Tag Archives: Ecuador

A blow to anti-drug policy

In a recent interview in the Argentinean magazine "Debate", Gabriel Guerra Mondragon, an advisor to Hillary Clinton on Hispanic and Latin American affairs and a former US Ambassador to Chile shockingly pointed out that "all anti-American statements we hear from (Bolivian President) Evo Morales and (Venezuelan President) Hugo Chavez are not against the US properly speaking but against Bush. This (anti-Americanism) can be reverted if a democrat is elected President"

Without taking a political stand for or against Hillary Clinton, what is highly distressing is the lack of awareness, and the ignorance displayed by senior advisors to American presidential candidates. I have reasons to believe that this type of ignorance and naiveté transcends an obscure political advisor and is far more widespread among American political operatives and public officials (probably on both sides of aisle) than one may think. As we repeatedly pointed out at the Center for Security Policy, the Chavez phenomenon is not a political regime that limits itself to Venezuela. Chavez sees himself as a revolutionary and internationalist like any other previous revolution be it the French, the Russian or the Islamic revolution. Chavez’s first international front is his own region, namely Latin America. In this region the Chavez agenda is enjoying one of the most successful times. The election of Evo Morales as President of Bolivia late in 2005 and the election of Rafael Correa as President of Ecuador late last year have accelerated the formation of a new Latin American axis which might have serious repercussions for the region in general and also for the United States.

After their respective election victories both Morales and Correa rushed to visit Hugo Chavez, the new Pope of Latin America’s neo-populism. They both ran on Chavista ideology which among other things included criticism of existing representative institutions, hostility to neo-liberal and free trade policies, a harsh anti-Americanism, and, a bitter opposition to US drug polices in the Andes region. After being elected, Chavez seems to be their natural mentor. For example, both Correa and Morales rushed to call for a constituent assembly which basically means to dismantle the current legislative power in favor of a popularly elected assembly which would elect a new legislature which will end up being nothing but an extension of the executive power.

Chavez’s activism extends to foreign policy, as well. Early in 2006, Evo Morales, after a long weekend meeting with Chavez, decided to nationalize the country’s natural resources by ordering troops to occupy more than 50 gas and oil installations. This enraged the Brazilian and Spanish energy companies operating in Bolivia.

During Christmas week, the president-elect of Ecuador, Rafael Correa (he is taking the oath of office on January 15, 2007) visited Chavez and upon his return tensions between Ecuador and Colombia increased as Ecuador demanded that Colombia stop fumigations on the coca fields that border with Ecuador.

Indeed, the problem of contamination on the Ecuadorian side of the border, resulting from this fumigation has been an ongoing one which will require some sort of solution. However, Correa’s tone, which was echoed by the outgoing Ecuadorian government and enthusiastically supported by Chavez, sounded particularly threatening. Ecuador withdrew its ambassador from Colombia, and under Chavez’s influence Correa cancelled a meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, despite Uribe’s begging call to meet with him. Uribe offered to travel to Quito to meet with Correa and was refused, as well. The hard exchange of words between the two left a bitter taste, despite Uribe’s offer to consider changing the fumigation method from aerial to manual so as to minimize the contamination.

What is the deeper meaning of this incident?

Alvaro Uribe is the first Colombian President that has succeeded in fulfilling the goals of the program called "Plan Colombia", a Colombian-American-designed and American-funded plan originating in 1998 and aimed at eradicating drug trafficking in the country. As political scientist Eduardo Gamarra correctly points out, until Uribe took the reins of the government the drug industry succeeded in surviving like a chameleon, by transforming itself and readjusting. Uribe’s efforts have been focused on combating all the armed groups that control all facets of illicit drug production in Colombia, particularly the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). According to Gamarra, Uribe’s democratic security policy is a success as it managed to restore a state presence in areas once controlled by the guerillas or by Para-military forces. These policies also increased Uribe’s popularity as Colombians feel safer today than in the past several decades.

In other words, I would say, whether Correa’s claims regarding fumigations are legitimate or not, they reflect, in my opinion, more than anything an important element of anti-Colombian hostility. This hostility is part of an anti-American hostility as the anti-drug policy is seen by Chavez and his populist associates like Correa, as a violation of their national sovereignty by the Americans.

But there is more to it. Most recently the US Ambassador to Caracas, William Brownfield, asserted that the amount of cocaine traffic through Venezuela has increased particularly since the cooperation between the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and Venezuela was suspended five years ago.

According to Carlos Espinoza Fernandez, Chairman of International Relations at San Francisco University in Quito, Ecuador, despite not having huge coca cultivation fields, plays a tremendous role in enabling the passage of drugs from Colombian territory. According to Espinoza the influx of drugs to Ecuador from Colombia reaches 80 tons. It generates income in Ecuador as mixed Colombian and Ecuadorian mobs charge huge amounts for drug re-exportation to their final markets. Espinoza points out that the money made in Ecuador for such mediation is higher than the money made by the cultivation and the processing of the drug. Ecuadorian territory has played an important role in drug trafficking since Uribe’s aggressive interdiction managed to strangle drug trafficking in Colombia. The Ecuadorian Government has not been nearly as efficient as the Colombian one. Yet, Ecuador has managed to better control such trafficking in last several years.

Two things are important in this context concerning Ecuador. First it is likely that under Correa, the Ecuadorian state, like Venezuela now, will no longer exercise control on drug trafficking as the country becomes an area of drug smuggling. It could be worse. Correa may even look at drug trafficking as a source of revenue for the Ecuadorian state (perhaps to himself as well), as drug control is seen as an American interest to the detriment of Ecuadorian national sovereignty. Correa’s repeated insistence to dismantle the American base at Manta which is used to combat drug trafficking, throws even more suspicion on Correa’s intentions. In other words, Chavez and Correa probably see drug trafficking as another source of revenue to be administered by the state, which will enable them to increase their power.

The second important point in this equation is the relation of Rafael Correa to the FARC. Chavez has been a FARC supporter for along time. During his campaign, Correa refused to declare the group a terrorist organization. In their last conversation Uribe urged Correa to acknowledge that FARC is a terrorist group. Correa refused. This is no doubt a very important point. As Correa, like Chavez, embraces the FARC, which is a bloody terrorist organization with connections to Radical Islamic groups, there is a danger that Ecuador, like Venezuela, may become a territory where these guerillas operate uncontrolled; and are being used as para-military instruments to further the Chavez led revolutionary populism. This could help de-stabilize other countries, particularly those perceived as being pro-American. It is easy to speculate that Correa may also follow Chavez’s closeness with Middle East rogue states such as Iran and Islamic terrorist groups.

In other words, the developments in the Andean region should be of great concern to actual and potential American decision makers. Thinking about the worst case scenario is always realistic when Hugo Chavez has such dominance in the region.

Dr. Luis Fleischman is an advisor to the Menges Hemispheric Security Project at the Center for Security Policy in Washington Dc. He is also an adjunct professor of Political Science and Sociology at Wilkes Honor College at Florida Atlantic University.

Correa’s Ecuador and American drug policy

The election of Rafael Correa as President of Ecuador late last year has accelerated the formation of a new Latin American axis which might have serious repercussions for the region in general and also for the United States. He has adopted the Chavista ideology which among other things includes criticism of existing representative institutions, hostility to neo-liberal and free trade policies, a harsh anti-Americanism, and, a bitter opposition to US drug polices in the Andes. An analysis of the developments in the Andean region.                               

NEWS:

  • Venezuela ‘s hard turn left. Chavez sworn in gives speech on "Fatherland, socialism or death." Plans to nationalize oil, power companies and RCTV television station using country’s reserves. Latin stocks fall. Venezuela’s Rosales to lead campaign against nationalizations.
  • OAS members support Insulza after Chavez’s insults.
  • Iran’s Ahmadinejad leaves for Venezuela, Ecuador and Nicaragua.
  • Nicaragua : Ortega sworn in. Country to join ALBA but pledges to stay on capitalist path.
  • Chavez’s soldiers in Bolivia to quell protests. Unrest in Bolivia signals danger ahead.
  • Ecuador and Colombia ‘reach deal.’
  • Colombia ‘s Uribe absent from Chavez’s inauguration. May attend Correa’s despite tensions.
  • Peru and Colombia optimistic about ratification of FTA.
  • Ruling on Shining Path terrorists angers Peru.
  • Mexico’s Calderon wants closer ties with Nicaragua and Latin America.

View the full issue of this 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@cen terforsecuritypolicy.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 uncertain future of Mercosur

Mercosur (Mercado Común del Sur) is a Regional Trade Agreement (RTA) between Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. Venezuela just signed its membership agreement on June 17th 2006 and became a full member on July 4th of the same year. Mercosur was founded in 1991 by the Treaty of Asunción which was later amended and updated by the 1994 Treaty of Ouro Preto (black gold). Its purpose is to promote free trade and the fluid movement of goods, peoples, and currency. Chile, Colombia and Perú currently have associate member status and Mexico is in the process of becoming an associate member. Bolivia is soon to join and Ecuador, under newly elected Rafael Correa, is now a candidate.

NEWS:

  • Nicaragua says Caribbean islands illegally sold.  Taiwan leader to visit Nicaragua and the US.  Nicaragua’s Ortega seeks new IMF program.
  • Venezuela Forming Unified Party.  Hugo Chavez replaces Vice-Minister for former chief of the electoral council.  Venezuela to buy 4 oil tankers from Iran.  Chavez won’t renew opposition’s TV License.  Venezuela annual inflation rises in 2006 because of Chavez spending.  Russia delivers five military choppers to Venezuela.  Venezuela’s CITGO plans no new refinery sales in 2007.  Venezuela Plugs in Nicaragua.  Oil pushes Venezuela growth again.
  • Colombian Official Denounces Murder Plot.  Rebels kill 5 in attacks in rural Colombia.  Colombia and Ecuador Crisis escalates.
  • Ecuador’s economy minister fired.
  • Peruvian president pushes for free trade with U.S. senator delegation.  García outraged at IAC on Human Rights decision.  Defense minister: Peru committed to crush illegal coca production.  Peru economy grew 7.5% in 2006.  Evo Morales to Tour Latin America.
  • Mexico troops sent to border city.
  • U.S. Enemies Align With Cuba to Claim Gulf Oil.  Castro ‘admitted to Spanish hospital’.
  • Brazil may send troops to quell Rio gangs.  Lula vows to spur Brazil’s economy.  Brazil still the slowest growing emerging economy.  Petrobras Signs $645 Million Rig Contract for Offshore Brazil.  Brazil’s Real Pares Losses after Treasury Secretary Steps Down.
  • Uruguay’s recovery "has exceeded all expectations"
  • Argentina announces 2.3-billion-dollar fuel refinery project.  Argentina’s Banks to re-pay depositors.

View Full Americas Report Here (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.

Securing America’s energy needs

Seemingly unrelated events of the past week suggest considerable trouble ahead for U.S. vital interests. As President Bush puts the finishing touches on his plans for a new strategy for waging the War for the Free World, he had best make sure that he focuses not only on Iraq and Iran (as recommended in this space last week) but on energy security, as well.

Consider the following developments:

On the eve of last week’s United Nations Security Council vote on sanctions supposed to isolate Islamofascist Iran over its nuclear weapons ambitions, Communist China agreed to invest an additional $16 billion in the Iranian North Pars natural gas fields (on top of the more than $100 billion already committed by the PRC to other energy projects in the country). The latest memorandum of understanding, signed by Tehran and CNOOC, China’s biggest offshore oil producer, would involve the exploitation of the North Pars fields and the construction of Iranian liquefied natural gas facilities, whose products would then be exported to China.

This deal was of a piece with other actions taken by Moscow and Beijing to water-down the UN sanctions resolution to the point where it was virtually a dead-letter even before it was adopted. The President can expect many more such pyrrhic victories now that his faithful lieutenant, John Bolton, has been forced to leave the Turtle Bay portfolio to the tender mercies of lowest-common-denominator-minded State Department diplomats like Under Secretary Nick Burns.

Last week, the Financial Times of London reported that Gazprom – the government-owned gas company that epitomizes the increasingly fascistic character of Vladimir Putin’s Russia and serves increasingly blatantly as an instrument of state power – "cement[ed] the Kremlin’s grip on the country’s energy resources." It did so by euchring several foreign oil companies, led by Royal Dutch Shell into ceding majority control over Siberia’s lucrative Sakhalin 2 oil and gas project.

The cynical way in which this shakedown was accomplished is typical of Putin’s heavy-handed behavior on other matters, from the protection racket he and his Chinese allies are running for the North Koreans, Sudanese and Iranians at the UN to the liquidation of his enemies at home and abroad. After the Kremlin maintained for months that environmental concerns precluded necessary approvals from being issued to Shell and its Japanese partners, the moment Gazprom secured its controlling majority, such concerns miraculously disappeared.

According to the Wall Street Journal, U.S. law enforcement officials are attempting to unravel the myriad, complex and deliberately confusing ties between one of the FBI’s most wanted men, Russian mafia kingpin Semion Mogilevich, and "multi-billion gas deals between Russia and Ukraine." The Journal reports that American concerns about such ties have "only grown as Russia has tightened its grip on the vast oil and gas resources of Central Asia and shown a growing willingness to brandish energy as a political weapon. The European Union gets a quarter of its natural gas from Russia, most of which is shipped by pipeline across Ukraine."

Seasoned Kremlin-watchers are hardly surprised by this investigation. In fact, as Putin has moved to secure absolute power in Russia, he has relied heavily on fellow alumni of the Soviet KGB and other security services. The ranks of the Russian mafia were swelled by such operatives after the USSR collapsed and those "power ministry" veterans who now populate virtually every key position in Putin’s regime have found it expedient to use their erstwhile colleagues in the underworld as surrogates in wielding state power in "plausibly deniable" ways.

A Growing Threat to our Energy Security

What these events have in common is the rising danger that the West’s energy security will be ever-more at the mercy of foreign governments hostile to freedom and its friends. As the Communist Chinese and fascistic Russian regimes move to forge close relations with energy-rich nations like Iran, Libya, Sudan, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Saudi Arabia, and as the Kremlin consolidates its control over Russia’s own vast resources, America and her allies will find themselves increasingly imperiled by their dependency on such sources for oil products and/or natural gas.

As a result, President Bush needs to make increased U.S. energy security a central part of the overhauled war-fighting strategy that he is set to announce next month. To do so, he must clearly go beyond the lip service that he paid to our "addiction to oil" in last year’s State of the Union speech by taking steps that will make a difference.

Done properly, energy security could be one of the most promising areas for cooperation between the Bush Administration and Democrats in Congress. By concentrating on areas where considerable progress is possible (rather than on such neuralgic issues as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or increased CAFE fuel-efficiency standards), America – and in particular its gas-guzzling transportation sector – could be made significantly less reliant on oil supplied by unstable or hostile regimes.

The Bottom Line

Such a course of action has been laid out in a blueprint produced by the Set America Free Coalition – a group spanning the political spectrum – that forms the basis for the bipartisan, bicameral Vehicle Fuel Choices for American Security Act (introduced in the last session of Congress as S.2025 in the Senate and H.R. 4409 in the House). It entails two principal steps: 1) ensuring that all cars sold in America will be Flexible Fuel Vehicles, capable of burning not just gasoline but ethanol and methanol (or some combination thereof); and 2) assuring the availability of substantially increased quantities of such alternative fuels.

This legislation would also help make electricity a true transportation fuel, by promoting the manufacture of plug-in hypbrid vehicles. Since scarcely any electricity is generated in America by burning oil, the widespread use of such vehicles could greatly reduce our dependence on foreign sources of petroleum. To realize the full potential of this option, however, President Bush and the Congress will need to join forces on one other important initiative: assuring large-scale U.S. production of advanced lithium ion batteries, an essential ingredient for our future energy – and national – security and the competitiveness of our auto industry.

Perspectives on the Brazilian elections

What to expect of Lula’s Second Term

The upcoming months will bring tough challenges for Da Silva who has been criticized for Brazil’s slow economic growth. He has repeatedly announced that he believes his country’s economy can grow from 5% to 6%. But Brazil’s economy is only expected to grow about 3% this year. Will Lula sacrifice his popularity and make deep economic and fiscal reforms for the country to grow at 5%?

Brazil: the Victory of Fiction

How easy it was for voters to dismiss well documented accusations about what Lula’s administration had done in the past and to believe instead in the fake conjectures about what the opposition would do in the future if elected. Nothing indicated that Geraldo Alckmin would do away with social programs or privatize oil giant Petrobrás. Evidence showed that Lula was corrupt and a liar. In the voting, fiction defeated reality.

NEWS:

  • World Bank projects 3.5% growth for Brazilian economy. Brazil to decide on new Bolivia energy investment within four months. Brazil’s Petrobras to do more business with China.
  • Russia’s Prime Minister on tour to visit several Latin American countries. Cuba and Russia review bilateral relations.
  • Bolivia: fear of geographic fissure over Morales’ new Constitution. Bolivia and Ecuador targeting Mercosur. Mercosur setting up Parliament.
  • Ecuador’s President-elect Correa to restructure country’s debt. Environmentalist named Ecuador Foreign Minister. Threat to recall envoy in Colombia over fumigation of drug crops on their border.
  • Oaxaca and Mexico Government meet.
  • Venezuela offers Argentina financing of Gas Pipeline. Sancor deal guarantees 3 million of milk to Venezuela. Venezuela advocates OPEC output cut of 50,000 bpd. Venezuela and Brazil to build oil tankers. World Bank notices overheating in Argentina and Venezuela.
  • Peru official says Occidental decision to pull out is worrying. Peru Oil find may double production. Peru and Venezuela smooth differences.
  • US Congress to extend trade preferences to Andean Nations.
  • Chile: 145 arrested after Pinochet’s death.
  • Nicaragua: Ortega to meet private Businesspeople. IMF asks Ortega for structural change.

View the full issue of this 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 us 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.

D’Elia resignation because of Chavez?

Luis D’Elía, the Argentinian social land and housing under-secretary was forced to resign this week following a request by President Néstor Kirchner over his support for Iran in the matter of a warrant for the arrest of ex-Iranian government officials for a 1994 bombing in Buenos Aires. The attack on a Jewish cultural center, AMIA, cost 85 lives and injured 300 people. Luis D’Elía’s backing of Iran was so outrageous that the episode needs to be taken seriously and should be further investigated.

NEWS:

  • Argentine Protesters Decry Warrant for Former Iranian President
  • Lula and Chavez have common goals for South America.  Lula Seeks to Strengthen Coalition in Congress, Rabelo Says.
  • Venezuela and Argentina Sell $1 Billion of Bonds Together.  Venezuela with new Oil Reserves.  Venezuela-Owned CITGO Sued by Companies.  Venezuela’s Chavez Welcomes Democrats’ Victory in U.S. Election.  Chinese Shandong province governor visits Venezuela.  EU to Watch Venezuela Elections.  Poll gives Chavez over twice support of vote rival.  Venezuela asks Exxon Mobil for majority of La Ceiba field.
  • Final vote count confirms Sandinista win in Nicaragua.  Nicaragua: Iran’s Ahmadinejad talks with Ortega over Phone.  Ortega ‘seeking’ talks with US.  U.S Ambassador to Nicaragua says he’ll meet with Ortega.  Nicaragua plans a big dig to rival Panama Canal.  Cuba and Nicaragua to Increase Ties.
  • Chile, Canada renew free trade agreement.  Chile and Bolivia Galvanize Links.
  • Noboa set for victory in Ecuador.  Ecuador Support for Correa Grows.
  • Peru president plans to send delegation to Washington to push for trade deal.  Peruvian Judge forbids Newspaper Expreso to publish anything related to Ex-Minister of Justice, ultra-leftist, Diego García Sayán.  Garcia accuses Chavez of simplistic, offensive and anti-integrationist.  China’s Zijin Mining to invest in Peru.  Canada and Peru sign Foreign Investment Protection and Promotion Treaty.  Peru: Argentine ‘Galileo’ intends investing in Peru’s Camisea gas pipeline.
  • Mexico: People Want Oaxaca Governor Out.
  • Calderon set to steer foreign policy toward South America.
  • US Congress Cool to Colombia Requests.

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.

 

Elections in Ecuador

by Luis Fleischman

On November 26, a run-off election will take place in Ecuador that will determine who the next President of Ecuador is going to be. The two contenders are Alvaro Noboa and Rafael Correa. Mr. Noboa, a businessman and entrepreneur won almost 27% of the votes whereas Rafael Correa, a former Minister of Economy and PhD from the University of Illinois won almost 23% of the electorate.

Mr. Noboa supports free trade and strong relations with the United States. Mr. Correa is more of a populist, is very critical of the Ecuadorian political system, its parties and politicians, and he supports closer relations with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Mr. Correa spent a great part of his campaign targeting “enemies” which of course included the rule of the parties (partidocracy), the Ecuadorian oligarchy and the United States. Most importantly, he talked about following the model of Venezuela and Bolivia as far as creating a constituent assembly aimed at changing the nature of Ecuador’s political institutions. As we know in Venezuela, the creation of a constituent assembly led to an increasing authoritarian system where more and more power was delegated from the legislative to the executive power. The party system was virtually decimated in favor of a direct relationship between the leader and the masses. The President in Venezuela now represents the “general will” of the people and, therefore, Chavez’s will is equal to the people’s will even if such will is imaginary.

To further analyze this point, it is important to understand that along with Presidential elections Ecuador was also holding Congressional elections. Mr. Correa’s party (ALIANZA PAIS) contrary to Noboa’s party (PRAN) and the rest of the parties did not present candidates for Congress. Mr. Correa’s party is a political movement detached from a structure and sees political elections only as means to gain votes, to establish him in power and later rule without the parliamentary-party system. It is against this background that Correa’s support for a constituent assembly will serve his purpose. The assembly will determine the elimination of party plurality in favor of the almighty political leader. As soon as he comes to power Mr. Correa will proceed to dismantle political pluralism in Ecuador and will move in the direction set by Hugo Chavez.

Perhaps, we can explore some of these points by looking at Mr. Correa’s style. Even though he has been educated in Belgium and the United States, this should not serve as a criterion to judge him. He refuses to call the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC) a terrorist group, and he opposes the “Plan Colombia” aimed at eradicating drug trafficking and guerilla activity. Thus, he opposes allowing the United States to use the military base at Manta, an agreement between the US and Ecuador that was negotiated in order to control drug trafficking in the region.

At the end of the first round of elections on October 15, Correa declared there was fraud. He seemed to be following the example of Manuel Lopez Obrador of Mexico and was an attempt to de-legitimize the system and create an alternative power. He is no longer pursuing this route now because he still sees some hope in the second round. After Hugo Chavez called President George W. Bush, the “devil” at the United Nations General Assembly this September, Mr. Correa stated that Chavez’s words were an insult to the “devil”.

When he was Minister of Finance during a brief period early in the administration of the current president, Alfredo Palacios, he supported the idea of increasing monetary spending on social projects by not paying the foreign debt. Correa already said he will pursue this policy again.

What are Correa’s chances in the second round of elections?

Correa, like former President Lucio Gutierrez in the year 2002, has good chances to win the newly mobilized poor. Correa has strong relations with the indigenous movements and parties and even though they received only 2.5% of the vote they have a lot of local support. The more moderate social-democratic party (ID) that won almost 15% of the votes in the first round already offered support for Correa. However, Correa’s Chavismo may turn away others.

For Noboa, it will be a little more difficult for him to connect with the poor given his position as being, perhaps, the wealthiest man in Ecuador. This factor is important given the new mobilization of groups such as the indigenous ones that were previously politically passive or excluded. Yet, he still has a chance to make this connection. Noboa’s tremendous wealth enabled him to give out medicines, computers and other services to the poorest sectors. He promised to build affordable housing and he also spoke about the importance of keeping foreign investments, particularly the Spanish ones, because he rightly believes that they can be a source of employment.

Noboa so far has received ample support from the Social Christian party (PSC) that won almost 10% of the vote in the first round. Interestingly enough Gilmar Gutierrez and his party Sociedad Patriotica won 17% of the vote. Gutierrez received support from the humblest sectors as well. Curiously enough Mr. Gutierrez is the brother of the former president Lucio Gutierrez, who was deposed by Congress in April 2005 after mass demonstrations. Rafael Correa is identified as one of those who conspired against President Gutierrez. Given that there is a good chance that Gilmar Gutierrez may endorse Noboa. This could help Noboa win the election.

Noboa will have to present assurances of inclusion and stress the values of democracy. Liberty and economic freedom are great ideas but in Latin America these concepts have lost weight. Social justice and equality represent higher value in current Latin America. The question is if Noboa could use the idea of democracy and freedom as a way to promote dialogue, inclusion, and legality. Democracy and dialogue should provide ways to include poor groups looking for a voice in the national arena. Democracy and legality could appeal to the Social Democrat voters despite their leader’s endorsement of Correa. The Correa-Chavez model of social justice above democracy, liberty and law will lead to destruction of pluralism because it is the leader that claims to represent people’s needs without consulting them. Warning against a Chavista regime type of regime and warning of the dangers of a constituent assembly is important but Noboa may have to move beyond this.

Noboa may think about inclusive economic policies but he should consider saying something critical of the current system and about the current rampant corruption. The fact is that the political parties and politicians have been involved in serious acts of corruption. Also the Supreme Court has been manipulated and politicized by previous governments. If Noboa does not address these needs for change that Ecuador requires, it will be Correa who will hijack this momentum and he will do so by following the Chavez model which is a proscription for populist authoritarianism.

In terms of international and regional politics, a victory for Correa will most likely bring another ally to Hugo Chavez, which implies more radicalization of the region, more allies for Iran, more apologists for terrorism and consequently a more dangerous Western Hemisphere.

Snatching defeat?

Decision Brief                        No. 06-D 53                                          2006-10-16


(Washington, D.C.): America’s preoccupation with the crises du jour – the rising terrorist menace to the liberation of Iraq, the Iranian regime’s determination to acquire the means to act on its genocidal threats against Israel and the United States and, most recently, North Korea’s nuclear coming-out party – has left Washington ill-prepared to deal with one of tomorrow’s major security challenges: the rise of the radical anti-American left in Latin America.

Losing Latin America

The emergence of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez as the oil-rich heir to Fidel Castro‘s revolutionary ambitions has translated into a mortal threat to liberal democracy, freedom and economic opportunity in much of the hemisphere. With Chavez’s money and Castro’s coaching, the two have adapted the longstanding Cuban revolutionary program of violent overthrow of elected governments to meet present circumstances. Today, virulent leftists are seeking, and frequently succeeding at, obtaining power through the ballot box – then using it to destroy their government’s constitutional processes and any checks on that power.

The United States government has paid scant attention as Bolivia and Argentina have moved squarely into the Chavez-Castro orbit. A similar disastrous outcome was narrowly averted in Peru but may well be in the offing at this writing in Ecuador.

The region’s largest country, Brazil, is in the hands of a long-time Castro ally, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Despite his differences with Chavez and generally moderate approach to economic policy, Lula can be expected to make renewed common cause with the leftist agenda if he is reelected on October 29.

Particularly appalling, the region’s Axis of Evil is poised, all other things being equal, to return Nicaragua – the country Ronald Reagan did so much to help free from the Sandinistas’ communist rule – to the tender mercies of their long-time authoritarian comandante, Daniel Ortega.

The (Unexpected) Return of Mexico’s Left

Washington’s inattention may also encourage the most strategically important reversal sustained to date by the Chavez-Castro axis to be substantially undone. Despite its concerted and well-heeled efforts to ensure the election as president of Mexico of an ideological soul-mate, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the results of a remarkably clean election gave the victory to a pro-American conservative, Felipe Calderon. There is, as a result, an unprecedented opportunity for constructive relations between the U.S. and Mexican governments.

Unfortunately, this opportunity – with all it portends for economic prosperity, sensible immigration policies and a common front against the hemisphere’s radical Left – could be squandered if Mr. Calderon yields to pressure to make the same mistake as his predecessor, Vicente Fox. That will be the effect if the new president of Mexico restores to office Mr. Fox’s first Foreign Minister, Jorge Castaneda.

As a new analysis by Fredo Arias-King just released by the Center for Security Policy makes clear, Castaneda and his team (including such figures as Mexico’s former consul in New York, Arturo Sarukhan, Castaneda’s controversial half-brother Andres Rozental and Ricardo Pascoe, former Mexican ambassador to Cuba) are themselves radical leftists who did grave harm to U.S.-Mexico relations the last time around – and will surely do so again if given the chance.

For example, they were instrumental in withdrawing Mexico from the decades-old mutual defense pact known as the Treaty of Rio, a decision announced ironically just days before the 9/11 attacks in 2001. They seemed determined to find occasions to work at cross-purposes with the United States – notably, in connection with our effort to hold Saddam Hussein accountable to various Security Council resolutions.

Most troubling, however, was the Castaneda cabal’s efforts to convert the initially pro-U.S. Fox and his government into friends of the hard left throughout Latin America. Castaneda personally engineered closer ties to the Castro apparatus in Cuba, encouraged the narco-terrorist FARC in Colombia and strove to rehabilitate Danny Ortega and his Sandinista Party in Nicaragua. It is not hard to assign responsibility for these initiatives since they were abandoned immediately after Castaneda left the foreign ministry.

As a result not only of their ideological bent but their incompetence, Castaneda and his team blew the opportunity afforded when the newly inaugurated George Bush assigned top priority to what he called a “special relationship” with Mexico and traveled there as his symbolic first trip abroad. Mexico dropped in the priority list for Washington, even before 9/11, and has never recovered since.

The Bottom Line

The possibility that the likes of Jorge Castaneda might return to power is especially dangerous for both Mexico and the United States at a moment when Ortega may triumph over a divided democratic-right in Nicaragua and the Chavez-Castro axis is making inroads in so many other places. Under Castaneda or his cabal, it is unimaginable that the Mexican government would play the constructive role it might otherwise perform in the post-Castro transition in Cuba.

It would be a tragedy if, at this critical juncture – and despite the preferences a majority of Mexicans expressed at the ballot box, Felipe Calderon were to squander the chance for Mexico to serve as a bulwark against the combined dangers of Chavismo and Fidelismo and to enjoy a strong, constructive and mutually beneficial relationship with the United States. It is in the interests of both of our countries that President Calderon’s vision of a freedom-loving and -supporting Mexico be represented at the Foreign Ministry, not that of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Jorge Castaneda.

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.

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.