BUT NICARAGUA'S OWN WITNESS ADMITTED IT INTERVENES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP91-00587R000200740026-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 25, 2010
• Sequence Number: 26
• Publication Date: December 21, 1985
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/29: CIA-RDP91-00587R000200740026-3
WASHINGTON POST
21 December 1985
But Nicaragua's Own Witness. Admitted It Intervenes
The letters from Nicaragua's lawyers Paul Reichler
and Judith Applebauitt (Oct. 191 and David MacMichael
(Oct. 121, responding to Jeane Kirkpatrick's comments
on Nicaragua's American lawyers, are ironic. Would
these lawyers have taken Nicaragua's case to the World
Court if not for MacMichael's "revelations"?
A 1981-1983 contract employee for the CIA, MacMi-
chael has long maintained that the United States never
had any evidence that Nicaragua provided arms to
Salvadoran guerrillas. Convincing the world that they
have never given such support is critical for the Sandin-
istas. They realize their argument that Nicaragua is an
innocent victim is wholly undermined if it is shown that
they themselves provoked outside support for Nicara-
gua's democratic resistance by their own efforts to
overthrow El Salvador's government from 1979-80 on-
ward.
This essential point of international law appears to be
recognized by Reichler. In The New York Times on
Sept. 8, he is quoted as having "strongly advised" Nica-
ragua not to go to the court if it was involved in the sup-
ply of arms to the Salvadoran guerrillas. He said the
Sandinistas assured him "they had nothing to hide."
Reichler's declaration clearly shows his view that Nica-
ragua's case turns on its claim that it has not supplied
material assistance to the Salvadoran guerrillas, the
position long taken by MacMichael.
MacMichael testified at the World Court that he saw
no evidence during his period with the CIA that Nicara-
gua had provided arms to Salvadoran guerrillas. This
testimony, left unchallenged, is consistent with Nicara-
gua's protestations of innocence and with MacMichael's
own public writings and statements over the last two
years. Under close questioning from the bench, how-
ever, his testimony unraveled.
He reluctantly admitted that "there was credible evi-
dence" that Nicaragua had provided arms for the rebels
for the January 1981 so-called "final offensive." He later
confirmed that "it could be taken as a fact that at least
in late 1980/early 1981, the Nicaraguan government
was involved in the supply of arms to the Salvadoran in-
surgency." In making this concession, he complained to
the bench that this information was being drawn from
him "like a nail out of a block of wood." But why did this
information, so central to the case, have to be forced
from him? If he is so concerned that truth must be
served above all, why has he concealed this information?
Later, he also conceded that the Sandinistas allowed
guerrilla communications and command and control
from Nicaraguan territory, which Nicaragua adamantly
denies. It is interesting that Nicaragua's lawyers subse-
quently asked the bench, in effect, to disregard MacMi-
chael's testimony except where it agreed with their own
official position that Nicaragua has never provided arms
to El Salvador's guerrillas.
I have twice debated MacMichael in public. In my
opinion, this articulate and intelligent former Marine
sincerely believes what he is saying. During our de-
bates, however, I have listened with a mixture of fasci-
nation and incredulity to his assertions. I should add that
since 1980, 1 have had daily access to the same (type of)
intelligence on Nicaragua that MacMichael saw during
his brief stint with the CIA. If what MacMichael has said
until his appearance at the court is true, why has no one
else in this city of leaks come forward to substantiate his
claims? Why do even congressional critics of the admin-
istration's Central American policy state unequivocally
that Nicaragua is, and has been, deeply involved in
providing arms, ammunition, training and command and
control to El Salvador's guerrillas?
In August 1985, the full Congress found that Nicaragua
"has committed and refused to cease aggression in the
form of armed subversion against its neighbors." In Aug-
ust 1984, the House Permanent Committee on Intelli-
gence, chaired by Rep. Edward P. Boland (D-Mass.), said
Nicaragua was "providing military support ... to groups
seeking to overthrow the government of El Salvador and
other Central American governments." In May 1983, this
same committee found that "a major portion of the arms
. to the Salvadoran insurgents transits Nicaragua with
the permission and assistance of the Sandinistas." In
March 1982, Boland publicly stated that Nicaragua "is
thoroughly involved in supporting the Salvadoran insurgen-
cy. Despite the evidence, and the repeated findings of the
president and Congress, Nicaragua's American lawyers
have accepted at face value the Sandinistas' flat denials
that they have attacked their neighbors. They perhaps
should reflect on the fact that in doing so, they now find
themselves defending-in the name of the rule of law
and the peaceful resolution of disputes-Nicaragua's
policy of attempting the overthrow of the sovereign na-
tions that border it, while denying these nations the
right to act in individual and collective self-defense en-
shrined in the charter of the United Nations.
-Lawrence L. Tracy
The writer is an Army colonel assigned to the Office of Latin
American Public Diplomacy at the State Department.
STAT
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/29: CIA-RDP91-00587R000200740026-3