Shed No Tears for Sandinistas

To the Editors of the Crimson:

The Crimson Forum articles of November 17, "Ted Koppel Blames the Victim," is typical of today's trendy, but misguided thought on the issue of Nicaragua. The writer takes at face value the pious assertions of the Nicaraguan foreign ministers, throws in a little international law, and comes out painting the U.S. as an unprovoked aggressor in Central America. International law is a worthwhile thing, and is useful when the parties involved share an accepted notion of the global balance of power. However, there are many powers who do not respect such a notion, and are thus revolutionary in their efforts to alter that balance. It is foolish to think that international law will work with these states--notice what little recourse the Islamic world had when Afghanistan was invaded. Unfortunately for us, the Sandinistas have inaugurated Nicaragua into this fraternity of outlaw nations. Even while the United States was giving Nicaragua economic aid, the Sandinistas were deciding to align themselves with the soviets, engage in an unprecendented military buildup, and spread their revolution to El Salvador. Their revolutionary position predates by far the Reagan Administration's efforts at covert war.

So your writer argues that we should continue to respect the tenets of international law, and let the Sandinistay buy any weapons they want. If we'd followed such a course in 1962 we would be faced with a severly destabilizing nuclear threat from Cuba. Indeed, the folloy of this legalistic position becomes quite evident when you realize that it would make the courageous actions of President Kennedy into the crimes of an outlaw state. In the same way, the covert war and the mining of Nicaragua's harbors are legally indefensible, but vitally necessary actions in our policy toward the Sandinistas. It was only through these "illegal" pressures that the Sandinistas decided to negotiate, and even agree to the Contadora accord. While one may consider the Administration foolish for not taking them up on the offer, it is simply irresponsible to trumpet the accord on one hand while condemning the policies that brought it about on the other.

Finally, the Crimson article airs the assertion that the Administration would invade Nicaragua if it had the public's support. While I can't be sure that this isn't the case, it is hardly a cuase for alarm. If the government and people of the United States decided that Nicaragua was a menace to our security, it would be folly for us not to defend ourselves. In the same manner, Israel would be justified in taking military action if Col. Khaddafy developed nuclear weapons. The issue is not one of law, involving guilt or innocence, but one of survival. The Sandinistas made their choice long ago, and they decided not to respect conventions of international behavior. They gambled that the U.S. would be too paralyzed by the spectre of Vietnam, and by flimsy notions of law, to take appropriate action. Now that the Administration has called this bluff, the prospects facing Nicaragua are not pleasant ones. But as unfortunate as their miscalculation may be, it is hardly our placed to weep for these aggressive "victims." James Matthews '86