Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Keep CounterPunch ad free. Support our annual fund drive today!

There’s No Place Like CounterPunch

There's no place like CounterPunch, it's just that simple. And as the radical space within the "alternative media"(whatever that means) landscape continues to shrink, sanctuaries such as CounterPunch become all the more crucial for our political, intellectual, and moral survival. Add to that the fact that CounterPunch won't inundate you with ads and corporate propaganda. So it should be clear why CounterPunch needs your support: so it can keep doing what it's been doing for nearly 25 years. As CP Editor, Jeffrey St. Clair, succinctly explained, "We lure you in, and then punch you in the kidneys." Pleasant and true though that may be, the hard-working CP staff is more than just a few grunts greasing the gears of the status quo.

So come on, be a pal, make a tax deductible donation to CounterPunch today to support our annual fund drive, if you have already donated we thank you! If you haven't, do it because you want to. Do it because you know what CounterPunch is worth. Do it because CounterPunch needs you. Every dollar is tax-deductible. (PayPal accepted)

Thank you,
Eric Draitser

Whose Democracy is the US Supporting in Nicaragua?


In Nicaragua, the US government continues to flex its muscles to achieve an electoral defeat of Daniel Ortega in the November presidential elections. Ortega, president during the Sandinista revolution in the 1980s, is running for president for the fourth time since his first defeat in 1990. As in other parts of the world, the U.S. continues to tout its support of democracy as the justification for intervening in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, an act that is in itself inherently undemocratic.

In a recent interview in the Nicaraguan news magazine Confidencial, U.S Ambassador Paul Trivelli stated, “What we are trying to do is to support the democratic process, and tell people that in this country, in the electoral process there are antidemocratic forces and there are democratic forces.” Through his actions, however, Ambassador Trivelli has shown a strange understanding of the meaning of “support the democratic process”.

Take the present month of April as an example. On April 5, 2006, Trivelli sent a letter to several political parties offering to fund primaries that would result in one presidential candidate in order to increase their chances of defeating Ortega. When this offer was rejected by the parties, all of whom had already declared their separate candidates, Trivelli chose another tactic. In a highly publicized meeting, Trivelli met with the leaders of the Liberal Constitutional Party (PLC), many who have been stripped of their U.S. visas, and close associates of the party leader, former U.S.-supported ex-President Arnoldo Aleman, who has been convicted of embezzling over $100 million from state coffers. Trivelli urged the party to participate in an effort to defeat Ortega, which would include ditching their candidate José Rizo, chosen in internal party elections earlier this year. When the party refused to remove their candidate, Trivelli went back to his rhetoric denouncing the PLC, stating, “A party that is controlled by Mr. Aleman is still not in the category of democratic parties” He then met with Presidential candidate Eduardo Montealegre, former PLC member who split from the party. In a statement that barely fell short of endorsing Montealegre, Trivelli stated that he is the democratic choice for the presidency.

Trivelli’s recent actions prove that democracy is a fluid concept, one that applies when convenient for the US State Department. He negotiates with the PLC if it could mean the possibility of achieving an alliance to beat Daniel Ortega. When not successful, he reiterates that the PLC is undemocratic, another pressure tactic.

All of these actions then lead to the obvious question, “Why so much fear of Ortega?” In his rhetoric, Trivelli suggests that Ortega’s term as president from 1984 to 1990 indicates that he does not know how to govern democratically, as quoted in the in the Nicaraguan daily La Prensa, “Ortega already governed, and he did so badly.” Recent statements by both Condoleezza Rice and John Negroponte suggest that the fear is based on regional developments; that is, that Hugo Chavez from Venezuela is supporting Ortega, a longtime friend of Fidel Castro, in order to strengthen the relationships among leaders in the region.

Trivelli himself has stated that he would support anyone “elected democratically, who governs democratically, with a sensible economic policy and who is ready to cooperate with the United States on security issues.” Although Ortega’s rhetoric frequently challenges the role of the US in Nicaragua, in recent years, he has proven to be more a political opportunist than an ideologue or potential threat to the United States. He has not said that his government would renege on current IMF loans or otherwise alter the US-supported neoliberal reforms that the US define as “sensible economic policies”. Regardless, it should be the Nicaraguan people, not U.S. policymakers, who decide whether or not he deserves a second term in office.

Beyond Trivelli’s wavering definition of democracy, however, is the issue of Nicaraguan sovereignty and United States’ interference in Nicaragua’s internal politics. Why is a U.S. official attempting to form an electoral alliance in another country? Trivelli demonstrates his arrogancy and hypocrisy by acting in every way to impede the development of democracy in order to promote “the unity of democratic forces”.

Since 1990, when U.S.-favored candidate Violeta Chamorro defeated Ortega in the elections, the US has been utilizing a much more subtle strategy towards Nicaragua and its neighbors than the military force of the 1980s. Having already shown these countries who is “boss”, the US only needs to send messengers like Trivelli to remind countries like Nicaragua of what happens if they should depart too far from U.S.-favored policy. The peace that remains in Nicaragua after 1990 is a painful, bitter peace: a peace in which officials such as Trivelli feel free to intervene in internal politics as if they were another actor in the Nicaraguan system. Perhaps a larger movement would be necessary to change this relationship of domination and dependence. But as a diplomat, the very least Trivelli could do is to demonstrate an iota of respect for the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which states that “it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State,” and a respect for the people of Nicaragua, who have the right to political processes.

BRYNNE KEITH-JENNINGS works as an educator work Witness for Peace in Nicaragua and can be reached at:



More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine


October 25, 2016
David Swanson
Halloween Is Coming, Vladimir Putin Isn’t
Hiroyuki Hamada
Fear Laundering: an Elaborate Psychological Diversion and Bid for Power
Priti Gulati Cox
President Obama: Before the Empire Falls, Free Leonard Peltier and Mumia Abu-Jamal
Kathy Deacon
Plus ça Change: Regime Change 1917-1920
Robin Goodman
Appetite for Destruction: America’s War Against Itself
Richard Moser
On Power, Privilege, and Passage: a Letter to My Nephew
Rev. William Alberts
The Epicenter of the Moral Universe is Our Common Humanity, Not Religion
Dan Bacher
Inspector General says Reclamation Wasted $32.2 Million on Klamath irrigators
David Mattson
A Recipe for Killing: the “Trust Us” Argument of State Grizzly Bear Managers
Derek Royden
The Tragedy in Yemen
Ralph Nader
Breaking Through Power: It’s Easier Than We Think
Norman Pollack
Centrist Fascism: Lurching Forward
Guillermo R. Gil
Cell to Cell Communication: On How to Become Governor of Puerto Rico
Mateo Pimentel
You, Me, and the Trolley Make Three
Cathy Breen
“Today Is One of the Heaviest Days of My Life”
October 24, 2016
John Steppling
The Unwoke: Sleepwalking into the Nightmare
Oscar Ortega
Clinton’s Troubling Silence on the Dakota Access Pipeline
Patrick Cockburn
Aleppo vs. Mosul: Media Biases
John Grant
Humanizing Our Militarized Border
Franklin Lamb
US-led Sanctions Targeting Syria Risk Adjudication as War Crimes
Paul Bentley
There Must Be Some Way Out of Here: the Silence of Dylan
Norman Pollack
Militarism: The Elephant in the Room
Patrick Bosold
Dakota Access Oil Pipeline: Invite CEO to Lunch, Go to Jail
Paul Craig Roberts
Was Russia’s Hesitation in Syria a Strategic Mistake?
David Swanson
Of All the Opinions I’ve Heard on Syria
Weekend Edition
October 21, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Wight
Hillary Clinton and the Brutal Murder of Gaddafi
Diana Johnstone
Hillary Clinton’s Strategic Ambition in a Nutshell
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Trump’s Naked and Hillary’s Dead
John W. Whitehead
American Psycho: Sex, Lies and Politics Add Up to a Terrifying Election Season
Stephen Cooper
Hell on Earth in Alabama: Inside Holman Prison
Patrick Cockburn
13 Years of War: Mosul’s Frightening and Uncertain Future
Rob Urie
Name the Dangerous Candidate
Pepe Escobar
The Aleppo / Mosul Riddle
David Rosen
The War on Drugs is a Racket
Sami Siegelbaum
Once More, the Value of the Humanities
Cathy Breen
“Today Is One of the Heaviest Days of My Life”
Neve Gordon
Israel’s Boycott Hypocrisy
Mark Hand
Of Pipelines and Protest Pens: When the Press Loses Its Shield
Victor Wallis
On the Stealing of U.S. Elections
Michael Hudson
The Return of the Repressed Critique of Rentiers: Veblen in the 21st century Rentier Capitalism
Brian Cloughley
Drumbeats of Anti-Russia Confrontation From Washington to London
Howard Lisnoff
Still Licking Our Wounds and Hoping for Change
Brian Gruber
Iraq: There Is No State
Peter Lee
Trump: We Wish the Problem Was Fascism
Stanley L. Cohen
Equality and Justice for All, It Seems, But Palestinians