Nicaraguan Contras
Participant in 1980s Nicaraguan Civil War
Nicaraguan Contra militia
Active	1979–1990
Ideology	Various
Leaders	FDN – Commandante Franklin ARDE Frente Sur – Cupula of 6 Regional Commandantes YATAMA – Commandante Blas Misura – Steadman Fagoth
Area of operations	All rural areas of Nicaragua with the exclusion of Pacific Coast, from Rio Coco in the north to Rio San Juan in the south
Strength	23,000
Allies	United States
Opponents	FSLN
Battles/wars	Major operations at La Trinidad, Rama highway, and Siuna and La Bonanza. Numerous government bases overrun throughout Jinotega, Matagalpa, Zelaya Norte, Zelaya Sur, Chontales, and Rio San Juan provinces.

The contras (some references use the capitalized form, "Contras") is a label given to the various rebel groups opposing Nicaragua's FSLN (Sandinista National Liberation Front) Sandinista Junta of National Reconstruction government following the July 1979 overthrow of Anastasio Somoza Debayle's dictatorship. Among the separate contra groups, the Nicaraguan Democratic Force (FDN) emerged as by far the largest. In 1987, virtually all contra organizations were united, at least nominally, into the Nicaraguan Resistance.

From an early stage, the rebels received decisive financial and military support from the United States government, initially supplemented by the Argentine dictatorship of the time. After U.S. support was banned by Congress, the Reagan administration tried to covertly continue contra aid.

The term "contra" comes from the Spanish contra, which means against but in this case is short for la contrarrevolucion, in English "the counter-revolution". Some rebels disliked being called contras, feeling that it defined their cause only in negative terms, or implied a desire to restore the old order. Rebel fighters usually referred to themselves as comandos ("commandos"); peasant sympathizers also called the rebels los primos ("the cousins"). From the mid-1980s, as the Reagan administration and the rebels sought to portray the movement as the "democratic resistance," members started describing themselves as la resistencia.

During the war against the Sandinista government, the contras carried out many violations of human rights, and evidence suggests that these were systematically commited as an element of warfare strategy. Contra supporters in Miami and the White House often tried to downplay these violations, or countered that the Sandinista government carried out much more. In particular, the Reagan administration engaged in a campaign to alter public opinion on the contras which has been denoted as "white propaganda".

History[link]

Origins[link]

The Contras were not a monolithic group, but a combination of three distinct elements of Nicaraguan society:^[1]

• Ex-guardsmen of the Nicaraguan National Guard and other right wing figures who had fought for Nicaragua's ex-dictator Somoza^[2] – these later were especially found in the military wing of the FDN.^[3] After the Guard's disbandment, they formed groups such as the Fifteenth of September Legion, the Anti-Sandinista Guerrilla Special Forces, and the National Army of Liberation.^{[citation needed]} Initially, these groups were small and conducted little active raiding into Nicaragua.^[4]

• Anti-Somozistas who had supported the revolution but felt betrayed by the Sandinista government^[2] – e.g. Edgar Chamorro, prominent member of the political directorate of the FDN,^[5] or Jose Francisco Cardenal, who had briefly served in the Council of State before leaving Nicaragua out of disagreement with the Sandinista government's policies and founding the Nicaraguan Democratic Union (UDN), an opposition group of Nicaraguan exiles in Miami.^[6] Another example are the MILPAS (Milicias Populares Anti-Sandinistas), peasant militias led by disillusioned Sandinista veterans from the northern mountains. Founded by Pedro Joaquín González (known as "Dimas"), the Milpistas were also known as chilotes (green corn). Even after his death, other MILPAS bands sprouted during 1980–1981. The Milpistas were composed largely of the campesino (peasant) highlanders and rural workers who would later form the rank and file of the rebellion.^{[7][8][9][10]}

• Nicaraguans who had avoided direct involvement in the revolution but opposed the Sandinistas' increasingly anti-democratic regime.^[2]

Main groups[link]

The CIA and Argentine intelligence, seeking to unify the anti-Sandinista cause before initiating large-scale aid, persuaded the 15 September Legion, the UDN and several former smaller groups to merge in August 1981 as the Nicaraguan Democratic Force (Fuerza Democrática Nicaragüense, FDN).^{[citation needed]} Although the FDN had its roots in two groups made up of former National Guardsmen (of the Somoza regime), its joint political directorate was led by businessman and former anti-Somoza activist Adolfo Calero Portocarrero.^[11] Edgar Chamorro later stated that there was strong opposition within the UDN against working with the Guardsmen and that the merging only took place because of insistence by the CIA.^[12]

Based in Honduras, Nicaragua's northern neighbor, under the command of former National Guard Colonel Enrique Bermúdez, the new FDN commenced to draw in other smaller insurgent forces in the north.^{[citation needed]} Largely financed, trained, equipped, armed and organized by the U.S.,^[13] it emerged as the largest and most active contra group.^[14]

In April 1982, Edén Pastora (Comandante Cero), one of the heroes in the fight against Somoza, organized the Sandinista Revolutionary Front (FRS) – embedded in the Democratic Revolutionary Alliance (ARDE)^[15] – and declared war on the Sandinista government.^[16] Himself a former Sandinista who had held several high posts in the government, he had resigned apruptly in 1981 and defected,^[16] believing that the newly found power had corrupted the Sandinista's original ideas.^[15] A popular and charismatic leader, Pastora initially saw his group develop quickly.^[16] He confined himself to operate in the southern part of Nicaragua;^[17] after a press conference he was holding on 30 May 1984 was bombed, he "voluntarily withdrew" from the contra struggle.^[15]

A third force, Misurasata, appeared among the Miskito, Sumo and Rama Amerindian peoples of Nicaragua's Atlantic coast, who in December 1981 found themselves in conflict with the authorities following the government's efforts to nationalize Indian land. In the course of this conflict, forced removal of at least 10,000 Indians to relocation centers in the interior of the country and subsequent burning of some villages took place.^[18] The Misurasata movement split in 1983, with the breakaway Misura group of Stedman Fagoth Muller allying itself more closely with the FDN, and the rest accommodating themselves with the Sandinista government.^{[citation needed]} A subsequent autonomy statute in September 1987 largely defused Miskito resistance.

Unity efforts[link]

U.S. officials were active in attempting to unite the Contra groups. In June 1985 most of the groups reorganized as the United Nicaraguan Opposition (UNO), under the leadership of Adolfo Calero, Arturo Cruz and Alfonso Robelo, all originally supporters of the anti-Somoza revolution. After UNO's dissolution early in 1987, the Nicaraguan Resistance (RN) was organized along similar lines in May.

U.S. military and financial assistance[link]

In front of the International Court of Justice, Nicaragua claimed that the contras altogether were a creation of the U.S.^[19] This claim was rejected.^[20] The evidence of a very close relationship between the contras and the U.S. was overwhelming and incontrovertible, though.^[21] The U.S. played a very large role in financing, training, arming, and advising the contras over a long period, and the contras only became capable of carrying out significant military operations as a result of this support.^[22]

Prelude to Contra War[link]

As explained by Robert Pastor, President Carter's National Security Advisor on Latin America, there was complete agreement that the U.S.-trained National Guard must be kept intact and it was not until June 29, 1979, shortly before the end of Somoza's rule, that anyone in N.S.C. meetings "suggested the central U.S. objective was something other than preventing a Sandinista victory." By then it was finally realized that means must be sought "to moderate the FSLN," who could not be barred from power, as hoped.^[23] Pastor questioned "whether one could realistically expect to win over the military leaders of the Sandinistas in the last days of their revolution after they had been fighting US imperialism for two decades." He argued that "As long as there was any possibility of placing a buffer between them and exclusive power, should we not reach for it?"^[24]

National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski argued that "we have to demonstrate that we are still the decisive force in determining the political outcomes in Central America."^[25]

In a June 30 cable to Washington on the subject of "National Guard Survival," Ambassedor Pezzullo noted that with "careful orchestration we have a better than even chance of preserving enough of the [National Guard] to maintain order and hold the FSLN in check after Somoza resigns," "even though this successor government would smack somewhat of Somocismo sin Somoza," he added on July 6. "What follows after Somoza's departure is too uncertain as yet," Ambassador Vaky cabled to Pezzullo from Washington a few days later. "Hence Somoza should stay in place until this is determined."^[26]

At the time, the National Guard was carrying out large scale attacks against the population, leaving tens of thousands killed. In a cable to Washington on July 6, Pezzullo recommended that the bombardments be continued: "I believe it ill-advised to go to Somoza and ask for a bombing halt."^[27] He explained, "Air power is the only effective force the GN has to combat the FSLN Force which is capturing more towns daily and clearly has the momentum."^[28]

"The United States has always intervened when we Nicaraguans have tried to define our own future," said a wealthy young businessman. "Now it is willing to see Nicaragua bombed back into the Stone Age in order to maintain its system of domination."^[29]

As the Sandinista forces entered the capital, the Carter administration "began setting the stage for a counter revolution," Peter Kornbluh observes.^[30] On July 19, a U.S. plane disguised with Red Cross markings evacuated the remnants of the National Guard to Miami. The old Guardia was then built into the counter revolutionary force known as the 'Contras' by the C.I.A. and Argentine trainers.^[31]

Political background[link]

Ronald Reagan, who had assumed the American presidency in January 1981, accused the Sandinistas of importing Cuban-style socialism and aiding leftist guerrillas in El Salvador.^{[citation needed]} On 4 January 1982, Reagan signed the top secret National Security Decision Directive 17 (NSDD-17),^[32] giving the CIA the authority to recruit and support the contras with $19 million in military aid. The effort to support the contras was one component of the Reagan Doctrine, which called for providing military support to movements opposing Soviet-supported, communist governments.

By December 1981, however, the U.S. had already begun to support armed opponents of the Sandinista regime.^[33] From the beginning, the CIA was in charge.^[34] To arm, clothe, feed, and supervise the contras^[35] would become the most ambitious paramilitary and political action operation mounted by the agency in nearly a decade.^[36]

In the fiscal year 1984, the U.S. congress approved $24 million in contra aid.^[37] However, since the contras failed to win widespread popular support or military victories within Nicaragua,^[38] since opinion polls indicated that a majority of the U.S. public was not supportive of the contras,^[39] and since the Reagan administration lost much of its support regarding its contra policy within Congress after disclosure of CIA mining of Nicaraguan ports,^[40] Congress cut off all funds for the contras in 1985 by the third Boland Amendment.^[37] The Boland Amendment had first been passed by Congress in December 1982. At this time, it only outlawed U.S. assistance to the contras for the purpose of overthrowing the Nicaraguan government, while allowing assistance for other purposes.^[41] In October 1984, it was amended to forbid action by not only the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency but all U.S. government agencies.

The case for support of the contras, however, continued to be made in Washington, D.C. by both the Reagan administration and the Heritage Foundation, which argued that support for the contras would counter Soviet influence in Nicaragua.^[42]

U.S. Pretexts for War[link]

It was revealed that Washington's intention was to provoke an internal and external violent response from the Sandinistas to create a pretext for continuing the terrorist war. David MacMichael, former CIA analyst on Nicaragua, testified at the World Court hearings: "The principal actions to be undertaken were paramilitary which hopefully would provoke cross-border attacks by Nicaraguan forces and thus serve to demonstrate Nicaragua's aggressive nature and possibly call into play the Organization of American States' provisions (regarding collective self-defense). It was hoped that the Nicaraguan Government would clamp down on civil liberties within Nicaragua itself, arresting its opposition, so demonstrating its allegedly inherent totalitarian nature and thus increase domestic dissent within the country, and further that there would be reaction against United States citizens, particularly against United States diplomatic personnel within Nicaragua and thus to demonstrate the hostility of Nicaragua towards the United States."^[43]

A joint State Department-Defense Department document that was distributed to those who attended the White House ceremony on December 10, 1986 marking International Human Rights Day, states that: "In the American continent, there is no regime more barbaric and bloody, no regime that violates human rights in a manner more constant and permanent, than the Sandinista regime."

Human Rights Watch rebutted the administration's assertions, stating that:

"Whatever the sins of the Sandinistas -- and they are real -- this is nonsense. Between 40,000 and 50,000 Salvadoran civilians were murdered by government forces and death squads...during the 1980s. A similar number died during Somoza's last year or so in Nicaragua, mostly in indiscriminate attacks on the civilian population by the National Guard. The number of civilian noncombatants killed by the armed forces in Guatemala during the 1980s cannot be known, but it is probably the highest in the hemisphere. As to Nicaragua, taking into account all of the civilian noncombatant deaths attributable to government forces in the more than seven years since the Sandinistas consolidated power, it is difficult to count a total of more than 300 of which the largest number of victims were Miskito Indians on the Atlantic Coast in 1981 and 1982. [Furthermore], Americas Watch knows of two cases of [Nicaraguan] political prisoners in the sense in which that term is used in the United States. [one of these] had been arrested for evading the military draft. He was subsequently released without charges and is not presently serving in the military. Also at this time, Amnesty International has no currently adopted "prisoner of conscience" in Nicaragua under the Sandinistas."^[44]

The World Court dismissed the administration's allegations that the Nicaraguan government was supplying arms to the Salvadoran rebels fighting the U.S. backed Himmler-style regime, concluding that: "The evidence is insufficient to satisfy the Court that, since the early months of 1981, assistance has continued to reach the Salvadorian armed opposition from the territory of Nicaragua on any significant scale, or that the Government of Nicaragua was responsible for any flow of arms at either period."^[45]

The Sandinistas were often described as "Marxist-Leninist" by the Reagan administration and much of the major media although their policies did not match the definition. The Ortega administration was allied with Fidel Castro's Cuba but unlike Cuba, Nicaragua under the FSLN had a "mixed economy", multiple opposition parties, a freely elected government, and a vocal opposition press, including La Prensa, a National Endowment for Democracy (NED) sponsored newspaper that was openly supportive of the Contras and regularly called for the overthrow of the government.

In spite of the 1984 Sandinista electoral victory being declared "free, fair, and hotly contested" the United States continued its terrorist war against the nation.^[46][47] The Reagan administration criticized the elections as a "sham" based on the charge that Arturo Cruz, the candidate nominated by the Coordinadora Democrática Nicaragüense, comprising three rightwing political parties, did not participate in the elections. However, the administration privately argued against Cruz's participation for fear his involvement would legitimize the elections. U.S. officials admitted to the New York Times that "The Administration never contemplated letting Cruz stay in the race because then the Sandinistas could justifiably claim that the elections were legitimate, making it much harder for the United States to oppose the Nicaraguan Government."^[48]

While observing the electoral process in 1984, the Latin American Studies Association (LASA) described Nicaragua's new political and economic system: "Nicaragua's poor majority would have access to, and be the primary beneficiaries of, public programs. In the economic arena it implies redistribution of access to wealth and public services. In the political arena, mass organizations created during the struggle against Somoza and afterward involve very large numbers of people in the decisions that affect their lives. Economic elites can survive in the new system, and even make private profits, if they recognize the interests of the majority population and collaborate with the state in meeting the majority's needs; but they will no longer be allowed to rule."^[49]

On June 26, 1986, the Sandinista government suspended the publication of La Prensa citing an oped in the Washington Post by La Prensa editor Jaime Chamorro which sought to rebut the arguments of members of Congress who were opposed to the $100 milion in Contra aid. Chamorro also asserted that there were 10,000 political prisoners in Nicaragua. Vice President Ramirez informed Human Rights Watch that the decision to suspend La Prensa's publication could be reversed under the condition that the paper clearly dissociate itself from the United States policy supporting the Contras.^[50]

The populist nature of the Sandinista government distressed many in the Reagan administration, who then claimed the country was a key Cold War battleground and a Soviet proxy state.

In contrast to the administration's warnings of a 'Soviet beachhead' in Nicaragua, the June 1984 Bureau of Intelligence and Research report commissioned by the State Department, "Soviet Attitudes Towards, Aid to, and Contacts with Central American Revolutionaries," reported that "Soviet military aid to Nicaragua is unobtrusive and sometimes ephemeral." The author of the report, Dr. Carl Jacobsen found that "the limited amounts of truly modern equipment acquired by the Sandinistas . . . came from Western Europe not the Eastern bloc." The report concluded that "all too many US claims proved hollow" and that "the scope and nature of the Kremlin's intrusion are far short of justifying the President's exaggerated alarms."^[51][52] Furthermore, one classified CIA assessment written after the Hind helicopters were delivered in November 1984 reported that "The overall military buildup is primarily defensive-oriented, and much of the recent effort has been devoted to improving counter-insurgency capabilities."^[53]

On May 1, 1985 President Reagan announced that his administration perceived Nicaragua to be "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States," and declared a "national emergency" and a trade embargo against Nicaragua to "deal with that threat."^[54] After the U.S. enforced the embargo, Nicaragua was isolated from the West, forcing the Sandinistas to rely more on Eastern bloc military and economic assistance but Moscow declined to offer the quantity of aid it provided to close communist allies.^[55]

U.S. allied right wing Latin Envoys opposed the embargo, arguing that it made Nicaragua move closer to the Soviet Union. The Mexican official commented, "This move just cuts off more options for the Sandinistas. By closing doors to the Sandinistas, you only make them more desperate. What they need are more doors, political, economic--everything." One of the South American diplomats observed, "I think Ortega is a desperate man and when a country is desperate it looks for the first table from which it can eat. It does not matter then if the table is in Moscow or Havana or Prague."^[56]

U.S. Imperialism[link]

Robert Pastor, President Carter's National Security Advisor on Latin America explained why the administration had to back Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza until he could no longer be sustained to then move to bar the FSLN from power through the "preservation of existing institutions, especially the National Guard,"^[57] even though it had been massacring the population "with a brutality a nation usually reserves for its enemy.": "The United States did not want to control Nicaragua or the other nations in the region, but it also did not want to allow developments to get out of control. It wanted Nicaraguans to act independently, except when doing so would affect U.S. interests adversely."^[58]

Shortly before Somoza fled to Miami, National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski declared that "we have to demonstrate that we are still the decisive force in determining the political outcomes in Central America."^[59]

BBC News put the war "in context": "The Sandinistas had begun redistributing property and made notable progress in the sphere of education. But the US regarded them with suspicion, fearing their policies were hostile to American interests. Former Secretary of State George Schultz is reported to have warned, in March 1986, that if the Sandinistas "succeed in consolidating their power," then "all the countries in Latin America, who all face serious internal economic problems, will see radical forces emboldened to exploit these problems".^[60]

In "Nicaragua: The Threat of a Good Example?", Oxfam, the British charitable relief and development organization observes:

"Oxfam's long-term development work is most likely to succeed where governments are genuinely committed to the needs of the poor majority. Rarely is this the case. Nicaragua stands out because of the positive climate for development based on people's active participation, which Oxfam has encountered over the past five years [i.e. since 1979 under the Sandinista government]. Since 1979 the scope for development has been enormous, with remarkable progress achieved in health, literacy and a more equitable distribution of resources...The new Government of National Reconstruction stressed its desire to develop a mixed economy and political pluralism in a country that had no tradition of democracy or free elections. Great importance was also attached to achieving a high degree of national self-sufficiency and an independent, non-aligned foreign policy. This radically new focus of social policy in Nicaragua towards the needs of the poor presented enormous scope for Oxfam's work. In addition to locally-based projects, Oxfam was now able to support nationwide initiatives to tackle problems rooted in poverty. The concept of actively involving people in development through community organisations is neither new nor radical, but widely recognised to be a precondition for successful development. However, as the World Bank points out: "Governments..vary greatly in the commitment of their political leadership to improving the condition of the people and encouraging their active participation in the development process." From Oxfam's experience of working in seventy-six developing countries, Nicaragua was to prove exceptional in the strength of that Government commitment."^[61]

One of the primary goals of the United States was to undermine Nicaragua's successful independent development and democratic reforms, fearing that the "threat of a good example" would become an "exporter of revolution", by demonstration.

This fear was expressed by Secretary of State George Shultz in March 1986, when he warned that if the Sandinistas "succeed in consolidating their power," then "all the countries in Latin America, who all face serious internal economic problems, will see radical forces emboldened to exploit these problems."^[60] "Nicaragua is the cancer, and we must cut it out," Shultz said in a speech at Kansas State University.^[62]

General John Galvin, commander of U.S. forces in Latin America explained why enlarging armies in neighboring client states and stationing more U.S. troops in the region would not counter the "threat of a good example" in Nicaragua: 'The Sandinistas would attack with ideological "subversion" rather than conventional warfare, and "You cannot contain that by putting military forces on their border."^[63]

Across the establishment it was agreed that the US must "contain Nicaragua." The New York Times reported that U.S. military maneuvers near Nicaragua were "intended to deter the Sandinista Government in Managua from exporting its leftist ideology."^[64]

U.S. allies in Honduras were particularly concerned. "We don't have a wall to stop Sandinista ideology or subversives," complains William Hall Rivera, the Honduran president's chief of staff. "It won't be a fight over land, but over minds." He adds: "We'll need a Marshall Plan."

The Wall Street Journal reporter, Clifford Krauss, describes such fears throughout the region. But "things could be worse. Left wing movements in Central America have lost strength over the past few years, and revolution doesnt seem to be brewing in the region."^[65] - Referring to the success of U.S.-run state terror in El Salvador and Guatemala which decapitated the trade unions and "popular organizations".^[66]

A Department of Defense official informed the press of part of their "containment" strategy for preventing the spread of the Nicaraguan "cancer": "Those 2,000 hard-core guys could keep some pressure on the Nicaraguan government, force them to use their economic resources for the military and prevent them from solving their economic problems--and that's a plus. Anything that puts pressure on the Sandinista regime, calls attention to the lack of democracy and prevents the Sandinistas from solving their economic problems is a plus."

Administration officials told the Los Angeles Times that they were content to see the contras debilitate the Sandinistas by forcing them to divert scarce resources toward the war and away from social programs.^[67]

Furthermore, the C.I.A. instructed the Contras to destroy and sabotage economic and social targets such as lumber yards, coffee processing plants, electrical generating stations, farms, cooperatives, food storage facilities, health centers, including a particular effort to dusrupt the coffee harvests through attacks on coffee cooperatives and on vehicles carrying volunteer coffee harvesters. They also attacked and intimidated civilians deemed to be contributors to the country's economy such as telephone workers, coffee pickers, teachers, and technicians as well as civilians who participated or cooperated in government or community programs such as distribution of subsidized food products, rural cooperatives, and education.^{[68][69][70][71]}

Thomas Carothers, who describes his stand as 'Neo-Reaganite', is one of the leading international experts on democracy promotion initiatives and U.S. foreign policy. He's currently the vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace where he is the founder and director of the Democracy and Rule of Law Program. He writes from the perspective of an insider as well as a scholar. While serving in the State Department, he worked with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) on "democracy enhancement" programs in Latin America from 1985-1988.

In conclusion, Carothers writes:

"The underlying U.S. goal is maintaining the basic societal orders of particular Latin American countries approximately as they are ensuring that the economics are not drastically rearranged and that the power relations of the various social sectors are not turned upside down..The underlying objective is to maintain the basic order of what, historically at least, are quite undemocratic societies. The deep fear in the United States government of populist-based change in Latin America with all its implications for upsetting established economic and political orders and heading off in a leftist direction leads to an emphasis on incremental change from the top down.^[72] The Reagan administration came to adopt pro-democracy policies as a means of relieving pressure for more radical change, but inevitably sought only limited, top-down forms of democratic change that did not risk upsetting the traditional structures of power with which the United States has long been allied."^[73]

Illegal covert operations[link]

With Congress blocking further contra aid, the Reagan administration sought to arrange funding and military supplies by means of third countries and private sources.^[74] Between 1984 and 1986, $34 million from third countries and $2.7 million from private sources were raised this way.^[74] The secret contra assistance was run by the National Security Council, with officer Lt. Col. Oliver North in charge.^[75] With the third-party funds, North created an organization called "The Enterprise" which served as the secret arm of the NSC staff and had its own airplanes, pilots, airfield, ship, operatives and secret Swiss bank accounts.^[74] It also received assistance from personnel from other government agencies, especially from CIA personnel in Central America.^[74] This operation functioned, however, without any of the accountability required of U.S. government activities.^[74] The Enterprise's efforts culminated in the Iran-Contra Affair of 1986–1987, which facilitated contra funding through the proceeds of arms sales to Iran.

According to the National Security Archive, Oliver North had been in contact with Manuel Noriega, the military leader of Panama later convicted on drug charges, whom he personally met. The issue of drug money and its importance in funding the Nicaraguan conflict was the subject of various reports and publications. The contras were funded by drug trafficking, of which the USA was aware.^[76] Senator John Kerry's 1988 Committee on Foreign Relations report on Contra drug links concluded that "senior U.S. policy makers were not immune to the idea that drug money was a perfect solution to the Contras' funding problems."^[77]

The Reagan administration's support for the Contras continued to stir controversy well into the 1990s. In August 1996, San Jose Mercury News reporter Gary Webb published a series titled Dark Alliance, alleging that the contras contributed to the rise of crack cocaine in California. [1] [2]

Propaganda[link]

During the time congress blocked funding for the contras, the Reagan government engaged in a campaign to alter public opinion and change the vote in congress on contra aid.^[78] For this purpose, the NSC established an interagency working group which in turn coordinated the the Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean (S/LPD), which conducted the campaign.^[79]
The S/LPD produced and widely disseminated a variety of pro-contra publications, arranged speeches and press conferences.^[80] It also disseminated "white propaganda" – pro-contra newspaper articles by paid consultants who did not disclose their connection to the Reagan administration.^[81]
On top of that, Oliver North helped Carl Channell's tax-exempt organization, the "National Endowment for the Preservation of Liberty", to raise $10 million, by arranging numerous briefings for groups of potential contributors at the premises of the White House and by facilitating private visits and photo sessions with president Reagan for major contributors.^[82] Channell, in turn, used part of that money to run a series of television advertisements directed at home districts of congressmen considered to be swing votes on contra aid.^[82] Out of the $10 million raised, more than $1 million was spent on pro-contra publicity.^[83]

"If you look at it as a whole," a senior S/LPD official said, "the Office of Public Diplomacy was carrying out a huge psychological operation of the kind the military conducts to influence a population in denied or enemy territory."^[84][85][86]

International Court of Justice ruling[link]

In 1984, the Sandinista government filed a suit in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the United States (Nicaragua v. United States), which resulted in a 1986 judgment against the United States. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. Regarding the alleged human rights violations by the contras, however, the ICJ took the view that the U.S. could only be held accountable for them if it would have been proven that the U.S. had effective control of the contra operations resulting in these alleged violations.^[87] Nevertheless, the ICJ found that the U.S. encouraged acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law by producing the manual Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare (Operaciones sicológicas en guerra de guerrillas) and disseminating it to the contras.^[88] The manual, amongst other things, advised on how to rationalize killings of civilians^[89] and recommended to hire professional killers for specific selective tasks.^[90]

The United States, which did not participate in the merits phase of the proceedings, maintained that the ICJ's power did not supersede the Constitution of the United States and argued that the court did not seriously consider the Nicaraguan role in El Salvador, while it accused Nicaragua of actively supporting armed groups there, specifically in the form of supply of arms.^[91] The ICJ had found that evidence of a responsibility of the Nicaraguan government in this matter was insufficient.^[92] The U.S. argument was affirmed, however, by the dissenting opinion of ICJ member U.S. Judge Schwebel,^[93] who concluded that in supporting the contras, the U.S. acted lawfully in collective self-defence in El Salvador's support.^[94] The U.S. blocked enforcement of the ICJ judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation.^[95] The Nicaraguan government finally withdrew the complaint from the court in September 1992 (under the later, post-FSLN, government of Violeta Chamorro), following a repeal of the law requiring the country to seek compensation.^[96]

Human rights violations[link]

Edgar Chamorro, a former Contra and member of the FDN's political directorate who later became a critic of the Contras, stated that during his time with the Contras, he frequently received reports about atrocities committed by Contra troops against civilians and against Sandinista prisoners: "As time went on, I became more and more troubled by the frequent reports I received of atrocities committed by our troops against civilians and against Sandinista prisoners. The atrocities I had heard about were not isolated incidents, but reflected a consistent pattern of behaviour by our troops. There were unit commanders who openly bragged about their murders, mutilations, etc."^[97]

A Sandinista militiaman interviewed by The Guardian stated that Contra rebels committed these atrocities against Sandinista prisoners after a battle at a Sandinista rural outpost: "Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off. They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit."^[98]

Americas Watch – which subsequently became part of Human Rights Watch – accused the Contras of^[99]:

• targeting health care clinics and health care workers for assassination^[100]
• kidnapping civilians^[101]
• torturing civilians^[102]
• executing civilians, including children, who were captured in combat^[103]
• raping women^[100]
• indiscriminately attacking civilians and civilian houses^[101]
• seizing civilian property^[100]
• burning civilian houses in captured towns.^[100]

Human Rights Watch released a report on the situation in 1989, which stated: "[The] contras were major and systematic violators of the most basic standards of the laws of armed conflict, including by launching indiscriminate attacks on civilians, selectively murdering non-combatants, and mistreating prisoners."^[104]

Similarly, the Catholic Institute for International Relations (CIIR, now known as "Progressio"), a human rights organization which identifies itself with liberation theology, had summarized Contra operating procedures in their 1987 human rights report: "The record of the contras in the field, as opposed to their official professions of democratic faith, is one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping."^[105] Earlier, in December 1984, the Council on Hemispheric Affairs had issued a report condemning the Contras and the United States government as being among the worst human rights violators in Latin America: "The CIA directed forces are among the worst human rights violators in Latin America, responsible for systematic brutality against a civilian population. For it's critical role in facilitating the Contra violence, the [United States] Administration must share responsibility as a hemispheric violator of human rights. The Contras have killed, tortured, raped, mutilated and abducted hundreds of civilians they suspect of sympathizing with the Sandinistas. Victims have included peasants, teachers, doctors and agricultural workers."^[106]

Human rights violations as a strategy[link]

A fact finding mission of 1985 – sponsored by the International Human Rights Law Group and the Washington Office on Latin America, and carried out independently of any Nicaraguan government interference or direction - found that the contras with some frequency deliberately targeted Nicaraguan citizens in acts of terroristic violence.^[107]

An influential report on Contra atrocities was issued by lawyer Reed Brody shortly before the 1985 U.S. Congressional vote on Contra aid. It disclosed a "distinct pattern" of abuses by the contras, including: "attacks on purely civilian targets resulting in the killing of unarmed men, woman, children and the elderly; – premeditated acts of brutality including rapes, beatings, mutilations and torture; – and individual and mass kidnappings of civilians for the purpose of forced recruitment into the Contra forces and the creation of a hostage refugee population in Honduras; – assaults on economic and social targets such as farms, cooperatives and on vehicles carrying volunteer coffee harvesters; – intimidation of civilians who participate or cooperate in government or community programs such as distribution of subsidized food products, education and local self-defense militias; – and kidnapping, intimidation, and even murder of religious leaders who support the government, including priests and clergy- trained lay pastors."^[108]

Similarly, Human Rights Watch pointed out that "the Contras systematically engage in violent abuses... so prevalent that these may be said to be their principal means of waging war" in a 1989 report.^[109]

In his affidavit to the World Court, former contra Edgar Chamorro testified that "The CIA did not discourage such tactics. To the contrary, the Agency severely criticized me when I admitted to the press that the FDN had regularly kidnapped and executed agrarian reform workers and civilians. We were told that the only way to defeat the Sandinistas was to...kill, kidnap, rob and torture..."^[110]

These deliberate acts of violence against civilians were acknowledged by the CIA as early as late 1983, when Duane Clarridge, Latin America division chief of the CIA’s Directorate for Operations, reported in a secret briefing to the Senate subcommittee that the contras had murdered "civilians and Sandinista officials in the provinces, as well as heads of cooperatives, nurses, doctors and judges." However, he maintained that "these events don’t constitute assassinations because as far as we are concerned assassinations are only those of heads of state. I leave definitions to the politicians. After all, this is a war — a paramilitary operation."^[111]

In 1987, "Gen. John Galvin, leader of the U.S. Southern Command, told a House subcommittee...that the contra rebels fighting to overthrow the Nicaraguan government have a better chance of winning than they did just a few months ago and attributed his growing optimism to the contras' new strategy of attacking civilian targets instead of soldiers. Testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Western Hemisphere subcommittee, Galvin said, "The contras have a fighting chance if we sustain them" with continued military aid. "It's getting better. In the past few months, I'm more hopeful than I was before." Asked after the hearing what the contras have achieved the past few months, Galvin replied, "Lots of victories. They're going after soft targets. They're not trying to duke it out with the Sandinistas directly."^[112] Likewise, a U.S. military analyst was quoted by the Washington Post in 1987 in acknowledging that the contras were "still going after small, soft targets like farmers' cooperatives."^[113]

State Department spokesman Charles Redman, at a July 1, 1986 press briefing, defended SOUTHCOM's strategy, asserting that "These cooperatives, this was what was attacked in Nicaragua, often have a dual military-economic purpose.."

Responding to Redman's statement, Americas Watch observed: "The State Department statement would do credit to George Orwell's Ministry of Truth. It would be interesting to know, however, whether it considers how its theory that a cooperative has a "dual military-economic purpose" and, therefore, is a legitimate target for attack, might be applied, for example, to an unfortified Israeli kibbutz where attackers kill and injure children, burn houses and kidnap civilians. Is it now U.S. policy that such an attack would be legitimate?"^[114]

New Republic Editor Michael Kinsley, regarded as the spokesperson of the left in mainstreem discussion, argued that critics should not simply dismiss State Department justifications for death squad terror against "soft targets": "The State Department has defended bloody contra attacks on government-sponsored farm cooperatives, saying that these civilian facilities have military aspects. And, of course, that's true. In a Marxist society geared up for war, there are no clear lines separating officials, soldiers and civilians. A guerrilla struggle can't be won by attacking only card-carrying Sandinistas. The goal is to undermine morale and confidence in the government: a perfectly legitimate goal if you believe in the cause, but impossible to achieve without vast civilian suffering. Any sensible policy must meet the test of cost-benefit analysis. The amount of blood and misery that will be poured in, and the likelihood that democracy will emerge at the other end."^[115]

[edit] Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare

The CIA manual, "Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare" (Operaciones sicológicas en guerra de guerrillas), had been written in 1983 to be used by the contras.^[116] The manual talks about killing civilians who try to leave an occupied town and to rationalize their killing^[117], hiring professional assassins^[118], blackmailing citizens into working for the contras, and inciting violence during demonstrations.^[119]

The International Court of Justice ruled on 27 June 1986 that by disseminating the manual to the contras, the United States of America had "encouraged ... acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law."^[120] Americas Watch had come to a similar conclusion in 1985.^[121]

Controversy[link]

US news media published several articles accusing Americas Watch and other bodies of ideological bias and unreliable reporting. It alleged that Americas Watch gave too much credence to alleged Contra abuses and systematically tried to discredit Nicaraguan human rights groups such as the Permanent Commission on Human Rights, which blamed the major human rights abuses on the Sandinistas.^[122]

In 1985, the Wall Street Journal reported:

Three weeks ago, Americas Watch issued a report on human rights abuses in Nicaragua. One member of the Permanent Commission for Human Rights commented on the Americas Watch report and its chief investigator Juan Mendez: "The Sandinistas are laying the groundwork for a totalitarian society here and yet all Mendez wanted to hear about were abuses by the contras. How can we get people in the U.S. to see what's happening here when so many of the groups who come down are pro-Sandinista?"^[123]

Human Rights Watch, the umbrella organization of Americas Watch, replied to these allegations: "Almost invariably, U.S. pronouncements on human rights exaggerated and distorted the real human rights violations of the Sandinista regime, and exculpated those of the U.S.-supported insurgents, known as the contras.... The Bush administration is responsible for these abuses, not only because the contras are, for all practical purposes, a U.S. force, but also because the Bush administration has continued to minimize and deny these violations, and has refused to investigate them seriously."^[124]

Military successes and election of Violeta Chamorro[link]

By 1986, the contras were besieged by charges of corruption, human-rights abuses and military ineptitude.^[125] A much-vaunted early 1986 offensive never materialized, and Contra forces were largely reduced to isolated acts of terrorism.^[126] In October 1987, however, the contras staged a successful attack in southern Nicaragua.^[127] Then on 21 December 1987, the FDN launched attacks at La Bonanza, La Siuna, and La Rosita in Zelaya province, resulting in heavy fighting.^[128] ARDE Frente Sur attacked at El Almendro and along the Rama road.^{[128][129][130]} These large scale raids mainly became possible as the contras were able to use US-provided Redeye missiles against Sandinista Mi-24 helicopter gunships, which had been supplied by the Soviets.^[131][132] Nevertheless, the Contras remained tenuously encamped within Honduras and weren't able to hold Nicaraguan territory.^[133][134]

There were isolated protests among the population against the draft implemented by the Sandinista government, which even resulted in full-blown street clashes in Masaya in 1988.^[135] However, polls showed the Sandinista government still enjoyed strong support from Nicaraguans.^[136] Political opposition groups were splintered and the Contras began to experience defections, although United States aid maintained them as a viable military force.^[137][138]

After a cutoff in US military support and with both sides facing international pressure to bring an end to the conflict, the Contras agreed to negotiations with the FSLN. Despite opposition from then-US President Bush five Central American Presidents, including Ortega, agreed to cooperate to disband the Contras beginning in December 1989 with the assumption of free and fair elections in Nicaragua in February 1990. This peace allowed the Nicaraguan elections of February 1990 in which Violeta Chamorro and her party the UNO won an upset victory 55% to 41% over Daniel Ortega with Chamorro winning nearly 68% of the rural vote. This in spite of the fact that the estimated 500,000 refugees created by the war living outside Nicaragua were not allowed to cast absentee ballots.^[139] Although polls leading up to the election indicated an FSLN victory the UNO scored an upset due to popular discontent with the draft and the perception that voting in the UNO would lead to a permanent peace.^[140]

The upset can be explained in that during the run-up to the elections, the Bush administration continued the strategy of trying to terrorize the population into voting the government out. The C.I.A. manual, "Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare", instructs the Contras that "If the government police cannot put an end to the guerrilla activities, the population will lose confidence in the government, which has the inherent mission of guaranteeing the safety of citizens."^[141] "The United States wanted the contras kept intact in their Honduran bases to ensure Nicaraguan compliance with commitments to democratic and electoral change", the Washington Post reported.^[142] Boston Globe editor Randolph Ryan observed, Washington is sending "an implicit message..to the Nicaraguan electorate: If you want a secure peace, vote for the opposition."^[143]

The Canadian Observer Mission's four-week investigation of the electoral process in Nicaragua reported that the U.S. "is doing everything it can to disrupt the elections set for next year": "American intervention is the main obstacle to the attainment of free and fair elections in Nicaragua". It added further that the Contras are "waging a campaign of intimidation with the clear message,`if you support the (Sandinista government), we will be back to kill you'." The observer mission estimates that the contras killed 42 people in "election violence" in October.^[144]

In its review of 1989, Human Rights Watch observed that "The policy of keeping the contras alive, through so-called "humanitarian" or non-lethal aid, sustains a force that has shown itself incapable of operating without consistently committing gross abuses in violation of the laws of war. The policy also has placed in jeopardy the holding of elections by encouraging contra attacks on the electoral process. Thus, while the Bush administration proclaims its support for human rights and free and fair elections in Nicaragua, it persists in sabotaging both."^[145]

On November 8, 1989, the White House announced that the embargo against Nicaragua would continue unless Violeta Chamorro won.^[146] The Bush administration also financed Chamorro's campaign with a $9 million election aid package through the National Endowment for Democracy. Edgar Chamorro, a former Contra leader who later became a critic of the CIA-Contra war, said 'For Nicaraguans, the choice was simple: continued war, poverty and inflation or opposition candidate Violeta Barrios de Chamorro'.."They were not electing a president, they were electing a way out." President elect Chamorro surmised that ensuing problems such as 16,000% inflation "eroded the credibility of the government" and led people to realize that "if the Sandinistas won, the pain would continue."^[147]

Thomas Walker, a specialist on Central America, writes: "The voters chose a candidate of Washington's choice with a 'gun held to their heads', as was clear to many impartial observers."^[148]

After informing it's readers that the winners were "the Nicaraguans, of course," the New Republic turns to its Managua correspondent Tom Gjelten, who writes: "UNO victory rallies were small, mostly private affairs, and there was no mass outpouring into the streets. Most people stayed home."^[149] Almost a month after the elections, the Associated Press reported that "UNO supporters still have not held a public celebration."^[150]

Shortly thereafter the contras were allowed the re-enter the country into security zones and were assimilated back into Nicaraguan society.^{[citation needed]}

U.S. Media Reaction[link]

Time Magazine acknowledged that U.S. policy was to: "wreck the economy and prosecute a long and deadly proxy war until the exhausted natives overthrow the unwanted government themselves. Since 1985 Washington has strangled Nicaraguan trade with an embargo. It has cut off Nicaragua's credit at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The contra war cost Managua tens of millions and left the country with wrecked bridges, sabotaged power stations and ruined farms. The impoverishment of the people of Nicaragua was a harrowing way to give the National Opposition Union (U.N.O.) a winning issue. Nicaragua had been devastated by a 40% drop in G.N.P., an inflation rate running at 1,700% a year and constant shortages of food and basic necessities. At least 30,000 people had been killed in the war, and 500,000 more had fled."^[151]

Nevertheless, Time states that, with the victory of U.N.O.: "democracy burst forth where everyone least expected it. Given the chance to vote in an honest and secret election, Nicaraguans decisively repudiated the Sandinista government, which the U.S. had been struggling to overthrow for a decade."^[152]

The New York Times headline reads: "Americans United In Joy, But Divided over Policy." The policy division turns out to be over who deserves credit for the joyous outcome.

David Shipler's headline in the New York Times reads: "Nicaragua, Victory U.S. Fair Play," observing that: "It is true that partly because of the confrontation with the U.S., Nicaragua's economy suffered terribly, setting the stage for the widespread public discontent with the Sandinistas reflected in Sunday's balloting. But few governments become moderate during a war; the contra war strengthened Sandinista hard-liners and probably contributed to their oppressive policies. The way to resolution opened only when Congress suspended the war, in effect, to give the Sandinistas a chance to proceed democratically...Thus, Nicaragua's election has vindicated Washington's fledgling program of providing public, above-board funding to help democratic procedures take root in countries with authoritarian regimes."^[153]

In "Rallying to Chamorro," the Editors of the Boston Globe declared: "Having supported the election of Chamorro, the U.S. must, to shore up the Chamorro regime, match the millions it spent trying to overthrow Ortega. Ortega's defenders in the U.S., if they love Nicaraguans and not just Sandinistas, must now rally to Chamorro...The Sandinista revolution, still potent as an opposition force, is now, like so many Marxist-Leninist phenomena, consigned to the dustbin of history. Another blessing of democracy is that outside theories mean little. At long last, Nicaragua itself has spoken."^[154]

For examples of the "liberal" reaction to the 1990 Nicaraguan elections, Anthony Lewis, columnist for the New York Times noted that the U.S. policies produced "misery, death and shame," and that "the economic distress that no doubt moved some Nicaraguans to vote for Mrs. Chamorro was caused in part, after all, by U.S. sanctions" - then stated that the result of Washington's "experiment in peace and democracy" gave "fresh testimony to the power of Jefferson's idea: government with the consent of the governed...To say so seems romantic, but then we live in a romantic age."^[155]

In "Taking Responsibility: Effect of 80's U.S. Nicaragua Policy on Chamorro Victory," New Republic Editor, Michael Kinsley, observes that: "Impoverishing the people of Nicaragua was precisely the point of the contra war and the parallel policy of economic boycott and veto of international development loans..The contra war managed to kill more than 30,000 Nicaraguans..The economic disaster was probably the victorious opposition's best election issue..What followed-ceasefire, free election, victory for the opposition, voluntary surrender of political power by the Sandinistas-turned out to be pleasanter than anyone would have dared to predict. Those who supported aid to the contras..., as did this magazine, can find considerable vindication in the outcome. Gratifying as the election results are democracy is not yet quite safe in Nicaragua and having served as an inspiration for the triumph of democracy in our time, the United States now has an opportunity to see to it that democracy prevails."^[156]

Tom Wicker, columnist for the New York Times, noted that the Sandinistas lost the election "because the Nicaraguan people were tired of war and sick of economic deprivation" - but nonetheless calling the elections "free and fair."^[157]

Alexander Cockburn's headline in the Wall Street Journal reads: "U.S.-Backed Terrorism Won in Nicaragua, Not Democracy."^[158]

"In Nicaragua, a win but not a victory," Boston Globe Editor, Randolph Ryan observes: "It is hard to say which is sadder: What happened to Nicaragua and its people (and its revolution) on the way to the stunning defeat of the Sandinistas in the election on Sunday. Or the fact that so many Americans in public life -- the politicians and journalists who establish the terms of discourse for everyone else -- describe the election victory of the American-backed candidate as a victory for peace and democracy. This was undeniably a victory for former President Reagan and President Bush, and for Elliott Abrams and Oliver North. It was a victory for violence pays. For money talks. For cynicism. For terrorism, fading into mere cruelty. And for cowardice among the liberal opposition."^[159]

In Guatemala, the independent Central America Report observed that "Although the concessions granted by the Sandinistas were the result of the regional peace accords the elections themselves were mandated in the Nicaragua constitution, adopted in January 1987, before the Arias Plan." With regard to the elections, "Most analysts agree that the UNO victory marks the consummation of the US government's military, economic and political efforts to overthrow the Sandinistas." Under the heading "The Winners", the journal added:

"US President George Bush emerged as a clear victor in the Nicaraguan elections. The decade-long Reagan/Bush war against Nicaragua employed a myriad of methods -- both covert and open -- aimed at overthrowing the Sandinistas. Bush's continuation of the two-pronged Reagan policy of economic strangulation and military aggression finally reaped tangible results. Following the elections, Ortega said that the outcome was not in retrospect surprising since the voters went to the polls "with a pistol pointed at their heads."

"The consensus attributes the population's defection...to the critical economic crisis in Nicaragua," the report continues, citing an editorial in the Guatemala City press that "pointed out that more than ten years of economic and military aggressions waged by a government with unlimited resources created the setting for an election determined by economic exhaustion." "It was a vote in search of peace by a people that, inevitably, were fed up with violence," the Guatemala City editorial concluded: "It is a vote from a hungry people that, more than any idea, need to eat."

The analysis ends with this comment:

"While many observers today are remarking that never before has a leftist revolutionary regime handed over power in elections, the opposite is also true. Never has a popularly elected leftist government in Latin America been allowed to undertake its reforms without being cut short by a coup, an invasion or an assassination."^[160]

See also[link]

• Anti-communism
• Carla's Song
• CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US
• Operation Charly
• Reagan Doctrine
• Role of women in Nicaraguan Revolution

Notes[link]

References[link]

External links[link]

• Confessions of a Contra: How the CIA Masterminds the Nicaraguan Insurgency by The New Republic, 5 August 1985
• "The Contras' Valley Forge: How I View the Nicaragua Crisis", by Enrique Bermúdez (with Michael Johns), Policy Review magazine, Summer 1988.
• The Contras and U.S. Funding from the Dean Peter Krogh Foreign Affairs Digital Archives
• U.S. Policy Towards the Contras from the Dean Peter Krogh Foreign Affairs Digital Archives
• "Nicaragua Goes For Reagan", National Review, 19 March 1990.
• "Nicaragua 1981–1990: Destabilization in slow motion, by William Blum.
• "Dark Alliance", by Gary Webb, San Jose Mercury News, August 1996.
• "The World Stopped Watching", a documentary film directed by Peter Raymont. White Pine Pictures, 2003.
• "The Contras, Cocaine, and Covert Operations" – National Security Archive.
• US administration disregarding the UN verdict Video provided by BBC.
• When the AK-47s Fall Silent, by Timothy Brown
• CIA Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare. Tactical Manual for the Revolutionary.

John Robert Silber (born August 15, 1926) is an American academician and former candidate for public office. From 1971 to 1996 he was President of Boston University and from 1996 to 2003 Chancellor of the University. Since 2003 he has been its President Emeritus. In 1990, Silber took a leave of absence from the University to run for political office. He won the Democratic primary to become that party's candidate for governor of Massachusetts in the 1990 election. He lost the general election to the moderate Republican William Weld, who won by 38,000 votes^[1].

Silber was trained in and taught philosophy. He has written two books. The first, Straight Shooting, is a social, political, and moral commentary on issues in that impact modern American life. The second, Architecture of the Absurd is a 128-page assessment of the work of contemporary iconic architects.

Family, education and early academic career[link]

John Silber was born in San Antonio, Texas,^[2] the second son of Paul G. Silber, a German Jewish immigrant architect,^[3] and Jewell Joslin Silber, an elementary school teacher. His father's architectural practice collapsed^[4] during the Great Depression.

At Trinity University in San Antonio, Silber double-majored in fine arts and philosophy^[5]. In the fall of 1943, as a freshman at Trinity, he met a sophomore named Kathryn Underwood, daughter of farmers from Normanna, Texas. The couple were engaged in January 1946 and married on July 12, 1947. Silber graduated summa cum laude from Trinity in June 1947 and married Miss Underwood on July 12, 1947, shortly after graduation. They had eight children, one son and six daughters by birth and one son by adoption. Their first-born son and daughter were born before 1955. Five more daughters were born over the next eleven years.^[6] Their first-born son, David Silber,^[7] died of AIDS at age 41 at their home in December 1994.^[4][8]

Silber received his M.A. in 1952 and worked first as a teaching assistant and then as an instructor while pursuing a doctoral degree. Peter H. Hare, Philosophy Professor Emeritus, at SUNY State University of New York at Buffalo remembers Silber as a teaching assistant at Yale in the mid-1950s while Hare was still an undergraduate. Hare wrote, "George Schrader was the lecturer in the introductory course where John Silber was the TA leading my discussion section. Silber, a rabid Kantian, was the person with whom I had my first heated philosophical arguments as an adult.^[9]"

Silber's first faculty job was at University of Texas at Austin where he chaired the Philosophy department from 1962-1967. Larry Hickman, Director, Center for Dewey Studies, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale recalls his time as a student in philosophy at UT. "The department chairs during those years, John Silber and Irwin C. Lieb, were busy using Texas oil money to collect the very best faculty and graduate students they could find.^[10]"

While at UT Silber founded the Texas society to abolish capital punishment.^[11]

In 1967, Silber became Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at UT. Three years later, in a widely publicized firing, Silber was removed as Dean in 1970 by the UT Regents Chairman Frank Craig Erwin, Jr..^[12]

Silber left the University of Texas at Austin in 1971.

Boston University[link]

Silber became the seventh president of Boston University in 1971, and in 1996 was named chancellor after stepping down as president. With an annual salary that reached $800,000, Silber ranked as one of the highest paid college presidents in the country. That same year he was appointed by William Weld to serve as head of the Massachusetts Board of Education.

Under Silber, Boston University increased in size but questions about his leadership style caused splits among faculty and alumni. According to Perspectives Online, the publication of the American Historical Association, Fritz K. Ringer held the presidency of the Boston University chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) for eight years. "Serving at a time when the BU president (Silber) was running roughshod over faculty rights, Fritz Ringer bravely and vigorously championed the principles of academic freedom."^{[13] [14]}

He remained president until 1989, when he took a leave of absence to run for governor of Massachusetts as a Democrat. He returned to BU after losing to William Weld.

Among Silber's recruits to the Boston University faculty were the author Saul Bellow and Elie Wiesel, writer and concentration camp survivor. Silber possessed special sensitivity toward Jewish people, which was heightened while he was a Fulbright scholar at the University of Bonn, West Germany. It was there he learned his father's side of the family was Jewish and that his aunt had been killed at Auschwitz. His father had never said anything about it.

Tension with faculty and students[link]

The 1970s marked a period of constant tension at Boston University. The president accused the faculty of mediocrity and the students of fostering anarchy, and they, in turn, accused him of tyrannical rule. Essentially, in response to the Silber administration, the faculty organized a union in 1974 and the following year voted to affiliate with the American Association of University Professors. The administration would not negotiate with the union, and in 1976 the refusal was challenged in a lawsuit. Two-thirds of the faculty and deans demanded the board of trustees fire Silber. The board refused. In 1978 the courts decided in favor of the AAUP position and Boston University was forced to negotiate. The faculty conducted a brief strike in 1979 which was followed by a clerical workers' walkout in which several faculty members refused to cross the picket line. Silber charged five of these faculty members with negligence and moved to have them disciplined. At that point faculty members throughout Boston signed a petition to have Silber removed. In 1984 the courts ruled that the local AAUP chapter could not engage in collective bargaining.

Silber's "deferred compensation package"[link]

On May 10, 2006, the New York Times reported that the trustees of Boston University had given Silber an unprecedented compensation package, including deferred compensation, worth $6.1 million in 2005.^[15]

Endowment controversy[link]

During his tenure as President, $85 million, nearly one fifth of the Boston University endowment, was invested in a biotechnology company named Seragen. Investments continued, even after a rebuke from state regulators because of the risk involved. The bulk of the investment was lost when the Seragen stock collapsed. ^[16][17]

Gay rights controversy[link]

In 2002, Silber ordered that a B.U.-affiliated high school academy disband its gay-straight alliance, a student club that staged demonstrations to publicize the deleterious effects of homophobia. Silber dismissed the stated purpose of the club -- to serve as a support group for gay students and to promote tolerance and understanding between gay and straight students -- accusing the club of being a vehicle for "homosexual recruitment." Silber denounced the group for "evangelism" and "homosexual militancy" with the purpose of promoting gay sex.^[18]

Political activities[link]

Silber was the first person  to chair the Texas Society to Abolish Capital Punishment. He advocated integration  at the University of Texas and promoted Operation Head Start, an early education program for preschoolers. 

In 1990 Silber ran for Governor of Massachusetts as a Democrat. His outsider status as well as his outspoken and combative style were at first seen as advantages in a year in which voters were disenchanted with the Democratic Party establishment. As the Democratic nominee, Silber faced Republican William Weld. Silber's angry personality, which appalled many voters, coupled with Weld's socially liberal views helped Weld in the race. During the gubernatorial race, Silber regularly overreacted to questions from the press. These overreactions came to be known as "Silber shockers". On the campaign trail he called Massachusetts a "welfare magnet" and proposed cutting off benefits for unmarried mothers who have a second child while still on public aid. He questioned saving the lives of terminally ill elderly people, quoting Shakespeare and saying that "when you've had a long life and you're ripe, then it's time to go." He said that the feminist Gloria Steinem, the black Muslim leader, Louis Farrakhan, and white supremacists are "the kind of people I wouldn't appoint as judges."^[19] In a key interview late in the campaign, Silber was asked by WCVB-TV newscaster Natalie Jacobson to name his weaknesses, and he lost his composure and snarled back that finding his weaknesses was her job, and he did not need to list them for her. After this performance, Silber's poll numbers declined rapidly. Ultimately, Weld was able to hold on to a significant portion of the Republican base while appealing to large numbers of Democrats and left-of-center independents, enabling him to defeat Silber by four points. Weld became the first Republican to serve as governor since 1974.^[20]

Publications[link]

Silber wrote two books. Straight Shooting: What's wrong with America and How to Fix It (Harper & Row, 1989), and Architecture of the Absurd: How "Genius" Disfigured a Practical Art (Quantuck Lane, 2007).

Straight Shooting is part autobiography and partly a statement of Silber's concern that the United States has experienced a decline in moral and spiritual values traceable to excessive avarice and materialism. He also faults society with excessive reliance on litigation to settle disputes.

Architecture of the Absurd discusses Silber's view that certain celebrity architects frequently fail to meet the needs of their clients because they consider themselves primarily sculptors and do not adequately consider financial constraints, the physical needs of building occupants or the urban environment. He is critical of architects Josep Lluís Sert, Le Corbusier, Frank Gehry, Daniel Libeskind and Steven Holl.^[21] One example cited by Silber is Le Corbusier's megalomaniacal 1930s plan for Algiers, which called for the demolition of the entire city. A more recent example is Frank Gehry's Walt Disney Concert Hall which, before it was modified at additional expense, made rooms of nearby condominiums unbearably warm causing their air-conditioning costs to skyrocket and created hot spots on adjacent sidewalks of as much as 140 degrees Fahrenheit.^[22]

In 1976, BU published a 32-page article by Silber called "Democracy: Its Counterfeits and Its Promise". Other of his articles have been published in Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophical Review and Kant-Studien where he served as editor.

Boston street named for him[link]

On May 14, 2008, the City of Boston renamed Sherborn St., which bisects the main Boston University Campus from Commonwealth Ave. through Bay State Rd. ending at Back St., "John R. Silber Way." Boston Mayor Thomas Menino said the new name for Sherborn St. was "fitting" as an honor for Silber. "Was there any other way?" Menino quipped, referring to Silber's four decades of influence on the B.U. campus.^[23]

Further reading[link]

• Allis, Sam, The Ivory Tower Triggerman, Time Magazine, August 28, 1989, 69.

References[link]

External links[link]

• Boston University's biography of Silber
• Video of Debate between Silber and Noam Chomsky over the Nicaraguan Contras on YouTube and Removed by User as of 10-23-2010 see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChVSYGkLDfU part 1/http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/86-silber.html Transcript at the Wayback Machine
• Village Voice article accusing Silber of bigotry and homophobia
• The Boston bully: Boston U. chancellor John Silber had a gay son who died of AIDS. So why is he such a dedicated homophobe?, The Advocate (Nov 26, 2002)
• New York Review of Books sequence of letters:
  • Letter from professors at Boston University accusing Silber of violating academic freedom
  • Response to the letter by the Boston University professors from a Silber supporter
  • Rebuttal by the Boston University professors to the response by the Silber supporter