Salomé Vuarant, August 19th 2018
http://kaosenlared.net/respuesta-al-articulo-de-eric-toussaint-nicaragu…
Response to an article by Eric Toussaint - “Nicaragua: The Evolution of the Regime since 2007” - An Interpretation from Argentina
The Left, at this moment, is divided in regards to the interpretation of what is happening in Nicaragua and consequently, the conclusions differ. The CADTM AYNA also maintains different views on the matter. Therefore, We publish opinions with positions that differ, coming from militants of the Left. Always with the desire to contribute to the debate.
Dear Eric Toussaint,
I usually read your articles published on the CADTM webpage attentively, and I cannot help but be surprised by the analytic terms with which you observe the current situation in Nicaragua, especially in your last article, “Nicaragua: The Evolution of the Regime since 2007.” This analysis not only seems to me to be generally misguided, but also dangerous in the restrictiveness of some arguments, due to the political and social consequences of such statements, considering a geopolitical dimension.
I want to think that the emphasis put on certain sentences are the product of certain discrepancies that may exist from translating between French and Spanish since no one living in another country can have better information and write in such totalizing truths -- as if it were the only absolute truth -- about the reality and social processes that occur in another nation. That is beyond our personal and collective perceptions. We could not write such clear-cut statements about what is happening in Nicaragua, neither from Argentina nor from Europe, not only because there will always be issues that, to our understanding, escape us, but because just by trying to do it, it would be a new way of reproducing a colonialism of knowledge, of which we are so critical in the daily spaces in which we participate.
The history of Mexico is very fascinating, and I have read a lot about it; however, the experience of the PRI can only be understood in the framework of the reality of that country and in the context of the 50s and 60s. Only some theorists have dared to compare the Peronism in Argentina with the Varguism of Brazil, also in the historical context of the mid-twentieth century. Nevertheless, in the terms that you compare Daniel Ortega with the PRI, I find an analytical extrapolation, that has nothing to do with anything. Furthermore, Nicaragua should be understood in its own historical projection and as a country that shares more characteristics with Central American countries like Honduras, El Salvador and Cuba -- just to name a few -- than with the singularities of Mexico.
I know well that you have worked on numerous support brigades to Nicaragua between 1984 and 1992, but let me tell you that I had the opportunity to travel to this country in August 2014 to see the scope and limitations of the government of Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo. And, to my surprise, I carry a pleasant image of how different it is in this country, in relation to the other realities that afflict the countries of Central America. Nicaragua is the safest country in all of Central America after Cuba. “Peace” is not only a slogan that the government of Daniel Ortega has raised as a flag, but really a climate that you breathe in the streets, in the joy and happiness of the people, and has no correlation with the image of daily violence that is spoken of -- intentionally or unintentionally -- in different sectors these days. I do not deny that there have been deaths in the streets. Each death is always painful. But this must not be only understood as the reaction of a government to a scenario of social outburst (of which they’ve been self-critical themselves), but also it is necessary to analyze how interest groups that cause terror in many spaces of society have infiltrated the country. Likewise, I recognize that I lack the information to speak with the depth that these recent events require.
From 2007 onwards, extreme poverty has been reduced and numerous social housing plans have been built. In addition, each family receives a basket on a regular basis of essential foods that have guaranteed rice, beans, sugar, cooking oil, among others. From the area of health, they have worked strongly to strengthen Primary Health Care (an aspect that for many European countries may not be new, but is remarkably meaningful for many countries with extreme social problems at their base), managing to drastically reduce the causes of infant mortality, and have even created protocols for the early (detection) of Chikunguya virus, gaining in this aspect notable differences in terms of health prevention compared to other countries in the region.
Before describing a measure against abortion in Nicaragua as retrograde or reactionary, it is also essential to incorporate a historical reading that understands -- paraphrasing Quijano -- the colonial power matrix, on which the modern states of the continent originate, and whose powers remain regular even today, it being very difficult to turn overnight. Without understanding that, we would not understand why the debate in favor of abortion in Argentina has only recently been established -- still with many difficulties -- and that the supreme authority of the Church in the world, the Pope, is Latin American. But a monolithic conception in relation to the Catholic Church also fails to understand how Liberation Theology has been so strong in the continent, in the context of the 60s and 70, nor does it allow us to understand how members of these spaces have thrown themselves into the ranks of the revolutionary struggle.
Nicaragua is also one of the few countries in the region that has been able to stop the advance of organized crime and drug trafficking in its territory. It has been able to do so under the the parameters of action of its own Sandinista government and not with the recipes that the United States historically determines; well-known imperial policies like “the War on Drugs,” “Plan Condor,” and “Plan Colombia,” painfully enforced in many countries of Latin America. Also, it is interesting to ask in the current context: What role do the Maras play? Have you heard about the Maras in Nicaragua?
I have heard mixed positions about the interoceanic canal in the San Juan River area. However, I never heard that the voices of the local communities weren’t taken into consideration. In fact, in many aspects of the government, they have been very open to meet the social demands of the population and the social sectors they represent.
Moreover, it draws my attention that, a couple of years ago, Nicaragua was a country that was not spoken of in international media or television programs, precisely because of the good things that it was doing, in terms of the depth of its revolutionary social progress, articulated loudly in tasks of mutual assistance with the sister country of Cuba. In fact, I have very little memory of reading about Nicaragua on the CADTM in recent years, unlike the systematic notes that (have been) published with notoriety in recent weeks. I have not seen writings with so much sense of treachery in relation to what happens in Syria or Palestine, and or other very serious events that take place in Europe. Then, what would be the yardstick for measuring what concerns us? And which ones? Just to throw in a detail, on the CADTM website in French, nothing relating to Nicaragua was published for 11 years, with four articles running since June 29, 2018. On the site in Spanish, nothing relating to the country has been published for 6 years, with 11 articles running between May 2, 2018 and June 30, 2018. This data is even more striking if you statistically compare the information that is released on a regular basis about other countries. So we must ask ourselves: What is the value of talking about Nicaragua only now?
I think it’s interesting to highlight aspects in which we can have critical readings in relation to certain social and political processes of the present. But it is fundamental to separate the chaff from the wheat, and see how we contribute to them, and above all, not act as spokespeople of realities that we will never known in depth because the information we receive is always biased.
I am worried about how the current situation in Nicaragua is analyzed, with almost the same argumentative structure (Caesarism, tyranny, violence, extractivism) with which Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela were disqualified. I am afraid that in a not so distant time those same categories will be used -- such as I copied and pasted -- to thoughtlessly analyze the situation in Cuba.
If you intend to write about the the reality of another country, I invite you to reflect on the current situation in Argentina because here the situation is truly worrying: hundreds of debts, carnal relations with the IMF, repression of working people and popular protests, a decree that enables the military to care for "internal security" when all those of the last military dictatorship who committed genocide haven’t been tried. They are just some examples. In short, our enemies are the right-wing governments with their ferocious adjustment plans and not governments that, even with mistakes, continue to be on the side of the needs of the people.
The differences in the left, in relation to Nicaragua, exist, and are much deeper than an explanatory caption at the beginning of each article. This requires acting in a cautious manner, so as not to break the trust between networks and organizations, which have taken years to build. Also, as militants of grassroots organizations, it is essential to always stimulate the pedagogy of question and doubt, because only by doubting do we build new knowledge, horizons, and reflective processes.
Finally, I refer to two articles that, although critical of the current situation, introduce more complex nuances for analysis. One of them, published by CELAG, "Democratic Spring in Nicaragua, Anticipation of Summer ... or of Winter? [2] The second, published in the Resumen latinoamericano, "The Hot Iron of Nicaragua" [3].
I hope you take these observations well, that as an attentive reader, I problematize your writings.
Fraternally,
Salomé Vuarant.
(Argentina).