Language for a Revolution -- Against the Marxist Sandinistas

Author: Jim Guirard -- Coalition For Peace Through Strength

Source: Washington Times and others -- March-April, 1986

Congress will soon be voting on whether to restore military aid to anti-Communist guerrilla forces -- the so-called "Contras" -- in Nicaragua.

Crucial to the outcome of these votes will be the lawmakers' perception as to who are the "good guys" and who are the "bad guys" in war-torn Nicaragua. And crucial to this judgment will be the geo-political language by which the debate is conducted.

For example, the self-anointed "Sandinistas" will be struggling to sustain the labels which have for so long portrayed them as "liberators," "progressives," and purveyors of "social justice" and "people's democracy" in Central America.

Simultaneously, their critics -- led by President Reagan -- will be attempting to strip away these semantic masks, in order to reveal that today's "Sandinistas" have little in common with the late Nicaraguan patriot, Augusto Sandino -- who was a pluralist, a social democrat and an outspoken nationalist. They will be searching for labels which brand the Castro-style Comandantes as tyrannical internationalists -- whose motivations are not Sandinista but "Stalin-ista" in character.

And what of the so-called "Contras" who seek to overthrow the Stalinista dictatorship? Are they really the counter-revolutionaries (implying anti-reformers) their Soviet-inspired nickname implies? Or are they the authentic "freedom fighters" and the "democratic resistance" Ronald Reagan proclaims them to be? In other words, are they the real Sandinistas, the real Nicaraguan nationalists?

The fact that so many "Contra" leaders and supporters (Arturo Cruz, Eden Pastora, Alfonso Robelo, Violetta & Pedro Joachim Chamorro, Adolfo Calero and many others) were prominent opponents of Somoza and early supporters of the new regime proves that the latter is true.

But public opinion will not accept this truth so long as the language of politics (which calls them nasty old "Somocistas," supporters of Somoza) paints an entirely different picture of these people.

To solve the problem, the contras and their supporters should use the following stepping stones (among others) in battling for the moral high ground in American and world opinion:

1. They should cease trying to discard the "Contra" label and begin calling themselves the "revolutionary contras" -- the implied next word being contra-El Communismo (a good-guy label), rather than contra-revolucion (bad-guy).
2. These revolutionary (i.e., reformist) contras should proclaim a bold new ism -- "revolutionary counter-Communism" -- around which all oppressed Nicaraguans can begin to rally.
3. As revolutionary counter-Communists, they should christen their cause "The New Revolution" in Nicaragua -- to distinguish it from the fraudulent "people's revolution" perpetrated by the Casrtoite Stalinistas.
4. They should proclaim the need to "liberate" Nicaragua -- the same kind of liberation (from police-state tyranny and from Cuban colonial status) as the former Cuban colony of Grenada now enjoys.
5. They must condemn Soviet and Cuban "colonialism" in Nicaragua. The 20,000 Communist bloc "advisors" who run the country are agents of Soviet and Cuban colonialism and must be called that -- less they continue posing falsely as anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist.
6. They should begin condemning the "Ortega dictatorship." Non-Communist dictatorships are always personalized in the name of the tyrant -- Franco, Somoza, Pinochet, Marcos, etc. So why not impose the same burden of "dictator" on Comrade Ortega?
7. They should emphasize such terms as "Cuban-led," "PLO-supported," "Libyan-supplied" and "Soviet-controlled" -- to remind the world of the rogues gallery of terrorist regimes which sustain the "Stalinista," as Reagan has called it -- dictatorship.
8. They should call that dictatorship "corrupt" and should declare their "solidarity" with all Nicaraguans who seek "social justice."
9. They should promote a bold new "Theology of Liberty" as alternative to the Communists' heretical "Theology of Liberation."
10. Finally, as evidence of their democratic centrism, they should promote the symbol of a hammer and sickle, an equal sign and a swastika, along with the words "Contra Los Dos" -- meaning "against both Communism and Nazism, which are essentially the same."

Former Secretary of Defense (and of Energy and CIA Chief) James Schlesinger once observed that while most people favor good and oppose evil, they must be able to determine which is which. As he put it, "They need to know who the fellows are in the white hats and who the fellows are in the black hats."

At present, most of the white-hat labels ("peace," "people," "progress," "liberation," etc.) have been co-opted by the so-called "Sandinistas," who are not at all what their noble name implies -- while most of the black-hat labels ("Somocista," "fascist," "imperialist," "mercenary," "CIA-backed," etc.) have been stuck on the so-called "counter-revolutionaries," who are not at all what their name implies, either.

In this circumstance, it is imperative that all parties, all causes and all ideologies in Nicaragua finally become known by their proper names, both good and bad.

Only then will Congress be able to develop a clear perception as to who is who down there and why, in the name of human rights, the "New Revolution" in Nicaragua must be actively supported.

Jim Guirard -- Coalition For Peace Through Strength