U.S. AID Lisa Haugaard and the Latin American Working Group (LAWG), along with a host of other nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), have been hoodwinked by U.S. AID into endorsing a counter- revolutionary agenda in Nicaragua ["Development Aid: Some Small Steps Forward," Sept/Oct 1997]. According to U.S. AID's "Nica- ragua Strategy for 2000" (Managua, 1995), the LAWG and a host of other former critics contributed to, endorse and share the report's analysis and strategy. Among the positions being endorsed by Haugaard and LAWG is that Nicaragua in the 1980s was a socialist dictatorship that is now making a historic transition to democracy. The U.S. AID report recommends the growth of agro- industrial exports like beef and coffee and of nontraditional agro- exports. Food First researchers have shown these to be examples of high- Readers are invited to address letters to The Editors, NACLA Report on the Americas, 475 Riverside Drive, Suite 454, New York, NY 10115. Letters can be sent by e-mail to: editor@nacla.org. risk, pesticide treadmill-type farm- ing that favors large farms over small. U.S. AID grossly overstates the importance of such nontradi- tional exports to the Nicaraguan economy by reiterating the phe- nomenal growth rate in this sector, while never mentioning that they still account for a tiny portion of total exports. Although AID func- tionaries concede that Sandinista agrarian reform gave Nicaragua the most equitable land distribution in Central America, they view the dis- integration of the cooperatives as a good thing. In the background study for the strategy statement, U.S. AID con- cedes that the complete reversal of downward trends in the economy since 1979 and the skewed concen- tration of wealth accumulated over the preceding century will take at least a decade. Fortunately, the AID revolutionaries will have some help, and not just from their past critics but from the likes of the U.S. Ambassador, the Country Team and other Agency programs like the Peace Corps and the U.S. Information Service (USIS). So much for U.S. AID's great shift toward sustainable development, away from being an enforcer of structural adjustment, and a toadie of U.S. foreign policy. Lisa Haugaard, you've been in Washington too long. It's time to get back to your roots in the solidarity movement. Lisa Come Home! Andy Stewart Nyack, New York Lisa Haugaard responds: The question of how much has changed within the Agency for International Development-and how much it even matters given the U.S. Treasury's strict adherence to adjustment-is a valid debate. But to recognize that there has been some positive, incremental change in one department is hardly the sell- out envisioned by Mr. Stewart. While the Latin America Working Group never did and never would endorse a document written by AID, we did discuss the Nicaragua strategy paper, and others, with them. That AID now routinely invites such participation with NGOs here and in Central America is one, still inadequate, step towards the participatory approach advo- cates have always stressed. We can't demand participation, and then refuse to talk. It would be cavalier of us to write off the $20 million or so per coun- try per year-and much more to Guatemala-that still flows to some Central American countries simply because we deem AID unre- formable and unworthy of our attention. A central point of my arti- cle is that there is space for Central American and U.S. organizations to present informed critiques of AID programs and ideas for new direc- tions-space that has not been fully used. Occasionally, though not often enough, the grassroots efforts of people like Mr. Stewart do have an impact on administration officials. I believe that the incremental change seen in AID's Central America pro- grams is due in great measure to such efforts. To work honestly for social change, once in a while you need to recognize success.
