US to Nicaragua: Don’t Vote for Ortega

Perhaps one of our intrepid readers could explain to me why this is a good idea:

The US ambassador to Nicaragua has issued a vigorous warning to this small Central American country’s electors against supporting Daniel Ortega, the veteran leftwing Sandinista leader and the frontrunner in November’s presidential election.

[snip]

“It’s one thing to be truly democratic. It’s another thing to do what the Sandinistas really have done, which is to distort and manipulate democracy for partisan and personal benefit,” Mr Trivelli said. “The fact that [Mr Ortega] has been in charge of the Sandinista movement for 25 years or more gives you a clue about his democratic tendencies.”

The ambassador said that an Ortega victory – while vague on many issues, the 60-year-old former rebel leader has talked of increasing the role of the state and renegotiating Cafta, the trade agreement between the US and Central America – would force Washington to “re-evaluate.”

“He has made it pretty clear what kind of model he would put in place. And I think that under those conditions . . . [bilateral relations] would definitely be re-examined – and not only by the executive or the State Department or the White House but by the US Congress.”

I particularly like the ambassador’s explanation of why it’s appropriate for the U.S. to interfere in Nicaragua’s democratic process:

The US has had a long and – in many cases – unfortunate history in Nicaragua. During the 1980s it earned international criticism for its illegal funding of the so-called Contra war against Mr Ortega’s democratically elected administration.

But Mr Trivelli insisted the US was simply trying to “bring back that balance a bit” in a political landscape in which the Sandinista party had helped “hijack” Nicaragua’s democratic institutions.

“If the electoral machinery worked well and if the political landscape were level, the US ambassador, any other country, would sit on the sidelines and say, ‘may the best man win’. In a country like Nicaragua that is obviously not the case.”

Apparently, the U.S. believes that the Sandinistas “hijacked” Nicaragua’s democratic institutions by having the audacity to win a democratic election. But have no fear — the U.S. will come to the average Nicaraguan’s rescue and “bring back the balance” that existed when the U.S. was actively financing Contra efforts to overthrow a government that had just won the fairest election in Nicaraguan history.

Putting aside the profound irony of the Bush administration’s view of democracy — namely, that it’s fine as long as the “right” candidates (literally and figuratively) are elected — does anyone really believe that having a U.S. ambassador tell Nicaraguans whom to vote for is going to work? As I recall, the Guardian’s notorious “Operation Clark County” didn’t fare too well in convincing average Ohioans to vote for Kerry. And isn’t the Bush administration itself always trying to scare Americans into voting for Republicans by convincing them that bin Laden is a Democrat?

I have a suggestion: the next time the U.S. ambassador wants to meddle in Nicaraguan affairs, he should employ a bit of reverse psychology. Tell Nicaraguans that the U.S. has come to understand that Nicaragua needs Ortega, and that the Bush adminstration would wholeheartedly approve of his election. Then sit back and watch the votes fly…