberto Ortega as Machiavellian
and more interested in amassing
personal power than in social-jus-
tice issues. Granted, Ortega is one
Continued on page 42
Erratum Two copy-editing errors occurred in the Venezuela issue [March/April, 1994]. The last paragraph of Daniel Hellinger’s arti- cle should begin: “Proven reserves are at historic highs.” On p. 22, the size of Venezuela’s fiscal deficit should read “about US$33 billion.”
of the most controversial figures in
Nicaraguan politics today. Some
love him, some hate him, and
some fear him. But these are the
facts: Humberto Ortega was the
chief strategist for the defeat of
Somoza’s National Guard and the
chief architect of the Sandinista
Popular Army; and the Sandinista
army he heads was born during a
liberation struggle and not in the
School of the Americas.
The painful events of Esteli hurt
all Sandinistas. Some of us saw
our compafieros dead without
understanding why they had to die.
Others had to follow orders that
they did not understand. Humberto
probably suffered the deepest pain
of all. If he had not obeyed the
president’s orders, he would have
violated the same Constitution he
helped to write, and in so doing, he
would have blindly fallen into the
hands of our enemies. If he obeyed
the orders, as he did, he ran the
risk of being condemned, as he
was.
Burbach has fallen into the trap
of repeating Jesse Helms’ bombast
without understanding the implica-
tions. Humberto Ortega is a sym-
bol of the history of the Sandinista
army. If Humberto goes, the nature
of the army would no doubt
change. Humberto is the lightning
rod, but the real issue is the United
States’ quota of power within the
Nicaraguan army. Many are upset
because Humberto has been able to
hang in there and plans to retire
with all the honors he deserves.
Burbach also dwells upon the
divisions within the FSLN
between those who support grass-
roots mobilization and confronta-
tional strategies, and those who
have chosen to collaborate with the
Chamorro government. This divi-
sion within the national leadership
of the FSLN must be understood in
light of the fact that we do not
have primaries in Nicaragua.
Therefore, party candidates do not
have “official” campaign periods.
NACLA REPORT ON THE AMERICAS
When I think about the negative
campaigning that took place in the
United States during the last elec-
tions, I fail to understand what the
big deal is around the public
debate that has preceded this com-
ing May’s Extraordinary Congress,
where the party will elect new
leadership and agree upon a new
political platform.
The FSLN is not perfect. It
never pretended to be. It is not our
fault that we were romanticized by
many. The FSLN is, however, the
only real alternative that we
Nicaraguans have to ensure lasting
social change with social justice.
Those who know Nicaragua’s
political history understand that it
is precisely that which makes the
FSLN a “party of a new type.”
Magda Enriquez Callejas-Beitler
U.S. Representative of the FSLN
Chicago, Illinois
W hy did NACLA Report on the
Americas choose to squan-
der its fine reputation by printing
Roger Burbach’s cynical indict-
ment of Sandinismo? At least
NACLA could have labeled as
opinion Burbach’s bizarre charges
and innuendoes.
Burbach’s standards of evidence
are matched only by those of Sena-
tor Jesse Helms. Let’s see now,
according to Burbach, the FSLN
assassinated Somoza, Bermdidez
and Sequeira, failed in an attempt
on the life of Ed6n Pastora, and
were actively involved in an arms
cache that exploded in Managua.
And Humberto Ortega, Burbach
claims, tried to cover up the “acci-
dental” slaying of young Jean-Paul
Genie.
Not a single one of these claims
are facts, and some of them have
been disproved. It would be fine
with me if the FSLN had a role in
Somoza’s assassination, but Bur-
bach’s saying so doesn’t make it
true. The army’s role in
Bermtidez’ assassination is contra-
dicted by Scotland Yard’s investi-
gation in February which revealed
that the FBI had interviewed, and
then kept secret, a participant who
accused a former Bermddez body-
guard of the killing. Any covert
Sandinista role in the creation of
the Punitive Army of the Left and
the killing of Arges Sequeira is
pure speculation. The new infor-
mation supposedly revealed about
the La Penca attempt on Ed6n Pas-
tora’s life was a mess, and certain-
ly not convincing to me. And final-
ly, Jean-Paul Genie’s death was
not accidental. It’s sad to say, but
the kid signed his own death war-
rant when he chose to try to pass,
at a high rate of speed, a military
convoy, possibly carrying a high-
ranking officer or member of gov-
ernment.
I’m not one of those people who
believes we should never voice our
criticisms of the Sandinistas
because that would strengthen their
enemies. I’m disappointed that the
FSLN has been unable to disci-
pline those few of its militants who
enriched themselves during the
change in government. I’m also
disappointed that the FSLN has not
come up with the long-promised
alternative to neoliberal econom-
ics. But then, neither has the Left
anywhere else in the world. I’m
also upset that at times the army
and police have strayed from that
very narrow path they must walk
between their constitutional
responsibility to establish peace
and order, and their revolutionary
responsibility to protect the inter-
ests of the poor majority.
But neither Burbach nor I has
ever been called upon to put his
life on the line to overthrow a dic-
tator, build a new society, and keep
on working for justice after being
rejected at the polls. I think those
who have made that sacrifice and
commitment deserve our respect
and assistance.
Chuck Kaufman
National Coordinator
Nicaragua Network
Roger Burbach responds:
U nderlying the responses of
Carlos Vilas, Magda Enriquez
and Chuck Kaufman is the ques-
tion of what role we as leftists
and solidarity activists should
play in the 1990s in relation to
Third World liberation move-
ments. I for one would argue that
the end of the Cold War, combined
with the general crisis of socialism
and the national liberation move-
ments, compels us to take a more
critical approach than we have in
the past.
Certainly the U.S. government
has not abandoned its efforts to
undermine or even destroy the lib-
eration movements, including the
Sandinistas in Nicaragua. But to
carry on an effective battle against
U.S. imperialism today, we have
to be more sophisticated. We can-
not maintain our legitimacy and
help develop a new democratic
movement if we do not openly dis-
cuss Third World movements and
try to learn from their mistakes as
well as their advances.
It is in this context that I wrote
the update article for NACLA.
Many of us were confused and
even demoralized by the tumul-
tuous events in Nicaragua in mid
and late 1993. These events com-
bined with new evidence of San-
dinista involvement in the La
Penca bombing enabled the detrac-
tors of Sandinismo in Washington
and elsewhere to have a field day.
We on the Left appeared to have
little to say, and seemingly stood
discredited for having been
“duped” by the Sandinistas. Thus
when NACLA’s editors and others
asked me to write an article
describing what was happening in
Nicaragua, I agreed to do so.
The assertion that NACLA
should not run such articles is, of
course, nonsense. Enriquez and
Kaufman can dispute my interpre-
tation of events, but I take issue
with their attempt to shut off dis-
cussion. Their charges that I
engage in “innuendoes and “half
truths” center on my interpretation
of the assassinations or assassina-
tion attempts that I discussed in
my article. I stand by my interpre-
tations of these events. Neither
Enriquez nor Kaufman has
brought forward any information
that I was unaware of. Reporting
on assassinations is always a
tricky business, and I only reluc-
tantly brought up these events
when the NACLA editors said that
it was necessary to do so because
they had caused such a stir in the
press and in Washington. They
correctly asserted that we could
not ignore these incidents and
write an article that would have
any legitimacy.
My interpretations of the assas-
sinations are based on the reports
of Martha Honey and Tony Avir-
gan, my experiences in Nicaragua
over the years, and on conversa-
tions with a wide array of Sandin-
istas who held different political
and governmental posts. I have no
intention of getting into an open-
ended debate in which we trade
sources or reveal names. Readers
will have to weigh what I write
against the counter-claims of
Enriquez and Kaufman, and arrive
at their own conclusions.
Regarding Vilas’ letter, I also
turn to the readers to evaluate his
absurd charge that my article is
“more akin to police reports than
to political analysis,” as well as his
assertion that it is so lacking in
“objectivity” that the NACLA edi-
tors should have quashed it.
Finally, I completely agree with
Magda Enriquez’ concluding
remarks that “the FSLN is not per-
fect. It never pretended to be. It is
not our fault that we were romanti-
cized by many.” I believe that this
is the context within which we
should continue our discussion of
Sandinismo and its critical contri-
bution to contemporary revolution-
ary history.