Nicaragua elections
Puck78
Posts: 737
Ortega back in power, early poll results show
· Sandinista head 'triumphs in Nicaraguan first round'
· Split opposition cries foul and US warns of sanctions
Rory Carroll, Latin America correspondent
Tuesday November 7, 2006
The Guardian
The Sandinista leader and former Marxist revolutionary Daniel Ortega appeared to have mounted a spectacular political comeback last night after preliminary results showed he had won Nicaragua's presidential election in the first round.
Mr Ortega led by a margin which seemed wide enough to avoid a run-off and to deliver a stinging rebuke to Washington, which had openly campaigned against him. Returns from about 40% of polling stations gave him 40.1%, far ahead of his four rivals and over the threshold for victory. An estimate by an independent watchdog, Ethics and Transparency, which was spot on in previous elections, put him at 38.5% and nine points clear of his nearest rival.
To win in the first round a candidate must score 40%, or more than 35% with a five-point margin over the nearest rival. The Sandinistas did not wait for the final results to erupt in jubilation, with thousands pouring on to the streets to sing, dance, wave black and red flags, and set off fireworks. Mr Ortega, 60, mellower and cagier since losing three previous elections, made no immediate statement.
Since being ousted from the presidency in 1990, in the wake of a brutal civil war against US-sponsored contra rebels and crippling sanctions by Washington, Mr Ortega has reinvented himself as a moderate and devout Catholic. From a social progressive, critics say he has changed into an ego-driven opportunist who has ditched women's rights and income redistribution in his quest for power. Nevertheless, his victory, if confirmed, will be hailed by Cuba and Venezuela as a leftward tilt in Latin America.
The Sandinistas' main challenger, Eduardo Montealegre, a conservative banker favoured by Washington, trailed at 32.7%, according to the early polling returns. Ethics and Transparency pegged him lower, at 29.5%. Mr Montealegre did not concede defeat, citing irregularities in Sunday's vote. "In a democracy, that is unacceptable. We are going to a second round," he said.
If Mr Ortega's victory is confirmed it will be testimony to his stamina and his opponents' disarray, rather than a surge in his popularity. He scored around the same or better in 1990, 1996 and 2001, yet lost. A change in the law which lowered the threshold for a first-round victory and a split in conservative ranks rewarded the former revolutionary's endurance in running a fourth time. The Sandinistas also split, but the dissident candidate, Edmundo Jarquin, languished at 7%, according to the early results.
Mr Ortega would probably lose a run-off, since the 60% of the population which dislikes him - a figure which has barely budged in four previous elections - could unite around a single opponent.
US officials in the capital, Managua, echoed the claims of irregularities but said they would await the final results before giving a verdict on the election. The Bush administration warned that aid and trade with Nicaragua might suffer if its cold war foe from the Reagan years returned to power. Venezuela, by contrast, offered cheap oil to Sandinista supporters and hinted of more to come should Hugo Chávez's ally join the "pink tide" of leftwing Latin American leaders.
Roberto Rivas, the head of Nicaragua's top electoral body, said the vote was clean and transparent. An army of 17,000 observers, including the former US president Jimmy Carter and EU officials, was expected largely to endorse that view.
Many polling stations opened late because of squabbling between rival party officials who ran the stations, and about 12% of stations closed while people were still queuing to vote. Ethics and Transparency said the numbers affected were too small to affect the outcome.
Mr Ortega ran a deft campaign which mobilised his base with small, but enthusiastic rallies throughout the country. He shunned media interviews and huge rallies lest they concentrated his opponents' minds. Sixteen years of successive conservative governments have left the country stable, but impoverished, making many receptive to his promises of jobs, housing and social services.
But to some critics he is still an authoritarian radical, no matter how many times John Lennon's Give Peace a Chance anthem was played at his rallies. If the losers reject the final result, Nicaragua, though peaceful, could swiftly slide into a political crisis and frighten investors.
A change of policy
· No longer advocates central planning but wants to promote "fair markets" and may renegotiate US trade agreement. Hints that landless peasants ought to receive own plots.
· Preaches reconciliation and appointed Jamie Morales, former Contra spokesman, as running mate. Paid Morales compensation for seizing his home in 1980s. Ortega still lives in it.
· Apologised to Mesqitos, a rural community whose homes were torched by Sandinistas for cooperating with Contra rebels.
· Still chummy with Cuba's Fidel Castro, and also Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, but pledges to seek good relations with all countries, including the US.
· Has abandoned secularism and embraced Catholic church.
· Sandinista head 'triumphs in Nicaraguan first round'
· Split opposition cries foul and US warns of sanctions
Rory Carroll, Latin America correspondent
Tuesday November 7, 2006
The Guardian
The Sandinista leader and former Marxist revolutionary Daniel Ortega appeared to have mounted a spectacular political comeback last night after preliminary results showed he had won Nicaragua's presidential election in the first round.
Mr Ortega led by a margin which seemed wide enough to avoid a run-off and to deliver a stinging rebuke to Washington, which had openly campaigned against him. Returns from about 40% of polling stations gave him 40.1%, far ahead of his four rivals and over the threshold for victory. An estimate by an independent watchdog, Ethics and Transparency, which was spot on in previous elections, put him at 38.5% and nine points clear of his nearest rival.
To win in the first round a candidate must score 40%, or more than 35% with a five-point margin over the nearest rival. The Sandinistas did not wait for the final results to erupt in jubilation, with thousands pouring on to the streets to sing, dance, wave black and red flags, and set off fireworks. Mr Ortega, 60, mellower and cagier since losing three previous elections, made no immediate statement.
Since being ousted from the presidency in 1990, in the wake of a brutal civil war against US-sponsored contra rebels and crippling sanctions by Washington, Mr Ortega has reinvented himself as a moderate and devout Catholic. From a social progressive, critics say he has changed into an ego-driven opportunist who has ditched women's rights and income redistribution in his quest for power. Nevertheless, his victory, if confirmed, will be hailed by Cuba and Venezuela as a leftward tilt in Latin America.
The Sandinistas' main challenger, Eduardo Montealegre, a conservative banker favoured by Washington, trailed at 32.7%, according to the early polling returns. Ethics and Transparency pegged him lower, at 29.5%. Mr Montealegre did not concede defeat, citing irregularities in Sunday's vote. "In a democracy, that is unacceptable. We are going to a second round," he said.
If Mr Ortega's victory is confirmed it will be testimony to his stamina and his opponents' disarray, rather than a surge in his popularity. He scored around the same or better in 1990, 1996 and 2001, yet lost. A change in the law which lowered the threshold for a first-round victory and a split in conservative ranks rewarded the former revolutionary's endurance in running a fourth time. The Sandinistas also split, but the dissident candidate, Edmundo Jarquin, languished at 7%, according to the early results.
Mr Ortega would probably lose a run-off, since the 60% of the population which dislikes him - a figure which has barely budged in four previous elections - could unite around a single opponent.
US officials in the capital, Managua, echoed the claims of irregularities but said they would await the final results before giving a verdict on the election. The Bush administration warned that aid and trade with Nicaragua might suffer if its cold war foe from the Reagan years returned to power. Venezuela, by contrast, offered cheap oil to Sandinista supporters and hinted of more to come should Hugo Chávez's ally join the "pink tide" of leftwing Latin American leaders.
Roberto Rivas, the head of Nicaragua's top electoral body, said the vote was clean and transparent. An army of 17,000 observers, including the former US president Jimmy Carter and EU officials, was expected largely to endorse that view.
Many polling stations opened late because of squabbling between rival party officials who ran the stations, and about 12% of stations closed while people were still queuing to vote. Ethics and Transparency said the numbers affected were too small to affect the outcome.
Mr Ortega ran a deft campaign which mobilised his base with small, but enthusiastic rallies throughout the country. He shunned media interviews and huge rallies lest they concentrated his opponents' minds. Sixteen years of successive conservative governments have left the country stable, but impoverished, making many receptive to his promises of jobs, housing and social services.
But to some critics he is still an authoritarian radical, no matter how many times John Lennon's Give Peace a Chance anthem was played at his rallies. If the losers reject the final result, Nicaragua, though peaceful, could swiftly slide into a political crisis and frighten investors.
A change of policy
· No longer advocates central planning but wants to promote "fair markets" and may renegotiate US trade agreement. Hints that landless peasants ought to receive own plots.
· Preaches reconciliation and appointed Jamie Morales, former Contra spokesman, as running mate. Paid Morales compensation for seizing his home in 1980s. Ortega still lives in it.
· Apologised to Mesqitos, a rural community whose homes were torched by Sandinistas for cooperating with Contra rebels.
· Still chummy with Cuba's Fidel Castro, and also Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, but pledges to seek good relations with all countries, including the US.
· Has abandoned secularism and embraced Catholic church.
www.amnesty.org
www.amnesty.org.uk
www.amnesty.org.uk
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
what should we remember about the sandanistas and US treatment of Nicaraugua?
-that the US lost control of the armed forced of Nicauragua
-that the US backed Somaza dictaorship was overthrown by the Sandanistas
-that the murderous National Guard was disbanded by the Sandanistas
-that the US subjected the entire population of Nicauragua to one of the more brutal international terror operations in the hemisphere
-that the Sandanisa regime increased the number of schools and hospitals.
-that the "preferential option for the poor" that Washington is so hysteric about was pursued
I won't forget that, to be sure.
Perhaps you forgot that the Sandanistas were as much Soviet puppets as the Somaza was a US puppet. That is if we're going to play the "evil empire" game.....
How come every Latin American insurgency becomes a representation of "the poor" while every dictatorship is simply an American proxy?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
*phew*
I just wish Ol' Ron was alive to see this.
"Sandinista! How Will Bush Make Nicaragua Pay For Its Disobedience?
By Chris Floyd
11/07/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- Ortega back in power, early poll results show
-- From the Guardian: The Sandinista leader and former Marxist revolutionary Daniel Ortega appeared to have mounted a spectacular political comeback last night after preliminary results showed he had won Nicaragua's presidential election in the first round. Mr Ortega led by a margin which seemed wide enough to avoid a run-off and to deliver a stinging rebuke to Washington, which had openly campaigned against him...Roberto Rivas, the head of Nicaragua's top electoral body, said the vote was clean and transparent. An army of 17,000 observers, including the former US president Jimmy Carter and EU officials, was expected largely to endorse that view. --
Ortega ran and won with the backing of several prominent ex-Contras, including Jamie Morales, his own running mate. Morales had been the Contras' spokesman in Washington during the Reagan years when, with the direct involvement of VP George Bush, the Administration joined hands with the mullahs of Iran and the druglords of Central and South America to fund, arm and train a terrorist army to overthrow the Sandinista government. Although this exercise in mass state terrorism failed on the battlefield, the Reagan-Bush policy of economic terror managed to reduce Nicaragua to dire poverty, with the open threat that the stranglehold would go on until the Sandinistas were gone.
Of course, the stated reason for the Reagan-Bush hatred of Ortega was that he was an evil Commie tyrant and dictator who opposed democracy. However, oddly enough, when a majority of Nicaraguans bowed to the American blackmail in 1990 and voted against Sandinistas, these evil, anti-democratic Commie tyrant dictators....left office. They obeyed the obviously coerced but democratically expressed will of the people. And now, Ortega -- no shining knight but, in the end, a rather typical politician eager for power but with at least an inclination toward mitigating some of the most pernicious effects of predatory crony capitalism -- has been returned, democratically, to power...without "robocalls," without "push-polls," without strangely malfunctioning voting machines that only make "mistakes" in favor of one party, with "voter roll purges," etc. etc.
What will happen now? It's obvious: the Bush II administration -- which is clotted with many of the same Constitution-hating state terrorists who threw in with druglords and Islamic extremists during the Contra War -- has already announced its intention to resume the old economic terrorism against the wretchedly poor people of Nicaragua. American officials stated plainly that trade restrictions and cutbacks, if not cut-offs, in U.S. aid were in the cards if the Nicaraguans exercised their democratic rights in favor of the Sandinistas. They even sent Oliver North down to tour the country before the election -- the clearest possible signal for the rabble to get in line, rather like having Frank Nitti drive through the neighborhood to remind the shopkeepers to pay up their protection money to Al Capone.
The only question remaining is whether the Iran-Contra criminal gang now restored to the White House will be content with economic sabatoge of the Nicaraguan government. After all, this time Ortega will have the backing of Venezeula's Hugo Chavez, who has promised cheap oil and other economic benefits to the Sandinistas. The Washington squeeze play won't be quite as effective this time around. So will they move on to more physical methods of destabilization? Will they sponsor another mass-murdering civil war? Or will it be confined to covert ops? After all, the great googily-moogily of American intelligence, John Negroponte, made his bones in the region during the Reagan-Bush reign of terror, operating out of Honduras as the United States spread war and repression across Central America.*
Today's election in the United States won't make any difference to whatever Nitti-like plans the Bush Administration has in store for the disobedient Nicaraguans. Even if the Democrats take Congress, Negroponte, Bush, Cheney, Elliot Abrams (the convicted Iran-Contra liar) and the others will still be in power. The only thing a Democratic win might affect is how overtly or covertly the gang decides to take its revenge. But there's no doubt that one way or another, the Nicaraguan people are about to learn that in the Bush Imperium, democracy is never free; if you vote the "wrong" way, you've got to pay the price."
Who here would have voted for Bush II if they knew his father trained and helped to start terrorist cells in South America??
About that Soviet sponsorship.
Say you're in charge of a country. A superpower with ten million times as much money as you decides to arm a very brutal terrorist group to terrorize your country, including burning schools and hospitals, things like that. They place an arms embargo on you as well, and with their political and military might slowly crushing you, you are left with a decision. Defend yourself or capitulate?
The Sandanistas decided to protect their country, and the ONLY place they could get weapons was from the Soviet Union. Which then allowed Washington to say Nicauragua was a Soviet Satellite, when in reality they only turned to the Soviets after the US started terrorizing the population.
And I would say most Latin American insurgencies are a result of US foriegn policy in some way, either initiated by Washington or in response to something Washington has already done. The "Our Backyard" mentality has really given US planners Carte Blanche in the Americas.
:rolleyes:
Tell me, where did siezing all the country's farmland and implementing authoritarian economic controls fit into "defending themselves"?
Um, they didn't "turn to the Soviets". The Soviets recruited them from active dissenting student groups. The KGB was instrumental in forming the Sandinistas, not arming them.
I have no doubt that you would say most Latin Americans are the result of US foreign policy. Unfortunately, that's only one-third of the real story.
Why don't you consider this question:
If Latin American insurgencies are the fault of US foreign policy, what is at fault for US foreign policy?
www.amnesty.org.uk
Hehe...you mean the vision where all parties are responsible for their actions, not just the ones from America?
The reality is Nicaragua was subjected to extreme forms of terrorism after the Sandinistas took power. Members of the notorious national guard under Somoza became part of the Contra force, an extremely violent terrorist group with absolutley no popular support, responsible for all kinds of terrible crimes-prominent members of towns were found tortured to death, pregnant women were dropped from helicopters, children killed in front of their parents. At the time the Sandanistas took help from wherever they could get it. Yea, they took Soviet arms, damn right. Wouldn't you? The US military industrial complex that is US gov't and The Monroe Doctrine.
This is an interesting case. Prior to the Sandanista revolution US media devoted exactly 1 hour of coverage to Nicaragua in 10 years. Not a lot is known about this case.
The Sandinistas represented an alternative, the "preferential option for the poor" that Washington so despises. When they took power, the mainstream media descended, outraged, and so did the CIA, setting up one of the more brutal terrorist groups the hemisphere had ever seen.
The contras hit soft targets, using US intelligence to find out where the Nicaraguan military wasn't. Schools, hospitals, things like that. And they were unique in that they were a resistance group with absolutely no popular support, waging a war against a population, not the gov't directly. Union organizers were found tortured, pregnant women were dropped from helicopters, very brutal and public killings were common.
That's when the Sandinistas turned to the Soviet Union for military aid. They had a very real threat roaming their country, and thanks to US embargos and trade sanctions the only available vendor for miltary hardware was Russia, a move that then allowed Washington to claim the Sandinistas were a Russian satellite all the while, when the reality is, although they had KGB connection from the beginning they were still very popular among the people of Nicaragua. And of course Congress bit, writing checks directly at one point to the contras.
I think the miltary industrial complex that has become US gov't is constantly looking to stamp out these examples of alternatives to capitaslism. They don't want anybody to get any ideas. The Monroe Doctrine may also be a factor here. Anything that goes on in Latin America is treated as an attack on US soil, even if its a positive step for the majority of a country. If it represents an alternative to capitalism the gloves come off, and that's true at home as well, as we saw at Waco and Ruby Ridge.