Myths and lies persist over Nicaragua

Let’s get it out of the way first because it is an inevitable (if also a bit ridiculous) rebuttal. Daniel Ortega, Nicaragua’s newly re-elected president, may be a political thug in the same way that politicians in most “democracies” are, including the United States. They buy support and form alliances for political advantage and then, after winning office, they decide to push policies the general population opposes. In Ortega’s case, the former is probably true, the latter may not be true. Time will tell, but regardless of what route he takes, he will be accused of treachery from one side or the other.

But this is not about Ortega's behavior. This is about the media's behavior. If current coverage is any cue, the U.S. media will only show the side that agrees with Washington's opinion.

For instance, a recent article published in The Washington Post written by N.C. Aizenman is ridiculously inaccurate and misleading. The scary part is it is only a (extremely) small taste of more to come.

One of the more obvious myths the article pushes is that the Contras were a positive force for democracy in the 80’s. This is rejected by any fair reading of historical facts(click here for a small example). Even Wikipedia is more accurate. The Contras were a U.S. controlled (and created) proxy terrorist force of the right-wing and land owning class in Nicaragua. Oh, and weren’t some of those “rebels” on the CIA payroll anyway?

Through fear and violence, the Contras (and their U.S. backers) only made democracy and free elections more difficult in Nicaragua. For this article to quote statements that the contras “were the ones who gave Nicaraguans their democracy” without a rebuttal is ridiculous in itself. But to also imply, in the face of evidence to the contrary, that the Contras were indeed responsible for democracy and, to add insult to injury, were and are the victims, is beyond comprehension. They were aggressors, plain in simple.

The article makes the implication that the Contras retained some kind of popular support. But then it refutes its own claim when it states the Contras numbered “12,000 at their peek.” I suppose it’s hard to twist facts when even the inflated versions don’t help your case.

The Contras were vastly unpopular and feared in Nicaragua. You get a hint of this in the article. “Everybody there knows what operations you were responsible for, and there may be those who want to take their revenge.” That was a former Contra stating why he didn’t return to his ranch. But this statement leaves you in some kind of limbo, wondering what exactly he means be “operations” and why such a popular democracy promoting group would be so hated that one of its foot soldiers feared facing his neighbors. You would think he would be welcomed as a hero. That is, if we assume the Contras were actually popular. I guess according to Aizenman, disappearances, murders, and torture are all good reasons for love and admiration, especially for the people who had to face the possibility of these pleasantries every day.

And even though the article makes a point of quoting a former Contra who claimed the Sandinista government “gunned down his father and confiscated his family’s cattle ranch” the majority of human rights violations were committed by the U.S. backed Contras, not the Sandinistas. Undoubtedly, things have changed. But present greviances do not change the facts of the past.

Indeed, when compared to other U.S. backed governments in Central America at the time, the Sandinistas were highly passive towards oppositional forces and especially kind to the civilian population. Even election conditions were greatly superior to other countries in the region, especially the U.S. client states El Salvador and Guatemala. (See Herman Chomsky)

Of course comparisons only mean so much. Case studies referenced in many books and articles, most notably in Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent, show that election conditions in Nicaragua were generally good and the Contras posed a threat to democracy, not an aide.

The main problem with this article is the framing. The Contras come off as victims even though they were the U.S. backed aggressors. Ortega may not be the man for Nicaragua’s future but the article doesn’t want to examine his policies. It only wants to twist facts to sympathize with a history that never happened. Well at least not in the way the article wants it be understood.

But regardless, pushing known myths is still just as dishonest as it was in the 80’s. It’s discouraging (or encouraging, depending on who you ask) to know nothing much has changed in the media's coverage.

Flowers for the clients. Trash for the competition.