Tag Archives: Brazil

Castaneda’s Legacy for US-Mexico Relations

By Fredo Arias-King.  Mr. Arias-King is a Harvard-trained businessman and scholar of contemporary Russia , was advisor of international affairs to the National Action Party (PAN) and to the Vicente Fox campaign, handling most of the relation with Washington during the campaign together with Dr. Carlos Salazar. His research focuses on the post-communist transitions. He is also the founder of the Washington-based Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization.

 

How should Washington deal an openly aggressive and hostile Mexican Foreign Policy?  With Jorge Castaeda’s anti-American agitation again a distinct possiblity if he is appointed by president-elect Felipe Calderon this question must be asked.

 

This question poses a dilemma since, after all, he was appointed the foreign minister of Mexico’s first democratic and legitimate government in over seven decades, and his reappointment by Caldern would confirm that Mexico’s ruling class indeed prefers an assertive foreign policy towards Washington.

 

An openly aggressive response by the United States to Castaeda’s provocations would ultimately be interpreted as an affront to Mexico itself. It may also vindicate the foreign Castaeda’s Legacy for U.S.-Mexico Relations minister’s (and the illiberal Left’s) rhetoric of victimization, or be interpreted as U.S. discomfort towards Mexico’s newfound sense of international activism. (Whereas Castaeda was widely unpopular as foreign secretary, the perception of Mexico’s more active foreign policy is popular.)

 

On the other hand, an appeasement of Castaeda by Washington and the acceptance of his agenda may strengthen the foreign minister politically, and may serve as a precedent for future Mexican foreign ministers and even for other countries to follow in their dealings with Washington. Other Latin American countries may be observing the results of Castaeda’s brinkmanship with the United States. A favorable and accommodating U.S. policy of course may benefit Mexico in the short run, but it may unnecessarily complicate relations in the medium and long term, since a precedent would have been set on how to deal with Washington.

 

Mexico’s strategic importance in the Hemisphere has increased due to the tide of countries governed by leaders hostile to Washington, namely in Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, and to a lesser extent also Argentina and Brazil. As Castaeda has been perceived to have broken with this network, there will be an impulse in Washington to accommodate Mexico, and Castaeda may extract high costs for his “cooperation” against Washington’s enemies in the Hemisphere.

 

With his presidential ambitions in mind, that cost will most certainly entail a comprehensive package of immigration reform. Should Washington adopt a “peace in our time” approach in its dealings with a Castaeda-style Mexican foreign policy, however, it is likely to produce ever-more-unreasonable demands from the government in Mexico City which is attempting to pass-the-buck for its lackluster economic performance these past six years. A polite but firm rebuke from Washington would likely provoke a heated condemnation from the Mexican elites in the short run. In the medium-term, though, it would encourage the latter finally to pass needed reforms in Mexico and not shift the blame northward.

 

View full paper (Web)

View full paper (PDF)

 

 

7-Eleven cuts off Chavez; it’s about time

Were it not for his vitriolic speech at the United Nations earlier this month, the problem of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez might have passed unnoticed in Washington. The fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, leaks about the war in Iraq, and hurried attempts by Congress to wind up business prior to campaign season had all but obscured the troubling developments in our hemisphere – and our government’s seeming inability to cope with them.

The good news is that the convenience store chain 7-Eleven yesterday announced they were no longer going to support Chavez’s virulent anti-American agenda, by ceasing to sell oil-products at its 2,100 stations from Venezuela’s state-owned company Citgo. This sets the stage for a vigorous effort on the part of the U.S. government to attend to the metastasizing problem of Venezuelan regime’s agenda in the Western hemisphere and beyond.

The Danger Posed by Chavez

Unfortunately, neither the White House nor Congress has offered a strategy to deal with the rising threat to the stability of the Western Hemisphere and to the security of some of our most important energy supplies. That threat, posed by the Venezuelan regime and the Cuban security services that prop it up, has included:

 

  • the dismantling of democratic institutions in Venezuela and the construction of a dictatorship built around the cult of personality of Chavez;

     

  • the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Bolivia and his successor, and their replacement with the Caracas-backed head of the coca growers’ union;

     

  • other subversion in the region that has caused Mexico and Peru to all but break relations with Venezuela;

     

  • open use of oil as a weapon against the United States and its allies;

     

  • systematic alliance-building with all the countries on the State Department’s list of state-sponsors of terrorism, including Iran and North Korea;

     

  • new militarization that includes building factories to manufacture Russian-designed assault rifles, destined to arm pro-Chavez mobs at home and violent groups in other parts of Latin America; and

     

  • an unprecedented buildup of military aircraft supplied by the Russian Sukhoi warplane manufacturer and the French-German-Spanish-Russian EADS aerospace giant.

    Washington has wanted to wish away the Venezuela problem, but the actions of the regime are so alarming that the United States dare not risk ignoring the problem any further.

    Important First Steps

    To its credit, the Bush administration has made some efforts concerning the regime in Caracas. They include:

     

  • Ditching the Jimmy Carter approach. The administration finally did away with its Jimmy Carter approach to Venezuela, which was to let Chavez have his way on the grounds that he was democratically elected, even as the U.S. kept an eye on what Chavez was doing.

     

  • Attempt to stop European sale of military planes. In January, the administration invoked a nonproliferation law to stop the European Defense, Aerospace and Space Company (EADS) from selling its C-295 troop transport aircraft to Caracas, citing the planes’ many American-made components. The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) allow the president to ban foreign sales of military products and services if he deems it in the national interest. ITAR restrictions cover U.S. technology in defense products manufactured abroad, providing the president power to ban the sale of other countries’ military exports if they contain American-made components. EADS has circumvented the restrictions by seeking non-U.S. replacement parts for the C-295s. Administration action might have killed the deal.

     

  • Ban on sale of U.S. replacement parts and services. As Chavez pushed further away from the United States and toward practically any American adversary, the administration imposed a ban on the sale of military parts and services to Venezuela, effectively grounding the regime’s fleet of aging F-16 fighters and C-130 transports. By that time, however, the regime had decided to buy from EADS and Sukhoi of Russia.

     

  • Military embargo. The administration imposed a military embargo on Venezuela and urged other countries to do the same. Sweden, for example, has followed the U.S. lead, but France, Germany, Spain and Russia (the largest owners of EADS) have not.

     

  • Attempt to deny Venezuela a seat on U.N. Security Council. The administration has worked mightily to deny the regime a rotating seat on the United Nations Security Council. However, the State Department has done a poor job of working with other hemispheric countries to deny Caracas the votes. Latin American and Caribbean governments have complained of U.S. clumsiness, short-sightedness, failure to counter vastly more generous offers from Chavez, and failure to support a realistic alternative candidate.

     

  • Curb the tendency to talk loudly while carrying a big stick. The United States blusters too much, especially at the highest levels, but with Venezuela it has generally pursued the right course. The President and Secretary of State have been correct not to let the dictator bait them and thereby increase his prestige and lower theirs. The White House’s recent dismissal of the Venezuelan dictator as a "gnat" is exactly the right approach.

     

  • Increased intelligence priorities. Over the summer the administration created a "mission manager" in the intelligence community to concentrate on Cuba and Venezuela. This is an important step, signifying a high intelligence priority, as the only other country-specific mission managers are for Iran and North Korea.

    What Needs to be Done

    There is much more to do, most of which can be done easily by White House directive and by Congress saying "no" to bailing out Chavez and his friends. Policy recommendations include:

     

  • Issue a Venezuela finding. The President should issue a finding that the U.S. will not allow forces allied with international terrorism to subvert democracy and prop up dictatorships in the Americas.

     

  • Set up an interagency working group on Venezuela. The group should be modeled loosely on the new interagency working groups on Cuba. The "control room" must be in the White House, not the State Department, chaired personally by the Vice President, with the proper National Security Council staffing, budget and authority to ensure that the president’s policies are faithfully executed. A model is the Reagan-era Working Group on Soviet Active Measures.

     

  • Set up a White House working group on Venezuela. The administration should create an informal, bipartisan White House Working Group on Venezuela, comprised of independent policy experts, NGOs, political strategists, public affairs practitioners, intelligence officers, diplomats and others to meet weekly to discuss Venezuela-related issues and how best to address them. This outside group would be similar to the successful White House Task Force on Central America under the Reagan Administration. In addition to helping build a constituency for action against the Venezuelan regime, it would energize outside individuals and groups, help them network with one another and with U.S. officials under White House auspices, permit them to provide straight outside advice on a Venezuela strategy, and serve as a feedback mechanism for administration policies and statements.

     

  • Systematically collect and exploit intelligence on the Venezuelan regime to educate the public at home and abroad. As the Reagan Administration did about the Soviet military buildup and about Soviet bloc expansion into Central America and the Caribbean, the U.S. must systematically collect intelligence on the Venezuelan regime and its leaders, and use that intelligence for public education and public diplomacy purposes. The U.S. has ample opportunity to collect accurate, reliable intelligence about the regime, its leaders, and their ties to terrorism and organized crime, and provide that information to the public on a regular basis.

     

  • Wage intense but low-level political and psychological warfare against the regime. The President should task the intelligence community to collect and analyze information that can be used to educate and influence the international community about the Caracas regime, and to promote operational objectives inside Venezuela. Those objectives include: divide the regime leadership from its followers, divide regime figures against one another (especially over questions of corruption and nepotism), divide patriotic Venezuelans in the military and security services from the thousands of Cuban intelligence and security personnel in the country, support and unify the internal opposition to the regime, and promote a return to democracy. Given its total failure to promote U.S. interests through public diplomacy, and the incompatibility of the mission with the culture of the foreign service, the State Department is the last place to be in charge of such an operation. The White House should coordinate the campaign across the agencies.

     

  • Create a surrogate radio, TV, and Internet media network for Venezuela. While the regime has not crushed the independent press yet, it has imposed severe restrictions that have alarmed the Inter-American Press Association. The U.S. shouldn’t wait until Chavez silences or co-opts the free Venezuelan media. It must create surrogate radio, TV and Internet outlets immediately, modeled after the successful Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty system aimed at the Soviet Union, or after Radio Marti set up for Cuba. The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) has been loath to dedicate resources toward Venezuela programming and has devoted an amount so small as to be useless. The president should stop allowing Clinton appointees to run the BBG, and appoint only BBG board members and staff who support special programming for Venezuela.

     

  • Stop U.S. government subsidy of the Venezuelan regime. The single largest American subsidy of the Chavez regime is the daily hemorrhaging of cash for Venezuelan oil and fuel services. Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, PDVSA, is 100 percent owner of the Tulsa-based CITGO oil company. By purchasing CITGO products, U.S. government agencies are diverting taxpayer dollars to the Chavez regime. Therefore the U.S. should bar any government agency or contractor from purchasing CITGO products effective immediately.

     

  • Prepare pre-emptive and retaliatory economic action in event of oil crisis. The administration should draft emergency plans to seize all of CITGO’s assets and sell them to American oil companies. Because CITGO is not private property but a foreign state-owned enterprise, property rights are not an issue. The plans should include using the proceeds to reimburse American companies cheated and otherwise victimized by the regime, finance efforts to help Venezuelans restore democracy in their country, cover expenses to clean up after Chavez in Venezuela and other countries, and reimburse regime victims. The plans should ensure that the innocent individual American service station franchises would not be adversely affected.

     

  • Show other countries that there is a price to be paid for helping to arm the Venezuelan regime. EADS CASA, the French-German-Spanish-Russian aerospace company, has gone out of its way to ignore repeated U.S. requests not to sell C-295 military aircraft to Caracas. The company has circumvented the U.S. nonproliferation law and willfully broken the U.S. arms embargo against Venezuela. It has also misled Congress about the nature of the Venezuela deal. EADS CASA planned to recoup any losses incurred in its Venezuela sale by getting Congress to buy the C-295 for the new Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) program. Therefore, Congress and the Administration must declare that the U.S. will not purchase any EADS CASA aircraft until the Chavez regime is gone. That means removing the EADS CASA C-295 from consideration in the JCA program and removing funding for purchase of the aircraft by the Coast Guard Deepwater program.

     

  • Work with other governments in the region. The U.S. has more potential allies down there than it realizes. Many governments, even those on the Left, are fearful of the Venezuelan regime and what it means for them. The Chavez style of subversive and violent revolution is a threat to the legitimacy of the democratic Left in the region. The Caracas-backed regime in Bolivia overstepped when it confiscated property and breached energy contracts with Argentina, Brazil and Spain – all governed by leftist politicians who are divided between their softness toward anti-U.S. rhetoric and action, and the trampling of their own business interests. As we predicted in our 2005 paper, "What to Do About Venezuela," Latin American leaders are getting sick of Chavez and his antics. It is quite possible for him to self-destruct – but not without American help.

    The Bottom Line

    Undoubtedly, the danger posed by the Venezuelan regime is real and growing. Steps like those described above must be adopted without further delay if the United States is to retain influence in its own backyard.

    • Prevent Venezuela from joining Security Council

    By Luis Fleischman

    (Washington, D.C.): On October 16, a secret ballot of the United Nations General Assembly will decide who will be elected for the Latin American seat at the UN Security Council left vacant by Argentina. If no country wins two-thirds of the vote — 128 out of 192 — the Assembly votes again, until one country wins the necessary majority.

    The two leading contenders are Venezuela and Guatemala, even though there are now talks regarding the possible candidacy of Uruguay for the seat instead of Venezuela.

    Venezuela has put a lot of effort into winning this seat. Among those supporting Venezuela are the 22 members of the Arab League, the countries of the Southern Common market Mercosur including Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. Bolivia, Cuba and the Caribbean Community 13 country trade bloc known as CARICOM. Russia and China have announced that they will also support Venezuela. Iran, of course, is a strong supporter of Venezuela. Opposed to Venezuela are Mexico, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Colombia, the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico. Most European countries seem to be backing Guatemala while Asia and Africa are divided. In Latin America Chile, Haiti and Peru remain undecided.

    Even though Venezuela is a country led by a radical and delirious dictator, it has amassed great support. This is the effective result of a world campaign which included more than a mere public relations strategy. Venezuela has been offering subsidized oil to countries in the Caribbean, buying foreign debt bonds (Argentina) and offering financial assistance to far away countries in Asia and Africa.

    Why should the world oppose Venezuela’s seat on the UN Security Council since it would be temporary?

    There are a number of reasons why it is imperative to oppose Venezuela’s bid to be on the Security Council. Venezuela proclaims a strong anti-Americanism, and, at the same time tries, to counterbalance US power in the world and particularly in Latin America. In the course of that action Venezuela’s leader Hugo Chavez makes alliances with rogue and dangerous states such as Iran and Syria, tries to politically de-stabilize regimes in Latin America such as Peru, Mexico and Ecuador; actively supports radical guerilla and terrorist groups such as FARC and has declared open support for Hezbollah. As a matter of moral principle this should be unacceptable in an era characterized by a global war against terrorism and the danger of nuclear weapons falling in the hands of unscrupulous states and organizations. Appointing Venezuela to the Council would be the wrong message to the world community and a big defeat for the enlightened nations of the West.

    By the same token and in more formal terms, Venezuela occupying a seat in the Security Council is nothing but a reversal of the reforms promoted by the US and European countries in the world body.

    Nothing has reflected more the moral bankruptcy of the world body than the third world and the former communist block’s concept that social justice and social equality stood as supreme values above what is morally acceptable or human rights, properly speaking. Thus, membership of rogue states and ruthless dictatorships on the Security Council and on the Human Rights commissions has been routine throughout the history of the United Nations. This moral relativism has ultimately helped legitimize terrorism and other forms of political violence.

    Thus, for example, Yasser Arafat was welcomed in the UN in 1974 at the peak of the most vicious massacres of civilians and children carried out by the PLO. The idea that attacking those perceived as being strong and powerful is acceptable regardless of human casualties or cruelty. This spirit was for years supported not only by the Soviet Union and the third world but often directly or indirectly by a French-led European community motivated mostly by dependency on the third world raw materials (mostly Arab oil) and its Gaullist dream of counterbalancing American power in the West. All this together explains the reason why this spirit prevailed despite the disappearance of the Soviet Union as a world power. There is no doubt in my mind that Osama Bin Laden counted on the support of this world attitude and the ambiguity of the world community before perpetrating the 9/11 attacks in order to win the public relations battle.

    However, things have taken a different turn lately. The events of 9/11 were followed by terrorist attacks in the railways of Spain in March 2004 and attacks in Great Britain in July 2005. This has had some impact on Western European attitudes, particularly France. Despite the highly unpopular war in Iraq among European nations, Europe was willing to take an active role in the US initiative to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, most notably France that only in 2003 was at the forefront of anti-American opposition. This is concurrent with the plan initiated and promoted by the Bush Administration to reform the highly shady United Nations.

    Thus, the appointment of Venezuela to fill the Security Council seat would be a political and moral reversal. Venezuela is a country that has openly supported everything the western world stands against. Chavez’s concern for the Latin American poor and other "acts of compassion" should not blur the fact that the man is a regional conspirator and an ally of rogue states. If the world community provides a Security Council seat to Venezuela it would provide him with a platform to be a strong advocate of Iran and international terrorism. This would be a defeat not only for the US but also for the western hemisphere as a whole. Voting for Chavez is against the spirit of reform and moral improvement promoted by the United States and other Western countries. The fact that Europeans are not voting for Venezuela is encouraging but they must also apply their influence to convince Latin American countries, who themselves have a third very good reason to defeat Chavez: the stability of their still fragile and young democracies.

    The US and its European allies must convince Latin American countries that the short-term benefits deriving from the relation with Venezuela should not interfere with the long-term stability of the region. Latin American countries must be reminded that Venezuela is a highly de-stabilizing force that has and can turn against democratically elected regimes in Latin America, as Hugo Chavez has already done in Peru, Mexico and Ecuador. It would be difficult to convince Argentina since Chavez, by buying foreign debt bonds from Argentina and providing other trade benefits, has enabled the Argentinean government to restore some of the reserves lost as the result of the payment of the foreign debt to the International Monetary Fund. However, Brazil is by far stronger and less dependent on Venezuela. Chavez incited Bolivia to nationalize Brazilian owned companies (Petro-Bras). Brazil, being the largest, most powerful and oil-independent country in Latin America has no reason to support Venezuela except for President Lula’s socialist affinity with Venezuela and solidarity with another member of Mercosur. Chile, under President Michelle Bachelet’s leadership, has for a long time shied away from the assertiveness of its predecessors and become apologetic of Latin American populisms. Chavez endorsed Bachelet when she ran for election. In return, Bachelet in early September, stated that to "vote against Chavez is to vote against the region". However, later the same month Venezuela and Chile confronted each other amid declarations by the Venezuelan Ambassador in Santiago accusing the Chilean Christian Democratic Party of having supported the coup against Chavez in April 2002 and the Pinochet coup against Allende in 1973. Bachelet declared that the Ambassador’s statements are "unacceptable" and represent interference in Chile’s internal affairs. Now the government of Chile is again considering whether it will vote for Chavez or not. This is a perfect time for American and western diplomats to persuade Chile to vote against Venezuela.

    Chile has not only been an ally of the US but also one of the most economically successful countries in Latin America. Chile, like Brazil, does not depend on Venezuela. The US must convince Chile that the relationship with the US is important and that Chile’s position may be weakened by siding with somebody like Chavez. Furthermore, Chavez is not a regional leader but, as he has demonstrated, his authoritarian instincts may turn against an ally at the moment Chavez is displeased with certain policies carried out by a regional country. The same principle applies to Argentina and other countries. However, the stubborn personality of the Argentinean president does not allow for dialogue, at least for the time being. Furthermore, Argentina was a bankrupt country and Chavez’s help was badly needed. However, Chile is different. Chile is successful and it should not budge by showing weakness. Chile, like Brazil must be persuaded to oppose Venezuela. It goes without saying that Peru suffered direct interference by Chavez in its domestic politics. Chavez criticized the current President of Peru, Alan Garcia, during the election by confronting him and publicly supporting the pan-indigenous, ultra-nationalist Ollanta Humala.

    In sum, it is imperative that US and European diplomats continue an aggressive diplomacy and give priority to the goal of defeating Chavez’s bid to the Security Council. World principles and world stability are at stake.

    Clinton’s soak the rich Americans

    For millions of Americans, the spectacle of buffoonery and bombast served up last week in New York by the UN General Assembly – in particular, the appearances there of despots like Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – raised anew questions about the legitimacy and utility of the United Nations. Incredibly, despite this performance and the UN’s rampant corruption, scandals and virulent hostility towards the Free World, the organization has taken a major step towards becoming a supranational government, unaccountable to and ever more routinely at odds with the United States .

    The Globotaxers’ Maiden Voyage

    The occasion was the seemingly innocuous launching on September 19th of a new International Drug Purchasing Facility, dubbed UNITAID, to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. UNITAID will, for the first time, rely for its institutional funding on what the UN euphemistically calls an "innovative financing mechanism." Another word for it is "globotaxes" – levies imposed on international transactions, in this case airline tickets.

    As Secretary General Kofi Annan noted on the occasion of UNITAID’s launching, the French, Chilean, Norwegian, Brazilian and British governments have been responsible for this initiative. He also credited them with "advancing similar innovative financing mechanisms" that "can help us reach the Millennium Development Goals" for reducing poverty, disease and other blights on humanity.

    That is UN-speak for a commitment developed nations like the United States undertook in 2002 to commit 0.7% of their gross domestic product to Official Development Assistance (ODA, also known as foreign aid). The Bush Administration claims to have a different interpretation of this commitment. But UN types like Jeffrey Sachs, Annan’s point man on the Millenium Development Goals, assert that – since the United States only gives 0.15 percent of GDP in official (as opposed to private) foreign aid – this country "owes" some $845 billion between now and 2015 in ODA.

    Enter Bill Clinton

    Since there is no likelihood any Congress, whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats, will approve that kind of money for foreign aid, the alternative idea of generating such funds instead through new, international taxes has gained traction. That is, in part, due to the vested interest former President Bill Clinton has in such an idea.

    As Kofi Annan noted in his September 19th statement welcoming UNITAID: "I am pleased that…the Clinton Foundation will be actively involved" in this initiative. In fact, under the leadership of Hillary Clinton’s controversial former health care guru, Ira Magaziner, the Clinton Foundation will be responsible for negotiating bulk purchases of drugs for UNITAID. Magaziner enthused about the power of such a private sector-UN partnership last week, "Through this initiative we’ll have a sustainable way to assure a supply of drugs and tests for the long term."

    The Camel’s Nose

    What is particularly worrying is that UNITAID’s seemingly unobjectionable disease-relief program will simply be the first of many purposes to which the UN hopes to apply globotaxes. For example, UN types have already begun discussing levies on energy purchases, carbon emissions, international corporate activity and currency transactions. The last of these alone is estimated to be capable of generating a mind-boggling $13 trillion per year!

    The purposes towards which such funds might be applied include development assistance, humanitarian relief, peacekeeping operations, raising and maintaining a UN army and underwriting for the international institutions that will be charged with administering these funds. Some advocates even explicitly propose international taxes as a means of redistributing wealth from the developed to the developing world.

    The cause of promoting "innovative financing mechanisms" on U.S. taxpayers has become a focus of, among others, the Clinton Global Initiative. This is the former president’s vehicle for promoting international good works with respect to climate change, poverty alleviation and mitigating religious and ethnic conflict, along with global health.

    Whose Soaking Whom?

    Under the rubric of public-spiritedness, Mr. Clinton has enlisted the help of a number of major corporations, Democratic party operatives and policy wonks and public figures, including First Lady Laura Bush. Of particular concern, however, are the political implications of the immense amount of money and personal prestige being put in the service of the UN/Clinton agenda by such philanthropists as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Ted Turner and Richard Branson.

    With the resources and influence of such deep-pocketed friends, it seems likely that the traditional mantra of Democratic class warfare – "soak the rich" – will be turned on its head. All other things being equal, the precedent created by an international airline levy-funded UNITAID for fighting disease will likely result in a determined campaign aimed at imposing a variety of globotaxes whereby Bill Clinton’s rich friends will help soak the American taxpayer.

    The Bottom Line

    A United Nations that becomes, thanks to globotaxes, increasingly independent of its member states’ contributions is a UN that will become even more unaccountable, non-transparent and, in all likelihood, even more corrupt and virulently anti-American. Such an organization will inevitably also seek to sap this country’s sovereignty as it strives to build a supranational government attuned to the sentiments of its so-called "non-aligned" majority that is increasingly brazen in its hostility towards the United States.

    Legislation sponsored by Senators Jim Inhofe and Ben Nelson and Representatives Roy BluntRon Paul is pending in Congress that would block UN taxation of Americans without representation. Our forefathers fought a revolution to prevent just such an infringement on our sovereignty and rights. We must resist the present danger no less vociferously. and

    Ethanol: A means toward energy independence?

    Since President Bush’s state of the Union Address in January, there has been a heightened search for alternative sources aiming towards more energy independence. It is indeed necessary to stop financing national economies of those states which are genuinely countering democracy and human rights. Sugar cane based ethanol might be one of the emerging alternatives to fuel cars. Recent news stories about energy saving measures have highlighted the success Brazil is having, using sugar based ethanol to solve its fuel problems. Since the US is facing $3 a gallon gasoline prices the question is why not follow Brazil’s example and begin resorting to plant based instead of fossil fuels.

    NEWS:

    • Calderón wins Mexican Presidential Election.  Obrador’s irresponsible attitude.  Mexico: Oil deposit discovered under Gulf of Mexico.
    • Lula’s Electoral Success Continues in Brazil.
    • Cuba’s Castro says worst is over.
    • Roldós Leads Viteri in Ecuador Ballot.
    • Ortega Leads by Six Points in Nicaragua
    • Chavez says Venezuela and Syria are united against the U.S.  Venezuela’s fight for U.N. seat divides.   Venezuela to seize golf courses.  Venezuela, China to set up $5B Fund.
    • Perú: Largest LatAm gold mine in Peru resumes operation after protest.
    • Bolivia’s four provinces to stage anti-president strike. 

    Editor’s Note: "Hello Mr. Chavez"

    We will use a small section of the Americas Report when possible, to include news of what Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez says directly to his target audience. Since the briefs are in Spanish, the Editor will translate them into English. These stories are taken from www.tinku.org. This web page does not reveal its location, funding or contact information. Tinku.org claims to be "a medium of alternative independent information for Latin America and the world and a poetic encounter between different cultures which criticizes contemporaneous cynicism." It is evident that it promotes the political agenda of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez so it is not difficult to imagine who is responsible for its content. The people that run Tinku.org are up to date in any news happening around the world that could affect Chavez’s policies and are very aware of any criticism against him. They are also very savvy in obtaining and distributing information since Tinku’s contents can also be watched and listened to live via satellite through "Telesur", a Venezuelan TV channel and radio station based in Caracas.

    View full version of the Americas Report (PDF)

    For any questions, comments, or those interested in receiving this report in the future or seeking to have their email removed from our list please contact Nicole M. Ferrand at our new e-mail address: mengesproject@centerforsecuritypolicy.org. If you have news stories that you think might be useful for future editions of this report please send them, with a link to the original website, to the same e-mail address. If you wish to contribute with an article, please send it to the same address, with your name and place of work or study.

    The battle for India

    By Robert T. McLean


    With the conflicts and disorder of the Middle East consuming the attention of much of the civilized world, there is yet another battle raging on — though few in the West are even slightly aware of its potential consequences or that it is even taking place. This one involves the world’s great powers and will likely shape the international environment for the foreseeable future. The Bush Administration’s early March nuclear deal with New Delhi has set the United States on the proper course in this struggle, but if Washington is to emerge victorious, it must not let any short-term success come to be understood as the ultimate triumph and simply move on.

    Much has been made about     both the rise of China and a burgeoning India. Their elevated importance in a globalizing world has drawn commentators in both the East and West to predict that the 21st Century will ultimately become the Asian Century. A notion welcomed by both Russia and China as an avenue to create “multi-polar world order,” this potential shift in power has embroiled the Bush Administration in an unspoken competition for future primacy in Asia.

    Right after the July 17 conclusion of the G8 summit in St. Petersburg, Russian President Vladimir Putin hosted Chinese President Hu Jintao and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in an effort to strengthen their trilateral partnership. Initially articulated by former Russian foreign minister Yevgeny Primakov in a moment of frustration during NATO’s 1999 bombing campaign in Kosovo, the strategic triangle, as it is now frequently called, has progressed in its development yet maintains the vision of its architect.

    Primakov was one of the pioneers of those with influence in Russia who advocated a foreign policy aimed at balancing the United States. Moscow has teamed with Beijing in this endeavor and together the two have recently come to view New Delhi as the key to success. Shih Chun-yu wrote in the Chinese state-owned Ta Kung Pao: “The Sino-Russo-Indian trilateral cooperation is only at its initial stage,” but when “the three nations agree to join forces, the consolidation will generate [an] unmeasured impact on international relationships.” Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko explained that this alliance is only natural as “Moscow, New Delhi and Beijing have common positions on many issues and support a multi-polar world order system.”

    Indeed, there are numerous factors that could compel the Indians to join in this eastern bloc. Russia possesses both the natural resources and technology that New Delhi covets. Bureaucratic inertia — almost synonymous with India– in arms purchases from Russia is something the Bush Administration must counter if the United States is truly to build closer military-to-military relations with India, and organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) are presently unmatched by what Washington can offer Singh. India was granted observer status in the SCO last year and while its intentions regarding full membership are unclear at this time, the Russia and China led alliance would allow New Delhi a greater influence in Central Asia, which it desires, and at least ostensible cooperation in counterterrorism efforts.

    India, like China, is also rapidly seeking to fulfill its expanding energy needs. While recent competition between Beijing and New Delhi for hydrocarbons resulted in benefiting the sellers as it only increased prices, the two have found a channel to cooperate in this regard that has proven mutually beneficial. On August 16, the Wall Street Journal reported that China and India — through their respective state-owned companies, Sinopec Group and Oil & Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) — acquired a fifty percent stake in the Latin America-based Omimex de Colombia. In late 2005, national oil companies from both countries joined to purchase stakes in Al-Furat Petroleum Company in Syria. This concentrated partnership will likely help alleviate the traditional hostility long existent between these Asian giants.

    With all that the Russians and Chinese have going for them in their pitch to India, the United States has done remarkably well as of late. The Bush Administration inherited few initiatives that Washington could build on, but the president has taken advantage of some inherent qualities that both the United States and India possess and some burdens that each must address.

    The United States and India are both longstanding democracies that happen to be fighting Islamic fanaticism and facing the prospect of China’s uncertain intentions that accompany its ever-expanding regional and global influence. Despite an increase in economic cooperation between Beijing and New Delhi — according to some analysts, China should become India’s largest trading partner next year — geographic and historical factors continue to contribute to mutual suspicion. Less than helpful in this situation has been the strengthening of the traditional alliance between Beijing and Islamabad. Compounding this problem is China’s construction at the Port of Gwadar in Pakistan, which essentially gives Beijing a naval presence on both sides of the Indian subcontinent.

    Fortunately, a majority in Congress understand the implications of nuclear cooperation between the United States and India. On July 26, the House of Representatives passed the United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006 recognizing India as a nuclear weapons state. The Senate is expected to pass its own version of the bill next month, but it is imperative that excessive additional conditions are not placed on New Delhi as such an alteration of the original text of the agreement could jeopardize the entire bilateral strategic partnership. Although ties are consistently improving between Washington and New Delhi, setbacks this fall could push the Indians to conclude that the politically homogenous governments in Beijing and Moscow are more reliable partners than the politically tempestuous United States.

    However, in the end it most likely that the nuclear agreement will become law and President Bush and Prime Minister Singh will continue to strengthen their relationship. While New Delhi has yet to sign on to the Proliferation Security Initiative, the biennial American led RIMPAC naval exercises held this summer included India as an observer nation for the first time. India’s desires to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council should also play to Washington’s advantage. While this is unlikely to occur in the near future, the United States could highlight the actual roadblocks in this effort as both China and Russia strongly oppose Japan’s — who along with Germany and Brazil would likely have to accompany India in any addition — request to be admitted as a permanent member.

    Ashley J. Tellis of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace wrote in an extremely influential piece last year: “Unlike his predecessors, President George W. Bush has demonstrated a strong desire to transform relations with India, guided by his administration’s understanding of the geopolitical challenges likely to face the United States in the twenty-first century.” The Bush Administration has not yet won what the CIA has described as the most important “swing state” of the century, but the same demonstration of commitment and resolve that the president has displayed in Iraq should ensure that no Asian bloc arises to threaten the new American Century.

    Chavez’s oil problems with China

    Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has repeatedly expressed his wishes to sell large amounts of oil to China in order to reduce or even stop his need to export it to the United States. The latest statement made by the country’s oil minister, Rafael Ramirez, is that the South American country plans to increase its oil sales to China to 200,000 barrels a day from the current 150,000. Chávez had previously said that he hoped to export 300,000 barrels a day to the Asian giant by the end of the year.

    Chavez’s capacity to create controversy is undeniable. He is best pals with Fidel Castro, has signed arms deals with Russia and has visited his Iranian new friend Mahmoud Ahmadinejad openly calling for the destruction of the U.S. echoing the Middle Eastern dictator’s words. It is ironic that although he hates the United States so much, he makes sure his oil shipments arrive without delay to this country’s ports obtaining revenues of millions if not billions of American, yes American dollars.

    NEWS:

    • Venezuela: Iran’s Trade Exchanges with Venezuela to Boost to US$8 billion.  Venezuela’s Chavez Runs for Re-Election.
    • Brazil: Brazil’s Lula Closer to First Round Victory.
    • Mexico still Presidentless.
    • Raul Castro receives Hugo Chavez in Cuba.  Learn to live without me, Castro tells Cubans as he turns 80.  Iran, Cuba to expand industrial cooperation.
    • Bolivia’s President Morales drops to 68% approval.
    • Ortega Barely Edging Montealegre in Nicaragua.  Nicaragua: Energy Crisis gets worse
    • Ecuador, Chile sign agreements on petroleum cooperation, tariff cuts.
    • China free-trade pact clears final hurdle in Chile.  IMF applauds Chile.

    View full version of the Americas Report (PDF)

    For any questions, comments, or those interested in receiving this report in the future or seeking to have their email removed from our list please contact Nicole M. Ferrand at our new e-mail address: mengesproject@centerforsecuritypolicy.org. If you have news stories that you think might be useful for future editions of this report please send them, with a link to the original website, to the same e-mail address. If you wish to contribute with an article, please send it to the same address, with your name and place of work or study.

    Chavez, Iran, and terrorism

    Hugo Chavez visited Iran at the end of July, now for the fifth time, since he took the reins of power in Venezuela. Not coincidentally, his visit took place in the midst of the war between Israel and Iran’s proxy, the terrorist group Hezbollah. Less coincidental is the fact that during his visit in Iran, Chavez strongly condemned Israel’s military action in Lebanon, comparing it with the Holocaust and accusing Israel of "terrorism and fascism". At this point Venezuela withdrew his ambassador from Israel and suggested diplomatic relations may be terminated forever.

    It is not exactly that Chavez condemned Israel for using "excessive force" or called for an "immediate cease- fire". The main message sent by Hugo Chavez is that in this conflict he supports Hezbollah. When I asked a Venezuelan diplomat not a long time ago if Hugo Chavez disagrees with the Iranian president that Israel must be "wiped off" the map, the diplomat answered me "I can only speak for myself. I strongly object to that statement" Then, I asked him if Chavez shares the same thoughts. The diplomats’ answer was "I do not know". This may be very significant. During this last visit to Iran, Chavez received a special award , the "medal for honor", in gratitude for Chavez’s support of Iran’s nuclear program and for having defied the international community.

    NEWS:

    • Venezuela: Sheehan, Chavez join to bash Bush, Iraq war.  Venezuela opens international bidding for offshore gas exploration.  Venezuela: Gazprom’s Venezuela deal alarms U.S.  Venezuela: Chavez to Visit Beijing
    • Mexico leftists target foreign banks in protest.
    • Brazil: Petrobras aims to produce in 2015 half of what Saudi Arabia does today.
    • Argentina: Russia Negotiates Arms Sales to Argentina.
    • Chile to Rejoin Andean Community Trade Bloc after 30 Years.
    • Cuba Says Fidel Castro Is Recovering.
    • Uruguay inks energy accord with Venezuela.
    • Ortega Still Has the Lead in Nicaragua.
    • ‘El Niño’ phenomenon approaching Peru again?
    • Colombia: High alert for Uribe inauguration

    Editor’s Note:

    • CITGO’s owner – Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez

    View the full version of the Americas Report (PDF)

    For any questions, comments, or those interested in receiving this report in the future or seeking to have their email removed from our list please contact Nicole M. Ferrand at our new e-mail address: mengesproject@centerforsecuritypolicy.org. If you have news stories that you think might be useful for future editions of this report please send them, with a link to the original website, to the same e-mail address. If you wish to contribute with an article, please send it to the same address, with your name and place of work or study.

    Wanted: A real energy security bill

    Today President Bush will, with much fanfare, sign the long-awaited "comprehensive" energy bill into law. Regrettably, the bill fails to do what needs most to be done: Make dramatic strides towards reducing the Nation’s vast – and growing – requirement for oil, especially that imported from unstable and/or malevolent regimes. As New York Times columnist Tom Friedman sarcastically quipped last Friday, "Wow, I am so relieved that Congress has finally agreed on an energy bill. Now that’s out of the way, maybe Congress will focus on solving our energy problem."

    Friedman emphasizes themes that have animated the Center’s collaboration with the Set America Free Coalition, quoting one of its leaders, Dr. Gal Luft of the Institute for the Assessment of Global Security, as saying the energy bill amounts to the $12 billion "sum of all lobbies." The columnist describes in words reminiscent of the Coalition’s blueprint and accompanying Open Letter to the American people the crisis that we face.

    Specifically, Friedman notes that demand for oil is unprecedented and increasing. The growing economies of both China and India are requiring ever-larger quantities of petroleum. Worse yet, we are at war, effectively financing with our energy imports from the Mideast "both sides of the war on terrorism: our soldiers and the fascist terrorists." Not a little of that terror is aimed at crippling or destroying energy-related infrastructure.

    As a result of these factors, the price of oil today is high – commanding over $61 per barrel at the moment – and likely only to become higher. There is no reason to believe that the recent ascension to the Saudi throne of the erstwhile Crown Prince will offer any relief. That is especially true if, as posited by Matthew Simmons in his compelling new book, Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy, much of the world’s putative reserve oil in Saudi Arabia is not actually there.

    Tom Friedman embraces the Set America Free Coalition’s strategic approach for remedying this problem. The solution lies in the transformation of the petroleum-based transportation sector to one based on next-generation fuels and vehicles to utilize them. He notes that, as Dr. Luft has observed, ethanol derived from sugar has transformed Brazil’s energy security situation – and could, with the help of our new CAFTA and other, friendly Latin American and Caribbean partners, help transform ours.

    The Center does not always agree with Mr. Friedman but it commends him for getting this issue right and for properly taking both the White House and Congress to task for enacting energy legislation that largely fails to get on with the urgent task of setting America free of its current oil addiction.

     

    Too Much Pork and too Little Sugar
    By Thomas L. Friedman
    The New York Times, 5 August 2005

    Wow, I am so relieved that Congress has finally agreed on an energy bill. Now that’s out of the way, maybe Congress will focus on solving our energy problem.

    Sorry to be so cynical, but an energy bill that doesn’t enjoin our auto companies to sharply improve their mileage standards is just not serious. This bill is what the energy expert Gal Luft calls "the sum of all lobbies." While it contains some useful provisions, it also contains massive pork slabs dished out to the vested interests who need them least – like oil companies – and has no overarching strategy to deal with the new world.

    And the world has changed in the past few years. First, the global economic playing field is being leveled, and millions of people who were out of the game – from China, India and the former Soviet empire – are now walking onto the field, each dreaming of a house, a car, a toaster and a microwave. As they move from low-energy to high-energy consumers, they are becoming steadily rising competitors with us for oil.

    Second, we are in a war. It is a war against open societies mounted by Islamo-fascists, who are nurtured by mosques, charities and madrasas preaching an intolerant brand of Islam and financed by medieval regimes sustained by our oil purchases.

    Yes, we are financing both sides in the war on terrorism: our soldiers and the fascist terrorists. George Bush’s failure, on the morning after 9/11, to call on Americans to accept a gasoline tax to curb our oil imports was one of the greatest wasted opportunities in U.S. history.

    Does the energy bill begin to remedy that? Hardly. It doesn’t really touch the auto companies, which have used most of the technological advances of the last two decades to make our cars bigger and faster, rather than more fuel-efficient. Congress even rejected the idea of rating tires for fuel efficiency, which might have encouraged consumers to buy the most fuel-efficient treads.

    The White House? It blocked an amendment that would have required the president to find ways to cut oil use by one million barrels a day by 2015 – on the grounds that it might have required imposing better fuel economy on our carmakers.

    We need a strategic approach to energy. We need to redesign work so more people work at home instead of driving in; we need to reconfigure our cars and mass transit; we need a broader definition of what we think of as fuel. And we need a tax policy that both entices, and compels, U.S. firms to be innovative with green energy solutions. This is going to be a huge global industry – as China and India become high-impact consumers – and we should lead it.

    Many technologies that could make a difference are already here – from hybrid engines to ethanol. All that is needed is a gasoline tax of $2 a gallon to get consumers and Detroit to change their behavior and adopt them. As Representative Edward Markey noted, auto fuel economy peaked at 26.5 miles per gallon in 1986, and "we’ve been going backward every since" – even though we have the technology to change that right now. "This is not rocket science," he rightly noted. "It’s auto mechanics."

    It’s also imagination. "During the 1973 Arab oil embargo Brazil was importing almost 80 percent of its fuel supply," notes Mr. Luft, director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. "Within three decades it cut its dependence by more than half….During that period the Brazilians invested massively in a sugar-based ethanol industry to the degree that about a third of the fuel they use in their vehicles is domestically grown. They also created a fleet that can accommodate this fuel." Half the new cars sold this year in Brazil will run on any combination of gasoline and ethanol. "Bringing hydrocarbons and carbohydrates to live happily together in the same fuel tank," he added, "has not only made Brazil close to energy independence, but has also insulated the Brazilian economy from the harming impact of the current spike in oil prices."

    The new energy bill includes support for corn-based ethanol, but, bowing to the dictates of the U.S. corn and sugar lobbies (which oppose sugar imports), it ignores Brazilian-style sugar-based ethanol, even though it takes much less energy to make and produces more energy than corn-based ethanol. We are ready to import oil from Saudi Arabia but not sugar from Brazil.

    The sum of all lobbies. …

    It seems as though only a big crisis will force our country to override all the cynical lobbies and change our energy usage. I thought 9/11 was that crisis. It sure was for me, but not, it seems, for this White House, Congress or many Americans. Do we really have to wait for something bigger in order to get smarter.

    LOST approval urged by global goverment advocates

    As concern grows that the United Nations is intent on replacing what the National Security Guidance calls “an orderly arrangement of sovereign states” with a proto-world government – complete with the ability to impose international taxes, a new push is being made for a treaty that would advance that purpose: the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).

    This sovereignty-sapping agenda is at the heart of a dispute now playing out in Turtle Bay, where U.S. Permanent Representative John Bolton is resisting an initiative pushed by governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who are hostile to the United States and/or champions of a supranational government. Amb. Bolton is being savaged by the latter for wisely seeking over 500 changes to a draft Outcome Document envisioned for signature by heads of state and government at a High-Level Plenary Meeting of the UN General Assembly next month.

    Yesterday, French President Jacques Chirac underscored his government’s intention to push forward with one such tax – on international airline travel, both as a unilateral initiative and together with Germany, Spain, Algeria, Brazil and Chile at the UN meeting. According to the Associated Press, “French authorities said a tax of about $6 per passenger worldwide, with a $25 surcharge for business class, would generate about $12 billion a year. The contribution could be adjusted in poorer countries, so passengers there were not penalized.”

    The Establishment Strikes Back

    It is against this unlikely backdrop, that a group of prominent former and present officials released today a letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist urging him to facilitate the “expeditious” ratification of a treaty that would help establish precedents useful to opponents of the Bush Administration at the UN and elsewhere: the Law of the Sea (LOST).

    Despite the highly generalized praise for LOST offered by its proponents in the letter dated 31 August, the Treaty is problematic in a number of respects. For example, its governing body would be empowered to impose what amount to international taxes on resources extracted from the ocean floor and subsurface. Parties to the accord, moreover, are compelled to submit to what will, inevitably, be politicized tribunals like the World Court, whose decisions are binding and unappealable. It contains sweeping environmental obligations that make those entailed in the Kyoto accords pale by comparison – especially insofar as the Law of the Sea Tribunal has established that it believes its jurisdiction extends to activities on land and in the air if they might affect the world’s oceans.

    Perhaps most worrisome is the fact that LOST was shaped by individuals, NGOs and regimes that have sought to use such international agreements governing the so-called “common space” to constrain America’s freedom of action and military power. This could be accomplished, were the United States to become a party to LOST, by the use of the Treaty’s tribunal and/or arbitration panels to encumber U.S. intelligence collection and submarine activities, by insisting upon the transfer of militarily significant technology and information, and even by prohibiting the interdiction of vessels believed to be engaged in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

    Second Opinions

    Opponents of the Law of the Sea Treaty have their own roster of influential figures who can go toe-to-toe on the implications of this accord with those who lent their name to the letter to Senator Frist. In fact, earlier this year, an array of organizations and individuals representing virtually the entire conservative movement joined a press conference at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) to release their own letter to Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

    Among those who participated were Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee; Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick; David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union; Patrick Buchanan, author and commentator; Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform; Fred Smith, President, The Competitive Enterprise Institute and Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President, Center for Security Policy.

    Incredibly, the voices of such critics were not afforded an opportunity to be heard when, in the Fall of 2003, the Foreign Relations Committee last considered the Law of the Sea Treaty and approved a resolution of ratification. In the intervening period: serious opposition has emerged; the Treaty was returned to the Foreign Relations Committee with the end of the last session of Congress and must be considered by that panel, and others, afresh; and the Bush Administration has had to confront new realities. Of these, the most immediate is the fact that the sorts of problems inherent in this Treaty are of a piece with those it is currently confronting in the draft Outcome Document for the UN General Assembly meeting next month.

    The Bottom Line

    For these reasons, if Senator Frist feels the need to respond to the LOST proponents’ new letter, it should be with an assurance that any further consideration by the Senate of this flawed treaty will be done in a manner that assures its defects as well as putative merits are carefully and deliberately examined. And, just as the United States must oppose global taxes and world-government-advancing programs at the UN this fall, it should do as Ronald Reagan did in 1982 – namely, reject the Law of the Sea Treaty.