Tag Archives: Brazil

Orgs oppose ‘globotaxes,’ give Bolton recess appt

The Center for Security Policy today released an open letter to President Bush commending him for his nomination of John R. Bolton to become the next U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations – and urging a recess appointment be made to ensure Mr. Bolton is in place before the UN tries in September to impose international taxes on American citizens.

 

The letter states, in part:

In our judgment the Nation can ill-afford further delay of action on the BoltonGiven the momentous nature of that agenda – and the danger that some of its items may pose for American interests and sovereignty – we urge you to ensure that you are represented in New York at the earliest possible time by a man who enjoys your confidence and trust, and ours. nomination. As you know, the United Nations has a very full agenda this Fall.

 

Of particular concern is the prospect that the upcoming high-level plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly from September 14-16 will be used to implement various ideas for international taxes. As you know, such proposals are not new. In fact, these initiatives have long been seen as a means of underwriting world government, or at least diminishing this country’s ability to influence the United Nations by dint of its granting (or withholding) of large sums in annual dues.

 

What is new, however, is that some believe the United States now must agree to the imposition of one form or another of global taxation….We are sure that you share our unalterable opposition to the imposition of international taxes on American citizens and entities by unelected, unaccountable international bureaucrats. As things stand now, however, our only hope of avoiding such ominously precedential "solidarity contributions" – whether they be imposed on airline tickets, currency transactions, international commerce or the internet – is for your view to be faithfully, articulately and effectively represented at the UN. (Emphasis added throughout.)

 

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy, which circulated the open letter, said upon its release: "The Bush Administration is on notice: Millions of Americans represented by the forty-one signatories of this letter will not support the imposition of ‘globotaxes’ on them and their countrymen. It is time to draw a firm line against what the UN euphemistically calls ‘innovative funding mechanisms’ and John Bolton is the man to do it on the East River."

The U.S. House of Representatives Tuesday unanimously adopted an amendment offered by Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) opposing globotaxes. It would require, among other things, that:

United States representatives at the United Nations shall (1) use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States to vigorously oppose any effort by the United Nations or any of its specialized or affiliated agencies to fund, approve, advocate, or promote any proposal concerning the imposition of a tax or fee on any United States person in order to raise revenue for the United Nations or any such agency; and (2) declare that a United States person shall not be subject to any international tax and shall not be required to pay such tax if such tax is levied against such person.

 

For more information about the UN’s plans for international taxation – and the negative repercussions such globotaxes would have for American sovereignty, security and interests, see Smoking Gun: Shocking Truth Uncovered About U.N. Taxation Plan; U.S. Citizens Targeted for Trillions of Dollars by the International Bureaucrats and Insider-Trader George Soros, a newly released study by America’s Survival, Inc. (www.usasurvival.org).

 

Among the signatories and organizations represented on the open letter to President Bush are the following: David A. Keene, Chairman, American Conservative Union; Paul M. Weyrich, National Chairman, Coalitions for America; Gary L. Bauer, President, American Values; Fred L. Smith, Jr., Founder and President, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Colin A. Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring, Inc.; Phyllis Schlafly, Founder and President, Eagle Forum; Mariam Bell, National Director of Public Policy, The Wilberforce Forum; Tom Schatz, President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste; Alan Keyes, Chairman, Declaration Alliance; Melanie Morgan, Chairman, Move America Forward; Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman, American Family Association; and Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform.

July 21, 2005

Hon. George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

 

Dear Mr. President:

 

We write to thank you for selecting John R. Bolton to become the next U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Like you, we are appalled at the delay in getting Mr. Bolton on the job, and share your displeasure with the mistreatment of this outstanding public servant by partisan critics of your Administration and its policies.

 

In our judgment the Nation can ill-afford further delay of action on the Bolton nomination. As you know, the United Nations has a very full agenda this Fall. Given the momentous nature of that agenda – and the danger that some of its items may pose for American interests and sovereignty – we urge you to ensure that you are represented in New York at the earliest possible time by a man who enjoys your confidence and trust, and ours.

 

Of particular concern is the prospect that the upcoming high-level plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly from September 14-16 will be used to implement various ideas for international taxes. As you know, such proposals are not new. In fact, these initiatives have long been seen as a means of underwriting world government, or at least diminishing this country’s ability to influence the United Nations by dint of its granting (or withholding) of large sums in annual dues.

 

What is new, however, is that some believe the United States now must agree to the imposition of one form or another of global taxation. They contend that, pursuant to agreed Millennium Development Goals contained in the Report of the International Conference on Financing for Development (dubbed the "the Monterrey Consensus"), the United States and other developed nations are obliged to provide 0.7 percent of their gross national income in foreign aid (also known as Official Development Assistance or ODA).

 

According to Kofi Annan’s special advisor, Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, the United States has only provided 0.15 percent and, therefore, would be short by some $65 billion each year from 2002 to the target year of 2015. The aggregate shortfall would amount to $845 billion above and beyond what the U.S. provides in ODA – a sum neither any President nor any Congress is likely to approve.

 

Hence, we are told, there is a need for "innovative funding mechanisms" (a euphemism for international taxes) such as "solidarity contributions on international plane tickets." On February 6, 2005, France, Germany, Chile, Brazil, Algeria and Spain formally issued a "Berlin Declaration" that proposed to use such involuntary "contributions" to raise revenues to "combat hunger and poverty and finance global sustainable development, inter alia health programs including the fight against HIV/AIDS and other pandemics." Other schemes include the so-called "Tobin Tax" on international currency transactions that could raise an estimated $13 trillion for the United Nations and other international purposes.

 

Unfortunately, international tax proposals have now made their way little-noticed into Annex II of the Gleneagles G-8 meeting communiqu?, a section entitled "Financing Commitments." It states, in part, that: "A group of countries above [evidently a reference to the UK, France, Germany and Italy] firmly believe that innovative financing mechanisms can help deliver and bring forward the financing needed to achieve the Millennium Development Goals" – namely, more Overseas Development Assistance.

 

We are sure that you share our unalterable opposition to the imposition of international taxes on American citizens and entities by unelected, unaccountable international bureaucrats. As things stand now, however, our only hope of avoiding such ominously precedential "solidarity contributions" – whether they be imposed on airline tickets, currency transactions, international commerce or the internet – is for your view to be faithfully, articulately and effectively represented at the UN.

 

For these reasons among many others (including the opportunity to secure systemic UN reform, the need to get to the bottom of the Oil-for-Food scandal, etc.), we call upon you, if possible, to reach prompt agreement with the bipartisan Senate leadership to enable a final vote on John Bolton’s nomination before the August recess. Failing that, we respectfully urge that you enable Mr. Bolton to get to work at long last by conferring on him a recess appointment as soon as Congress adjourns next month.

 

Sincerely,

 

David A. Keene, Chairman, American Conservative Union

Paul M. Weyrich, National Chairman, Coalitions for America

Gary L. Bauer, President, American Values

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President, Center for Security Policy

Fred L. Smith, Jr., Founder and President, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Colin A. Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring, Inc.

Phyllis Schlafly, Founder and President, Eagle Forum

Mariam Bell, National Director of Public Policy, The Wilberforce Forum

Tom Schatz, President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Alan Keyes, Chairman, Declaration Alliance

Melanie Morgan, Chairman, Move America Forward

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman, American Family Association

William J. Murray, Chairman, Religious Freedom Coalition

Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform

Ron Shuping, Senior Vice President of Programming, The Inspiration Networks

Jim Backlin, Vice President of Legislative Affairs, Christian Coalition of America

William Greene, President, RightMarch.com

Andrea Lafferty, Executive Director, Traditional Values Coalition

Beverly LaHaye, Founder and Chairman, Concerned Women of America

William Levi, CEO and President, Operation Nehemiah Missions International

Richard Falknor, Executive Vice President, Maryland Taxpayers Association, Inc.

Chuck Muth, President, Citizen Outreach

Robert B. Carleson, Chairman, American Civil Rights Union

Paul Caprio, President, Family-PAC Federal

Stephen Stone, President, Renew America

Cliff Kincaid, President, America’s Survival. Inc.

Kay Daly, President, Coalition for a Fair Judiciary

Rev. Russell Johnson, Chairman, Ohio Restoration Project

Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

Steven Mosher, President, Population Research Institute

John J. Karch, Executive Director, Slovak League of America

C. Preston Noell III, President, Tradition, Family, Property Inc.

Tom Shields, Chairman, Coalition for Marriage and Family

Bruce Chapman, President, Discovery Institute

Nancy C. Purcell, Field Representative, Global Bridges

George Landrith, President, Frontiers of Freedom

Ann Buwalda, Esq, Director, Jubilee Campaign USA

Kristin Wright, Executive Director, Stand Today

Ron Pearson, President, Council for America

Jeff Gayner, Chairman, Americans for Sovereignty

Erping Zhang, Executive Director, Association for Asian Research

Deborah Weiss, Blogsforbush.com; GOPbloggers.com

 

The national security case for CAFTA

The Senate’s pending decision to consent or reject ratification of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) will be influenced by many factors – economic, political and strategic. In the final analysis, however, the consideration that should trump all others is the fact that CAFTA will contribute to America’s national security – and its defeat would significantly and adversely affect our security interests in the region and beyond.

Specifically, CAFTA affords an important vehicle for strengthening America’s dwindling number of reliable friends in the hemisphere, denying diplomatic and economic victories to our adversaries, contributing to conditions that can discourage illegal immigration to this country and even aiding a distant ally, Taiwan.

Illegal Immigration: A National Security and Economic Issue

The Bush Administration and other proponents of CAFTA contend that this trade agreement will increase markets in Central America for U.S. products. Critics counter that CAFTA will undermine certain U.S. industries and serve as a back-door to more Chinese imports.

The truth of the matter is that the CAFTA region – the five Central American countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica plus the Dominican Republic – accounts for an almost imperceptible fraction of U.S. trade. Most dollars going to Central America are spent on consumer goods chiefly made in Japan, Korea and China. The United States does not compete appreciably with the region’s main indigenous exports – coffee, cacao, cane sugar and banana production.

Central America’s most problematic export to the United States is illegal immigrants. Since Washington has shown itself generally unwilling or unable either to enforce existing immigration statutes nor enact more effective laws and border security measures, it is in the U.S. interest to create more incentives for Central Americans to stay in their native lands.

CAFTA would help create jobs in the region – especially in the area’s much sought-after maquiladora assembly industry as well as future industrial development – affording many Central Americans an opportunity to stay home with their families. Almost invariably, when queried about their preferences, Central American workers, both those still in their own countries and those who have illegally immigrated to the United States, declare that they would prefer to remain in their countries if only they had dependable and better-paying jobs there.

Consider the case of El Salvador. El Salvador is the CAFTA region’s largest source of illegal immigrants to the United States. It is also the one country in the region that has done the right things to privatize and otherwise dismantle most of the previously government-controlled economy. The Wall Street Journal and Heritage Foundation rate El Salvador to be the third freest economy in the hemisphere after the United States and Chile. El Salvador is one of only five countries in all of Latin America with an investment-grade economy, and after more than 15 years of conservative, market-oriented political leadership, it is starting to build a viable and competitive industrial and service sector. CAFTA is vital to El Salvador’s continued economic success – a success that would both mitigate Salvadorans’ needs to emigrate to the U.S. while benefiting American investors.

It’s Time to Stop Penalizing Our Friends and Rewarding Our Adversaries

Failure to ratify CAFTA would be seen as another case of the United States punishing its friends and benefiting its foes. The Central American countries, El Salvador in particular, have been small but staunch U.S. allies in a range of national security areas – notably, in matters where like Mexico and Chile have not:

  • CAFTA nations are strong proponents of continuing the inter-American security system that has been in place since the 1940s. Mexico, the greatest beneficiary of NAFTA, has been trying to undermine that system both prior to and since the September 11, 2001 attacks.
  • CAFTA nations immediately announced solidarity with the United States after 9/11. Mexico under President Vicente Fox and his Marxist then-foreign minister was one of the last countries to express condolences to the U.S., waiting a full two weeks after 9/11 to show official opposition to the terrorist attacks.
  • CAFTA nations sent military forces into Iraq – the only countries in Latin America to do so. Among the most experienced armies in the world at detecting and deactivating land mines, the armies of El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua participated in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Salvadoran troops fought the only known hand-to-hand combat in the war, saving the life of an American governor and defeating fully armed Iraqi terrorists with nothing more than bayonets. In 2004, El Salvador was one of the only countries in the coalition publicly to announce a renewal of its military commitment in Iraq.
  • Earlier this year, CAFTA nations nominated a pro-U.S. candidate to become secretary general of the Organization of American States (OAS), the 57 year-old intergovernmental hemispheric collective security organization that includes all governments in the Americas (except Cuba). The United States was unable to muster a single additional vote for that candidate, the former president of El Salvador, and instead cut a deal to elect an anti-U.S. socialist from Chile as OAS chief.

Anti-U.S. Forces in Region Want CAFTA to Go Down

Venezuela ‘s Hugo Chavez and other anti-U.S. figures in the hemisphere are hoping that the Senate refuses to consent to CAFTA’s ratification. They understand the extent to which CAFTA’s rejection would undermine the pro-American politicians and parties in the region. Such a step would greatly facilitate the efforts the Venezuelan dictator is making through covert funding and training of anti-U.S. political parties and organizations throughout Central America to bring about an electoral ouster of the pro-U.S. governments in the region.

Chavez’s main targets for the moment are Nicaragua and El Salvador. Those who would take power there – and who also oppose CAFTA – are the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) and the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN), the terrorist group-turned-political party that leads the chief opposition bloc in El Salvador. Both the Sandinistas and the FMLN were allies of the Soviet Union in the Cold War; both retain their obsolete Marxist-Leninist ideology; both were responsible for the slayings of American military and intelligence personnel; both were part of the Cuban terror network; and both vocally and materially continue to support international terrorists today.

In addition to Chavez’s subversive activities on the CAFTA region’s political front, a large competing trade bloc, known as MERCOSUR, has been offering membership to our would-be partners in an alternative economic arrangement. The South American free trade organization is not simply a tariff-free community; under the leadership of the Workers Party government of Brazil, it is taking a strongly ideological approach that challenges not only U.S. trade interests but empowers political constituencies that are unfriendly, and even hostile, to the United States.

America ‘s Interests Beyond the Region

Central America is one of the last regions in the world where the governments recognize the democratic Republic of China on Taiwan to the intense chagrin of the Communist regime in Beijing. Through its increased trade, diplomacy, and bribery, the PRC is assiduously trying to buy the loyalties of politicians and business leaders. To date, it has been unsuccessful.

Communist China’s increasingly alarming efforts to penetrate and exercise influence in Central America, as in other parts of Latin America, are certain to continue, however. CAFTA is an instrument that can help neutralize the growing economic presence and power of the PRC in the region and, among other things, strengthen the pro-Taiwan sectors. It is heartening that Taiwan has recently been able to invest significantly in El Salvador’s infrastructure, including notably for the purpose of modernizing the country’s sole significant seaport.

The Bottom Line

From a U.S. perspective, CAFTA is an economic agreement with profound national security implications. While CAFTA will make little difference to America’s trade posture, it will make a great deal of difference to our few remaining allies in Latin America.

CAFTA will benefit the economies of nations in the region, particularly in countries that follow the policy changes being pioneered by El Salvador. It will reward those who followed U.S. development recommendations on economic reform, incentivize other countries to make similar reforms and deny diplomatic, political and economic victories to U.S. adversaries in the region.

By providing more quality jobs in Central America, CAFTA will reduce the need for people to emigrate illegally to the United States. Ratification of CAFTA will also show other countries that there are still tangible benefits to standing by the United States. By contrast, failure to ratify will allow hostile political forces to "prove" that there is no reward for being Washington’s friend – and, no less ominously, confirm that there is no penalty for being America’s foe.  

Tehran’s Terror Master

by Patrick Devenny

Early on the morning of March 16th, 1984, William Buckley left for work at the American embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. Officially, Mr. Buckley, a decorated veteran of the Special Forces, served as the political officer at the embassy. In reality, however, Mr. Buckley was the embassy’s CIA station chief. On his way to the compound, Buckley’s car was stopped by a group of masked men, who forced him from his car at gunpoint. His assailants would later be identified as terrorists from the group Islamic Jihad, which served as an alias for the real perpetrators, Hezbollah. The circumstances surrounding the next 15 months of William Buckley’s life remain mysterious to this day. Hints of his plight were provided in disturbing video tapes, in which he appeared worn down and brutalized. It was later revealed that additional tapes were shot showing the CIA station chief being viciously tortured and beaten by Islamic Jihad members. Finally, sometime in October of 1985, Buckley died of pneumonia, no doubt stemming from the lengthy torture sessions. His main interrogator and tormentor was a 21 year old Lebanese terrorist named Imad Mugniyah.
Twenty years later, the butcher of William Buckley still plagues the free world. Imad Mugniyah is the current military commander of the terrorist group Hezbollah, overseeing an international organization which some American officials have dubbed “the A-team of terrorism.” Far less well known than his compatriot and sometimes partner Osama Bin Laden, Mugniyah is arguably more dangerous. Indeed, before the 9-11 attacks, Mugniyah was the prime focus of American anti-terror efforts, not Bin Laden. Comfortable in his anonymity, Mugniyah has successfully carried out some of the most professional terrorist attacks of the last two decades against a wide array of international targets. With Hezbollah currently flexing its muscle as a political force inside Lebanon, it would behoove Americans to remember that the leadership of this so-called “political” organization remains in the hands of dangerous extremists who think nothing of slaughtering hundreds of people at the behest of their masters in Tehran. Mugniyah’s very existence casts doubt on the idea that Hezbollah could ever be an honest participant in a future Lebanese democracy.
Origins

While the face of Bin Laden has been prominently featured in every world publication of note and is almost instantly recognizable, the real face of Imad Mugniyah is elusive. Only two or three photographs of the Hezbollah operative are known to exist. Further accentuating the mystery around Mugniyah is the fact that the picture that currently serves as the U.S. Government’s official wanted poster is almost 20 years old. This lack of information stems from the designs of Mugniyah himself, who has methodically erased all records of his existence, including his high school transcripts. What we do know is that Mugniyah was born to a prominent Shiite religious family in southern Lebanon in 1962. Some years later, his family moved to the suburbs of southern Beirut, a region long associated with Shiite radicalism. With the outbreak of the Lebanese Civil War in 1975, Mugniyah joined Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Liberation Organization, which operated numerous terror training camps throughout Lebanon. Mugniyah, still a teenager, rose through the ranks of the PLO quickly, soon becoming a member of its elite commando wing, Force 17, which carried out assassinations at the personal behest of Arafat. This kind of specialized training represented expertise unavailable to most young Islamic militants at the time.

In 1982, an Israeli military offensive expelled most of the PLO infrastructure from Lebanon. Mugniyah chose to stay, serving as a bodyguard to Sayyid Muhammad Fadlallah, the spiritual head of Hezbollah and a key ally of Iran. Then, together with fellow terrorist Hassan Nasrallah, Mugniyah formed the group Islamic Jihad, which served as a convenient cover for the greater Hezbollah organization. That close personal relationship would continue to the present day, as Nasrallah is the current secretary general of Hezbollah. One of the few existing photographs of Mugniyah shows him walking alongside Nasrallah ten years ago in Lebanon. The two fellow terrorists and their group would quickly gain the attention of the West.

Lebanon

The first shot fired in Mugniyah’s war against the West was fired on April 18th, 1983, in Beirut. On that day, a van packed with 2,000 pounds of explosives slammed into the front of the U.S. embassy and exploded with such tremendous force that the front of the building collapsed. The attack killed 63 people, including most of the CIA’s Middle East leadership. Within hours of the attack, Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. A clue concerning the real perpetrators of the suicide bombing was picked up by U.S. intelligence a month later, when it was revealed that a pre-attack cable from the Iranian foreign ministry had been sent to the Iranian embassy in Syria approving funding for a terrorist attack in Beirut.

The suicide attack against the Beirut embassy was followed up later that year by an even more devastating assault. On the morning of October 23rd, most of the 300 Marines stationed in a compound near Beirut’s airport were sleeping in their barracks, having been deployed to the country to serve as a stabilization force. Then, at 6:33 am, the driver of a Mercedes truck drove straight through the front gate of the compound, past Marine sentries with unloaded weapons, and smashed into the four story concrete barracks. The driver, who reportedly was smiling, then detonated the explosive, estimated to equal the force of 12,000 pounds of TNT. The effects of the massive truck bombing were horrific, killing 220 Marines and 21 other U.S. service members. Again, Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

In one day, the entire situation in Lebanon had been drastically altered. The foreign forces would soon leave, wary of further terrorist attacks. With the abandonment of Lebanon by the international community, Islamic Jihad had carried out a virtual terrorist coup d’etat. Over the next ten years, Mugniyah and Hezbollah went on a rampage, taking dozens of Westerners hostage and murdering several others. Major operations included the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 in 1985, where Mugniyah’s men shot a US Navy diver in the head and threw his body on the tarmac of Beirut International Airport. In a case that recalled the horrors of William Buckley, US Marine Lt. Colonel William Higgins was abducted in 1988 by a Hezbollah linked group known to be under the direct command of Mugniyah. Two years later, a ghastly video was released showing a man, thought to be Colonel Higgins, hanging from a ceiling after being tortured. Shortly thereafter, the dead body of Colonel Higgins was dumped on the side of the road in front of the US embassy in Beirut.

Numerous hostages, such as American Kurt Carlson, recall seeing Mugniyah supervise their imprisonment and brutal interrogations. He spoke fluent English, and commanded slavish devotion from his agents. At the same time, the CIA believes Mugniyah was in frequent contact with Iranian intelligence officials, who were directly involved in the murders and the hostage takings. It is a relationship that blossomed in Lebanon and continues to this day.

Hezbollah International

While Imad Mugniyah’s attacks had concentrated on foreigners, his campaign of terror had stayed geographically constrained to Lebanon and the rest of the Middle East. The American authorities could still regard him and his group as “over there”, limited to the perennially tumultuous region. Unfortunately, they were missing a critical development. Imad Mugniyah was about to defy the oceans that security officials naively assumed held him back. The impetus for this new strategy of offensive terrorism was the 1992 Israeli assassination of Sheik Abbas Musawi, a Hezbollah leader and close associate of Mugniyah.

The Israeli embassy in Argentina was located in a bustling downtown neighborhood of Buenos Aires. On March 17th, 1992, a pickup truck loaded with plastic explosive drove up to the front of the embassy and exploded. The embassy building was destroyed, along with the nearby retirement home and Catholic Church. 28 people were killed, and over 220 wounded. The next target was a seven story building in Buenos Aires that housed two Jewish business organizations. On the morning of July 18th, 1994, a white Renault van pulled up in front of the building and detonated. The building collapsed, killing 85 people. While confusion marred the initial investigations, it became clear to all parties involved that Hezbollah was the culprit, through its subsidiary Islamic Jihad, headed of course by Mugniyah. The smoking gun may have been delivered by an Iranian defector named Abdolghassem Mesbahi, a former senior member of the Iranian Revolutionary Council. In testimony to Argentinean authorities, the defector claimed that Mugniyah had been one of the senior planners behind the attack in Buenos Aires, along with Iranian intelligence.

The twin bombings in Argentina highlighted Mugniyah’s campaign to develop an infrastructure within South America. In 1994, the Hezbollah leader personally visited the “Triple Frontiers”, an area forming the border nexus of Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil that has historically sheltered smugglers and criminals. As many as 30,000 Arab Muslims, who celebrate the anniversary of September 11th, inhabit the small region. Nearby, Hezbollah holds weekend training camps, indoctrinating Arab youth in the extremist literature of the Ayatollah Khomeini. The main mosque in the area was blessed by none other than Imad Mugniyah’s old boss, Sayyid Muhammad Fadlallah. Hezbollah agents regularly extort money and “donations” from various businesses and Muslim organizations, sending the substantial funds back to Lebanon. Mugniyah personally operates a powerful network of operatives inside the region, who help facilitate Hezbollah’s drug smuggling operations throughout South America. In addition, the bombing of Jewish targets inside Argentina were almost certainly connected to the Hezbollah presence in the Triple Frontiers. Telephone records show increased call traffic from Iranian officials to the frontiers region around the time of the bombing.

Mugniyah has also sought to extend Hezbollah’s reach to North America. In 2000, federal authorities arrested 18 men in North Carolina for smuggling cigarettes and other financial crimes. The FBI later revealed that the smuggling ring, led by Lebanese immigrant Mohamad Hammoud, had made 7.9 million dollars, profit which was then sent to Hezbollah. Through a series of associates, Hammoud worked for a man named Mohamad Dbouk, a senior Hezbollah asset who helped run Hezbollah’s extensive criminal operations in Canada. Testifying before the U.S. Senate, U.S. Attorney Robert J. Conrad confirmed that Mugniyah directly oversees the Canadian operations and, by extension, the American division. This reasoning stems from the fact that Dbouk was in direct contact with Hassan Hilu Laqis, a Hezbollah agent operating out of Lebanon who managed many of the procurement projects in North America. In a fax intercepted by Canadian intelligence, Dbouk assures Laqis that he is doing all he possibly can to help Hezbollah. In addition, Dbouk says he will do “anything”, and “he means anything”, to help the “father”. The Canadian prosecutor involved in the case, Kenneth Bell, stated that the father is in fact a codename for Imad Mugniyah. In addition, a recent report in the Washington Times suggested Hezbollah currently runs active cells in at least 10 U.S. cities. Mugniyah has never attacked a target in North America, but with tensions rising between the United States and Iran over the issue of nuclear proliferation, his terrorist network could rapidly become Iran’s weapon of choice against American targets. It would be a familiar role for the veteran terrorist, who, lest we forget, has the blood of over 250 Americans on his hands.

Mugniyah and Al-Qaeda

In 1998, American authorities captured former Green Beret advisor Ali A. Mohamed for his role in the twin terror attacks against U.S. embassies in Africa. Having been a relatively close associate of Bin Laden himself, Mohamed proved to be a treasure trove of information for American investigators. One of his statements, however, proved particularly troubling. In testimony delivered during his court case, Mohamed admitted that in 1994, he had arranged security for a momentous meeting in Sudan. There, Osama Bin Laden met Imad Mugniyah. He also stated that Hezbollah provided training for Al-Qaeda operatives in exchange for weapons and explosives. Indeed, this testimony corresponded with statements made by other Al-Qaeda officials, who told American investigators that the two had met several times in the mid 1990s, where they had discussed a greater degree of cooperation.

The two terrorist leaders may have also coordinated the attack on the Khobar Towers barracks complex in 1996. American investigators have long suspected Iran’s involvement in the bombing that killed 19 American servicemen in Saudi Arabia. The group that supposedly carried out the attacks, Saudi Hezbollah, was led in the 1990s by a close lieutenant of Mugniyah and was trained in Mugniyah run camps in Lebanon. Additionally, the explosives used in the barracks bombing originated in Lebanon. The 9-11 Commission, however, recently suggested that Al-Qaeda may have also played a role in the bombing, suggesting some degree of operational cooperation between the two groups.

The influence of Imad Mugniyah with regards to the Al-Qaeda network has continued, and has strengthened as of late. It appears that at least part of the formal leadership of Al-Qaeda has shifted to Iran, where they stay in close contact with the group’s disparate assets. Men such as Saad Bin Laden and Saif al-Adel continue to plan attacks from Iranian territory, such as the massive Casablanca bombings in 2003. Other Al-Qaeda leaders and fighters have escaped through Iran following the war in Afghanistan. Hamid Zakiri, a former member of the Iranian terrorist coordination command, stated that Mugniyah was the liaison officer to Dr. Ayman Zawahiri and various other international terrorist groups. In addition to this relationship, Mugniyah personally oversaw the escape of dozens of Al-Qaeda figures to Iran, including one of Bin Laden’s wives and her infant child. Apparently, Al-Qaeda leaders have enough trust in Mugniyah’s abilities and intentions as to place their family members into his care.

“The Master Terrorist”

“He is the most dangerous terrorist we’ve ever faced. He’s a–he’s a pathological murderer. Mugniyah is probably the most intelligent, most capable operative we’ve ever run across, including the KGB or anybody else. He enters by one door, exits by another, changes his cars daily, never makes appointments on a telephone, never is predictable, will show up–he only uses people that are related to him that he can trust. He doesn’t just recruit people. He is the master terrorist, the grail, we are after since 1983.”

No small praise coming from Robert Baer, a 20 year veteran of the CIA’s clandestine services who once constructed a plan to kill Mugniyah in Lebanon. Imad Mugniyah, unrecognizable and relatively unknown, poses a serious asymmetrical threat to the United States and its allies. He has successfully avoided numerous American and Israeli attempts to capture or kill him. He has access to the massive amount of funding, estimated at 100 million dollars, that Iran annually provides Hezbollah annually. The secrecy surrounding Mugniyah allows him to travel relatively freely, especially in friendly nations such as Iran and Syria. His role in Hezbollah should chasten the Bush administration’s hopes that Hezbollah could eventually transform itself into a purely political organization. With terrorists such as Imad Mugniyah in charge, the idea that Hezbollah could accept a democratic Middle East is dubious to say the least. It should also be made clear to Lebanon’s Shiite population that national democratic reform cannot be sustained over the long term if an armed group like Hezbollah is involved. Instead of awaiting reform that will never come, the American government, with the help of our allies in the region, should seek to isolate this dangerous and inherently anti-democratic terrorist organization.

Center: Hasten Chavez regime change in Venezuela

(Washington, D.C.): In a paper timed to coincide with a major hemispheric policy address by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the Center for Security Policy warned today that the increasingly repressive – and aggressive – dictatorship in Venezuela must either change or be changed if the region is to avoid the terrible human costs of a new generation of revolutionary upheaval.

The Center’s just-released Occasional Paper entitled, What to Do About Venezuela, documents the extent to which the so-called revolutionary "Bolivarian" regime in Venezuela is becoming a "clear and present danger" to the countries and people of Latin America and beyond.

In a stinging, point-by-point indictment of the regime of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, the paper calls on the Bush administration to repair its neglected and strained relationships across Latin America, and to work with neighboring democratic governments to ensure that the regime cannot consolidate itself or threaten its neighbors.

The paper strongly urges Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to reverse the Bush Administration’s do-nothing approach toward Latin America, noting that, "over the past four years, Jimmy Carter has been the most visible – and arguably the most influential – U.S. leader in Latin America." Carter’s imprimatur on the results of a rigged Venezuelan election process has given the regime priceless legitimacy.

"Nowhere is the lack of U.S. strategic policy more evident than in the unchecked rise of a self-absorbed, unstable strongman in Venezuela who has made common cause with terrorists and the regimes that support them, and has developed a revolutionary ideology that has begun to plunge the Americas again into violence and chaos," the paper says.

Noting that the Latin American Left is far from monolithic, the paper urges the Bush administration to work with the hemisphere’s democratic governments, even anti-American ones like that of Brazil – which has displayed growing unease about the violence and chaos around its perimeter that Venezuela has been fomenting – in order to contain the subversion and prevent the further planned violence emanating from Caracas.

The paper stresses that regime change is still possible in Venezuela without the use of force, though military action might be needed if the dictator decides to take down the country’s economic infrastructure with him, as Saddam Hussein tried to do in Iraq. Noting reports that Chavez is mentally unstable and has been under psychiatric supervision for years, the Center’s paper urges the U.S. to "improve its psychological strategy and help the Venezuelan leader to hasten his own political self-destruction."

What to do about Venezuela

What to Do About Venezuela

By J. Michael Waller

Introduction

Among the more troubling legacies Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has inherited is one of neglect towards the Western Hemisphere, a legacy that has seriously diminished the United States’ stature and influence in most of the Americas.  This is due, in part, to the self-imposed abdication of the Nation’s hemispheric security obligations.  Secretary Rice has signaled by her recent trip to the region and a major address on the subject delivered today that she intends to address the problem – and not a moment too soon.

Today, Washington’s friends in Latin America stand isolated, disillusioned, and bewildered.  At the same time, the foes of freedom are advancing their objectives in our hemisphere with an effectiveness unseen since the presidency of Jimmy Carter in the 1970s. Lack of a coherent U.S. strategy toward the region since the end of the Cold War, no less so since 2001, has allowed other actors to enter and dominate the scene.

These actors range from old, obsessed figures like Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and warmed-over ’70s terrorists-turned-politicians like Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, to Carter himself, whose continued international work certifying election results has provided essential political cover to anti-democratic forces in the region.  Indeed, it might be said that over the past four years, Jimmy Carter has been the most visible and arguably most influential U.S. leader in Latin America.

Nowhere is the lack of a U.S. strategic approach to the Western Hemisphere more evident than in the unchecked rise of a self-absorbed, unstable strongman in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, who has made common cause with terrorists and the regimes that support them, and has developed a revolutionary ideology that has begun to plunge the Americas again into violence and chaos. It is necessary for the democratic nations of the hemisphere to come together and stop this rising threat to peace before it is too late.

 

 

_____________________

J. Michael Waller, Ph.D., is the Center for Security Policy’s Vice President for Information Operations.

Friends like these

Saudi Arabia’s oil minister, Ali al-Nuaimi, recently announced that he expected the price of oil to remain at unconscionably high levels of between $40 and $50 per barrel through 2005. Ironically, every American should be grateful.

Friends Like These

Such gratitude is not, of course, due the Saudis – who, we are endlessly told, are among our most reliable "friends" in the Middle East – because they are working to drive down the price of oil set by the OPEC racketeers’ cartel. To the contrary, the Saudis appear content to keep prices exorbitantly high, even though they are well aware of the adverse impact such artificially inflated costs have on the financial well-being of their principal protector, the United States.

Rather, we should be appreciative for what should be the proverbial camel’s back-breaking straw: A final wake-up call, one that establishes unmistakably that it is neither in the United States’ strategic, national security nor economic interests for this country and other industrialized nations to continue relying upon imported oil from those who wish to do us harm.

Fortunately, as columnist Fareed Zakaria noted in the March 7 edition of Newsweek, we can respond immediately to this call: "Tomorrow, President Bush could make the following speech: ‘…It is now possible to build cars that are powered by a combination of electricity and alcohol-based fuels, with petroleum as only one element among many. My administration is going to put in place a series of policies that will ensure that in four years, the average new American car will get 300 miles per gallon of petroleum. And I fully expect in this period to see cars in the United States that get 500 miles per gallon [of gasoline].’"

A World Transformed

Needless to say, the widespread availability of such cars – and the alternative fuels they would utilize – would literally change the world.

Our enemies would be denied the geo-strategic leverage they currently enjoy, as indigenously produced energy sources derived from coal, biomass and garbage knock the pegs out from under the cartel’s control of the commodity upon which our transportation sector heavily depends.

In particular, we would no longer have to export tens of billions in petrodollars that are used, in part, to promote the Islamofascist ideology that animates many of those determined to kill us. (The Saudi government’s hand in proselytizing along precisely those lines was clearly demonstrated in a study, released last month by Freedom House, of hate-mongering materials officially produced and distributed in this country by the Kingdom.)

We can also greatly reduce our vulnerability to disruptions of critical energy infrastructures, at home and abroad. Our foes have learned how easy it is for them to cost us dearly by blowing up a pipeline or sinking a tanker. Creating diverse alternative fuel sources here at home is, simply put, a national security imperative.

Not least, this is true since we are likely to find increasing competition from China for limited oil will become a flash point for future conflict, if not an actual causus belli. Already, the PRC is frantically making strategic alliances with oil-exporting terrorist-sponsoring states like Iran, Sudan and Venezuela. It is also moving to buy up Canadian, Brazilian and Indonesian energy sources, transparently with a view to denying them to us as well as meeting their own burgeoning demands.

Setting America Free

As Zakaria reports, there is now a blueprint for energy security (www.SetAmericaFree.org) that can translate available technologies into widely available fuel and automotive products and catalyze the sorts of outcomes described above. Specifically, this blueprint envisions a new Manhattan Project on energy independence that will, for an investment by the federal government of $12 billion over the next four years, translate into a reduction of at least 50% in projected oil imports in 2025.

This blueprint envisions allocating such expenditures in the following, practical ways:

  • "$2 billion for automotive manufacturers to cover one-half the costs of building flexible fuel vehicle-capability [that is, autos that can use ethanol or methanol based fuels] into their new production cars (i.e., roughly 40 million cars at $50 per unit);
  • "$1 billion to pay for at least one out of every four existing gas stations to add at least one pump to supply alcohol fuels (an estimated incentive of $20,000 per pump, new pumps costing approximately $60,000 per unit);
  • "$2 billion in consumer tax incentives to procure hybrid cars;
  • "$2 billion for automotive manufacturers to commercialize plug-in hybrid electric vehicles [that is, cars that can be plugged into the electrical grid to recharge their batteries];
  • "$3 billion to construct commercial-scale demonstration plants to produce non-petroleum based liquid fuels (utilizing public-private cost-sharing partnerships to build roughly 25 plants in order to demonstrate the feasibility of various approaches to perform efficiently at full-scale production); and
  • "$2 billion to continue work on commercializing fuel cell technology."

 

The Bottom Line

In the course of the 1988 presidential campaign, then-candidate George H.W. Bush declared: "Detroit is ready now to – make cars that would run on any combination of gasoline and alcohol – either ethanol, made from corn or methanol, made from natural gas or coal or even wood….Let us turn away from our dependence on imported oil to domestic products – corn, natural gas, and coal – and look for energy not just from the Middle East but from the Middle West."

This was a sensible strategy before 9/11. Today, it is absolutely mandatory. Like Nixon going to China, a President from Texas oil country is just the man to launch the Manhattan Project that Sets America Free.

 

A Different Approach to Nonproliferation (2005)

A Different Approach to the 2005 NPT Conference

By Robert R. Monroe*

This paper develops an “outside the box” approach to the 2005 Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference.  It first examines the current degraded state of theU.S.nuclear weapons enterprise, a condition which results largely from the moratorium on nuclear weapons testing.  It then discusses the increasing importance of preventing proliferation and summarizes the ineffective nature of most international nonproliferation efforts.  The paper concludes by outlining aU.S.approach to the 2005 NPT RevCon which will enable our nuclear arsenal to perform its essential deterrence function and will significantly strengthen proliferation prevention.

 

U.S. NUCLEAR WEAPONS ENTERPRISE

 

The most dominating “fact of life” in theU.S.nuclear weapons world today is the continued existence of a moratorium on underground nuclear testing.

The U.S. announced the moratorium in 1992, in the general euphoria over the Cold War’s end.  There was a perceived absence of serious threats to our nation and a vision of peace for the foreseeable future.  The moratorium was one of a series of unilateral disarmament actions taken at that time, which included the 1993-94 legislation prohibiting design of low-yield nuclear weapons and the 1995-96 agreement on a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).  Today it’s clear we overshot the mark in that era.  A decade later the nuclear threat levels are high and diverse, with dangers that are quite different in nature and much less predictable.  The law prohibiting low-yield weapon design has been repealed, and the CTBT has been shelved after the Senate refused–by a wide margin–to advise and consent to its ratification.  However, the testing moratorium is still in effect, and our twelve-year experience without nuclear weapons testing provides convincing proof that this limitation is an unsound practice, unsustainable for the long term.  In the absence of testing, U.S. nuclear weapons capability has deteriorated–across the board–to a significant degree.  A few examples:

  • Our ageing nuclear weapons stockpile, designed during the Cold War to deter Soviet attack by threatening massive retaliation, is ill-suited to deterring the more diversified–but still deadly–threats we now face.  It simply lacks credibility of use against today’s threats.  Deterring rogue states and terrorist groups from using weapons of mass destruction is still possible, but only with nuclear weapons designed for these new threats–weapons with greatly increased accuracy, much lower yield, reduced collateral damage, specialized capabilities (such as deep earth penetration), and tailored effects (such as ability to neutralize chemical and biological agents).  Achieving these capabilities will require testing.
  • Moreover, our confidence in the reliability and performance of our existing, overage, high-yield weapons is declining.  Ageing causes changes, and our ability to judge their seriousness, in the absence of testing, is uncertain.  When we do replace components, as in life-extension programs, we cannot be sure, again without testing, that the weapons will perform as designed.
  • In this age of terrorism it is of utmost importance thatU.S.nuclear weapons incorporate the very best and latest in safety, security, and controllability features.  Yet in a great many cases this cannot be done without testing.  Only one of the nine warhead designs in our current stockpile incorporates all available safety and security systems.  And, during the twelve years (to date) of the test moratorium, much advanced development on improved surety systems was simply not done because there was no prospect of doing the essential testing.
  • Since the dawn of the nuclear age no nuclear weapon design has entered the stockpile without having the pit (the plutonium core) certified through underground nuclear testing.  New-design pits will surely be required in the future, and despite years of work during the moratorium there is still no agreed method–other than testing–to certify new pits, or today’s pits manufactured by different processes.
  • The NNSA scientists, designers, engineers, and test personnel on whom we depend for continuity of experience are ageing and retiring.  The luster of a nuclear weapons career has been so diminished that recruiting outstanding new graduates into a lab and plant career is much more difficult.  And, without testing, effective training for this next generation of designers is highly questionable.  Today, very few active designers atLos AlamosandLivermorehave ever gone through the enlightening–and humbling–experience of having their designs tested underground.
  • For over a decade the ability of our nuclear weapons scientists to pursue a robust, wide-ranging, forward-looking research program into advanced nuclear weapons concepts has been brought to a virtual halt by administrative, legislative, and funding restrictions.  In this era of mushrooming technological advance in virtually all fields of science, the test moratorium has denied us not only the knowledge of “what’s possible?” but also an understanding of the diverse and growing threats we may face from known and unknown adversaries.
  • U.S.capability to field a full design-test-production team for rapid, efficient management of a new nuclear weapons system from concept to stockpile is seriously doubtful.  We have lost much of our experience in the complex and hazardous business of testing; and we have no capability to manufacture new pits in quantity (a situation which cannot be corrected for some fifteen years).  Our nuclear warhead manufacturing complex is antiquated and deteriorated, and modernization is experiencing serious capital shortfalls.
  • DOD’s central nuclear weapons infrastructure in the former Defense Nuclear Agency  and in the military services has largely been disassembled.  Few young officers in the Army, Navy, and Air Force are motivated to seek advanced degrees in nuclear physics/engineering, or to become nuclear weapons specialists.  Within DOD as a whole, little attention is given to education and training in nuclear weapons employment, to strategic thinking about use of nuclear weapons, to development of nuclear weapon tactics, and to strategy games involving nuclear weapons use.
  • Without nuclear testing, the survivability of DOD’s conventional and nuclear weapons systems and C4ISR systems to nuclear weapons effects is largely unproven.  Scientific research into nuclear weapons effects has atrophied to a great extent, and laboratory simulation facilities have significantly declined, resulting in our having little ability to testU.S.systems against nuclear effects.

False friends

(Washington, D.C.): During the recent presidential campaign, Senator John Kerry assailed President Bush for alienating key U.S. allies, evidence he maintained of the incumbent’s lack of foreign policy acumen and an arena in which the challenger insisted he could “do better.” Implicit in this critique was the belief that such allies — notably, the French — were anxious to be our friends, if only they were not mistreated by America’s leader.

‘Rebalancing’ at U.S. Expense

In fact, it is increasingly clear that the government of France under Jacques Chirac is bent on policies that are antithetical to U.S. interests. They are not simply anti-Bush, they are anti-American and anti-Atlanticist. The latest example is Chirac’s determination to have French and other European weapons manufacturers arm Communist China as part of what he has called “a necessary rebalancing of the ‘grand triangle’ formed by America, Europe and Asia.”

This is, of course, hardly the first time that French policy towards the United States has been defined by balance-of-power considerations. Indeed, the decisive assistance France gave to the American revolutionaries did not reflect affection for those bent on ending royal misrule — a phenomenon its own king would be murderously subjected to in short order. Rather, the motivation was to weaken France’s age-old rival, Britain, by helping to cut loose her American colonies and sapping her wealth in a costly war to bring them to heel.

Just a few years later, though, weakening the United States seemed in France’s interest. The latter engaged in predatory acts against American shipping and subversion here at home, culminating in the so-called XYZ Affair that roiled Franco-American relations during this country’s earliest days. In the nineteenth century, the French helped Southern secessionists and would have recognized their independent Confederacy had timely and decisive Union victories not made it clear which side would prevail.

Nearly a hundred years later, President Charles de Gaulle repaid U.S. help in the liberation of France by cultivating close ties with the Soviet Union and expelling NATO headquarters from Paris. Jacques Chirac was no less troubled by notions of alliance solidarity when the French government reportedly assured Saddam Hussein that it would oppose any UN authorization of the use of force against his regime.

Seen against this backdrop, Chirac’s calculation that Europe must strengthen China militarily at America’s expense is not just a one-off betrayal of an ally. It is part of a geostrategic tradition that renders France, at best, an unreliable partner in international affairs and, at worst, what the French call a “faux ami,” or false friend.

Destroying Trans-Atlanticism in Europe

Unfortunately, as the Center has noted repeatedly in recent months, France is striving to impose its strain of anti-Americanism on other European states that have traditionally preferred the trans-Atlantic partnership to French or Franco-German domination of their continent’s affairs. The principal vehicle for enforcing the latter over unwilling states — notably, Great Britain and the nations Don Rumsfeld has described as “New Europe” — is the newly minted European Constitution.

If this draft constitution is ratified by voters in Britain, France and half a dozen other countries, the European Union will be granted the authority to “define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defense policy.” The United States can forget about “special relationships” and strong bilateral ties, let alone “coalitions of the willing,” with states bound by such a compact.

Arming China

Even before such an authority gets conferred upon unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels, Paris is working on a dress rehearsal: its bid to “rebalance” American power by augmenting that of Communist China. France and the EU’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, are pushing hard for the lifting of an embargo on arms sales to the PRC imposed after the Tiananmen Square massacre. All other things being equal, the French and Germans expect, with help from a double-dealing British government, to dispense by next Spring with opposition to such a step from the Netherlands, New European states like Lithuania and the European Parliament.

The implications of European weapons manufacturers joining Russia in arming China to the teeth are quite worrisome. Thoughtful observers, like acclaimed author Mark Helprin, warn of China’s rising application of its immense accumulated wealth to strategic advantage. The latter include: neutralizing U.S. dominance in space and information technology (Chinese acquisition of IBM’s personal computer division is not an accident); moving aggressively to dominate the world’s critical minerals and other resources (especially those relevant to its burgeoning energy needs); establishing forward operations in choke-points and other sensitive areas around the globe (including, in our own hemisphere, in Cuba, the Bahamas, the Panama Canal, Brazil and Venezuela); and acquiring financial leverage by purchasing vast quantities of United States debt instruments.

Retaking Taiwan is an immediate target of such power. Dominance of Asia and the Western Pacific are in prospect. And China aspires to exercise global superpower status in due course, if not short order.

The Bottom Line

For years, Washington has paid lip service to — and often actively promoted — European unification. If, however, the upshot of unity is going to be, as seems likely, a continent whose policies are dominated by anti-Atlanticist France and Germany and contribute to emerging threats elsewhere, the U.S. must make discouraging such developments an explicit part of its foreign policy.

Jacques Chirac’s determination to provide weapons that may be used to kill Americans in the event China decides to attack Taiwan should be a wake-up call. False friends are not allies. They should not be entitled to the preferential treatment accorded the latter. Mr. Bush is right that democracies traditionally don’t fight democracies. But when they equip authoritarian regimes to do so, they must expect to pay a real cost.

Hemispheric insecurity

(Washington, D.C.): Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel was absolutely furious over the weekend. The ostensible reason for his rage was the Bush Administration’s refusal to intervene in Haiti’s latest crisis until after its corrupt, despotic ruler, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, was removed from power.

Why the Rage?

To be sure, Rep. Rangel and his colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus have been the most steadfast of ex-President Aristide’s supporters. They and like-minded members of the Clinton Administration were, in no small measure, responsible for the 1994 U.S. power-play that forcibly restored Aristide to the post to which he had been elected.

The anger being expressed by Rangel and Company seems curiously misplaced, however. Their man in Haiti proved to be everything that critics of the Clinton putsch had said he was: brutally thuggish, irremediably corrupt and mentally and behaviorally erratic. In fact, it was Aristide’s subsequent tyrannical misconduct, and not a lack of American political and financial support, that was most responsible for his country’s current slide into anarchy and despair – behavior that dissipated Aristide’s once considerable popular support in Haiti and contributed to his swift overthrow.

By refusing to prop up Aristide, President Bush has given Haiti what it was denied when Bill Clinton engaged in the sort of “nation-building” that gave the process a bad name: a chance to establish the institutions essential to representative, accountable governance. Rather than repeating the earlier mistake of investing (in the form of well-over a billion in U.S. tax dollars) in one man – without regard to his anti-democratic track record – on the grounds that he won a vote, the United States must now invest the energy and resources needed to promote institutionalized checks-and-balances that alone can protect against future misrule by his successor.

It Isn’t ‘the Economy, Stupid’

Rep. Rangel may be angry for one other reason, however. The crisis in Haiti is a sobering reminder of a larger point he and other Democrats seem to hope American voters will miss this November: The world is a turbulent, disorderly and increasingly dangerous place for U.S. interests.

At a time when the clear hope in Democratic circles is that the electorate will focus once again exclusively on “the economy, stupid,” it is inconvenient, to put it mildly, to have still more foreign entanglements developing – especially in our back yard. The fact that this particular problem in Haiti was unmistakably a legacy of the misspent Clinton years simply underscores the foolishness of engaging in such myopia once again.

Worse yet, Haiti is hardly the only indication that things are going seriously south south of our border. Consider the following sampler:

  • In Venezuela, another elected autocrat, Hugo Chavez, is turning his oil-rich nation into an engine for regional instability and anti-American policies. Schooled and abetted by Fidel Castro, whose Cuban dictatorship Chavez unabashedly admires and props up, the Venezuelan despot is resorting increasingly to coercion and even force to suppress mounting popular opposition. Having strung out legal efforts to remove him from power, he now appears determined to prevent them from going forward at all – raising the distinct possibility of bloodshed and mayhem in a country that supplies much of the United States’ imported oil.
  • Unfortunately, Chavez has a soul-mate and willing partner not only in Castro but in Brazil’s Luiz Incio Lula da Silva (universally known as Lula). Brazil’s Lula has been assiduously courting terrorist groups (reportedly, Colombia’s FARC and Peru’s Shining Path) and regimes that sponsor terror (notably, those of North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran and the Palestinian Authority). Not coincidentally, the so-called “Triborder Area” – where Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay meet – has become a breeding ground for Islamist terrorists seeking safe havens from which to recruit, train and launch operatives on destructive missions elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere.
  • With materiel and political life-support from Venezuela’s Chavez and Brazil’s Lula, Castro has gotten a new lease on life. His repression at home has intensified and his efforts to export subversion to the mainland have resumed in earnest.
  • The hemisphere’s anti-American axis is working assiduously to develop and exploit targets of opportunity for their destabilization campaign in Colombia and Peru. Pro-axis regimes have already taken power in Argentina, Ecuador, and Bolivia. Curiously, there was no perceptible outcry from Democratic circles when Bolivia’s elected president was forced from power by Andean-Indian political movements enjoying the strong support of Chavez and his ilk.
  • This turmoil is offering opportunities for penetration of our backyard not only by Islamists and their Mideastern sponsors. The future prospect for genuine and pro-Western democracies in this hemisphere are being further clouded by Chinese political, economic and strategic inroads being made from the Panama Canal to Brazil.
  • The Bottom Line

    One thing is certain: The next President of the United States is going to confront trouble south of our border – trouble that will probably make the present turmoil in Haiti pale by comparison. It will take a great and visionary Commander-in-Chief to contend with the myriad implications of such trouble if, as seems entirely possible, it emerges as the next and most proximate front in the war on terror.

    It will be a grave disservice to the voters if these unpleasant facts are concealed from them. The electorate will be even worse served, however, if they are not made fully aware of two others: One of the candidates for Commander-in-Chief, John Kerry, was a preeminent opponent of efforts to counter Latin America’s last generation of anti-U.S. leftists. And he routinely voted to cut our defense capabilities and force structure in ways that would have left us still less prepared to deal with the next one.

    Next nuclear weapons problem: Brazil?

    It’s far from one’s idea of a rogue regime: a longtime friend and ally in the hemisphere. But Brazil under President Inacio "Lula" da Silva is putting its money where its leader’s mouth is, moving his country toward the manufacture and export of nuclear-weapons material.

    Lula appears to be making good on a campaign promise, discounted by most in Washington but noted with concern at the time on this Website, to raise Brazil’s prestige by resurrecting a mothballed nuclear-weapons program and exporting sensitive military technology abroad.

    Press reports over the New Year state that Brazil is set to manufacture highly-enriched uranium (HEU) for its two nuclear power plants, and according to Samuel Faiad of the government-run Nuclear Industries of Brazil, to sell any HEU surplus on the world market.

    Brazil is an old friend. But the US should be alarmed, for two main reasons:

    (1) Lula, a lifelong Marxist organizer, campaigned on a shrill anti-US platform and views himself as an ally of Fidel Castro of Cuba, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and rogue regimes around the world. For more than a decade he has sponsored an annual meeting, the Forum of Sao Paulo, of the hemisphere’s extremist political parties and movements, revolutionary guerrilla groups, and terrorists as a sort of Ibero-American latter-day Comintern. He invited the regimes of Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-il to participate as observers.

    (2) Lula ran for office saying it was a mistake for Brazil to join an international nuclear non-proliferation treaty and pledged to the military that, if elected, he would make the nation a military power respected worldwide. Now, his government does not intend to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to conduct unannounced spot inspections of the uranium enrichment program. So it’s clear that the Brazilian government intends to hide something.

    At the time of Lula’s election in 2002, House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde warned the Bush Administration of an emerging "Axis of Evil in the Americas" led by Castro, Chavez and Lula. One of the only people issuing warnings at the time was Constantine Menges of the Hudson Institute.

    The National Security Council official in charge of Latin American policy at the time, John Maisto, didn’t take the warning seriously. (Maisto is now US Ambassador to the Organization of American States).

    Even a former senior Clinton Administration nonproliferation official is now raising the alarm.

    US leaders should treat the recent development as a threat to national security, and not be seduced by Lula’s pro-business rhetoric, before the centrifuges start churning out HEU later this year.