Intervention in Nicaragua

Your editorial of July 12, calling attention to the fact that “some anti-Sandinistas,” including recently demobilized Contra rebels, are taking things into their own hands” is very timely and relevant to peacemaking in a country torn apart by civil war. You suggest that if violence breaks out, intervention by Nicaragua’s neighbors working with the Organization of American States would be justified. Your advise that Uncle Sam restrain himself and do nothing to increase Nicaragua’s political instability. All of this is based on sound principles of international conflict resolution.

However, such a positive stance is quite a contrast to your editorial of July 7, which characterizes Ortega’s support of a general strike by government employees as a “cheap shot” and that Ortega’s “carryings-on smack of sour grapes.” The timing and urgency may have been rationalized by Ortega, but I suggest that there are real reasons for the action. The economic crisis in the country is not all the doing of Ortega and the Sandinistas. Our boycotts and interventionism must bear a substantial responsibility. Regardless of the change of leadership, collective bargaining and fighting for one’s job status and property rights are part of a free democratic society. Chamorro must not be given a free rein to use the economic crisis without challenge to implement her policies and point of view.

I do agree wholeheartedly with your conclusions, however, that this is a time for healing and Chamorro needs time and cooperation from all elements in the country. As you stated “cross-ideological reconciliation” must be the chief motive of both parties to the conflict.

RALPH SCHLOMING

Pasadena