A welcome change in tone:
Not really. It is hard to leave the past behind when the past keeps repeating itself over and over and over. The US has its reasons why it interferes in our affairs, past and present, wrong or right, and Nicaragua has its reason to want to be left alone and manage its own affairs, past and present, right or wrong. Now pick your side.
It was called isolationism. It has long since gone away -- I would conservatively say over 100 years ago.
What has happened is that those with more power -- that could mean more money, a bigger military, or even just better propaganda -- exploited those with less of each or all. To take a current example, Costa Rica is known to be a better place to visit than Nicaragua. Some if not most of that is marketing.
While, at least in the Western Hemisphere, it seems that marketing is getting used more often and force less often, this who is better game continues. In many cases the US wins because it has more [fill in your choices]. What's changing is that power distribution. For example, if I buy a Stihl chain saw in Nicaragua it was made in Brazil. Petroleum comes from Venezuela. Lots of packaged foodstuffs such as cooking oil from Colombia. And, like everywhere else in the west these days, electronics, clothing, vehicles and such come from China or Korea. Even the laptop I type on which came from System 76, a US company that sells their laptops with Linux on them, is a Clevo, aTaiwanese company who has China manufacture it for them.
Right there we have two middlemen in two different countries that, over the next 5-10 years will probably be eliminated. Don't read this as anti-US or anti-Taiwan. That's not my point. It is simply that with mass communications, international shipping and such, the need for a middleman, particularly in another country, is going away. And world economics and the general corruption in the financial sector just helps this process move forward.
As much as some feel ideals are changing, I think most of what you see happening is the result of being pragmatic about the changes that are happening and will continue to happen.
He's picked both sides and is going to enjoy the middle ground....well, try to.
He's gonna be a "SoCap"
kinda makes me wish i had bundled for mitt, i think i could do the job better.....
"Maybe, just once, someone will call me 'sir' without adding, 'you're making a scene."
-Homer J. Simpson
Mr. Ortega the benefit of the doubt and allow him to demonstrate that his fidelity to the revolution and solidarity with the Nicaraguan people is still real.
In the meantime, the stability is reflected in GDP growth, 3X that of the US, with the potential for more to come.
The new ambassador does not set US-Nicaraguan policy, she simply explains it. Her tone is a sea change from Mr Callahan's confrontational posture. My point was, a lowering of the volume will be good for everyone concerned. A softening of the US State Department stance towards Nicaragua has to be good for tourism, ex-pat retirement, and investment, no? This 'dogs barking at each other through the fence" was getting old.
I sense something . . . perhaps with Hugo gone a chance to start over? Would a US financed Nicaraguan canal be totally out the realm of the possible? Maybe the US has taken a page from DO's playbook, and quietly negotiated a "Pacto".
Mr Ortega is proving to be more of a shrewd business man than anything else. Every step he takes shows where his fidelity to the revolution and solidarity with the Nicaraguan people is at, at his bank account and his oversized ego.
¨We want to achieve a new and better order of society. In this new and better society there must be neither rich nor poor, all will have to work. Not a handful of rich people, but all the working people must enjoy the fruits of their common labour. Machines and other improvements must serve to ease the work of all and not to enable a few to grow rich at the expense of millions and tens of millions of people. This new and better society is called socialist society. The teachings about this society are called socialism.¨ Vladimir Lenin.
After reading this tell me if you see or find any traces of that statement in the person of Mr Ortega. Unfortunately for Mr Ortega, his Deeds, speak louder than his words. Most unfortunate for Nicaragua though.
She is saying the same as 2 of my points:
Nicaragua has no future until a greater percentage of Nicaraguans grow out of Sandinismo.
Congress and the State Dept. have to watch the great obama so he doesn`t give the region to Hugo.
Hope for the best, but don`t hold your breath. Sandinismo 1 and Sandinismo 2 each sent Nicaragua into a 20+ year tailspin. Sandinismo 3 may do the same.
"You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality." Ayn Rand
Sandinismo 1 resulted in a US takeover of the government of Nicaragua.
Sandinismo 2 resulted in the US funding a proxy war to try to restore the US result of Sandinismo 1.
The good news is that I am not sure the US has the capital (political or otherwise) to try this whole sequence again.
My opinion: It is not for the US to protect Nicaragua from any takeover. It is up to Nicaragua to decide what it wants to do.
You can only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power-he's free again.
— Alexander Solzhenitsyn