Nicaragua needs urgent aid
November 14, 1988 • #151 International Viewpoint serious work on questions of ecology and health....
The congress devoted considerable attention to the fate and restoration of the dignity and material position of former prisoners and internal exiles in the period of the cult of the personality....
The congress noted another development —the return to public life in the republic of the church and believers....
The bulk of the speakers were people respected in the republic, who spoke purposefully, concretely and offered constructive proposals....
### Whipping up "vulgar nationalism"
However, there was another sort of speaker and another sort of audience, the guests or the "gallery." It was not hard to see that among them feelings prevailed over reason, irresponsibility over sense. ...
There were speakers of an extremist character, thrusting ideas of separatism and national isolation on the congress and "forgetting" the concept of socialism, among others. It was reassuring that the delegates were able to separate the wheat from the chaff....
In their enthusiasm, its [Sajudis'] members do not always realize whether their demands are realistic or not. Making great demands on the administrative apparatus, some of them have not raised a finger for perestroika. On the other hand, some simply want to settle old scores....Many of these masters of opportunism and adaptation, denounce the "theory and practice of Stalinism" in words, not realizing that they remain in its grip; they do not tolerate criticism...It is considered that people of this sort, of whatever nationality they may be, are not loath to whip up vulgar nationalism, to resort to distributing provocative leaflets and so on, which go outside the law.
Participants in the movement often complain that party organs do little to help them. But two first secretaries of regional committees spoke at the congress, and the "gallery" received them with obvious coolness. And there were those who, forgetting the elementary rules of discussion, jumped up and shouted.
"Street democracy" was timely and useful for the advance of perestroika. But in the future, when the program is clearly defined and painstaking daily work begins, it can offer a very poor service. The elected leadership should think about that.
There is no reason to hide the fact that up until now, relations between the central and local leaderships and Sajudis have been strained....
Today, when the leadership of the Central Committee of the Lithuanian CC has been renewed and the movement has achieved legal status, with a democratically elected leadership, misunderstanding will doubtless disappear. In fact, Sajudis has proclaimed that its goals are the same....*
JUST OVER TWO weeks after Hurricane Joan ravaged the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua, decimating the town of Bluefields among others and leaving at least 116 dead, the embattled country is still trying to salvage what little remains after such a large-scale natural disaster. ELIZABETH MILLER ANY Nan leaders have said that the destruction is worse than that wrought by the earthquake of 1972, which obliterated most of Managua, the capital. In this second emergency 300,000 people, or onetenth of the population, were affected or left homeless after winds measuring over 290 km/hr tore through Bluefields, the major city of the more isolated Atlantic coast region, and continued on through across the
Almost worse than the leveling of people's homes is the fact that large parts of most staple crops were lost, as well as the crucial export crops such as coffee, which are Nicaragua's sole source of export revenue. International solidarity began trickling in as soon as the winds had fallen enough to permit safe travel, as planes from Mexico and Cuba loaded with food and medical supplies land-
Supplies followed from government ministries and international aid organizations in Western Europe. The West German religious group Caritas is giving $280,000 and the "Swedish Friendship" group is sending $70,000. Even the Tory government in Britain has responded, although their contribution of $17,000 is a paltry sum. Conspicuous by its absence - although this is hardly surprising - is the name of the United States. In fact, while the National Emergency Committee was working through the nights leading up to the hurricane on organizing relief efforts, evacuations, and setting up shelters, the US government sententiously declared that it was "warning" Nicaragua to abide by the "democratization measures contained in the Esquipulas Accords." If not, "the Congress could approve new military aid to the
USSR • NICARAGUA
Two days after the hurricane had passed, leaving mayhem in its wake, the United States augmented this statement by not only refusing aid which it said "could be used against the contras," but forbidding the entry onto US soil of any Nicaraguan diplomat or government official. This is an action that makes access to multilateral organizations that could help the country nearly impossible.
The Voice of America radio station has also thrown doubts upon how international aid will be used in an effort to block such solidarity efforts, especially on the part of the so-called free
Nevertheless, all of the closest American allies, not excepting Britain, have managed to detail supplies or money to Nicaragua. On October 25, the United Nations passed a motion with only two voices against (predictably, those of the United States and Israel) calling for the United States to immediately abide by the ruling of the World Court at the Hague on June 27, 1986, which declared that the US-backed war against Nicaragua was ilegal and required damages to be paid to the Nicaraguan government. In all, 99 countries voted for the motion, and Western Europe abstained
Just before the storm, President Daniel Ortega had announced that despite the safety precautions still being taken in the country, between October 17-20 the contras had killed five civilians and wounded five more, including one sick child in an ambulance. And, interrupted only by the hurricane, Honduran troops had been harassment operations against the Nicaraguan soldiers sta tioned at the borders of the two coun tries on October 19, 20, 22, and 23.
Hurricane Joan left untouched, and the project of reconstruction requires international solidarity on an unprecedented scale. The Nicaraguan government has sent out preliminary lists of the food, medical and construction supplies it estimates will suffice at minimum for 300,000 people for one month. This and other information should be available via national or local Nicaragua solidarity committees, or at the Nicaraguan consulate or embassy nearest you.
We urge every one of our readers to get involved in solidarity work for Nicaragua, a revolution under siege from many directions. *
----- photo credits and running heads -----
9
From perestroika to the People's Front
International Viewpoint #151 • November 14, 1988
USSR
LEADER of the Socialist Initiatives Club in Moscow and one of those responsible for the samizdat publication Levy Povorot
("Left Turn"), Boris Kagarlitski was one of the founders of the grouping of informal associations that gave rise last year to the Federation of Socialist Clubs. The platform of this organization was published in International Viewpoint 129,
November 9, 1987. Today, it is giving impetus to the formation of a Russian "People's Front."
Kagarlitski, a sociologist of art, has published many articles and his book, The Thinking Reed, has just been published in
English. At the end of the Brezhnev period, he already led circles of Marxist students and a clandestine publication. For this activity he got 11 months in prison.
One of the interesting aspects of the interview is that it grapples with the national question in the USSR, which is new for Russian dissidents, but Kagarlitski has clearly not yet systematized his views on this subject.
Kagarlitski was interviewed in September in Moscow for
International Viewpoint by Sasha Petrov. The second part, on the Russian People's Front, will be published in our next issue.
N YOUR opinion, is there a "Gorbachev project," and If so, what is its social base?
There are two different questions here, which are linked in certain respects. I think that the most dangerous aspect of the perestroika is that there has never been a project underlying it. First of all, Gorbachev himself explained once or twice at the beginning of his reign two years ago that he would not have imagined himself capable of advocating certain ideas. For him this was unimaginable at the time. It is clear, therefore, there was no project, and that is the big difference between perestroika and, for example, the Prague Spring in
Czechoslovakia.
The difference is not one of the level of radicalization, because sometimes perestroika goes as a far as the Prague Spring.
Doubtless there is not the same freedom, but we are having the same debates over democratic forms, and there are also many similarities in the way anti-Stalinist criticism has been organized.
However, from the outset the Prague
Spring had a sort of project. You can say that it was reformist, we can criticize it - we have to criticize it, because it had fail-
10 ings — but in any case, there was a project that was well prepared, not just by intellectuals but also by the technocratic liberal wing of the party. There was a sort of radical version of this project outside the party. In this sense, the Prague Spring was intellectually better organized.
The compromises between factions in the Soviet Union are, therefore, substitutes for a real project. The bureaucrats' resistance is real, but the project is not. So, the body of compromises that are substituting for a project are giving rise to impracticable laws, such as that of financial autonomy. It has contradictory sections, and this makes it impossible for the enterprises to apply it. They turn to the ministers for help, but the different ministers give different explanations. So, this is an initial difference from the Prague Spring.
The second difference is that the technocracy itself is not homogeneous in the Soviet Union, whereas it was in Czechoslovakia. This is one of the reasons why there is no project, because the technocracy cannot consolidate itself.
The elite of the technocracy is more coherent, but it is not strong enough to impose its own project. It finds itself compromising with the traditional conservative Stalinist bureaucracy. And in order lar support, for that of the intellectuals, which is at the origin of glasnost. • Do you think that they are also seeking the support of at least a part of the working class, the skilled part?
In theory, yes, but in practice, no. This is the reform's contradiction, because you do not have a project but just proposals. Some proposals can be more to the left than others, but they can be combined. For example, one expert may be technocratic, but others may be a bit further left. They make their own proposals, and sometimes they get accepted. The same goes for the language, the ideology. In short, it is very
It is very significant that workerism has practically disappeared from the official ideology. In reality, it is the left that can, and must, be able to address itself most effectively to the skilled workers. Quite simply, the unskilled workers are less active politically, less prepared to take part in politics. This is the essential test for the Russian People's Front. If it cannot base itself on workers' initiative, it will be a grouping without a social base.
Ligachev referred angrily in his speech in Gorki this summer to the wave of strikes throughout the Soviet Union, not just in Armenia. And in this way, he revealed that the working class is becoming dangerous for people like him. This was an important source of information.
However, the level of activity of the working class must not be exaggerated. Unfortunately, it is not very active. I would say simply that there is a certain radicalizing trend. • To conclude this point, you say that there is no coherent perestroika project. Are there at least different interpretations that can be distinguished?
Yes, you can say that there is a bureaucratic perestroika, which would not change the old system very much. There is a technocratic perestroika, which seeks to replace the old privileges of office with those of money. And there is a democratic perestroika focused on expressing aspirations from below, hence the importance of a real glasnost. • Can you clarify the present scope of glasnost?
The bureaucracy sometimes sets limits, and on other occasions it lets things take their course. This is very complicated and contradictory.
On the one hand, you might wonder what
----- pull-quotes on this page -----