What lies behind the state of siege?
International Viewpoint 11 November 1985
NICARAGUA know that unfortunately the Reagan administration is bent on destroying Nicaragua. We knew this a year ago, but we are trying to take the measures only when they are strictly needed.
Q. Did you forsee, then, that these kind of measures would be necessary?
A. The thing is that in Nicaragua
ON OCTOBER 15, Sandinista president, Daniel Ortega signed a controversial decree extending for a further year a state of emergency in Nicaragua. The state of emergency had been introduced in March
1982 but eased in July 1984. He explained that the new measures were necessary because of the US government's criminal and agressive policy.
We publish below an interview with the Nicaraguan ambassador in the Netherlands, Carlos Arguello, who replies to some of the criticism of the measures in the bourgeois press, explains the background to the new measures and what they will mean in practice. The interview was given to Klassenstrijd, the paper of the Dutch section of the Fourth International.
Question.
The bourgeois media have been trying to argue that the measures taken in Nicaragua are a further step towards totalitarianism or even that they stem from internal
What problems.
is your party comment on this?
Answer.
The were measures not taken as a result of internal party problems. They were taken because of a very serious situation originating in the war of the United
States against Nicaragua after the
Reagan administration got the green light from congress for what they called humanitarian aid - 27 million worth. Whatever they call dollars the fact remains that congress it, politically approved Reagan's plans for
Central America and the war against
Nicaragua.
That green light, which was given in June, was followed two or three weeks later by the first large offensive against Nicaragua. It wasn't so much that the money was needed for that but Reagan was holding back until the congress had approved the continuation of the war. The plan was to take an important city like Esteli in northern Nicaragua and the region round about. They made attempts to take over an important piece of
Nicaraguan territory. This failed. The main thrust of the contras, militarily, was crushed. The alternative if this failed, that is if the contras failed to over a piece of territory that take could be declared free and then recognised by the United States or whatever; the alternative plan was to create as much destruction inside the country as possible, in order to destroy the economy. The contras withdrew from that region and started going in small groups inside Nicaraguan territory.
This creates a different situation than simply defending a military objective where you can more or less limit the measures you take in order to protect the country. The fact that the contras started going into Nicaragua with orders to blow and factories, changed the picture. So the measures had to be taken. The Nicaraguan authorities, through their services, were able to determine that plans were being made to blow up certain targets even inside Managua. So the only way to stop this plan was for the government to have the necessary legal means to detain people involved in these plots against Nicaragua. This has occured, together with plans by businesses in Nicaragua, that are against the government, to disrupt the economy and create economic havoc. This is tog. ether with certain left groups that feel that the revolution has not gone far enough or quick enough and were planning certain strikes. Finally even the Catholic hierarchy was planning certain activities, which were not religious but were plainly political, including the publication of a newspaper without permission from the authorities, without fulfilling any of the legal requirements for publishing a newspaper in Nicaragua.
So all this, the internal plans of certain groups to create economic havoc, the military efforts of the contras to destroy certain economic targets all made it imperative to take measures that affected Nicaragua internally. That's the reason why these measures were taken.
Q. But you knew before that this was going to happen?
A. Of course we knew, and we we are always living with a sword over our heads. The state of emerg ency really has never been totally repealed. A year and a half ago when the elections were held in Nicaragua, in order to facilitate the campaigns, most of the restrictions contained in the emergency legislation were lifted. But the emergency decree remained.
Q. What is the actual content of the measures. The bourgeois press says that many democratic rights like the right of assembly and the right to strike have been suspended. They say also that people can now be detained without trial. Is this true?
A. Yes, the right to strike has been suspended and the right to meetings has been limited, in the sense that you cannot have public rallies. This includes us — it includes everything. That doesn't mean that you cannot have political meetings, but not mass rallies that could lead to other situations. The right to habeas corpus has been suspended.
Q. Why is that necessary though. Can't the courts decide?
A. In normal circumstances, yes. But even the international laws on human rights permit governments to take emergency measures when circumstances dictate. All the rights that have been suspended are allowed by international law to be taken by a country in a situation of emergency.
Now what happens is if you have a plot by five people somewhere, like here in the Netherlands, of course they can be judged and tried without any problem. But when you have an army, financed by a super power, disrupting the life of the country, you have to take measures because you can't go public in a trial, at least not immediately. When a country is at war - if Holland were at war you can be sure that nothing that the military was doing would be taken to trial at the minute. Unfortunately that always happens in war. Even if you compare it to situations like when Great Britain was at war with Argentina, although the Malvinas were 12 thousand miles away anything related to the Malvinas was banned from the press in Britain. I am not justifying that Britain did this. I am just trying to point out the case of a small country that is under attack
3
by a super power - that this is an abnormal situation and certain things have to be done, unfortunately.
Q. You said that the ban on public rallies also includes the mass organisations and the FSLN? Could you explain the purpose of this? The
Sandinistas have always impressed everybody by stressing the importance
Yes but how can you have a rally in these circumstances - get 100,000 people together, when yo lon't know if somebody is going t throw a bomb in there? These type of situations are very easily disrupted They could create havoc. Many times plans have been discovered like this, plans to wreak havoc in Nicaragua.
For example, two or three years ago for the July celebration, a group of people were detained because they were in possession of dynamite and planned to blow up the platform where the authorities were going to be. When that kind of thing is com-
The international reaction DANIEL Ortega, elected president of Nicaragua by an overwhelming majority in August 1984, declared a state of emergency on October 15. The response capitalist press in the major imperialist countries was an outcry
Sandinistas had started down the slide to totalitarianism.
In its October 17 issue Liberation, the French daily, for example, carried a commentary by Christian Martin that argued: "In fact the ideal of the Sandinistas has never been a democracy of the Western type. Cuba remains their model. The Managua leaders have barely concealed that they held elections a year ago to please their European friends more than out of democratic convictions. Since the elections did not discourage US aggression, the people in Managua wonder the game was worth a candle. Why continue on the democratic path if there are no dividends?"
The central underpinning of this argument is absurd, that is Martin's claim that the Sandinistas were foolish enough to think that formally correct elections would stay the hand of the CIA. No one in Latin America believes that after the coup in Chile, least of all the Sandinistas, who could have hardly won power in the first place if they were so naive.
Nicaraguan Minister of the Interquestions about public and religious treedoms after the declaration of
"I want to people's liberties have not been meet, to whatever leisure activities we want, to work, to express gious freedom, freedom even for sectors that oppose the revolution, who have not been subjected to any limitations beyond those estathe emergency law, which requires prior authorization to carry out political activities.
"But the rather Manichean notion has been created that the emergency limits the freedoms of the people. Of course, that would mean colling the support of the people. But to the contrary, the emergency has been broadly supported by the people. It in no way limits the freedoms of the people but is rather a shield protecting them."
was asked specifically whether the government intended to do anything against the counterrevolutionary head of the Church, whom he compared to Reagan. He
"In our country, where priests have traditionally been respected, no priest has ever been arrested by the revolution. We have tried neutralize the political activity of Monsignor Miguel Obando on the level of ideas and ideology ... I see no possibility that he will be restricted in his movements or his of emergency was declared in 1982 and renewed every six months up to the time of the August 1984 elections, it was suspended. It was the same that was reinstituted on
In a statement on October 22, the Paris Comite de
Nicaragua summed the provisions as follows:
*1. Suspension of Habeas Cor(permitting proof and the right to a lawyer), limited to crimes against state security... This measure is designed to prevent communication with support networks outside the country.
"2. Restriction of the right to travel about in the war zones and where the harvest is being collected.
"3. Demonstrations, rallies, and strikes are banned without prior authorization.
"4. Prior censorship of the press."
The Committee noted that many people visited Nicaragua in 198284, when the emergency was in force before and testified to wide margins of liberty. But there is no question that great pressures are being brought on Nicaragua and that today problems of all sorts are growing. The conclusion of the Committee was: "We do not have to approve these measures. We are for freedoms. But we think that the best way to defend them... is to stop the aggression against Nicaragua and assure it the means for survival. That is why the campaign to assure the survival of Nicaragua is more important than ever.
pounded by an army helping from the outside, it's a very difficult situ-
As an individual I have a comment to make. At the moment it is being openly discussed in the Netherlands for example, about placing missiles in this country - the most destructive weapons in the world. And a situation in which Holland is not at war. If you compared it to Nicaragua, it would be as if Holland had 150,000 armed territory, hitting economic targets and killing people. Even this compariwould not be exact because the society in Holland is completely different - it's an organised society. Ours is a very poor country, and we are, for the first time, trying to be free and independent.
The level of culture and preparation in Nicaragua is very limited. People have been kept in ignorance for centuries. Even then, the comparison would not be exact. But to try to compare the Netherlands at peace with Nicaragua at war — it's out of proportion.
Q. Yes, but the reason that people on the left want to know more is because they are fearful that things may happen in Nicaragua like they happened before in Russia. That is why people are concerned at what is taking place in Nicaragua.
A. If we were looking for excuses to have a totalitarian state in Nicaragua, I think the excuses were given a long time ago. The war against Nicaragua started the day Reagan assumed the presidency. There have been plenty of excuses.
It has to be pointed out that under these restrictions normal life will continue in Nicaragua. These measures do not change the day-to-day life. All they do is give the government the legal capacity to take important measures immediately without going through a lot of red tape, in this emergency situation.
Q. Can you explain more clearly what is behind the restrictions on the right to strike? What about in factories still owned by the private sector for example. How will it work?
A. We are fighting for survival. It is normal that we cannot permit International Viewpoint 11 November 1985
action that would close down certain industries that are necessary for the survival of the country. In Nicaragua, everything is lacking. When you talk about closing down a factory that manufactures shoes, that means that people can't wear shoes. The demands of workers, of course, can still be discussed but the right to strike means that you can close an industry down, and that right at this moment is not permitted.
Q. Have there been a lot of strikes?
A. No, there haven't been many. But, as I was saying, it's not because at this moment a strike is going on that we want to stop. At this moment what we want to do is to legally ban, and a strike is only one thing that could happen, any possibility of this this moment, in this
Q. But surely the right to strike is one of the most basic rights that workers have?
A. Certainly, and we see that as true in Nicaragua. Since the revolution, the number of unions has increased by a hundredfold in Nicaragua and this points to the fact that the government is aware of that. But you have never been in a war. These are not normal measures. The normal way of things is for strikes to be permitted and people to be able to publish whatever they want.
Q. The right to publish was already restricted. Will it be more restricted now?
A. Yes.
Q. In other words, then, you see these measures as contrary strategy to mobilise the people? Do you think they will have a negative effect?
Well, the grass-roots organisations in Nicaragua will continue and the reports that we have been getting from the organisations in Nicaragua points to the fact that people are aware of the situation. Nobody wants these emergency laws, but people know that it is necessary.
Q. You mentioned that there was a kind of three-pronged attack - the Church, the military and the political right.
A. Yes, well the political right is represented by businessmen in COSEP. It is very easy when you own factories and there is a private industry in Nicaragua, and it is easy for the owners to disrupt the economy. An important sector of the economy is still in private hands in Nicaragua.
Q. Wasn't it to be expected that at some time or another there would
International Viewpoint 11 November 1985 develop a conflict with the private
Yes, but it is something that feel that in Nicaragua we have to continue with the principles of the started the revolution. A lot of facilities and help has been given to the private sector. But obviously there special interest groups within this sector who want the privileged situation in which they found themselves under Somoza.
Are there links between these groups and the contras?
At this moment I can't talk about links. The only thing I could tell you is that there is a coincidence of declarations and a coincidence of activity, whatever that implies, you have to draw your own conclusions. When Reagan says something something that would be certain circles, and then most of that speech is carried out.
You spoke of certain groups to the left who are in opposition?
As I said there are groups in Nicaragua that feel that the political project of the revolution has not gone far enough. They feel that the fact of the situation that Nicaragua is in at the moment, the impossibility of reaching an agreement with the Reagan administration that would let nicaragua, and its political project survive, they feel that all this points to the fact that the maintenance of the original project of the revolution is leading nowhere and that Nicaragua should go out for a total revolution. There are different ideas what that means. happened earlier on in the revolution, we had certain groups that felt that the revolution should go further than it
Daniel Ortega in the crowds (DR) had gone. But some of these elements are now part of the Nicaraguan parliament.
Q. What kind of measures will be taken against them?
A. Well, yes we do have to discuss with them. No, they are not the same as the first three groups I mentioned. Let me give you an example. I mentioned that at the beginning of the revolution we had problems of this nature. At that moment the actual fighting, the actual war had not started. There were obviously groups of right-wing businessmen who felt that by its very nature the revolution was going too far and there were others who felt that the revolution should go farther. This was in late 1979, early 1980. Some of the businessmen were jailed and so were some people from these other groups. Of course, the press only picked up on the fact businessmen had been jailed But the fact is that the law has to applied to everybody. This in itself is revolutionary, because the law has never been applied to businessmen before.
Q. Does that mean to say that these left groups also have plans to bomb etc.?
A. Not necessarily. I don't have the police information or whatever on what exactly the plans were. But if anyone were to start a strike at this moment, the government has the legal possibility of saying you cannot have a rally somewhere: 'no, you can't go on strike If you read the reports of human rights organisations three years ago, when these measures were in effect, nobody can say that even under those strict emergency laws that anything like killings or torture happened in Nicaragua, never. People were detained and set free.
5