Foreign Relations of the United States 1977–1980; Volume XV; Central America, 1977–1980

191. Telegram From the Embassy in Nicaragua to the Department of State¹

Managua, January 18, 1979, 2121Z

314. For Assistant Secretary Vaky and Ambassador Bowdler. For Santo Domingo and Guatemala: Please deliver to FonMin Jimenez and Ambassador Obiols. Dept also pass to USSOUTHCOM PR. Subject: PLN Response to NG Proposal. Ref: Managua 310.²

Following is our hasty informal translation of PLN response transmitted reftel.

Quote.

Managua, D.N., 17 January 1979.

Very excellent Sirs: It pleases us to advise you of the receipt of your polite communication of 12 January of this year, related to ours of the 26th of December 1978, to which was annexed our counter-proposal to the “act of commitment” presented by your excellencies. “Such an important document has been carefully examined by the authorities of the Nationalist Liberal Party, who we represent, giving priority attention to some of its paragraphs. Effectively it pleases us to note the following:

(Inner quote) The International Commission, meeting in Santo Domingo, has given the greatest attention to the study of said counter-proposal and views with satisfaction that in it appear some of the elements of its proposal of 20 December which contributes toward reducing the differences between the parties and permits the nourishment of hope for arriving at a peaceful solution to the political crisis which thwarts the Nicaraguan people. (End inner quote)

“It also satisfies us to verify that, upon your excellencies referring to the evaluation of the Nicaraguan problem, you expressed the following:

(Inner quote) Nevertheless, the International Commission believes that, with relation to the mechanism for realizing the plebiscite, the concept of a National Authority of the Plebiscite (ANP) merits the careful study of the parties, in the understanding that said authority will be observed and supervised carefully and systematically by the International Authority of the Plebiscite (AIP) (End inner quote)

“The Nationalist Liberal Party agrees with the content of the previously transcribed paragraphs and shares the hopes of the International Commission of Friendly Cooperation” for arriving at a peaceful solution to our political crisis,” and, therefore, reaffirms its undiminished objective of pursuing the dialog with the political opposition to the constitutional government of the republic.

“Likewise, we have duly noted that a copy of your communication has been sent to the Broad Opposition Front (FAO), with the objective, no doubt, of reinitiating the negotiations and carrying to a happy end your conciliatory efforts. Nonetheless, we believe it our duty to demonstrate our concern that the mentioned organization is disintegrating and, therefore, its political capacity to constitute an adversary satisfying the diverse tendencies which must participate in the solution of the political problem confronting the Nicaraguan people has weakened.

“We consider it fair to have the record show that the plebiscite accepted by you was an initiative of the Nationalist Liberal Party and we appreciate your agreement that its organization and control corresponds to national authorities, constituted at all levels by a representative of the Nationalist Liberal Party another from the Broad Opposition Front and a President agreed upon by both parties or selected through lotteries from lists established through mutual agreement.

“Naturally, as we emphasized in our initial proposal and as a legitimate initiative of the Nationalist Liberal Party, we agree that the plebiscite will be verified subject to the supervision of the Organization of American States, which could effect it by means of the establishment of a mechanism through the participation of an Executive Director, observers at the councils: national, departmental, cantonal and poll watchers who will be present, supervise and certify all activities of this organ and, especially, registration, distribution of ballot boxes and ballots, the computation of votes, certifying the results and return of the ballot boxes and ballots for their final computation to be held at the headquarters of the national authority. We believe that these formulae guarantee the “careful and systematic” supervision of an international organism in the plebiscite.

“We are exceedingly pleased that your communication of the 12th of this month makes express recognition that the initiative for the plebiscite and the supervision of the same by an international authority, without affecting the national sovereignty and dignity, has come from the Nationalist Liberal Party.

“At the same time we note that it is not possible to realize with justice a popular consultation without previous inscription, as has always taken place in Nicaragua and in the majority of countries of America, in full agreement with the political parties, without pointing out the probability that such a necessary electoral requirement could be carried out in less time than that traditionally provided in our country.

“Your excellencies could analyze the amount of inconveniences which could present themselves at the polls on the day of the electoral event, if there were not intervening prevous registration. It is easy to suppose the time which could be taken up in analysis of protests related to the voters who do not prove the citizenship legitimacy to exercise his right in the voting which is planned.

“Inscription eliminates in advance the disputes which could arise over the identity and eligibility of the voter, assures the orderly and peaceful development of the voting and permits a better check on the final results.

“Further, we believe that in the plebiscite all citizens qualified to exercise the right to vote should vote in accordance with the constitution of the republic. It comes to our attention that it is proposed to include the Nicaraguans resident outside the country so that they vote outside the national territory, since there never has been the object of a request or controversy among the different political groups of Nicaragua, and that being established only is an exceptional fashion in certain countries, it is planned now to introduce it in this popular consultation as an element foreign to our electoral tradition, for which we reiterate the concepts of our counter-proposal of December 26, last month.

“Neither do we find any basis for changing the present limits of the electoral districts, since these are solely due to criteria of population concentrations, accessibility and familiarity for the movement of the voter, and do not have any political relevance in the electoral process of Nicaragua, given that whatever presidential or congressional or mayoral election is decided by an absolute majority which is recorded in the country, region, or municipality, without whatever change in the electoral district lines being able to affect the results (one person, one vote), for which equally we reiterate the concepts of our counter-proposal of December 26, last month.

“The Nationalist Liberal Party wishes to express its disquiet that the proposals to supress inscription and the alteration of the district boundaries, only would cause confusion in the electorate, which would lead to a reduction in the participation in the vote of the Nicaraguan people in this process.

“The National Liberal Party affirms that the alternatives to be presented to the Nicaraguan people should be: the continuation of President Somoza in the presidency until 1981 or the convocation of a constituent assembly, so that the Nicaraguan people should have full knowledge that if the vote is adverse to the termination of the constitutional period of President Somoza, it would put into operation an institutional process with the final result the convocation of a constituent assembly. The alternatives should be presented in a clear and precise form, easily understood for all the national electorate, under the electoral symbols chosen by each political group.

“With regard to paragraph 2C of your communication of January 12, the Nationalist Liberal Party, considers that the specifics of B, C, D, and E of the 4th point of our counterproposal of December 26, 1978, assures, under the international supervision, the free access, without pressures or coercions by any authority or individual, for all citizens to the polls; as a consequence, we do not agree with the separation from their responsibilities which they want to impose on officers of the National Guard and the restrictions on the civil authorities, since that does not influence the development and result of the popular consultation.

“Again we reiterate that we do not accept any proposal which imposes ostracism on whatever Nicaraguan, not only because it implies the violation of the individual guarantees consecrated in the political constitution, but also for finding it incongruous with the principles of juridicial equality of all Nicaraguans.

“Finally we wish to reiterate that if the popular verdict were to result unfavorable to the termination of the constitutional period of President Somoza, the presidential succession should be decided strictly in conformity with the provisions of the present constitution, because a personalized and politically undefined vote should not be considered as a popular mandate for an ad hoc political grouping lacking stability and in the process of disintegration, above all when it was rejected without greater consideration the proposal of Nationalist Liberal Party regarding a voting by parties, to determine the popular base of each grouping and its resultant participation in the government. Nevertheless, in case of establishment of an interim government, the “Nationalist Liberal Party reaffirms its determination to participate in a government of national unity.

“The Nationalist Liberal Party believes that it must await the definition of the political forces of each grouping in the elections for the constituent assembly, so that it will determine, as repository of national representation, the participation and influence of each party in the organs of government inconformity with the new alignments and mandates adopted.

“For all the reasons mentioned above, we reiterate the concepts of our counter proposal of the 26th of December, last year.

“The honorable Commission of Friendly Cooperation must consider and examine our response with the serenity required by the goal of finding, as soon as possible, conciliatory formulas which do not injure the sovereignty of the nation.

“We reiterate to your excellencies our recognition of the good will you continue to manifest and we renew the assurances of our highest and distinguished consideration.

(Signed) Julio C. Quintana, Orlando Montenegro, Alceo Tablada S.

Unquote³

Solaun

1. Source: Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, Office, Outside the System File, Box 67, Nicaragua: 10/78–7/79. Confidential; Niact Immediate; Exdis. Sent for information Immediate to Guatemala City, Santo Domingo, Caracas, Panama City, and San José.
2. In telegram 310 from Managua, January 18, the Embassy included the Spanish-language text of the PLN response to the Negotiating Group proposal delivered to Somoza on January 12. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790026–0053) For additional information concerning the Negotiating Group meeting with Somoza, see Document 189.
3. In his January 19 memorandum to Brzezinski, Pastor noted the PLN’s negative response to the Negotiating Group’s January 12 proposal and wrote: “In effect the PLN response rejects almost totally the provisions of the mediators’ plan and merely repeats the PLN submission of December 26.” Pastor also commented that “the door is left slightly ajar for continuation of the mediation; but for all intents and purposes, this stage of the mediation can be considered to be ended.” (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Material, Country File, Box 57, Nicaragua: Current Crisis: 1–7/79)