<< the American left didn't hold out for a Costa Rican style government to replace Somoza>>
What the American left thought was quite irrelevant. The Sandinistas were there, in control, they had won. Do you really think the US, with their horrendous track record in Nicaragua (going back well over 100 years) could have waded in and told the Nicaraguans what kind of Government they ought to have?
<<There was always an excuse for why a leftist regime shouldn't have elections>>
But they did, remember? The freeest election the country had ever seen, despite the US government spending $9 million to support the opposition (would we tolerate that here, even if it was supposed to balance the advantage of the incumbent?) And when they lost, they stepped down, not as gracefully as they might have, but they did it.
If you examine a Nicaraguan chronology, you will see that the early years of the Sandisnista regime were remarkably pluralistic for a "Castroite" regime. The only farms confiscated were those that had belonged to the Somozas; many large agribusiness enterprises were left intact. Not US-style democracy, but they were making progress. When the Guardia Civil returned in Contra uniforms, that changed very quickly. Does it mean anything to you that the Contras, unlike the Sandinistas, were totally unable to function without massive outside support?
<<It was invariably the fault of the US for supporting the preceding dictator.>>
Violence and repression beget violence and repression, always have, always will. When you support violence and repression you pull a pendulum out of line, expressing shock and horror when it swings back the other way is idiotic. J. Kirkpatrick felt that democracy was too weak to fight Communism (she has been conclusively proven wrong). Don't you feel that many Nicaraguans might have legitimately felt that democracy was too weak to fight the dictatorship? Democratic regimes evolve, they aren't popped out of hats. How can a democratic system to evolve when all above-ground dissent is met with repression? Repressive regimes can only be overthrown by military means, and military organizations inevitably take on an authoritarian character, even in democracies. When you force political resistance underground, you it will almost invariably become authoritarian, regardless of its political orientation.
Never been a Pol Pot fan, and not much enamoured of Sihanouk, but if we hadn't bounced out Sihanouk and replaced him with a bad joke named Lon Nol (remember him?) the Cambodians would have had a much better chance of resisting the Khmer Rouge. Americans thought Sihanouk was a flake, but Cambodians had, and still have, deep respect for his position. For Lon Nol they felt nothing at all.
Steve |
