Violeta Chamorro, who brought peace to Nicaragua, dead at 95

Violeta Chamorro, who brought peace to Nicaragua after decades of war and was the first woman elected president in the Americas, died Saturday at the age of 95, her family said.
Chamorro, who ruled the poor Central American country from 1990 to 1997, "died in peace, surrounded by the affection and love of her children," said a statement issued by her four children.
As president, Chamorro managed to bring to an end a civil war that had raged for much of the 1980s as US-backed rebels known as the 'Contras' fought the leftist Sandinista government.
That conflict made Nicaragua one of the big proxy battlegrounds of the Cold War.
Chamorro put her country on the path to democracy in the difficult years following the Sandinista revolution of 1979, which had toppled the US-backed right-wing regime of Anastasio Somoza.
In a country known for macho culture, Chamorro had a maternal style and was known for her patience and a desire for reconciliation.
When she won the 1990 election at the head of a broad coalition, she defeated Daniel Ortega, the Sandinista guerrilla leader and icon who is now president again.
Ortega has been in power for 17 years and is widely criticized by governments and rights groups as having crushed personal freedoms, all political opposition and judicial independence with autocratic rule.
Chamorro died in Costa Rica, where she moved in 2023, to be close to her children, three of whom are living here in exile because of their opposition to Ortega.
Chamorro -- Nicaraguans referred to her affectionately as "Dona Violeta" -- had been living far removed from public life for decades. In her later years, she suffered from Alzheimer's disease.
"Her legacy is unquestionable," said Felix Madariaga, a Nicaraguan academic and political activist living in exile in the United States.
- 'Typical of a homemaker' -
"She led the transition from war to peace, healing a country destroyed by war. The contrast with Ortega is clear and deep," said Madariaga.
Chamorro was the widow of Pedro Joaquin Chamorro, who came from one of Nicaragua's most prominent families.
As owner and chief editor of the newspaper La Prensa, he was killed in 1978 in an attack blamed on the regime of Anastasio Somoza.
His death propelled Chamorro to take over the newspaper and, eventually, to get into politics.
After the Sandinistas seized power in 1979, she became the only female member of a national reconstruction government.
But she quit that junta in 1980, believing the Sandinistas were moving too far to the left and into the sphere of communist Cuba.
Chamorro became prominent in the opposition to the Sandinistas as they fought the 'Contra' rebels financed by the United States under Ronald Reagan.
In 1990, she stunned the country by winning the presidency -- and beating Ortega -- as leader of a coalition of 14 parties.
During the campaign, she was known for wearing white and had to use a wheelchair because of a knee injury.
In her memoirs, Chamorro said she won because she gained the trust of war-weary Nicaraguans as she spoke in simple language "typical of a homemaker and a mother."
"In the macho culture of my country, few people believed that I, a woman, and what is more, handicapped, had the strength, energy and will" to beat Ortega, she wrote.
"But if the Berlin Wall fell, why not the Sandinistas?"
bur/mis/dw/sst

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Washington Post

6 hours ago

• Washington Post

The flags we fly

It has taken a pretend king to bring out a dormant patriotism lying deeper in the hearts of some on the left than they realized — myself included. I predicted in an Aug. 27 letter to the editor, 'Ms. Harris, Democrats add the 'genius spoonful of sugar' we all needed,' that it was possible liberals would co-opt right-wing flag-waving and start waving tiny American flags of their own. Apparently, I was right. At the nationwide 'No Kings' protests, according to an Associated Press article, some organizers handed out little American flags. Were those organizers outliers, or were they harbingers of changes in the left's latent vision for America? I'm proud to fight the right's version of patriotism with our own. That version includes championing democracy and liberal causes. We are proud Americans fighting for our America. I suspect our Democratic leaders are proud Americans, too, and they should say so explicitly. When will it become commonplace for people on the left to start proudly calling themselves patriots instead of acknowledging their nationality sotto voce? Or is that too far-fetched? The idea of progressives waving American flags seemed far-fetched to me a year ago. Look at where we are now. Gary Milici, Milwaukee I totally agree with Enrique Acevedo in his June 16 op-ed, 'Why we fly the Mexican flag at the L.A. protests,' that America is a multicultural society. It makes our country stronger that many if not all Americans identify with other nations, religions, cultures and holidays. It makes sense that many Americans are waving flags from places such as Ukraine, Gaza and Israel at rallies as statements of support. However, flying a Mexican flag at a rally protesting aggressive deportations might inadvertently send the message that the flag bearer would rather be in Mexico, an unnecessary and unproductive interpretation. For example, people against immigration who see images of Mexican flags waved at protests on social media or television might then have their belief that it is perfectly okay to 'send them back' reinforced. Signs in Spanish are okay but put away the flags of other countries. Barry H. Epstein, Silver Spring Enrique Acevedo's June 16 op-ed raised some valid points regarding the complexity of citizenship and identity. We should respect the rights of individuals to protest peacefully and allow them to wave whatever flag they choose, regardless of their citizenship status. That is a right protected by our Constitution. What is troubling, and what Acevedo failed to address or explain, are the images of the Mexican flag being waved in front of cars that had been lit on fire. Acevedo referenced people waving the Irish flag on St. Patrick's Day and their loyalty or patriotism not being questioned. That example missed the point of people's fury completely. It was the juxtaposition of the Mexican flag and violence that is troubling to many Americans. It's simply not a good look, even to those of us who oppose President Donald Trump's immigration policies. James Regan, Oak Hill In sharing his opinion as to why protesters in Los Angeles wave the Mexican flag, Enrique Acevedo wrote 'that being American doesn't require being less of anything else.' My father, a native of the Bronx whose parents came from Southern Italy, flew 62 missions in World War II as a bombardier in the U.S. Army Air Forces. Most of his targets were in Southern Italy. I learned enough from my father about being an American to be able to reply to Acevedo's statement: 'Yes, it does.' Stephen Munro, Silver Spring Nothing hurts the cause of migrants more than the flying of the Mexican flag at protests. Many Americans, including those opposed to President Donald Trump's policies, react warmly to minorities waving the American flag. Waving the flag says that despite the United States' past mistakes and current problems, your loyalty is still to this nation. That's important. We're talking tactics here: Fly the Mexican flag in your home but not in public. Try to make the American flag represent something more, and greater, than what anti-immigration supporters want it to represent. Fly the American flag high, and more people will listen. Jack Dolan, Arlington Flying the Mexican flag at protests is not the real issue. The real issue is that protesters and sanctuary cities are opposing and hindering lawful Immigration and Customs Enforcement activities. That is what gets me upset. Flying another nation's flag, burning cars and rioting are just pouring gas on the fire. Steve Henry, Springfield My father was wounded twice in North Africa, and two of my husbands served in the Navy during that war, so I have the greatest respect for members of the military and their families. I do not care about the cost of the military parade, but I do care about the cost to stroke President Donald Trump's ego. There are far more important programs that the funds could have been used for. I want to thank people such as retired National Guard Maj. Gen. Randy Manner for his courage in speaking out against the parade. More service members should have followed his lead. I did not watch the parade because I did not want my attention to go toward Trump. I fly the flag every day, and I contribute to the United Service Organizations. I pay tribute to the military privately. Margaret Munson, Penn Valley, California Leading up to Juneteenth, which observes the June 19, 1865, emancipation of the last enslaved Black people, we again saw the bigotry of President Donald Trump's administration. During President Joe Biden's term, his administration rightly re-designated several military bases that had been named for Confederate generals. The new names honored true American heroes such as President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Now, the Trump administration has restored the names of Fort Bragg in North Carolina; Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Pickett and Fort Lee in Virginia; Fort Benning and Fort Gordon in Georgia; Fort Hood in Texas; Fort Polk in Louisiana; and Fort Rucker in Alabama. To do this, the Trump administration named the bases for decorated but mostly obscure soldiers who just 'happen' to have the same last names as the Confederate leaders. In this transparent ploy, Fort Bragg, which the Biden administration renamed Fort Liberty, is supposedly being renamed to honor Roland L. Bragg, a World War II paratrooper, instead of Braxton Bragg, a Confederate general. Every intelligent, decent person should be offended by this duplicity. Today's U.S. soldiers will serve at bases that share the name of some of our nation's most shameful figures — some of whom, such as Braxton Bragg, were enslavers. It's an insult to our service members and to the principle of freedom for all, which those soldiers are expected to defend. What a country commemorates — in statues, flags, monuments and names — shows what it stands for. They are statements both reflective of us and influential to us. They are symbols that create models, good or bad, for Americans to emulate. We should learn from our country's dark side and glorify its bright side. Hopefully, in time, the recent regressions will be rectified as the United States reaffirms its highest values. Roger Buckwalter, Tequesta, Florida The writer is a retired editorial page editor of the Jupiter Courier. The parade on June 14 was unforgettable. I'm incredibly proud and grateful to be part of our Army's 250-year legacy of service to the nation. Serving as one of many ambassadors on the National Mall — supporting the parade and engaging with thousands of fellow Americans — I was filled with powerful reminders of why I serve. This celebration gave the American public a rare chance to connect with soldiers up close and in person, to experience the Army's proud traditions, capabilities and people. These kinds of moments showcase the professionalism and heart of our force and open the door to real conversations. The exchanges that stuck with me most were the ones I had with young people who were curious about what I do, and how the Army and its core values (loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, personal courage) have shaped my life. I had a moment of revelation on the Mall talking to a young man thinking about his future: So many young people don't know anything about the military, and what they do know is colored by bias, distortions perpetuated by the media and fiction. The Army isn't my whole life, but it has been the most formative experience of my life. Reconnecting the public to the people, sacrifice and history that define our military helps avoid diluting our American story to meaningless pageantry and hollow patriotic platitudes. The memory and legacy of millions of soldiers who sacrificed for our freedom in blood endure only if we take time to understand and honor our past. Think of the Americans who held the line at Cantigny, our first major offensive in World War I, or the 77th Division trapped behind enemy lines in the Argonne Forest, surviving days without food, water or relief. Think of the soldiers at Omaha Beach, who waded through gunfire and surf on D-Day during World War II, or those who endured the siege of Hürtgen Forest, fighting inch by inch through freezing mud and relentless artillery. In Korea, soldiers froze in place at the Chosin Reservoir, outnumbered and surrounded, yet fought their way out with courage that defined a generation. These are not just stories; they are the foundation of our service. That legacy lives on in every soldier who raises their hand today, choosing to serve something greater than themselves. If we don't tell these stories — if we don't show our citizens who we are and what we stand for — how will our children understand the cost of the freedoms they enjoy? We owe it to them. We owe it to every soldier who never made it home. And we owe it to the future of our Army. Roxanne Wegman, Fort Belvoir The writer is a major in the U.S. Army. The views expressed herein are her personal views and do not reflect an official position of the Army or the Defense Department.

Washington Post

7 hours ago

• Washington Post

Panama suspends constitutional protections in the northwest after destructive protests

PANAMA CITY — Panama suspended constitutional protections for five days in its northwestern Bocas del Toro province Friday after two months of protests and road blockades turned more destructive the previous night. Presidential Minister Juan Carlos Orillac said in a news conference that the move would allow the government to reestablish order and 'rescue the province' from 'radical groups.' What began as nationwide protests against changes to the social security system morphed Thursday night into people damaging the local airport and the facilities of banana giant Chiquita Brands, which fired thousands of striking workers in the province last month. Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino had said at the time that the banana workers' strike was illegal and included some 5,000 workers. On May 27, the government declared a state of emergency in the province without suspending constitutional protections. But actions by masked people authorities described as criminals overnight led Mulino to announce Thursday night that he would meet with his Cabinet Friday to take action. The perpetrators forced their way into the airport in Changuinola, Bocas del Toro's main city, where they vandalized cars and started a fire in the local baseball stadium. They sacked Chiquita's shuttered facility and destroyed a local office of the National Civil Defense Service. Protests, marches and occasional roadblocks have stretched from one end of the country to the other as teachers, construction workers and other unions rejected changes the government said were necessary to keep the social security system solvent. Demonstrations have occasionally turned violent, but the forced entrance of people to the airport and banana facility overnight triggered Friday's government reaction. Earlier this month, Mulino brought in a Catholic archbishop and a rabbi to act as mediators with protesters. Last week, Panama's Congress approved a new law for the banana sector that was part of an agreement to end the strike by protecting workers' benefits like medical assistance and labor protections under the new social security regime. ____ Follow AP's coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at

News24

10 hours ago

• News24

Ramaphosa urges renewed commitment to constitutionalism at 30th anniversary of Constitutional Court

President Cyril Ramaphosa calls for continued recognition of the Constitutional Court's role in upholding democracy. He noted the gap between the Constitution's promises and the daily struggles of many South Africans, especially regarding basic service delivery. Ramaphosa confirmed steps to ensure judicial independence, including giving the judiciary control over its own budget and operations. As the country marked the 30th anniversary of the establishment of the Constitutional Court, President Cyril Ramaphosa has called on all sectors of South African society to recommit to the principles of constitutionalism. Speaking at Constitution Hill in Johannesburg on Friday, Ramaphosa said the occasion was not only a celebration, but also an opportunity for reflection and renewed purpose. READ: Families of apartheid victims launch R167m constitutional legal action against government for justice failures 'The Constitutional Court was established as a bold response to a painful past, a past in which the law was used to exclude, repress and divide,' Ramaphosa said. 'Thirty years later, this institution continues to serve as a cornerstone of our democracy.' He paid tribute to the founding justices and legal professionals who had helped shape the court's jurisprudence in its formative years. Reflecting on the symbolism of the court's location on the site of an apartheid-era prison and military fort, Ramaphosa said the institution represented a transformation of justice in South Africa. This building, once a place of suffering, now houses a court that upholds dignity, equality and freedom. Cyril Ramaphosa Ramaphosa recalled his role as chair of the Constitutional Assembly when the Constitution was adopted in 1996. He likened the document to a birth certificate for the nation, affirming its identity, legitimacy and access to rights. Without it, he said, the country would be 'cast adrift and vulnerable to the excesses of unchecked power'. The president acknowledged the court's legacy in shaping democratic life and delivering key judgments on housing, healthcare and equality. He highlighted landmark rulings such as the abolition of the death penalty in S v Makwanyane, the right to housing in the Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom, and access to HIV treatment in Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign. These were not just legal decisions; they changed lives and contributed to building a more inclusive society. Ramaphosa The president was candid about the continuing challenges facing constitutionalism in South Africa. He pointed to the gap between the rights promised in the Constitution and the lived reality of many citizens, citing persistent inequality, service delivery failures and delays in the implementation of court orders. 'The irony of praising judgments that affirm socioeconomic rights, while the state must be compelled to fulfil them, is not lost on us,' he said. 'People should not have to go to court to access basic services.' He noted that, while the judiciary had remained largely resilient in the face of political and societal pressures, systemic challenges continued to affect its ability to function effectively. The Constitutional Court, in particular, has faced mounting caseloads since its jurisdiction was expanded in 2013 to include matters of general public importance. In response, Ramaphosa announced progress in addressing judicial independence and institutional support. He confirmed that the judiciary would soon enjoy full independence, with control over its own budget and administration – a long-standing concern among legal stakeholders. 'This anomaly in our constitutional architecture is being resolved,' he said. The judiciary will now stand as an equal branch of the state, alongside the executive and the legislature. Ramaphosa Budget allocations for 2024/25 have included funding for court services and judicial training, and to fill vacancies. Ramaphosa reaffirmed government's commitment to supporting the judiciary through infrastructural, financial and administrative means. He also acknowledged the role of civil society, legal practitioners and the public in upholding the rule of law. 'The court derives its legitimacy from the public's confidence in the justice system.' Ramaphosa concluded by urging all South Africans to ensure that the values enshrined in the Constitution continued to define the country's national identity. 'As we look to the next 30 years, we must ensure that the Constitutional Court remains a living institution, principled, responsive and rooted in human dignity.' He paid tribute to former president Nelson Mandela, who inaugurated the court in 1995, saying: 'He would be proud that this institution continues to serve the people with strength and integrity.'