Witness for Peace Nicaragua

Questioning the New Ambassador to Nicaragua: A Coordinator of the Contra War?

25 years ago, Witness for Peace started its work in Nicaragua to expose the truth about the U.S. funding the Contras and the horrible ramifications of that support in Nicaragua. We documented the atrocities of the war and organized against U.S. intervention in Nicaragua. Partly because of our work, the actions of many of the architects of that U.S. policy were mostly discredited and their competence and respect for law questioned.

Now some of those discredited actors in the Contra war, who also helped steer recent failed Iraq war strategy, are again in position to greatly influence Nicaragua’s sovereignty.  John Negroponte, former director of national intelligence and current deputy secretary of state, recently helped secure the appointment of Robert Callahan as the newly named U.S. ambassador to Nicaragua.

The two were part of a team in Honduras during the 80’s when the U.S. was funnelling training and financial support for the Contras through the embassy. John Negroponte served as the Ambassador and Robert Callahan, press attaché, was his spokesperson and speechwriter.  This was the same setup they had until as recently as 2005 in Iraq where they had the role of promoting another U.S, initiated war. Not surprisingly, the press release from the White House fails to mention either position by pointing to such non-controversial appointments such as: “Earlier in his career, he served as a Public Affairs Officer in Rome.”

Due to their time in Honduras they were later shown by the World Court to be coordinating war efforts in Nicaragua from their diplomatic posts in the neighbouring country.  As part of the World Court ruling, the U.S. was supposed to pay $17 billion for its role in the Contra war.  That money was never paid.

Appointing someone with Robert Callahan’s dubious past relationship with Nicaragua has raised many concerns among observers. "I find it quite strange," said Edmundo Jarquin, an economist who was a left-leaning candidate in the 2006 presidential election. "It's very provocative."

Author and the New York Times correspondent in Nicaragua during the 80’s, Stephen Kinzer, was less conciliatory. “Rather than finding an ambassador to Nicaragua who could begin this assignment with experience as a conciliator, the Bush administration has chosen one who some Nicaraguans will see as stained in blood.”

The appointment comes at a time of when Nicaraguan and U.S. diplomatic relations have been shaky at best. Bush administration officials openly opposed the election of the current president, Daniel Ortega, the Sandinista president during the Contra war. Since winning office, Ortega has been associated with anti-Bush forces such as Iran and Venezuela, launched diatribes against the imperialism of the United States, and even recently, substantiated a proposal by Chavez to create a regional army to oppose any aggression by the USA.

On the other hand, Ortega supports and is implementing the Dominican Republic - Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA), has signed a new agreement with the International Monetary Fund, actively seeks out foreign investment and the business community’s support, and recently held a press conference with the current U.S. ambassador praising the benefits of the U.S.-led Millennium Challenge Account.

While the official response of the Nicaraguan government has been welcoming (President Ortega approved the nomination immediately), many wonder about the message this appointment sends to the Nicaraguan government. The naming of Callahan occurs at a time when many Latin America governments are moving towards more socially-focused orientations and slipping away from Washington’s influence. Appointing someone with such “hard-line” credentials like Callahan might be an attempt by the Bush administration to draw a line in the sand; a way of saying to the Ortega administration in a common Bush way, “either you’re with us or you’re against us.”

A recent article in the daily newspaper, El Nuevo Diario, titled “A ‘Hawk’ the New Director of the U.S. Embassy?” expressed a variety of opinions from political leaders about how Robert Callahan will act in Nicaragua. In the article, deputies from all political persuasions in the National Assembly expressed concern about potential U.S. impingement of Nicaraguan self-determination.

A right-wing member deputy, José Pallais, stated “that the new representative of the United States government should maintain himself at the margin of the internal affairs of Nicaragua, especially the politics of an election year.”

At the same time, the president and deputy of the Sandinista Renovation Movement (MRS), Enrique Saenz, insisted on “respect for the auto-determination and sovereignty of Nicaragua.”

There seems to be much speculation about the intentions of the State Department with Robert Callahan’s appointment. Some say the appointment might stem from the Bush Administration’s need to place someone “of confidence” in the role after the current administration no longer calls the shots at the State Department. The new ambassador is expected to serve into the next U.S. president’s term and will survive the expected change in foreign policy and shake-up of state department staff. The current presidential candidates maintain that they will construct a considerably different foreign policy than the often inflammatory one of the Bush Administration.

A new U.S. president in 2009 brings hope for a change in US policy towards Latin America, a policy which has been often described by Ortega and leaders he’s aligned with as “imperialistic”. However, with the appointment of a man who was instrumental in orchestrating the Contra war (potentially the United States’ most disgraceful and paternalistic action in Latin America), this hope for change is somewhat depleted and worry increases about what stance Callahan will take towards Nicaragua.  We must hope that he was just ‘doing his job’ when he was defending and promoting violent U.S. policies in his posts in Iraq and Honduras.

In summary, the appointment of Robert Callahan is worrisome. The recent conflict with the Bush-aligned Colombia government and Venezuela over the violation of Ecuador’s borders demonstrates that the traditional clash between U.S.-led capitalist and socialist forces in Latin America is still intense. If Callahan ends up becoming another “neocon” ideologue from the Bush administration, then it’s possible to see him instigating more clashes in Latin America. If that happens, then realistic desires for a peaceful future free of U.S. intervention and a progressing and developing Nicaragua are in trouble. After 25 years of documenting U.S. manipulation of Nicaragua’s internal affairs, we hope that’s not the case. We long for a day when our government is beyond that.

Statement released from the Elections Delegation!

            From October 29 to November 8, 2006, we were hosted by Witness for Peace to observe Nicaragua´s national elections and record evidence of US influence in the electoral process.  During the week building up to the November 5, 2006 elections, we sixteen United States and Canadian citizens met with representatives from all four major political parties of Nicaragua (the National Sandinista Liberation Front, the Liberal Constitutional Party, the Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance, and the Sandinista Renewal Movement), the Supreme Electoral Council of the Nicaraguan government, the United States Embassy and U.S. Agency for International Development, and Movimiento por Nicaragua, a group that receives US financing to register voters.  The delegation also received electoral observation training with Nicaraguan organization Etica y Transparencia (Ethics and Transparency).  In addition, the delegation met with a community organizer and a sociologist and professor at the Central American University (UCA).  The group spent two nights with a rural organized community and met with representatives from their women’s group, university students group, and agricultural cooperative. 

At these meetings, the delegation learned about several comments made by US representatives, including U.S. Ambassador Paul Trivelli, U.S. Trade Representative Carlos Gutierrez, and U.S. Congressmen Dan Burton and Dana Rohrabacher that threatened repercussions if FSLN candidate Daniel Ortega were to be elected. According to Nicaraguan newspaper La Prensa, Trivelli claimed just days before the election that the U.S. would have to “revisit the relationship it has with Nicaragua if Ortega wins”, including the Central American Free Trade Agreement, Millenium Challenge Account, which provides Nicaragua with $175 million in aid, investments from private companies, and Nicaragua´s debt with multilateral institutions in which the U.S. participates.  Gutierrez echoed this threat in an article in La Prensa, claiming that, “The people of Nicaragua should remember the very important economic relationship that the two of our countries have, and now is not the time to risk it.”  Rohrabacher  wrote a letter to the Secretary of Homeland Security asking to develop a contingency plan to stop allowing Nicaraguan immigrants in the United States to send remittances if Daniel Ortega were elected, a grave threat given that Nicaragua currently earns more in remittances than it does in exports.  The delegation opposes this intervention by U.S. government representatives in Nicaragua’s internal politics. 

We twenty U.S. and Canadian citizens, accredited by the Supreme Electoral Council through Witness for Peace, participated in electoral observation in eight municipalities in Nicaragua, covering twenty-three polling places.  Observers were present during all steps of the voting process, including the opening of the polls, voting, poll closing, counting, and preparation of final results.  Witness for Peace observers reported that despite minor anomalies in the voting process, overall, voters were not impeded from casting their ballots.  These anomalies did not affect the final results of the elections, and there was no evidence they were a result of intentional fraud.  Witness for Peace observers reported a peaceful voting process, and reported that members of the polling places followed the procedures according to Electoral Law.  Observers reported a high voter turnout, consistent with the Supreme Electoral Council’s tally that just over 2.3 million Nicaraguans, roughly 73.5% of eligible voters, cast their ballots. Witness for Peace, along with delegations from the Organization of American States, the European Union, and the Carter Center among others, comprised some of the 2,226 international observers[i], in addition to around 18,000 national observers.  From our observation, the voting process in Nicaragua was free, fair, and transparent. 

As a result of our experience on this election observation delegation to Nicaragua, we have committed ourselves to return to the United States and Canada where we will give presentations in our communities, write to local and national publications and be active in community groups and organizations all with the purpose of furthering our message to our government representatives and our fellow U.S. and Canadian citizens that the U.S. government must stop meddling in Nicaragua’s internal politics, but rather work in a fair and just manner with the new, democratically elected administration. 

---

[i] La Prensa. November 5, 2006.

Ortega Poised to Win Election

Yesterday, November 5, hundreds of thousands of Nicaraguans cast their votes for Nicaragua’s next President and Vice President, legislative representatives, and regional parliament representatives. Though the election results are not yet final, the preliminary results released this afternoon by the Supreme Electoral Council reveal that Sandinista candidate and former President Daniel Ortega sits poised to win the presidential seat.

With 40.43%% of polling places reporting, the votes for President stand as follows: 40.1% for Daniel Ortega (Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional), 32.72% for Eduardo Montealegre (Alianza Liberal Nicaraguense), 20.33% for Jose Rizo (Partido Liberal Constitucionalista), 7.5% for Edmundo Jarquín (Movimiento Renovador Sandinista), and 0.29% for Eden Pastora (Alternativa por el Cambio). To be declared President outright without going to a runoff vote, a candidate must receive 40% of the vote, or receive at least 35% with a minimum 5% lead on the closest competitor. Under these regulations, if the final results reflect the current ones, Ortega will be Nicaragua’s next President.

A “quick count” tabulated by Nicaraguan election observation organization Etica y Transparencia (Ethics and Transparency) also predicted an Ortega victory early this morning. Using results from a representative sample of 1200 polling places, the quick count produced the following spread: 38.49% for Daniel Ortega, 29.52% for Eduardo Montealegre, 24.15% for Jose Rizo, 7.44% for Edmundo Jarquín, and 0.4% for Eden Pastora. Etica y Transparencia representatives placed the quick count’s margin of error at 1.7% and declared the results “non-objectionable.” In the last two elections in Nicaragua, the same organization’s early quick count differed from official results by less than one percent.

Various respected election observation groups have vouched for the fairness of yesterday’s election process. With about 17,000 observers monitoring Nicaragua’s 11,250 polling places, this election is the most watched in Nicaraguan history. The observers include delegations from international organizations like Witness for Peace, the Carter Center, and the Organization of American States, in addition to domestic groups like Etica y Transparencia, which alone deployed over 11,000 trained observers. Etica y Transparencia has stated that anomalies observed in yesterday’s elections are not significant enough to change the final outcome. The Organization of American States has declared that the electoral process was “peaceful, ordered, massive, and in accordance with the law.”

The United States government has not yet issued a statement on the most recent elections results. Tom Casey, Deputy Spokesman of the State Department, stated today, “We will wait for the [official] results before making any declaration about the winners and losers.” Given the massive observation of yesterday’s election process and the consistent verification of its legitimacy, the United States will hopefully accept the final results, whatever they may be, as the indisputable decision of Nicaragua’s voters. To do otherwise would constitute a shameful insult to Nicaragua’s sovereignty.

The Witness for Peace Nicaragua team will continue to track the election results and the U.S. response over the next few days. Check this blog for upcoming updates.

Targeting Nicaraguans’ Stomachs The U.S.’s 11th-hour Elections Meddling

by Ben Beachy

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.

Welcome to Witness for Peace Nicaragua!

This blog is a place to get updates from the Nica team of Wintess for Peace.