|
Home > What's New > An Interview with Alejandro Martinez Cuenca
 Email this feature to a friend
An Interview with Alejandro Martinez Cuenca
Q: But you compete with Cuban cigars now: people in the United States get Cuban cigars now, not
legally, but they get them.
A: Yes, it's true, but it's not the same as when you have, say, 50 million sticks around than
when you have 200 million sticks.
Q: At that meeting, wasn't the prime area of concern for members the election of Ortega?
A: Most of the group was careful not to express too much anxiety. I don't think Ortega is going
to break with the international organizations. It would be suicidal.
Q: Didn't Ortega say he was breaking from CAFTA [the Central American Free Trade Agreement] at
his inauguration?
A: Ortega has never said since his inauguration he would remove Nicaragua from CAFTA, even
though he signed ALBA [a cooperation agreement between Venezuela, Cuba and other countries
promoting redistribution of wealth]. According to press reports, in the recent meeting Ortega held
with the secretary of commerce of the U.S. in Ecuador, Ortega reaffirmed his commitment to hold to
CAFTA in spite of the cooperation agreement with Venezuela. By now, Ortega should be clear in his
mind that there is no return in terms of CAFTA, because such action would weaken not only
Nicaragua, but would undermine any possibility of reaffirming a constructive and good working
relation with the U.S. and his presidency, and I believe Ortega does not want that to happen.
Q: You know Ortega, probably better than anyone else in the tobacco industry. What kind of a
man is he?
A: I met him for the first time in 1977. And then I worked with him in '78 in Costa Rica. I
know the young Daniel, the middle Daniel and the older Daniel.
Q: Are they different?
A: The Daniel that I met in '77 and the Daniel in 2007 is a completely different Daniel. In '77
he was nothing; now he is a very eloquent, very intelligent, very able politician. Nobody can
doubt that. He was able to split the vote of the right. He was able to maintain the party of which
I am a member, and to act politically in searching for solutions to avoid having the party split.
We worked together very closely in the 1980s, and we had our disagreements. When he lost in 1990,
everybody thought Ortega was over. And nevertheless, he maintained the party. And even though he
was in the opposition with no power, he was able to maintain that level of political acuity. The
Ortega I am referring to, the Ortega of the 1990s, he was a negotiating Ortega. In the 1970s, he
was a guerrilla. So he was always negotiating, and that made him open to the opportunity to
continue building. Even though he lost three times, he continued to be the candidate of the
party.
Obviously, he did things with which I completely disagree. He went against the rules of the
party when he eliminated the possibility of a primary process in the last election, and that's why
I opposed Ortega in that regard.
Q: So it was his doing that changed the election laws?
A: Yes. Negotiating with [Arnoldo] Alemán, who was then president, they changed the
constitution, and they decided to move the level that [a candidate] needed to win from 45 to 35
percent, as long as the one that was behind you was five points behind.
Q: That's quite a difference. Was that when you decided to oppose him?
A: In 2001, I ran in the primary against Ortega, I respected the results when they were not
favoring my candidacy, and I even worked for his candidacy. In '06 I told him, if you don't
respect the bylaws of the party, I cannot support your candidacy. The party establishes that in
order to establish the candidate of a political party, you go through a primary process. You don't
do it by hand, which is what happened.
Q: So there was no vote to make him the candidate of the Sandinista party?
A: He was selected by his friends, who decided to violate the bylaws of the party. That's my
criticism of Ortega. Once he won, I cannot oppose the fact that everybody else played by the
rules, and the rules gave him the majority of the vote, regardless of how small or how big.
Q: Did you leave the Sandinista party?
A: No. I will continue fighting.
Q: In the United States, "Sandinista" is a bad word. Tell us what it really means, what the
purpose of the party is, so people can understand what it means in its purest form.
A: The extreme right vision of the world basically is understood as to let the minority produce
growth and then it's going to filter down to the large majority of the people. That's why I became
part of the revolution in 1970, because I was convinced, coming from a high-middle-class family,
that the model of development that was being pushed by the Somoza regime, which was basically an
extreme right-wing vision, did not work. And that's why I became a Sandinista. Because we feel you
must give priorities to public policy, that help education, as you do in the United States. Here
you are on the right or on the left. If you are critical of the model, you are on the left. The
Sandinistas have been critical of the model of the filtering down process.
Q: The trickle-down model?
A: When you have public policy being dictated in the assembly, when you promote investment,
when you promote growth and stability and respect for property rights—once all that is done, there
shouldn't be a difference between the left and the right. Until now, there has been a perception
that the left doesn't respect private property, doesn't respect human rights, doesn't respect
criticism from the press. That taboo on the left is not part of my thinking. It might have been
different in the 1980s, but at this time the difference between a Sandinista and an ultra-right
person should be that we have a different model, but coming from a common ground: there are basic
elements that both the right and the left have to respect.
Q: It seems as if Ortega, in having changed the election process, has already shown disrespect
for some of the principles you mention.
A: When you have Hugo Chavez trying to expropriate a TV channel because they criticize him,
obviously that has pulled back the stigma of the left. All of that is against the liberties we
have won. To answer your question, what is the difference of the Sandinista today versus the
1980s? In the 1980s, we did not commit ourselves to recognize property. The Sandinistas recognize
that that was a big mistake, to try to give out wealth in order to improve the distribution of
wealth in the country. It's more important to give opportunities to people.
Q: We spoke about what the cigarmakers of Nicaragua think about the election. What of the
opinion of the international community, those who might be considering investing in Nicaragua? Do
you think this has given them pause?
A: If I am reading the signals correctly, people are saying, Let us wait and see. If I am
investing in something, I'm not going to stop, but if I wanted to complete this investment in a
period of six months, I might want to postpone it. I think it's understandable. That's why Ortega
has to understand that this is a tango that takes two to dance. Unless there is investment, the
country cannot solve the problems of poverty and unemployment. Some say Hugo Chavez may give us
support if we lose investments, but how long will that last? It should be looked at in the
long-term perspective.
First Page
Back to top
| 
Cigar Aficionado RSS Feed