WHILE the results of the election in the United States will probably not drastically change world politics, the votes of a much smaller nation to the south may have profound effects. Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega has now won the Presidency of the Central American nation. The return to power of this Cold War-era revolutionary points to the failure of American economic policy to give hope to the people of Latin America. The United States should not essentially blame the people of Nicaragua for supporting Ortega by imposing economic sanctions on the country but should work towards real progress as an alternative to anti-Americanism.
Ortega was perhaps the most popular leader of the Sandinista movement that ousted the Somoza dynasty in 1979. He was a member of the junta that led the country until 1985, when elections were held that gave him the presidency for another five years. The reforms he enacted, including such radical measures as seizing the property of the wealthy, did little to help Nicaragua's poor. His regime's authoritarianism and corruption, though certainly not on a level comparable with many third-world nations, were partially responsible for his defeat in the election of 1990.
Also to blame, of course, is the ruinous state of the Nicaraguan economy during the course of Ortega's presidency. This economic decline cannot be completely blamed on Ortega's policies. The United States responded to Ortega's leftist regime by imposing trade restrictions on Nicaragua. Without one of its major trading partners, Nicaragua could hardly expect its economy to prosper. Perhaps even more disastrous for Nicaragua's economy was the long struggle against the Contras, an anti-Sandinista guerrilla organization funded by well-known international arms dealer Ronald Reagan. The slump in the economy allowed conservatives to remove Ortega from office.
Now, after a decade and a half of conservative rule, Ortega may return to power. Like other Latin American peoples, Nicaraguans are turning to the Left as an alternative to the U.S.-dictated policies that have failed them. The free trade policies of Clinton and Bush and the structural adjustment programs of the IMF and World Bank have yet to produce satisfactory results. It is a common pattern in democracy that when one ideology fails to produce visible improvements, voters turn to whatever alternatives they are offered. Just as U.S. voters may not be motivated as much by the Democrats' charisma as by the Republicans' failures, Nicaraguans are turning to Ortega as a reaction to the conservative regimes' failures.
The Bush administration is naturally worried about the return of this old foe. Ortega has said that he will not pursue the same radical policies as in the past, but it is clear that much of his appeal lies in his anti-Americanism. He will likely be unafraid to take positions that will be contrary to US policy. The United States is wrong to be concerned so prematurely, though. Ortega has said that his main goal will be enticing foreign investors to create industrial growth in Nicaragua. It is therefore wrong to paint Ortega as a communist or, as some U.S. conservatives have, as a terrorist.
In a disgusting attempt to affect the election's result, the Bush administration has indicated that it will apply sanctions to Nicaragua if Ortega is elected. These sanctions, like most economic sanctions, would only hurt Nicaragua's poor. They may, in fact, backfire. The U.S. embargo against Cuba has become a scapegoat for Fidel Castro to blame for his country's economic woes. If Ortega can similarly blame the United States and exploit an anti-American sentiment, sanctions might serve to increase his popularity.
When Ortega becomes President, the United States must work with him to alleviate poverty in Nicaragua. If Ortega wants to court foreign investment to spur growth, there is no reason that the United States cannot embrace such an effort. In fact, doing so is the only way to win the support of the Nicaraguan people and, in time, the support of Latin America.
For too long, the United States has viewed the rest of the hemisphere as a region where it can pursue its interests without interference. Now that it lacks the weak justification for invasions and coups afforded by the Cold War, the United States finds itself forced to listen to the voices of Latin America's people. The injustices committed by the United States towards these people should be atoned for by a serious effort to ease their extreme poverty. Ortega's victory offers the United States a chance finally to be a good neighbor.
Daniel Colbert's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at dcolbert@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 5 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 6 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
