Report on Nicaragua

Report to the World Council of Churches of Its Delegation Sent To Nicaragua September 4-10, 1983

I. The National Situation in Nicaragua

It is not necessary here to rehearse the historical antecedents of Nicaragua’s recent history — the forty years of Somoza domination and exploitation, and the immense efforts since then to rebuild the nation as a new society. Rather we share some reflections on what we saw and heard in Nicaragua during our brief visit.

A. Nicaragua is a nation under severe military attack, suffering frequent aggressions on both its northern and southern borders. Military incursions are made into Nicaragua to sow terror, to kill civilians, to disrupt normal life and sometimes to capture the population of whole villages taken back beyond the borders of the country. Our delegation talked with persons whose family members had been killed or injured, with persons displaced by the attacks, and we saw ample evidence on the Honduras border of the damage resulting from such attacks. Most dramatically, as our delegation was proceeding to the Managua airport on the morning of September 8, to fly to Puerto Cabezas on the Atlantic Coast, the airport was bombed and a strafing attack was directed at the home of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Father Miguel D’Escoto and which seriously endangered a large church school. This state of virtual war against Nicaragua is the major reality the nation contends with to-day. It influences the entire life of the nation, it creates and prolongs unnecessary human suffering, it disrupts economic planning and development, and has rendered normal life impossible. One result has been the proposed institution of compulsory military service (Servicio Militar Patriotico). As Christians we decry the human tragedy being visited upon Nicaragua.

It is well known that the widespread military aggression against Nicaragua, in which members of Somoza’s infamous National Guard as well as others participate, is amply support by the Government of the United States, as the United States ambassador confirmed for us. The United States has also introduced at least four thousand combat troops into, Honduras, menacing Nicaragua’s northern border further. Beyond any internal conflict, Nicaragua is the object of a well-orchestrated and massively funded effort of an international character to bring down the present Nicaraguan revolutionary government and to institute in its stead a government more acceptable to the United States. As a delegation we repudiate this aggression in the strongest terms and call for the prompt cessation of United States intervention, whether direct or indirect, whether overt or covert.

B. One of the reasons often cited for the attacks on Nicaragua is that it receives much assistance from the U.S.S.R. and Cuba — cultural, economic, technical and military. In addition, it is charged that the Nicaraguan government has facilitated the shipment of arms to the El Salvador guerrilla forces. With reference to the support from the U.S.S.R. and Cuba there is no doubt that Nicaragua has received considerable assistance from those nations, as well as from many other countries of the world, socialist, western and non-aligned. This is readily acknowledged; indeed Nicaragua deliberately wishes to move away from its overwhelming erstwhile dependence on the United States alone in order to achieve a “diversity dependency” on many nations so that it will not be overly subject to any one nation. Nevertheless, we know of no evidence that would indicate that external assistance from any source has been used in any way for aggressive attacks across Nicaragua’s border on neighboring nations. The current aggression is clearly a one-way aggression, against Nicaragua.

As for the presumed military support of opposition forces in El Salvador, there is no doubt that the Sandinista government supports the goals of those who struggle against the present El Salvador government, but we find it remarkable that very little, if any, hard evidence has been forthcoming about military assistance from those who loudly denounce it, despite their access to sophisticated electronic monitoring devices. One would expect those who make such charges to provide clear and copious evidence of their existence, but apparently no such evidence exists.

The fact is that Nicaragua is not engaged in acts of military aggression against its neighbors, much as it might wish to see revolutionary governments such as its own in those countries.

C. There is also an important diplomatic context within which Nicaragua is attempting to solve present conflicts by negotiation, and not by military means. Most hopeful seem to be the efforts of the “Contadora” countries (Mexico, Panama, Venezuela, Colombia) to defuse the present military confrontation, and to secure the withdrawal of all foreign military assistance, from whatever source, to the area. The United States says it is supportive of the Contadora process, but even as it affirms this it is rapidly escalating military assistance to the “contras” (the term used by Nicaraguans to describe counter-revolutionary organizations in Honduras and Costa Rica currently attacking Nicaragua), and it is displaying large shows of military force in the oceans off both Nicaraguan coasts. We find such actions to be flat contradictions of the professed peaceful intentions of the United States and of the presumed support of the Contadora process. We urge that the United States immediately reverse these aggressive actions and give abundant signs, by concrete actions, of its support of Contadora. We believe that if the United States would begin withdrawal, the Contadora process would be greatly encouraged and peace could come at an early date to the region. All agree that the Contadora process is difficult and involved, but the United States holds the key to unlocking all major difficulties and to facilitate an early agreement. As Nicaraguan leaders said to us, what should evolve is a “peace created, not a peace imposed.”

D. Internally, Nicaragua is the scene of many encouraging developments, even in the midst of enormous difficulties. In the areas of literacy, education, health and housing, to name but a few, great strides have been taken to meet the vast needs of a population long subject during Somoza days to gross poverty, ignorance and exploitation. Many of Nicaragua’s difficulties, though to be sure not all, are precipitated by the external aggression. The attempt of the Sandinista government, as we perceive it, is not, as it is often alleged to establish a Marxist state. Though there are undoubtedly Marxists in governmental circles, what impresses us is the pluralism in the government, the service of Christians lay and clergy, at every level of government, and the sense we get that the kind of totalitarianism so rampant in many countries of Latin America (e.g. Chile, Uruguay, Guatemala, El Salvador) simply does not exist in Nicaragua.

What we see is a government faced with tremendous problems, some seemingly insuperable, bent on a great experiment which, though precarious and incomplete at many points, provides hope to the poor sectors of society, improves the conditions of education, literacy and health and for the first time offers the Nicaraguan people a modicum of justice for all rather than a society offering privilege exclusively to the wealthy, foreign and domestic large investors, and to the powerful in the state. The government has indeed exercised an option for the poor which has led to great improvements in the standard of life of the poor majority, even though the once-privileged elite minority now is not able to maintain the standards it once enjoyed at the expense of the majority.

Within this new society we are particularly impressed by the new role accorded to women. The Nicaraguan society, as we were often told, has been traditionally a very “macho” society in which women have been exploited, used, and treated in a subservient manner. No one claims that this cultural pattern has been fully overcome, but major efforts have been conducted to reverse this situation.. Women are accorded places of high importance in government and society, the exploitation of sex symbols in advertising has been outlawed, and former prostitutes are being rehabilitated. While much remains to be improved, women today have a new place of dignity and importance in Nicaraguan society.

The changes in the internal life of Nicaragua have served to make the nation a sign and transmitter of hope to many Latin American countries where the poor and the exploited yearn for the kind of gains Nicaragua is achieving. In contrast to the charges that Nicaragua is trying to export its revolution elsewhere, what we see in Nicaragua is an internal reality that by its very existence and nature indicates that such improvements are possible and thereby provides great hope to nations where such gains yet remain unachieved.

We know that no state is perfect, as Nicaraguan leaders fully agree. We have explored some of the more frequent criticism of the Sandinista government. For example, charges are leveled that the Sandinista government hinders the free life of political parties. We believe there is some truth to this charge, though we also believe that steps being taken towards the scheduled 1985 elections (such as the law recently adopted on political parties) are highly encouraging. We were pleased to hear) of some very recent public meetings of opposition parties without governmental interference. Another often repeated charge is that the press is censored. Since the declaration of a State of Emergency in March, 1982, this censorship has been in force. We were shown some of the censored material by La Prensa, a major opposition newspaper, and believe that some of the censorship has been excessive, even silly. We were glad to hear from a very high government official that he too considers the censorship excessive and that steps must be taken to reduce it. Though we are supporters of a free press, we can understand some of the particularities of Nicaragua that argue for the present censorship. At a period of intense external aggression which profoundly affects human lives, it is understandable that some control is deemed necessary in the face of all-too-often irresponsible press statements. We must add, however, that we are impressed by the internal press freedom that does exist (unlike the situation in many totalitarian countries) so that day in and day out a newspaper such as La Prensa can publish articles which explicitly and implicitly criticize the government. It is notable that La Prensa apparently has nothing to say against the external aggression, thus raising questions about where its fundamental loyalties lie.

There have also been accusations that there is, or has been, religious persecution in Nicaragua. Some incidents of such “persecution” has been loudly touted in the foreign press. Our understanding, received from persons of various faiths, is that there is complete freedom of worship in Nicaragua. The few incidents that have been alleged as examples of persecution are isolated, some of them quite ambiguous in their meaning, and some patently false. What surprised us, as we brought up the matter of religious persecution in Nicaragua, was that highly respected observers spoke of a kind of “persecution” within the Roman Catholic Church itself, directed by the hierarchy against clergy who were not in accord with the hierarchy’s opposition to the government, often resulting in forced removals of clergy from their parishes with no advance notice. A most recent example that refutes the charge of religious persecution by the government is the ample publication of, and comment on, the Statement of the Roman Catholic Episcopal Conference (dated August 29, 1983) strongly attacking the proposed law on compulsory military service, in effect urging Catholics to disobey the law. That such a statement can be widely published is hardly a sign of religious persecution of the church, though to be sure the Statement has been severely attacked by those supportive of the government. Nevertheless, unlike what might happen in some other societies, the authors of the Statement have not been jailed or otherwise molested.

E. Economically, Nicaragua has maintained a mixed economy, wherein private enterprise controls a larger share of the economy than does the public sector, though within the overall economic guidelines and policies set by the state. It is remarkable that, despite the immense economic problems Nicaragua inherited from Somoza and despite the external aggression, Nicaraguan economic life has shown many indications of improvement, as judged by statistics provided by the World Bank and other international financial institutions. In 1980 the Gross National Product rose 10%, and in 1981, 8%. Agricultural productivity has increased in many areas, e.g. coffee, rice, pork, beans and eggs. The servicing of a crushing international debt has been maintained, even though the bulk of the debt was contracted by the Somoza government. New housing starts are way up, with the expectation that in 1983 they will exceed the total of the past three years combined. However, 1982 was a most difficult economic year for Nicaragua. The Gross National Product registered a 2.5% decline. This was the year reported by the Interamerican Development Bank as the worst year in the economic history of all Latin America in recent times. Nicaragua’s record compares favorably with the performance of other Latin American countries. In Nicaragua there were additional factors: unusual floods followed by unusual droughts, a decline in world market prices for commodities Nicaragua has to sell, and above all the recrudescence of external military aggression. As of now, the prospects for 1983 look quite good, with an anticipated substantial gain in the Gross National Product, though the exact dimension of that gain remains to be seen. All of this has occurred as the international financial community has carried on a very systematic war against Nicaragua, closing down credits and markets, so it is not surprising that the economy faces difficulties. In many ways, as we were told, Nicaragua is forced into an economy of survival rather than an economy of development. What impresses us is that the economic policies of the nation are aimed at improvement of the conditions of the poorest sectors of society, even if the once privileged elites now must do with less, a fact about which they greatly complain. There are some food shortages in remote areas and economic dislocations but overall it seems to us that the ruinous economic picture presented abroad of Nicaragua is highly prejudicial and deceptive. It is of special interest that there has been a great increase in the demand for basic commodities in the nation because of the increase in the standard of living of the poor majority, a fact which indicates a major economic gain even as it explains some of the shortages. In any case, the most serious problem for the economy at present is external military aggression. If that were terminated there is every reason to believe that the Nicaraguan economy could recover fully and flourish.

II. The Church in Nicaragua

One of the most outstanding aspects of the Nicaraguan situation has been the intensive participation of Christians as individuals, as basic communities, and as churches in the revolution, before the overthrow of Somoza in July, 1979, and since. Historically this has been a unique thing. One of the popular slogans of the revolution, which we heard shouted repeatedly and saw painted on house walls, is that “Between Christianity and revolution there is no contradiction.” As with any slogan, that is simplistic, but still indicative of a view of the relationship of faith and life one seldom witnesses nationally. Many Nicaraguans believe that their revolutionary process embodies basic Christian principles of love, concern for the poor, justice for all, and respect for human dignity. Christians in large numbers have seen a link between their faith, their Scriptures and their ethical behavior, and the struggle for a new and more just society.

In Latin American the Roman Catholic Church has proclaimed a “preferential option for the poor” which the new Nicaragua has truly attempted to embody.

Thus, one might assume that this linkage between Christianity and the revolution would be strong even today. For many it is, but the fact is that other Christians have turned against the government, most notably the top hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. It is understandable that the great events of 1979 would galvanize the support of the vast majority of Christians, and understandable also that after the first flush of the revolution, as problems inevitably developed, some would cool in their ardor for the revolution. It is more difficult to understand that some church groups should express intense opposition to the government during a period of outside aggression when all that was fought for four years ago, and has been achieved since then, is endangered by forces that cannot be interpreted as seeking justice for the many but instead seek revenge and a return to privilege for the few within the orbit of the international interests of the United States.

The Roman Catholic Church is increasingly divided between those who oppose the revolutionary process and those who still strongly support it. The former group includes Archbishop Miguel Obando y Bravo and some, though not all, of the nine Nicaraguan bishops, as well as lay persons principally coming from the more well-to-do families. The latter group is what has been called “the popular church” or “the church of the people,” mostly poor and representative of workers and peasant groups.

The hierarchy, as well as the Pope during his recent visit to Nicaragua, has emphasized obedience to the bishops, apparently fearful that many Catholics do not respond sufficiently to the magisterial authority of the church. Behind this attitude there is an ecclesiology in Roman Catholicism with a concept of authority which the people’s church seems to challenge. Those who represent the people’s church do not want to engage in head-on confrontation with episcopal authority, but their reading of Scripture, as well as their revolutionary experience, leads them to see authority as emanating out of identification with the people’s struggle.

We have seen and heard major attacks by government supporters particularly on Archbishop Miguel Obando y Bravo, who personifies the hierarchical opposition to the revolutionary process. Government newspapers carry daily articles opposing the Episcopal Conference declaration on “Patriotic Military Service,” articles often in very caustic and harsh terms. There has not been any official break between the hierarchy and the government, but relations are extremely tense. One common analysis of this tension is that it arises not from theological or biblical considerations but rather from political ones. The hierarchy has traditionally been allied to the most privileged sectors of society — now very much in a minority and defensive position — which the revolution has challenged.

It would seem that in the face of such a challenge the hierarchy struggles to regain a position similar to that it has held in the past, and thereby it stands as well for a society radically different from that which has evolved in Nicaragua. What one wishes is that this posture might be less politically based and more rooted in a prophetic biblical analysis of society and of the church’s relationship to it. Charges and countercharges seldom seem to relate to theological and biblical issues, but rather they reflect political positions of power, control and privilege.

The “popular church,” which the Pope has denounced, is caught in a situation of great difficulty — wanting to be loyal to the church’s leadership but finding in the Gospel message and in the life and ministry of Jesus much that leads it to identify with the major goals of the revolution. We deeply regret the current division. Our sympathies are clearly on the side of the people’s church, but we pray that somehow this split may be healed. One government leader speculated in our presence about what might have been the situation had Archbishop Oscar Romero, martyred in El Salvador, been the episcopal leader in Nicaragua.

Perhaps the role and posture of the church would have been quite different. But such speculation, though provocative, is far from Nicaragua’s reality. If the Nicaraguan revolution were militarily defeated by foreign aggression probably the Roman Catholic hierarchy could return to a position of privilege. If, however, the revolutionary process continues, the hierarchy will need, in time, to adjust to the new society, or else lose its credibility.

Within the Protestant churches of Nicaragua, where hierarchy is very different, the situation is still divided, though not as polarized as in Roman Catholicism. The Baptist Convention, the Moravian Church, the Episcopal Church and CEPAD have very able ecumenically-minded leadership who are supportive of the government, while maintaining a critical posture at the points constructive criticism seems warranted. There are, however, Protestant groups of a more conservative theology that adopt a “neutralist” stand, and some even oppose the revolutionary process, explicitly or implicitly. The issues that divide Protestants are very similar to those that divide Roman Catholics in that political ideologies have strong bearing on the various positions adopted. We find it highly encouraging that in Nicaragua there are some excellent new expressions of ecumenical life, both among Protestant groups of quite varied theological backgrounds (CEPAD is the outstanding example) as well as between some Protestant and some Roman Catholic groups, often at the local level.

One of the most discussed and intricate aspects of Protestant life in Nicaragua has to do with the Moravian Church, to which most of the Miskito Indian population of the Atlantic Coast belongs. There is a long history of cultural separation, mutual ignorance and skepticism between the Nicaraguans of Spanish background, living principally in western Nicaragua, and the Miskito Indians, clustered mainly in eastern Nicaragua. The westerners have traditionally looked down on the Miskitos, an attitude often laced with racial prejudice, and the Indians developed a deep-seated mistrust of the Spanish-speaking majority — all this aggravated by the geographical separation. Different geographies, ethnic backgrounds, languages and cultures resulted in a historical isolation of the Miskitos. The 1979 revolution brought about a new situation as the Sandinista government attempted to unify the nation behind its revolutionary process. In retrospect it seems clear that the Sandinistas did not adequately understand the Miskitos. As an illustration, the Sandinistas praised the peasants as heroes and decried the landowners as exploiters, but the Indians attach great importance to the land and identify themselves traditionally as agricultural landowners. Also, military and personnel assignments by the Sandinistas caused many problems and tensions developed between government representatives and Indian communities. The national literacy crusade in 1980 initially did not provide Miskito language training, though later this was rectified. Above all, the most serious disputes developed around the border conflicts with the “contras” attacking from Honduras into areas of comparatively large Miskito population. Some of the Miskitos in fact collaborated with the “contras” and the Sandinistas jailed them, while others crossed into Honduras. When border attacks were accentuated along the Rio Coco between Honduras and Nicaragua the Sandinista government decided to relocate the Miskito Indian communities along the river to a point farther inside the country, a relocation process that, despite attempts to be as human as possible, was greatly resented by the Miskitos forced to leave their ancestral lands.

The Moravian Church, so closely identified with the Miskito population, inevitably became involved in these tensions and often served as a voice for the Miskitos. In so doing some Moravian Church leaders and pastors have been jailed, restricted in their movements in the country and at times interpreted by the government as opposing the revolution. It is important to underline the fact, however, that the leadership of the Moravian Church does support the revolutionary process and denies that official actions taken against church institutions and employees in recent months are motivated by religious persecution, although that initial impression was given by ill-considered verbal attacks on the church. In part due to the effort of Moravian Church leaders, the Sandinista government has recognized some of its earlier mistakes in its dealings with the Miskitos, has provided redress for some of the grievances, has established a direct and regular dialogue with Moravian Church leaders, and is even contemplating the possibility of a general amnesty for Miskitos jailed on charges of complicity with the “contras.” There are no easy answers to the ethnic, political, moral and religious questions raised by the situation on the Nicaraguan east coast, and there remains much yet to do to improve relationships, but we were impressed by the statesmanlike attitudes of both Moravian Church leaders and government leaders as all seek to heal a painful and difficult relationship.

III. Recommendations

1. The findings of the Delegation fully confirm the deep concerns of the Sixth Assembly of the WCC, as contained in its statement on Central America by which it calls upon the WCC and the churches to affirm the right of the Central American peoples to seek and nourish life in all its dimensions. The delegation consequently reiterates strongly the seven recommendations made at Vancouver.

2. Furthermore, there is at this time a sharp visible escalation of military aggression against Nicaragua which brings death, damage and great suffering to the people. In addition, economic, diplomatic and political moves are being taken to isolate, weaken and “destabilize” the country while false and distorted reports on the nature, intention and activities of the government, the churches, and people of Nicaragua are being circulated which serve these political efforts to discredit the leadership of the country and indeed in some cases to eliminate them. In the light of this dangerous situation which brings grave consequences for the hopes of justice and peace in the region, we urgently recommend that the WCC and the churches:

A. Give immediate, tangible and visible support to the work of the churches in the United States, as they mobilize effective opposition to the present policies of their government toward Central America.

B. Press governments for a negotiated political solution to the crisis in Nicaragua and Central America, while opposing United States military support to repressive and destabilizing governments and forces in the region, particularly through Honduras and Costa Rica.

C. Encourage governments to increase state aid and credit to the Nicaraguan government for its social, economic and cultural programs and projects, work for a resumption of significant international financial loans to Nicaragua and for an increase of private trade and activity, while urging the churches and their agencies to increase financial grants for ecumenically sponsored and supported projects benefitting the population.

D. Throw every effort into the current peace initiatives being undertaken by Latin American states to reach agreement, through dialogue, on a stable and lasting peace based on legitimate national interests and justice concerns in the Central American region.

E. Initiate and strengthen major efforts in the area of providing and disseminating information about Nicaragua, giving priority to the media and its potential ability to influence political and public opinion worldwide, and to the proven competence of the Nicaraguan evangelical churches and ecumenical groups in providing correct and objective data and interpretation, with integrity, on the situation.

F. In the light of the pervasive and clear participation of Christians in the past and the present defense of liberation in Nicaragua, churches worldwide are invited to learn from the unique experience being lived by their Nicaraguan sisters and brothers in the Christian communities. Particular attention should be given to the spirituality of struggle, the ecumenical cooperation at community levels and the fresh articulation of the theological and biblical roots of Christian participation in the transformation of society. Churches and Christians are urged to visit Nicaragua and to share their in-sights and experience with their parishes and congregations worldwide.

G. Express to the churches in Nicaragua full support for their witness in their difficult tasks of reconstruction under great stress and obstacles, as well as in their efforts for peace, not only in the region, but also in the reconciliation among social sectors of Nicaraguan societies and among Roman Catholic and evangelical churches.

H. Seek and send material, human and financial resources for programs of humanitarian assistance carried out among refugees and other sectors of the populations affected by repressive regimes of the Central American region. Particular attention should be given to the needs arising from the constant attacks on the lives and economic activities of the populations living in the border areas of Nicaragua.

Author

tagged as:

Join the Conversation

in our Telegram Chat

Or find us on
Item added to cart.
0 items - $0.00

Orthodox. Faithful. Free.

Signup to receive new Crisis articles daily

Email subscribe stack
Share to...