Nicaraguan Sandinista Revolution turns 29

by rahul | July 19, 2008 at 03:33 pm

688 views | 12 Recommendations | 3 comments

Caracas, Venezuela, 19 July 2008. Today, Nicaraguan government celebrates the 29th anniversary of the Sandinista Revolution. President Daniel Ortega organized a meeting of regional Latin American leader for the occasion at Plaza la Fe at Managua. Among the Heads of state who now attend the celebration are Honduran Manuel Celaya, Paraguayan Fernando Lugo and Venezuelan Hugo Chavez.

During his intervention yesterday at Leon, President Daniel Ortega confirmed the revolutionary and anti imperialistic spirit of his government. After calling for a united Latin America, President Ortega rejected the intentions of the local Sandinista revisionist democratic movement. He claimed they were revolution traitors currently funded by imperialist US and EU to topple the government.

The Sandinista government has ruled Nicaragua in two different occasions. First, after overthrowing local dictator Anastasio Somoza in 1979. The Sandinista group of leaders took the power and conducted land reform and wealth distribution which caused hostility form the US Reagan government. The Sandinista party remained in power under the leadership of Daniel Ortega until 1990. Ortega was defeted in Presidential elections by Violeta Chamorro. After loosing two presidential elections, Ortega returned to power in 2006.

Sources: VTV, El Pueblo Presidente, Globovision, La voz del Sandinismo, Unionradio, YVKE,

rahul, I like this story. It's good stuff.

One of the Sandinista's greatest victories was won not on the battle field or at the ballot box, it was won in 1986 at the International Court of Justice.

"The World Court found that the United States had violated international law by supporting Contra guerrillas in their war against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors."

Unfortunately, after Nicaragua had exhausted all available legal measures, she concluded that they do not work in a world that is ruled by force.

The US vetoed the resolution. It now stands as the only state on record which has been condemned both by the World Court for international terrorism and has vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law.

It is uncontroversial because of the judgments of the highest international authorities: the International Court of Justice, the World Court and the UN Security Council. So this one is uncontroversial, at least among people who have some minimal concern for international law, human rights, justice and other things like that.

The case of Nicaragua is a particularly relevant one, not only because it is uncontroversial, but because it does offer a precedent as to how a law- abiding state would respond -- did in fact respond -- to a case of international terrorism, which is uncontroversial. A case of terrorism that was even more extreme than the events of 11 September. The Reagan-US war against Nicaragua left tens of thousands of people dead, the country ruined, perhaps beyond recovery.

Nicaragua did respond. They did not respond by setting off bombs in Washington. They responded by taking the US to the World Court, presenting a case for which they had no problem putting together evidence. The World Court ruled in Nicaragua's favour, and condemned what they called the "unlawful use of force", which is another term for international terrorism. They ordered the US to terminate the crime and to pay massive reparations. The US, of course, dismissed the court judgment with total contempt and announced that it would not accept the jurisdiction of the court henceforth. Nicaragua then went to the UN Security Council, which considered a resolution calling on all states to observe international law. No one was mentioned but everyone understood. The US vetoed the resolution. It now stands as the only state on record which has been condemned both by the World Court for international terrorism and has vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law.

Nicaragua then went to the UN General Assembly, where there is technically no veto, but a negative US vote amounts to a veto. The General Assembly passed a similar resolution -- with only the US, Israel, and El Salvador opposed. The following year Nicaragua took its case again to the General Assembly. This time the US could only rally Israel to the cause, so two votes opposed observing international law. At that point, Nicaragua had exhausted all available legal measures, concluding that they do not work in a world that is ruled by force.

The International Court of Justice, located in The Hague, Netherlands, is the principal juridical body of the United Nations, which also comprises five other principal bodies: the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Secretary General, the Council of Fiduciary Administration and the Economic and Social Council.

Thanks for the good stuff flag. Your comments on the case at International Court of Justice add value to the story. At a previous story called "Colombia protests Nicaraguan presidential remarks (updated)" another important interpretation to the ICJ case was also quoted:

"In a report by International NGO Redress on Terrorism, Counter Terrorism and Torture, it was stated: The line between terrorist acts and counter-terrorism activities is not always clear. Notably, in 1987, the US, as part of its ‘war on terror’, ordered its forces in Nicaragua to go “after soft targets” and to avoid the Nicaraguan army. This decision was taken after the International Court of Justice had declared the United States’ use of force against Nicaragua unlawful, and after the Security Council had endorsed the judgement and called on all States to observe international law (the US vetoed the resolution) and the General Assembly had passed a similar resolution."

NowPublic

World

Nicaraguan Sandinista Revolution turns 29

Photos