University of South Florida Scholar Commons Government and International Affairs Faculty Government and International Affairs Publications Fall 1985 Nicaraguan Relations with the Nonaligned Movement Harry E. Vanden University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gia_facpub Scholar Commons Citation Vanden, Harry E., "Nicaraguan Relations with the Nonaligned Movement" (1985). Government and International Affairs Faculty Publications. 75. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gia_facpub/75 This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Government and International Affairs at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Government and International Affairs Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NICARAGUANRELATIONS WITHTHE NONALIGNED MOVEMENT by HARRYE. VANDEN and WALTRAUDQUEISER MORALES PRONOUNCEMENTSBY THE Reagan Administrationnot with- standing,the oft repeated accusationthat Nicaraguais but a Sovietor Cubanpawn does not appearconsistent with a closer examinationof the facts (see NACLA,1985). Beginning with the original 1969 FSLN (FrenteSandinista de LiberacionNacional) Program,the Sandinista leadershipwhich now rules Nicaraguahas steadfastlymaintained its nonaligned orientation.In fact,since coming to power,the Sandinis- tas have not only become active members of the Nonaligned Move- ment, but have also used their ties with the Nonaligned to explain their policies and to garnermuch needed internationalsupport for theiractions. In the process, they appearto have takenfull advantage of policy options created by the development of the Nonaligned Movementand only recently availableto LatinAmerican nations. The nonaligned movement itself was born in the post-colonial period as increasing numbers of Third Worldnations sought to es- tablish a direction in foreign policy which would allow them to en- sure a political, if not economic, independence in a world increas- ingly dominated by two greatpowers. Rootsof the movement extend back to 1955 when a group of Afro-Asianstates met as a group to de- nounce colonialism, promote economic development, and call for relaxationin world tensions.Josip Broz Tito, an early founder of the movement,aligned Yugoslaviawith the new group,attacking the di- HarryE. Vandenis Associate Professorof Political Science at the Uni- versityof South Florida,Tampa. He is the authorof Jose CarlosMariategui: Influencias en su Formacion Ideological and he is currentlycompleting a bibliography of Latin American Marxismand conducting research for a book on Nicaragua. WaltraudQueiser Moralesis Associate Professorof PoliticalScience at the Universityof CentralFlorida, Orlando. She is the authorof Social Revo- lution: TheoryandHistoricalApplication and of Bolivia; Land ofStruggle. The authorswish to thank MaryK. Meyerfor assisting with initial re- search for this article;and HarryE. Vandenwishes to acknowledge the sup- port of the Division of Sponsored Researchof the Universityof South Flori- da for the previous field research. The article is based upon the chapter entitled "Relationswith the Nonaligned Movement,"which appears in ThomasW Walker(ed.) Nicaragua: TheFirst Five Years,Praeger Publish- ers, 1985. 141 142 JOURNAL OF INTERAMERICANSTUDIES AND WORLD AFFAIRS vision of the world into two hostile camps.At the firstformal meeting of the Nonaligned, twenty-fivenations gathered in Belgrade in 1961 and focused on the need for world peace. Subsequent nonaligned summit conferences (Cairoin 1964, Lusakain 1970, Algiers in 1973, Colombo in 1976, Havanain 1979, and New Delhi in 1983) contin- ued to mention the importanceof an independent foreignpolicy and to advocatenon-participation in cold war militarypacts (despite Pak- istan'salignment with the United States,and Cuba'seventual ties with the Soviet Union). As Nicaraguawould do later,Yugoslavia and a growing number of ThirdWorld nations used the new group as a mechanism to chart theirown course in foreign policy and development. Evolutionof the movement witnessed increasing concern over political hegemony and economic domination,particularly by Westernpowers. Thus, as the focus shifted from world peace and maintaining scrupulous equidistance between Eastand West,the new emphasis became one of expressing solidaritywith anti-colonialstruggles, supportingthe political economy of the New International Economic Order (NIEO), and openly criticizing perceived Western domination in political or economic areas (LeoGrande,1980: 38, 39). Supportfor liberation movements gradually became the primaryfocus of the movement with some nations, like Yugoslaviaand Algeria,warning of US and Soviet imperialism (the two imperialismsthesis) with an- other,Cuba, arguing that the Socialistcountries were naturalallies.l THE INTER-AMERICANSYSTEM If conditions proceeded to change rapidlyin Africaand Asia,the tra- ditional Inter-Americansystem made nonalignment a differentstory in the WesternHemisphere, where, from the (1823) Monroe Doc- trine onward, the United States had reserved for itself a hegemonic position. The United Stateswas to be the first among equals and, as such, to enjoy certainrights and responsibilities foreclosed to lesser states. As industrialgrowth in the North economically outstripped the ruralagrarianism of the South, the LatinAmerican nations wit- nessed a varietyof policy instruments:the big stick,gunboat and dol- lar diplomacy and, finally,the good neighbor policy. Though meth- ods might vary,the end result was always the same, i.e. to convince the LatinAmerican states to follow the US lead. When subtle meth- ods failed, Americanpresidents often sent in the Marinesto secure the NorthAmerican interest. Such was the case in Nicaragua,where Marinesintervened from 1910 to 1925 and from 1926 to 1933. The VANDEN/QUEISER: NICARAGUAANDTHE NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT 143 last occupation was in response to an indigenous guerrilla move- ment, Augusto Cesar Sandino'sArmy in Defense of NicaraguanNa- tional Sovereignty. AfterSandino was assassinatedin 1934 and his armydisbanded by the US-organized National Guard, the resulting Somoza family dictatorshipremained in power untilJuly of 1979 and was character- ized by almost total subservience to NorthAmerican policy interests. A Somoza could always deliver the Nicaraguanvote in crucial meet- ings of the United Nations (UN) or the Organizationof American States (OAS). Nicaragua,like most of her sister republics, remained closely allied to the United Statesthrough the thirties,forties, fifties, and sixties. Ledby the post-revolutionaryindependence of Mexicanforeign policy, other LatinAmerican states pushed to enlarge their parame- ters of action in foreign affairs.Argentina, under Per6n, remained neutralduring most of the Second WorldWar and pursued an inde- pendent course in the postwarperiod. Buenos Aires asserted its in- dependence by recognizing the Soviet Union in 1946 and develop- ing trade relations with both East and West. Years before the Colombo Conference, Peronist foreign policy called for a Third Force not aligned with either of the emerging power blocs. Peronism appeared to insulate Argentina from the Cold War preoccupation that increasingly colored US relations with its Latin neighbors. In 1954 Guatemalan attempts at internal structural change and a foreign policy involving minimal relations with East- ern Europe became the basis for a US campaign characterizingthe regime as a beachhead for internationalcommunism. The subse- quent CIA-sponsored(US CentralIntelligence Agency) coup termi- nated Guatemala'sexperiment with an independent foreign policy. Bolivia'sattempts at structuralchange, following its 1952 revolution, lasted only a few years until US-induced economic pressure served to moderate the course of revolution (see Blasier,1971; and White- head, 1969). Interjectionof the Cold Warinto the hemisphericsystem under- cut attemptsat maneuverabilityon the partof the LatinAmerican na- tions, since it was assumed that common cultural,historic, econom- ic, and political ties inextricablybound them to the Westin the North American"cold war"with EasternCommunism. The Cubancase il- lustrateshow the US reacted (or overreacted) to nationalistchanges in internal or external economic and political relationships.Devia- tion from Westernpolicies was perceived as both unwarrantedand 144 JOURNAL OF INTERAMERICANSTUDIES AND WORLD AFFAIRS active movement towardcommunism. The kind of foreign policy in- itiatives that characterized India's relations with the superpowers were tolerated in Asia but prohibited in neighboring Latin America. In 1961 twenty-fivenations convened in Belgrade for the first conference of nonaligned nations.Cuba's was the only LatinAmeri- can delegation. "Havana'spresence signalled thatCuba's internation- al perspective was undergoing change; the hemispheric parameters that historically had defined its sphere of concern were being re- placed with a vision of itself operating in concert with kindredAfro- Asian states on the larger world stage" (Erisman, 1983: 150). The United Statesreacted negatively.As Cubasought new externalalign- ments, US displeasure increased and was ultimately expressed by the CIA-sponsoredBay of Pigs invasion.At NorthAmerican initiative, Cubawas excluded from full participationin the Inter-Americansys- tem in 1962. Not only did this act strainthe system, but it encouraged Cubato offset its diplomaticisolation through more