Anna Fiocchi , Carlo Fiocchi
in Peuples/Popoli/Peoples/Pueblos, n. 6 (February 1985)
The request was submitted by several Nicaraguan organisations, including the Central Trade Union (CST), the National Confederation of Professionals (CONAPRO), and the Union of Nicaraguan Journalists (UPN).
The specific subject of the session was the detailed analysis, based on the presentation of briefings by experts and operational managers and testimonies of US aggression, direct and indirect, against Nicaragua.
The jury consisted of:
François Rigaux, President (Belgium, lawyer)
George WALD, Vice-President (USA, Nobel Prize in Biology)
Victoria Abellan HONRUBIA (Spain, lawyer)
Richard BAUMLIN (Switzerland, lawyer)
Georges CASALIS (France, theologian)
Harald EDELSTAM (Sweden, diplomat)
Richard FALK (USA, jurist)
Eduardo GALEANO (Uruguay, writer)
Giulio GIRARDI (Italy, theologian)
François HOUTART (Belgium, sociologist)
Edmond JOUVE (France, political scientist)
Raimundo PANIKKAR (India, philosopher)
Adolfo PEREZ ESQUIVEL (Argentina, Nobel Peace Prize laureate)
Salvatore SENESE (Italy, magistrate)
Ernst UTRECHT (Indonesia, sociologist)
The practice followed was that of a regular trial; witnesses were also heard, people injured, maimed, paralysed, raped by gangs of ‘contras’ operating under the direct control of North American instructors. Among them are: Digna Barreda, Branda Rocha, Morava church pastor Norman Brent, Reverend James Lloyd Miguel Mena, Orlande Wayland, Tomas Alvaredo, Mario Barreda.
Particularly significant were the reports, documented with irrefutable evidence such as film footage, photographs, and North American weapons, as is captured in the note below.
Reports, documents and testimonies point to the US government and other local governments loyal to the US as being responsible for supporting the counterrevolutionaries.
The operative part of the judgment concludes: ‘The Court considers that the crime of assault has been proved. For these reasons the Tribunal:
CONDEMNS the policy followed by the United States towards Nicaragua as contrary to the rules of international law that prohibit any intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign state and forbid any kind of aggression .
It warns that these violations of the most basic norms of international society constitute crimes against the rights of peoples.
DECLARE that the right of the Nicaraguan people to self-determination and independence cannot be denied under any pretext invoked.
I APPEAL to the international community to preserve this right and to punish crimes that violate it’.
There were a lot of people in Brussels listening to speakers and witnesses speaking on the US policy of intervention in Central America, with specific reference to the events in Nicaragua.
The members of the jury were also numerous with that characteristic mixture of jurists, scientists, philosophers, theologians, writers, sociologists, from different continents.
The representatives of the US government were absent, replaced with firmness and apparent conviction by Professor Francis BOYLE, a jurist of international law at the University of Illinois, who was appointed by the Court to support the US side.
In the cosy hall of the Belgian Trade Union Centre we lived ‘inside’ Nicaragua, with the problems of Nicaragua, being touched by the suffering of this people.
Many facts, events, reflections were already known to us, but with those testimonies so immediate, with those reports so punctual, even if repetitive, so passionate, even if not exhaustive, the Nicaraguan affair took on a dimension that we did not know before.
An alternation of vicissitudes so emblematic that it could symbolise the essence of our last centuries of history.
And the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal, analysing the Nicaragua affair, has shown us how and with what peculiarity the mechanisms of domination are put in place to ensure the power of the strongest.
The President of the University of Nicaragua, Rafael CHAMORRO, introduced us to this research by recounting the ultimate history of his country, from Sandino to 1979, from the Revolution to the present day.
The American Richard FALK pressed on with a report on international law, calling into question the International Court of Justice in The Hague and emphasising that international justice cannot overcome North American injustice; this conflict demands the sacrifice of men and women, as the witnesses present showed.
Another American, Marlène DIXON, director of the Institute for the Study of Militarism and the Economic Crisis in S. Francisco (California), addressed the US government’s violation of international law.
A lucid, serene report, full of interest and motivation: a timely response to the meticulous intervention of the captain of the Nicaraguan army, ROSA PASSOS, on the subject of military aggression. A veritable report in front of the large map of the country marked with the numerous arrows indicating the routes of interference of the ‘contras’ and the mercenaries hired to counter the new course.
And while the captain, in a persuasive and calm voice, listed the violations taking place on the borders of the north, west and south of the country, another soldier pointed out the places mentioned by the officer, carefully moving his baton from one cardinal point to another. And the narration/geographical location pairing gave us the exact perception of the wearisome aggression carried out against Nicaragua. A systematic, methodical aggression, ordered according to a plan that seems to have been elaborated at a desk. Behind this impression, the touching realism of other witnesses and the voice of the Nicaraguan people brought by the Minister of Culture, Ernesto CARDENAL, who explained US-Nicaragua relations by making history; reminding us that the East-West game is a false cause since American domination was already in place when the October Revolution had not yet taken place and the concern for Soviet expansionism had not yet been invented.
Cardenal concluded his highly applauded talk by reading the same poem with which the 2nd Russell Tribunal, in Rome, concluded in 1976. From the military aspect we then moved on to the economic consequences of the aggression with a series of data presented by Magda ENRIQUEZ of the Sandino Foundation .
After the explanation of the legal, military, economic mechanisms, the reminder of the manipulation of the media, by the President of the Union of Journalists of Nicaragua, Lili SOTO.
To complete the scenario of the Central American country, Professor Boyle’s aforementioned unofficial defence of the official position of the US government. By the beginning of the last day of the proceedings, the characteristics and aims of the US intervention in Central America were clear. The only element of US defence, based on the need to prevent Nicaragua’s supply of arms to El Salvador, could not justify such a North American attack. This is the reason why there are disagreements between Congress and the US President, as the exposition of US Professor L. BIRNS, of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, highlighted, and for the same reason Professor VERHOEVER carried out an in-depth legal examination.
The final message was delivered by Nicaragua’s ambassador to Paris and UNESCO, A. SERRANO, who emphasised the peace efforts that the people of this country are trying to make despite the many difficulties in which they live.
The curtain has come down.
The drama that was portrayed leaves no room for superficial disquisitions on the democratic or non-democratic nature of the Sandinista ‘regime’ or the ‘ideological’ presence of the Cuban workers.
We feel a sense of shame at what has been written, in the West, about the Nicaraguan experiment, and we believe the truest comment was summed up by the Uruguayan writer Eduardo GALEANO: ‘Nicaragua is not attacked because it is not democratic, but so that it is not. One does not attack Nicaragua because it is a military dictatorship, but so that it becomes one. One does not attack Nicaragua because it is a satellite country of a great power, but so that it becomes one again’.
in: Peuples/Popoli/Peoples/Pueblos, n. 6 (February 1985)