RONALD RADOSH
75
tion to move with force against right-wing authoritarian regimes we
currently support, such as Guatemala. By all accounts, that govern–
ment in particular is in fact far more repressive in character and
oblivious to human rights violations than is Nicaragua. Not only
does the United States not interfere with that country's military, the
Reagan administration shows no inclination to offer its support to
the embattled few remaining democrats in their struggle against the
Guatemalan military. Indeed, it is trying to use scheduled demon–
stration elections as an excuse to resume canceled military aid to the
brutal
Junta .
What Christian ignores, as Robert Leiken has put it, is that the
Reagan administration, in invoking freedom and democracy, "op–
poses the increasingly totalitarian Sandinistas with unconditional
backing for a rebel leadership that is disrespectful of human rights
and reminiscent of the detested Somoza dynasty that ruled Nicaragua
before the revolution." Christian, on the other hand, believes it is not
easy to "argue against the general principle of backing the
Contra,"
since she sees their existence as the sole force that gives hope the San–
dinistas could be pressured "into accepting major structural changes
toward an open political system." But, as I said earlier, the effect of
unqualified support to the
Contra
appears to be precisely the opposite;
i.e., it provides the excuse needed by the hard-liners to consolidate
their power fully, and to move more quickly to put into effect the
Cuban-Soviet model. And that support of CIA-financed reactionaries
allows willing liberal and left supporters in the West to "explain" that
such measures are only temporary security steps taken in the face of
United States aggression.
Let no one misconstrue my differences in assessment of policy
questions to indicate that I have a negative view of Shirley Christian's
contribution. On the contrary, it is the strength of her reporting and
her insights that allows a reader to disagree with some of her political
analysis and views, and to realize that such disagreement in no way
detracts from the power and persuasion of her main arguments. In
the final analysis, it is her exposure of the process of revolution and
of the true politics of the Sandinistas that has so enraged the Western
"official" left. Those who wish to understand the Nicaraguan revo–
lution, regardless of political persuasion, owe it to themselves to un–
dertake a careful and serious intellectual confrontation with the evi–
dence and story told by Shirley Christian.
