Helicopter crews from Mexico, Honduras and
El Salvador helped
combat the fire in Indio Maiz in early
April 2018. (Photo: El 19 Digital)
Stephen Sefton*, May 30th 2021
A recent counterfactual
article about Nicaragua posted by the Irish NGO Comhlámh is
a good example of how apparently progressive people in the Western
non-governmental sector's managerial class frequently feint left but go right. As often as
not, their reporting reinforces the propaganda of the US and
European governments and corporations that fund them either
directly or indirectly. This is a fundamental betrayal of the
democratic principles they claim to uphold, because it denies the
general public in their countries a true and fair view of
contentious issues. Virtually all international news media depend
for their reporting on Nicaragua from local opposition media in
Nicaragua. US investigative reporters at The Grayzone have exposed how all
these opposition media were organized, coached and funded by
corporate operated non-profits and the governments of the United
States as well as its European allies.
In this case, a brief comparison of the article's untruths with
well established facts shows that its account of Nicaragua is
completely untrustworthy. Starting even before April 18th
2018, Nicaragua was the victim of a
failed coup attempt organized and funded by the the US
government, US and EU country funded non-profit organizations and
extreme right wing US and regional political groups. Denying that
reality, the article falsely sets the scene for her article's
subsequent falsehoods by alleging government negligence over the
fire in the Indio Maiz Reserve in early April 2018 and government
proposals, around the same time, supposedly attacking the rights
of workers and pensioners under the country's social security
system.
In fact, Nicaragua's authorities swiftly mobilized the armed forces and civil defence to effectively counter the fire in Indio Maiz. After initially coordinating with Costa Rica's fire service and agreeing that assistance overland was impractical, the government sought and received assistance from Mexico and aerial help from Honduras as well as guidance from US specialists, Thanks to these energetic measures and opportune rainfall, damage was limited to under one per cent of the Indio Maiz Reserve's peripheral area adjacent to the Caribbean Sea.
On the issue of social security, the
proposed reforms sought to protect the system's medium term
financial viability by putting the burden of increased
contributions of over 3% on employers, while asking workers to pay
just 0.7% more. The proposal also suggested giving pensioner's the same
rights to health care in social security system clinics as
active workers, via a 5% levy on their pensions. The article omits
mentioning that the private business organization COSEP pulled out
of talks on the proposed reforms before cynically supporting
the initial protests provoked by opposition scare-mongering.
Presumably, it does so because, far from being worried about
workers and pensioners, COSEP wanted to privatize Nicaragua's
social security clinics and double the number of workers'
contributions for eligibility, both of which the government
rejected.
Having set the scene with these falsehoods about Indio Maiz and
the proposed Social Security reforms, the article moves on to
insist untruthfully that the protests in Nicaragua from April 18th
onwards were peaceful. The article even claims that army tanks
were deployed to suppress them, which is a downright lie:
Nicaragua's army was never deployed to suppress protests. On April
18th, despite inflammatory opposition social media and
opposition news media claims of a “student massacre” that day, no
one was killed. On April 19th opposition gangs murdered
police officer Hilton
Manzanares, fatally wounded supermarket worker Darwin Urbina
and also killed Richard Pavón a local authority worker in the
Sandinista municipality of Tipitapa.
Then on April 20th, the opposition violence intensified and spread to León where Sandinista student Christian Cadenas burned to death after opposition protestors set fire to a historic university building and adjacent businesses. Subsequently, throughout that Friday April 20th and Saturday April 21st, opposition gangs organized well coordinated attacks across Nicaragua on town halls, Sandinista party offices and even the homes of local Sandinistas. They attacked in Granada, Masaya, Leon, Estelí, Diriamba, Jinotepe, Bluefields, Managua and Chinandega. The town halls in Granada and Estelí were targeted with arson attacks and on Saturday April 21st, opposition gangs burned down Masaya's famous crafts market.
Faced with that level of extreme violence, the police tried to defend themselves as well as people not involved in the violent protests. Sandinistas under attack also defended themselves and, in a few cases, struck back. President Daniel Ortega called for dialogue on Saturday April 21st and police were ordered not to use their firearms. In the following weeks, mostly peaceful mass demonstrations did take place, largely organized by the right wing bishops of the Catholic Church. But those protest marches were persistently exploited by armed opposition activists seeking opportunities to provoke a violent response from the police, perhaps the most notorious example being the march on Mothers Day May 30th 2018.
The article refers to 300 deaths resulting from the protests,
overstating the true number of around 260, but omits mentioning
that around
60 of those deaths were Sandinista supporters, including 22
police officers. Additionally, 400
police officers suffered gunshot wounds from the people the
article describes as “peaceful protestors”. All told, various
analysts, including the Nicaraguan legislature's Commission
for Truth, Justice and Peace, reckon around another 50
fatalities were of opposition protestors while most were people
uninvolved with either side, the majority dying as a result of
opposition violence.
The article's misrepresentation of events in Nicaragua in 2018
follows grossly misleading reports by Amnesty International which
have been categorically
debunked by independent researchers, Even so, it goes on to
repeat the
false claim of 80,000 political
refugees in Costa Rica, allegedly fearful of returning to
Nicaragua. In fact, Nicaragua's opposition traveled freely and
frequently, to and from both Costa Rica and the US, ever since the
government issued an amnesty in June 2019 for the
terrible crimes committed by opposition activists, including
campesino figures like Francisca Ramirez and Medardo Mairena,
during their failed coup attempt. Mairena is openly campaigning to
run as a candidate in this year's elections, although his violent
role in the failed 2018 may well render him ineligible.
the article's author writes of her interaction with Nicaraguans
in Costa Rica giving the impression that rural campesino families
and Afro-Caribbean communities in particular have suffered from
government repression. The reverse is true, especially as regards
Nicaragua's
indigenous and afrodescendant peoples. President Ortega's
government has radically democratized
Nicaragua's economy for rural families and women nationally
and for all the ethnic groups of the country's Caribbean Coast.
That is why prior to April 2018, both President Ortega and Vice
President Rosario Murillo had approval
ratings of well over 70%.
Now, even after three years of relentless, systematic false opposition propaganda and the daunting challenge of addressing the COVID-19 outbreak, current approval ratings for the government of President Ortega and Vice President Murillo are still well over 60%. Given that context, claims of continuing systematic human rights abuses or of an Ortega family dictatorship make no sense either when compared with the facts of Nicaragua's tremendous social and economic progress since 2007, or with the fall in Nicaraguans inclined to emigrate or with the persistent strong levels of approval for Nicaragua's government.
The very choice of words in expounding the article's
counterfactual nonsense attacking Nicaragua's government displays
an obvious political bias in favour of Nicaragua's
US funded right wing opposition and their fake-progressive
allies. The article claims that Daniel Ortega “retook power in
2007”. In fact, Daniel Ortega did not “retake power”. He was
elected to presidential office in November 2006 because back then
Nicaragua's opposition was hopelessly divided, just as it is now
but with far less support than it had fifteen years ago. Between
2007 and 2011, Nicaragua's right wing political parties had a
majority in the legislature.
Even the US dominated Organization of American States conceded
that subsequent elections in 2011 and 2016 were free and fair.
Alleging deep concern for Nicaraguan opposition supporters in
Costa Rica, the article camouflages its clear support for a US and
EU government funded right wing Nicaraguan opposition, determined
to impose anti-democratic regime change on Nicaragua. In doing so,
thea article's author contradicts the very clear desire of the
great majority of Nicaraguans to shape their country's future
without foreign interference. An August
2020 poll found that over 76% of Nicaraguans reject foreign
interference to resolve the legacy of conflict from 2018, with
over 77% agreeing that the crisis resulted from foreign efforts to
destabilize the country.
If the article had paid more attention to democratic opinion in Nicaragua it would have given a truer account of the Nicaraguan opposition's violent failed coup attempt in 2018. Instead, in publishing it Comhlámh has violated its own Code of Good Practice by imparting false information about Nicaragua, based on the highly prejudiced accounts of self-exiled Nicaraguans in Costa Rica. The article also ignores irrefutable testimony to the opposition violence that killed, injured and abused thousands of victims in Nicaragua in 2018. Meanwhile, Nicaragua's right wing opposition, which the article so clearly supports, continue to lobby freely with much success for illegal coercive measures against their own country by the US and EU governments, measures which would severely affect the human rights and well being of all Nicaraguans.