Tag Archives: Hezbollah

Daniel Ortega’s Role in the Bolivarian Revolution

"A new political, economic and geopolitical map can be perceived in Latin America and the Caribbean." (Hugo Chavez, February 3, 2009)

As a consequence of Chavez’s win in the recent February 15th referendum the Venezuelan constitution now allows elected officials to run for unlimited terms in office.  It is the final step in the process of making himself dictator for life. This move is but one of many in a grand strategy to create a Marxist Bolivarian super-state in South America which Chavez hopes will counter the U.S. and market capitalism.  So, as Daniel Ortega maneuvers to consolidate power in Nicaragua, he does so in the context of making Nicaragua a part of the Bolivarian revolution.  He is following the Chavez model by using "democracy" to subvert democracy.  Daniel Ortega, like his counterparts in the leftist parties of other South and Central American countries, has used Chavez’s oil revenue to finance his election.  Ortega is also providing Iran with strategic advantages on Nicaraguan soil in exchange for energy and infrastructure which will further entrench his domestic power and influence.  As Washington continues to take Latin American democracy for granted, proxies of Hugo Chavez march forward as they capitalize on anti-U.S. alliances.

Since Ortega took the presidency in 2007, he has forged a new alliance with Iran and has provided diplomatic cover for men who are likely Iranian Revolutionary Guard operatives.  Ortega has also entered anti-free trade arrangements and intimidated the press with police raids under imagined pretenses all the while retaining financial aid and maintaining relations with the U.S.; Nicaragua’s largest trading partner.  All of this is symptomatic of a game of trade-offs and compromises made in hopes of tightening a loose grip on power.  Ortega does not completely resemble his Bolivarian counterparts in terms of popularity.  Skillful strategy and a world champion poker face have allowed Ortega to take power with a minority of domestic support and even dissent in his own party.  "Ortega, who had lost the last three presidential elections, won only 37.9% of the vote in the November 2006 elections, but Nicaraguan law allowed him to avoid a run-off vote since he was more than 5% ahead of the next closest candidate, Eduardo Montealegre, then head of the Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance (ALN)."[i]  The Sandinista National Liberation Front (SFLN) was instrumental in passing the law earlier.  

Across Central and South America, presidential candidates have found that electorates respond to a message that puts the practical above the ideological.  For some leaders, this was actually the case.  For others, "pragmatism" became a winning message to facilitate the re-establishment of old dogmas.  In late 2006, Daniel Ortega won the presidency of Nicaragua by moderating his campaign strategy to adopt a message of pragmatism while assuaging concerns of extremism.  It is difficult to reconcile the Daniel Ortega we see today with the man whose campaign catch phrase was "reconciliation." In his pre-election speeches, Ortega promised not to resurrect the ideologically based conflicts that dominated his first presidency.  He pledged not to do battle with the United States, the church, and that he would no longer seize land.  Ortega’s key move was to form alliances with many former enemies.  These included a former Contra leader, Jaime Morales Carazo as his vice president, and Cardinal Miguel Obando y Bravo, the highest Vatican official in Nicaragua.  His most impressive feat was convincing the electorate and the Bush administration that he would not threaten U.S. relations or in any way inspire capital flight.  Max Blumenthal of The Nation had this to say on the subject; "With an eye on the $175 million Millennium Challenge grant for Nicaragua, approved before the election by the Bush Administration, Ortega has toned down his anti-American rhetoric. The day before his inauguration, he held court with Bush Administration Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt and U.S. Ambassador Paul Trivelli, a hated figure in Nicaragua who has openly demonized Ortega. The new Daniel Ortega is a uniter, not a divider."[ii]  Blumenthal’s comment was in contrast to a telling description he gave of Ortega’s inauguration ceremony which was attended by Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales who delivered the standard Bolivarian fare in the traditional theatrics.  For example, "Morales pledged that he, Chávez and Ortega would nationalize their countries’ industries and bring death to American imperialism."2

There are signs that Daniel Ortega is moving quickly towards dictatorship.  His strategic foreign policy is too grandiose to be sustained by a temporary presidency.  He is making long term moves, internationally.  Opposition across the political spectrum in Nicaragua characterizes his behavior as being dictatorial, including former members of his own party.  Members of the Sandinista Renewal Party, a dissident faction of Ortega’s Sandinista National Liberation Front, have "denounced Ortega as a man leading Nicaragua into a dictatorship."[iii]  This was after their plan to join other opposition parties to protest FSLN mayoral election fraud this past November which was violently prevented by Sandinista supporters.  Though pro-Sandinista mobs have proven effective thus far, it fits the Chavez model to place ones party in power at the municipal level in order to control police forces for the coming dictatorship. The Sandinista party has won a decisive number of victories in stark contrast to what public opinion polls have indicated.  In response, the U.S. and some European governments have withheld $200 million in aid until an electoral review can take place.

Last October, prior to the November municipal elections, Nicaraguan police raided the offices of the Center of Media Investigations.  Carlos Fernando Chamorro is one of the journalists whose computer was seized as part of an investigation of "misused foreign funds."  Many can appreciate the irony considering how much Venezuelan cash flooded Ortega’s own campaign.  Chamorro is the son of former president, Violetta Chamorro, and an outspoken critic of the government.[iv]  Besides police raids, Ortega has used investigations, arrests of opposition leaders, and expulsion of international election monitors in order to intimidate the opposition.  Ortega has also investigated journalists and NGOs for money laundering but then ceased after the U.S. and some European governments withheld over $100 million in aid.[v]  This was prior to the aid withheld in response to last year’s election fraud.

As part of the Chavista block of countries (that include Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua) and led by Hugo Chavez, a meeting of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) summit was held on February 2,2009 and was attended by Ortega.  According to VOA, "Venezuela and communist-led Cuba created the ALBA alliance in 2004 to counter U.S. influence in the region.  ALBA also aims to advance regional integration to confront the U.S.-backed free trade deal." [vi]  More than a burgeoning trade bloc, ALBA is a sort of Bolivarian version of the EU which includes the goal of a common currency and is based on the idea of a "great nation."  Even more, it is the grand vision of this group of caudillos, whom have an affinity for the nationalization of industry, to create a "supranational company."   Daniel Ortega had this to say, "Long live the peoples’ unity, ALBA, the Bolivarian Revolution…that will never be defeated and will never surrender".[vii]

What is Iran doing in Nicaragua?

The Americas report has well chronicled the Iranian embassy compound in the Managua suburb, Las Colinas (The Hills).  The mansion, which is surrounded by 12 foot high walls topped with razor wire, is home to Iranian envoy to Nicaragua, Akbar Esmaeil-Pour.  For those in the intelligence community, the number of diplomats (over 100 individuals) and the shear size of the compound is disproportionately large and suggests extra-diplomatic activity.  Iran is known for having staged terrorist attacks from it’s embassy in Argentina. It is also well known that at least 21 Iranian men have been able to enter Nicaragua without visas.   Esmail-Pour seems to be a bit stressed out by the media attention that followed the leaking of documents which revealed to the press that Nicaragua’s chief immigration minister had authorized the 21 Iranians entry into the country.  His response to some press inquiries has been agitated and hostile. U.S. intelligence is certainly attentive to the compound.  Former FBI associate deputy director of intelligence and international affairs has said of Iran in South America that; "They use their embassies to smuggle in weapons. They used them to develop and execute plans," and that "Diplomats have immunity coming and going.  It is a protected center for both espionage and, on occasion, for specific operations.  So an embassy in Managua is definitely an area that will be of concern to our national security apparatus."[viii]

In exchange for hosting the Iranians, Daniel Ortega will receive key investments from Iran which will help him with domestic issues while simultaneously increasing Iran’s ability to establish a front.  Todd Bensman from the San Antonio Express News has traveled to Nicaragua to investigate Iran’s activities.  One of the places he visited was a remote and quiet place on the Caribbean coast called Monkey Point.

"But perspectives broadened suddenly in March, 2007 when Iranians and Venezuelans showed up aboard Nicaraguan military helicopters. They had come to scope out Monkey Point’s bay for transformation to a $350 million deep-water shipping port. The port idea is part of a new diplomatic relationship between Iran and the Sandinista revolutionary president, Daniel Ortega that has flown largely under American press and broadcast radar since its announcement. Iran has issued fantastic promises that would include financing a rail, road, and pipeline "dry canal" from Monkey Point to an upgraded Port of Corinto on the Pacific, hydroelectric projects, and 10,000 houses in between".[ix]

 

The money and engineering expertise from Iran will help Ortega address Nicaragua’s current energy crisis.  Iran will greatly increase its presence in Central America if it has an excuse to regularly traffic engineers, workers, cargo, and ships on the Caribbean coast of Nicaragua.  For over a decade Nicaragua has been planning to construct a dry canal which will alleviate the overflow of trade when the Panama Canal reaches capacity.  If such a profound source of national revenue is realized under Ortega with the help of Iran both entities will be greatly strengthened in the region.  It is often noted that Iran has no common ground for relations in Latin America except where it can find enemies of America.  Iran’s primary gain from a relationship with Nicaragua is the base of operations at its embassy.  The energy and infrastructure projects could also provide cover for Iran to increase it’s capability in equipment, manpower, and illicit trade.  According to the CIA World Fact Book, Nicaragua is already a "transshipment point for cocaine destined for the U.S. and …for arms-for-drugs dealing."  Hezbollah, a terrorist proxy of Iran, is well known for its ability to raise incredible amounts of money from organized crime and illicit trade in the Americas.  

The U.S. intelligence community is aware of Iran’s activities and intentions in Nicaragua.  Yet, the United States Congress could also play an important role in how we deal with the Ortega government.  Last years Congressional Research Service report lists many ways in which Nicaragua benefits from its relationship with the United States.  It includes bi-lateral aid, counter narcotics aid money, Millennium Challenge Account money, huge trade benefits, remittances and even assistance in fighting gangs.  In turn, Daniel Ortega oppresses human rights and the press, forms alliances with our enemies, and is generally hostile towards democracy. To continue to fund such a regime only puts a stamp of approval on their policies, emboldens them while weakening the opposition and makes the U.S. appear as a country that does not understand the difference between its adversaries and its friends.

 

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.

 

[i] Clare Ribando Seelke (Analyst in Latin American Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division) Nicaragua: Political Situation and U.S. Relations CRS Report for Congress March 17, 2008

[ii] Max Blumenthal The Kinder, Gentler Daniel Ortega The Nation January 19, 2007

[iii] Luis Fleischman Nicaraguan elections, Venezuelan fraud The Americas Report | Nov 20, 2008

[iv] Nicaraguan press freedom threatened Associated Press/ The Gleaner: Jamaica January 28, 2009

[v] Blake Schmidt President Ortega spurs worries about the future: Critics say the former rebel has installed a dictatorship  THE WASHINGTON TIMES February 17, 2009

[vi] Venezuela Hosts ALBA Summit  VOA News 03 February 2009

[vii] Venezuela’s Chavez Marks 10 Years in Power with Big Rally Latin American Herald Tribune February 18,2009

[viii] Todd Bensman Iran making push into Nicaragua www.mysanantonio.com 12/18/2007

[ix] Todd Bensman Iranian Plant Their Flag in Nicaragua The New York Sun February 7, 2008

 

Pennsylvania Tobacco Settlement Fund to invest terror-free; Policy prohibits investments from going to foreign companies tied to Iran and Sudan

The Pennsylvania Tobacco Settlement Investment Board (TSIB) adopted a resolution this week sponsored by State Rep. Josh Shapiro, D-Montgomery, that would prohibit Tobacco Settlement Investment fund monies from being invested in foreign companies tied to Iran and Sudan.

The TSIB was created in 2001 to manage the $11 billion settlement that Pennsylvania received from the national tobacco settlement. Settlement funds are reserved for health-related programs. The TSIB invests a portion of the funds. Shapiro was appointed to the TSIB in May 2008.

“With TSIB’s action, the message is clear: we will not use Pennsylvania’s tobacco fund dollars to prop up terrorist regimes and promote genocide. Instead we will invest terror-free and deliver a better return for Pennsylvania taxpayers. This is both morally and fiscally the right thing to do,” Shapiro said.

The Center for Security Policy’s Divest Terror Initiative has worked closely with Rep. Shapiro and his staff in promoting terror-free investing policies in Pennsylvania. Christopher Holton, the director of Divest Terror, commended Rep. Shapiro’s success and the decision of the TSIB to go terror-free:

“Everyone at Divest Terror congratulates Pennsylvania in taking this groundbreaking step to see to it that funds which are invested to promote the good health of the people of Pennsylvania are not used to provide corporate life support for our enemies who are killing U.S. G.I.s in the war on terrorism.”

“I commend the work of the Rep. Josh Shapiro and his colleagues in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives as well as the work of members of Congress and other state legislatures which acknowledges that repression of civil rights and violence toward innocent civilians must be checked not only in the policies of government but by the business decisions that affect the flows of private capital,” added Secretary John Blake of the Department of Community and Economic Development who serves as chairman of the TSIB.  “Yesterday, the Tobacco Settlement Investment Board sent a message to Pennsylvania taxpayers that the resources entrusted to our care will focus on business activities that improve quality of life – not threaten it.”

Shapiro has been leading the effort to divest Pennsylvania’s pension funds from companies doing business with state sponsors of terror. Beginning in 2007, Shapiro introduced divestment legislation. Yesterday’s resolution is similar to H.B. 1086 which he sponsored last legislative session. House Bill 1086 passed overwhelmingly in the House by a 185-15 vote and would have required the Public School Employees’ Retirement System and State Employees’ Retirement System to divest from companies doing business in Iran and Sudan. Unfortunately, the bill stalled in the Senate as time ran out in the session.

Iran is the world’s foremost sponsor of Jihadist terrorism with ties to Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and HAMAS, three of the largest Jihadist terrorist organizations in the world. Two of them, Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, are responsible for the deaths of more Americans than all other terrorist organizations in the world combined. In addition to their terror sponsorship, Iran also has a nuclear program operating in violation of international treaties and an active ballistic missile program.

Sudan’s genocidal activities are well known. Less well publicized is the fact that that genocide is but the byproduct of the Islamist regime in Khartoum’s campaign to impose Shariah law and the fact that Sudan is a major state sponsor of terrorism. In fact, Sudan was the host country for both Hezbollah and Al Qaeda in the 1990s and facilitated an alliance between the Shia and Salafi terrorist organizations. Moreover, the government of Sudan was found liable by a US federal judge in the deaths of 17 U.S. Navy sailors in the Al Qaeda terrorist attack on the USS Cole in Aden Harbor in 2000. The plot was hatched and planned in Sudan.

Terror-free investing is gaining support across the country. In 2007, the U.S. Congress approved a measure to authorize states to take divestment action on companies with ties to Sudan. A similar bill targeting Iran also was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. Eighteen states and 23 cities have adopted divestment and terror-free legislation and policies of one sort or another. Wall Street has responded to the divestment movement by creating terror-free index funds that are even now outperforming funds with links to terror.

 

 

Obama, the appeaser?

President Obama’s broad scheme for foreign policy has been something of a puzzle, short on specifics and long on talk about forging alliances, extending hands and "engaging."

In his first address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday evening, Obama offered a further hint–repeating the gist of the argument with which, as one of his first acts in office, he ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay: "Living our values doesn’t make us weaker. It makes us safer, and it makes us stronger."

So far, there’s not much reason to feel safer. If anything, the world seems to be getting less safe, at speed. On Wednesday, just hours after Obama delivered his speech, Iran began its first test-run of the nuclear reactor built with Russian help at Bushehr.

Barring forcible intervention of some kind, it’s highly likely Iran will fire up this reactor in earnest later this year–and start cranking out, on an industrial scale, spent fuel that can be processed into plutonium for nuclear bombs. That’s in addition to Iran’s uranium enrichment, another route along which Iran, according to U.N. officials, has now traveled far enough to have the makings of a bomb.

The Bushehr test run follows a month, post-Inauguration, in which Iran has launched a satellite, underscoring its interest in long-range missile capability. North Korea in short order announced its aim to soon do the same. Russia has been flexing its muscles in its continuing bid to reassert hegemony in what Moscow considers the "near abroad."

Pakistan released from house arrest the godfather of its nuclear program and chief broker-dealer of its proliferation networks, A.Q. Khan. The International Atomic Energy Agency released a report confirming the finding last year of unexplained "uranium particles" at the site of Syria’s secret nuclear reactor.

Syria has just replied by denying the reactor’s existence, but telling diplomats that the site now hosts a missile launching facility. On a related note, rockets hit Israel again this week, out of both Hamas-controlled Gaza and Hezbollah-infested Lebanon.

So what are the values with which Obama plans to address this landscape?

Are they the values now on display in U.S. policy toward Gaza, run by the terrorist group Hamas? There, despite overwhelming evidence of the Iranian-backed terror nest that Gaza has become, the U.S. seems less interested in ending the terrorist reign of Hamas than in bankrolling its territorial base.

Reports earlier this week, citing an unnamed U.S. official, said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton plans to attend a funding conference in Cairo next week where she will pledge $900 million in U.S. aid for Gaza. At a Tuesday press briefing, a State Department spokesman confirmed that while details, including the exact amount, are still being worked out, a whopping pledge is indeed in the offing: "It’ll be, you know, several hundred million."

Or does Obama have in mind the values articulated by Clinton when she sidelined human rights during her visit last week to China? There, our prematurely jaded new Secretary told reporters that America and China already know each other’s stands on human rights, so needn’t bother with ritual recitations; and in any event, such issues as human rights "can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and security crises."

Will we be living by the values implied in the Obama administration’s decision to "engage" in preparations for the United Nations Durban II conference scheduled this April in Geneva. This conference, convened in the name of fighting "racism," is actually an exercise in censorship and condemnation directed at the free world, starting with Israel.

Durban II is a pet project of the despotic lobbying bloc that controls the 192-member UN General Assembly, which is led most of the time by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, or OIC (headquartered in Saudi Arabia), which overlaps with the 130-member Group of 77 (currently chaired by Sudan). The Durban II conference preparations were captured from the start by such nations as Libya, Iran and Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC).

The Durban II conference is already configured to savage Israel and endorse a global gag-order on free speech about Islam. It is styled as a "review" of the U.N.’s 2001 conference in Durban, South Africa. That played out as such a bacchanal of bigotry that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell told the U.S. delegation to walk out.

Under President Bush, America declined to legitimize Durban II by taking part in the plans. Obama this month reversed that decision and sent a delegation to a planning session in Geneva. Now is the moment that the U.S. might usefully mount a boycott and invite other decent governments to join. Instead, Obama’s administration has been coy–which suggests he’s going to lend a U.S. stamp of legitimacy to the sordid doings of Durban II.

And then there are the values implicitly endorsed by Obama’s new Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke. He’s been talking about Iran’s reach into Afghanistan not as part of the problem, but as part of the solution. Despite allegations, some by NATO officials, that Iran has been helping Taliban "extremists"– as Obama labels the terror-dedicated Taliban — Holbrooke opined recently on an Afghan TV station that Iran (yes, the same Iran run by the totalitarian mullahs who applaud Palestinian suicide-bombers, jail and torture dissident bloggers, and execute children and homosexuals) has a "legitimate role to play in this region, as do all of Afghanistan’s neighbors."

Or will America be living the values suggested by Obama’s plan to appoint as head of the National Intelligence Council, crafting the influential National Intelligence Estimates, Charles "Chas" Freeman, sharp critic of democratic Israel and head of a Washington think-tank endowed by the King of Unfree Saudi Arabia. Freeman is also a critic of China’s 1989 Tiananmen Square uprising, in which Chinese demonstrators built their own Statue of Liberty–or, as they called it, Goddess of Democracy.

Writing in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal, Gabriel Schoenfeld quotes a 2006 posting on a confidential Internet site, in which Freeman offered his view of "the truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities"–which apparently was not the decision by China’s despots to order in China’s own army to shoot China’s own people–but "the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud."

For that matter, will America be engaging abroad on the terms of the values displayed by Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, who from his high national pulpit recently denounced America as "a nation of cowards"–with no public rebuke from Obama.

Holder was speaking about race in a speech to a domestic audience. But is anyone in the Obama administration paying attention to how such talk might feed the aggressive ambitions of America’s enemies abroad? For that matter, in appointing Timothy Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury, despite the tax-cheat scandal, has Obama considered what kind of signal that sends not only to Americans but beyond our shores, regarding the value placed by the current White House on integrity in financial dealings?

What are we to make of the values involved in Obama’s signing, with fanfare, an order to shut down Guantanamo Bay, our holding tank for alleged terrorists–while holding out olive branches to assorted despotisms that specialize in consigning democratic dissidents to some of the world’s worst dungeons?

If the world is one, and Obama is a citizen, how do we reconcile the showmanship over Guantanamo with the sidelining of issues that lead to the doors of Syria’s horrific Tadmor Prison, Iran’s Evin Prison, Libya’s Abu Salim or the labor and death camps of North Korea?

On two fronts, Obama has displayed sharp concern for "values" over realpolitik–or whatever we might call the above mix. Guantanamo, as just mentioned, and Darfur, on which Obama and Vice President Biden recently held an evening pow-wow in the White House with actor George Clooney.

These are not equivalent issues. What they do have in common, however, is that, unlike the dissidents of Iran and Syria, the vanished dissenters of North Korea, the smothered voices of democracy in China, they are favorite causes of the American media and Hollywood.

Obama has been described, at least in his speech delivery, as Reaganesque. But had Ronald Reagan lived by such values, it’s a good bet he never would have delivered the mortal blows he did to the Soviet Union and its satrapies, summed up in his 1987 demand in West Berlin: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Instead, we might have heard something like "We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not always lived up to our best intentions"… Oh, wait! We did hear that, not so long ago. That was Obama, speaking last July, in Berlin.

It is one thing to tear down a wall that imprisons people within a tyranny. It is another to tear down distinctions between democratic and despotic governments, ignoring profound differences of principle in the hope that appeasing and engaging, with maybe some cash thrown in, will bring peace.

In Obama’s defense, it might be said that no government is entirely consistent in such matters. The world is too complex for that. Reagan stood up to the Soviets but flinched when Iran-backed Hezbollah bombed the marine barracks in Beirut.

George W. Bush talked big about democracy, and wrestled it through to where it stands a chance in Iraq, but otherwise tilted heavily in his second term toward engagement–negotiating with North Korea, hosting Syria at Annapolis, attending the Beijing Olympics and largely turning over the urgent matter of Iran’s nuclear ambitions to the feckless care of the European Union and the UN. If America’s values are freedom, democracy, individual liberty and justice for all, then every presidency has come freighted with some big exceptions.

But by lights of American values, the Obama presidency at its outset is charting a course in which such exceptions look more like the rule. To the great benefit of both the wider world and its own people, America has stood and prospered for a long time as a beacon of freedom. Is the future as bright with America transforming itself into a beacon of "engagement"?

Claudia Rosett, a journalist-in-residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, writes a weekly column on foreign affairs for Forbes.com.

 

Daniel Ortega and the “Bolivarian Revolution”

Daniel Ortega’s Role in the Bolivarian Revolution: "A new political, economic and geopolitical map can be perceived in Latin America and the Caribbean," –Hugo Chavez

Hugo Chavez’s recent referendum victory has changed the Venezuelan constitution in order to allow elected officials unlimited terms in office.  It is the final brick in the road paved to his life long dictatorship.  This move is but one of many in a grand strategy to create a Marxist Bolivarian super-state in South America which he hopes will counter the US and free market capitalism.  So, as Daniel Ortega maneuvers to consolidate power in Nicaragua, it must be seen in this context: he is playing his role in making Nicaragua a part of the Bolivarian revolution.  He is following the Chavez model by using "democracy" to subvert democracy.  Daniel Ortega, like his counterparts in the leftist parties of other South and Central American countries, has used Chavez’s oil revenue to finance his election.  Ortega is also providing Iran with strategic advantages on Nicaraguan soil in exchange for energy and infrastructure which will further entrench his domestic power and influence.  As Washington continues to take Latin American democracy for granted, proxies of Hugo Chavez march forward as they capitalize on anti-US alliances.   

Since Ortega took the presidency in 2007, he has forged a new alliance with Iran and has provided diplomatic cover for men who are likely Iranian Revolutionary Guard operatives.  Ortega has also entered anti-free trade arrangements and intimidated the press with police raids under imagined pretenses all while retaining aid and maintaning fair relations with the US, Nicaragua’s largest trading partner.  All of this is symptomatic of a game of trade offs and compromises made in hopes of tightening a loose grip on power.  Ortega does not completely resemble his Bolivarian counterparts in terms of popularity.  Skillful strategy and a world champion poker face have allowed Ortega to take power with a minority of domestic support and even dissent in his own party.  "Ortega, who had lost the last three presidential elections, won only 37.9% of the vote in the November 2006 elections, but Nicaraguan law allowed him to avoid a run-off vote since he was more than 5% ahead of the next closest candidate, Eduardo Montealegre, then head of the Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance (ALN)."[1]  The Sandinista National Liberation Front (SFLN) was instrumental in passing the law earlier.  If US policy makers ignore the tell tale signs, Ortega will secure his role in Chavez’s Bolivarian revolution.

Across Central and South America, presidential candidates have found that electorates respond to a message that puts the practical above the ideological.  For some leaders, this was actually the case.  For others, "pragmatism" became a winning message to facilitate the re-establishment of old dogmas.  In late 2006, Daniel Ortega won the presidency of Nicaragua by moderating his campaign strategy to adopt a message of pragmatism and assuaging concerns of extremism.  His current behavior betrays the tendency of his nature to overpower his impulse of pragmatic rhetoric.  It is difficult to reconcile the Daniel Ortega we see today with the man whose campaign catch phrase was "reconciliation." In his pre-election speeches, Ortega promised not to resurrect the ideologically based conflicts that dominated his first presidency.  He pledged to not battle the US, the church, and that he would no longer seize land.  Ortega’s key move was to form alliances with many former enemies.  These included a former Contra leader, Jaime Morales Carazo as his vice president, and Cardinal Miguel Obando y Bravo, the highest Vatican official in Nicaragua.  His most impressive feat was convincing the electorate and the Bush administration that he would not threaten US relations or in any way inspire capital flight.  Max Blumenthal of The Nation had this to say on the subject, "With an eye on the $175 million Millennium Challenge grant for Nicaragua, approved before the election by the Bush Administration, Ortega has toned down his anti-American rhetoric. The day before his inauguration, he held court with Bush Administration Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt and US Ambassador Paul Trivelli, a hated figure in Nicaragua who has openly demonized Ortega. The new Daniel Ortega is a uniter, not a divider."[2]  Blumenthal’s comment was in contrast to a telling description he gave of Ortega’s inauguration ceremony which was attended by Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales who each delivered the standard Bolivarian fare in the traditional theatrics.  For example, "Morales pledged that he, Chávez and Ortega would nationalize their countries’ industries and bring death to American imperialism."2

There are signs that Daniel Ortega will move quickly towards dictatorship.  His strategic foreign policy is to grandiose to be sustained by a temporary presidency.  He is making long term moves internationally.  Opposition across the political spectrum in Nicaragua characterize his behavior as having dictatorial tendencies including former members of his own party.  Member of the Sandinista Renewal Party, a dissident faction of Ortega’s Sandinista National Liberation Front, have "denounced Ortega as a man leading Nicaragua into a dictatorship."[3]  This was after their plan to join other opposition parties to protest FSLN mayoral election fraud last year was violently prevented by Sandinista supporters.  The Sandinista party had won a decisive amount of victories in stark contrast to public opinion polls.  Though pro-Sandinista mobs have proven effective thus far, it fits the Chavez model to place ones party in power at the municipal level in order to control police forces for the coming dictatorship.

Last October, Nicaraguan police raided the offices of the Center of Media Investigations.  Carlos Fernando Chamorro is one of the journalists whose computer was seized as part of an investigation of "misused foreign funds."  Many can appreciate the irony considering how much Venezuelan cash flooded Ortega’s campaign.  Chomorro is the son of former president Violetta Chomorro and an outspoken critic of the government.[4]  Besides police raids, Ortega has used investigations, arrests of opposition leaders, and expulsion of international election monitors in order to intimidate opposition.  Ortega has also investigated journalists and NGOs for money laundering but then ceased after the US and some European governments withheld over $100 million in aid.[5]  In light of Ortega’s dictatorial tendencies and unholy alliances, the US should continue to leverage aid money in order to protect itself.  Many Latin leaders and candidates promise to bring prosperity by playing the US and its enemies.  US policy should consistently discourage both anti-democratic and anti-US behavior.

On Monday, February 2, Ortega attended the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) summit.  According to VOA, "Venezuela and communist-led Cuba created the ALBA alliance in 2004 to counter U.S. influence in the region.  ALBA also aims to advance regional integration to confront the U.S.-backed free trade deal." [6]  More than a burgeoning trade bloc, ALBA is a sort of Bolivarian version of the EU which includes the goal of a common currency and is based on the idea of a "great nation."  Even more, it is the grand vision of this group of caudillos whom, each have an affinity for the nationalization of industry, to create a "supranational company."  This summit marks a first step with a supranational food company.  Daniel Ortega had this to say, "Long live the peoples’ unity, ALBA, the Boliviarian revolution…that will never be defeated and will never surrender,".[7]

 

What is Iran doing in Nicaragua?

The Americas Report has well chronicled the Iranian embassy compound in the Managua suburb, Las Colinas (The Hills).  The mansion, which is surrounded by 12 foot walls topped with razor wire, is home to Iranian envoy to Nicaragua, Akbar Esmaeil-Pour.  For those in the intelligence community, the amount of diplomats and the shear size of the compound is disproportionately large and suggests extra-diplomatic activity.  Iran is known for staging terrorist attacks from it’s embassy in Argentina. It is also well known that at least 21 Iranian men have been able to enter Nicaragua without visas.  Several Revolutionary Guard operatives have been identified accompanying the envoy.  Esmail-Pour seems to be a bit stressed out by the media attention that followed the leaking of documents which revealed to the press that Nicaragua’s chief immigration minister had authorized the 21 Iranian’s entry into the country.  His response to some press inquiries have been agitated and hostile. US intelligence is certainly attentive to the compound.  Former associate deputy director over FBI intelligence and international affairs has said of Iran in South America that, "They use their embassies to smuggle in weapons. They used them to develop and execute plans," and that "Diplomats have immunity coming and going.  It is a protected center for both espionage and, on occasion, for specific operations.  So an embassy in Managua is definitely an area that will be of concern to our national security apparatus."[8]

In exchange for hosting the Iranian deterrent, Daniel Ortega will receive key investments from Iran which will help him with domestic issues while simultaneously increasing Iran’s ability to establish a front.  Todd Bensman from the San Antonio Express News has traveled to Nicaragua to investigate Iran’s activities.  One of the places he visited was a remote and quiet place on the Caribbean coast called Monkey Point.

"But perspectives broadened suddenly in March when Iranians and Venezuelans showed up aboard Nicaraguan military helicopters. They had come to scope out Monkey Point’s bay for transformation to a $350 million deep-water shipping port. The port idea is part of a new diplomatic relationship between Iran and the Sandinista revolutionary president, Daniel Ortega, that has flown largely under American press and broadcast radar since its August announcement. Iran has since issued fantastic promises that would include financing a rail, road, and pipeline "dry canal" from Monkey Point to an upgraded Port of Corinto on the Pacific, hydroelectric projects, and 10,000 houses in between." according to Bensman.[9]

The money and engineering expertise from Iran will help Ortega address Nicaragua’s current energy crisis.  Iran will greatly increase its ability to leverage US foreign policy, at the least, if it has an excuse to regularly traffic engineers, workers, cargo, and ships on the Caribbean coast of Nicaragua.  For over a decade Nicaragua has been planning to construct a dry canal which will alleviate the overflow of trade when the Panama canal reaches capacity.  If such a profound source of national revenue is realized under Ortega with the help of Iran both entities will be greatly strengthened in the region.  It is often noted that Iran has no common ground for relations in Latin America except where it can find enemies of the US.  Iran’s primary gain from a relationship with Nicaragua is the base of operations at it’s embassy.  The energy and infrastructure projects could also provide cover for Iran to increase it’s deterrent in equipment, manpower, and illicit trade.  According to the CIA World Fact Book, Nicaragua is already a "transshipment point for cocaine destined for the US and …for arms-for-drugs dealing."  Hezbollah is well known for its ability to raise incredible amounts of money from organized crime and illicit trade in the Americas. 

The US intelligence community is aware of Iran’s activities and intentions in Nicaragua.  Yet, most ability to leverage Daniel Ortega comes from the United States Congress.  Last years CRS report lists many ways in which Nicaragua benefits from its relationship with the United States.  It includes bi-lateral aid, counter narcotics aid money, Melinium Challenge Account money, huge trade benefits, and even assistance in fighting gangs.  In turn, Daniel Ortega oppresses human rights and the press, gives aid to our enemies, and is generally hostile towards democracy.  Leveraging such aid is a proven method.  There is a saying in political science that says, "Diplomacy is getting others to do what you want."  The US seems to lack the will to address the growing threat in Nicaragua.  If such will does exist in Washington, then so does the ability to preserve Latin American democracy for another generation. 

 

[1] Clare Ribando Seelke (Analyst in Latin American Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division) Nicaragua: Political Situation and U.S. Relations CRS Report for Congress March 17, 2008

[2] Max Blumenthal The Kinder, Gentler Daniel Ortega The Nation January 19, 2007

 

[3] Luis Fleischman Nicaraguan elections, Venezuelan fraud The Americas Report | Nov 20, 2008

[4] Nicaraguan press freedom threatened Associated Press/ The Gleaner: Jamaica January 28, 2009

[5] Blake Schmidt President Ortega spurs worries about the future: Critics say the former rebel has installed a dictatorship  THE WASHINGTON TIMES February 17, 2009

[6] Venezuela Hosts ALBA Summit  VOA News 03 February 2009

[7] Venezuela‘s Chavez Marks 10 Years in Power with Big Rally Latin American Herald Tribune February 18,2009

[8] Todd Bensman Iran making push into Nicaragua www.mysanantonio.com 12/18/2007

[9] Todd Bensman Iranian Plant Their Flag in Nicaragua The New York Sun February 7, 2008

Misguided on Iran

Among the topics that President Obama covered in his first news conference on the evening of Monday, 9 February, was Iran.

The president made several troubling statements, which is hardly surprising, given that the new administration’s entire approach to Iran is troubling.

President Obama used terms and phrases like "constructive dialogue," "engage" and "mutual respect and progress."

None of these expressions has any place in a conversation about Iran.

Iran has killed Americans for over 25 years, sponsored Hezbollah, HAMAS and Al Qaeda and has repeatedly threatened America and our allies.

In 1979 Iran invaded the US embassy in Tehran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days.

Iran was complicit in the Hezbollah Islamikaze attacks on the US embassy in Beirut, Lebanon in April 1983 and the US Marine barracks there in October 1983. In the attack on the Marine barracks, 241 U.S. Marines, sailors and soldiers were killed. In fact, until September 11th, 2001, Hezbollah had killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization.

During the balance of the 1980s, Hezbollah kidnapped and murdered Americans with impunity in Beirut, including CIA station chief William Buckley and Marine Colonel William Higgins.

Iran was then involved in the bombing of the US Air Force Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia in June 1996, an attack in which 19 U.S. airmen were killed.

It should be pointed out that Iran is not just a sponsor of Hezbollah. Iran formed Hezbollah and has always trained and continues to train its operatives in Lebanon and inside Iran. Hezbollah basically operates as an Iranian foreign legion.

That’s why observers who have been watching Iran for years are particularly troubled by Obama’s choice of the language "financing" and "funding" terrorist organizations to describe Iran’s involvement with terrorism.

Something tells us that this specific choice of language isn’t an accident. Words are chosen carefully whenever a president speaks publicly on foreign affairs as the audience is not just the American people, but the world–and things can get lost in translation.

Iran has done much more than fund and finance terrorism. They have armed and trained Jihadist terrorist organizations and taken part directly in operations.

Just last week the US Navy intercepted a ship that was headed from Iran to Gaza with missiles and rockets on board. Even more to the point, there is considerable evidence that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) operate directly with Hezbollah in some operations and some IRGC members have been killed and captured in Iraq. That’s why the US designated the IRGC a terrorist organization in its own right last year.

Of course, then-Senators Obama and Biden were two of just a handful of senators to oppose that measure when it came to a vote.

Unfortunately, President Obama’s statements during the press conference also totally ignored Iran’s role in the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan as detailed over and over by the US military, as well as Iran’s deep involvement with Al Qaeda, as detailed by the US Treasury Department within the last month.

Iran was the primary supplier of deadly EFP-IEDs (Explosively Formed Penetrator-Improvised Explosive Devices) to the insurgents in Iraq and operated training camps for those insurgents inside Iran.

Iran’s cooperation with Al Qaeda has long been the subject of much debate with naïve observers claiming that Shiite Iran would never cooperate with Sunni Al Qaeda (completely ignoring the fact that Iran and Sunni HAMAS work closely with eachother). When the subject came up in last year’s presidential campaign, I wrote an article detailing Iran’s longstanding ties to Al Qaeda. 

Iran’s relations with Al Qaeda were brought into greater focus just 4 days before President Obama took office when the US Treasury Department released a statement with regard to top Al Qaeda operatives based out of Iran.

During the course of his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama insisted that Iraq was but a distraction in the war on terrorism and vowed to go after those who were truly responsible for September 11.

If he was telling the truth, then why is he choosing to engage Al Qaeda’s main state sponsor?

President Obama declared in his press conference that "there’s been a lot of mistrust built up over the years" between the US and Iran.

Given that Iran has made killing Americans its national sport and sponsoring Jihadist terrorist organizations its national pastime, why should America trust the Ayatollahs?

President Obama’s statements on Iran in his press conference do not make me feel better at all.  I feel much worse…and all Americans need to understand.

The economy is bad right now to be sure and it necessarily dominates the headlines and airwaves. But one day, we are all going to wake up, turn on the TV news and discover that the Ayatollahs have The Bomb. Our children and our children’s children will always wonder how we let it happen.

 

Christopher Holton is a Vice President with the Center for Security Policy and directs its Divest Terror Initiative and its Shariah Risk Due Diligence Project.

How Europe’s companies are feeding Iran’s bomb

While the U.S. has ratcheted up its efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear arms, the Islamic Republic is reaping a windfall from European companies. These firms’ deals aid a regime that is bent on developing nuclear weapons and which financially supports the terror organizations Hamas and Hezbollah.

The Austrian oil giant OMV is itching to implement a €22 billion agreement signed in April 2007 to produce liquefied natural gas from Iran’s South Pars gas field; at last May’s annual shareholder meeting, Chief Executive Officer Wolfgang Ruttenstorfer said OMV was only waiting for "political change in the U.S.A." Raiffeisen Zentralbank, Austria’s third-largest bank, is active in Iran and, according to a story by the Journal’s Glenn Simpson last February, has absorbed the transactions of key European banks that shut down their operations in Iran. And in late January Paolo Scaroni, CEO of Italian energy corporation Eni SpA, told the Associated Press that his firm will continue to fulfill its contractual obligations in Iran and feels no external pressure to sever ties with Iran’s energy sector.

Yet because of the sheer volume of its trade with Iran, Germany, the economic engine of Europe, is uniquely positioned to pressure Tehran. Still, the obvious danger of a nuclear-armed Iran has not stopped Germany from rewarding the country with a roughly €4 billion trade relationship in 2008, thereby remaining Iran’s most important European trade partner. In the period of January to November 2008, German exports to Iran grew by 10.5% over the same period in 2007. That booming trade last year included 39 "dual-use" contracts with Iran, according to Germany’s export-control office. Dual-use equipment and technology can be used for both military and civilian purposes.

One example of Germany’s dysfunctional Iran policy is the energy and engineering giant Siemens. The company acknowledged last week at its annual stockholder meeting in Munich, which I attended, that it conducted €438 million in trade with Iran in 2008, and that its 290 Iran-based employees will remain active in the gas, oil, infrastructure and communications sectors.

 

Continue Reading at the Wall Street Journal Europe

The Mumbai terrorists, zakat and charities

Two of the chief concerns associated with Shariah-Compliant Finance are the obligatory tithing to “zakat” and obligatory donations of “tainted” revenue.

Shariah-Compliant Finance can entail contributions of up to 1/40 (2.5%) of assets per year in a charitable gift (known as zakat) that observant Muslims, Islamic organizations and businesses are obliged to make. Shariah advisors, men like Sheikh Yusef al-Qaradawi and Mufti Muhammed Taqi Usmani, are responsible for determining the recipients of such contributions.

Perhaps even more significant is a process known as “purification,” which is required of a Shariah-compliant investment or financial transaction that has been tainted with forbidden revenue, whether from interest, illicit speculation (such as trading in commodity futures) or a forbidden commercial enterprise (such as the pork industry). These “tainted” funds must be purified by donating the revenue to an acceptable charity, again typically selected by Shariah advisors. 

The recipients of zakat and purification payments are currently not disclosed and the process is non-transparent.  It should be noted that Shariah classifies Jihadi warriors in the defense of Islam and their families as an accepted category for such payments.

That makes the following story all the more disturbing…

No case reveals more about the role that Muslim charities have played in funding jihad than that of the organizations which carried out the Mumbai attacks.

Given that one of the tenets of Shariah-Compliant Finance is the system of zakat in which 2.5% of assets are donated to charities chosen by Shariah scholars, this story raises significant questions about the due diligence and disclosure practices of Shariah finance.

The Mumbai terror attacks were conducted by an Al Qaeda affiliate known as Lashkar –e-Taiba of Pakistan. This organization was outlawed by Pakistan in 2002 after pressure from the U.S. But Lashkar-e-Taiba continued to operate and merely formed a political/charitable arm known as Jamaat –ud-Dawa.

The Associated Press reported that U.S. government sources indicated that Lashkar-e-Taiba had operations in Chechnya, Bosnia and Southeast Asia and also sent operatives and funds to battle U.S. forces in Iraq. This same A.P. report said that Lashkar-e-Taiba received funding from organizations in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Jamaat-ud-Dawa played a major role in the recovery efforts following the October 2005 earthquake in Pakistan and, according to British authorities, the organization siphoned off large sums of donations and put them to use in direct support of Jihadist terrorism.

In fact, the British discovered that Muslim Charity UK sent a great deal of money to banks in Mirpur, Pakistan in December 2005 as earthquake relief money. This money went into accounts in Saudi Pak Bank, Standard Chartered Bank and Habib Bank, Ltd. The money ended up being used to fund a bomb plot according to MI5 investigators.

British National Terrorist Financial Investigation Unit authorities found that a large portion of the money sent from Britain to charity was diverted for terrorism. Of $10 Million U.S. sent, less than half went to actual earthquake relief operations.

This is hardly surprising given that Jamaat-us-Dawa resembles other such Muslim organizations in that it is both a political organization and a militant group, like HAMAS and Hezbollah.

The level of involvement of Muslim charitable organizations in Jihad is reflected in the fact that the U.S. government has shut out no fewer than 27 Muslim charities for funding terrorism.

The Saudis themselves have explained that it is difficult to stop such funding because the money is run through charities at both ends of the pipeline: Zakat collected by Saudi charities and mosques are sent to charities in Pakistan, specifically to avoid “smoking gun” evidence of terrorism financing.

Obviously there are key questions which arise from these reports.

How safe is it to donate to Muslim charities? The largest Muslim charity in the U.S. was shut down for terrorism financing. What of other charities?

Who knows how zakat will be used? What steps have Shariah-Compliant Finance banks and investment firms taken to address these concerns? What level of due diligence and disclosure is there now for zakat and other payments by financial institutions to Muslim charities?

An Aid Gone Awry by Prateek Sharma: http://www.zeenews.com/Zee-Exclusive/2006-10-05/327343news.html

Man Arrested In Mumbai Probe is a Cop, Police Say by Manik Banerjee: http://m.freep.com/news.jsp?key=365156

Did the Saudis help fund the terror school behind Mumbai? By Gerald Posner: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-12-08/did-the-saudis-help-fund-the-terror-school-behind-mumbai/

Terrorists buying Latin American Passports to enter the US?

Last week, the San Antonio Express-News posted a story about three Afghani Muslim men caught carrying stolen Mexican passports with their pictures and data while en route to Europe. It was revealed by authorities that the documents were genuine and that these men had purchased them for $10,000 each. In light of this information, we at The Americas Report decided to investigate whether this modus operandi could be used by people who pose a real threat to U.S. national security and what we found is alarming.

Our Staff has published articles about the presence of Hezbollah in Latin America, especially in Argentina, Venezuela and the Tri-border region (between Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil which intelligence officials usually refer to as "The Muslim Triangle meeting zone.") We wrote a piece about the Iranian presence in Nicaragua, where they are planning to build a dry canal connecting both coasts. Iran also has a huge embassy in Managua where diplomats enjoy immunity and the full support of President Daniel Ortega.

Our team also wrote an article on Iran Air’s weekly flights between Tehran, Damascus and Caracas– where only officials, high ranking intelligence operatives and military personnel from these countries are allowed to travel without needing visas, and where any type of material can be transported. We also published a story about how the Venezuelan government has already issued passports and official documents to members of Hezbollah and Hamas because President Chavez believes in their cause and is a strong supporter of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. 

With this in mind, there is a real possibility that any of these individuals having access to stolen, doctored passports, and thus to U.S. visas could enter this country with the purpose of carrying out terrorist attacks. In fact, it has already happened: four of the nineteen hijackers from 9/11 carried passports that had been "manipulated in a fraudulent manner." The Saudi documentation was genuine, and so were the U.S. visas. Investigators believe the hijackers obtained new passports after telling Saudi authorities they had "lost" their old ones, presumably to cover up trips to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Then, knowing that brand new passports would raise questions, the hijackers artificially aged them and forged entry and exit stamps. When asked, a veteran counterterrorism expert said that “without a microscopic forensic examination, a routine inspector wouldn’t have ascertained that the stamps weren’t valid.”[1]

It now seems that any person wanting to attack this country could use doctored or manipulated passports or could simply travel to Mexico and pay a Coyote to illegally cross the border.

For some time now, experts agree that South America has become a place of preference for terrorists that want to travel to the United States. A case in point is that in 2005, Mr. Minas Mirza of Warren, Michigan along with three others were charged with smuggling people into the U.S. through South America ever since 2001. In guilty pleas, they admitted helping dozens of Iraqis and Jordanians travel to the United States on European passports. In fact, these travel documents had been stolen and then doctored in Lima, Peru and purchased by Mirza there from a “broker.”

A 2007 NBC News investigation uncovered a black market for stolen passports in Latin America.[2] A reporter from this network disguised as a tourist was able to obtain entire new identities and official passports from Peru, Spain and Venezuela and travel throughout the hemisphere without ever raising suspicion.

The journalist had a hidden camera and was able to film "brokers" in the streets of LimaArgentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia, Canada, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Britain and Switzerland.  European passports sell for much more money since its citizens don’t need visas to enter the United States. carrying bags full of stolen identities such as birth certificates, driver’s licenses and passports from a variety of countries such as

These "brokers" usually charge $500 to $1,000 to forge the documents to the client’s preferences, promising “very high quality.” These "merchants" deal in the open and many have contacts inside some embassies, consulates and local government buildings who can easily obtain any official stamps or signatures needed in the process. It is worth noting that these people will do business with anyone: criminals, drug-dealers and even terrorists. It’s all about money for them. For an even higher price these “vendors” offer to hire "high-end coyotes" that will cross the border from Mexico taking good care of their clients.

These "brokers" offer a variety of "services." The most common is the one used by people who look like the original passport holders. A more sophisticated scheme is using stolen passports, changing the original picture and meticulously replicating the special security features. An even more complex and expensive method is when an insider in a consulate steals blank official passports from the stock before names or pictures have been added and then sells them to illicit brokers who customize and sell them.

The "dealers" work in stages: first they meet with the potential client to assess their needs and discuss price details. A few days later, half of the money is paid in advance and then this same vendor brings the documents to the client to sign, and provides a fraudulent birth certificate. The only thing the buyer needs to provide in addition to the money is the passport picture, which can be taken nearby. The following week, they have a meeting in a public place where the broker "suggests" a flight itinerary for his client: he would travel with the Spanish passport to Bolivia, Argentina, Mexico and then to New Jersey to attain enough stamps in his new passport to enter the U.S. without raising suspicion. Together they make up a fake story to tell the authorities, if questioned, and come to the conclusion that the journalist in disguise would also need Peruvian documentation because the claim is that he has "double nationality."

A few days later, the full amount is paid and both passports are delivered in person. To the surprise of the reporter, these passports are real and original. A local then explains that since the buyers usually want proof that they made a good deal, they promptly take the documentation to be verified with the broker at their side. Often, the documents are verified by corrupt officials from the RENIEC, the Peruvian agency in charge of issuing identity documents, who are associates of the "brokers." Within a few days, the client obtains a real Peruvian identity document with the new name and photo. The dealer explains that it will take a couple of weeks for the issued name to appear in the official database. All is done in plain sight.

To prove his case, the undercover reporter traveled with the new documents to Chile, the Dominican Republic and Venezuela and was amazed to find out that his name was actually in the official Peruvian database. In Caracas, he contacted an "associate" of the "vendor" he met in Lima who also said he could provide a Venezuelan passport claiming it would be a better deal since nationals can travel without visas to Mexico, Spain, Germany and England. He "bought" the new passport and then flew to Mexico. Then he traveled to Tijuana where he is seen walking along the U.S./Mexican border without anyone asking him any questions. He did not try to enter the U.S. with the fake ID’s.

In the tapes, both the Peruvian and Venezuelan brokers can be seen insisting that with more time and money they could get a U.S. visa for their client providing him with a fake but official birth certificate, a passport, an identity document, a fraudulent bank account and a regular paycheck to be submitted to the United States embassy where he would then be granted an interview and then a visa. They claim to have done it before. The journalist refused to do this but had no doubt that the transaction would have been successful.

The bottom Line

It is just a matter of time, if it has not already happened, before a terrorist, is able to get to the United States using a stolen, doctored passport. However, without going to all that trouble, it is now possible to go to Mexico where there is a growing Muslim community and contact an illegal human smuggler and with his help cross the border in to the U.S.

As the threat of terrorism from the Western Hemisphere increases, which is likely because of the nexus between Venezuela, Iran, radical Islamic groups and the drug cartels, it becomes imperative for U.S. agencies responsible for protecting the American public to become more vigilant. It is also the responsibility of Latin American countries to be watchful for members of Al Qaeda or any other Middle Eastern terrorist network traveling throughout the region in order to reach the United States.  Therefore the availability of official documentation for sale to the highest bidder is a serious problem and deserves serious attention.

 

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]  9/11 Hijackers: The Passport Scam. February 9, 2004. Time Magazine.

[2] Information from an Investigative Report: “Enemies at the Gate.” NBC News. December 28, 2007. By Richard Greenberg, Adam Ciralsky, Stone Phillips.

 

First, do no harm

It would be a good thing if American politicians were obliged, in addition to swearing to abide by and protect the Constitution, to take something akin to the physicians’ Hippocratic Oath. Dating from ancient Greece, this pledge begins with the laudable commitment “to do no harm.”  Such a promise from Barack Obama with respect to the national security portfolio seems particularly in order.

On the face of it, the President-elect appeared to be doing the next best thing during his appearance on ABC’s Sunday morning program, “This Week.” He told interviewer George Stephanopoulos that he agreed with the commonsensical advice recently proffered to him by outgoing Vice President Dick Cheney on another television program:

“Before you start to implement your campaign rhetoric you need to sit down and find out precisely what it is [the Bush administration] did and how we did it. Because it is going to be vital to keeping the nation safe and secure in the years ahead and it would be a tragedy if they threw over those policies simply because they’ve campaigned against them.”

In response, Mr. Obama gave a quite statesmanlike reply: “I think that was pretty good advice, which is I should know what’s going on before we make judgments and that we shouldn’t be making judgments on the basis of incomplete information or campaign rhetoric. So, I’ve got no quibble with that particular quote.”

Unfortunately, the President-elect then went on basically to reaffirm his troubling “campaign rhetoric” with respect to several of the things that the Bush administration has had “going on.”  In particular, he reaffirmed his determination to fulfill his pledges to: preclude completely the further option of using “aggressive interrogation techniques”; close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay; and begin negotiating with the Iranian mullahs.

With respect to interrogations, Mr. Obama essentially said that if the Army can do without the sort of aggressive techniques (including waterboarding) that the CIA has resorted to on a few but necessary occasions (notably, with great effect on 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), then the country should forego their use altogether.  Only by such self-restraint, he claimed, would we be “adhering to our core values and ideals.”

On Guantanamo Bay (a.k.a. “Gitmo”), the President-elect ruefully observed that “it is more difficult [to close] than I think a lot of people realize.”  And yet, he made a point of reiterating the stance he took on the campaign trail: “We are going to close Guantanamo.”

As to the Iranian regime, Mr. Obama summarized the dangers it presents: “We have a situation in which not only is Iran exporting terrorism through Hamas, through Hezbollah, but they are pursuing a nuclear weapon that could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.” He might have added that the mullahocracy has signaled a willingness to use its Bomb to “wipe Israel off the map.”

The President-elect nonetheless went on to proclaim that “We are going to have to take a new approach. And I’ve outlined my belief that engagement is the place to start.” He undertook to “respect the aspirations of the Iranian people” while signaling what he (euphemistically) called our “certain expectations in terms of how a[n] international actor behaves.”

In these three examples, at least, it appears that Team Obama may pay lip service to the idea of doing no harm – that is, refraining from undoing policies and dispensing with capabilities the outgoing administration found essential to the national security, unless and until it has had an opportunity to disprove that that was the case – but the President-elect appears to be merely going through the motions.  Were he truly prepared to put the country’s security ahead of his campaign promises, the following considerations should govern:

  • Forswearing the use of vigorous interrogation techniques under all circumstances would be tantamount to unilaterally disarming ourselves of key weapons in the face of adversaries who are trained, if detained, to resist other forms of questioning – and will, in any event, claim to have been tortured by our forces. 
  • As a terrific new book by Lieutenant Colonel Gordon Cucullu, entitled Inside Gitmo: The Truth Behind the Myths of Guantanamo Bay (www.InsideGitmo.com), makes clear, shuttering Guantanamo Bay will hand our enemies a significant victory insofar as it would eliminate the state-of-the-art, highly secure detention/interrogation facility we need safely to house their captured colleagues, many of whom are among the most dangerous people on the planet.
  • With respect to Iran, its government’s behavior has not been that of a responsible “international actor” since it was seized by Ayatolloah Khomeini’s theocratic revolution.  The supreme aspiration of the vast majority of Iranians is actually to be free of the brutally repressive mullahs who have afflicted them for 30 years.  Treating with their oppressors in the name of “respecting the will of the Iranian people” can only serve to perpetuate the latters’ suffering, while intensifying the danger the regime poses to us, as well as them.

In these and other areas, the Obama defense and foreign policies have the potential to do much good or considerable harm to the national interest.  Truly heeding Dick Cheney’s wise admonition would increase the chances of the former outcome.

 

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

About the ChavezIranian connection

On December 21st the Italian daily La Stampa published a story that seems to confirm something we at the Menges Hemispheric Security Project have been warning about for some time: the real meaning of the Chavez-Iranian alliance.

According to La Stampa, the regular flights between Caracas, Damascus and Tehran constitute a device for Venezuela to help Iran send Syria material for the manufacturing of missiles. That is part of an agreement of military cooperation signed between Syria and Iran in 2006. According to La Stampa the materials are destined for the "Revolutionary Guards", the main force protecting the Iranian regime. In exchange for those materials Iran provided Venezuela with members of their revolutionary guards and their elite unit, "Al Quds," to strengthen Venezuela’s secret services and police.  

La Stampa’s report is not surprising to those of us who have been involved in monitoring Hugo Chavez’s activities for the past several years.

In testimony before Congress on March 5, 2008, the Menges Hemispheric Security Project team pointed out that

Iran Air has weekly direct flights between Caracas, Damascus and Tehran. There are no large numbers of passengers that justify weekly travels between theses countries. Therefore, it is reasonable to speculate that these flights transport material which could be highly problematic. Nothing is evident but everything is possible. Even while the crisis in the Middle East continues it is crucial for American decision makers to think about strategies to contain the Iranian influence in our hemisphere as well as Hugo Chavez, himself.

In the same testimony we said that the connection between Chavez, radical Islam and Iran may well be related to the mindset of the Venezuelan president to exercise a reign of terror, violence and totalitarian rule by using the oppressive methods of the Islamic Republic. We added that these radical groups could be used to develop Venezuela’s philosophy of asymmetric war in case of a US or other enemy attack on Venezuela.   These tactics propose a style of fighting that is determined and suicidal, and considered to be useful in confronting a more powerful enemy, like the U.S.   However, radical Islamist tactics might also serve to impose totalitarian rule first in Venezuela and then in other countries willing to join the Chavez coalition.

At the end of October 2008, the CSP Menges Hemispheric Security Project organized a briefing for Congressional staffers working on the Western Hemisphere. Among the many important topics discussed at the briefing was the issue of Iranian partnerships with dubious local businessmen in factories located in sensitive areas with access to strategic routes. One of the speakers at the conference talked about those partnerships as possibly including connections between drug trafficking networks that control sensitive strategic areas and Iran.   In fact, Iran has established a financial and business infrastructure with Chavez’s consent and encouragement that now includes banks, gold mining, a cement plant, a tractor and bicycle factory, a tuna processing plant and a joint oil venture.   This is all very interesting in light of an incident recently reported by several well known Turkish newspapers.

 They reported that on December 30th, twenty two containers were confiscated from an Iranian cargo ship bound for Venezuela. The ship was stopped by Turkish authorities in the port of Mersin near the Syrian border. Iranian authorities stated that the content of these containers were tractor parts bound for their factory in Venezuela’s Bolivar state. When the Turkish authorities inspected the shipment, they did not find tractor parts but components to build weapons, bombs and possibly some radioactive material (this material is still under investigation).

It is also known that Chavez has for some time provided Venezuelan territories and airports to drug traffickers, a fact often disregarded by State Department officials. Now, there are businesses that look like regular business and factories such as tuna and tractor factories that look like regular factories, all of them located in sensitive areas near the Orinoco River (an important connection between Colombia and Venezuela) in Venezuela with access to the Caribbean and to the Atlantic Ocean. These factories serve drug operations and involve partnerships with Iranian elements.   As such they provide Iran with access to areas such as Panama and drug-trafficking routes that are most likely used to transport drugs overseas and to provide weapons to the FARC and other terrorists.

In addition, Iran signed an agreement with Venezuela and Nicaragua to jointly build a $350 million deep water port at Monkey Point, on the east coast of Nicaragua. This location is near Colombia, Venezuela, and Cuba. Cuba, as we know, is not that far away from the U.S.-Texas-Mexican border, which is another bastion of wild drug-trafficking and now potential terrorism.

Other elements of cooperation between Venezuela and Iran involve operations between an Iranian bank inside Venezuela called el Banco Internacional de Desarollo and a Venezuelan affiliate as well as many other Venezuelan banks including BANESCO that also owns banks in Panama and Florida. This money could be helping Iran, drug traffickers and other dubious groups not only in its operations in Latin America but constitute a very good device to avoid the international sanctions Iran currently faces.   In addition, it has been suggested by some analysts that the money Iran generates from its Venezuelan "businesses" is used to finance Hamas and Hezbollah.

Thus, the transport of weapons to Iran with the help of direct "commercial flights" from Venezuela is part of the assistance that Venezuela provides and which is motivated by cooperation between the two countries. As we have repeatedly said, this is not merely a marriage of convenience. It involves a strong ideological affinity. As Japan, Italy and Germany were natural allies during WWII; Chavez’s Venezuela is part of an axis with Iran which is joined by Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador. A case in point is Chavez’s recent expulsion of the Israeli Ambassador from Venezuela and his very strong endorsement of Hamas.

To conclude, the report published in La Stampa about the flights confirms evidence of a situation imagined beforehand. Such imagination is not the result of the wilderness of the mind but the outcome of systematically following the discourse, ideology and development of Chavez’s regime and behavior. Therefore all the evidence we have so far plus the knowledge gathered as a result of years of study and observation of the ways Chavez operates is enough to raise a red flag that US intelligence and security agencies cannot afford to disregard.

 

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

 

Other News

  • Iran-ALBA seminar held in Tehran.
  • Morales says Bolivia to launch state newspaper with Venezuelan and Iranian backing. Venezuela’s Pdvsa interested in buying Bolivian media outlets.
  • Chile ‘s presidential election has two main candidates. Insulza Pulls Out of Chilean Presidential Race.
  • Cuban President Offers Direct Talks with Obama . Raul Castro marks Cuban revolution. Cuba’s Raul Castro scheduled to visit Uruguay this year.
  • Ecuadorian President Visits Cuba. Correa Stresses Ecuador Ties with Russia, China, Iran.
  • Gunmen Attack TV Station in Mexico.
  • His US sentence served, Noriega fights extradition. Panama’s Torrijos Visits Cuba.
  • Shining Path Kills Peruvian Soldier, Wounds 2 Others.
  • Uruguay, Peru, Brazil best performing economies.
  • Turkey holds suspicious Iran-Venezuela shipment. NEWS ALERT: Venezuela expels Israeli ambassador over Gaza bombing . Israel mulls over expulsion of Venezuelan ambassador. Chavez promises low oil prices will not stop the revolution. Shortage exposes flaws of state-owned agro-industrial sector. Failure to include reelection for everyone was a "mistake," says Chávez.

 To read the full Americas Report (PDF), kindly open the attachment.