Central America

Central America, just south of Mexico and North of Panama, consists of

just six countries; Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua,

and Costa Rica. Of those six, all share a distinct common history except

for Belize. Belize for one is incredibly small, and while Spanish is the

official language of other Central American countries, in Belize English is

spoken. So throughout this paper as I carelessly say 'Central American' I

am not including Belize whose history and development was far different

than the others.

Although Central America is located close to the United States in

relation to the Eastern Hemisphere, our ways of life are indescribably

different. When we discuss Poverty in the United States many of us,

including myself, don't really know what 'poverty' is. It seems like only

a select few are afflicted by it here and programs like Welfare and Food

Stamps (with varying degrees of success) seem to lessen the effects.

In Central America when one speaks about 'poverty' he/she is including a

large proportion of the population. One measure of poverty is the earning

power of an individual. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which is a measure

of income is around $12,000 in the United States. In Central America on

the other hand, the wealthiest Country, Costa Rica, came in at just under

$2000. Distortion plays a role on the $2000 also, due to the fact the the

elite-rich have an enormous concentration of wealth and land ownership, the

real GDP of the poorer half of the population is around $200-$400 a year

(Pg 10, Booth and Walker). Accompanying poverty or as a result is poor or

unavailable education, health care, and an extremely bad job market.

Government 'for the people and by the people is not present is Central

America'. What is present is a corrupt military- big business conglomerate

which cares little or none for the common people. The military is

responsible for enforcement, which includes death squads, torture, and

public execution. The big businesses who are able to extract an endless

supply of 'minimum wage' labor, amass great wealth but instead of

reinvesting it locally, most invest overseas or in capital intensive labor

whereby local jobs are eliminated.

Taking all this into effect and the fact that social classes and living

conditions of many Central Americans are deteriorating rapidly leads some

to rebellion. Some have taken a path of Passive rebellion. This can be

seen in literature and popular music which questions the government. Others

exercise their right to vote (even if it doesn't really matter because the

results are fraudulently attained). For example, "the 1974, 1978, and 1982

presidential elections in Guatemala were all fraudulently manipulated by

military regimes "(Pg 109, Booth and Walker).

Others take a more active stance. During times of increased repression

by the government many coalitions and reform-aimed organizations were

formed. Many were actively involved in large-scale marches, labor strikes,

and transportation boycotts. A little more on the radical side are the

Guerilla groups. Composed mostly of peasants fed up with the government

who see no other way than violence. This guerilla groups have special ties

to the community. Many times they visit villages explaining their cause

hoping to recruit new guerrillas. The typical guerilla varies from young

to old, male to female.

The Guerillas are a most important part of rebellions but they are not

effective alone. Their effectiveness is increased greatly when they

develop formal links with outside organizations and have strong popular

support. An example of popular support occurred in Guatemala where

peasants would fight alongside the guerillas, greatly increasing their

number.

The Catholic Church was activity involved in rebellion also. They helped

to organize community and labor groups for the people (Christian base

communities). These groups gave people the inspiration and mass power to

combat the government. Although the Catholic clergy did not fight

violently alongside the guerillas, their lives were at risk, and some were

taken.

A situation that combines all these ideas happened not too long ago in

Nicaragua. All the hardships discussed earlier were present : extreme

poverty, corrupt government, and worsening of conditions, driving many to

rebellion. The early 70's was a time where, unions were repressed, wages

were set by the military regime, inflation was 10%, and 13% of the working

class was un/under employed (compared to 5-6% in the United States).

This set the stage for the 1973-1975 'revitalization of labor movement'

which included strikes, stoppages, and organization of labor unions.

Christian Base Communities began to spring up, whose goal was better urban

services and housing. This point in time was important because due to

heavy repression by the government, industry and the private sector were

becoming doubtful and critical of the government. Other groups were

developed who were anti-Somoza also (Somoza was the president at the time).

At the same time FSLN, a rebel group of twenty guerilla bands, was

expanding and gaining popular support. Many university students now

supported FSLN's actions. As a result the government felt it needed to

reassert its power once again. This was in the form of widespread

terrorism and repression, enforced by the National Guard, and practiced for

years.

In 1978, the FAO (Broad Opposition Front) was created. Backed by the

United States, Nicaragua's Catholic hierarchy, and key business interests

this organization tried unsuccessfully to negotiate an end of the Somozan

rule before FSLN could take over. This organization seems to have been

created out of fears, of its backers, of what future Sandinista rule would

be.

As a last resort the supporters of FAO, who were "moderate and

conservative anti-Somozists turned to the Sandinistas as their last option

" (Pg 66, Booth and Walker). This is a crucial turning point, up until now

the Sandinistas lacked broad based support. Now they had financial backing

and access to even greater human resources. This helped FSLN troops grow

from "500 in 1978 to between 2500-5000 in 1979" (Pg 67, Booth and Walker).

In doing so FSLN received diplomatic support from France and elsewhere in

Latin America. Consequently, FSLN was able to purchase arms from abroad.

To supplement that, many local residents pledged to fight alongside the

Sandinistas. Truly FSLN was becoming strong.

Because of this Somoza lost most of his support base. Still by his side

were, the National Liberal Organization, and of course, the National Guard.

The Carter administration announced that it "no longer supported Somoza

rule after an ABC reporter was murdered before his own cameras" in 1979 (Pg

69, Booth and Walker).

This was perhaps Somoza's biggest loss. By losing US support he lost

financing, arms, and the valuable training that he would need to curtail

the Sandinistas in the near future. Obviously this was detrimental for

Somoza but the Sandinistas weren't sure where it put them. Would the US

try to neutralize the Sandinistas and hope for a calm negotiation (Like

Guatemala in 1954, Cuba in 1961, the Dominican Republic in 1965, and Chile

in 1973) ?

A quick answer came in 1980 when Ronald Reagan became President of the

United States. All through his campaign he denounced the action of the

Sandinistas and his support of Somoza. This was extremely bad for the

Sandinistas and their cause but a major boost for Somoza. Reagan quickly

"appropriated the CIA $19.8 million to organize and train anti-Sandinista

counter-revolutionary elements" (Pg 70, Booth and Walker), called "Contras".

In 1986, after the Iran-Contra scandal was public, Reagan wasn't sure how

much more aid he could get to Somoza so he pushed for a major offensive. In,

1987, without each side attaining a clear victory, negotiations began. In

1990, Daniel Ortega, a Sandinista was voted out of power to a more

conservative , Violeta Barrios de Chamorro.

In the end there was basically a stalemate, neither side attained a clear

victory. Had the United States not intervened things most likely would

have been very different. Our intervention has left a lasting impression on

Nicaragua's political and economic situation. In a rebellion which caused

" $1.5 billion in property loss, a 2% reduction in the overall population,

and years of turmoil " (Pg 68, Booth and Walker) the domestic market was

destroyed.

No one can say whether our actions were justified or not but it will most

likely be on the minds of many Nicaraguans for a long time to come..

---