Tag Archives: Hezbollah

Obama goes south: An analysis of the Summit of the Americas

For more than a half century, dating from FDR and Cordell Hull’s "Good Neighbor" policies, U.S. diplomacy in Latin America has been focused on encouraging democracy, free markets, and economic development.  Over those five decades there have been huge successes – and there have been dramatic failures.
 
An historical perspective, however, shows remarkable overall progress:

The 1980 map of Latin America was largely one of authoritarian, often military governments, generally controlled by small oligarchies, with hyper-cyclical, commodity-based economies, nearly all plagued by huge debt and hyper-inflation.

However, by 2000, Latin America was largely an array of broad-based popularly elected regimes, structured and diversified economies with low to moderate inflation and manageable debt.   The   problems of severe poverty, economic inequity, and drug cartels remained, but significant progress had been made.

The U.S., as the largest foreign direct investor and the largest supplier of development aid and offering the largest market for Latin American exports, as well as the most active supporter of centrist democratic movements, played a significant role in this massive transition.

For the most part, it is a record for which every American whatever his domestic political allegiance can be proud. Despite the overwhelming demands of the war on terrorism after 9/11 there were important continuing new initiatives by the Bush Administration in this tradition. Chief among these was a proposal for a hemisphere-wide free trade zone, which would boost investment in the Latin countries as well as expand trade along the lines of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

President Barack Obama seems to be largely unaware of this history.  Rather, he seems persuaded by radical critiques of the U.S. role — such as presented in the book Chavez gave him at the summit.  By the way, this book was repudiated by its author, and is an unbalanced screed on American and European transgressions over centuries. Curiously, there was little in Obama’s campaign oratory about opposing abuses of human rights in Latin America.

His tolerance – and what much of his audience interpreted as acceptance — for the most radical denunciations of the U.S. role at the recent Western Hemisphere summit was shocking. Obama’s seeming contrition before an avalanche of vicious attacks on the U.S. will simply discourage democratic allies and reconfirm the views of the autocrats that he may be weak and perhaps feckless. In fact, as one observer noted, Obama passed up a priceless opportunity to defend freedom in a region where it always seems in jeopardy. Instead, even a leftwing critic noted that Obama had let Latin American leaders off the hook by not holding Castroite Cuba to the standards they apply to Washington’s actions.

Instead, the Hemisphere has been treated to some incomplete early Obama Administration policy initiatives. These include a largely rhetorical outreach to Mexico which continues the policies of the previous administration; an amendment of regulations regarding migration and remittances to Castroite Cuba; and his personal, enthusiastic encounter with the leader of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. These signals by the new Administration could be seen as false steps that reward our enemies in the Hemisphere while ignoring or giving too little to our friends.

The response to his reduction of restrictions on Americans visiting Cuba and limits on remittances has been met by no concessions from the Castro Brothers. In fact, Fidel Castro has quickly rejected the spin the White House placed on Raul Castro’s one speech phrase suggesting negotiations might proceed without pre-conditions.

Neither his earlier pre-inauguration meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon nor his stop enroute to the Summit produced any new initiatives or impetus to what had been increasingly lagging Bush Administration aid efforts to boost relations with our southern neighbor. He still faces the problem of producing a winning policy on U.S. immigration, which is as important to the Mexican government as a successful attack on the drug cartels. He has added new tangles to the relatively minor problem of trucking across the international border which has led Mexico to slap on countervailing duties in defiance of the North American Free Trade Agreement in what they insist are U.S. violations.

Meanwhile, Chavez has been destroying Venezuela’s free society, while helping the Iranians establish a beachhead in the Hemisphere. At the very moment Obama’s summit tête-à-tête with Chavez was being aired on Venezuelan State Television – obviously as a prop for the Caudillo’s declining popularity – a leader of the opposition, the mayor of Maracaibo sought the traditional Latin American refuge in Peru to avoid assassination after being in hiding for months. The opposition mayor of Caracas, the largest city and capital of the country has been shorn of his prerogatives. Chavez, through a plebiscite in February, is aiming toward a "lifetime presidency", one of the basic relics of Latin America’s past that U.S. policy had hoped to have overcome.

At an international meeting where he was being welcomed – sometimes on terms bordering on racist – the U.S. President did not seize the initiative. He might at least have announced that he would renounce his campaign stand and move his fellow Democrats to finally lift their opposition to the long languishing free trade agreement with Colombia — the kind of economic initiative and reward intended for U.S.’ allies in the Hemisphere.

There was no follow up on his now almost standard mantra of condemning past American actions in what the President has called the necessity to "reverse the mistakes of the past to start a new dialogue."

What did the President do?

Obama tried to make friends among the Latin American leaders – notably the most repressive.  Although there was an obvious agenda based on earlier programs, he did little to advance U.S. interests or to even suggest what Obama Administration policy will be other than to say that it will be "different than his predecessor’s."  To a large degree, Obama seemed to have his eye on U.S. audiences and politics. He seemed proud that our former sworn enemies appeared to like him and applaud him – especially our traditional enemies in the region.  He failed to see that whether they like him is largely irrelevant as they now just see him as more malleable than his "predecessors."

Did the U.S. gain or lose?

The U.S. Lost Serious Ground at the Summit:

  • Our enemies in Latin America got the strong impression that we will be tolerant not only of their suppression of democracy at home but accept their links to terrorist groups and nations.
  • Democratic forces in Latin America got the impression that the U.S. is no longer interested in actively supporting democracy, market economies, or free trade – very discouraging to those who have followed the U.S. lead and struggled to advance the region over the last 20 years. In the post-summit press conference, Obama seemed to accept the left’s critique of "the Washington consensus" which in fact only puts forth what have historically been U.S. aims for the region.
  • China, Russia, and Iran got the strong impression that this President will not defend American strategic interests in the region, long considered "America’s backyard". Russia will see a green light for its rather feeble attempts to make trouble for the U.S. in the region and China will see a green light for aggressive commercial efforts and perhaps new naval bases – all of which could create a strategic military nightmare for the U.S.
  • Absolutely no adversary will interpret the friendly smile and the "apologies" as an "opening" to negotiate strategic interests or to change their policies. As was evident from the insults from Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, conversations constructive to U.S. interests will be even more difficult after this summit.

That is why, in our news digest "WorldBuzz.com," we gave him a D- for last week’s Latin American Summit.

In Latin America, with its long history of intimate [and sometimes difficult] relations with the U.S., perhaps more than elsewhere, fostering good relations requires a deep understanding of culture and history, as well as politics and political objectives – and not least economic relationships. If further progress is to be made – especially in the midst of a worldwide credit crunch and recession which is more slowly but inevitably impacting Latin America — a very clear plan and strategy is necessary to meet the issues.

What are those issues, many of them urgent and in need of attention by administrators as well as policymakers in Washington?

 

Mexico

  • Drug wars:  The Mexican cartels are growing in strength and carrying their battles into the U.S.  A destabilization of the Mexican government could lead to serious border frictions and even resultant unrest among illegal and legal Mexican immigrants in the U.S.  Pres. Felipe Calderon has taken aggressive and brave action to challenge the cartels. He needs U.S. help.  Obama did not conclude any agreement or begin to deliver on the already promised military equipment needs of the Mexican government in fighting the cartels, nor was progress made on any related issues.  Instead Obama apologized for the guns crossing the border from the U.S. to Mexico.  This turns out to be inaccurate. [They are mostly coming from Central America, pistols are not the problem and assault rifles are freely available on the world’s grey markets — including the notorious AK47.].
  • U.S. drug market: The Mexicans complain that the huge U.S. demand for drugs drives the illegal drug trade through Mexico.  Obama has responded by having the U.S. Attorney General indicate that restrictions on medical marijuana should be removed, opening a major new channel for illegal drugs.
  • Border control/trucking issue: the festering issue over Mexican truck drivers coming into the U.S. has prevented Mexico from agreeing on a pre-screening process for cargo crossing the border.  This has created gigantic border delays and much less effective vehicle checks.  The issue is partly caused by an Obama consideration to the Teamsters Union, and seems to ignore the broader national security issue.

 

  • Economic growth and stability: The declining price of oil has badly hurt the Mexican economy.  Obama has indicated that he wants to re-negotiate certain aspects of the NAFTA, creating further uncertainty for Mexico [as well as Canada] and investors.  In addition, his seeming advocacy of the "buy-America" aspects of the bailout initiatives creates further confusion in Mexico’s key export market.

 

Venezuela

  • Authoritarianism: the declining price of oil has under-cut Chavez’s primary political payoff tool and weakens his hold on power.  In response Chavez is moving quickly and aggressively to full dictatorial power.  Chavez cannot cooperate with Obama on moving back to democracy or lessen brutality and repression because he would quickly lose power.  Obama’s friendly embrace with Chavez and accepting his "gift" discourages democratic forces fighting to reverse Chavez’s brutal seizure of power.
  • Regional aggression: Obama seems to be unaware of official U.S. government public documentation of Chavez’ aid and trafficking with the narco-terrorists in Colombia. There is circumstantial evidence that his regime either collaborates or ignores the encroachment of the Mexican drug cartels working through Venezuela with the Colombian narco-terrorists.
  • Iran: Chavez and Iran have a close working relationship to overthrow democratic regimes in the region, to train terrorists, and find ways to work against the U.S. Chavez gets training from the Republican Guard, has set up a bank with Iran, and supports Hamas and Hezbollah.  Chavez reportedly provides Venezuelan passports to Iranian operatives so the can enter countries like Mexico secretly and link to Mexican cartels.  Obama’s "soft" tone with Chavez will only tighten the relationship with Iran since they have less to fear from the U.S.
  • China:  China is working with Venezuela on oil development and seeking Caribbean bases for the Chinese navy.  Obama can do little or nothing to reverse this relationship, but overly friendly gestures to Chavez will only encourage more aggressive PLA movement into the Hemisphere.
  • Russia: Russia is seeking military air basing agreements with Venezuela for planes that can carry nuclear weapons.  Russia will take the same view as China – that Obama is no threat to their ambitions in the Hemisphere to offset U.S./NATO power in Europe.

Cuba

  • Cuba is still a highly repressive, totalitarian regime, which shows little or no sign of change in the near future.  Obama made a number of concessions and got nothing in return (even China releases a few political prisoners as a sign of "good will.").  Fidel Castro made sure, after the summit, to reconfirm that Obama’s actions did nothing more than re-confirm the legitimacy of the "Revolution."

 

 

Colombia

  • Colombia’s Uribe is the other Latin American leader who has aggressively taken on the drug gangs and the terrorist, Venezuelan-supported FALN.  While Obama was courting the tyrants, he gave little attention to an important ally.  In addition, by refusing to throw his weight against the Congressional Democrats blocking a new free-trade agreement with Bogota, he under-cuts the political position of Uribe, and suggests what it means to be a partisan of the U.S. in Latin America.

Chile and Peru

  • Obama failed to recognize the tremendous success of these democracies and free-market economies as models, along with Brazil, for the rest of Latin America.

 

Nicaragua

 

  • Obama sat passively through a one hour, anti-American harangue without comment.  Then gave one of his First-Fist bumps to Ortega in spite of his efforts to renew Sandinista repression in Nicaragua and develop alliances with anti-American dictators throughout the world. The kind of menace even a relatively small anti-democratic regime in Central America poses is the news that Daniel Ortega is working with Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister of Thailand, trying to bring down the present government in Bangkok from exile with his billions.

What did the President do?

Obama tried to make friends among the Latin American leaders – notably the most repressive.  Although there was an obvious agenda based on earlier programs, he did little to advance U.S. interests or to even suggest what Obama Administration policy will be other than to suggest that it will be "different than his predecessor’s."  To a large degree, Obama seemed to have his eye on U.S. audiences and politics. (He was proud that the former sworn enemies appeared to like him and applaud him – especially our traditional enemies in the region).  He failed to see that they whether they like him is largely irrelevant but that they just see him as more malleable than his "predecessors".
 
Did the U.S. gain or lose? he U.S. lost serious ground at the summit:

Our enemies in Latin America got the strong impression that we will be tolerant not only of their suppression of democracy at home but accept their links to terrorist groups and nations.

  • Democratic forces in Latin America got the impression that the U.S. is no longer interested in actively supporting democracy, market economies, or free trade – very discouraging to those who have followed the U.S. lead and struggled to advance the region over the last 20 years. If they had any doubts, in the post-summit press conference Obama – whether he actually understands the concept or not – accept the left’s critique of "the Washington consensus" which in fact only sloganizes what have been U.S. aims historically for the region.
  • China, Russia, and Iran got the strong impression that this President will not defend American strategic interests in the region long considered "America’s backyard". Russia will see a green light for [its rather feeble attempts to make trouble for the U.S. in the region] and China will see a green light for aggressive commercial efforts and perhaps new naval bases – all of which could create a strategic military nightmare for the U.S.
  • Drug leaders saw a President who appears sympathetic toward further legalizing drug use and who will not "walk the walk" on supporting Mexico in fighting the cartels. Attorney General Holder has already announced a relaxation of prosecution of violations of the sale of "medical marijuana".
  • Absolutely no adversary will interpret the friendly smile and the "apologies" as an "opening" to negotiate strategic interests or to change their policies. As was evident from the insults from Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, conversations constructive to U.S. interests will be even more difficult after this summit.

Bottom Line:

  • Unprepared
  • Uninformed
  • Ineffective
  • Weak
  • Naïve
  • D-

Sol Sanders and Grady Means, the managing editor and the publisher of http://worldbuzz.com/. Mr. Sanders has been an international journalist for over 50 years and served as the International Outlook Editor for Business Week and is the author of the book "Mexico: Chaos on Our Doorstep."  Mr. Means served in the White House with Vice President Rockefeller and as a management consultant led many privatization initiatives throughout Latin America.

 

Shariah bankers: West ready for ‘faith-based alternative’

Backers of Shariah-compliant finance see an opportunity for expansion amid the global economic downturn, and some Western banks are welcoming this growing source of new business.

"Islamic bankers should do some missionary work in the Western world to promote the concept of Shariah banking, for which many in the West are more than ready now," Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said at the World Islamic Economic Forum last month in Jakarta.

Such statements have given rise to fears that Shariah finance is a stalking horse for hidden political or religious aims. Shariah finance is an extension of Islamic law, pushing a faith-based alternative to Western banking.

Key Islamists who advise Shariah financial houses have called for full Shariah law to be adopted in Western countries and, in some cases, have made statements supporting terrorist groups.

Shariah finance means institutions and norms that fit with Islamic law. Fully compliant Islamic financial institutions are prohibited from interest payments and require transactions to be backed by tangible assets.

Speculation and hedge funds are off limits — ditto for anything connected to porn, gambling, alcohol or pork. Shariah finance targets Muslims who want to avoid what are deemed "un-Islamic" Western banks or financial practices, and appeals to clients’ faith as well as their bottom line.

The practice has its detractors.

"A shift from present global economic practices [in which many Muslims participate] to Shariah-based practice" would mean "an unacceptable intrusion into Western culture," said Stephen Schwartz, executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism.

Mr. Schwartz said the sector is arguably un-Islamic by contradicting the traditional Islamic teaching that "Muslims living in non-Muslim societies must accept the laws and customs of the countries to which they immigrate."

Depending on the measurements used, the Shariah finance sector manages assets of $700 billion to $800 billion, according to the Islamic Financial Services Board, an industry body. Standard and Poor’s estimates that the sector could reach $4 trillion before long.

Shariah banks make up a small fraction of the global banking sector, and they may have suffered less than Western counterparts by being sheltered from the subprime crisis.

However, as Duncan McKenzie, director of economics at International Financial Services London (IFSL), told The Washington Times: "Islamic finance is one model but is by no means a panacea. The Islamic finance industry faces a number of challenges, including the need to standardize interpretation of Shariah law, harmonize tax and regulation of the industry, and develop the skills base."

Christopher Holton, vice president of the Center for Security Policy and director of its Shariah Risk Due Diligence Project, told The Times: "It is a myth that Islamic finance has provided a hedge against crisis. The FTSE Islamic Index has fallen 41 percent, and the all-world index 44 percent, similar losses over the past six months."

Shariah finance remains dominated by banking, but the sector is diversifying. A growing proportion — up to 20 percent according to some estimates — is taken up by sukuk, which is a Shariah-compliant bond issuance. Malaysia is a dominant base for this particular service. Bonds can play a key role in helping countries deal with the global economic crisis, but the global sukuk market has fallen for two years in a row, in step with the global downturn.

Despite the varying prohibitions, some Shariah banks find creative ways to make the equivalent of market interest rates by other means, such as by pegging debtor repayment rates to his or her future profits, or when a bank offers a "hibah," or gift to those who open an account — in essence a way of attracting new customers in lieu of interest accruals on savings.

Shariah finance likely will grow in coming years, with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates being followed by Indonesia, Turkey, Singapore and some Western countries as viable locations for expansion.

The IFSL recently published a detailed report on the sector highlighting how "the U.K. is getting ahead of the game, in Europe at least, in facilitating this sector" — as noted by Emile Abu-Shakra, media relations manager at British bank Lloyds TSB.

Lloyds stole a march on the competition by greasing the wheels for Shariah-compliant bank-to-bank transactions, and now Britain has a bigger Shariah finance sector than Egypt or Pakistan.

In total, 22 financial institutions offer Shariah-compliant services in Britain, compared with nine in the United States. However the American financial sector is eager to source and provide new products — among them Shariah finance.

American International Group Inc.’s December pledge to bring Islamic home insurance to the United States was met with a written rebuke by Rep. Sue Myrick, North Carolina Republican, and Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican, who warned that opaque charitable transfers made by Shariah finance advisers could end up funding terrorists.

Mr. Holton said some Islamic financial institutions have been implicated directly in bankrolling terrorists. "From 1988 to 2001, when it was designated a terrorist entity by the United States and the United Nations, Bank al Taqwa [registered in the Bahamas] transferred tens of millions of dollars to Hamas, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and others," he said.

An elite cadre of scholars dominates the advisory boards of Shariah institutions, and these same thinkers are often called by Western institutions who want to develop Shariah-compliant products. However some, such as Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, are banned from entry into Britain and the United States for making statements supporting Islamist terrorism, while another, Mufti Taqi Usmani, who has advised the Wall Street Islamic index, has promoted extension of full Shariah law into Western countries.

Most troubling, perhaps, is the appearance of Bank Melli of Iran at the top of a listing of the world’s top 500 Islamic financial institutions, published by the Banker in November 2008 and reproduced in the IFSC report. Bank Melli is under U.S. and EU sanctions for facilitating Tehran’s support of Hamas and Hezbollah and funding Iran’s uranium enrichment program. In total, Iran has six of the 10 biggest Shariah-compliant institutions and double the Shariah assets of any other country.

 

Originally published in The Washington Times

 

What to expect from the new FMLN government in El Salvador

On Sunday, March 15 the Communist FMLN (Faribundo Marti National Liberation Front) party defeated the U.S.’s traditional ally, the ARENA party, and took power for the first time in twenty years of democracy.  Stories about the FMLN’s historic candidate, Mauricio Funes, flooded the international press the following Monday morning.  While Funes continues to talk of change, the real story is that the entrenched elites in the FMLN pose real and great national security threats to the United States.  No amount of rhetoric will assuage concerns in the intelligence community that the vice president- elect, Salvador Sanchez Ceren and FMLN party leader, Jose Luis Merino, will strengthen ties with Hugo Chavez, Cuba, FARC terrorists, and Iran.  

Merino, who secured Chavez’s petrodollars to increase an FMLN victory, also facilitates arms deals for FARC terrorists. Together with Sanchez Ceren, who marched in the streets of San Salvador on September 15th, 2001 celebrating the news of Al Qaeda’s attack on the U.S., they will surely act as operatives on behalf of Chavez.

These are the men who will have top access to Salvadoran security policy.  Make no mistake; the cadre of the FMLN is overtly anti-democracy and anti-United States. 

 

Mauricio Funes the Moderate

In shaping United States policy toward the newly elected FMLN government in El Salvador, a sharp distinction must be made between President-elect Mauricio Funes and the political party he leads. Initial concerns that Mauricio Funes will take El Salvador immediately leftward are well founded but debatable.  Funes is not an openly pro-Al Qaeda Communist like his vice president, Salvador Sanchez Ceren.  In a country that makes sharp distinctions between Socialism and Communism, he truly has little in common with his newfound party save the desire to rule.  Many of his campaign promises are to maintain ARENA policies.  He has promised not to nationalize industries or oppose dollarization.  He has also promised not to oppose CAFTA.  Funes prefers to be seen as a pragmatist in the category of President Luis Inacio Lula Da Silva of Brazil.  The U.S. should be satisfied if he is able carry out his promises despite his party’s agenda.

To be a "pragmatist" leader in Latin America means that traditional alliances will not interfere with business.  This is a defensible position in some cases.  For example, Funes has said that he will seek stronger commercial ties with China.  However, he also may seek closer relations with Cuba, a long time policy initiative of the FMLN.  When the moderate tendencies of Funes come into conflict with the traditional FMLN agenda, it will be a measure of the power of the office of the President and the popularity of Funes against the traditional power of the FMLN machine.  This is because Funes has no power within the party. He is not on the governing council of his own party, does not control a single party delegate, and does not control party selection.

Whether policy experts believe that Mauricio Funes and the FMLN will do their best to follow the Chavez model or they accept Funes as a moderate, the political climate in El Salvador does not lend itself to a strong leftward shift.  Only about 60% of eligible voters showed up at the poles and among them the FMLN took 51.29% while ARENA won 48.70%.  This means that about 60% of El Salvador’s eligible voters either opposed the FMLN or expressed no opinion.  This is consistent with pre-election analysis, which predicted an FMLN victory that would be based on ARENA’s failure and Mauricio Funes’ centrist image.  It is a perfect alliance for taking power.  Funes could count on the FMLN base and also cover the middle ground.  How this alliance will govern is a different question.  This is because the most unpredictable element is the direction of the power struggle within the party, which will happen behind closed doors.

The election for mayors and the Legislative Assembly was held on January 18th, 2009.  Despite an overall leftward nudge, ARENA won the San Salvador mayoral race for the first time.  ARENA had previously held 34 out of 84 seats in the Legislative Assembly while the FMLN held 32.  The FMLN took a narrow plurality in the National Assembly with 35 seats while ARENA was left with 32.  There are still 11 seats held by a third party that traditionally votes with ARENA and a remaining 6 third party seats.  Having gained ground in the legislature, the FMLN government will be more powerful but significant policy shifts will be difficult and any gains will be hard fought.  The legislative climate lends itself toward compromise rather than a leftist mandate.  Hence, immediate concerns of a power grab in the form of constitutional revisions should be set aside and focus should be placed on strategic losses and intelligence weaknesses that Chavez, Cuba, and Iran may hope to exploit with their operatives in the FMLN.

 

The FMLN Posture

This most recent election is not only historical because the FMLN took power.  It is also historical because it is the first time the FMLN seems to sacrifice their ideological purity to gain power.  Before the "Funes strategy", the FMLN uniquely and systematically purged party members who deviated from pure communist ideology.  So, the first important distinction is that the compromise to run Mauricio Funes, as their candidate was a compromise made in order to take power but NOT a compromise of their cherished ideological purity.  They will accept the appearance of an ideological compromise as far as it gains power.  Hence, the FMLN should be expected to act toward the United States as it consistently has and the U.S. should wait and see if Funes is a check on their behavior or a vehicle for it.  With this in mind, U.S. policy makers should begin to consider the implications of FMLN power in El Salvador’s institutions and bureaucracies.  The FMLN bloc in the legislature has strong ties to Cuba, Chavez, and the FARC.  They are hardliners who deserve continued scrutiny.  The face of Mauricio Funes on their party label should not alleviate concerns.

The elephant in the room that U.S. policy makers should not miss (but often do) is that the ideology motivating a state actor is more telling than their actual words.  It is the "grain of salt" that must filter the coming tide of good feelings and diplomatic sweet talk.  Hence, a strong history of the FMLN’s posture toward the United States must be held up as a backdrop behind the dialogue of their new front man.  In February, The Americas Report chronicled the posture and nefarious activities of FMLN leaders Jose Luis Merino and Vice President-elect Salvador Sanchez Ceren.  Beyond their established patterns of behavior the U.S. must remember that the FMLN is beholden to Chavez for cheap oil and campaign finance.  This is another sign that despite distance created by Funes, the influence of Hugo Chavez is fomenting in El Salvador.

 

Strategic Concerns

Under the ARENA government, El Salvador has become an important ally in combating drug trafficking and organized crime.  According to the State Department, "El Salvador hosts the International Law Enforcement Academy, which provides training to police, prosecutors and other officials from across the Latin American region."  In addition, "The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and El Salvador’s National Civilian Police jointly operate the Transnational Anti-Gang unit, which addresses the growing problem of street gangs in both countries. In January 2009, the U.S. and El Salvador signed letters of agreement committing both countries to work jointly under the Merida Initiative to fight crime and drug trafficking." 1 Furthermore, El Salvador is home to one of the key U.S. strategic Forward Operating Locations used to fight the drug trade.

"This FOL significantly extends the reach of Detection and Monitoring aircraft into the Eastern Pacific, through which over 50 percent of the drugs destined for the United States transits-much of which is comprised of multi-ton cocaine shipments. The U.S. Navy routinely flies P-3 MPA and E-2C AEW out of this airfield. The El Salvador FOL supports the operations of four P-3 MPA-sized aircraft, which focus primarily on monitoring eastern Pacific maritime drug smuggling corridors." 2

One of Mauricio Funes’ key appointments will be for the Salvadoran Minister of Defense.  The Minister of Defense submits proposals to the President and General Commander of the Armed Forces for promotions, appointments, removals, acceptance of resignations and licensing of members of the Armed Forces.  With a plurality of seats in the legislature and subsequent control of the Defense Committee, the FMLN is now able to place their people in key positions in the Salvadoran Armed Forces that have access to intelligence concerning joint operations with the U.S.  If the FMLN ideologues control this area, there is a danger that anti-drug operations might be vulnerable to an intelligence breach. If that is the case, organized crime and terrorist groups will be able to operate more freely.

In Mid March, Admiral Jim Stavridis stated in a testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Iranian-backed Lebanese militant group Hezbollah is involved in drug trafficking in Colombia and stated that a direct connection exists "between Hezbollah activity and the narco-trafficking activity in Colombia". At the same time he warned of increased Iranian-backed activity in the continent.  If the U.S. loses control over this important drug-traffic control operation in a country like El Salvador- that Michael Waller, a Center for Security expert called "our staunchest anti-drug ally in the region, outside Colombia"- the situation could be very alarming. Thus, it is crucial for the U.S. to monitor this operation very carefully.

Considering these strategic relationships with the U.S., it is important to remember that the FMLN and its traditional allies are on the wrong side of the drug trade.  If the FARC, for example, needs to send a shipment of cocaine through the Eastern Pacific to pay for the thermo baric grenades purchased in a deal facilitated by an FMLN leader using former FMLN commandos turned MS-13 gang members who are being monitored by the Transnational Anti-Gang Unit that the FMLN government is cooperating with, a conflict of interest seems to emerge.  These intelligence concerns must translate into strong positions of the U.S. State Department.

 

Chavez and the Iranian Presence

The FMLN victory must also be viewed in the broader matrix of hemispheric security risks created by the geo-political maneuvering of Hugo Chavez.  Chavez has a long track record of using his oil wealth to influence Latin America through leftist FMLN counterparts in other countries.  In recent years, Hugo Chavez has built a sophisticated alliance with Iran whose terror proxy, Hezbollah, already has vast fund raising networks in South America and a history of staging terrorist attacks in the region.  A clear pattern can be seen in Central America where Chavez has funneled money to leftist political parties.  In Panama, an Iranian company owns a shipyard on the Panama Canal.  The Iranian embassy compound in Nicaragua and the number of "diplomats" hosted there include members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.  Iran and Nicaragua have plans for joint infrastructure and energy projects. In addition, Chavista President Zelaya of Honduras has also received campaign contributions from Chavez and has sent his defense minister to meet with Iranian officials. This growing number of Iranian assets in Central America could be considered as potential staging grounds for future terrorist attacks in light of the two terrorist attacks staged from the Iranian embassy in Argentina in the 1990’s.  There are otherwise no strong commercial or cultural relationships that would account for the growing Iranian presence that clearly follows the trail of Chavez’s influence.

The Obama Administration must not be naïve in its policy towards Latin America.  The continent, and particularly Central America, may well turn into another Afghanistan where drugs, terrorism, and political instability could become a nightmare right in our own backyard.

 

Nicholas Hanlon is a foreign affairs writer and researcher at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. He is a graduate of Georgia State University and has a BA in Political Science with a concentration in International Affairs and a Minor in French.

Dr. Luis Fleischman is a senior advisor to the Menges Hemispheric Security Project at the Center for Security Policy in Washington DC.

 

 

NOTES

[1] "Background Note: El Salvador" Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. State Department, March 2009, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2033.htm

[2] "Forward Operating Locations" Office of National Drug Control Policy: Fact Sheet, http://www.ondcp.gov/publications/international/factsht/forw_oper_locat.html

 

 

 

What to expect from the new FMLN government in El Salvador

On Sunday, March 15 the Communist FMLN (Faribundo Marti National Liberation Front) party defeated the U.S.’s traditional ally, the ARENA party, and took power for the first time in twenty years of democracy.  Stories about the FMLN’s historic candidate, Mauricio Funes, flooded the international press the following Monday morning.  While Funes continues to talk of change, the real story is that the entrenched elites in the FMLN pose real and great national security threats to the United States.  No amount of rhetoric will assuage concerns in the intelligence community that the vice president- elect, Salvador Sanchez Ceren and FMLN party leader, Jose Luis Merino, will strengthen ties with Hugo Chavez, Cuba, FARC terrorists, and Iran.  

Merino, who secured Chavez’s petrodollars to increase an FMLN victory, also facilitates arms deals for FARC terrorists. Together with Sanchez Ceren, who marched in the streets of San Salvador on September 15th, 2001 celebrating the news of Al Qaeda’s attack on the U.S., they will surely act as operatives on behalf of Chavez.

These are the men who will have top access to Salvadoran security policy.  Make no mistake; the cadre of the FMLN is overtly anti-democracy and anti-United States. 

 

Mauricio Funes the Moderate

In shaping United States policy toward the newly elected FMLN government in El Salvador, a sharp distinction must be made between President-elect Mauricio Funes and the political party he leads. Initial concerns that Mauricio Funes will take El Salvador immediately leftward are well founded but debatable.  Funes is not an openly pro-Al Qaeda Communist like his vice president, Salvador Sanchez Ceren.  In a country that makes sharp distinctions between Socialism and Communism, he truly has little in common with his newfound party save the desire to rule.  Many of his campaign promises are to maintain ARENA policies.  He has promised not to nationalize industries or oppose dollarization.  He has also promised not to oppose CAFTA.  Funes prefers to be seen as a pragmatist in the category of President Luis Inacio Lula Da Silva of Brazil.  The U.S. should be satisfied if he is able carry out his promises despite his party’s agenda.

To be a "pragmatist" leader in Latin America means that traditional alliances will not interfere with business.  This is a defensible position in some cases.  For example, Funes has said that he will seek stronger commercial ties with China.  However, he also may seek closer relations with Cuba, a long time policy initiative of the FMLN.  When the moderate tendencies of Funes come into conflict with the traditional FMLN agenda, it will be a measure of the power of the office of the President and the popularity of Funes against the traditional power of the FMLN machine.  This is because Funes has no power within the party. He is not on the governing council of his own party, does not control a single party delegate, and does not control party selection.

Whether policy experts believe that Mauricio Funes and the FMLN will do their best to follow the Chavez model or they accept Funes as a moderate, the political climate in El Salvador does not lend itself to a strong leftward shift.  Only about 60% of eligible voters showed up at the poles and among them the FMLN took 51.29% while ARENA won 48.70%.  This means that about 60% of El Salvador’s eligible voters either opposed the FMLN or expressed no opinion.  This is consistent with pre-election analysis, which predicted an FMLN victory that would be based on ARENA’s failure and Mauricio Funes’ centrist image.  It is a perfect alliance for taking power.  Funes could count on the FMLN base and also cover the middle ground.  How this alliance will govern is a different question.  This is because the most unpredictable element is the direction of the power struggle within the party, which will happen behind closed doors.

The election for mayors and the Legislative Assembly was held on January 18th, 2009.  Despite an overall leftward nudge, ARENA won the San Salvador mayoral race for the first time.  ARENA had previously held 34 out of 84 seats in the Legislative Assembly while the FMLN held 32.  The FMLN took a narrow plurality in the National Assembly with 35 seats while ARENA was left with 32.  There are still 11 seats held by a third party that traditionally votes with ARENA and a remaining 6 third party seats.  Having gained ground in the legislature, the FMLN government will be more powerful but significant policy shifts will be difficult and any gains will be hard fought.  The legislative climate lends itself toward compromise rather than a leftist mandate.  Hence, immediate concerns of a power grab in the form of constitutional revisions should be set aside and focus should be placed on strategic losses and intelligence weaknesses that Chavez, Cuba, and Iran may hope to exploit with their operatives in the FMLN.

 

The FMLN Posture

This most recent election is not only historical because the FMLN took power.  It is also historical because it is the first time the FMLN seems to sacrifice their ideological purity to gain power.  Before the "Funes strategy", the FMLN uniquely and systematically purged party members who deviated from pure communist ideology.  So, the first important distinction is that the compromise to run Mauricio Funes, as their candidate was a compromise made in order to take power but NOT a compromise of their cherished ideological purity.  They will accept the appearance of an ideological compromise as far as it gains power.  Hence, the FMLN should be expected to act toward the United States as it consistently has and the U.S. should wait and see if Funes is a check on their behavior or a vehicle for it.  With this in mind, U.S. policy makers should begin to consider the implications of FMLN power in El Salvador’s institutions and bureaucracies.  The FMLN bloc in the legislature has strong ties to Cuba, Chavez, and the FARC.  They are hardliners who deserve continued scrutiny.  The face of Mauricio Funes on their party label should not alleviate concerns.

The elephant in the room that U.S. policy makers should not miss (but often do) is that the ideology motivating a state actor is more telling than their actual words.  It is the "grain of salt" that must filter the coming tide of good feelings and diplomatic sweet talk.  Hence, a strong history of the FMLN’s posture toward the United States must be held up as a backdrop behind the dialogue of their new front man.  In February, The Americas Report chronicled the posture and nefarious activities of FMLN leaders Jose Luis Merino and Vice President-elect Salvador Sanchez Ceren.  Beyond their established patterns of behavior the U.S. must remember that the FMLN is beholden to Chavez for cheap oil and campaign finance.  This is another sign that despite distance created by Funes, the influence of Hugo Chavez is fomenting in El Salvador.

 

Strategic Concerns

Under the ARENA government, El Salvador has become an important ally in combating drug trafficking and organized crime.  According to the State Department, "El Salvador hosts the International Law Enforcement Academy, which provides training to police, prosecutors and other officials from across the Latin American region."  In addition, "The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and El Salvador’s National Civilian Police jointly operate the Transnational Anti-Gang unit, which addresses the growing problem of street gangs in both countries. In January 2009, the U.S. and El Salvador signed letters of agreement committing both countries to work jointly under the Merida Initiative to fight crime and drug trafficking." 1 Furthermore, El Salvador is home to one of the key U.S. strategic Forward Operating Locations used to fight the drug trade.

"This FOL significantly extends the reach of Detection and Monitoring aircraft into the Eastern Pacific, through which over 50 percent of the drugs destined for the United States transits-much of which is comprised of multi-ton cocaine shipments. The U.S. Navy routinely flies P-3 MPA and E-2C AEW out of this airfield. The El Salvador FOL supports the operations of four P-3 MPA-sized aircraft, which focus primarily on monitoring eastern Pacific maritime drug smuggling corridors." 2

One of Mauricio Funes’ key appointments will be for the Salvadoran Minister of Defense.  The Minister of Defense submits proposals to the President and General Commander of the Armed Forces for promotions, appointments, removals, acceptance of resignations and licensing of members of the Armed Forces.  With a plurality of seats in the legislature and subsequent control of the Defense Committee, the FMLN is now able to place their people in key positions in the Salvadoran Armed Forces that have access to intelligence concerning joint operations with the U.S.  If the FMLN ideologues control this area, there is a danger that anti-drug operations might be vulnerable to an intelligence breach. If that is the case, organized crime and terrorist groups will be able to operate more freely.

In Mid March, Admiral Jim Stavridis stated in a testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Iranian-backed Lebanese militant group Hezbollah is involved in drug trafficking in Colombia and stated that a direct connection exists "between Hezbollah activity and the narco-trafficking activity in Colombia". At the same time he warned of increased Iranian-backed activity in the continent.  If the U.S. loses control over this important drug-traffic control operation in a country like El Salvador- that Michael Waller, a Center for Security expert called "our staunchest anti-drug ally in the region, outside Colombia"- the situation could be very alarming. Thus, it is crucial for the U.S. to monitor this operation very carefully.

Considering these strategic relationships with the U.S., it is important to remember that the FMLN and its traditional allies are on the wrong side of the drug trade.  If the FARC, for example, needs to send a shipment of cocaine through the Eastern Pacific to pay for the thermo baric grenades purchased in a deal facilitated by an FMLN leader using former FMLN commandos turned MS-13 gang members who are being monitored by the Transnational Anti-Gang Unit that the FMLN government is cooperating with, a conflict of interest seems to emerge.  These intelligence concerns must translate into strong positions of the U.S. State Department.

 

Chavez and the Iranian Presence

The FMLN victory must also be viewed in the broader matrix of hemispheric security risks created by the geo-political maneuvering of Hugo Chavez.  Chavez has a long track record of using his oil wealth to influence Latin America through leftist FMLN counterparts in other countries.  In recent years, Hugo Chavez has built a sophisticated alliance with Iran whose terror proxy, Hezbollah, already has vast fund raising networks in South America and a history of staging terrorist attacks in the region.  A clear pattern can be seen in Central America where Chavez has funneled money to leftist political parties.  In Panama, an Iranian company owns a shipyard on the Panama Canal.  The Iranian embassy compound in Nicaragua and the number of "diplomats" hosted there include members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.  Iran and Nicaragua have plans for joint infrastructure and energy projects. In addition, Chavista President Zelaya of Honduras has also received campaign contributions from Chavez and has sent his defense minister to meet with Iranian officials. This growing number of Iranian assets in Central America could be considered as potential staging grounds for future terrorist attacks in light of the two terrorist attacks staged from the Iranian embassy in Argentina in the 1990’s.  There are otherwise no strong commercial or cultural relationships that would account for the growing Iranian presence that clearly follows the trail of Chavez’s influence.

The Obama Administration must not be naïve in its policy towards Latin America.  The continent, and particularly Central America, may well turn into another Afghanistan where drugs, terrorism, and political instability could become a nightmare right in our own backyard.

 

Nicholas Hanlon is a foreign affairs writer and researcher at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. He is a graduate of Georgia State University and has a BA in Political Science with a concentration in International Affairs and a Minor in French.

Dr. Luis Fleischman is a senior advisor to the Menges Hemispheric Security Project at the Center for Security Policy in Washington DC.

 

 

NOTES

[1] "Background Note: El Salvador" Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. State Department, March 2009, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2033.htm

[2] "Forward Operating Locations" Office of National Drug Control Policy: Fact Sheet, http://www.ondcp.gov/publications/international/factsht/forw_oper_locat.html

 

 

 

From fashion to fortitude: the road to resilience

This is the text of a speech by Dr. Liam Fox, currently Shadow Defence Secretary and Member of Parliament for Woodspring, UK, on March 31, 2009.

Politics and public policy do not exist in a vacuum. They exist within and interact with the social values and fashions of the day.  We need to understand, and if necessary correct for, these trends if we are to control our direction of political travel. The alternative is to drift in the wake of the conventional wisdom of the day and we need to decide whether we shape the world around us or are content to be shaped by it.

Maybe we should remember that only dead fish go with the flow.

Since the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, we have transformed our world. While we have lurched at times into bloody conflict, we have also excelled in literature, art, science and medicine. We have expanded the rule of law and democratic systems in our world and we have alleviated more physical poverty in our own generation than in the whole of history. The triumph of our political and economic systems, with strong and decisive leadership, have enabled us to see off the threats of Nazi fascism and Soviet communism. Yet there is a crisis of confidence, an uncertainty and a lack of optimism in our society which I believe should trouble us.

Today, I want to first look at a number of factors which I believe threaten to derail the trend of our progress, sap our political strength and threaten the resilience of our country at a time of considerable external threats.

Some of these factors may seem trivial when considered alone. Certainly, none of them are lethal in themselves but cumulatively they are profoundly affecting the body politic. Diminishing social mobility, the cult of the celebrity society, the decline in serious learning, the increasing disregard for empiricism and social attitudes verging on valuephobia threaten to cast a shadow on the enlightened western liberalism which has taken us so far.

 It takes only a passing glance at any newsstand today to see the influence of celebrity. Society seems obsessed with celebrity, fame and trivia while serious learning and difficult achievement take second place.  Where in previous generations youngsters would aspire to be scientists or astronauts the answer to the question "what would you like to be?" is now simply:  " famous". 

In a time when it is possible to be famous simply for being famous (and moreover wealthy for simply being famous) it is an understandable temptation.  Yet, the celebrity culture masks one of the most worrying trends in society in recent years. The decline in social mobility in the last decade in Britain should be a prime concern in a country which needs to harness the potential of all its citizens if it is to compete successfully in a cutthroat global economy. But while social mobility has diminished in the new Labour years we have a plausible alternative – we have the illusion of social mobility in the celebrity culture.

Yet while the pages of Hello! and OK may be opened up to reality TV stars and footballers’ girlfriends, the doors of the universities and the law seem to be closed to far too many. And the dangers of aversion to difficult learning should not be underestimated. While India is producing huge numbers of mathematics, physics and chemistry graduates British numbers are falling, being replaced with soft subjects such as media studies. The unavoidable consequence is that we will have to import these skills from abroad or do without them altogether. Hardly a great accomplishment for our educational system.

My next concern is that the moral relativism which emerged post war- and which is probably unavoidable in a liberal society- has morphed into something much worse- what we may call intellectual relativism. It is a state of affairs where people seem to believe that the validity of their views is determined by the strength by which they hold them not by any reference to empiricism.  Thus we get the use of phrases such as "well that is your truth- it’s not mine" or the increased frequency of the one word which is doing untold damage to the concept of objectivity – "whatever".  When confronted with evidence which undermines the fashion du jour or your own prejudices simply lift your hand and say  " whatever" and you can avoid all the discomforts of the value of truth or objectivity or of being plain wrong.  "Whatever" means never having to say you’re stupid.

This trend is exacerbated by the culture of political correctness.  In line with the lack of critical analysis generally, political correctness further restricts free expression and, by extension, thought.  How often do we hear people say " of course you’re not allowed to say that are you" or  "I’m not supposed to think that, am I ?". This is neither a small nor a trivial matter.  Political correctness is not just linguistic repression. In the name of liberal thought it is the very antithesis of liberalism.  In true Orwellian doublespeak fashion it is the imposition of a particular set of, usually left leaning, social and cultural mores.  The good manners and respect for others’ differences on which civilised behaviour depends should not be confused with the restrictive language and thought control which the PC culture promotes. Freedom of thought and freedom of expression are essential in the pursuit of reason.  It is reason that will lead us to truth and the pursuit of truth has been the driving force behind progress since the Enlightenment.  We cannot allow the age of reason to gradually shift into reverse.

There seems to be a particular confusion when it comes to the expression of social, moral or religious values in some quarters.  Indeed there are those who almost seemed so afraid of causing offence to anyone that they prefer to express no values whatsoever. What we may term valuephobia is manifested in some of the debate around issues of tolerance, diversity and the secular Society.

To tolerate is to treat with indulgence, liberality and forbearance.  But tolerance is not the same as surrender.  Because we tolerate the views and ideas of others does not mean acquiescence to them or the glib acceptance of the creed of inevitable moral equivalence.  An enlightened society tries to resolve conflicts of ideas with reason but it has to be a two-way process.  We are all in some aspects of our lives majorities and other aspects minorities- be it in gender, race, religion or politics.  While majorities have to tolerate the views of minorities, minorities also need to tolerate the rights of the majority to disagree with and even disapprove of them.  Tolerance certainly does not require the majority to ditch or apologise for its value set simply because a minority dislikes them.  The tyranny of the minority would not be any more tolerable than the tyranny of the majority.  Tolerance itself must be equally applied.

Confusion also seems evident in the debate about the concept of the secular Society. A secular society does not have to be a valueless society.  Because a state does not have an affinity to a set religion does not mean it should avoid value systems.  For the most part our concept of right and wrong is in tune with our basic instincts and our understanding of the consequences of our actions.  These rights and wrongs are codified by religions not invented by them. In any case there are other, different, non- religious values which are part of our heritage-the concept of looking after those who cannot look after themselves, of hard work, perseverance and saving for a rainy day. States cannot operate without values and the seemingly all pervasive fear of causing offense because someone may disagree needs to be balanced by considerations of the benefits that can accrue to individuals and society alike of clear guidance on what is desirable behaviour.

Similar problems exist in our discussions about the diversity within our society.  Britain has historically had a reasonably good track record in the assimilation of minority populations.  Yet we have been so obsessed in recent years with celebrating diversity that we have forgotten to celebrate our commonality.  Diversity is a good thing but we are also a society with a strong historical identity and we must not lose sight of who we are and how we have come to be the people we are.  If we fail to emphasise what we have in common and the cohesive forces which have made us the country we are then we will produce not diversity but fragmentation. It has been interesting to watch in the recent American presidential election groups within the electorate referring to themselves as Irish American, Italian-American or African American. While clearly retaining their cultural identity, the common word is always American.

How are some of these trends affecting our political discourse.

A lack of critical thinking and an over accommodation with the conventional wisdom and fashion can result in policies which are one-dimensional.  An example is the debate about poverty.  An increase in material wealth has not diminished many of the social problems associated with the most deprived parts of our society.  It has been a personal source of irritation that so much of the debate about poverty, including among many of our churches, has been about material poverty.  Whilst the work to eradicate material poverty is important and must continue, we must also realise that on its own this is not enough.  The real poverty which stops so many young people from getting on the ladder to better well-being is the poverty of ambition, the poverty of aspiration and the poverty of hope.  I am lucky.  I came from a privileged background.  We were not wealthy but my parents had a richness of ambition for their children, for their education and well-being.  You see, it’s true, you don’t have to be posh to be privileged.  We need to break away from the uni-dimensional debate about poverty simply as a material issue. Until we address some of the personal spiritual poverty, the lack of ambition and the lack of hope which afflicts some of our most disadvantaged citizens then we have no chance of making real poverty history.

All of these are important factors to get right if we are not to cast a shadow on the enlightenment.

But there is another area where I believe the lack of critical thinking puts our society at a disadvantage and that is in terms of our security.

There seems to have been a view developing in recent years that defines peace simply as the absence of war.  If only we can avoid armed conflict the argument seems to say then we will live in a more peaceful world.  But peace is not simply the absence of war.  Real peace has an unavoidable set of values which accompany it.  Freedom from tyranny, freedom from oppression and freedom from fear are essential for real peace.  Unfortunately we sometimes have to fight and even to die for these freedoms. The need to maintain public support for the conflicts which are sometimes required to ensure these freedoms is a burden which democratic states have to carry but many of our enemies do not.  The absence of a clear and rational argument for the necessity of military action in certain circumstances can hand the advantage to those who wish to undermine our democratic systems and, indeed, our whole way of life.

This is where our social attitudes, our political direction and our national security converge- in the crucial question about the state of our national resilience.

For it is our resilience-  our political and social fortitude- which will determine whether or not we are able to deal with the threats and challenges which lie before us.

Our current enemies answer to no public caucus-no court of electoral legitimacy. It is we, in the conflict adverse West-who carry what can be a fundamental weakness. We must make it a strength if we are to prevail. And the threats we face are many, diverse and imminent.

Beyond the credit crunch there is a big bad world out there: The twin threats of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism; a resurgent Russia; a violent Islamist fundamentalism; an emboldened Iran and the global threats of climate change and pandemic.

 

Russia

First, a resurgent Russia.

Russia is not a failed state but it is being increasingly likened to a gangster state, a state fattened by hydrocarbon wealth but unable to translate this into shared wealth and stability. It is probably not a direct threat to this country but threatens our interests abroad and our allies.

Russia’s swift and strategic invasion of Georgia in mid-August 2008 highlighted the stark reality of energy geopolitics in Eurasia.  Aside from the objectives of scuttling Georgia and Ukraine’s NATO membership hopes and demarcating a clear sphere of influence in the post-Soviet space, Moscow intended to send the message to the broader West that it takes the competition over control of energy resources more seriously than any other player in the game.

As the whole world watched what looked like a juggernaut roll into Georgia, Russian officers on the ground witnessed a poor fighting force using out-of-date equipment with huge deficiencies in night fighting capability, communications, and supply and maintenance. Consequently, Russia is working hard to improve these capability gaps in its ground forces.

Russia will spend over $200 billion between now and 2015 upgrading its forces.

We now have Russian strategic bombers probing British airspace again-something that occurred on a regular basis during the Cold War. There are reports of similar activity by the Russian Navy inside British territorial waters.

The cyber attacks in Estonia, Georgia and most recently in Kyrgyzstan, where the finger still points at Russia is another reason why we must maintain our vigilance and invest in the technology to deal with future threats.

While some debate the merits of Britain building two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy, Russian plans for its navy include the construction of six nuclear powered aircraft carriers, eight ballistic missile submarines, and the largest nuclear icebreakers in the world for use in the Arctic.

The latter is of great importance to the Russian Navy as the scramble for Arctic resources heats up and the ice continues to melt. In 2007, Russia announced its intention to annex a 460,000 square mile portion of ice-covered Arctic. Scientists claim that that area, on which Russia has audaciously set its sights, may contain 10 billion tonnes of gas and oil deposits. With ice melting in the Arctic, and shipping passages and possible mineral exploitation becoming an increasing possibility, we may be witnessing a scramble for this resource-rich territory with all the tensions that this will bring.

Russia may be building from a low base given the degraded state of its conventional forces and it may not pose a direct threat to the security of this country but the Russian leadership has shown in Georgia how they could destabilise our allies and indirectly threaten our security through their strangle hold on energy supplies.

 

Iran

Secondly, there is the threat of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and the subsequent nuclear proliferation and regional arms race that could follow. 

There are those who say that we must accommodate Iran as a nuclear weapon state. Let me give you three reasons why this is simply not acceptable.

First, the nature of Iran’s leadership.  Those such as President Ahmadinejad who talk about wiping Israel off the map simply do not belong in the civilised family of nations.

Secondly, the Iranian regime has shown itself to be, par excellence, a net exporter of terror and destabilisation. Do we really want to see nuclear weapons added to this mix? Do we really want to see Hamas or Hezbollah able to make a dirty bomb – a subject I will come to in a moment.

Iran has already shown its intent to destabilise the region. According to intelligence sources, Tehran has already begun the process of building a new supply line to replenish depleted stocks of missiles and other materiel for Gaza terrorists.  Hamas are currently trying to acquire new missiles from Iran, especially Fajr missiles which could hit Ben Gurion airport or Tel Aviv if launched from within Gaza. Do we wish to see fissile material added to this mix?

Thirdly, if Iran gets a nuclear weapon then Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt are likely to be next in the queue. Surely we do not want a new nuclear arms race in the world’s most unpredictable region. After all that we went through in the Cold War, is this a legacy we want to leave to the next generation?

 

Nuclear Terrorism

Thirdly, and this ties into my point regarding Iran, is nuclear terrorism. Put simply, nuclear terrorism is a problem that is not going away. I am afraid that many decision-makers in the West wish to ignore the issue hoping that by doing so the threat will simply disappear or at least not happen on "their watch". This is both naive and dangerous. 

Much has been written and discussed on what form a nuclear terrorist attack may take. Of course, as with most things, there is a higher probability of one kind of attack over another. Regardless of the method, any successful or attempted nuclear attack would have a huge impact on our way of life.

It is generally accepted that there are three distinct possibilities: 

  1. An attack on a nuclear installation, for example, a nuclear reactor; 
  2. A dirty bomb using radioactive material to contaminate a wide area; 
  3. The explosion of a nuclear device itself with mass fatalities and potentially catastrophic economic circumstances.

Of these three it is the second, the detonation of a dirty bomb, that I am most concerned with. 

While it may be regarded by terrorists as the poor man’s nuclear bomb it could be socially and economically devastating – while relatively simple to carry out.  The creation of a nuclear bomb itself would require access to uranium or plutonium, a dirty bomb could be made out of a wide range of radioactive materials.  These sorts of radioactive materials can be found in a range of hospital equipment and machines discarded on industrial sites. 

The first ever attempted dirty bomb terror attack occurred in November 1995 by a group of Chechen terrorists. A Russian television station was informed that 10lbs of dynamite had been buried with caesium in a Moscow park.

While the bomb was not detonated and later found by police neither the terrorists nor the source of the caesium were ever identified.  Nonetheless, the terrorists successfully sowed the intended seeds of fear in the minds of both the populace and the authorities.

The struggle against nuclear terrorism can only be won out right by taking preventive and pro-active measures. We would have lost the battle if terrorists were able to detonate a nuclear device in one of our cities or major shipping lanes. Regardless of our response after the attack the physical, psychological, and economical damage would have already been done.

Islamic Extremists

And while we are dealing with all of these we will still have to deal with the ever-present threat of Islamist fundamentalists and their violent anti-west campaigns.

There are those in the Islamic world who dislike us for what we do – our involvement in Iraq or our close ties with Israel. Their resentment is a reaction to our deeds but our differences are largely containable. But there is another group who hate us – not for what we do – but for who we are. They hate our culture, our way of life, our history and our traditions. They are irreconcilable to our political system and our values. They will have to be confronted as they have already decided to confront us. We must not make the mistake that everyone who wishes us ill is reconcilable by dialogue and reason. Fanaticism is alien to our way of thought but we must not forget that it exists or what it can mean. The 1930s should have taught us that lesson.

In an age of global terrorism no one, no where is safe.

We need to show the political, economic, and military commitment to the battle with global terrorism that we brought to the long battle with communism in the cold war. It is where our resilience will matter.

Terrorists make an intention assessment not a capability assessment.  It is not based on the fact that the state is stronger, which it clearly is, but on what it is willing to do.  The asymmetric advantage for the terrorist depends on the fact that the state will adhere to legal and ethical international norms while they have no requirement or intention to do so.  In the Cold War when faced with a nuclear threat we responded with a nuclear deterrent of our own.  This was in the classical mould of speaking softly and carrying a big stick.  When dealing with terrorism it is essential that we speak loudly and clearly and also be willing to use, not just carry, the big stick.

 

Conclusion

The threats I have outlined are both real and imminent. Immersing ourselves as a society in celebrity headlines and trivia and pretending the dangers don’t exist would be irresponsible. Politicians need to be frank with themselves and with the public about the risks we face. Both politicians and the media need to get away from the bad habit of saying what people want to hear and tell people what they need to hear because they are going to have to confront the inevitable. As a society we have to find the resilience to deal with the challenges of our generation as previous generations dealt with theirs.

We can begin by understanding who we are and what brought us to where we are before we lose our hard won gains. To shape the world or be shaped by it?  That, indeed, is our question.

 

Wrecking operation: Our enemies perceive exploitable weakness

President Obama’s stewardship of the national security portfolio to date amounts to a wrecking operation, a set of policies he must understand will not only weaken the United States but embolden our foes. After all, the Communist agitator Saul Alinsky, a formative influence in Mr. Obama’s early years as a “community organizer,” made Rule Number One in his 1971 book Rules for Radicals: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.” 

According to this logic, the various steps Barack Obama is taking with respect to the armed forces, the foreign battlefields in which they are engaged, our allies as well as our adversaries will not only diminish our power.  They will encourage our enemies to perceive us as less powerful – with ominous implications.  Consider some illustrative examples:

  • The Obama administration is cutting the defense budget by 10%.  The result will be to preclude much, if not virtually all, of the modernization that will be required to prepare the U.S. military to contend with tomorrow’s wars.  Most of what the Pentagon spends goes to fixed – and growing – personnel-related costs (pay, bonuses, health care, etc.) and operations.  As a result, at Obama funding levels, there will not be much available even to “reset” today’s forces by refurbishing the equipment they have been using up in present conflicts.
  • The President is on a path to denuclearizing the United States by refusing to modernize the arsenal or even to fund fully the steps necessary to assure the viability of the weapons we have.  He hopes to dress up this act of unilateral disarmament by seeking to resume arms control negotiations with Russia, as though such throw-backs to the old Cold War and its bipolar power structure apply today – let alone that there are grounds for believing the Kremlin will adhere to new treaties any better than the previous ones it systematically violated.
  • For good measure, Mr. Obama is mounting a frontal assault on the armed forces themselves.  The President plans to repeal the law prohibiting homosexuals from serving in the military.  It is absolutely predictable that significant numbers of servicemen and women – including many of the most experienced commissioned and non-commissioned officers – will retire rather than serve in conditions of forced intimacy with individuals who may find them sexually attractive.  The effect will be to break the all-volunteer force.
  • Then there are the Obama initiatives in Iraq and Afghanistan. The President’s adoption of a deadline for withdrawing most U.S. forces from the former and his signaling that – despite a near-term 17,000 troop “surge” – he is preparing to turn the latter over to the oxymoronic-dubbed “moderate” Taliban are conveying unmistakable messages to friends and foes alike: Under Barack Obama, it is better to be a foe of America than one of its friends.

This message is, of course, being strongly reinforced by the treatment he is doling out to nations in each category. 

  • Friends like the Poles and Czechs have been left in the lurch as the Obama administration intimates that the United States now thinks Europe does not need after all to be defended against Iranian nuclear-armed missile threats.  Not since Jimmy Carter abandoned the NATO deployment of so-called “neutron bombs” has a President conveyed such a devastating message of weakness and irresolution in the face of hostile threats to our European alliance partners.
  • Other allies have not fared much better. Israel is on notice that its security interests are going to be sacrificed to the Obama administration’s pursuit of a Palestinian state – even one ruled by a terrorist organization like Hamas (or, for that matter, Fatah) committed to Israel’s destruction. Britain has been told it neither deserves nor has a “special” relationship with the United States.
  • Meanwhile virtually every enemy of the United States is the object of assiduous cultivation and overtures for rapprochement by the Obama administration.  It will reward IranSyria can expect the Golan Heights and removal from the terrorism list even as it pursues nuclear arms, renews its overtly colonial hold on Lebanon, supports the terrorists of Hezbollah and helps its abiding master, Iran, destabilize Iraq. for “going nuclear” with normalized relations.
  • As mentioned above, Russia gets to be treated like a superpower again while it arms Iran, inserts bombers and naval units into our hemisphere, wields its energy leverage against our friends in Europe, Ukraine and Georgia and squeezes our supply lines into Afghanisan.  There are no repercussions for China as it makes a mockery of the administration’s beloved Law of the Sea Treaty by threatening an unarmed U.S. naval vessel in its Exclusive Economic Zone.
  • Last but hardly least, a “respectful” Obama administration seems keen to embrace those in the Muslim Brotherhood and like-minded Islamist organizations who seek to impose the toxic theo-political-legal program authoritative Islam calls Shariah on distant populations – and insinuate it into our country.

Can there be any doubt what America’s adversaries make of all this?  Great grief will come our way if they conclude, as Alinsky surely would, that our power is waning, and that they can exercise theirs with impunity against our interests – and those of whatever friends we have left. 

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for the Washington Times.

 

Islamic terrorism in Latin America

Over the years, there has been disturbing information about the presence of radical Islamic terrorist groups in Latin America.  The Americas Report has published several articles regarding this subject including a recent article on how terrorists have and could use fake or doctored passports to enter the United States to carry out attacks.[1] In light of this information, it is important to know which Islamic terror groups are present in the region and the threat they could pose to regional security.

Active Islamic Terror groups in Latin America and the Caribbean:

 

The "Jamaat al Muslimeen" (JAM)

The "Jamaat al Muslimeen" is a Sunni terrorist organization that operates in Trinidad and Tobago. So far, it has been the only subversive group in the region to attempt a coup d’ Etat to install a sharia-based government. In 1990, over a six-day period, JAM’s leader Yasin Abu Bakr held members of the government including then-Prime Minister Arthur Napoleon Raymond Robinson, hostage while chaos and looting broke out in the streets of the capital city, Port of Spain.

The coup failed and subsequently, the JAM aligned itself with the United National Congress (before the 1995 general elections) and later with the People’s National Movement (PNM); the party which forms the current government. Bakr continues to lead the Jamaat al Muslimeen and authorities have re-arrested him on several occasions over the years. Bakr is currently being prosecuted with conspiracy to murder several of the group’s former members who had spoken out publicly against the Jamaat al Muslimeen and its practices.[2]

In March 2007, three members of the Jamaat al Muslimeen confessed to kidnapping, raping, and murdering of an Indo-Trinidadian businesswoman, Vindra Naipaul – Coolman. According to a U.S. undercover agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Bakr’s group shipped heroin from Afghanistan to the U.S. via Trinidad. In June of that same year, a joint Guyanese/Trinidadian/FBI investigation culminated in the arrest of four men who plotted to blow up gas lines leading to the John F. Kennedy Airport in New York. The individuals were American, Guyanese, and Trinidadian. One of the plot leader’s, Abdul Kadir, is an acquaintance of Abu Bakr in Trinidad. Members of the group allegedly met with JAM members to obtain support for their plot. Kadir is a former Guyanese parliament member. The JAM is currently under surveillance by the local National Security Agency as well as by the CIA for suspected terrorist relations with the Middle East.[3]

 

Hezbollah

Hezbollah has had a presence in Latin America since the late 1980’s, particularly in the Tri-Border Region, where Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina meet. Approximately 50,000 individuals of Arab descent live in three key cities in the 40 square kilometer triangle that forms this area. Most tri-border Arabs are of Lebanese origin and are heavily represented in commerce. Many of them moved to the area in the wake of the turmoil of the Lebanese civil war that raged from 1975 to 1990. Of those that adhere to Islam, approximately two-thirds are Sunni, while the remaining are Shia. The area hosts several Islamic schools or "madrassas" and various Arab – language television channels.[4]

It is common to find young men on the streets of Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil, one of the two major cities that make up the TBA, with Hezbollah tee shirts. From this area, cells of Hezbollah with the help of the Iranian government planned the 1992 and 1994 bombings of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires and the Argentine-Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA). The infamous Imad Mugniyah, who was in charge of the group’s foreign operations, coordinated the first bombing. In March 2003, after a nine-year old investigation plagued by irregularities, an Argentinean judge indicted four Iranian officials in connection with the bombing. The suspects included the former head of the Ministry of Intelligence and Security and the former cultural attaché at the Iranian embassy in Buenos Aires. In another incident that many attribute also to Hezbollah, that occurred on July 19, 1992, a Lebanese suicide bomber boarded a commuter flight in Colón, Panama, and detonated a bomb, killing all 21 people aboard, including 12 Jewish and Israeli businessmen, and three U.S. citizens. The bomber carried a fake U.S. passport.[5] 

Hezbollah activities are financed mainly by drug trafficking, money laundering and terrorism. The group also engages in fund-raising, recruitment and receives logistical support from Iranian intelligence officials assigned to Iranian embassies in the region. Local businessman, Assad Ahmad Barakat, was the leader and chief financier of Hezbollah in the TBA until 2002 when he was arrested. He is now in jail in Paraguay for tax evasion. He lived and worked in the area with his brother Hattem. He also has businesses in Iquique, Chile. His brother took over until he too was arrested in Paraguay for document fraud. Assad Barakat has another brother who is a sheikh at a Hezbollah mosque in Lebanon. Paraguayan authorities found numerous documents when they arrested him including a letter from Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, thanking Assad for the money he sent (U$3,535,149) to the "martyrs program."  Meanwhile, authorities have also linked Barakat to al Qaeda by claiming he owned the "Mondial Engineering and Construction Company" suspected of having made contributions to bin Laden’s group. The tri-border remittances to Hezbollah totaled $60 million since 1995.[6]

In 2004, authorities in Paraguay arrested Lebanese businessman, Ali Khalil Mehri, for selling millions of dollars worth of pirated software and illegally sending the profits to Hezbollah. Mehri fled Paraguay before he could be prosecuted.[7]

Paraguayan authorities have accused Mohamed Tarabain Chamas, a Hezbollah member and manager of a five-story commercial building in Ciudad del Este, Paraguay (part of the TBA), of being responsible for counter-intelligence operations for Hezbollah in the TBA.[8]

 

Hezbollah Latin America

Hezbollah Latin America has two cells: one in Venezuela and the other in Argentina. Its connection with Hezbollah is unclear but the group claims solidarity with Hezbollah, Iran, and the Islamist revolution. In Venezuela, the majority of its members are from the Wayuu tribe, a small indigenous group that converted to Islam a few years ago under their leader, Teodoro Darnott. In 2006, Venezuelan officials found explosive devises in Caracas near the U.S. Embassy, which did not detonate, but contained pro-Hezbollah pamphlets. Venezuela Hezbollah took responsibility for the bombs and threatened further attacks. Authorities subsequently arrested and convicted Darnott. It is not known who took over.[9]

In Argentina, the group has direct ties to Iran through the Arab Argentine Home and the Argentine-Islamic Association-ASAI of La Plata, which cooperate and are financed by the Iranian Representation in Buenos Aires.

 

Al Qaeda

Osama bin Laden operative and 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, spent nearly 20 days in Brazil in 1995 to visit members of the Muslim community there. While there, authorities claim that Mohammed founded a charity to help finance Osama bin Laden and reportedly was hosted by Khalid Rezk El Sayed Take El Din, the mentor of the "Holy Land Foundation" in the Tri-border area. He remains in the region. U.S. Treasury officials have designated "The Holy Land Foundation" as a terrorist supporter, frozen its assets, stating that the Foundation was sending funds to Hamas.[10]

In 1996, the Brazilian police reportedly discovered that Marwan al Safadi, an explosives expert accused of having participated in the first attack on the U.S. World Trade Center in 1993, was living in the Tri-border area. In January 1997, Paraguayan authorities learned that Islamic groups in the Tri-border region were planning to blow up the American Embassy in Paraguay to coincide with the first anniversary of the bombing of the Saudi National Guard headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Police raided Safadi’s apartment in Ciudad Del Este and found it filled with explosives, pistols equipped with silencers, double-barreled rifles, false Canadian and American passports, and a large amount of cash. Brazilian authorities captured Safadi and extradited him to the United States. Although sentenced to 18 months in prison, U.S. authorities extradited him to Canada, where he received a nine-year jail sentence for drug trafficking. Safadi escaped from prison three times, finally fleeing back to South America with a false passport.[11]

Adnan el Shukrijumah, currently on the U.S. FBI’s BOLO (Be on the Look Out For) is an al Qaeda operative. He was in Panama in April 2001 surveying the Panama Canal for a possible attack. When Khalid Sheik Mohammed was captured by U.S. forces in March 2003, he confirmed Shukrijuma was an Al Qaeda member. Shukrijuma has American, Guyanese, and Trinidadian passports. On June 30 2004, the Honduran Security Ministry said that el Shukrijumah had been in Honduras just in May meeting with members of the Mara Salvatrucha street gang.  His whereabouts remain unknown.[12]

In 2002, Ali Nizar Darhough was arrested in Paraguay. He is the nephew of Mohammad Dahrough, a well-known Sunni leader in the Tri-border area. The Paraguayan police said that Ali Nizar and his uncle were the al Qaeda point men for the TBA. Mohammad Dahrough’s name was found in an address book belonging to Abu Zubaydah, a high-ranking al-Qaeda official captured by the U.S. Mohammad escaped the TBA in September 1998 and has since joined al Qaeda. A report claims that Ali Nizar sent $10 million in 2000-2001 from the TBA to U.S. dummy corporations that al-Qaeda and HAMAS used as fronts. Ali Nizar was convicted in Paraguay in 2003 of tax evasion and he received a five-year sentence. There is no information on whether he was released.

Al Qaeda follower and Islamic cleric, Jamaican Sheikh Abdullah el Faisal, was convicted in Britain in 2003. He was found guilty of encouraging murder and fueling racial hatred. During his trial, tapes of his sermons were played where he ordered his listeners to "kill Hindus and Jews and other non Muslims, like cockroaches." During his four-week trial, followers watched as the court heard el-Faisal’s voice exhorting young Muslims to accept the deaths of women and children as "collateral damage" and to "learn to fly planes, drive tanks… load your guns and to use missiles."

On July 19, 2004, Farida Goolam Mohamed Ahmed was arrested at McAllen Miller International Airport. She was headed to New York. Ahmed had a South African passport with no U.S. entry stamps. Ahmed later confessed to investigators that she entered the country illegally by crossing the Rio Grande River from Mexico. Ahmed was carrying travel itineraries showing a July 8 flight from Johannesburg, South Africa, to London. Six days later, Ahmed traveled from London to Mexico City before attempting to travel from McAllen to New York. It was revealed in court that she was on a watch list and had entered the U.S. possibly as many as 250 times.

 

Al-Gama’ at Islamiyya

Al-Gama’ at Islamiyya is an Egyptian Islamic movement linked to Al-Qaeda that has been operating in Brazil since 1995. Mohammed Ali Hassan Mokhles, a group member, left Egypt in 1993 and established residency in Foz do Iguacu, Brazil. Authorities claim that Mokhles was sent to the TBA to collect funds for the Middle East and to conduct logistic support activities such as forging passports or other documents for Islamic jihadists. Mokhles reportedly attended a training camp in Khost, Afghanistan. An investigative expose claims that Mokhles was involved in the first World Trade Center explosion in New York. Uruguayan officials arrested Mokhles in 1999 while he was trying to cross the border from Brazil with false documents. In 2003 Mokhles was extradited from Uruguay to Egypt. Authorities claim he was involved in planning a terrorist attack that killed 58 tourists in Luxor, Egypt in 1997.

Mohamed Abed Abdel Aal, another leader of Gama’ at Islamiyya, was arrested in Colombia after arriving from Ecuador by bus in October 1998. He had been in Italy under "surveillance." Abdel Aal was wanted by Egyptian authorities for his involvement in two terrorist massacres: the attack in Luxor, Egypt; and an incident in which terrorists killed 20 Greek tourists outside their Cairo hotel on April 18th 1996. He was subsequently deported to Ecuador. It is believed that Aal may have been trying to contact the leftist Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia (FARC). He was later turned over to Egyptian authorities.

In 2002, Brazilian authorities broke up an al-Gama’ at al Islamiyya cell and detained Sunni extremist, Mohammed Ali Soliman, also wanted by Egypt for his involvement in the Luxor attacks. According to Brazilian press reports, he too was trained in camps in Afghanistan and is associated with Mokhles. Brazilian officials released Soliman in September 2002 claiming that Egyptian officials failed to provide sufficient evidence of Soliman’s involvement in the Luxor attacks. He lives in Brazil.

 

Jammat al Fuqra

Two Trinidad and Tobago citizens, Barry Adams, a.k.a. ‘Tyrone Cole’ and Wali Muhammad, a.k.a. ‘Robert Johnson,’ members of the Jammat al Fuqra, a militant Pakistan-based terrorist group, were arrested in Canada in 1994 for conspiring to set off bombs in a Hindu temple and a cinema in Toronto. Prosecutors claim that the men had lived in Texas using aliases for several years before attempting to carry out their plan. They served their full sentences without parole and Canada deported them to Pakistan upon their release.

This information shows that it is imperative for nations in the hemisphere to be vigilant against Islamic terror activities and their possible association with local subversive groups such as the FARC, the criminal cartels in Mexico and the Mara Salvatrucha gangs in Central America. There is also the possibility that these different groups could collaborate with each other since the Shia – Sunni divisions are less pronounced in the Tri-border area. What is extremely dangerous are the routes for drug and human smuggling from Mexico that many of these groups could take advantage of to enter the U.S. to carry out attacks. Another major problem is the availability of stolen forged passports used to bypass authorities. It is imperative for the region’s leaders to understand the terrorist threat that seems to be growing and to act accordingly. There is a question, however, how vigilant certain countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua will be since they have a strong connection to the Iranian government.

 

Nicole M. Ferrand is a research analyst and 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] The Americas Reports": "Latin American Radical Grassroots Part I and Part II from March 29, 2007 and April 18, 2007; Terrorists using Latin American passports to enter the United States from January 29, 2009.

[2] Spotlight on Trinidad and Tobago’s Jamaat al-Muslimeen. June 21, 2007. The Jamestown Foundation.

[3] Ibid.

[4]Hezbollah’s External Support Network in West Africa and Latin America. August 4, 2006. International Assessment and Strategy Center.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Islamic Terrorist Activities in Latin America: Why the Region and the US Should be concerned. July 1, 2008. US Southern Command.

[10] Moving Beyond the 9/11 Staff report on Terrorist Travel. September 2005. Center for Immigration Studies.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

House Democrats cut aid to Africa by 60%; Where is Obama?

Top Democrats praise the success of George Bush’s Millennium Challenge Corporation while quietly allowing congress to gut the funding of the United States most successful aid program since the Marshall Plan. 

"President Elect Obama supports the MCC, and the principle of greater accountability in our foreign assistance programs. It represents a worthy new approach to poverty reduction and combating corruption…The Obama Administration looks forward to working to build on the promise of the MCC as we move forward with modernizing U.S. foreign assistance programs." –Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s response to a question for the record from Senator John Kerry during her confirmation hearing January 13, 2009- 1]

Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton made that statement two months ago. 

The 2009 summary of the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill shows a 60% decrease ($1.35 billion) from former President George Bush’s request for $2.225 billion for the Millennium Challenge Account and a 42% cut from its 2008 level.[2]  To be clear, a 60%, $1.35 billion dollar cut is not "building on a promise." 

The Millennium Challenge Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer Rodney Bent had this to say, "The FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriation Act would substantially reduce MCC funding from last year’s level of $1.5 billion to $875 million. This level of funding will be a disappointment to those countries that are in various stages of negotiation with MCC about potential projects to reduce poverty. These countries have more than 200 million citizens that live on less than $2 a day."[3] 

Statements in House and Senate committee reports recognize "the significant efforts countries seeking compacts have undertaken to improve governance, invest in health and education, and support economic reforms, and encourages countries to continue these efforts."[4]  Despite the well known successes of Millennium Challenge Account, the giant cut is justified by citing some bureaucratic problems with the timing of disbursements and some accounting problems.  Yet, they fail to explain how a program that has been distinctly successful in promoting civil society, fiscal responsibility, and good governance abroad where other aid programs fail deserves such drastic truncation.

This cut flies in the face of recommendations made by economists at the Brookings Institution.  According to executive summary of Lex Rieffel, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development, "The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is one of the outstanding innovations of the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush. No other aid agency-foreign or domestic-can match its purposeful mandate, its operational flexibility and its potential muscle."[5]  Reiffel’s analysis addresses legitimate kinks in the MCC method that were missed by congress but ultimately suggests an increase in funding to $3 billion.  This acknowledgement of MCCs’ success comes from a well respected think tank among Democrats and shows that in addition to politicians, there are real experts who understand the uniqueness of the MCC.  Rieffel refers to the "MCC effect" in his executive summary where there is action in governments and pressure from grass roots that cause genuine reform in recipient countries before money is disbursed.  So, to cite impatience for the disbursement of appropriated funds is to argue that it is the function of congress to spend money quickly with no purpose.

 

The MCC vs. China and Iran 

Africa is a major front in the struggle against Islamic extremism and totalitarian influence.  The American media has utterly failed to report that this is the view China, Iran, and the major terror networks such as Hezbollah and Al Qaeda have of the continent.  By both statements and actions, aggressive campaigns by China, Iran and the terrorist networks show a desire to exert influence and exploit resources in Africa.  Just this year Iranian president has visited three African states including Kenya, Comoros, and Djibouti.  In January, the Defense Minister of Tanzania traveled to Tehran to sign a Memorandum of Understanding on defense cooperation with his Iranian counter part.  China has several state corporations who continuously scour the continent looking to buy up African energy.  According to Reuters UK, "China’s state-owned energy firms have spent years hunting for deals to satisfy growing oil demand back home, scooping up assets in Africa, the Middle East, South America and Canada. Outbound energy deals are expected to accelerate in 2009."[6]  Though currently eyeing deals in Libya and Ghana, China already buys two thirds of Sudan’s oil which makes up 70% of Sudan’s global exports.  China is also a major arms exporter to the Sudanese government and its militias along with Russia.

China and Iran pour billions in influence into the continent each year without regard to the behavior of their benefactors concerning human rights or good governance.  All the while, Hezbollah is raising millions each year in the trade of conflict diamonds while Al-Qaeda strengthens ties with militant Algerian Islamists who now call themselves Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb.  This is a woefully abbreviated list of what we are up against.  The freedom and wellbeing of millions are at stake.  This is the time and the place for the United States to show leadership and resolve in its foreign policy.  Yet, from congress, we see incompetence and from the White House, no more than lip service.

  Nicholas Hanlon is a foreign affairs writer and researcher at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. He is a graduate of Georgia State University and has a BA in Political Science with a concentration in International Affairs and a Minor in French.

[1] Millennium Challenge Corporation Fact Sheet January 30, 2009

[2] COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY: 2009 STATE AND FOREIGN OPERATIONS APPROPRIATIONS CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS BILL

[3] Rodney Bent CEO Statement on Proposed FY 2009 Funding for MCC February 25, 2009, Millennium Challenge Corporation

[4] Senate Report 110-425 – DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2009

[5] Lex Reiffel Strengthen the Millennium Challenge Corporation: Better Results are Possible December 2008, Brookings Policy Brief Series | # 167

[6] Editing by Ian Geoghegan China oil majors covet Africa-focused Tullow Oil Wed March 4, 2009

Sudan, terror & jihad

Though it has received a great deal of attention in the media and from Hollywood celebrities, the issue of Sudan is not entirely clear to many Americans. Many do not realize how Sudan is ruled and the nation’s role in Jihadist terrorism. 

Over the past few years, the Islamic Republic of Sudan has been justifiably targeted by a grassroots divestment movement for the genocide that it has committed against its own people.

Unlike famine and drought, genocide does not simply happen due to forces of nature. Genocide is committed.

And it is no accident that the regime which has committed this genocide is also on the US government’s list of terrorist-sponsoring nations and is thus under US economic and political sanctions.

Sudan has committed genocide over a period of many years in an effort by the Islamist government in Khartoum to impose Shariah (a brutal theo-legal-political system practiced in the Islamic world) on its entire population.

Genocide first occurred in southern Sudan over a period of years in which the Arab Islamist government systematically killed hundreds of thousands of innocent black Christian and animist civilians. There are documented cases in which hundreds of defenseless civilians lined up at aid stations operated by international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were gunned down by Sudanese Air Force helicopter gunships.

More recently, the genocidal Arab Islamist regime has turned its sights on fellow Muslims-non-Arab blacks-in the Darfur region. These black Muslims do not subscribe to the same brand of militant Islam that the Muslim Brotherhood-inspired Arab Islamist regime subscribes to, thus they are being attacked in a manner similar to that which occurred in the south of Sudan.

Many Americans are asking, "There are brutal regimes in many areas of the world. Why should I care particularly about Sudan?"

The answer is that Sudan is a terrorist-sponsoring nation that has been involved with terrorist groups that have killed Americans.

Sudan is ruled by a Jihadist regime that has hosted Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas and allowed those terrorist groups to train and recruit within Sudan’s borders. Sudan has been on the US government’s list of terrorist-sponsoring nations since 1993 and the United Nations imposed sanctions on Sudan in 1996 due to it allowing terrorist groups to operate from its territory.

 

Sudan and Al Qaeda

Sudan hosted Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda from 1991 to 1996. It is now known that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were involved in attacks on US peacekeeping troops in Somalia in 1993 and that these attacks were coordinated from Bin Laden’s base of operations in nearby Sudan.

Though Bin Laden was deposed from Sudan in 1996 under US and Saudi pressure, there is evidence that Al Qaeda was still at work in Sudan after Bin Laden’s departure. In March 2006, United Nations envoy to Sudan, Jan Pronk, reported that Al Qaeda was "entrenched" in Sudan.

But the most stark indication of Sudanese sponsorship of Al Qaeda involves the murder of Americans.

On October 12, 2000, Al Qaeda attacked the US Navy destroyer USS Cole in a suicide bomb attack in Aden harbor in Yemen.   Seventeen American sailors were killed in the attack and 39 others wounded.

On March 14, 2007, US Federal Judge Robert Doumar ruled in a lawsuit filed by the families of the dead sailors that the Sudanese government was liable for the bombing as the attack was planned in Sudan and the plotters trained and transited from there. On July 25, 2007, Judge Doumar ordered the Sudanese government to pay the families the sum of $8 million.

 

Sudan and Hezbollah

Hezbollah, or Party of God, is the Iranian-backed Jihadist terrorist organization that bombed the US embassy annex and the US Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983. 241 American servicemen were killed in the Marine Barracks attack alone.

Sudan has harbored Hezbollah terrorists and allowed the organization to operate training camps inside of its territory.

Sudan hosted a meeting of Al Qaeda and Hezbollah leaders in 1994 which resulted in a cooperative training agreement between these two deadly Jihadist terrorist groups in which Hezbollah trained Al Qaeda operatives in explosives.

 

Sudan and Hamas

Hamas is the violent Jihadist Palestinian terrorist organization that seeks to push Israeli Jews into the sea and replace Israel with an Islamist theocracy along the lines of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

The Sudanese regime has openly declared its support for Hamas and has harbored Hamas terrorists within its borders. In fact, Hamas has a business infrastructure in Sudan to support its operations and has nearly the equivalent of diplomatic facilities there.

 

Sudan and Iran

Sudan’s partner in terror is Iran, though Iran is Shiite and Sudan’s regime is Sunni, with its roots in the Muslim Brotherhood. Sudan is one of the few nations on earth, besides Syria and Venezuela, that has openly aligned itself with Iran.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have operated terrorist training camps in Sudan for years and Sudan and Iran have entered into significant agreements that indicate cooperation on Jihadist terrorism.

In January 2007, Iran and Sudan exchanged military delegations in which it was formally announced that Iran had offered to help train the Sudanese military to quell violence in Darfur. At the outset of the exchange, both delegations indicated that Iran and Sudan would expand military cooperation and Sudan expressed interest in Iranian-made weaponry, including missiles. At the end of the exchange, both sides agreed to "exchange expert delegations" on a regular basis to promote "mutual technical and educational cooperation" on military matters.

 

Conclusion

Sudan’s genocide in Darfur is a humanitarian atrocity that is deserving of condemnation in as many ways as possible. Moreover, it must be recognized that this genocide is born from the militant Jihadist doctrine that underpins the regime in Khartoum and compels it to sponsor the terrorist groups who are America’s enemies in the war on terror.

 

Farewell to Britain

London: The British are understandably mystified.  Long accustomed to a "special relationship" with the United States, they are trying to figure out why the latter’s likeable new president would be going to such lengths to distance himself from the country that has for generations been America’s closest ally.

First, there was Barack Obama’s decision to return the Churchill bust that had graced the Oval Office since then-Prime Minister Tony Blair gave it to George W. Bush as a post-9/11 gesture of solidarity.  Then, there were the successive affronts during the visit by Blair’s successor, Gordon Brown, to Washington last week:  A seemingly thoughtless official gift (a set of DVDs of popular American films); a painfully chilly and brief press availability before the start of the two men’s private meeting; and no formal joint press conference of the kind Bush afforded Blair on all but one of numerous visits to Washington (the exception a hastily arranged trip right after the September 11 attacks).

The British press has offered several face-saving explanations for these serial rudenesses.  Perhaps Obama is "exhausted."  Alternatively, he is simply "focused elsewhere" in the midst of cratering capital markets, collapsing automakers and skyrocketing unemployment.

The real answer, however, was supplied by an unnamed State Department official whom London’s Sunday Telegraph reported on March 8th "reacted with fury" when asked by the paper why the Brown visit was so, er, "low-key."  According to the Telegraph: "The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship. ‘There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.’"

Such a comment by a representative of the State Department – an institution that never saw a foreign government it wanted to offend – is a sign of how serious Team Obama is about "resetting" the U.S.-U.K. relationship.  Of course, as that term applies to friendly Britain, it means something very different than when used to describe the administration’s desire for improved ties with America’s enemies, actual or potential, like Russia, Iran and "Palestine."

(Consider, for example, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s tendering to her Russian counterpart a symbolic "Reset" button – one whose label, incredibly, used instead the Russians’ word for "overload." This unserious conduct in the face of the Kremlin’s increasing aggressiveness at America’s expense constituted the most appalling and degrading public spectacle by the top U.S. diplomat since her husband’s appointee, Madeleine Albright, danced with North Korean despot Kim Jong Il in 2000.)

Arguably, the need for a special relationship with Great Britain rooted in shared Western values and a mutual commitment to the common defense is as great today as at anytime since World War II.  Unfortunately, Gordon Brown’s government is conducting itself in ways that undermine those values and jeopardize the security of the Free World.  Particularly worrying are British concessions to the repressive and seditious theo-political-legal program authoritative Islam calls "Shariah":

  • Shariah-Compliant Finance (SCF):  Even though promoters of this industry, like "Shariah advisor" and al-Jazeera host Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, have described SCF as "financial jihad" and al Qaeda has publicly embraced its practice, Mr. Brown has declared he wants Britain to be the world capital of Shariah finance.
  • Shariah courts:  Brown’s government has begun institutionalizing the practice of separate legal systems for Muslims with the proliferation of "family law" courts where women can be treated, in accordance with Shariah, as second-class citizens – less-than-equal to male Muslims and entitled to a fraction of the property due the latter in the adjudication of divorce or testate matters. 
  • Terrorism charities:  The British government has refused to take punitive action against British-based Islamic "charities" that provide money to terrorist organizations.  The latest is Interpal, a Palestinian organization that even the BBC was able to figure out provides support to Hamas.
  • Engaging with terrorists: British civil servants are paying thousands of dollars to attend a conference next month on "Political Islam" at which Ibrahim Moussawi has been invited to speak.  Moussawi is a top propagandist for Hezbollah. The same Brown government that prevented Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders from presenting his film "Fitna" to the House of Lords on the grounds that he constituted too much of a threat to "community harmony" is evidently untroubled by having a flak for terrorists inciting in the U.K.

The irony of the evident distancing from Britain by the Obama administration is that Brown’s government is pursuing policies that Barack Obama seemingly espouses.  The U.S. taxpayer now owns most of AIG and Citigroup, two companies massively engaged in Shariah-compliant transactions, at odds with our constitutional separation of church and state.

In this and other ways, Mr. Obama is effectively acquiescing to Islamists’ demands to establish here as in the U.K. their own, "parallel" society observing Shariah rules, not the laws of the land. Among the concessions in the works appears to be bans on so-called "hate speech" that defames Islam, an idea implicit in the President’s injunction to use "respectful language" towards Muslims.

Last week, moreover, Hillary Clinton effectively promised a whopping $900 million charitable contribution from the U.S. taxpayer to Hamas – or at least a future Hamas-Fatah "unity" government.  This is a part of the President’s determination to reset Mideast diplomacy by forging what might be called "special relationships" not only with Syria and Iran but the major terrorist organizations they sponsor, Hamas and Hezbollah.

As the Free World increasingly engages in submission to Shariah, it appears the special U.S. tie to the U.K. that served to block the global ambitions of successive totalitarian ideologies will no longer operate. Under President Obama, the question increasingly is:  Will the U.S. perform that vital role alone, or succumb as Britain is doing to what Islam scholar Robert Spencer calls the "Stealth Jihad" now being mounted against every freedom-loving country? 

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is the President of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for the Washington Times.