Tag Archives: Hezbollah

Morales in Bolivia: ‘If you are not with the Party, you are the opposition. There is no middle ground.’

Evo Morales won the Bolivian presidency in 2005 with an overwhelming 54% of the vote with his Movement toward Socialism (Movimiento al Socialismo) gaining control of the lower house of congress. However, he failed to win the majority in Bolivia’s Senate, and that body was able to stop some of his radical initiatives. However, in the General elections of December 6th 2009, President Morales won 63%% of the popular vote and his party achieved 85 out of 130 seats in the House of Deputies and 25 of 36 seats in the Senate. With these results, the administration can pass any law or make any constitutional change it wants, which has many Bolivians and various democratic leaders deeply concerned.

Morales, who was declared the "first fully indigenous head of state, ran on the premise that he would "refound" Bolivia focusing on socialist and indigenous principles, but pledged to work with all Bolivians within the context of respect for the rule of law and tolerance. Unfortunately, he has turned his back on this promise and has lead Bolivia into one of its worst political crises.

Since the beginning of his mandate, Morales has focused on changing the Constitution and indefinitely extending his presidency following in the footsteps of his closest ally, Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez. On numerous occasions, he has repeated that he did not come to the presidential palace as a "visitor, or someone passing through, but we have come to stay for a long time, until we change Bolivia." [1]

He also has publicly declared himself a "Marxist-Leninist," which has many fearing the worst of outcomes for the future of the Andean nation. In order to extend his time in power, Morales inaugurated the Bolivian Constituent Assembly on August 6, 2006, to begin writing a new document. His aim was to also give more power to the indigenous majority, which he claims, has been "marginalized by the elites."

However, problems immediately arose when, unable to obtain two-thirds of the votes needed to approve a new constitution, Morales announced that only a simple majority would be needed. Huge protests erupted, mostly in the eastern, richer provinces of Pando, Santa Cruz, Tarija, and Beni that form the Media Luna: a half-moon-shaped area on the country’s eastern border with Brazil. This region of Bolivia is where the majority of the opposition is centered, where much of the hydrocarbon wealth is located and is the source of most of the nation’s agricultural output. The reform process has been considered illegal at every stage, as the opposition has been excluded, sometimes even physically, from participating. Huge dissatisfaction and resentment towards Morales remains in these provinces and many there are in favor of their region becoming autonomous and separate from the rest of Bolivia.

As part of the process to change the constitution, a recall referendum was approved on December 2007, by the Chamber of Deputies, where the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) party has a majority. The referendum was initially suggested by Morales in December 2007, but was rejected by the opposition at the time. However, the opposition-controlled Senate brought back the suggestion following their victory in the Santa Cruz province autonomy referendum on May 4, 2008. Analysts agree that the opposition miscalculated the degree of support it enjoyed. For the president, vice-president or prefects to remain in office, they had to win more votes than they had in the December 2005 elections.  On August 10th 2008, Evo Morales was ratified by 67% of the vote.

As part of the process to change the constitution, a recall referendum was approved on December 2007, by the Chamber of Deputies, where the Movement towards Socialism (MAS) party has a majority. The referendum was initially suggested by Morales in December 2007, but was rejected by the opposition at the time. However, the opposition-controlled Senate brought back the suggestion following their victory in the Santa Cruz province autonomy referendum on May 4, 2008. Analysts agree that the opposition miscalculated the degree of support it enjoyed. For the president, vice-president or prefects to remain in office, they had to win more votes than they had in the December 2005 elections.  On August 10th 2008, Evo Morales was ratified by 67% of the vote.

Following these results and after months of fierce battles between the government and the opposition group, PODEMOS, the parties eventually reached a compromise on October 20, 2008 and agreed to hold the referendum on January 25, 2009 and early elections on December 6 2009. Morales in turn promised he would not run again in 2014 after his reelection in 2009. The referendum took take place on January 25, 2009. With a 61% majority, a new constitution came into effect on February 7th.

The new document includes an entire chapter dedicated to Bolivia’s indigenous populations. It puts the economy in the hands of the state, limits landholdings and redistributes revenues from gas fields in the eastern lowlands to poorer areas of the country.

One of the most contentious issues for Bolivians is control over natural gas. Since his campaign, Morales vowed to tighten state control over this resource and the mining industries and as of May 1, 2006, he signed a decree stating that all natural gas reserves were to be nationalized. Bolivia has the second largest deposits of natural gas in South America – 1.38 trillion cubic meters – after Venezuela. Even though he promised that the nationalization would not take the form of expropriations or confiscations, he ordered the military and engineers of YPFB, the state firm, to occupy energy installations, giving foreign companies a six-month period to renegotiate contracts, or face expulsion. US Exxon Mobil Corporation, Brazil’s Petrobras, Spain’s Repsol YPF, UK BG Group Plc, and France’s Total are the main gas companies present in the country. All foreign energy firms were required to sign new contracts giving Bolivia majority ownership and as much as 82% of revenues. [2]

The opposition insists that the President wants to impose a socialist economic model, copying his Venezuelan counterpart, and argues that Bolivia is turning into a totalitarian state. "Podemos" insists that the President is only focused on making a new constitution to stay in power and unfairly privilege indigenous groups. They also accuse him of misusing the revenues of gas to instill a "socialist revolution."

Analysts agree that Morales’ programs to assert greater state control over the economy will destroy national productivity. They also state that Morales, a fierce critic of Washington and a leader of the emerging Latin American left, is destroying democracy. Roger F. Noriega, a former Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America, and now visiting fellow at AEI and managing director of Vision Americas LLC, accurately states, "Morales has proven to be the archetypical new brand of authoritarian populist in Latin America who wins power by electoral means and then sets out to destroy the very democracy that elected him in the first place. Rather than make any effort to govern within democratic institutions meant to check state power… such caudillos abuse their popularity to wage warfare against their opposition and to impose their radical agendas. Determined to put Bolivia’s institutions and resources at the service of the indigenous majority… he considers it an essential part of his mission to shatter the old order and attack the privileged establishment." [3]

Another problematic development is the government’s intolerance of any type of opposition. The Morales’ regime uses mass violent mobilizations to intimidate any dissident voice and independent media. He even confiscates personal property and illegally detains opposition leaders. On more than one occasion, he has expressed publicly that he views all opponents as traitors, "I want to tell you, companions and union leaders, to all of you, if you are not with the official party (MAS) at this time, you are the opposition. There is no middle ground. Define yourselves." [4]

In addition to endangering the Bolivian people’s future by implementing a socialist, backward model, Morales has also developed close ties with the FARC and with autocratic, non-democratic states such as Cuba, Nicaragua and more recently Iran, in addition to Venezuela.

There are credible reports that there are significant numbers of Venezuelan military and governmental advisers in Bolivia and that the intelligence apparatus is being advised by Havana and Caracas. Both countries have sent special envoys to oversee matters of national security. It has also been reported that Venezuela is in charge of   voter registration rolls and that Bolivian passports are actually being printed in Venezuela and Cuba. This means that Chavez and Castro could have access to identification and registration files, enabling them to ensure MAS electoral victories. [5]

There is also information that each year, the Venezuelan regime directly pays millions of dollars to senior leaders of Bolivia’s military and that it is building a series of new military posts as well as providing intelligence training. At least another $110 million a year goes to directly paying for a presidential program called "Bolivia Changes, Evo Fulfills His Promises." This money goes directly to the presidency with no outside accountability or oversight. [6]

An agreement between the two countries calls for Venezuela to train Bolivian troops and upgrade military equipment. Chavez also agreed to finance the construction of ten customs and border control installations and has also provided two Super Puma helicopters for the president’s transportation, as well as loaning Morales a Venezuelan presidential jet for international travel. In addition, Venezuelan security personnel act as Morales’ primary security providers. [7]

The Cubans are primarily in charge of placing hundreds of doctors across rural Bolivia to administer medical care, and oversee an ambitious literacy program, which many claim is being used to indoctrinate the population on the "benefits" of Chavez’s "Bolivarian Revolution." Cuba is also reported to oversee internal security structures to actively monitor the opposition. [8]

In addition, documents found in the computer of Raúl Reyes, the FARC commander killed in the March 1, 2008 raid by the Colombian military, show the ties, including the training of Bolivian students in FARC camps. Some of the correspondence mentions FARC contacts with Morales, both before he was president and afterward. In one 2007 missive, Reyes asks a member of the FARC’s International Commission to "take good care of our relations with Evo." [9]

Venezuela’s Chavez has been key in the close relationship now in place between Bolivia and Iran. Both countries have opened diplomatic relations with each other. Like Venezuela, Bolivia eliminated the need for Iranian citizens to get visas to enter the country and Morales recently announced that he’s moving his country’s only embassy in the Middle East from Cairo to Tehran. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Bolivia in 2007, and Morales paid a reciprocal visit to Tehran in September 2008. Upon arrival Morales declared Bolivia and Tehran "two friendly and revolutionary countries."

When Ahmadinejad visited La Paz in 2007, he promised $1.1 billion in aid to Bolivia over five years, including a television station, to cover all of Latin America. Morales said the station would turn Bolivia into "the center of revolutionary democracy," Which has yet to materialize. Even though only a couple of factories have been actually built by Iran, Ahmadinejad has in fact given a $230 million loan to help Bolivia establish a cement company. There has been no public statement as for how that money has been spent.

The main problem with the Iranian presence is that it has a history of using its embassies to support and finance the terror activities of Hezbollah. Case in point, in 1992 and 1994 respectively, this terrorist group bombed the Israeli Embassy and the Amia Jewish Cultural Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

On the security front, the Bolivian-Venezuelan-Iranian axis poses a real threat to regional stability and democracy and because of the ties of Iran and Venezuela to terrorist groups such as FARC and Hezbollah, this alliance poses a significant threat to the United States. Morales’ continuation in power will deepen these relationships.

On the economic front, analysts say that in the short-term, Morales’s decision to nationalize all oil and natural gas companies was productive because of record high prices. The country’s economy grew by 3.7 percent last year. However, they also predict that things will prove much more difficult in his second term. Foreign companies no longer invest in Bolivia due to changing rules and the United States cut off the tariff benefits it used to give Bolivian-made products because of Morales’ decision to stop cooperating with the United States in its war against the drug trade. In addition, Venezuela will find it very difficult to keep sustaining Bolivia due to the current crisis it is going through. The upcoming months will be crucial, as Morales’ next moves remain uncertain.

 

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.

 

[1] INTO THE ABYSS: BOLIVIA UNDER EVO MORALES AND THE MAS. June 18, 2009. By Douglas Farah. Strategy Center.

[2] Tillerson’s Exxon Mobil Faces Eviction From Bolivia. May 5, 2006. Forbes.

[3] Ibid – Into the Abyss.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Into the Abyss – Ibid.

[6] "Iran’s Unlikely Embrace of Bolivia Builds Influence in U.S. Backyard," McClatchy Newspapers, Feb. 9, 2009.

[7] Hugo Chavez And Evo Morales Increase Their "Cooperation" V Crisis. By Tony Pagliaro. June 2006.

[8] Ibid.

[9] "Las FARC Buscaron el Respaldo de Bolivia Para Lograr Su Expansión," July 21, 2008. La Razón, Bolivia.

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.

One year of Jihad in America

There is mounting evidence that the global Jihadist insurgency is fully entrenched in the United States After the Fort Hood massacre news services seem divided between those hell-bent-for-leather on denying that the Fort Hood massacre was a case of anything other than a persecuted loner "snapping" and those who proclaimed it the first "terrorist" attack on US soil since September 11th.

This focus is wrong. Fort Hood was an act of Jihad and that’s really all that matters: It is essential that we find out how extensive Nidal Malik Hasan’s ties to other Jihadists were. Of this there can be no doubt.

But we must refrain from entering into a debate on what amounts largely to semantics about whether or not the Fort Hood massacre was an act of "terrorism." We need to get away from focusing on the term "terrorism" anyway. Some observers still don’t consider the 1983 Beirut Barracks bombing by Hezbollah, which killed 241 Marines, sailors and soldiers, an act of "terrorism" because, by some widely recognized definitions, attacks on combatants cannot be termed "terrorism."

The Fort Hood massacre and the attack on the Marine Barracks were acts of Jihad. The Jihadis themselves don’t refer to themselves as "terrorists." But they most assuredly refer to themselves as "Jihadis." We should let them own that title.

This was never a war on "terrorism." Jihad is being waged against us and we have tied ourselves in knots to deny that reality. Moreover, Fort Hood was hardly the first act of Jihad on US soil since September 11th. A few examples come to mind:

  • The Anthrax Attacks (Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I do NOT buy the official line on these attacks, but that’s a subject for another time and place.)
  • The DC "Sniper" Shootings (There is a great deal of evidence that John Mohammed carried out these attacks in the name of Allah.)
  • The LAX Shooting at the El Al Ticket Counter

Note that whether the perpetrators are members of a previously known terrorist organization (such as Al Qaeda) or were lone actors, these were still acts of Jihad.

It is difficult to combat a shadowy organization like Al Qaeda, but it is far more difficult to prevent "lone wolf" actors from attacking. Al Qaeda may be difficult to infiltrate and gather intelligence on, but how do we "infiltrate" a lone Jihadist?

This is symptomatic of a revolutionary Jihadist subculture metastasizing within the American Muslim community, especially within its mosques and organizations. This revolutionary subculture has produced an atmosphere in which Muslims are inspired to act violently. This is a very dangerous and volatile situation.

Over the last 12 months alone, we have been provided with a stack of evidence of the Jihadist insurgency inside America. Americans have largely ignored this evidence, or at least failed to "connect the dots." Seemingly completely unrelated cases do in fact have common threads: they are acts of Jihad.

I decided to go back and research examples of Jihad in America over the last 12 months, roughly 1 December 2008 to 1 December 2009. Here is a list of incidents, cases, actions, statements and plots which point to a Jihadist insurgency in our midst (Keep in mind that insurgencies are both civilizational/political and violent/militant.).

The list is compiled in reverse chronological order, meaning that the most recent items are listed first. We no doubt left out some cases. I believe that all of these cases and incidents brought together on a single listing will prompt most readers to conclude that the magnitude of the threat we face inside the United States is greater than they previously believed.

Click for larger image

 Click the image for a larger view

 

 

NOVEMBER 2009

 

OCTOBER 2009


SEPTEMBER 2009


AUGUST 2009


JULY 2009


JUNE 2009


MAY 2009

APRIL 2009


MARCH 2009


FEBRUARY 2009


JANUARY 2009


DECEMBER 2008


 

Sources:

Militant Islam Monitor
Jihad Watch
Counterterrorism Blog
NEFA Foundation
The Investigative Project on Terrorism
Shariah Finance Watch
Free Republic

 

Has CAIR violated the Iranian Assets Control Regulations?

On November 12 2009, the federal government moved to seize four mosques and a New York City skyscraper owned by the Alavi Foundation, a group allegedly under the direct control of the Iranian government.  The following day, the Washington Times exposed the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) for allegedly lobbying on behalf of the Iranian government in violation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act and the Foreign Agents Registration Act.  We believe that a third U.S.-based group may be guilty of illegal ties to Iran under the Iranian Assets Control Regulations: the Council On American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

On November 18, 2006 and November 23, 2008, CAIR held their gala annual fundraisers at the Marriott hotel in Arlington, Virginia.  We’ve posted previously that the Interests Section of Iran attended both events.   Because the U.S. and Iran do not have diplomatic relations, the Interests Section of Iran, sponsored by the Embassy of Pakistan, functions as the defacto embassy representing Iran’s government.

At the 2008 event, we recorded video of Master of Ceremonies and then CAIR-Tampa Executive Director Ahmed Bedier giving personal thanks to “the Interests Section of Iran”  for their support:

 

 

Here’s more evidence that the “Interests Section of Iran” supported the CAIR fundraiser: the "Thanks to” pages of the 2006 and 2008 printed programs list the “Interests Section of Iran.”

 

And in this 2009 registration form for embassies to purchase tables and ad space in the program at the annual fundraiser,  embassies purchasing tables this year were charged $2,500-$3,000.   It appears that an exchange of money or at least a transaction of a thing of value did occur between CAIR and the Interests Section of Iran.

And that may have been a violation of the Iranian Assets Control Regulations.

Therefore, on November 6, 2009, the Center for Security Policy sent a letter to  Mr. Adam J. Szubin, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury  in which we suggested there is reasonable cause to believe the Council on American Islamic Relations violated the Iranian Assets Control Regulations in 2006 and 2008.

In the letter, we state:

“Our assessment of these documents is that they make a strong case that the Interests Section of Iran – the representative Iranian government entity and de facto embassy for Iran – may have purchased a table or provided a gift or donation of some kind at the 2006 and 2008 CAIR annual fundraisers, and therefore CAIR may have conducted a transaction with an Iranian government entity. That transaction may have involved their receiving a donation of financial value, in violation of 31 CFR Part 535, the Iranian Assets Control Regulations.”

And here’s the Iranian Assets Control Regulations law.

CAIR has a history of openly advocating for the Iranian regime.

On September 8, 2006 – just two months before the annual fundraiser on November 18, 2006 – national CAIR leaders including Executive Director Nihad Awad and Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper welcomed Former Iranian President Mohamed Khatami to a gala private dinner attended by 400 invited guests.  As the Khomeini regime’s Minister of Culture and Islamic Propagation in 1984, Khatami presided over the creation of Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah,  and just one year into his term as president in 1998 his intelligence service brutally murdered opposition reform leaders Darioush and Parvaneh Forouhar of the Iran Nation’s Party.

At that same 2006 CAIR banquet, Khatami was served papers for a legal suit by several Persian-Jewish families for the arrest and disappearance of twelve Persian Jews during his administration.  In a similar incident in 2008, Executive Director Nihad Awad and his staff were served papers in a more recent lawsuit for fraud filed against CAIR by Muslim, African American, and Hispanic families.

We have requested the Office of Foreign Assets Control to investigate CAIR’s possible violations of the Iranian Assets Control Regulations, and have sent copies of the letter to members of Congress.

On November 16, we called Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR National Communications Director, for comment on the specific questions raised in the letter to OFAC.  Mr. Hooper stated “He’s already published on that, what are you talking about,” and then hung up without further comment.

To be continued…..

 

Originally posted at BigGovernment.com

 

 

Revolutionary Anti-Semitism

"Sometimes I ask myself if Hitler wasn’t right when he wanted to finish with that race, through the famous holocaust, because if there are people that are harmful to this country, they are the Jews, the Israelites." — David Romero Ellner, Executive Director, Radio Globo, Honduras, Sept. 25, 2009

Meet one of Honduras’s most vocal advocates for the return of deposed president Manuel Zelaya to office. He’s not your average radio jock. He started in Honduran politics as a radical activist and was one of the founders of the hard-left People’s Revolutionary Union, which had links to Honduran terrorists in 1980s. A few years ago he was convicted and served time in prison for raping his own daughter.

Today Mr. Romero Ellner is pure zelayista, hungry for power and not ashamed to say so. This explains why he has joined Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and Mr. Zelaya in targeting Jews. Mr. Chávez has allied himself with Iran to further his ability to rule unchecked in the hemisphere. He hosts Hezbollah terrorists and seeks Iranian help to become a nuclear power. He and his acolytes cement their ties to Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by echoing his anti-Semitic rants. The Honduras debate is not really about Honduras. It is about whether it is possible to stop the spread of chavismo and all it implies, including nuclear proliferation and terrorism in Latin America. Most troubling is the unflinching support for Mr. Zelaya from President Barack Obama and Democratic Sen. John Kerry-despite the Law Library of Congress review that shows that Mr. Zelaya’s removal from office was legal, and the clear evidence that he is Mr. Chávez’s man in Tegucigalpa. On Thursday, Mr. Kerry took the unprecedented step of trying to block a fact-finding mission to Honduras by Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, who is resisting Mr. Obama’s efforts to restore Mr. Zelaya to power.

Mr. Zelaya, recall, was arrested, deposed and deported on June 28 because he violated the Honduran Constitution. He snuck back into the country on Sept. 21 and found refuge at the Brazilian Embassy in the capital. Mr. Romero Ellner’s calumny against Jews was a follow-up to Mr. Zelaya’s claim that he was being "subjected to high-frequency radiation" from outside the embassy and that he thought "Israeli mercenaries" were behind it.

The verbal attack on Jews from a zelayista is consistent with a pattern emerging in the region. Take what’s been going on in Venezuela. In the earliest years of Chávez rule, a Venezuelan friend, who is a Christian, confessed his fears to me. "In his speech, he always tries to create hate between groups of people," my friend told me. "He loves hate speech."

For a decade, Venezuelans have been force-fed the strongman’s view of economic nationalism laced with this divisive language. Venezuelans are encouraged to seek revenge against their neighbors. Crime has skyrocketed.

The Jewish community has been targeted as Mr. Chávez’s relationship with Mr. Ahmadinejad has blossomed. In 2004, I reported on a police raid at a Jewish school for young children in Caracas. The pretext was a "tip" that the school was storing weapons. No weapons were found, but the community was terrorized.

In recent years, Venezuela and Iran have signed joint ventures estimated to be worth $20 billion. There are similar pacts, estimated at $10 billion, between Iran and Venezuelan satellite, Bolivia. Both South American countries accused Israel of genocide in Gaza in 2008 and cut diplomatic ties. Mr. Chávez’s tirades against Israel during that time emboldened his street thugs. In January 2009, vandals broke into a temple in Caracas and desecrated the sacred space with graffiti calling for the death of Jews.

New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau recently gave a speech to the Brookings Institution in which he said "Iran and Venezuela are beyond the courting phase. We know they are creating a cozy financial, political and military partnership, and that both countries have strong ties to Hezbollah and Hamas."

Iran has courted Honduras as well. When Mr. Zelaya was still in power, the Honduran press reported that his foreign minister Patricia Rodas met with high-ranking Iranian officials in Mexico City. That raised plenty of eyebrows in Central America.

Neither Venezuela nor Honduras has any history of anti-Semitism. But with Mr. Chávez importing Mr. Ahmadinejad’s despicable ideology and methods, an assault on the Jewish community goes with the territory.

Honduras recognizes that it was a mistake to deport Mr. Zelaya after he was arrested. But it argues that fears of zelayista extremism and use of violence as a political tool in the months leading up to June 28 provoked desperation. Mr. Romero Ellner-whose radio station was closed down by the government last week-provided exhibit A with his remarks. If the U.S. State Department is opposed to the exile, let it call for Mr. Zelaya to be put on trial now that he is back in Honduras. It has no grounds to demand that democratic Honduras restore an anti-Semitic rabble rouser to power.

 

Originally published in the Wall Street Journal

Making hash of Honduras

Now that the Honduran crisis has moved back into the media spotlight, we should examine what actually took place in Honduras as well as the Obama administration’s response because it provides an insight to where our foreign policy is headed. The anti-democratic movement led by the likes of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez (supported by Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega), who has destroyed democracy in Venezuela, has been derailed in Honduras.

The key issue in the Honduran crisis was the removal of President Manuel Zelaya for his illegal actions to force a referendum to change the Honduran constitution on presidential term limits, similar to what his ally Mr. Chavez did in Venezuela. The Honduran Supreme Court ruled that his unilateral referendum was unconstitutional. The army, acting on orders from the Supreme Court, moved for his arrest and removal from office, and he wasflown to Costa Rica. This was no traditional military coup, as has been portrayed by the media and Mr. Zelaya’s left-wing supporters and regretfully by many in the Obama administration.

President Obama’s response was to say he was deeply concerned and to call on Honduran officials "to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Charters." Well, that is exactly what the Honduran government institutions did. Sowhy would the Obama administration want to join forces with the anti-American, anti-democratic forces led by Mr. Chavez, Fidel and Raul Castro, Mr. Ortega et al. to thwart the democratic process and install a Chavez-like dictatorship in Honduras?

We now have the secretary of state cutting more than $30 million in U.S. development aid (which only hurts the Honduran people) as one means of forcing Honduran officials to reinstate the ousted president for the remainder of his term. With help most likely from his leftist allies, Mr. Zelaya has surreptitiously returned to Honduras and has taken refuge in the Brazilian Embassy to avoid arrest. New elections are due in November.

The administration seems to be oblivious to how democracy can be challenged from within by ideologues who use the freedoms guaranteed by democratic institutions to subvert it, as is happening in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua. The United States should be helping those countries preserve the independence of institutions that keep elected presidents from becoming dictators. In Venezuela, Mr. Chavez is guided by Cuba’s example as he attacks the press and systematically destroys the checks and balances of democraticinstitutions. Is this what we want to see happen in Honduras? Of course not!

Let’s not forget Mr. Chavez’s relationship with Iran. The Venezuelan president has signed economic and energy agreements totaling roughly $17 billion with the tarnished Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He also hosts and provides villas for representatives from the Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists groups, both of which are supported by Iran.

Mr. Chavez also has established a strong military relationship with Russia and has embarked on a huge purchase ($15 billion to $17 billion) of military equipment, including tanks and Sukhoi jet fighters. None of this type of equipment will be of much use in the jungle, but it will help Mr. Chavez maintain control of the Venezuelan masses.

At a recently concluded a special summit in Argentina sponsored by Venezuela and Argentina, Mr. Chavez led his allies in opposition to the United States’ long-term access to Colombian bases to fight drug-trafficking and Marxist rebels. However, they were unsuccessful in derailing this important Colombian-U.S. relationship.

The Obama administration’s position on Honduras is symptomatic of a larger retreat from leadership that has our allies and friends nervous. For example, the administration’s scrapping of the planned missile defense system to be deployed in Poland and the Czech Republic by 2013 – with apparently nothing in return – will be seen as selling out our allies in Eastern Europe. Administration funding cuts for our anti-ballistic missile programs and advanced fighters like the F-22 may cause others to doubt America’s willingness to defend even itself.

This plus Mr. Obama’s willingness to embrace America’s adversaries will not make for successful foreign policy. Appeasement has not worked in the past and is destined to fail again. Mr. Obama endured a 50-minute diatribe on American foreign policy by Nicaragua’s paragon of democracy, Mr. Ortega, at the fifth summit of the Americas in Port of Spain, Trinidad, in July. The best response he could muster was that he was glad Mr. Ortega didn’t personally blame him for things that had happened when he was 3 months old. Shocking! Since when does the communist Mr. Ortega set the criteria for American foreign policy?

The practiced cool demeanor of our president will not enhance his stature or his popularity with those who plan to do harm to the United States. Respect for American ideals and the competence of our military forces should be the pillars for our foreign policy, which should support constitutional democracies and defend them against the predations of Mr. Chavez, the Castro brothers, Mr. Ortega and Mr. Morales.

Retired Navy Adm. James A. Lyons was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations and deputy chief of naval operations, in which position he was principal adviser on all Joint Chiefs of Staff matters.

Adm. Lyons is the chairman of the Center’s Military Committee.

Let them meet the neighbors

The people representing the town of Standish, Mich., recently learned that they will not be allowed to see the Guantanamo Bay detention facility firsthand and gather information on what is involved in handling the prisoners who may soon be their newest residents. Why is Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates denying them the opportunity to visit Gitmo and see the dangers presented by more than 200 of the most hard-core jihadists in the world?

As President Obama scrambles to meet a self-imposed deadline of January 2010 for closing down Gitmo, he has his eye on a maximum security prison in Standish as a possible destination for transferring detainees. Some local leaders representing Standish support such a measure — the community’s economy has been hit hard these past few months, and Michigan’s own budget woes are forcing the state to consider shutting down its "Standish Max" prison, a major employer in town. Sending Gitmo detainees to Standish Max, they argue, will save the prison and the jobs that go with it.

Not everyone in Standish, or the state ofMichigan, agrees. Hundreds of local residents attended a town-hall meeting last month and heard from a panel of security and economic experts that the Gitmo transfer would threaten the safety of local residents and actually result in a net loss for the local and state economy. These concerns were underscored by the Michigan Senate, which voted unanimously in favor of a resolution that urges Mr. Obama to "declassify intelligence information regarding Guantanamo Bay detention camp detainees" and share it with the Michigan Legislature and Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm, a Democrat.

One particularly outspoken opponent of detainee transfer to Standish has been Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Michigan Republican, the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives. Last month, Mr. Hoekstra requested that Mr. Gates allow him to lead a delegation of state and local officials from Michigan, and members of the Michigan press, to visit Guantanamo and receive information on the detainees and threats they may pose.

Mr. Gates turned Mr. Hoekstra down flat.

In his response, he wrote: "As a member of Congress, you are always welcome to visit Guantanamo, as you have in the past, to tour the facilities and receive a briefing. … However, at this stage it may be premature to have local officials visit until a final decision is made." He went on: "When we have a clear idea of where the detainees will be relocated, we will be sure to engage state and local officials and their representatives in Congress."

Of course, offering to "engage" state and local officials of an area slated for detainee transfer after the "final decision" has been made is hardly an offer to do anything.

Equally unsettling is the idea that these state and local officials are prohibited from visiting the Cuban facility even when many others — including some individuals with very troubling records — have gone before them.

Foreign delegations from numerous countries have visited Guantanamo, as have families of Sept. 11 victims. Other visitors have included scholars from prominent American academic institutions, think tanks and publications from across the philosophical spectrum; the then-president-elect of the American Bar Association; grass roots troop support organizations such as Move America Forward and We Do Care, scores of journalists, oh, and Miss Universe, 2008.

One of the more notorious visitors is Salam Al-Marayati, the executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). As Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism reports, MPAC as an organization has previously issued policy papers calling for the removal of terrorism designations for Hezbollah and Hamas.

Mr. Al-Marayati himself previously referred to Hezbollah attacks as "legitimate resistance," called on Muslim-Americans not to cooperate with the FBI, and spoke at a fundraising dinner for Palestinian Islamic Jihad member Sami Al-Arian.

Considering the list of previous visitors to Guantanamo, the question must be raised as to why state and local officials from Standish, Mich., are being denied access. They have a more compelling interest in visiting the facility so as to make fully informed decisions on whether they should accept detainees in their state.

One can’t help but wonder whether the answer lies in the very real possibility that members of such a delegation, after seeing for themselves what they and their constituents would be up against, might actually decide they prefer not to have some of the world’s most dangerous terrorists in their backyard after all.

That, of course, could be very embarrassing to a president who has promised his base and a slew of foreign leaders that he would shutter what he referred to as the "misguided experiment" that is Guantanamo Bay .

Communities up for consideration as the new home for these prisoners should have the opportunity to get to know their potential neighbors, even if such knowledge is inconvenient for this president.

 

Originally published in the Washington Times

Ben Lerner is director of policy operations for the Center for Security Policy.

What’s wrong with Insulza and the OAS

By now, we are all aware of the situation in Honduras where President Manuel Zelaya tried unsuccessfully to use the nation’s institutions to illegally convoke a referendum in order to change the constitution and perpetuate himself in power.

Zelaya took office in 2006 as the leader of one of the two center-right parties that have dominated Honduran politics for decades. His general platform, his support for the Central American Free Trade Agreement with the United States and his alliances with business organizations gave no hint that halfway into his term he would make a radical U turn. Suddenly, in 2007, he declared himself a socialist and began to establish close ties with Venezuela. He incorporated Honduras into PetroCaribe, a mechanism set up by Hugo Chávez for lavishing oil subsidies on Latin American and Caribbean countries in exchange for political subservience. Then his government joined the Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America and the Caribbean (ALBA), Venezuela’s answer to the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas. ALBA is ostensibly a commercial alliance but in practice a political movement that seeks to expand populist dictatorship to the rest of Latin America.

Last year, Zelaya announced that he would hold a referendum to set up a constituent assembly that would change the constitution that barred him from reelection. He was following in the footsteps of Venezuela’s Chavez, Bolivia’s Morales and Ecuador’s Correa. [1]

After Zelaya committed these illegal acts, it was interesting to see how the Organization of American States and, in particular, its Secretary General, Jose Miguel Insulza, reacted. He called for the restoration of Zelaya to the Honduran presidency, echoing the desires of Chavez and his cronies. The question is what motivated his position.

As background, it is useful to recap what the Secretary General has done in defense of "democracy, peace and freedom" in the region:

In March, 2008, instead of congratulating Colombia’s President Alvaro Uribe, for trying to reign in the narco-terrorist group known as the FARC, the OAS and Insulza reacted with outrage at the "illegal incursion of the Colombian army into Ecuadorian territory," disregarding the fact that it was the FARC which started the attacks on Colombia from Ecuadorian territory. Insulza decided to disregard the evidence found in Raul Reyes’ computers which linked Chavez to the FARC even after INTERPOL verified the files.

Insulza did not even raise an eyebrow when Chavez, Morales and Correa illegally changed the constitutions of their respective countries to enable themselves to remain in power indefinitely, even after evidence of these illegal acts were fully disclosed to the OAS.

For Insulza, the briefcases full of Venezuelan Petrodollars to finance Ortega in Nicaragua, Humala in Peru, the Kirchner’s in Argentina, Correa in Ecuador and many others, meant nothing and did not warrant any type of inquiry.

In 2007, Insulza obstructed the attempts to condemn Chavez for closing the TV Channel, RCTV in Venezuela. Then in April of 2008, in testimony before the U.S. Congress, Insulza denied that Chavez had any ties with the FARC or with any terrorist organization, even after evidence surfaced of his connections with radical elements in Latin America, with Iran’s Ahmadinejad and Middle Eastern terrorists operating in the region, including Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. For these remarks, Chavez publicly praised Insulza and the OAS referring to them as "dignified." A few months before, Chavez had called the Secretary "Insulso" (dull) and "pendejo" (jerk).

Insulza continues to remain silent about the political persecutions carried out by Bolivia’s Evo Morales against the opposition who have been labeled as "terrorists" and "separatists." He has not chastised the Bolivian President for the massacre in Pando, even after evidence was presented that it was a planned attack executed by high-ranking members of the government.

Insulza refuses to acknowledge the full-fledged attack on democracy and freedom that occurs every day in Venezuela. Mr. Insulza knows about the endless violations against the media, journalists and political opponents that are carried out by the Chavez regime; but the Secretary General has never dared even to question the leadership or to hear the pleas of the real victims in that country.

The latest example of Chavez’s abuse of power has been the manner in which his regime is treating the Governors and Mayors of the opposition who were elected last December 2008. Furious at his defeat he went on to harass those officers elected by the people, denying them the funds to which they are constitutionally entitled and, in the case of Caracas Mayor, Antonio Ledezma, ousting him from his legitimate headquarters to put there a "governor" of his choosing, who has assumed the role of the truly elected mayor. [2]  Ledezma has had to resort to a hunger strike at the OAS headquarters in Caracas to call attention to his plight. Insulza, afraid that Ledezma would die, met with Ledezma and later hypocritically declared that the OAS "cannot be involved in issues of internal order of member states" and that " he cannot say whether Venezuelan laws are good or not," adding that: "What has happened here is simply that the government has passed laws that are deemed illegal by the opposition" and that "The OAS is not a supra-power and cannot solve conflicts for governments and national Congresses," a declaration he quickly contradicted once the pro-Chávez Zelaya was deposed.

However, one of Insulza’s most outrageous decisions is to readmit the totalitarian Cuban regime as a member of the OAS. Cuba’s membership was revoked by OAS member countries in 1962. When Insulza was asked about why the OAS had now changed its position, he declared bluntly, "there is another regime ruling Cuba." Were there free and fair elections in Cuba that we don’t know about? Mr. Insulza’s explanation makes no sense, especially since Cuba remains a dictatorship.

In July 2009, the Colombian police found an hour-long video in the computer of a FARC member that confirms that the FARC gave money to the 2006 election campaign of President Rafael Correa of Ecuador, another Chavez ally. The video adds weight to evidence found in a half-dozen electronic documents recovered at a FARC camp last year. Correa has accused Colombia of fabricating the documents, despite an investigation by the global police agency, Interpol that determined they were not altered. In this case, Mr. Insulza flatly ignored the facts by saying: "At the beginning of the video there is a part missing" before the part where ‘Mono Jojoy’ speaks about supporting the Correa presidential campaign." "I prefer (Colombia) handles it completely to form a better judgment," he added. "The man says what they say he says. I suppose it is possible to verify that the video is authentic (it was verified), which does not necessarily mean that what is said in the video is authentic." Colombia’s Defense Minister Freddy Padilla denies Colombia sent an edited video and assures the video "is complete." [3] Just to be clear, the beginning was considered irrelevant by all media outlets, which decided to edit it, due to the length, because it does not add anything to the evidence. But Mr. Insulza as always, stands firmly with Chavez.

All of Insulza’s previous actions completely contrast with the path he has chosen to take in regard to Honduras. However, they are 100% in line with Chavez’s wishes.  It is very strange that now the new representatives of democracy in Latin America for Mr. Insulza are the same people who have carried out the most vicious attacks against it; these include the Castro brothers, Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, Evo Morales and Rafael Correa.

 

Part 2 of this article will cover "What really happened in Honduras" as well as well as "But who exactly is Jose Miguel Insulza"?

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] Honduras’ coup is Zelaya’s fault. By Alvaro Vargas Llosa. Wednesday, July 1, 2009. The Washington Post.

[2] The Chavez Adventure in Honduras: From Coup d’ Etat to Coup d’ Grace. Gustavo Coronel. July 13, 2009. Human Events.

[3] Rebel video hounds Ecuador’s Correa. July 19, 2009. Revista Semana, Colombia.

Supporters of ‘dialogue’ with the Iranian Mullahs help keep the US from ‘meddling’ on behalf of freedom

The Obama administration’s failure to stand firmly with the forces of opposition to the mullahs’ regime in Tehran is drawing criticism at home and around the world. Even as many thousands of young Iranians take to the streets, furious at brazen election-rigging and fed up with corrupt clerics and their thuggish enforcers, the United States, erstwhile leader of the free world, has maintained a strict official policy of neutrality.

The question is, how did America  fall from the soaring rhetoric of President George W. Bush’s 2005 State of the Union address – when he said: "And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you" – to a position on the sidelines, passively watching Iranian security forces club and shoot unarmed demonstrators on the streets of Tehran?

The apparent answer is that advocates of a policy of accommodation that is more in sync with the priorities of the Tehran regime than with U.S. national security interests now wield influence from inside the Obama administration.

To be sure, President Barack Obama issued a belated and weakly-worded statement on Saturday, 20 June 2009: "The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights." [1] Still, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton set the United States’ official, hands-off policy the day after Iran’s elections, when during a trip to Canada, she said: "We are monitoring the situation as it unfolds in Iran. We, like the rest of the world, are waiting and watching to see what the Iranian people decide. The U.S. has refrained from commenting on the election in Iran. We obviously hope that the outcome reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people." [2]

Given that Iran’s democratic processes are but a façade for a constitutional system that endows an unelected Shi’a clergy with essentially all power in the country, and where both polling places and ballot boxes are under the physical control of the Interior Ministry, Clinton’s statement must be characterized as disingenuous, at best. As late as 18 June 2009, Clinton still hewed to the Obama administration’s policy of non-involvement, saying, "It is for the Iranians to determine how they resolve this internal protest concerning the outcome of the recent election." [3]

What motivated this policy might be found in Secretary Clinton’s  comment of the previous day to reportersthat "The Obama administration will pursue talks with Iran on nuclear and other issues regardless of who emerges as president in the aftermath of Iran’s disputed election. We are obviously waiting to see the outcome of the internal Iranian processes, but our intent is to pursue whatever opportunities might exist in the future with Iran [to discuss those issues]." [4]

And indeed, on 21 June 2009, even as the details on the dead and injured from the previous day’s street clashes were still filtering in, the home page of the Department of State’s website showed nothing about Iran at all. There were stories about India, Iraq, Turkey, World Refugee Day, Gay and Lesbian Pride Month, and Secretary Clinton’s elbow surgery – but not so much as a link to anything about the momentous events taking place in Iran. [5]

On election day, Iran’s English TV news outlet, Press TV, quoted the U.S. envoy to the United Nations, Amb. Susan Rice, speaking to the same point about this administration’s unshakeable determination to conduct negotiations with Iran, no matter the regime in power: "American policy with respect to Iran and its nuclear program is not dependent on which administration is governing Iran," Rice told reporters. [6]

 

The People Behind Obama’s Iran Policy

Unfortunately, the present U.S. policy towards Iran was set long before the rigged presidential election there began spinning out of control. That policy is the product of an Obama administration populated with figures, like Rice, who have a record of advocacy in support of a policy of rapprochement with Tehran’s clerical regime. Prior to her ambassadorial appointment to the UN, for instance, Rice served on the board of directors of an organization called the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) [7] and also as a Senior Fellow for Foreign Policy and Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. CNAS produced two reports in September 2008 called "Iran: Assessing U.S. Strategic Options," and "The Case for Game-Changing Diplomacy with Iran."  Both papers advocated engagement, diplomacy and negotiations with Tehran and advised strongly against the use of forceful pressure – exactly the sort of policy the mullahs themselves would encourage. [8] Among the co-authors of "Iran: Assessing U.S. Strategic Options," was Dr. Vali Nasr, now senior advisor to President Obama’s Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. Nasr, who served as a professor at Tufts University’s Fletcher Schooland  formerly taught at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, was born in Iran and raised in Scotland and the U.S.  He is the author of The Shia Revival, a 2006 book about the Sunni-Shi’ite rivalry.

A frequent commentator and briefer to Congress and the White House, Nasr consistently has advocated a policy of accommodation with the mullahs’ regime, even as a nuclear weapons state. Tehran signaled its apparent approval of Dr. Nasr’s positions when one of its online news outlets, Baztab, carried a glowing profile of him in October 2006 written by Mohsen Rezai, the former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). [9]

More recently, Nasr’s appointment in the Obama administration garnered warm congratulations from the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which carried an announcement on its website on 29 January 2009. [10] NIAC and its Iranian-born founder-president, Trita Parsi, have been active over the last several years organizing and supporting a network of individuals and groups that recommend a policy of accommodation with the Iranian regime.  The Iranian media outlet Aftab News called NIAC the Tehran regime’s "Iranian Lobby in the United States." [11]

NIAC issued a statement on 16 June 2009 about events in Iran, asserting that the U.S. government "shouldn’t interfere" as its "involvement would be counterproductive." While the organization allowed that the U.S. should "voice its support for the demonstrators," [12] Parsi took issue with a strong statement of support for the young Iranian freedom fighters issued by Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn).  Sen. Lieberman urged the Obama administration to "speak out, loudly and clearly, about what is happening in Iran right now and unambiguously express their solidarity with the brave Iranians who went to the polls in the hope of change and who are now looking to the outside world for strength and support." [13] Claiming that in the past such support has "been detrimental" to Iranian opposition figures, Parsi asserted that, "The administration is doing exactly the right thing. They’re not rushing in and they’re not playing favorites." [14]

Another co-author of the CNAS report, "Iran: Assessing U.S. Policy Options" is Dennis Ross, the Middle East expert who was appointed Special Advisor to Secretary of State Clinton for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia in early 2009.  He was reportedly abruptly reassigned in June 2009 as the senior Iran official on the National Security Council at the White House, a post that would afford him close proximity to, and presumably considerable influence with, President Obama. [15]

Amb. Ross’ contribution to the CNAS paper comes down on the side of an Iran policy he calls "The Hybrid Approach – Engagement Without Preconditions, but with Pressures. [16] The essential premise of his approach is that Iran’s leadership is rational and would be responsive to traditional diplomatic solutions that include a multilateral approach, Western concessions and what he calls trying "to resolve our differences with Iran in a serious and credible fashion." [17]

Nowhere in the Ross chapter is there any recognition that this is an ideologically-motivated regime that has: been at war with the United States for 30 years;kidnapped, killed, held hostage and tortured American citizens; staged assassinations and suicide bombings around the world; supported terrorist organizations from Hamas and Hezbollah to al-Qa’eda; and pursues nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles with which to exercise the genocide it regularly threatens to inflict on Israel, a key U.S. ally and fellow member of the UN.  Regrettably, Dennis Ross’ conclusion that "It is time to try a serious approach to diplomacy" with Iran fits well with an Obama administration policy that refuses to take seriously Tehran’s visceral enmity towards the United States.

Finally, there is Ray Takeyh, the newly-appointed Assistant to the U.S. Special Advisor for the Gulf and Southwest Asia (the post formerly held by Dennis Ross). Takeyh is a former Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an Iran expert, and author of Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic and Guardians of the Revolution: Iran and the World in the Age of the Ayatollahs.

Takeyh has long advocated a U.S. policy based on engagement and rapprochement with Iran. A December 2008 report produced by the Brooking Institution’s Saban Center was entitled, "Restoring the Balance – a Middle East Strategy for the Next President. [18] Its Iran chapter was written by Ray Takeyh and his wife, Susan Maloney (also at the CFR), and urges a soft diplomatic approach to the Tehran regime. A Washington Post opinion piece by Takeyh that same month looked hopefully to the prospect of "direct dialogue" with the mullahs and implausibly suggested that "As Tehran gains power and influence in the Gulf, it may prove moderate on more distant terrain. [19]

 

The End of the Line for the ‘Engagers’?

While there are certainly  analysts who sincerely believe that a forthright U.S. position in support of Iran’s democracy movement might create a nationalistic backlash against outside interference or somehow taint the movement’s legitimacy in the eyes of other Iranians, those who advance such arguments ill-advisedly serve – whether wittingly or not – to shield the Iranian regime from U.S. and Western condemnation.

The one thing the mullahs’ regime fears is the outrage of a world community unified in resolve to hold them to account. Even though Senator Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CNN’s "State of the Union" program on 21 June 2009 that "I don’t think candidly that our intelligence [on Iran] is that good," modern technology leaves no excuse for not knowing what is going on in Iran these days. [20] Now, smart phones with cameras, tech-savvy bloggers who know how to get around the regime’s censors and Twitter are allowing the outside world to witness in real time the brutality of the Iranian security services, as they club, stab, and shoot unarmed young demonstrators on the streets.

The students are not the ones asking the U.S. to remain on the sidelines.  To the contrary, students who were imprisoned for their parts in a1999 uprising say that they found the courage to remain strong in jail when word reached them that not only did the outside world know of their plight, but was speaking out forcefully on their behalf .

Today, it is becoming increasingly clear that the controversial engagement policy towards Tehran promoted by President Obama and his key subordinates is insupportable. With luck, when all is said and done, the mullahocracy may no longer be around.  

At the very least, even if the regime manages to maintain a blood-soaked grip on power for the time being, a government headed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei  and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be unable to claim legitimacy in the international arena. The sort of appeasement strategy towards such a regime fancied by Team Obama should be effectively foreclosed by the dozens of YouTube postings showing the vicious, unprovoked savagery of Iranian security forces (and proxy paramilitary units supplied by Hezbollah and Hamas) attacking, beating and killing young protestors.

In the absence of fundamental changes in policy and behavior towards the people of Iran, even a regime with the current chairman of the Assembly of Experts, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, as Supreme Leader or with challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi as president would be no better for the Iranians, or for us.

Whether they mean to or not, those who advocate a U.S. policy of passivity in the face of a repressive Iranian government (either today’s or tomorrow’s) play into the hands of such a regime by supporting a course of action that supports its agenda – not ours. Both national security priorities and the moral high ground demand such a regime be confronted, not accommodated.

There should be no dialogue with a theocratic dictatorship that stays in power through sheer brute force, defies the international community by developing nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction (and the means to deliver them) and exports  terrorist operatives to undermine Iran’s neighbors and kill our countrymen and women  in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.  That such a regime  has succeeded in persuading an American administration to adopt as U.S. foreign policy so much of the mullahs’ preferred agenda is testament to the sophistication of its operational expertise and its success in placing its sympathizers inside our government.

Now, it is time for President Obama to reject the counsel of such agents of influence and demonstrate a U.S. resolve to match the courage of Iran’s freedom fighters.

 

Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President of the Intelligence Summit and a Professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence & Security Studies. She is the author of Rise of the Iran Lobby, a Center Occasional Paper.

 NOTES

[1] The White House website posted the president’s statement on July 20, 2009. Accessed online on 21 June 2009 at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/The-Presidents-Statement-on-Iran/

[2] NECN/CTV film clip of Secretary Clinton’s statement on Canadian TV, 13 June 2009. Accessed online on 21 June 2009 at: http://multimedia.boston.com/m/22499652/clinton-canada-s-cannon-react-to-iranian-election-reports.htm?pageid=20 

[3] TV Washington, "Clinton defends U.S. efforts over Iran election," 18 June 2009. Accessed online on 21 June 2009 at  http://televisionwashington.com/floater_article1.aspx?lang=en&t=3&id=11365  

[4] "Clinton: U.S. Intent on Direct Talks with Iran," Associated Press, 17 June 2009. Accessed online 21 June 2009 at http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=statesmanjournal&sParam=35381852.story.

[5] The Department of State home page was accessed on 21 June 20098 at http://www.state.gov/

[6] "Rice: Iran policy not bound by elections," Press TV, 12 June 2009. Accessed online 21 June 2009 at http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=97957&sectionid=3510203

[7] See "The Iran Lobby," a Center for Security Policy Occasional Paper by Clare Lopez.  Accessed on 21 June at http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p17907.xml

[8] Center for a New American Security, Publications page. Accessed on 21 June 2009 at http://www.cnas.org/publications?page=3

[9] Baztab, October 27, 2006. The English language homepage is at http://en/baztab.com, accessed on 30 December 2006.

[10] "NIAC welcomes appointment of Iranian American Vali Nasr to Obama Administration," 29 January 2009. Accessed at http://www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1323&Itemid=2 on 21 June 2009.

[11] "Iran Lobby in the U.S. Becoming Active?" Aftab News, 7 December 2007.

[12] "Iran Election Violence: What Should the US Do?", NIAC statement, 16 June 2009. Accessed on 21 June 2009 at  http://www.niacouncil.org/

[13] Ackerman, Spencer, "Obama’s Iran Policy to Focus on Human Rights, Not Election," The Washington Independent, 15 June 2009. Accessed 21 June 2009 at http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=97957&sectionid=3510203

[14] Ibid.

[15] Harnden, Toby, "US envoy to Iran removed amid divisions over policy, "Telegraph," 16 June 2009. Accessed on 21 June 2009 at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/5552485/US-envoy-to-Iran-removed-amid-divisions-over-policy.html 

[16] Iran: Assessing U.S. Strategic Options," CNAS, September 2008. Accessed 21 June 2009 at http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/MillerParthemoreCampbell_Iran%20Assessing%20US%20Strategy_Sept08.pdf. Ross is author of Chapter II, "Diplomatic Strategies for Dealing with Iran," pgs. 33-54. 

[17] Ibid, pg. 51.

[18] Brookings Institute, Saban Center, "Restoring the Balance in the Middle East," December 2, 2008. Accessed on 21 June 2009 at http://www.brookings.edu/interviews/2008/1202_middle_east_indyk.aspx 

[19] Takeyh, Ray, "What Iran Wants," Washington Post, 29 December 2008. Accessed on 21 June 2009 at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content /article/2008/12/28/AR2008122801273.html 

[20] Top Intelligence Democrat: No Interference in Iran," Associated Press, 21 June 2009. Viewed by the author on CNN TV and available online at http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jrMPfLa7wHBXn8XwHZfyDJjgtxCgD98V3HG81