Tag Archives: Ecuador

Correas Ecuador: Defending an autocracy

On September 30, something important happened in Ecuador.

A rebellion by police officers took place in protest against cuts in their bonuses and salaries. The discontented police threw tear gas that directly reached President Rafael Correa who was lightly harmed. Correa reacted by inviting protesters to kill him if they so wished but vehemently reaffirmed that he would not back off from his economic measures. Correa was taken to the Police hospital immediately after. Meanwhile, countries in the region, along with the United States and European countries treated these events like a coup d’état. All of them including the U. S Administration expressed full support for President Correa and democracy.  

President Correa, a strategic ally of Hugo Chavez, was reported having been kidnapped by the police.  In fact, he was given a room where he was well taken care of and where he received cabinet members, Congressmen, journalists, and Venezuelan advisors.  It was from the hospital that Correa declared a state of emergency, mobilized the military, and called regional and world leaders to complain about the coup d’état. It was also in his hospital bed that he took control of radio and TV stations, where only pro-government broadcasters were permitted to speak, while others were not allowed to do so. The government called on the population to mobilize in order to free the president and fight against those who were trying to overthrow him.  Finally, President Correa was "rescued" by the military and "freed" back to the palace of government.

For those regional and world countries that know well that coup d’états are unacceptable their reaction seemed natural. There was no question that defending democracy must and should be the priority.  However, the question is whether Ecuador under Correa’s leadership is still a full fledged democracy.  As was the case with (Manuel) Zelaya’s Honduras fifteen months earlier, the case of Correa is another example of perverted democracy that the world often tends to ignore, intentionally or unintentionally. 

Indeed, shortly before the police rebellion the Ecuadorian Congress passed a set of social laws after reaching a consensus that included a dialogue with different social and political sectors. These laws did not satisfy everybody but were understood to be balanced, and, more importantly, the result of fair negotiation and compromise. However, the President chose to veto many of these laws despite the fact that his own party was part of the discussion. The Ecuadorian Congress (or assembly) remained impotent in the face of presidential aggressiveness. The President threatened to dissolve congress in case there was any opposition. In light of these events, street protests increased among students, public servants, retirees and indigenous populations.

The largest indigenous organization Confederacion de Nacionalidades Indigenas del Ecuador (CONAEI), – one of the most important bastions of support for Correa during  the 2006 Presidential elections- issued a statement on October 6th. In that statement, CONAEI claimed that "there was never a coup d’état nor had the president been kidnapped but there was a "legitimate expression of discontent with the Correa government". CONAEI called the Correa government a "dictatorial democracy" for restricting freedom of the press, for taking control of the legislative and judicial branches of government, and for eliminating all possibility of discussion of "laws proposed by the indigenous movement and other social sectors". The statement by CONAEI, that has had a tense relation with Correa over mining, environmental and other policies in the last two years , is a good illustration of the way the Ecuadorian president has conducted the business of government.

In 2008, the Ecuadorian constitution was approved and ratified. That constitution provides significant prerogatives to the state.  The state is responsible not merely for guaranteeing or expanding liberties and rights. The Ecuadorian constitution empowers the state as the guarantor of education, health care, food, social security, and water resources for its inhabitants. The state is also in charge of national planning, eradication of poverty, and making sure that national wealth is distributed in an even manner among its citizens. By the same token, the constitution talks about re-orienting the private sector, also called the strategic sector, to serve "the social interest."

Likewise, the constitution provides for the dissolution of Congress while calling for new elections. It allows the president to exercise executive prerogatives by ruling by decree. In addition, the constitution establishes that legislative ability to act against the president is limited in so far as it depends on the approval of a "constitutional court". The court at the same time is likely to be highly influenced by the president. In other words, the Ecuadorian constitution,-whose enactment and ratification was praised by the contentious Secretary General of the Organization of American States, Jose Miguel Insulza- is a document that empowers the government  against  democracy, individual rights  and private property.

The police uprising against Correa’s government is not merely the result of an economic policy of austerity. It is the very implementation of the spirit of Chavez-type authoritarianism and contempt for Congress and democratic procedures what brought about the shaking of Correa’s government on September 30th. This was accompanied by three years of systematic attacks against the press and furious intolerance against opponents.

Correa pointed out during the rebellion that his government will proceed with its policies, regardless of the protests. Correa also attributed the rebellion to a plot inspired by his political opponent, former president, Lucio Gutierrez.   He made people believe that he was another Yeltsin, heroically confronting a gang of reactionary armed plotters.  

But Correa paid a heavy price: His government was saved by the chief of staff of the Ecuadorian army, Ernesto Gutierrez, who also demanded that the president change the public sector law that generated the protest. Correa began to back off from his authoritarian policies, not like a hero but very much like a coward. 

What is pathetic about this episode is that the military had to restore the political order in exchange for presidential concessions that could have taken place reasonably (as it initially did) in the legislative democratic process. What this shows is that the risk of military political empowerment is higher when democracy is not properly respected.    

 Yet, countries of the region recognize a coup as the only way in which democracy breaks down.  Undemocratic practices performed by elected governments are not acknowledged. This is why the OAS, under the pitiful leadership of Mr. Insulza, remained paralyzed and impotent after the Inter- American Human Rights commission (an arm of the OAS) published late in 2009 a comprehensive report on Venezuela’s violations of human rights and democracy.

The events of September 30th add to the need for the United States and Latin American countries to reconsider upgrading the criteria by which democracy is judged.

Guide to the perplexed

Israel’s leaders are reportedly concerning themselves with one question today. Are there any circumstances in which US President Barack Obama will order the US military to strike Iran’s nuclear installations before Iran develops a nuclear arsenal? 
From Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu down the line, Israel’s leaders reportedly raise this question with just about everyone they come into contact with. If this is true, then the time has come to end our leaders’ suspense. 
The answer is no. 
To all intents and purposes, there are no circumstances in which Obama would order an attack on Iran’s nuclear installations to prevent Iran from developing and fielding nuclear weapons. Exceptions to this statement fall into two categories. Either they are so implausible that they are operationally irrelevant, or they are so contingent on other factors that they would doom any US attack to failure. 
Evidence for this conclusion is found in every aspect of Obama’s foreign policy. But to prove it, it is sufficient to point out point three aspects of his policies.
First of all, Obama’s refuses to recognize that an Iranian nuclear arsenal constitutes a clear and present danger to US national security. Obama’s discussions of the perils of a nuclear Iran are limited to his acknowledgement that such an arsenal will provoke a regional nuclear arms race. This is certainly true. But then that arms race has already begun. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, the UAE, and Kuwait have all announced their intentions to build nuclear reactors. In some cases they have signed deals with foreign countries to build such facilities.
And yet, while a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is bad, it is far from the worst aspect of Iran’s nuclear program for America. America has two paramount strategic interests in the Middle East. First, the US requires the smooth flow of inexpensive petroleum products from the Persian Gulf to global oil markets. Second, the US requires the capacity to project its force in the region to defend its own territory from global jihadists. 
Both of these interests are imperiled by the Iranian nuclear program. If the US is not willing to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it will lose all credibility as a strategic ally to the Sunni Arab states in the area. For instance, from a Saudi perspective, a US that is unwilling to prevent the ayatollahs from fielding nuclear weapons is of no more use to the kingdom than Britain or China or France. It is just another oil consuming country. The same goes for the rest of the states in the Gulf and in the region.
The Arab loss of faith in US security guarantees will cause them to deny basing rights to US forces in their territories. It will also likely lead them to bow to Iranian will on oil price setting through supply cutbacks. In light of this, the Iranian nuclear program constitutes the greatest threat ever to US superpower status in the region and to the wellbeing of the US economy. 
Then there is the direct threat that Iran’s nuclear program constitutes for US national security. This threat grows larger by the day as Iran’s web of strategic alliances in Latin America expands unchallenged by the US. Today Iran enjoys military alliances with Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Brazil and Bolivia. 
As former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton has argued, at least the Soviets were atheists. Atheists of course, are in no hurry to die, since death can bring no rewards in a world to come. Iran’s leaders are apocalyptic jihadists. Given Iran’s Latin American alliances and Iran’s own progress towards intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran makes the Cuban missile crisis look like a walk in the park.
In the face of this grave and gathering threat, Obama cancelled plans to deploy anti-ballistic missile shields in Poland and the Czech Republic. He has shunned the pro-American Honduran and Colombian governments in favor of Nicaragua and Venezuela. He has welcomed Brazil’s anti-American president to the White House. He cancelled the F-22. 
THE FACT that Obama fails to recognize the danger an Iranian nuclear arsenal poses to the US does not in and of itself prove that Obama would not attack Iran’s nuclear installations. After all, the US has fought many wars and launched countless campaigns in its history against foes that posed no direct threat to the US. In most of these cases, the US has fought on behalf of its allies. 
In the case of Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, because the Iranians have openly placed Israel first on their nuclear targeting list, US debate about Iran’s nuclear program has been anchored around the issue of Israel’s national security. Should the US attack Iran’s nuclear installations in order to defend Israel? 
Given the distorted manner in which the debate has been framed, the answer to that question hinges on Obama’s view of Israel. Recent moves by Obama and his advisors make clear that Obama takes a dim view of Israel. He views Israel neither as a credible ally nor a credible democracy. 
First there is the character of current US military assistance to Israel and to its neighbors. In recent months, the Obama administration has loudly announced its intentions to continue its joint work with Israel towards the development and deployment of defensive anti-missile shields. Two things about these programs are notable. First, they are joint initiatives. Just as Israel gains US financing, the US gains Israeli technology that it would otherwise lack. 
Second, as Globes reported last week, the Obama has actually scaled back US funding for these programs. For instance, funding for the Arrow 3 anti-ballistic missile program – intended to serve as Israel’s primary defensive system against Iranian ballistic missiles — was cut by $50 million. 
The defensive character of all of these programs signals an absence of US support for maintaining Israel’s capacity to preemptively strike its enemies. When the Pentagon’s refusal to permit Israel to install its own avionics systems on the next generation F-35 warplanes is added to the mix, it is difficult to make the argument that the US supports Israel’s qualitative edge over its enemies in any tangible way.
An assessment that the US has abandoned its commitment to Israel’s qualitative edge is strengthened by the administration’s announcement this week of its plan to sell Saudi Arabia scores of F-15 and F-16 fighter jets for an estimated $30 billion. While the US has pledged to remove systems from the Saudi aircraft that pose direct threats to Israel, once those jets arrive in the kingdom, the Saudis will be able to do whatever they want with them. If one adds to this equation the reduced regional stature of the US in an Iranian nuclear age, it is clear that these guarantees have little meaning. 
Obama’s moves to reduce Israel’s offensive capacity and slow its acquisition of defensive systems goes hand in hand with his rejection of Israel’s right to self-defense and dismissive attitude towards Israel’s rule of law. These positions have been starkly demonstrated in his administration’s treatment of Israel in the wake of the IDF’s takeover of the Turkish-Hamas Mavi Marmara terror ship on May 31. 
In the face of that blatant display of Turkish aggression against Israel as it maintained its lawful maritime blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza’s coastline, Obama sided with Turkey and Hamas against Israel. Obama demanded that Israel investigate its handling of the incident. Moreover, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed that Israel was incapable of credibly investigating itself and so required Israel to add non-Israeli members to its investigative committee. 
Yet even Israel’s acceptance of this US humiliation was insufficient for Obama. His UN envoy Susan Rice then demanded that Israel accept a UN investigative panel that is charged with checking to see if the Israeli committee has done its job. And if the UN panel rejects the Israeli commission’s findings, it is empowered to begin its own investigation. 
As to the UN, as former Obama and Clinton administration officials Ray Takeyh and Steven Simon explained in an article in the Washington Post last week, Obama’s national security strategy effectively revolves around subordinating US national security policy to the UN Security Council. In the remote scenario that Obama decided to use force against Iran, his subservience to the UN would rule out any possibility of a surprise attack. 
 Although in theory the US military’s capacity to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities is much greater than Israel’s, given its practical inability to launch a surprise attack, in practice it may be much smaller. 
ALL OF these factors constitute overwhelming evidence that there are no conceivable circumstances under which Obama would order a US strike on Iran’s nuclear installations to forestall Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. And this reality should lead Israel’s leaders to three separate conclusions. 
First, and most urgently, Israel must attack Iran’s nuclear installations. Iran’s nuclear ambitions must be set back at least until 2017, the latest date at which a new — and hopefully more rational — US administration will certainly be in office. 
Second, given the fact that the US will not take action against Iran’s nuclear installations, there is no reason for Israel to capitulate to US pressure on lesser issues. The Obama administration has nothing to offer Israel on this most important threat and so Israel should not do anything to strengthen its position. Among other things, this conclusion has clear implications for Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, Israel’s future responses to Lebanese aggression, as well as for Israel’s continued cooperation with the UN probes of the Turkish-Hamas terror ship. 
Finally, Obama’s behavior is a clear indication that Israel was wrong to allow itself to become militarily dependent on US military platforms. Former defense minister Moshe Arens wrote recently that Israel should strongly consider abandoning plans to purchase the F-35 and restore the scrapped Lavi jetfighter to active development. Arens suggested that in doing so, Israel may find willing collaborators in the Indians, the French and even the Russians. 
No, the US has not become Israel’s enemy – although the Obama administration has certainly struck an adversarial chord. Polling data suggests that most Americans disagree with Obama’s treatment of Israel and recognize that Iran is a threat to the US.
 
But polls aside, the answer to Israel’s desperate queries is that it is up to us. If the Obama administration teaches us anything, it teaches us that we must rely first and foremost on ourselves. 
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

The first rule of strategy

The first rule of strategy is to keep your opponent busy attending to your agenda so he has no time to advance his own. Unfortunately, Israel’s leaders seem unaware of this rule, while Iran’s rulers triumph in its application.

Over the past few weeks, Israel has devoted itself entirely to the consideration of questions that are, at best, secondary. Questions like how much additional assistance Israel should provide Hamas-controlled Gaza, and how best to fend off or surrender to the international diplomatic lynch mob have dominated Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s and his senior ministers’ agendas. Our political leaders – as well as our military commanders and intelligence agencies – have been so busy thinking about these issues that they have effectively forgotten the one issue that they should have been considering.

Israel’s greatest strategic challenge – preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons – has fallen by the wayside.

In the shadow of our distraction, Iran and its allies operate undisturbed. Indeed, as our leaders have devoted themselves entirely to controlling the damage from the Iranian-supported, Turkish- Hamas flotilla, Iran and its allies have had a terrific past few weeks.

True, Wednesday the UN Security Council passed a new sanctions resolution against Iran for refusing to end its illicit uranium enrichment program. But that Security Council resolution itself is emblematic of Iran’s triumph.

It took a year for US President Barack Obama to decide that he should seek additional sanctions against Iran. It then took him another six months to convince Iran’s allies Russia and China to support the sanctions. In the event, the sanctions that Obama refers to as "the most comprehensive sanctions that the Iranian government has faced," will have no impact whatsoever on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
They will not empower the Iranian people to overthrow their regime. And they will not cause the Iranian regime to reconsider its nuclear weapons program. They won’t even prevent Russia from supplying Iran with S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to protect its nuclear installations from air assault.

THOSE LONG-awaited and utterly worthless sanctions underline the fact that life is terrific these days for Iran’s leaders and their allies. A year ago, the Iranian regime was hanging by a thread. After stealing the presidential elections last June 12, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his boss Ali Khamenei required the assistance of all their regime goons to put down the popular revolt against them. Indeed, they needed to import Hizbullah goons from Lebanon to protect themselves and their regime from their own people. European leaders like French President Nicolas Sarkozy were openly supporting the Iranian people as they announced their intention to overthrow the regime.

But then Obama sided with the regime against its domestic, democratic opposition. Intent on giving his appeasement policy a whirl, Obama took several days to express even the mildest support for the Iranian people. In the meantime, his spokesman continued to refer to the regime as the "legitimate" government of Iran.

Obama’s support for Ahmadinejad forced European leaders like Sarkozy to temper their support for the anti-regime activists. Even worse, by keeping the democracy protesters at arm’s length, Obama effectively gave a green light to Ahmadinejad and Khamenei to resort to brute force against them. That is, by failing to back the democracy protesters, Obama convinced the regime it could get away with murdering scores of them, and torturing thousands more.

A year on, although the regime’s opponents seethe under the surface, with no leader and no help from the free world, it will take a miracle for them to mount major protests on the one-year anniversary of the stolen elections. It is unimaginable that they will be able to topple the regime before it gets its hands on nuclear weapons.

A year ago Ahmadinejad was afraid to show his face in public. But this week he received a hero’s welcome in Istanbul. He had a bilateral meeting there not only with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, but with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

In the past year Iran has deepened its strategic ties with China and Russia. It has developed an open strategic alliance with Turkey. It has expanded its strategic web of alliances in Latin America. Now in addition to Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia, Iran counts Brazil among its allies.

THEN THERE is Lebanon. Like the regime in Teheran, Iran’s Lebanese proxy Hizbullah lost the Lebanese elections last June. And like the regime in Teheran, Hizbullah was able to use force and the threat of force to not only strong-arm its way back into the Lebanese government, but to guarantee itself control over the Lebanese government.

Now in control, with Iranian and Syrian support, Hizbullah has an arsenal of 42,000 missiles with ranges that cover all of Israel.

Then, too, Hizbullah’s diplomatic situation has never been better. This week former US ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker called for the US to initiate a policy of diplomatic outreach to the Iranian-controlled illegal terrorist group. Ryan is the second prominent US official, after Obama’s chief counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan, to call for the US to accept Hizbullah as a legitimate actor in the region.
As for Syria, it too has only benefited from its alliance with Iran. The Obama administration has waived several trade sanctions against Damascus.

As it battles the Senate to confirm its choice for US ambassador to Syria, the administration has become the regime’s champion.

Assuming the Senate drops its opposition, Syria will receive the first US ambassador to Damascus in five years as it defies the International Atomic Energy Agency and openly proliferates nuclear technology. Today Syria is both rebuilding its illicit nuclear reactor at Dar Alzour that Israel reportedly destroyed on Sept. 6, 2007 and building additional nuclear installations.

Luckily for Bashar Assad, the IAEA is too busy trying to coerce Israel into agreeing to international inspections of its legal nuclear installations to pay any attention. Since June 2008, the IAEA has carried out no inspections in Syria.

AND THAT’S the heart of the matter. The main reason that the past year has been such a good one for Iran and its allies is because they have managed to keep Israel so busy fending off attacks that Jerusalem has had no time to weaken them in any way.

It is true that much of the fault here belongs to the US. Since entering office, Obama has demonstrated daily that his first priority in the Middle East is to force Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians. As for Iran, Obama’s moves to date make clear that his goal is not to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Rather, it is to avoid being blamed for Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Moreover, Obama has used Iran’s nuclear weapons program – and vague promises to do something about it – as a means of coercing Israel into making unreciprocated concessions to the Palestinians.

The problem is that despite overwhelming evidence that Obama is fundamentally not serious about preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel’s leaders have played along with him. And in so doing they have lost control over their time and their agenda.

When Obama first came into office, he was committed to three things: appeasing Iran, attacking Israel for constructing homes for Jews in Judea and Samaria, and condemning Israel for refusing to support the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Obama was only partially dissuaded from appeasing Iran when Ahmadinejad rejected his offer to enrich uranium for the mullahs last December. As for his other goals, he coerced Netanyahu into agreeing to support Palestinian statehood last June and coerced him into ending Jewish home building in Judea and Samaria last September.

Ahmadinejad’s rejection of Obama’s outstretched hand forced Obama to launch his halfhearted drive for worthless UN sanctions. But he used this bid to coerce Israel into making still more unreciprocated concessions. After pocketing the prohibition on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria, Obama moved on to Jerusalem.

From there he moved to forcing Israel to accept indirect negotiations with the Palestinians through his hostile envoy George Mitchell. And once he had pocketed that concession, he began pressuring Israel to surrender its purported nuclear arsenal.

Following that, he has moved on to his current position of pressuring Israel to accept a hostile international investigation of the navy’s enforcement of Israel’s lawful blockade of the Gaza coast. He also seeks to weaken Israel’s blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza and force Israel to accept a massive infusion of US assistance to Hamas-controlled Gaza.

This last Obama action plan was made explicit on Wednesday when the US president announced that his administration would give $400 million in assistance to Gaza, despite the fact that doing so involves providing material aid to an illegal terrorist organization controlled by Iran.

OBAMA’S ACTIONS are clearly disturbing, but as disturbing as they are, they are not Israel’s main problem. Iran’s nuclear program is Israel’s main problem. And Netanyahu, his senior cabinet ministers and the IDF high command should not be devoting their precious time to dealing with Obama and his ever-escalating demands.

To free himself and Israel’s other key decisionmakers to contend with Iran, Netanyahu must outsource the handling of the Palestinian issue, the Obama administration and all the issues arising from both. He must select someone outside active politics to serve as his special envoy for this purpose.

Netanyahu’s envoy’s position should be the mirror image of Obama’s Middle East envoy George Mitchell’s role. He should be given a suite of fancy offices, several deputies and aides and spokesmen, and a free hand in talking with the Palestinians and the Obama administration until the cows come home.
In the meantime, Netanyahu and his senior cabinet ministers and advisers must devote themselves to battling Iran. They must not merely prepare to attack Iran’s nuclear installations.

They must prepare the country to weather the Iranian counter-attack that will surely follow.

Those preparations involve not only fortifying Israel’s home front. Netanyahu and his people must prepare a diplomatic and legal offensive against Iran and its allies in the lead-up, and aftermath, of an Israeli strike against Iran.

The most obviously qualified person to fill this vital role is former defense minister Moshe Arens.
Aren has the experience, wisdom and gravitas to handle the job. Bereft of all political ambitions, Arens would in no way pose a threat to Netanyahu’s leadership.

Whoever Netanyahu chooses, he must choose quickly. His failure to bear in mind the first law of strategy places Israel in greater and greater peril with each passing day.

 

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

La Relacin Entre Procesos Polticos en Amrica Latina y La Seguridad Regional

Version in English

Una gran parte del continente Latinoamericano corre el peligro de caer en una situación que oscila entre el totalitarismo y la anarquía, entre el autoritarismo y el caos. La región ya está siendo victima de una nefasta combinación de factores como la influencia de grupos insurgentes y de grupos terroristas extranjeros, carteles de la droga, y la cercanía con países que históricamente opuestos en cultura con la región, principalmente Irán, China, y Rusia. Esto se debe en gran parte a la emergencia de Hugo Chávez y la revolución Bolivariana. Esta revolución, que ha tenido repercusiones domésticas y regionales, le ha abierto la puerta aun más a todos estos elementos mencionados.

A nivel doméstico, el régimen es socialista y absolutista, hostil a la propiedad privada, a las fuerzas del mercado. Además oprime a la oposición política y civil así como también a los medios de comunicación. En cuanto a su política exterior, el modelo tiende a expandir la revolución Bolivariana más allá de las fronteras Venezolanas y tiende a maximizar la unidad latinoamericana bajo el liderazgo e influencia de Hugo Chávez. 

Este modelo se ha reproducido en países como Bolivia, Ecuador y Nicaragua. De este modo, bajo la consigna de justicia social,  las prerrogativas del poder ejecutivo han sido reforzadas a expensas de los derechos y libertades de la sociedad civil. Así también, la independencia del poder judicial y la libertad de expresión han sido obstaculizadas.

La perpetuación del poder es importante no sólo para consolidar un régimen autoritario. La perpetuación del poder es también importante porque Chávez tiene un proyecto continental donde lo que busca es crear un nuevo bloque en la región bajo hegemonía Venezolana. La presencia de regímenes autoritarios Pro-Chávez,  hacen la dominación continental más fácil en donde decisiones con implicaciones regionales importantes sólo requerirían un puñado de líderes que no rendirían cuentas ni al Congreso, ni al poder judicial ni a la sociedad civil.

Chávez también intenta co-optar a organizaciones y movimientos de base en el continente e incorporarlos a su huracán revolucionario. Lo peligroso es que Chávez cuenta también con grupos violentos siendo su mejor aliado las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, también conocidas como la FARC. 

A medida que este grupo terrorista es derrotado en Colombia y expulsado de ese país, sus miembros van escapando a países fronterizos con la ayuda de Hugo Chávez. En Ecuador, las relaciones con la FARC involucran a altos  funcionarios del gobierno Ecuatoriano, incluyendo el Presidente Rafael Correa, el poder judicial y el ejército. En Bolivia, los lazos del gobierno con las FARC han aumentado desde que el Movimiento la Socialismo (MAS) subió al poder. Más significativo es el hecho que las FARC junto con Chávez han creado un grupo internacional llamado la Coordinadora Continental Bolivariana (CCB) que incluye grupos como el vasco ETA y otros. La CCB probablemente esté destinada a difundir la revolución Bolivariana a través del continente.

La revolución Bolivariana también esta ligada a los carteles de la droga. El año pasado, la oficina de Responsabilidad Gubernamental de los Estados Unidos (GAO) publicó un informe para el comité de asuntos exteriores del Senado Norteamericano. Según el informe "Venezuela ha extendido un salvavidas a grupos armados ilegales y carteles de la droga proveyéndolos de apoyo y de refugio"

Así, el flujo de cocaína que transita desde Venezuela a los Estados Unidos, Europa y África occidental se ha cuadriplicado en un periodo de tres años y continúa creciendo. El negocio de la droga y sus redes de contacto también se expanden a través de América Latina incluyendo a America Central, el Caribe, Ecuador, Bolivia y Perú.

Lo mas grave de este fenómeno es que el negocio de las drogas corrompe el estado y obstaculiza su autoridad. El narco-dinero puede comprar abogados, policías, políticos, empleados públicos, y otros. Esto se agrava por el hecho de que países como Venezuela, Ecuador y Bolivia han expulsado a la agencia Norteamericana DEA cuya presencia servía para controlar y disuadir tal tráfico.

Los ejemplos de Méjico y Guatemala son alarmantes. En algunos estados mejicanos que bordean la frontera con los Estados Unidos no se puede distinguir entre los miembros de los carteles y miembros de la policía. Guatemala ha contratado empresas privadas de seguridad porque no logra ejercer control policial sobre su propio territorio.

Cuando Chávez y sus aliados se asocian con los carteles de la droga, esto estimula la inestabilidad en los países donde el narco-trafico opera. Esto serviría a Chávez quien busca desestabilizar gobiernos, deponerlos y luego imponer sobre ellos su visión revolucionaria.

Aún más, la anarquía que se genera con la proliferación de los carteles de la droga mas las FARC puede generar una situación similar a la de Afganistán donde la autoridad del estado ha cedido y el poder se ha trasladado a los feudos de la droga o grupos terroristas ligados al Talibán y Al Qaeda. Esta situación en América Latina puede llegar a tener repercusiones terribles incluso si Chávez desaparece de la escena.

La expansión de tal situación conduciría a la inestabilidad regional. Bajo este telón de fondo de anarquía no es difícil comprender la facilidad con que los grupos Islámicos y el estado forajido de Irán avanzan en la región. Terroristas florecen por lo general en territorios considerados ingobernables. Se sabe que hay cooperación entre Hamas, Hezbollah y otros grupos radicales Islámicos con carteles de la droga Mejicanos. En realidad una de las especialidades de Hezbollah parte de actividades terroristas, es el trafico de drogas.  

Hay informes de presencia de guardias revolucionarias Iraníes en Venezuela y que jóvenes Venezolanos afiliados al Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela, han sido entrenados en campos manejados por Hezbollah en le Sur del Líbano.

Esto podría bien estar ligado al concepto de Guerra asimétrica, una doctrina difundida en los ejércitos de Venezuela y Bolivia, donde se enfatiza el método de hombres suicida para combatir un ejército convencional.

Por otro lado es probable que estos "Mujadeen" Venezolanos puedan ser integrados al aparato represivo de los países asociados con la revolución Bolivariana. El gobierno Venezolano ha formalizado la formación de una milicia paralela al ejército Venezolano con una ley promulgada en Octubre pasado. Según esta ley, esta milicia puede reclutar ciudadanos extranjeros. Esto fácilmente podría llevar a la incorporación de guerrillas como la FARC y grupos terroristas Islámicos como Hezbollah. Estos elementos, combinados con las guardias revolucionarias Iraníes y expertos del  régimen Cubano podrían catalizar la consolidación de regimenes totalitarios en los gobiernos que siguen a Chávez.

A esto se le suma la presencia de Irán a quien Chávez ha apoyado a nivel internacional en todo sentido. Ha apoyado su programa nuclear, la Guerra de Hezbollah y Hamas contra Israel, al igual que ha ayudado a Teheran a evitar sanciones internacionales facilitándole su sistema bancario. Según fuentes del propio gobierno de Chávez, Venezuela ha ayudado a Iran a producir Uranio.

Por lo tanto hay una gran probabilidad de que en le momento que Irán logre la capacidad de producir una bomba nuclear, este país podría proveer a Chávez con armas nucleares. Esto no sólo representaría un peligro para Colombia, país al que Chávez detesta por su alianza con los Estados Unidos y en varias ocasiones ha amenazado, sino también abriría una carrera nuclear en la zona.

Además de la relación con Irán, Chávez y sus aliados han desarrollado fuertes relaciones con China y Rusia. Si bien lo han hecho también otros países Latino americanos como Brasil, la presencia de China en América Latina ha sido económica y GEO-política.

Dado que China controla puertos en ambos lados del canal de Panamá, así como también en Freeport, Bahamas y que pronto obtendrá también un Puerto de aguas profundas en Manta, Ecuador, es lógico concluir que China busca influencia más allá de lo económico.

China ha aumentado su inversión en un 400% en los últimos anos en América Latina y las exportaciones Latinoamericanas a China han aumentado substancialmente. Así, las actividades económicas Chinas y sus inversiones le dan un peso político de gran significancia al país asiático. Esto permitiría a Chávez y sus aliados perpetuar sus dictaduras en forma indefinida con el apoyo político y económico de China. Evidencia de esto es le préstamo de $20 mil millones de dólares que China otorgó a Chávez recientemente.

China podrá tener interés en perpetuar dictaduras también para frenar el poder de las democracias mundiales que le generan presión directa o indirecta para que democratice sus propias instituciones o para cesar sus serias violaciones a los derechos humanos. El poder económico Chino permite incrementar  su influencia en el mundo y al a vez apoyar a dictaduras como las Bolivarianas.

Algo similar ocurre con Rusia cuyas ventas de armas a Chávez se han evaluado en 5.400 millones de dólares. El académico especialista en Rusia Stephen Blank ha dicho que Rusia activamente promueve la revolución Bolivariana en su ambición de retener su status de potencia mundial y contrabalancear el poder de los Estados Unidos.

Es importante que líderes democráticos regionales y organizaciones de la sociedad civil en America Latina presten atención a estos fenómenos. No es nada menos que la libertad la que esta en juego.

Connecting the dots: Internal developments in Latin America & regional security

Versión en Español

Today, a large part of the Latin American continent is in danger of collapsing into a situation that fluctuates between totalitarianism and anarchy; between authoritarianism and chaos. The region is also in danger of falling under the strange influence of insurgent and terrorist groups, drug cartels and distant countries that historically have been poles apart from the region’s culture and civilization (mainly Iran, China, and perhaps Russia).

Part of the reason for this is the rise of Hugo Chavez and his Bolivarian revolution, which has had a mix of domestic, and foreign policy repercussions. The Bolivarian revolution has opened up a "window of opportunity" for external actors such as those mentioned above.

Venezuela has established a model of government and ideology that have implications on domestic and foreign policy. In terms of domestic policy, the regime is socialist and absolutist. It attacks private property and market forces, and, it suppresses the political and civil opposition as well as the media. For foreign policy, the model expands the Bolivarian revolution and is inclined to unify Latin America as much as possible under Chavez’s leadership.  

Domestically, the model is currently being reproduced by other leaders in the region (so far Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua).  Thus, under the veil of pursuing social justice, executive power has been strengthened at the expense of civil society. Likewise, judicial independence and freedom of expression have been undermined.

Important to note is the perpetuation of power at the expense of civil society. Chavez has a continental agenda where he seeks to create a new block in the country under Venezuelan hegemony. The existence of pro-Chavez authoritarian regimes makes the decision making process faster and Bolivarian continental domination easier. Indeed, decisions that affect a vast region could ultimately be made by a handful of leaders that do not have to be accountable to Congress, civil society or any other institution. 

Chavez also tries to co-opt grassroots and indigenous movements emerging in different countries in order to incorporate them in his revolutionary hurricane. However, Chavez as a true revolutionary relies and appeals mostly to violent groups. Thus, his main ally is none other than the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

As the FARC is being defeated in Colombia and expelled from the country, it has emerged in other countries with the help of Chavez and his allies. In Ecuador, relations with the FARC go up to the highest levels of government, including the president, the judiciary and the army. In Bolivia, ties with the FARC have increased since the MAS took over the reins of power. Most significantly, the FARC along with Chavez have created an international terrorist group, called the Coordinadora Continental Bolivariana (Bolivarian Continental Coordinator or CCB). The CCB has included revolutionary groups such as the Spanish ETA, and, will most likely try to spread insurgency across Latin America on behalf of the Bolivarian revolution.

The Bolivarian revolution is also related to the drug cartels. Last year, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report for the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. According to the report "Venezuela has extended a life line to Colombian illegal armed groups and drug cartels by providing them with support and safe heaven."

 Thus, the flow of cocaine transiting from Venezuela to the U.S, Europe and West Africa increased more than four times from 2004 to 2007 and continues to sharply increase. The drug business continues to expand all across Latin America including Central America, the Caribbean, Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru.

What is worse, the drug business corrupts the institutions of the state and undermines its authority. Drug money can buy lawyers, judges, policemen, politicians, and almost everyone and everything. This is further aggravated by the fact that Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador expelled the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from their countries

The example of Mexico and Guatemala are very alarming examples of the devastating effects of drug cartel activity. In some of the Mexican states that border the U.S, there is no real distinction between members of the drug cartels and members of the police department. Guatemala has hired private security companies because it is unable to exercise monopoly of force over its own territory.

Thus, when Chavez and his allies associate themselves with the drug business, it helps destabilize the region. Chavez seeks to destabilize governments, overthrow them, and later tilt them towards his revolution and join forces with him.

Moreover, the anarchy that is being created with the proliferation of the drug cartels and the FARC could lead to a situation of Afghanization where the authority of the state is given up and power is transferred to non-state groups or warlords.  That situation can perpetuate itself even if Chavez were to disappear. As a situation like this spreads it will lead to regional instability. Against this background of anarchy, it is not hard to understand the growing presence of Iranians and radical Islamists in the region. Terrorist usually flourish in territories that are ungovernable. Indeed, it was reported that there is an association between Hamas, Hezbollah and other radical Islamic groups with Mexican drug trafficking cartels. This is a direct threat to U.S security given the Mexican cartels access to the U.S Southern border.

 It was reported that members of the Iranian revolutionary guards have been traveling to Venezuela and that young Venezuelans affiliated with the ‘Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela’ (Chavez’s party) have been trained in Hezbollah camps.

In addition, it is likely that the Venezuelan "Mujadeen" could be used for acts of violence and be part of the repressive apparatus. The Venezuelan government has formalized the creation of a parallel Militia in a new law passed last October. The Militia can recruit foreigners. This situation may lead the way to an incorporation of guerillas such as the FARC and Islamic terrorists such as Hezbollah into the Bolivarian Militia in order to consolidate totalitarian regimes across Latin America.  

Chavez has supported Iran internationally, by supporting its right to pursue a nuclear program. He has also supported Iran- mentored groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas in their war against Israel, and, has helped Iran avoid sanctions by facilitating its banking system. Venezuela has also reportedly produced uranium for Iran and it is most likely that once Iran has a nuclear capability, if requested, Iran could provide Chavez with nuclear weapons.

 In addition to his relations with Iran, Chavez has been successful in moving closer to China and Russia. China’s outreach to Latin America has been both of an economic and geo-political nature. Given that China controls the ports at both ends of the Panama Canal, has a major port in Freeport, Bahamas, and is about to obtain a deep water port in Manta, Ecuador, one might conclude that China seeks to expand its influence in America’s backyard.  

China increased its investment in Latin America by 400 percent. China’s trade with Latin America grew by 40% between 2007 and 2008 making their trade with the region in 2008 three times higher than in 2004. Likewise, Latin American exports to China increased by 41% between 2007 and 2008. As China’s demand for raw materials continues its economic and industrial operation will expand throughout the continent.  In this sense, Chinese economic activities and investments provide China with tremendous leverage over these countries.  Chavez and his allies might be perpetuated China’s help, as demonstrated recently by China’s twenty billion dollar loan to Venezuela.

China might also be interested in perpetuating dictatorships in Latin America because China has a major interest in reducing the influence of world democracies. Through its trade and financial assistance, China seeks to ease international pressure on various regimes concerning the issue of democracy and human rights. China’s economic growth and increasing influence in the world enables it to support and even bail out the Bolivarian regime and its allies.

The same applies to Russia, whose arms sales to Chavez are currently valued at $5.4 billion. According to scholar Stephen Blank, Moscow’s arms sales to Venezuela and Cuba are aimed at giving Chavez what he needs to promote the Bolivarian revolution throughout Latin America.

 The U.S Administration needs to pay attention to these developments. Soon, we will wake up to the day where we will find the nightmare not in Iraq or in Central Asia, but right here in our own backyard.

El Obama colombiano

Version in English

Hace seis semanas parecía imposible.  Hoy, parece improbable pero posible: Colombia podría rechazar al candidato presidencial que más se ajusta al molde del presidente saliente, Álvaro Uribe Vélez.

Podría decirse que Uribe ha sido el presidente más popular de Colombia en los 200 años de historia del país; en casi ocho años, su índice de aprobación nunca ha bajado del 60 %, en julio de 2008 subió hasta 80% y actualmente se sitúa alrededor del 75%. Su aspiración a gobernar durante un tercer periodo, sin precedentes en el país, fue negada por la Corte Constitucional en febrero.  Esto les abrió el campo a candidatos que van desde la derecha hasta la extrema izquierda y ninguno es más cercano al presidente saliente que Juan Manuel Santos, su ex-Ministro de Defensa, candidato por el Partido de la U (Unidad), fundado por Uribe.  Los sondeos iniciales mostraron un apoyo a Santos del 40% o más, muy por encima de su más cercana competidora, Noemí Sanín del Partido Conservador, quien ha sido candidata presidencial dos veces, sin lograr el triunfo.  En un lejano tercer puesto, con un solo dígito, estaba Antanas Mockus del Partido Verde. Después de las elecciones legislativas del 14 de marzo, la situación de Santos se veía aún mejor pues los candidatos de la U ganaron una pluralidad en el Senado y la Cámara de Representantes.

A menos de tres semanas de las elecciones del 30 de mayo, el Dr. Mockus ha saltado de 9 a 34 por ciento de apoyo, mientras que el Sr. Santos se ha deslizado hasta un 35 por ciento [la Sra. Sanín, antes ubicada en segunda posición, se encuentra ahora en tercer lugar, después de haber caído de 17 a sólo ocho por ciento].

Para ganar, los candidatos presidenciales deben obtener el 50% de los votos y parece que Santos y Mockus se enfrentarán en una segunda vuelta a mediados de junio en la que Santos podría encontrarse con una oposición cerrada de la izquierda de todos los partidos y facciones.

Hay múltiples razones para el declive de Santos y el ascenso de Mockus:

Claramente, Juan Manuel Santos es el candidato mejor preparado, después de haber sido  excelente ministro en tres administraciones.  Aunque nunca ha ocupado cargos de elección popular, está mostrando notable fuerza y equilibrio tanto en las correrías de la campaña como en los debates presidenciales.

Su campaña, no obstante, ha ganado fama de desorganizada e insensible ante los intereses políticos pues, en la opinión de un experimentado analista, "han creído que esto es una coronación y no una elección".  Por ejemplo, recientemente Santos visitó Popayán, antigua capital de Colombia,  y sin reunirse con el alcalde,  se entrevistó con un líder político minoritario que representa una pequeña fracción de la base política del alcalde.

 

El nombramiento de Roberto Prieto, estrecho confidente de Santos, y el experimentado asesor politico J.J. Rendon son ejemplos de los esfuerzos radicales para corregir en gran parte la desorganización y falta de decisión evidentes desde principios de la campaña, mediante el remplazo de personal ineficaz y la revisión de los temas de la campaña.

La sorpresiva selección por parte de Santos de un comunista reformado, ex dirigente sindical,  ministro y gobernador del Departamento del Valle, está haciendo campaña por su cuenta con un pequeño equipo de campaña y fondos modestos.

El presidente Uribe, aunque sin duda apoya a Santos, ha hecho dos declaraciones innecesarias y poco útiles para el candidato del Partido de la U que han sido explotadas por los medios.  Recientemente ha adoptado una actitud de apoyo mucho más decidido.

El cubrimiento que los medios han hecho de Santos, miembro de la familia fundadora de El Tiempo, el periódico  más importante de Colombia, es escaso debido en parte al mal manejo de prensa por parte de la campaña.  Recientemente, una conferencia de prensa anunciada con antelación en un acto de campaña, se limitó a dos preguntas porque Santos llegó tarde. Este observador, a quien Santos le dijo dos veces que quería tener una entrevista , no pudo obtener durante seis semanas una respuesta concreta de ningún miembro de la campaña, una situación que se ha replicado muchas veces con otros periodistas.

 

Por su parte, la campaña de Mockus está recibiendo un gran cubrimiento de los medios y como resultado este bogotano hijo de inmigrantes lituanos goza de una aura de Obama entre los votantes.

Aparte de dos periodos como alcalde de Bogotá y dos candidaturas presidenciales, la experiencia profesional de Mockus es como profesor y rector de la Universidad Nacional de Colombia.

Como alcalde no hizo mayor cosa fuera de remendar las agujereadas calles de Bogotá y apropiarse del crédito de un esfuerzo nacional para disminuir tajantemente el secuestro y el asesinato. 

Otras actividades de su alcaldía incluyeron caminar por las calles vestido de Súper Ciudadano en mallas y capa, para fomentar el compromiso civil de los sorprendidos ciudadanos, y además, declarar la noche de las mujeres, mientras los hombres se quedaban en casa cuidando a los niños, para reducir el miedo femenino a ser víctimas de abusos.

La fórmula vicepresidencial de Mockus, Sergio Fajardo, un antiguo profesor y alcalde de Medellín, sufre de acusaciones recurrentes de haber tenido relaciones cercanas con los grupos paramilitares colombianos y el régimen de Chávez en Venezuela [Mockus mismo se vio forzado a cambiar una declaración de "admiración" a "respeto" por el déspota venezolano].

Recibió menos del 6% del voto presidencial en 2006 pero la prensa y el público están engrandeciendo  a Mockus en 2010.  De vuelta a Bogotá desde Cartagena hace poco, casi todos los pasajeros de un avión lleno se pusieron de pie y aplaudieron al candidato. Más aun, varios líderes cívicos y hombres de negocios, cansados del lento crecimiento económico a pesar de la mayor seguridad, están hablando positivamente de este "enfoque fresco" sobre los problemas.

 

Antanas Mockus es impredecible  Entre sus puntos de vista "frescos", como lo expresó a un prominente abogado bogotano, es que las muertes de los casi tres mil prisioneros durante el régimen del fallecido hombre fuerte chileno Augusto Pinochet, son más significativas que las de los 400 mil colombianos masacrados por las FARC, por ser aquellas acciones del gobierno. 

En un debate en abril 18 entre los seis principales contendores presidenciales, Mockus fue el único candidato en afirmar que no hubiera bombardeado el territorio vecino de Ecuador para matar al famoso líder narcotraficante Raúl Reyes, donde el segundo líder de las FARC se escondía, y que no lo haría si una situación parecida se presentara de nuevo. Cuando le preguntaron si había apoyado la aclamada acción en 2008, dijo que no se acordaba.  Recientemente, afirmó que extraditaría al Ecuador al presidente Uribe si era solicitado; aunque ya se retractó también de esta posición.

Luego está la presión de los vecinos de Colombia. El dictador venezolano Hugo Chávez ha anunciado que cortará todas las importaciones y no se reunirá con el Sr. Santos si éste es elegido presidente. Rafael Correa, Presidente del Ecuador y aliado de Chávez, ha etiquetado al mismo tiempo a Juan Manuel Santos como "un peligro no sólo para el Ecuador sino para toda la región".

Este agudo contraste entre los dos candidatos presidenciales colombianos tiene grandes similitudes con la elección de Estados Unidos en 2008.  La sólida experiencia ejecutiva de Santos, particularmente como el arquitecto principal del  notable éxito del país contra las guerrillas revolucionarias narcotraficantes, contrasta con la limitada y a menudo quijotesca experiencia política de Mockus.

En una posible segunda vuelta en junio, los votantes colombianos probablemente tendrán que elegir entre una experiencia centrista ya probada y la idiosincrasia idealizada de izquierda que bordea la duplicidad.  Su decisión impactará significativamente la dirección sociopolítica de América Latina durante muchos años hacia el futuro.

El analista geopolítico  y antiguo diplomático John R. Thomson se concentra en asuntos de los países en desarrollo.

Introducing Colombias own Obama

Versión en Español

Six weeks ago, it seemed impossible. Today, it seems improbable but all too possible: Colombia could reject the Presidential candidate most in the mould of retiring President Alvaro Uribe Velez.

Arguably Colombia’s most popular President in its 200 year history — in nearly eight years, his approval rating has never fallen below 60 percent, peaked as recently as July 2008 in the low 80s and is currently hovering around 75 percent – Mr. Uribe’s hope to serve an unprecedented third term was quashed by the country’s Constitutional Court in February.  This left the field wide open to candidates from right to extreme left, with none closer to the outgoing President than his former Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos, the candidate of Partido de la U [for unity], founded by Mr. Uribe.

Initial soundings showed Mr. Santos with 40 percent or more support, well ahead of his closest competitor, Noemi Sanin of the Partido Conservador, twice an unsuccessful presidential candidate.  Running a very distant third, in single digits, was Antanas Mockus of the Partido Verde.

Following legislative elections on March 14, Mr. Santos’ situation looked even brighter, as U candidates won pluralities in the Senate and House of Representatives.

Less than three weeks before the May 30 elections, Dr. Mockus has vaulted from nine to 34 percent support, while Mr. Santos has slipped to 35 percent [Ms. Sanin, previously second ranked, is now in third position, having tumbled from 17 to eight percent].

To win, presidential candidates must receive 50 percent of the vote, and it appears very likely Messrs. Santos and Mockus will compete in a mid-June runoff, in which Mr. Santos could well face united opposition from all left of center parties and factions.

There are multiple reasons for the Santos decline and the Mockus ascent:

  • Having held three senior ministerial positions with distinction in three administrations, Juan Manuel Santos is clearly the most qualified candidate. Although never having held elective office, he is showing remarkable strength and balance both on the road and in presidential debates.
  • His staff, however, has earned a reputation as disorganized and insensitive to political interests, because in one seasoned analyst’s view, "they have considered this a coronation rather than an election". For example, when Mr. Santos traveled recently to Colombia’s former capital, Popayán, he bypassed the city’s popular Mayor to meet privately with a minor political leader who represents a small fraction of the Mayor’s political base.
  • Appointment of close Santos confidante, Roberto Prieto, is exemplary of sweeping efforts to rectify much of the disorganization and indecisiveness the campaign witnessed earlier, with ineffective staff replaced and campaign themes revised.
  • Mr. Santos’ surprising vice presidential pick, Angelino Garzon, is a reformed communist, former union leader, minister and governor of Valle Department, and is campaigning on his own with a small campaign staff and funds.
  • President Uribe, although clearly supporting Mr. Santos, has twice made statements, unnecessary and unhelpful to the Partido de la U standard-bearer, that have been picked up by the press. He is now taking a more openly supportive stance.
  • Media coverage of Mr. Santos, member of the founding family of El Tiempo, Colombia’s leading newspaper, is consistently meager, in part attributable to poor handling of the press by the campaign. Recently, a previously announced press conference during a campaign stop, was limited to two questions because Mr. Santos was running late. This observer, twice told by Mr. Santos he wished to have an interview with me, was unable during six weeks to get a straight answer from any campaign staff member, a situation replicated many times with other journalists.

To the contrary, the Mockus campaign is heavily and favorably covered by the press, resulting in the Bogota-born son of Lithuanian immigrants enjoying an Obama aura among voters.

  • Apart from two elections as Bogota’s Mayor and twice running for national office, Dr. Mockus’ professional experience is as professor and rector of the National University of Colombia.
  • While Mayor, he did little of significance beyond mending Bogota’s potholed streets and taking full credit for a national effort to sharply curtail widespread murder and kidnapping.
  • Other Mayoral activities included walking the streets dressed as Super Citizen in tights and cape to urge civic involvement on surprised citizens, plus declaring a women’s night out, while men stayed home to care for the children, to reduce female fear of being molested.
  • Dr. Mockus’ vice presidential running mate, Sergio Fajardo, a former university professor and Medellin Mayor, suffers from recurring allegations of close relations with both Colombian paramilitary groups and the Chavez regime in Venezuela. [Dr. Mockus, himself, has been forced to downgrade a recent statement of "admiration" to "respect" for the Venezuelan communist despot.]
  • Recipient of less than five percent of the 2006 Presidential vote, press and public alike are lionizing Dr. Mockus in 2010. Returning to Bogota from Cartagena recently, virtually all passengers on a packed flight stood and applauded the candidate. Moreover, numerous business and civic leaders, weary of slow economic growth despite greatly improved security, are speaking positively of his "fresh approach" to issues.

Antanas Mockus, is nothing if not unpredictable.  Among his "fresh" views, as expressed to a prominent Bogota attorney, is that the deaths of some three thousand prisoners during the regime of late Chilean strong man Augusto Pinochet are more significant because they were actions of a government, than 400 thousand Colombians massacred by FARC and other guerrilla groups.

In an April 18 debate among the six leading Presidential contenders, Dr. Mockus was the sole candidate to declare he would not have fired missiles into neighboring Ecuadorian territory to kill notorious narco-trafficking leader Raul Reyes, where the number two FARC leader had sought refuge, and would not do so should a similar situation arise again.  Asked if he had supported the acclaimed 2008 action at the time, he said he could not remember.  Most recently, he stated he would extradite President Uribe to Ecuador for trial, if asked, a position he has since retracted.

Then there is the pressure from Colombia’s neighbors.  Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez has announced he will cut off all imports and will not meet with Mr. Santos if he is elected President.   Chavez ally, Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador, has simultaneously labeled Juan Manuel Santos ¨a danger not only for Ecuador but for the entire region¨.

The sharply drawn contrasts between Colombia’s two leading presidential contenders have striking similarities to the United States’ 2008 election.  Mr. Santos’ solid executive experience, particularly as chief architect of the country’s remarkable success versus Colombia’s narco-trafficking revolutionary guerrillas, contrasts with Dr. Mockus’ limited and frequently quixotic political experience.

In a prospective June runoff, Colombian voters will very likely be asked to choose between proven centrist experience and idealized leftist idiosyncrasy. Their decision will significantly impact Latin America’s socio-politico direction for several years to come.

 

Geopolitical analyst and former diplomat John R. Thomson focuses on issues in developing countries.

Latin America in American national security

The Christmas bombing attempt at blowing up a Northwest Airline flying from Amsterdam to Detroit has rightly raised the level of concern regarding national security.

If some still believe that the 9/11 attacks were isolated cases that were not likely to be repeated, the Christmas event as well as the massacre perpetrated by a radical Islamist at a military base at Fort Hood Texas and the capture of five Pakistani-Americans who tried to enlist with Al Qaeda, confirm that national security issues need to be comprehensively addressed. This is why paying full attention and giving priority to events occurring in Afghanistan, Yemen and Pakistan is imperative.

However, a national security policy cannot be subject to emotions or to the ideology of people who profess mere pacifism or wrongly believe that the enemy would not be our enemy if we treat it differently. Likewise, it is reasonable to say that no national security policy should be based only on a reaction to one specific dramatic event.

With all the bad news we have been hearing lately, there is also good news. The Christmas episode is the beginning of the end of illusions about the nature of our enemies. It is now up to the Obama Administration and the political community to lead us towards a systematic and well-thought national security policy. This policy should not be reactive. It should not only focus on areas that have been clearly identified as enemy bastions but also on those regions where no attack has yet been perpetrated on us but where we know there are potential threats.

A case in point is Latin America. The following are some of the challenges faced in that part of the world, which also happens to be a region in close proximity to our shores:

In the summer of 2009, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report at the request of the U.S Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  What they found was that the flow of cocaine transiting Venezuela towards the U.S., West Africa and Europe increased more than four times from 2004 to 2007 and continues to sharply increase. The majority of the cocaine originates in Colombia and goes to the United States but also a substantial amount goes to Europe. It takes place with the cooperation of Venezuelan authorities via air, land and sea. Venezuela has extended a life line to Colombian illegally armed narco- terrorist groups like the FARC by providing them with support and safe heaven both inside their country and along the border.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is engaged in a deliberate policy aimed at weakening the Colombian state by strengthening drug trafficking. The GAO report also states that Venezuelan officials provided material support primarily to the FARC in order to help sustain "the insurgency and threaten security gains achieved in Colombia". Cooperation between Venezuela and the FARC was documented in the computers seized from the FARC by a Colombian army raid into Ecuador in March 2008.

It is also established that the Venezuelan government may have provided hundreds of millions of dollars to the FARC as well as weapons and ammunition from official Venezuelan army stocks and facilities. Likewise, Venezuelan documents such as passports and identification cards have also been given to illegally armed groups. Finally, it was reported that top Venezuelan government officials are involved in these operations.

What is worrisome about this is not the mere criminality of these actions. Drug trafficking enables these criminals to buy law enforcement officials and thus destroys state mechanisms to enforce the law. Drugs promote corruption among state institutions including the police, the military, the rule of law, public officials and all those actors and public entities that enable governability in society. Mexico is a case in point.

In Mexico, drug cartels have been able to co-opt, bribe and kill hundreds of policemen, judges, and politicians at all levels. In the Mexican states bordering the United States there is no distinction between law enforcement and drug cartels. Drug trafficking has caused anarchy, general violence and societal fear.  Bolivia and Ecuador have already removed the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)’ from their territory.  With more countries in Latin America and the Caribbean facing an increasing amount of drug related crimes, the prospect of a widespread general state of anarchy and lawlessness in the region becomes a real possibility. If that turns out to be the case, a situation similar to the one existing in Afghanistan will take place just south of our border.

Naturally, where chaos exists, terrorist groups flourish. As in the Middle East and Central Asia, the FARC has a presence in countries such as Ecuador and possibly Bolivia. Encouraged by Hugo Chavez, Hezbollah has dramatically increased its presence in Latin America. Hezbollah is cooperating with the FARC and the drug cartels. It also has training camps in Venezuela.  The more anarchy spreads in Latin America, the number of Hezbollah and other Islamic radicals will increase, putting at risk institutions and citizens alike. By the same token, should this scenario play out, there will be a higher risk of penetration into U.S territory as Hezbollah uses routes already paved by Mexican drug cartels.

As it is known, Hezbollah is one of the most precious tools of Iran, an archenemy of the United States and an imminent nuclear power. Iran has spread its presence in Latin America in the last two years. Iran not only seeks to use Latin America to avoid sanctions as many analysts, including Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, have pointed out. Iran might also be seeking to increase the presence of armed groups such as Hezbollah as the latter represents a weapon of subversion and asymmetric war. Iran has invested more in subversion and nuclear military power than on conventional weapons because it is aware that its leverage would not exist if it were to rely on conventional weapons only. Iran can only deter through either terrorism or nuclear power.

Thus, Hezbollah’s presence in Latin America could turn the area into an instrument of Iran from where they could launch terrorist attacks. Likewise, Venezuelan territory could serve as a place from where a nuclear threat might emerge. 

Indeed, as international pressure on Iran increases and Iran is less willing to make concessions, Iran will seek means to deter the United States up to the point of threatening its own existence. Hugo Chavez has been Iran’s staunchest supporter in the world. Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, have comfortably penetrated Latin America thanks to Chavez. Venezuela and its ALBA allies (Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua) have provided the friendliest welcome to Iran second only to the Southern Lebanese Shiites.

Given all of the above, it should not be difficult to imagine a nefarious scenario: if Iran is to develop an atomic bomb, it will either transport clandestine nuclear missiles to Venezuela or provide direct nuclear technology or even a nuclear weapon to the Venezuelan regime which is also a revolutionary regime and an archenemy of the U.S.

Pressure in Central Asia and the Middle East should not reduce the focus in other regions of the world such as in Latin America. National security must be a worldwide comprehensive enterprise. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton seems to have some awareness of the dangers of the growing Iranian presence in our hemisphere as evidenced by her December 11, 2009 speech on Latin America. It is now up to her team and other members of the Obama Administration to uphold our national security interests and take this threat seriously and pursue the appropriate counter-measures.  

 

Dr. Luis Fleischman is Senior Advisor for the Menges Hemispheric Security Project at the Center for Security Policy in Washington D.C.

 

Pro-Iranian Chavista Daniel Ortega overturns term limits

In recent years, we have been witnessing a pattern in Latin America, where Presidents are elected democratically and then abuse their powers to extend their time in office. Coincidently, these new caudillos are all leftist populists and followers of Hugo Chavez from Venezuela, who started the trend. After 10 years in power, the controversial leader won a referendum in February that abolished term limits for presidents – a move he says is critical to carrying out his "Bolivarian Revolution." His allies Evo Morales in Bolivia and Rafael Correa in Ecuador have followed suit, each winning the right to consecutive reelection through constitutional reform, after illegally appointing people of their own political parties to key justice positions. 

Most recently, former Honduran President and Chavez’s ally, Manuel Zelaya, was close to securing an indefinite time in power, when he was stopped in his tracks by a resilient opposition who, in spite of being pressured by the OAS and the United States to reinstate the former leader, has stuck to its democratic principles. This loss was almost too much for Chavez, who wants to have control over Latin America to carry out his "Revolution of the XXI Century." Luckily for him, Daniel Ortega from Nicaragua whose first five-year term began in 1985 has stepped to the plate and has won a Supreme Court ruling last month that paves the way for his reelection in 2011. And he did it in the right moment too, just when the focus of the US administration and the OAS has been on Honduras. Few have paid attention to Nicaragua’s alarming situation that affects both regional and US national security.

Since being elected President in 2007, the first thing on Ortega’s agenda has been to seek reelection, following Chavez’s steps. It is important to point out that article 147 of the Nicaraguan constitution clearly states that a President cannot run for a consecutive reelection campaign and cannot be President more than twice. Ortega is seeking to run for reelection for a consecutive term and wants to be president for the third time. [1] Incredibly, on October 19, 2009, the Supreme Court of Justice in Nicaragua ruled in favor of Ortega making his presidential bid possible for 2011.

How did Ortega accomplish a favorite ruling from the Supreme Court?

The Nicaraguan Supreme Court is composed of 16 members and thanks to a political deal made by Ortega and Arnoldo Alemán, a former Nicaraguan president who went to jail for massive corruption, half the magistrates are appointed by the ruling Sandinistas, and the other half are appointed by the opposition Liberals. But due to the May 2009 death of one Liberal-appointed magistrate, and the fact that his seat still has not been filled, the Sandinistas currently enjoy an 8-7 majority, which means the court is effectively Sandinista. [2]

Six magistrates made the decision to let Ortega seek reelection. And guess what? All six were Sandinista appointees–even though the court’s six-member constitutional panel includes three Liberal magistrates. Those three Liberal judges were not summoned to the meeting at which the decision was made. Instead, the Sandinistas called in three "replacement" judges to guarantee their preferred ruling. [3]

Clearly, the decision to allow Ortega to be re-elected as many times as he wants is illegal. Basically what Ortega did was just copy Chavez’s power grabbing methods: pack the Supreme Court with supporters to get favorable rulings, place close allies in the National Electoral Council to prevent opponents from getting on the ballot, suppress the press when all this fails, resort to mobs on the streets to intimidate. Case in point, when the U.S. ambassador in Managua, Robert Callahan criticized the pro-Ortega Supreme Court ruling as improper, Ortega followers vandalized the U.S. embassy. The next day, Ortega supporters surrounded Mr. Callahan at a university fair, forcing him to dash to his sport utility vehicle in a hasty getaway that was televised locally. [4]

After the opposition voiced their outrage and started to protest, Ortega declared that the ruling is "written in stone" and is unchallengeable. He then called his political opponents "residual garbage" who should be thrown in jail.

Due to the threat to democracy, civil society organizations and opposition political parties in Nicaragua have begun to unite. The Bancada Democrática Nicaragüense, Partido Liberal Constitucionalista, Movimiento Renovador Sandinista, and the Alianza Liberal Nicaragüense are looking for legislative tactics in order to revoke this ruling. The unification of all the political parties guarantees 48 votes, which is a majority in the Nicaraguan National Assembly. Hopefully, the unification can last long enough in order to stop Ortega’s reelection. The past has proven that it is extremely difficult for all these leaders to stay united through the crisis at hand. Private sector organizations such as the Consejo Superior de la Empresa Privada (Cosep) and the Cámara de Comercio Americana Nicaragüense (Amcham) have also spoken publicly against the ruling by the Supreme Court. [5]

But as Nicaraguan citizens learned last year, the Supreme Electoral Court cannot be trusted in conducting a fair, free, and transparent election. In June of 2008, the Nicaraguan Supreme Electoral Council disqualified opposition political parties including Sandinista Renovation Movement and the Conservative Party from participating. Last November, the Supreme Electoral Council received national and international criticism following irregularities in municipal elections. For the first time since 1990, the Council decided not to allow national or international observers to witness the election. Accusations of intimidation, violence, and harassment of opposition political party members and NGO representatives have been recorded. Official results show Sandinista candidates winning 94 of the 146 municipal mayorships, compared to 46 for the main opposition Liberal Constitutional Party (PLC). The opposition claimed that marked ballots were dumped and destroyed, that party members were refused access to some of the vote counts and that tallies from many polling places were altered. As a result of the fraud allegations, the European Union suspended $70 million in aid, and the US $64 million. [6]

The latest developments are that Nicaraguan Lawmakers are refusing to recognize a Supreme Court decision that would allow Ortega to run again in 2011. The National Assembly approved a resolution on Thursday December 3rd to oppose the top court’s decision The electoral commission’s president says the Supreme Court’s ruling is final. But he leaves the post in 2010 and lawmakers are betting his replacement will side with them.

 

Iranian – Nicaraguan relations

Iran has been making inroads into Latin America for some time, especially in countries with strong Chavista influence, including Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and dangerously Nicaragua, which is very close in distance to the US. Iran has come under increased criticism for its secret construction of a uranium-enrichment plant that could be used to make an atomic bomb. Ahmadinejad and the leaders of friendly Latin American countries have signed numerous cooperation agreements, in which Iran has pledged to build factories, hydroelectric power plants, provide low-interest loans and invest in oil and gas projects.

Specialists agree that the Iranian move to Latin America and Nicaragua makes perfect sense for them in light of the American-led trade sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program.

The problem is that if Ortega perpetuates himself in power, the United States’ and the region’s national security could suffer a serious blow. We have to consider that Iran has already used Hezbollah to attack what it considers enemies in Latin America, when they blew up the Israeli embassy and a Jewish center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in the early -90’s killing and wounding hundreds. This is according to a recent 800-page Argentine indictment and still outstanding arrest warrants for top Iranian officials and Revolutionary Guards who carried out the bombings under diplomatic cover provided by Iran’s Buenos Aires embassy. [7]

When Ortega became President of Nicaragua in 2007, Ahmadinejad considered his ascension so important that he was in Managua to attend the inauguration. Ortega even honored Ahmadinejad with two of the country’s most prestigious awards (the Liberty Medal and the Rubén Darío Medal). The two heads of state then toured shantytowns in Managua and Ortega told the press that the "revolutions of Iran and Nicaragua are almost twin revolutions…since both revolutions are about justice, liberty, self-determination, and the struggle against imperialism."

Within months, Iran was promising hundreds of millions in economic projects to Nicaragua- and quickly set up a diplomatic mission in a Managua neighborhood where it could all supposedly be coordinated. [8] In addition, there were plans to build a $350 million port on the eastern seaboard bay known as Monkey Point. But according to recent reports, no Iranian money or concrete planning has materialized yet for this project. The Iranians had made only a few trips around the country aboard helicopters. Iran was also supposed to set up the port of Corinto, which supposedly would be linked to the Monkey Point port by a dry land canal, but this project has not materialized either.

However there is a diplomatic mission, which has steadily expanded its staff under the leadership of its envoy Akbar Esmaeil-Pour. This building provides a huge blanket of diplomatic cover to Iran and its embassy personnel. What are all those Iranian diplomats doing in Nicaragua? Alarms were set off already in 2007, when suspected Iranian Revolutionary Guard operatives were seen moving in and out of the country. Ortega, through his ministry of migrations permitted 21 Iranians to enter the country without visas.

There has been confusion for some time about the size of the Iranian embassy in Managua. Initial reports described the mission as being massive in size. But thanks to new information, we now have a better idea of what went on. Local reporters where focusing on a huge compound being built, reportedly, with Iranian money. It turns out, the construction was actually a huge mosque in an upscale suburb of Managua.

The problem is that even though Muslims, particularly Palestinians, have been emigrating to Nicaragua for decades and have established a number of businesses here, especially in the fabric trade, their numbers are so small, in fact just over 300, that a mosque of this size raises suspicions. According to reports, the embassy cost U$600,000. But the question remains, who paid for it? According to Iranian diplomats in Managua, the Iranian government did not donate the cash and declared that the primary funder was a Pakistani-born businessman who lives in Honduras. After seeing how tiny the old mosque was, the man offered to help finance a new prayer center on a piece of land purchased several years ago by local Muslims. The donor was identified as Yusuf Amdani. The mosque offers services five times a day, beginning at 4:30 a.m.

Reached by telephone in Honduras, Mr. Amdani, who is chief executive of Grupo Karim’s, a textile-and-construction company based in Honduras and Mexico, said, "There’s no mystery about the mosque" but says he didn’t pay for an adjoining annex that includes a school and an apartment for the imam, and suggested the Iranian government may have helped fund that. "I wouldn’t doubt if they gave some money to help them out," he says. "I would say they must have."

On a recent visit to the mosque, a Wall Street Journal reporter was stopped by security guards at the front gate and, without explanation, was denied access to an afternoon ceremony. Why the secrecy?

 

The bottom line

While the US Department is mostly focusing on Honduras, Ortega is moving fast to cripple democracy and establish himself as president for life. This would surely have a negative effect on the region while benefitting Chavez and his allies. If Ortega remains in power, he is sure to continue supporting and encouraging the Iranian presence in his country.

What is becoming dangerous is that Nicaragua is providing a safe place where Iran can send Revolutionary Guards and move them in and around the region. It is clear that the Iranians are allowed to come and go as they wish and there is no surveillance by the Nicaraguan regime. It is not far fetched to think that the embassy and the mosque could be used to store weapons and to develop and execute plans to attack American interests. What is certain is that urgent vigilance is required.

 

Nicole M. Ferrand is the editor of "The Americas Report" of the Menges Hemispheric Security Project. She is a graduate of Columbia University in Economics and Political Science with a background in Law from Peruvian University, UNIFE and in Corporate Finance from Georgetown University.

 

NOTES

[1] Constitutional Danger in Nicaragua: Ortega Up to His Old Tricks

[2] Losing Nicaragua

[3] Ibid.

[4] In Nicaragua, Opposition Sees an End Run.

[5] Constitutional Danger in Nicaragua: Ortega Up to His Old Tricks.

[6] The Betrayal of the Sandinista Revolution

[7] Iran’s Push Into Nicaragua: Why Is No One Concerned

[8] Ibid.

Champions of democracy

"Let every nation know… that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." – John F. Kennedy, from his Inaugural Address

Tegucigalpa, Honduras– These words do not describe the foreign policy of the United States today.  They do describe a fundamental American principal that has defined us and makes us unique when we put them in to practice.  We have fought for freedom many times throughout our history. Those were times when American leadership knew who we were.  The battles for freedom in Latin America may be joined by the United States in word but not in deed.  Today’s American leadership accepts the false label of ‘imperialist’ given to us by sworn enemies of democracy.

Yet, it is the imperialist behavior of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez that is forcing a pseudo- Bolivarian, neo- Communist wave across the region.  And so, the value of improving our image has taken precedence over the principles of democracy by which we should define ourselves. 

So, who are today’s modern Champions of Freedom and Democracy?  What comes to mind when you hear that question? The first to come to my mind are the freedom fighters of the Iranian resistance.  American leadership has been too silent while the Iranian government continues to imprison, persecute, and torture its own people because they have bravely and peacefully stood up to fight for the most basic freedoms.

This week is special for Democracy and Freedom for the world because this past Sunday a small nation of smart and brave people stood on the side of Democracy against more powerful and aggressive forces.  They did it without the help of the United States.  Hondurans, like the Iranian resistance, saw that they could not count on the U. S. for help.  They would have to do it themselves, and they did.

The election of Porfirio Lobo of the Honduran National Party on Sunday, November 29 was both glorious and tragic.  From what some may debate is due to a flawed American press, there is an alarming lack of awareness of the gravity of the threat posed to democracy and U.S. and regional security by Hugo Chavez and those who align themselves with him.  With Venezuelan oil money, corruption, and the leverage of the drug cartels, democratic institutions of Latin America are being threatened.  Legislators are bought and influenced, and constitutions changed while power shifts steadily towards totalitarianism.  Venezuela is becoming Cuba. Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua follow in lock step.  They are cheered on by leaders in Argentina and now Brazil.  Panama is under pressure.  As a result of Chavez’s ideological affinity with the Iranian regime, the presence and influence of Iran continues to grow.

And so the November 29 presidential and congressional election was glorious because the Honduran people saw the writing on the wall, stood up to anti-democratic forces, and stopped Chavez at the door. 

The tragedy is that the Chavistas have been writing the narrative for the international press all along.  This great victory for democracy may go unnoticed. While the world should be cheering the Honduran election as we did the fall of the Berlin wall, international opinion continues to turn against them.  Chavez was so successful in leveraging U.S. foreign policy that the United States government, that was so carefully slow in judging the ‘elections’ in Iran, delegitimized the defenders of democracy in Honduras by labeling their actions as a ‘coup’ before they bothered to consult the State Department.  (This forced the State Department to make an embarrassing post facto argument which would not with stand public debate and will never have to due to the current state of transparency in the U.S.)  However, the Administration finally did do the right thing by supporting and recognizing the outcome of the elections.

There is a saying down here; "Chavez never loses because the fight is never over".  Honduras was, in a sense, an experiment for Chavez.  He normally buys off a chunk of the legislature to change the constitution.  This time he tried to use the executive branch to destroy the Honduran constitution.  By personally leveraging Mel Zelaya, Chavez made a succession of attempts to subvert Honduran democracy throughout Zelaya’s term.  Though traumatic for Hondurans, little of it registered in the international press until he was legally removed from the country to avert violence that was being provoked by Zelaya, himself.  The attempts of Zelaya and Chavez did not work.   However, Chavez will most likely change tactics and use the international political capital he has gained to try and make life hard for the new government. 

Honduras has a long fight ahead but they have two things going for them.  First, there is no bad blood in Honduras.  Honduras cannot be understood through the American prism of political division.  This country is united.  The perception of Zelaya representing some populist movement comparable to the FMLN or the Sandinistas is a fantasy.  This is a conservative country that rejects communism as a valid critique of capitalism. They are unique in Central America because they lack the history of a bloody civil war unlike so many of their neighbors.  And so, Chavez has duly noted that he will not be able to divide this country ideologically.

Their second asset is their combination of bravery and peacefulness.  In the months before the election foreign agents did their best to create a climate of fear.  Many, amongst the poorest of Hondurans, were exploited and paid to march in contrived rallies.  Many were promised money to protest but were not paid.  One woman I spoke to told me that a few months ago she would have been afraid to vote because of threats. 

Rumors of arms shipments coming in for the ‘Resistance’ were abounding.  A low budget graffiti campaign sent signals to those who would dare to vote.  Zelaya, himself, failed to instigate violence prior to his removal from office.  Few outside tell the story of how he led an angry mob to seize the ballots he had illegally spent government money on to hold his referendum.  Despite his best efforts, peace prevailed.  And as time passed, something happened.  The Honduran people moved on.  People stopped caring about Mel. They stopped believing his rhetoric inside Honduras.  He is no longer a political entity here even within his party.   The resistance faded.  The bravery and peacefulness of the Honduran people reigned on the 29th.  I can best describe the elections that took place here as gloriously boring and highly organized.

The struggle for democracy will continue here.  For the near future it is Hondurans who will champion democracy and freedom.  Unfortunately, many Americans may never know about this important story.

 

Nicholas Hanlon is a foreign affairs writer at the Center for Security Policy and the producer of Secure Freedom Radio with Frank Gaffney.