Where Are The Groups That Were So Outraged by Bush’s State Dept Appointments by Gregory Hilton

Where is this coalition of 10 groups that was so concerned about unqualified people at the State Department? They were outraged over the Ellen Sauerbrey nomination in October of 2005. She had the rank of Ambassador and served at the UN addressing the issues she would later confront at the State Department. She was in the legislature for 16 years, was Minority Leader and twice ran for Governor. They said she was completely unqualified.
According to the Associated Press, “A coalition of 10 women’s health and rights groups has urged Bush to withdraw the Sauerbrey nomination calling it “yet another in a long string of crony nominations of unqualified individuals for critical positions”. The groups’ statement followed editorials denouncing Sauerbrey’s appointment by two of the country’s most important newspapers, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, which called her unqualified and too ideological, as well as criticism by prominent emergency relief groups.
“‘This is a job that deals with one of the great moral issues of our time,’ Joel R. Charney, vice president for policy at Refugees International, told the Los Angeles Times earlier this month. ‘This is not a position where you drop in a political hack.’
Sauerbrey has served in State Department positions since Bush took office in 2001, most recently as U.S. representative to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the U.N.’s Commission on the Status of Women.
“‘Amb. Sauerbrey falls short on every count,’ said June Zeitlin, executive director of the Women’s Environment and Development Organisation, one of the groups which urged her withdrawal. ‘She has no experience managing refugee or humanitarian crises and no experience administering the type of large-scale programmes that fall under the direction of PRM.’”
Do these groups know about the Obama appointments to our major embassies? Are they aware that our new U.S. Ambassador to Japan does not speak the language and never visited that nation prior to his appointment? He did “bundle” over $500,000 for the Obama campaign. Of course they will not protest the new nomination because they never cared about the State Department.
They were only motivated by political considerations.
By the way, because of their opposition Bush was forced to make a recess appointment. Ambassador Ellen Sauerbrey served as Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration for over two years, and led the global fight against trafficking. The Bush Administration contributed over $375 million to counter-trafficking projects worldwide, and Sauerbrey’s work was highly praised by the Refugee Council USA and Refugees International. She was an outstanding appointment.

Liberal Parties are Losing in Europe by Gregory Hilton

The pro-labor Social Democrats are headed for their worst ever showing in the September 27th German elections. A poll released today gives German Chancellor Angela Merkel a 57% to 18% lead over her liberal opponent. Labour has ruled the UK since 1993 but they will be tossed out at the next election. The 1979 victory of Margaret Thatcher in the UK was a precursor of the 1980 arrival of Ronald Reagan.The Tories are now well ahead in Britain.
In France the party has declined rapidly in a few years. In Italy the only reason Prime Minister Silvio Berlesconi has survived a major sex scandal is because the liberals are so weak. The victory of European conservatives does not mean the right wing will win here. The main problem is that people think the liberals have no economic competence. The high tax no growth message of the left is finally collapsing in the EU. This is change we can believe in.

The Foreign Policy of the Libertarian Party by Gregory Hilton

Below are excerpts of my debate on foreign policy issues with Libertarian activist and recording artist Barry Donegan. His website is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Donegan and he calls himself a non-interventionist. I am glad he supports free trade, but like many Libertarians I still believe they are best described as isolationists. The discussion began because of my support for staying the course in Afghanistan.
Barry Donegan: Remember that genius strategy Zbigniew Brzenzski had of making the USSR waste so much money that their empire collapsed fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan? In fact, name an empire and it pretty much fell because it was printing money chasing people through the Afghan mountains. And why are we there again? Protect our own borders and secure our economy. Let the UN pay for its own adventures. If we want to lower spending and stop the coming bath of inflation, we have to make some hard cuts. Afghanistan should be one.
Gregory Hilton: You have eloquently stated the isolationist arguments. We discussed this yesterday regarding Pat Buchanan’s most recent column. He cited the same reasons for staying out of WW II. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) is the right candidate for you but he is alone in the GOP Caucus. Similar to Buchanan, you focus on empire. The only foreign territory the United States has are the military cemeteries for our war dead . They liberated other nations and we asked for nothing in return.
Barry Donegan: If you are going to make the interventionist argument against non-interventionism, it is folly to call it “isolationism”. Isolationism has a definition, and it involves a protectionist trade policy which I do not endorse. I never mentioned an American empire, I mentioned how other well established empires fell chasing rural people through the mountains of Afghanistan. Once again, how does this make economic sense as something to spend money on when our entire economy is collapsing and China is buying our debt. We don’t have a charge card for these adventures anymore. We need to focus our military funds on buildup, not expended rounds, we have a real enemy who can cancel our monetary system at will who is building up and not expending rounds. China.
Gregory Hilton: You can use whatever definition you want, but I am glad the United States has not adopted the Ron Paul/Pat Buchanan foreign policy. I made several trips to the former Yugoslavia in the 1990’s where there was genocide, ethnic cleansing, rape camps, 200,000 dead and 1.8 million refugees. We wish the UN or the EU could have solved this crisis, but it was necessary for the United States to intervene, and all Americans can be proud of our role. Serbia was not attacking America, and they were not a threat to our security. Nevertheless, I am glad we stopped the fighting and brought peace.
Your economic arguments made far more sense during the Great Depression. The Greatest Generation rejected them, and we are all better off because of their sacrifices.
Barry Donegan: The greatest generation did NOT reject them. They did not enter World War II until they were attacked and once they did, we did a full Declaration of War. Even Robert Taft supported that and I agree with the way they conducted themselves. We don’t have the money for this stuff.
You guys who believe in global governance had a good run the past decade or so steering the ship, but you’ve driven our economy off the cliff. Its time to trim up our budget. We literally can’t afford it. Japan elected a government who ran on getting out of the US Dollar. Do you want to raise taxes in a deep recession with inflation on the way and high unemployment? The GOP has tried being Democrat-lite and it has not fared well at the polls. The American people rejected it. You can now add George Will to the list of people who want our ground forces out of Afghanistan.
Gregory Hilton: Robert Taft was always an isolationist. Eisenhower said he did not want to run for President in 1952 but he could not let the Republicans nominate someone with such dangerous views on foreign policy. Taft completely rejected collective security and led the opposition to the NATO Treaty. How he could feel that way after learning about the Holocaust is amazing to me. Republicans such as Senator Arthur Vandenburg (MI) apologized for their earlier isolationist views, but Taft was proud of them. He is one of Pat Buchanan’s heroes.
A Declaration of War is very rare, and it was last used in December of 1941. Under a Declaration of War, Congress gives the president a great deal of power. It is hard to take that power back, and that is a major reason it was not used in Korea, Vietnam or the two Gulf wars.
Barry Donegan: I did no endorse the foreign policy of Taft, he was an isolationist. I was just indicating that even he, an isolationist, supported World War II. Do you really believe that having a war guarantee with Georgia to go to war with Russia is good for the USA righe now? The cold war is over. If we don’t stop pretending its not we are going to be banana republic. But, globalists don’t have any national allegiance anyways. If this absurd deficit spending toilet papers our money I guess we can just beg the UN to do some vulture fund “debt relief” for us and Bono can have a Save America concert to funnel more money to the European central bankers.
Gregory Hilton: Yes, I do believe in NATO and collective security. The old system gave us WW I and WW II. We have 68,000 troops in Afghanistan and our allies have 32,000. For the cost of one American soldier we can have 7 Afghans. That is why our strategy is based on training and building the Afghan army. It has worked in Iraq and it will work in Afghanistan.
Barry Donegan: The old system did not give us World Wars I and II. You can’t say that a lack of international government causes war. War has not stopped, it is just constant now.
We are in a state of perpetual war now. The only period of peace we had was the Reagan presidency. The death tolls, worldwide, are still horrifying. What is the objective in Afghanistan? Prop up another dictator? How does it even make sense that we spread “democracy” by the barrel of a gun. If were so worried about it why don’t we just mail them copies of Frederic Bastiat’s “The Law” translated into their language. Do you even believe in the sovereignty of the individual prescribed by classical liberalism? Do you really think rural Afghanis are going to appreciate foreigners who are a different ethnicity and speak a different language running their election for them?
Obviously not. What will happen is it will CREATE a political interest for a Muslim nationalist fundamentalist leader to rise up. And in the end, well realize that he has the support of the people, and, when we fail 15 years later, well just pay him hush money like we do everywhere else. Send him weapons like we did With Saddam Hussein, which he can use for brutal tyranny against his own people. If they want a constitutional republic, they will have to make their own. I’m a little more afraid that we lost ours in the process. Look not long into the abyss, for the abyss looks back into you.
Gregory Hilton: I regret that the United States did not belong to the League of Nations and I wish the League had power to stop aggression. The main point is that we did not have a system of collective security and that led to the world wars. WW II would have been easy to stop if Britain, France, America and other powers had reacted during the nightmare years of the 1930s. You are back to using isolationist arguments once again. WW II resulted in Germany and Japan becoming our allies. Our relationship with Afghanistan will also improve in the years ahead. I do not agree with your comments about Iran and I believe free and democratic Iraq will also be an excellent ally of the United States.
Barry Donegan: The same Iraq we are still in? The one where homosexuals are murdered and women have no rights? Once again, isolationism has a definition and you are not using it correctly. Answer this question, if you’re such a fan of democracy, do you actually believe in the sovereignty of the individual. Do you believe that all people have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and self defense and possession of property that are given to them by God and should not be infringed by government force? Do you believe in that, the very principle that was the foundation of our country?
Gregory Hilton: I am proud of America’s role in Iraq, and while you do not call yourself an isolationist you continue to use all of their arguments. They wanted us to allow Saddam Hussein to keep the oil riches of Kuwait. They said it was not worth fighting for because the ruler of Kuwait had many wives. Isolationists will always find an excuse.
The sovereignty argument is another crutch of the isolationist movement and it was used by all of the racists in the deep South. They wanted to continue lynching blacks and to deny them the right to vote. They said we had to respect state sovereignty. I am very glad the government infringed upon them, and I wish we had done it much sooner.
You may be confusing Iraq and Iran. Homosexuality is legal in Iraq, even under Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi militias under Muqtada al-Sadr have committed human rights abuses against Iraqi gays and transgender people.
Barry Donegan: Calling my points “isolationist” and following it with “people like you advocated for this or that thing” is a string of logical fallacies and has nothing to do with the security of the USA. I am talking strategy about current events. if Iraq has “freedom” and roving militias run around executing homosexuals, then I compel you to consider that maybe the type of freedom you aspire to is not a very comfortable society to live in.
Gregory Hilton: Your argument is similar to saying America is racist because we have KKK members and rednecks. Tremendous progress has been made in Iraq and it will continue. A Muslim society will not be like ours, but we never intended that. I continue to believe that the sovereignty argument is used by racists and isolationists.
The good people of the United States are reluctant to intervene but when we do it is for the peace of mankind, not for Empire. Providing for our national defense has not been an issue in over two decades. It is broadly supported by both political parties. America is a unique nation with global responsibilities. We want to share that burden with others, but we are not going to put our head in the sand in the face of evil.

How George W. Bush Saved Millions of Africans by Gregory Hilton

In April researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine released an in-depth report on former President George W. Bush’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. The report credits the former President with saving over 1 million African lives, but it has received almost no press attention. Bush spoke about AIDS on June 17th during his first post-presidential speech, but you did not know that because the media ignored his remarks.
“If a Democratic Party president had done this, he would be feted as both a national hero and international hero on his way to a ceremony with the Nobel Committee.” Bob Geldof asked Bush “Why doesn’t America know about this?” Bush answered: “I tried to tell them. But the press wasn’t interested.”
The Bush Administration did contribute to the deficit. The former President quadrupled foreign aid, he spent $15 billion on AIDS treatment and prevention, and $10 billion on his Millennium Challenge Account. This was not a handout but a partnership restricted to responsible nations. Amid poverty and disease this money has been an investment for growth. In many countries the aid is being replaced by trade pacts, business deals and home-grown income.
According to Paul Kengor the author of God and George W. Bush (HarperCollins, 2004), “Bush understood the financial cost — and said so explicitly. Nonetheless, he judged that only America could carry out this ‘act of compassion’ at that critical juncture. He also judged, apparently, that only he, as a Western leader, had the will to do this. Millions of lives have been spared or bettered due to President Bush’s intervention.”

U.S. Boycotts UN’s “World Conference on Racism” by Gregory Hilton

The burning of an Israeli flag was typical of the protestors

President Obama made the correct decision in keeping the U.S. out of the UN’s “World Conference on Racism.” It turned out to be anti-Semitic and anti-American hate festival. Obama’s action was criticized by the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and Human Rights Watch, but George Bush came under far stronger attacks when he did the same thing in 2001.
The difference between the 2001 and 2009 conferences is that the news media did a far better job of exposing the lunacy of this event. Obama was right not to legitimize this conference with US participation. It is also encouraging to see the Obama Administration opposing the simplistic notion that “engagement” is always preferred. Zvika Krieger of “The New Republic” has done an outstanding job of reviewing both conferences: http://www.tnr.com/ A large percentage of the U.S. Congress did not want to see a replay of 2001. Last week a bipartisan group of House members sent a letter to Obama congratulating him for deciding to boycott the meeting, which began on Monday.

“We applaud you for making it clear that the United States will not participate in a conference that undermines freedom of expression and is tainted by an anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic agenda,” said the letter signed by seven members of Congress. Israel and several Jewish advocacy groups urged the United States and other nations not to take part in the conference. Canada, Australia and Italy did not attend because of similar concerns.

Back to the Cold War: Did the U.S. Push Castro and Ortega into the arms of the Soviet Union by Gregory Hilton

Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega in Managua in 1985.

Back to the Cold War: Did the U.S. Push Castro and Ortega into the arms of the Soviet Union by Gregory Hilton–A myth continues to circulate in leftist circles that the United States pushed both Cuba and Nicaragua into the arms of the Soviet Union. Sandinista supporters claim this happened because of embargoes and the cut off of medical, humanitarian and food aid.
The problem with the myth is that it conflicts with public statements of Castro and the Sandinista leaders. The FSLN was founded in 1961 by Carlos Fonseca, who always described himself as a Communist. In discussing the origins of the FSLN, Fonseca said it was “a successor to the Bolshevik Revolution. . . the ideals of Lenin are the guiding star in the struggle in which the revolutionaries in Nicaragua are waging.”
Human rights was the focal point of President Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy, and he made no secret of his opposition to the Somoza government. He clearly wanted the Nicaraguan opposition to be successful, and Carter imposed a ban on arms sales to Nicaragua during his first week in office. This was later over turned by the U.S. Congress, but President Carter was able to accomplish it through an executive order. In the FY 1979 budget submitted by the Carter Administration, Nicaragua would be listed as the only nation denied the right to purchase military equipment.
The U.S. government also vetoed funding for Nicaragua from the World Bank, the IMF and the Inter-American Development Bank. Nicaragua was entitled to a $20 million line of credit at the IMF, but American opposition stopped it. The biggest blow was denying Somoza money from coffee and beef exports. The United States was able to work with the OAS to stop all cargo ships from entering Nicaraguan waters.
If the promises made by the FSLN during the civil war had been implemented it would have been a clear victory for Carter’s human rights campaign. Carter needed a success for his 1980 re-election where he was vulnerable on foreign policy issues after the seizure of hostages in Iran, the failure of SALT II and the setbacks to detente because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
The U.S. embargo on Cuba is still in effect, but few nations have adhered to our action, and today America is the only country to maintain the embargo. Cuba can trade with everyone else. Fidel Castro has never said we pushed him away. He maintains that he was a communist going back to 1954. The USSR and Chairman Mao are gone, eastern Europe is no longer behind the Iron Curtain, Vietnam has adopted a free market, but Castro has not changed his ideology.
The situation in Nicaragua is equally clear and the FSLN was supported by the USSR well before they achieved power. The United States provided funding during the Somoza era to opposition labor unions and newspapers. America was also an active participant in the Nicaraguan power transfer process, including negotiations with the FSLN government in exile when they were based in neighboring Costa Rica.
America did stop arms shipments to Somoza, but the U.S. did not stop arms shipments to the FSLN from Cuba, Costa Rica, Panama or Venezuela. Venezuela was providing the funding, Soviet bloc equipment was sent through Cuba and transshipped on flights to Panama and later to the FSLN bases in Costa Rica.
The civil war began in September of 1978 but by the summer of 1979 the Somoza ammunition stockpile was almost depleted. The major reason Somoza’s National Guard stopped fighting was because they ran out of ammunition. An Israeli ship filled with 50 caliber ammunition and mortars was close to the coast of Nicaragua in June when the Carter Administration was able to cancel the order and the ship turned around. Somoza later wrote “This one ship could have easily turned the tide of the war.”
Nicaragua had not made a significant purchase of modern military equipment since 1957, and the arms used by the FSLN were far superior to Somoza’s National Guard. The Somoza government had a very small air force and navy, and their army lacked anti-tank and anti-personnnel grenades.
The four Somoza tanks were out dated and knocked out immediately by Chinese made RPG rockets. The same rockets caused havoc at National Guard installations. The sentries stationed at check points throughout Managua held automatic weapons but they were without ammunition. The FSLN also made effective use of French bazookas, Belgian mortars and hand grenades.
The Organization of American States passed a resolution on June 23, 1979 which demanded Somoza’s resignation. After that, any arms sale was impossible, and it would not have mattered because the government no longer had significant dollar reserves. No one would accept the Nicaraguan currency and payment had to be made in dollars.
With the advance approval of the FSLN, the US allowed General Somoza and members of his government to seek exile in Miami. On the afternoon of his arrival in Miami, Somoza was told by Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher that he would have to leave the U.S. because his supporters in Managua were not cooperating. Somoza left after two days and was assassinated in Paraguay the next year.
The Carter Administration immediately recognized the new FSLN government and provided them with $10.5 million in aid which originally had been intended for Somoza before it was frozen. This was followed by emergency assistance of $8.8 million, $75 million in foreign aid and 100,000 tons of food in the first two years. Daniel Ortega was invited to the White House, and America had the power to block World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank assistance to the FSLN, but this did not happen.
These actions were taken despite the fact that the FSLN repeatedly lied to American negotiators. The only condition requested by the Carter Administration was a pledge from the FSLN to stop arms transfers to the FMLN in El Salvador. This did not happen and when the arms shipments increased many Democrats in the U.S. Congress urged a cut off in further aid to the Sandinista government.
President Carter took this step 12 days before he left office, and President Ronald Reagan froze all aid to Nicaragua two days after his Inauguration. Reagan’s action was reported in the news media as a continuation of Carter’s policy.
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), the current Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has said “True to its revolutionary beliefs, the Sandinista leadership was more interested in promoting revolution in Central America than in cultivating better relations with the United States. . . With close ties to Fidel Castro, the Sandinista leaders went about the task of setting up a regime modeled on that of their mentor. They invoked press censorship, established a powerful secret police, mounted systematic attacks on the church, and built up a large military force.
“In a little over a year in power the Sandinista popular army was the largest in Central America, having grown from 5,000 to at least 24,000 men. All this, it should be noted, came about prior to the Contra insurgency. In fact it was these policies that contributed to the rise of an armed resistance movement, soon to be known as the Contras. “
In May 1983, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence confirmed this point. It noted that: “A major portion of the arms and other material sent by Cuba and other Communist countries to the Salvadoran insurgents transits Nicaragua with the permission and assistance of the Sandinistas. . . . The Salvadoran insurgents rely on the use of sites in Nicaragua, some of which are located in Managua itself, for communications, command-and-control, and for the logistics to conduct their financial, material, and propaganda activities.”
In August of 1981, Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Enders went to Managua to meet with the Junta. He promised a very generous aid package and no support for any opposition groups in return for one promise — a complete halt in arms shipments to the FMLN which was actively making progress in its effort to overthrow El Salvador’s government.
The American offer was rejected. Sergio Ramirez of the Junta told Enders: “Today we have revolutionary Nicaragua and revolutionary Cuba. Tomorrow we will have revolutionary Salvador.” Four months later the first $20 million in funding was approved for the Contras. Their first assignment was to stop arms shipments into El Salvador, and this was not a covert program.
In announcing it Reagan said: “Our purpose is to prevent the flow of arms [from Nicaragua] to El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and Costa Rica.”
The U.S. Congress passed the Boland Amendment in May of 1985 which barred funding to overthrow the Nicaraguan government. The legislation was overturned in July of 1986 when Congress approved. $100 million in lethal and nonlethal assistance for the Nicaraguan resistance. Military success on the ground for the Contras was undermined by political scandal in Washington. In November 1986 the Iran-Contra affair broke. All efforts by the administration to build public support for its policy toward Nicaragua came to a halt. The momentum for continued military assistance to the resistance fighters was lost. This was confirmed in early February 1988 when by a vote of 219-211 the House of Representatives voted against further military assistance to the Nicaraguan resistance.
If the military pressure of the Nicaraguan resistance helped force the ruling Sandinista regime to agree to hold elections, equally significant was the economic embargo the United States placed upon Nicaragua in May 1985. Those sanctions on top of earlier Sandinista mismanagement of the economy took a heavy toll. By 1989, Nicaragua had been brought to economic disaster with widespread poverty, widespread shortages of consumer goods, an unemployment rate of more than 25 percent, and an inflation rate of 36,000 percent, a world record.
It was obvious the Sandinista revolution had never benefited the poor. In fact, the opposite is true–the revolution benefited the ruling elite at the expense of everyone else in the country. The experience of Nicaraguans replicated the experience of the peoples of Eastern Europe who suffered under 40 years of Communist misrule. The people of Nicaragua knew who had made them poor by wasting resources on unproductive state enterprises in addition to the mansions and luxury automobiles for the commandantes.

A Return to Nicaragua and the 1980s ‘Triumph of the People’: Is This Latin America’s Future? by Gregory Hilton

Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega had a Major Impact on U.S. Politics in the 1980s.

A Return to Nicaragua and the 1980s ‘Triumph of the People’: Is This Latin America’s Future? by Gregory Hilton–The foreign policy debate of the 1980’s was often dominated by dramatic events in Nicaragua. This small Central American nation is now rarely in the global spot light, and the problems confronting it are no longer unique. Step by step Nicaragua now appears to be headed for a left wing dictatorship, and it continues to reject free market solutions.
The difference is that Nicaragua is no longer alone. In various forms capitalism is also under attack in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina. They are all pursuing a mixture of socialism combined with a free market, and their recessions are deepening as export opportunities evaporate. The economic future of these Latin American nations, similar to the rest of the world, is very uncertain.
Nicaragua is an excellent example of what could happen to all of them, but July 19th of this year could well go unnoticed. The date marks the 30th anniversary of the Sandinista revolution. It was then that the flag of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) was raised for the first time in Managua, where it would remain for next 11 years.
THE 1979 SANDINISTA REVOLUTION
The Organization of American States (OAS) passed a resolution on June 23rd asking General Anastasio Somoza, Jr., to leave office. He complied with the resolution on July 17th, and along with high ranking officers in his National Guard, he fled to Miami. Over 50,000 people celebrated in the streets of Managua two days later as Nicaraguan Revolution Day was declared on July 19th. The “New York Times” compared the scene to January 1, 1959 in Havana when Fidel Castro came to power.
The Somoza era had finally come to an end, but no one was quite sure what was beginning. Three members of the Somoza family had ruled Nicaragua for almost 40 years prior to their 1979 downfall. The Somoza’s were firm allies of the United States, and their governments consistently voted with America in the United Nations.
Two days after the Pearl Harbor attack which resulted in America’s entry into World War II, Nicaragua declared war on Germany, Japan and Italy, and broke its diplomatic relations with Vichy France. Nicaragua was the first country to ratify the Charter of the United Nations. In addition, the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba set off from Nicaragua in the presence of the clan’s last leader, General Somoza. As Franklin Roosevelt said of his father, “He’s an SOB, but he’s our SOB!”
The bright-eyed revolutionary days were in the summer and fall of 1979. Sandinista leaders were then viewed as young, romantic and idealistic. Allies from around the world soon joined them. Numerous participants from the Paris student uprisings and strikes of 1968 arrived in Managua, along with leaders of “progressive” political parties. They promised to perfect the socialist model which Stalin and Mao had betrayed.
In the late 1970s and early ‘80s the news media often portrayed Sandinista members as crusading heroes for the common good. The euphoria of that distant summer came after thousands were killed in a civil war, and the nation had endured four decades of corruption and abuses.
A popular book was “Triumph of the People: The Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua,” and there was a widespread belief that all of Central America would soon be transformed. The U.S. debate over Nicaragua would continue for almost a decade and partisanship on both sides was intense.
Many of the Sandinista enthusiasts obviously had good intentions. They had tears of joy at the outset, and a number of them certainly meant well in traveling to Managua for development work. Their outlook was similar to those who cheered the downfall of the Shah of Iran earlier that year, or the Battista regime in the Cuba of 1958.
They wanted to make a difference, and never dreamed the alternative could be much worse. They may have been naïve but today a number of them are among the most effective critics of the Sandinista regime (see below). The supporters of the FSLN, Fidel Castro and the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War, all believed the claims of their heroes. They were blatantly misled, but that is not their fault.
On the other hand, numerous supporters of General Somoza, the Shah or Fulgencio Battista often overlooked valid accusations of corruption and human rights abuses. They were interested in those nations only when they entered the American political fray.
Many vehement backers of the Nicaraguan Contra’s in the 1980s completely abandoned that nation when their candidate, the anti-communist Violeta Chamorro, won the 1990 election. U.S. conservatives were primarily interested in a Sandinista defeat, and when it was secured at the ballot box, the plight of the Nicaraguans was soon forgotten.
In some respects the Nicaragua debate on Capitol Hill was not unusual. In many ideological battles there is a triumph of passion over reason, and I have often found both sides to be intolerant of dissent. Now that 30 years has elapsed, it is easier to view the Nicaraguan revolution in perspective.
Without General Somoza the Sandinista movement would never have achieved prominence. Anastasio Somoza, Jr., served as President from 1967 until 1972, and was re-elected to a second term in 1974. He was a West Point graduate and practically all of his education had been in the United States. His father, General Anastasio Somoza, Sr., was assassinated while serving as President in 1956.
His brother Luis also served as President from 1956 until 1963. Somoza, Jr., had to step down in 1972 because of a Constitutional requirement which only allowed one term. This did not stop him because he still was running things behind the scenes as head of the National Guard.
No one can deny the corruption following the 1972 earthquake which killed over 10,000 people in Managua and left 250,000 homeless. Over 90% of the homes in Managua were destroyed. Foreign aid flooded into Nicaragua but a significant amount never reached the intended recipients. It was diverted by Somoza and members of his National Guard.

General Somoza Enters the National Assembly for the Last Time in 1978.

Leaders of Somoza’s own Liberal Party did not want him to run for re-election in 1974 because they knew of past mistakes and the continuation of his family’s rule would not be popular. He defied them and was able to strong arm his way back into power.
Somoza and his cronies lived in luxurious mansions and many of his friends received lucrative contracts. In a devastating interview with the CBS program “60 Minutes,” Dan Rather pointed out that virtually every government contract in Nicaragua was with a vendor owned by Somoza. An accounting of Somoza’s property after the revolution included 168 factories, which represented 25% of the nation’s industrial plant capacity with a value in excess of $200 million.
The General’s second term was controversial from the start. He had to declare martial law in the first year and opposition newspapers were censored. The greatest sin of all was the 1978 assassination of Pedro Joaquin Chamorro, editor of the opposition daily “La Prensa.” The newspaper was censored at times but it was still full of anti-Somoza articles on a daily basis. Critics of General Somoza were also free to travel at home and abroad, and the Catholic Jesuits and Maryknoll priests and nuns became a focal point for anti-Somoza activity.
According to the vehemently anti-Somoza Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), the highest number of “human rights violations” during the Somaza era was 350 in 1997. No abuse can be excused, but the number of cases does seem small to what would occur in the 1980s. The 1978 U.S. State Department “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices” said “The number of reported abuses and their severity have decreased markedly over the past year,” in Nicaragua. The report also noted that a number of people reported by WOLA as having “disappeared” were actually alive.
Despite the corruption there were also positive aspects to the Somoza era. The General made money, but so did the people. Nicaragua experienced consistent economic growth prior to the imposition of marital law in 1975. The growth rate was especially high during the 1960s and early 1970s, largely as a result of industrialization.
The nation became the most developed in Central America despite its political instability. This economic success story was the envy of its neighbors. Due to its stable and high growth economy, foreign investments grew, primarily from U.S. companies such as Citigroup, Sears, Westinghouse and Coca Cola.
THE ORIGINAL JUNTA
Upon assuming power the Sandinista pledge to restore democracy was forgotten, and a five member Junta was created. Similar pledges regarding a free market, free speech and free association were also thrown out the window.
The most visible Junta member was 35 year old Daniel Ortega, the dashing young revolutionary who electrified leftists around the world. Ortega had been jailed by Somoza and was freed in 1974 after the FSLN held members of the Somoza family hostage at a Christmas Party. The original members also included Pedro Chamorro’s widow, Violeta, and businessman Alfonso Robelo. They both resigned after the first year.
Robelo feared for his safety and went into exile. Two years later he would meet with President Ronald Reagan and urge him to provide funding to remove the FSLN. Mrs. Chamorro said she was manipulated by the Junta, and claimed to be shocked by its “secret socialist agenda.” In fairness to the FSLN, it was not a well kept secret. She returned to the “La Prensa” newspaper which at times had been censored by Somoza. The FSLN went a step further, they simply closed it down in 1986. For a number of years freedom of the press vanished.
Sergio Ramirez was a Junta member who served as Vice President under Ortega from 1985 to 1990. When Ortega was defeated, Ramirez became head of the Sandinista bloc in the National Assembly. Ramirez later split with the Sandinista Party and expressed regret over some of his actions in the 1980s. He founded a new political party in 1995, the Sandinista Renovation Movement, but the FSLN will not it to appear on the ballot.
One of the most high profile Sandinista leaders was Eden Pastora. His father was assassinated by the Somoza regime, and he became the legendary “Comandante Zero” who masterminded the capture of the Nicaraguan Congress in 1975. He later led the Southern Front during the final offensive in 1979. Pastora left the FSLN when they moved into the same mansions which had previously been owned by Somoza and his cronies.
Another key member of the revolution was Father Ernesto Cardenal, who did much to spread the Sandinista mystique around the globe. He was one of the world’s most famous liberation theologians. From 1979 to 1987 he served as Nicaragua’s first Minister of Culture.
Cardenal left the FSLN in 1994, protesting the authoritarian direction of the party. He is now 83 years old but is being prosecuted by the current Sandinista government because he had the temerity to call President Daniel Ortega a “thief” who runs “a monarchy made up of a few families in alliance with the old Somoza interests.”
Fernando Aguero, M.D., was the opposition candidate to Somoza in 1967, and his body guard at the time was Eden Pastora. He received international attention with his documentation of Somoza’s corruption, and was later a leader in the broad opposition front who gave money to the FSLN. It did not help him. All of his property was confiscated after the revolution.
RED STAR OVER NICARAGUA
Upon assuming power in 1979, the Sandinista Party did an excellent job of bringing the economy to a grinding halt. The Sandinista platform called for “the equalization of wealth.” They began almost immediately by nationalizing 52% of the land, and this one action alone gave great impetus to the formation of the opposition Contra’s. There had been over 200,000 private property owners in Nicaragua and the vast majority lost their property.
Under Somoza farm land was free to any peasant who would clear it. The FSLN also nationalized sugar, agricultural cooperatives, and many businesses. All banks were nationalized and they refused to recognize or repay any debt from the Somoza era.
Foreign investors fled along with the upper middle class. The money which had been transferred out of the country by the middle class when the war began did not return.
By 1981, the state accounted for more than 30% of the industry of Nicaragua. The government also took control with so-called ‘wildcat nationalizations.’ This action provided the FSLN with control of 20% of the cotton industry, 50% of the tobacco industry, and 60% of the ‘staple cereal’ industry.
They had promised international nonalignment but quickly became a Soviet client state. Even before coming to power the Sandinista movement received substantial funding from the Soviet Union as well as military equipment which was passed through Cuba. The self described Marxist/Leninist FMLN which was trying to overthrow the elected government in neighboring El Salvador benefited greatly from the Sandinista victory.
The best legacy of the FSLN in this era was the campaign to raise literacy rates. The goal was admirable, but it was unfortunately marred because so much of the effort was devoted to propaganda and attempting to win over rural areas. They also deserve praise for finally agreeing to free elections in 1990. This controversial decision occurred for several reasons.
First, the collapse of the Soviet Union left Nicaragua without adequate outside funding. International pressure was mounting, and many countries were imposing heavy economic sanctions on Nicaragua. Second, the contra war, going on for more than a decade, was getting unbearable to Nicaraguans, who wanted nothing but peace, and a chance to succeed in global markets.
Ortega lost but deserves credit for accepting the result with out violence. The victor was Violeta Chamorro of the National Union of Opposition (UNO) who had previously been part of the Junta. Just before leaving office in 1990, Ortega and his colleagues carried out a land grab in which the FSLN looted the government and the private sector before handing over power. The FSLN expropriated private property worth tens of millions of dollars on the slimmest of pretexts, including more than 100,000 businesses, homes, and farms. They stole far more than Somoza had acquired.
Mrs. Chamorro’s government initially received over $500 million in aid from the United States, but the assistance did not last long. Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), who had championed the Contra’s during the 1980’s, was successful in cutting off aid to Mrs. Chamorro in 1992.
The nation had experienced 12 years of economic free-fall under the Sandinista regime and during the civil war. When the FSLN left in 1990, three successive Liberal Party administrations focused on free market reform as the path to recovery. During this 16-year period, characterized by steady GDP growth, the government made dramatic economic progress. It privatized more than 350 state enterprises, reduced inflation from 33,500 percent in 1988 to 9.45 percent in 2006, and cut the foreign debt by more than half. In 2006, the economy expanded by 3.7 percent as GDP reached $5.3 billion.
Ortega was defeated in two comeback attempts in 1996 and 2001. He patiently finagled his return by scheming with President Arnoldo Alemán, who had defeated him in 1996. Alemán was sentenced to a 20-year prison term in 2003 for embezzling over $100 million while in office from 1997 to 2002.
He and Ortega negotiated the infamous “El Pacto,” in which the two former enemies shared power by changing the constitution to give the Sandinista Party almost an equal number of seats on the Supreme Court, the Comptroller’s Office and in the Federal Electoral Council. Consequently, when Alemán was sentenced to prison, Ortega used his influence over the country’s courts to have the obese and ailing Alemán released from prison to serve his sentence at home.

Sandinistas at the walls of the Esteli National Guard headquarters in 1979. Copyright Susan Meiselas

ORTEGA’S RETURN
After 16 years in political exile Ortega regained the presidency in 2006. Many believe Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez supplied the Sandinista movement with as much as $50 million during the campaign.
Ortega said he was no longer a Marxist, and supported the CAFTA Treaty with the United States. He also pledged to respect private banking laws and land ownership, and dramatically changed his relationship with the Catholic Church. For the first time he opposed abortion and at the beginning of the campaign he married his wife of 30 years in a Catholic ceremony.
Ortega received 38% of the vote in a five candidate field in 2006 but this was sufficient because of “El Pacto.” The 1999 Ortega-Alemán deal changed the constitution and lowered the minimum level of popular support a candidate needed to win presidential elections from 40 percent of the vote to 35 percent. The two conservative candidates received a combined 54% of the vote, but their split ensured Ortega’s triumph.
In addition to having a strong alliance with Venezuela and Cuba, Ortega also pursued closer ties with Iran, even honoring Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with two of Nicaragua’s most prestigious awards, the Liberty Medal and the Rubén Darío Medal. He continues to openly court Russia, in part to show loyalty to a former political patron—Nicaragua is the only country besides Russia to recognize the rebellious provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as “sister republics.”
The abuses of the Somoza regime can never be excused but the situation today is ironically worse. In 2008, Ortega again reverted to the tactics of a bygone era by trying to impose his will on a political system that in 1990 rejected his autocratic tendencies. Two significant parties were arbitrarily denied the right to participate in the most recent election.
By eliminating his challengers, leaving only the FSLN and the Liberal Party to compete, Ortega has laid the foundation for his continued electoral victory and a greater chance to change the constitution to allow for reelection. This move further consolidates his power to deepen his control over other institutions, including the army, the police, and the judiciary.
Ortega has also been promoting “Citizens Power” as a solution to Nicaragua’s endemic poverty. These Citizens Power Councils are neighborhood committees. They are controlled by the Sandinista party, and they were established despite a vote against the plan by the National Assembly.
Some of the president’s opponents charge that the Citizens Power Councils are nothing more than patronage mills, channeling government largess to supporters of the party. Opposition leaders complain the councils smack of similar party-controlled organs in totalitarian governments like Cuba’s, where local committees of party loyalists not only influence who gets government benefits but also spy on political opponents.
Another major problem is energy. Global fuel prices have been reduced considerable but Nicaragua continues to have a significant problem. It is a problem the nation never experienced before. Before the 1979 revolution, more than 70 percent of Nicaragua’s energy was hydroelectric. Today, thanks to a lack of state planning by the last four governments from the right, left, and center of the political spectrum, the trend is going the other way fast.
NICARAGUA TODAY
Today Nicaragua is Central America’s poorest country—and the second poorest in Latin America, behind only Haiti. The past 30 years has seen massive emigration rates and equally massive dependence on remittances and foreign aid. The income inequality is far worse than it was under Somoza.
In addition, 27% of the people are malnourished, which quadruples the rate during the Somoza era. The widespread poverty prevents children from attending primary school, and these youngsters swell the ranks of child workers – who now number more than 230,000.
The average lower-income family of six has to work more than twice as many hours each month to maintain its 1979 standard of living. Between 1981 and 1992, gross domestic product (GDP) per capita decreased by roughly half, dropping to a dismal $425.

There Will be No Obama Drama in Canada by Gregory Hilton

President Obama’s first foreign trip takes place tomorrow, and in a very wise move he is now back tracking on his campaign promise to renegotiate or pull out of the NAFTA Treaty. Hillary Clinton made her “shame on you” speech in response to Obama’s ad which portrayed her as an avid NAFTA supporter prior to the Ohio and Pennsylvania Democratic primaries.
Obama threatened to force the Canadians to renegotiate provisions of the statute — even if that meant unilaterally pulling out of the agreement. All of that has now been forgotten. He told the “NY Times” yesterday, “There’s $1.5 billion worth of trade going back and forth every day between the two countries. . . .It is not in anybody’s interest to see that trade diminish.”

The Threat Closer to Home: Hugo Chavez and the War Against America

Cuba's Fidel Castro with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez

Book Review by Gregory Hilton:  The Threat Closer to Home: Hugo Chavez and the War Against America by Douglas Schoen and Michael Rowan

This just hit the bookstores and it has a powerful message which is unfortunately being ignored. Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, has publicly said he wants to bring America to its knees. Already partnered with Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador, Chavez is now financing movements to subvert many other Latin American nations.
Fortunately the dramatic drop in oil prices has significantly curtailed Chavez’ ability to export revolution. The Venezuelan public is questioning why the nation is bankrolling other countries when there is so much suffering at home. Under Chavez, Venezuela, once Latin America’s healthiest economy, now has the highest inflation rate and the lowest economic growth in the western hemisphere.  There are long lines at the government run grocery stores and meat is now considered a luxury.
Ironically, Chavez has turned Venezuela from an oil exporter to an importer.   He long ago squandered the country’s huge cash surplus, and most of money went to foreign revolutionary causes.  Venezuela’s armed forces have grown dramatically during the Chavez era.   The situation is now so dire that he has borrowed more than $12 billion from the International Monetary Fund.
The co-author is Dr. Douglas E. Schoen, Chairman of Penn Schoen Associates, one of the most respected Democratic Party consulting firms. According to Schoen, “Chavez has more modern weapons than anyone in Latin America. He has strategic alliances with Iran, North Korea, and other enemies of America, yet he has duped many Americans — from influential political and cultural leaders to ordinary citizens who benefit from his oil largess through his state-owned oil company — into believing that he is a friend.”
The Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), clearly understands the threat and the importance of this book.  He recommended the book by saying, “It’s time to pay attention to the alarm bells; we should engage with our southern neighbors to address pressing security threats across the hemisphere, including those from Caracas.” I hope this book has a significant impact on Capitol Hill, with the new Administration and in the news media.

The Obama/Clinton State Department: Diplomatic Strength is Essential By Gregory Hilton

Hillary Clinton's State Department is expected to place a major emphasis on public diplomacy, but that promise has been made before and it will be difficult to fulfill in an era of declining budgets.

President-elect Barack Obama is expected to announce his new national security team on Monday at a press conference in Chicago. The highlight will be the appointment of Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State. The decision to keep Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the Pentagon and to name retired General James Jones as the new National Security Adviser has already proven to be popular with the national security community. The Republican leadership has publicly promised not to be obstructionist, and this is essential at a time when the nation faces so many foreign policy and international economic challenges.

Thankfully, in the years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the vast majority of Americans have understood the importance of military strength. The United States steadily increased its defense budget throughout the Bush Administration, and very few lawmakers vote against the annual defense appropriations bill. Unlike the presidential campaigns of the 1970s and 1980s, defense spending was never an issue in 2008.

Progress has been made in both Afghanistan and Iraq, where casualty rates have declined by 90%. The new team is already committed to the deployment of two additional combat brigades in Afghanistan, and our next Commander-in-Chief will find united support for this on Capitol Hill. As of now, it certainly appears our military will continue to be the world’s best trained, best equipped and best led. The transformation to a lighter and more mobile military is not complete, but there is no indication the Obama team is planning to make any radical changes.

President Bush will leave his successor with a strong military but a lack of strength in diplomacy. The American cause is misunderstood in many parts of the world, and our efforts in recent years to appeal to global hearts and minds have not been successful. Our communication failure is especially ironic, because America invented both Hollywood and Madison Avenue.

The Bush Administration failed to effectively promote acceptance of America’s mission and goals overseas. Then Senators Obama and Clinton made this criticism during the campaign. Their accusations were supported by a blistering report issued last July by the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. The report was requested by the U.S. Congress, and it emphasized that there were no State Department employee overseas whose only focus involved public diplomacy outreach efforts. According to the report, the State Department “makes no special effort to recruit individuals into the [public-diplomacy] career track who would bring into the Foreign Service experience or skills specifically relevant to the work of communicating with and influencing foreign public opinion.”

Developing public opinion obviously involves many factors. But in retrospect it now appears the Clinton administration made a mistake in 1999 when it terminated our major public arm, the United States Information Agency (USIA). USIA was merged with the State Department that year, and the post of undersecretary of state for public diplomacy was created.

The new Administration now confronts an extremely daunting task. During the Bush Administration, four people served in the position of Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy. Margaret Tutwiler, Charlotte Beers, Karen Hughes and James Glassman all had an excellent relationship with the President, and they were dedicated professionals. They all spoke of constant frustrations in coping with the Foreign Service bureaucracy, and the office was vacant for 25 months.

According to the Heritage Foundation, the office “is in disarray, in a department that doesn’t want it. … In 1999, State devoured and scattered USIA’s personnel and bureaus. Next, senior managers created the undersecretariat as an advisory position with no significant budget and no authority over public diplomacy personnel.”

America’s most troublesome security problems are in predominantly Muslim countries. The United States is certainly not against the Islamic faith, and since 1990 has fought in six wars to protect Muslims. The United States liberated Kuwait, as well as 25 million people in Afghanistan and another 25 million in Iraq. America saved 250,000 people in Somalia and it stopped the “ethnic cleansing” and massive human-rights violations in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Unfortunately, this message has not been relayed to many parts of the Middle East. America does not dictate to any nation, but is keenly interested in promoting democracy, good governance, the rule of law, an independent media, religious freedom, the rights of women and strengthened institutions of civil society.

America’s message is not getting across largely because there is little coordination of overall strategy. I hope the Obama Administration will name an individual who will not confine themselves to the State Department corridors but act as a public diplomacy czar in coordinating many divergent programs. At present, there is too much overlap and many vital outreach efforts are ignored.

This will be one of the new administration’s most difficult tasks, and they must provide the necessary tools. The task is so important that the new Undersecretary should be a member of the National Security Council. In addition, Clinton administration personnel decisions should be reversed.

The new team must ensure our government always proclaims the universal values America espouses — democracy, free markets, human rights and equal justice under law. They represent the strongest weapons in America’s arsenal and are the ultimate guarantors of our freedom and national security. The way to prevail in this struggle is through the power of our ideas, and the task will be difficult because perceptions do not change quickly or easily.