Ted Koppel Blames the Victim

DISCUSSING THE MIG "crisis" on the November 7th edition of "Nightline," Nicaragua's foreign minister Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann gracefully exposed the biases behind Ted Koppel's questions, and in doing so laid bare the shameful subjectivity of one of America's most influential opinion makers. If such closed mindedness could be attributed only to Koppel, there would be no need to write this commentary. Unfortunately the ABC commentator's one-sided view of the Nicaraguan "problem" permeates the electronic media.

In his straightforward no-nonense manner, Koppel asked D'Escoto, "are there MIG's on that (Soviet) ship?" D'Escoto replied that Nicaragua had not received any in the past, was not receiving any at present, and had no future plans to receive MIG's. But then he got to the crux of the matter. What right, he asked rhetorically, has the United States to dictate to Nicaragua what weapons it may or may not purchase from another nation? Where in international law is it written that one sovereign nation may not procure the weaponry it determines necessary for its self-defense?

The expected and understandable retort-by Koppel went something like this: "But what if such weapons were to be used for aggresive purpose as the U.S. government believes is the case with your government? After all, a tremendous arms buildup has been taking shape in Nicaragua for quite some time now."

D'Escoto responded, stating that Nicaragua would have no need for such a buildup were it not for the "covert" war being waged in Nicaragua, financed by the CIA, to overthrow the Sandinista government. And, had the U.S. government signed the Contadora proposal which it ostensibly supports, the Nicaragua, arms buildup would cease and that Soviet ship would not be sailing toward Nicaragua with more weapons.

"But the arms limitation agreement is unverifiable," responded Koppel. "Moreover, he U.S. government opposed only that one form of the Contadora agreement." "There is only one form I know of," replied D'Escoto, "signed by Colombia, Panama, Mexico, Venezuela and Nicaragua, rejected by the U.S." And again to the core of the matter: "The U.S. government did not and will not sign because the Reagen administration is committed to the overthrow of the Sandinistas."

Koppel: "Do you really believe Reagan would invade Nicaragua?"

D'Escoto: "Ted, I invite you to come to my country and see for yourself. The thousands dead, the oil reserves blown up, the destruction of our economic base. The U.S. government has already invaded our country."

Koppel: "But that's different from a full scale invasion by U.S. troops. Would they do that?"

D'Escoto: "Ted, if they could sell it to the American public and to the international community, they would not hesitate."

THE NEXT NIGHT on ABC "World News Tonight" a three minute piece on Nicaragua described the "paranoid" fear of Nicaraguans concerning an imminent U.S. invasion in addition to the tremendous Nicaraguan arms buildup. All of one sentence was devoted to mentioning that there is a war going on in that country, and that one sentence neglected to mention that it is almost entirely financed by the United States.

Perhaps D'Escoto's most striking remark was his closing comment: "Ted, on the basis of past history and of everything the Reagan administration has done to this point concerning my country, we have no reason to believe an invasion is not a likely scenario."

The point, however, is not whether or not the U.S. is going to invade Nicaragua (although in the end that, of course, is what really matters). The tragedy is that should an invasion occur. Americans will most certainly learn from Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and Ted Koppel that the invasion was provoked by Nicaragua; that there is no Nicaraguan side of the story.