Tag Archives: Hezbollah

Defensive action

Ever since Israel launched its air campaign last month against targets associated with the Hamas terrorist organization in the Gaza Strip, politicians, diplomats, military experts and pundits have been consumed with a debate over whether the Israeli assault was legitimate. The final judgment about the legitimacy of Israel’s Operation Cast Lead may ultimately be determined not by the grounds for that assault or its conduct. Rather, it may depend on how this conflict ends. History is, after all, written by the victors.

To be sure, for many in this debate, the question seems to turn largely on whether the Jewish State has taken justified – and justifiable – "defensive" action or whether it engaged in an unwarranted "offensive" attack, whose brunt is being unfairly born by innocent Palestinian civilians. For others, the issue has been whether Israel’s now combined air-, sea- and ground-assault was "proportionate" to the rocket and mortar attacks it has suffered.

By any reasonable definition, Israel’s operations in Gaza are defensive in that they are a response to the roughly eight thousand rocket and mortar rounds that Israeli sources say have been fired from the Strip into the southern part of their country over the past eight years. These attacks increased after Israel withdrew in 2005 from this tiny bit of forlorn real estate with its teeming masses living in deplorable conditions – thanks as much to Arabs who refused to resettle Palestinians elsewhere as to Israelis trying to contain suicide and other attacks from that quarter.

In 2008 alone, Israel was subjected to more than 3,000 incomings – before, during and after the six-month "cease-fire" between Israel and Hamas brokered by Egypt last summer. In fact, that so-called cease-fire amounted to nothing more than a hudna, a short-term truce associated since Mohammed’s time with a tactical suspension of hostilities that is used by the Islamic party to regroup, rearm and prepare for the next stage of murderous hostilities. Despite virtually daily incoming rounds from Gaza during the cease-fire, Israel rarely responded, affording Hamas the opportunity to follow the example of its Lebanese Shia counterpart: the Iranian-backed terrorist group, Hezbollah.

As calls for a new cease-fire in Gaza intensify, it is instructive to recall the repercussions of the insistence by the "international community" that the Israelis halt their efforts in the summer of 2006 to prevent what the media misleadingly calls Hezbollah "militants" from raining death and destruction on civilian communities in northern Israel: The self-styled Lebanese Army of God has reconstituted its terrorist infrastructure, acquired a vast new arsenal from Iran, Syria and China and consolidated its position politically.

It would be foolish in the extreme, based on Hamas’ performance during its last hudna, to expect those Palestinian terrorists to do otherwise if they are allowed to survive, thanks to the international imposition of yet another "cease-fire."

Today, there are roughly a million Israelis within range of the rockets and/or mortars in Hamas’ arsenal. Inevitably, all other things being equal, the lethal capabilities available to terrorists who vow to destroy Israel – and who, by the way, cry "Death to America" with equal vehemence – will only grow.

Such will surely be the case if the Israeli government not only agrees to a new cease-fire that leaves Hamas in place but, far worse, allows international monitors to be installed in the Gaza Strip. While the ostensible justification for the Israelis to accede to the presence of such foreign observers would be to ensure that Hamas does not engage in further attacks against Israel, in practice they wind up playing a very different role. If history is any guide, these monitors will serve as shields for Hamas’ terrorist build-up and operations, not an impediment to them.

Such has been the experience, for example, with United Nations forces in southern Lebanon, European Union monitors who were deployed for a time at the Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza and even U.S.-led multinational forces deployed to monitor the demilitarization of the Sinai. In each case, activities threatening to the security of Israel have taken place under the noses of the observers. The latter have typically looked the other way, reserving their vigilance and condemnations for any evidence of Israeli infractions.

With Israel’s successful – and, yes, proportionate – insertion of ground forces into Gaza, it is in a position to dictate terms. Unlike Hezbollah in Lebanon during the 2006 war, Hamas is cut off from resupply.  It cannot now be rearmed by sea or via underground tunnels; electricity, water, phone service, medicine and food are only available at the sufferance of the Israelis.

Hamas has brought the Palestinian people nothing but grief. Unless it is saved by foreigners – including some like the European Union and United States who have condemned the organization as a terrorist group – Hamas may be unable to maintain its control over Gaza, let alone extend it to the West Bank and Jerusalem.

The last thing the Jewish State should do is jeopardize the legitimacy, let alone the strategic benefits, of its defensive campaign in Gaza by leaving Hamas in place behind international shields. The Shariah-adherent Hamas cannot and will not abandon its oft-stated determination to destroy Israel and the Jews. Allowing it to live and fight another day is to ensure that fewer Jews, and probably other freedom-loving people, will be left to do so.

The Case for a Secure Drivers License

The driver’s license is an unlikely player in the war against terrorism. To most Americans it is an innocuous document considered only at renewal time.

But for terrorist cells operating in the United States, the driver’s license is a critical tool. It is as important to them as the weapons they would use against us.

Many of us remember when licenses were flimsy paper cards. The ones we dug from our wallets when stopped for speeding or cashing a check at the supermarket. Some of us might even have “doctored” them during our teenage years to get into local bars. With a couple of scratches and a ballpoint pen, we could become “legal” in no time at all. Others may have borrowed someone else’s license, a big brother’s or sister’s, to effect the same thing. Licenses didn’t include photographs in those more innocent days.

But somewhere along the line the nature of driver’s licenses changed. In the absence of an official identity card in this country, the driver’s license became just that, granting holders enormous privileges and access to things creators of the first driver’s licenses never would have imagined.
It happened so gradually, few of us even noticed it. But no one today should be fooled by the misnomer “driver’s license.” That plastic laminated card now in our wallets is far more than that; it arguably is the most powerful document in America.

It is also our Achilles’ heel.

Licenses and the 9/11 Terrorists

For the 9/11 terrorists, the driver’s license was the ID card that gave them access to the improbable weapons they used to strike us: American Airlines Flight 11; United Airlines Flight 175; American Airlines Flight 77, and United Airlines Flight 93. Because they carried driver’s licenses, the 19 terrorists waltzed onto those planes with few questions asked.

But boarding the planes with licenses was only half the story. Well before they hijacked those flights, the 9/11 terrorists were using state-issued driver’s licenses to operate under the radar of law enforcement and to prepare their attacks. And there is clear evidence that other terrorist organizations operating in the United States today—most notably Iran-backed Hezbollah, which has cells in an estimated 10 American cities—have become expert in using fraudulently obtained driver’s licenses to cloak their presence and activities here.

When the 9/11 al Quaeda cell arrived in the United States, they quickly learned that having a driver’s license in today’s America is essential to anyone seeking to operate in this country unlawfully and unnoticed.

Mohammed Atta discovered this abruptly in April 2001—five months before he drove the first plane into the north tower of the World Trade Center—when he was pulled over in Fort Lauderdale during a routine traffic stop and charged with driving without a license.

As PBS Frontline correspondent Hendrick Smith keenly noted in an interview on the terrorists’ tactics leading up to the attacks: “They made mistakes, and what was really stunning about their mistakes is how quick they were to correct them…. Atta … gets caught without a driver’s license, and within 15 days every one of the hijackers in Florida has gotten a driver’s license.”

After Mohamed Atta was issued a bench warrant for his careless transgression (he never showed up for his court appearance), he applied for and received eight driver’s licenses, even though his first request for a Florida license was properly denied. His second and subsequent requests tragically were not.

The other cell members followed suit. And while the exact number of driver’s licenses and non-driver ID’s they ultimately obtained remains unclear, no one disputes that it was in the dozens.

They got them from Florida and other states with lax licensing laws, including Arizona, California, Virginia, and Maryland. Seven of the terrorists obtained their Virginia licenses using false “proof” of state residency. Hamza Alghamdi, one of the UAL Flight 175 hijackers, got his Florida license using a Mailboxes Etc. address.

They were able to get the licenses because these states required minimal identification before issuing licenses. In some cases a utility bill or an easily forged document was enough to do the trick. Applicants did not have to prove definitive legal residency in the state, or in the country for that matter, and some of the states routinely issued multi-year driver’s licenses to foreign visitors, even though their visas would expire within months.
Moreover, some of these state licenses had no biometric identifiers, such as digital photographs, so they could be altered with ease. And their motor vehicle offices had no way of knowing if an applicant was suspected of terrorist activities or of crimes in other states. There was no sharing of databases.

Granting the al Quaeda operatives state-issued driver’s licenses was like handing them the keys to America. It opened all the doors necessary to plan and execute an attack.

Atta and Co. took full advantage. They used their newly minted licenses to rent safe houses and vehicles, open bank accounts for international wire transfers ($100,000 was wired to Atta from the United Arab Emirates), and to attend flight schools to learn how to pilot the jets. Among them was Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called “20th Hijacker,” who ominously told his flight instructors that he didn’t need to learn how to land a plane, just fly one.

Had they not possessed those licenses, they would have had to use their Saudi or Egyptian passports for all these things, which surely would have set off alarm bells, a fact of which they evidently were aware.

Following the 9/11 attacks, it became painfully clear that al Quaeda had cleverly exploited our weak state driver-licensing laws to execute their mission. And attention quickly focused on other vulnerabilities that licenses in the wrong hands could pose.

Driver’s licenses could, for example, provide terrorists access to sensitive government and commercial facilities such as the Capitol Building or the New York Stock Exchange. Terrorists could use licenses to buy guns and ammunition. They could rent vans and small trucks, as another terrorist cell did to bomb the World Trade Center in 1993. Or they could charter small aircraft at our nation’s private airports for additional suicide attacks.
Recognizing this, several states, including Florida, Virginia, New Jersey, and New York, quickly tightened their licensing requirements to safeguard against further terrorist breaches. But remarkably, some legislators in those states and others began considering legislation that would actually make it easier to obtain licenses.

Bills were introduced in Florida, Maryland, Maine, New Mexico, Virginia, Tennessee, Utah, California, Connecticut, and other states to weaken licensing requirements. They were the direct result of pressure from organized coalitions composed of civil liberties activists and advocates for “undocumented” (illegal) immigrants who want states to grant virtually unrestricted access to these documents.

Some of these groups have sued the State of New York to force it to roll back its reforms. That suit is still pending. The governors of Tennessee and Utah caved in to the pressure, implementing dual licenses, one for legal Americans and one for illegal immigrants; the latter document is not supposed to be accepted as state identification but already is.

The 9/11 Commission and the Real ID Act

Fortunately, it was clear to the 9/11 Commission that a federal solution was needed. In its Report to Congress it unequivocally recommended that: “Secure identification should begin in the United States. The federal government should set standards for the issuance of…sources of identification, such as driver’s licenses.”

It was a logical—and obvious—solution. Driver’s licenses clearly had become a national security issue, and individual states could not be relied on to issue them responsibly. The Commission rightly recognized that, with state-issued driver’s licenses, America can only be as strong as its weakest-link state. If just a single state were to continue handing out licenses to people whose identities could not be verified, the entire nation would remain at risk.

This key security recommendation of the 9/11 Commission came to legislative fruition on May 10, 2005, in the Real ID Act. It passed overwhelmingly in Congress despite a concerted, two-year campaign to scuttle it by the “undocumented” immigrant advocates and by alarmists claiming federal big-brotherism.

Real ID gives states three years to meet uniform, secure licensing standards that soon will be issued by the Department of Homeland Security. The states do not have to comply with the law—it is voluntary—but if they don’t, their licenses will not be accepted as a form of federal ID, meaning, among other things, that license holders from those states will not be able to fly on commercial airlines without producing additional documentation.
It is a stark but necessary ultimatum. Every day that a state issues licenses to unknown persons is a dangerous day for Americans. And when one considers the number of illegal immigrants pouring over our southern borders, some of whom come from terror-sponsoring states, the urgency of Real ID becomes palpable. Any terrorist entering the United States illegally today can walk into a motor vehicles office in a half-dozen states and obtain a driver’s license using documents that aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. That is a recipe for disaster.

Real ID will require minimal sacrifice from American drivers. They will have to provide their state motor vehicle administration with a Social Security number, which will be verified against a federal database (a practice already required in 36 states). In addition, a digital photograph will likely be taken, as is done for all U.S. Passports. It may take a few extra minutes to get a license, but these are reasonable inconveniences when one considers the stakes in the ongoing war against terrorism.

Americans already understand this. In an August 2005 national survey commissioned by the Coalition for a Secure Driver’s License, more than two-thirds of Americans said that the provisions of the Real ID Act should be implemented by the states. And 84% said they would be willing to stand on line a little longer or pay a little extra to accomplish that.

Their elected leaders are a different story. Already—before the Department of Homeland Security has even issued its specific recommendations—some state governors and legislators are howling in protest. New Mexico governor Bill Richardson is threatening to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of states to block Real ID from being implemented, and the Montana Legislature passed a resolution saying that they will refuse to comply with the Act, something New Hampshire is now threatening as well.

If any of their efforts succeed, America will remain vulnerable to a terrorist tactic already used against us.

The fight to implement Real ID is just beginning in America. And it’s a fight that must be won in every state. Islamo-fascist terrorists aren’t going away, and American policy-makers must act before licenses are used to strike us here at home again.

Our state legislators must heed the words of the 9/11 Commission: “For terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons.” Indeed, one is hard pressed to see the difference.

 

April 2006

 

 

Venezuela-Iran pact: Airplanes for Weapons

From La Stampa:  

Hugo Chavez is helping Tehran evade UN sanctions by exploiting the Venezuelan airlines under an agreement with Mahmud Ahmadinejad, to strengthen the Iranian penetration in Latin America.

The news is contained in some western intelligence memorandum on the impact of Ahmadinejad’s agreements with several South American nations. The pact between Tehran and Caracas, according to the memorandum, states that Chavez is allowing Ahmadinejad to freely use its airliners and obtain military aid in exchange. Iran is using the company Conviasa’s airplanes along the commercial Tehran-Damascus-Caracas route for multiple purposes. First, to transfer scientific equipment to Syria’s laboratories, the “Center for Studies and Research” in Damascus. In particular, it would be the Center’s shipments of machinery, computers for control of missiles and equipment for the development of aircraft carriers, beginning with the building of the engines.

Shipments are made by the industrial group “Shahid Baker (SBIG)”, which in December 2006 was included in the list of sanctioned companies based on UN Security Council Resolution 1737, because of the it role played in developing Iran’s missile program. Under that resolution Syria – like any other country – could not make purchases of missile technology from that company, but using the airline Conviasa allows you to carry out transactions evading controls.

Intelligence suggests that Tehran may have found, thanks to the Caracas Air secured transport, a system by which to overcome the problems encountered as a result of the increasingly more stringent controls implemented by the Turkish authorities on the export of prohibited material. A few months ago, the customs services of Ankara intercepted 22 units of this Center for Studies and Research machines manufactured by the Chinese “Shenyang Machine Tool” company and intended partly for Iran, after they continued into Syria. It was after this episode that Ahmadinejad offered to help Chavez, partly because relations with Ankara had already cracked following the railway incident in May 2007 when a train from Iran and Syria derailed in Turkish territory, leading to the discovery of a shipment of arms destined for Hezbollah. This sparked strong irritation in Turkey and, among other things, led the Iranian authorities to replace the commander of the Pasdaran Rahim Safavi with the successor Muhamed Jaaferi.

Forced to find new ways to reach the territory of Damascus, Ahmadinejad thought that Venezuelan aircraft were the most simple and handy, Chavez has proved compliant, and in return received a substantial aid package: Iranian commitment to send instructors to Caracas for the secret police and intelligence services as witnessed by the recent arrival in the South American country of at least ten senior official of the Al Quds Force of the Pasdaran. For Chavez the Iranian trainers are a useful tool to permit its security forces to be more effective against domestic opponents. Another element of the Tehran-Caracas pact is the availability of Conviasa Airlines in Iran to carry military equipment that companies linked to the Pasdaran can not buy freely on the market precisely because of UN sanctions.

The proliferation of these signals has led Western intelligence to closely monitor passengers and equipment traveling along the Tehran-Damascus-Caracas route, coming to the conclusion that it is often intelligence officials, military officers and materials banned by the UN. Among the passengers on those flights were also Syrian and Venezuelan officers who last July took part in the maneuvers of the Pasdaran. Yesterday in Teheran Vice-President Parviz Davoudi spoke on the “priority of promoting trade and industrial cooperation with the revolutionary nations”, validating the strategic decision to break the international isolation by focusing on the Tehran-South America ties.  Last Thursday the opening of the trade fair of the seven countries of the ‘Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas’ (Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia, Honduras, Nicaragua and Dominican Republic) in Tehran challenged the sanctions imposed on Tehran against the developing of nuclear energy.

More information here:

Venezuela-Iran pact: Airplanes in Exchange for Weapons

Israel and the Palestinians: Ending the Stalemate

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s July 30, 2008, announcement of his intention to resign from office and the recent upsurge in internecine violence between Hamas and Fatah eratives in Gaza has thrown a monkey wrench in the Bush administration’s goal of seeing and the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority sign a peace treaty laying out the borders and powers of a Palestinian state by the end of 2008. But even in the unlikely event that such an agreement is reached, far from stabilizing Israel’s relationship with the Palestinians, it will likely have either no impact on the Palestinian conflict with Israel, or a profoundly negative one.

Indeed, even if the outgoing Bush administration and the lame duck Olmert government manage to sign a peace treaty with the increasingly powerless remnants of the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority, that achievement is liable to be quickly eclipsed by violence that will follow the signing ceremony. The likely upsurge in Palestinian violence against Israel, in turn, will demonstrate that the Administration’s stated aim of establishing a Palestinian state—an aim which is supported by the Israeli government—has little relevance to the nature of the Palestinian conflict with Israel.  Moreover, seeking such a state today will likely exacerbate, rather than ameliorate, the conflict.  Indeed, the aftershocks of such an agreement will make clear that both Israel and the United States are basing their policies towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on false assumptions about the nature of that conflict.

Role Reversal

In 1993, when Israel first recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian Arabs, the Israeli and American perception of the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation underwent a profound change—as did both countries’ chosen paradigm for resolving the conflict.

Prior to 1993, both Israeli and U.S. policies were based on the view that the root of the conflict was the Arab world’s rejection of Israel’s right to exist. That view was codified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which asserted that two principles were to form the basis of any “just and lasting peace in the Middle East.” The first was an Israeli withdrawal from some of the territory taken over by the Israel Defense Forces during the June 1967 Six-Day War. The second was that the Arab states must accept Israel’s right to exist. While Resolution 242 was purposely vague about the extent of future Israeli territorial withdrawals, its language on the second component of a future Middle Eastern peace was explicit.

It asserted that a future Middle Eastern peace would be based on the “termination of all claims of states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized borders free from threats or acts of force.”

Since Israel has consistently demonstrated its  readiness to make territorial compromises for a lasting peace with its neighbors, it was this second condition that formed the foundation of both U.S. and Israeli policies towards the Palestinians specifically, and the Arab world generally, from the end of the Six-Day War until the onset of Israel’s peace process with the PLO in 1993.

In basing their policies on the need for the Arab world to accept Israel’s right to exist, successive American administrations and Israeli governments found themselves out of step with Western Europe, the Arab League, the United Nations and the Soviet Union. For these powers, the root of the conflict was not a refusal of the Arab world generally or the Palestinians specifically to accept Israel’s right to exist, but Palestinian statelessness itself.1

The difference could not have been more profound. The Israeli-American view placed the burden of change on the Arabs. The European-Soviet-UN view placed the burden for change on Israel. In the former case, the underlying assumption was  that the principal obstacle to peace was not Israeli claims to lands it took control of during the Six-Day War but the Arab world’s refusal to accept Israel’s existence. Until the Arabs changed their view, peace would be impossible.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Venezuelas Tarek El-Aissami

Since our inception two years ago, we have been following the growing relationship between Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Although most of the information available in the media states that this relationship started in 2005, it actually began as soon as Chavez started his mandate in 1999. In fact, on November 19, 2007, the Iranian reformist newspaper, E’temad-e-Melli, published an article claiming that relations between Tehran and Caracas began with the formation of the (Iranian) Reformist government when former President Muhammed Khatami visited Venezuela during his time in office. They became so close that in 2005 Chavez presented the Iranian leader with the highest decoration, the Order of the Liberator, as a symbol of their strong ties.[1] The Venezuelan President then encouraged Bolivia’s Evo Morales, Ecuador’s Rafael Correa and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega to develop ties with Iranian President Ahmadinejad which they did. All four of these countries now have strong ties to Iran and have signed treaties in diverse areas of the economy. In exchange, Iran has received many benefits including a strong presence in the Hemisphere as well as support from Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador against UN sanctions. Although insiders claim that Iran had no interest in developing relationships with Caracas, per se, Khatami’s regime was under international pressure to make new alliances among non-aligned countries. In the Middle East, Tehran had strong ties with Syria and Qatar, but it did not have any base from where they could actually threaten the United States and that is when Caracas became of interest.[2] After learning of Chavez’s leadership in the Hemisphere, Tehran planned a strategy to establish itself in nations under the Venezuelan leader’s influence.

Manuchehr Honarmand was a witness to the developing Iranian-Venezuelan relationship. Mr. Honarmand is a Dutch citizen who used to write columns for the opposition daily Kayhan International, based in London. An Iranian dissident journalist, Honarmand decided to go to the US to expand the newspaper’s distribution. In December 2002 he visited South America for tourism and while in transit at the Caracas airport, waiting for a connecting flight, he was approached by two Iranians who asked him to provide information about himself. They were soon joined by two Venezuelan policemen.[3]

After learning who he was, they handcuffed him and brought him to an office behind the transit area where he was beaten and forced to sign papers in Spanish, which he did not understand. A few hours later, Honarmand was thrown into a cell where he was told that he had been charged with drug trafficking.

Furthermore, he was refused contact with the Dutch Embassy. A Venezuelan National Guard report stated that his "drug – filled suitcase" was found in a Copa Airlines flight even though Honarmand had been traveling on KLM.[4]

Mr. Honarmand’s luggage, money and papers were stolen and his Dutch passport was confiscated by the Venezuelan police. While he was in jail, he was able to contact Houshang Vaziri, his editor in chief, who promised to help but soon disappeared and was later found dead in Paris. Honarmand was freed in 2005, thanks to the Dutch government’s pressures. During his time in Caracas he spoke with discontented insiders of Chavez’s regime who informed him about the presence of Iranian officials in every sector of the economy and that they occupied high positions in the National Guard and the police. They also told Honarmand that Iranian officials are actually proselytizing in the poorest sectors of Venezuelan society to attract followers.[5] However, what has many insiders worried is the possibility of radicals holding government positions. The recent designation of Tarek El – Aissami as Minster of Interior and Justice of Venezuela has raised concerns because of his connections with extremist groups.

Mr. El – Aissami is a Venezuelan national of Syrian descent who, before becoming Minster of Interior and Justice, occupied the position of Deputy Interior Minister for Public Security. His father, Carlos Aissami, is the head of the Venezuelan branch of the Iraqi Baath political party. Before the invasion of Iraq, he held a press conference in which he described himself as a Taliban and called Osama Bin Laden, "the great Mujahedeen, Sheik Osama bin Laden." Tarek’s great-uncle Shibli el-Aissami was a prominent ideologist and assistant to the party’s secretary general in Baghdad during the Saddam Hussein regime.[6]

It was discovered that in 2003 El Aissami was appointed, along with another radical student leader from the University of the Andes in the city of Mérida, Hugo Cabezas, to head the country’s passport and naturalization service, the Onidex (Identification and Immigration Office).  The choice came as a surprise precisely because of their ties with guerrilla movements at Universidad de Los Andes (ULA). Evidence has surfaced that during this time both men illegally issued Venezuelan passports and identity documents to members of Hezbollah and Hamas. Mr. Cabezas is now the government candidate for governor of the Andean state of Trujillo in elections due to be held on November 23, 2008 and is a founding member of Utopia, an armed group that has connections with the Bolivarian Liberation Front.[7]

While a student leader at ULA, Aissami had political control of the university residences (dorms), which were used to hide stolen vehicles and conduct drug deals and had managed to get members of the guerillas into the dorms. According to reports, of the 1,122 people living in one of the University’s residences, only 387 were active students and more than 600 had nothing to do with the university.[8]

Venezuelan investigative journalist, Patricia Poleo, who escaped Venezuela and currently lives in Miami says that Mr. Aissami together with others affiliated with Hezbollah, such as Lebanon-born Gahzi Nasserddine, currently the Business Liaison at the Venezuelan embassy in Damascus, and his brother, Ghasan Atef Salameh Nasserddi, are in charge of recruiting young Venezuelan Arabs affiliated with the ‘Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela’ or  PSUV (Chavez’s Socialist Party), to be sent to South Lebanon for combat training in Hezbollah camps preparing them for ‘asymmetrical war’ against the United States. Once back in Venezuela, they are greeted by radical members of the Venezuelan Socialist Party affiliated with UNEFA (the university run by the Armed Forces) and the Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela (Venezuelan Bolivarian University) and continue with their training in firearms, explosives and munitions. The training camps are located in the states of Monagas, Miranda, el Páramo, Falcon, Yaracuy, Yumare, and Trujillo and the districts of Maturin, Los Teques, El Jari, Churuguara and Sierra de San Luis. These groups and individuals are supervised by the Hezbollah Organization in Venezuela, along with al-Qaeda Iraqis currently living in the country and by the Palestinian Democratic Front, headed by Salid Ahmed Rahman, whose office is located in Caracas’s Central Park.[9]

Since Chavez assumed the Presidency, Hezbollah, Hamas and al-Qaeda have used Venezuela as their bridge to other Latin American countries. There is information that a group of Iraqi activists belonging to al-Qaeda are currently in Caracas. Their names are: Mohammed Adnan Yasin, Falah Amin Taha and Muhi Alwan Mohammed Al Qaisi. They all arrived in Caracas with temporary visas granted and approved by the heads of Onidex (Cabezas and Aissami) and are believed to be very dangerous. They oversee the activities of these terrorist organizations in the tri – border region, and in Nicaragua and Argentina.[10]

Other Hezbollah members in Venezuela with these same visas are: explosives expert Lebanese Abdul Ghani Suleiman Wanked, Hassan Nasrallah’s right-hand man.; Rada Ramel Assad, born in Barranquilla, Colombia and Abouchanab Daichoum Dani who is the organizer of the group.[11]

We have to be very careful about what is going on in Venezuela. Independent media outlets have warned that the Chávez regime was issuing ID documents to Islamic radicals, enabling them to operate and move freely to other countries. It is extremely worrisome and dangerous to appoint a radical such as Aissami as the official in charge of issuing identity cards and passports but this serves the goals of the Iranian and Venezuelan presidents in their joint efforts to radicalize the region and build terrorist networks.

 

Other articles written by the staff of The America’s Report that can be referenced to in relation with this story are: "The Iranian threat already in the US’ backyard" (February 14, 2008 by Nicole M. Ferrand); "Latin America’s radical grassroots" (Parts 1, 2 and 3 by Luis Fleischman and Nicole M. Ferrand)

 

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

 NOTES

[1] Unholy alliance between Caracas and Tehran. January 13, 2008. Al Arabiya News.

[2] Ibid.

[3] The Iran-Venezuela Connection. February 14, 2008. Memri.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Al Arabiya – Ibid.

[7] Jihad in Venezuela. November 29, 2003. Jihad Watch.

[8] Memri – Ibid.

[9] Hezbollah and Al Qaeda in Venezuela. June 12, 2008 The Jungle Hut.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid,

Bolivian crisis escalates

Since our story last week the crisis in Bolivia continues to unfold but now there are new elements that involve Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. 

Violence in the Andean nation has escalated to the point that many people have died and hundreds remain missing due to the ongoing conflict between the central government and four energy – rich provinces in the lowlands of Bolivia (Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando and Tarija) whose residents and leaders want greater autonomy from the central government as well as more control over revenues from natural   gas.   They also oppose the President’s plan to change the constitution which, they say, would allow Morales to run for President indefinitely and impose a totalitarian model. (To learn more about the conflict see ‘The Americas Report,’ September 11, 2008 titled "Crisis in Morales’ Bolivia.").

The situation was problematic, but this week there has been an escalation of violence and new elements have surfaced that can make this conflict reach greater proportions. The province of Pando has seen the worst violence. Witnesses claim that a group of peasants were marching to the provincial capital of Cobija and were intercepted and killed by a group of ‘paramilitaries’ with machine guns. According to reports, 30 people have died in this city and many others are unaccounted for.

What has increased the level of violence is that Morales ordered the arrest of the city’s opposition governor, Leopoldo Fernandez, accusing him of hiring hit men (Sicarios in Spanish) from Peru and Brazil to shoot farmers allied with the president. The government said that opposition groups carrying weapons "massacred" 30 innocent farmers and that the death toll could rise with dozens of people caught up in the violence and still missing. Fernandez denied the charges and said he was carrying out his normal duties adding: "We are going to stay right here to resist this state of siege." He accused Morales of trying to impose Cuban-style communism in Bolivia, adding: "Mr. Morales is mounting a farce." "I want to tell Morales to quit lying to the people. They should really investigate what happened and stop blaming us for a massacre."[1]

The opposition claims that, in fact, it is the Morales’ regime that is responsible for the killings as a means to discredit the pro autonomy movement. Many eye witnesses agree with this version claiming that they saw people dressed as farmers, carrying weapons and murdering people. "They’ve accused me of using hit men, when everyone knows those socialist peasants, those fake peasants, were armed." Fernández said.[2]

Making matters worse, in a public speech, Morales rallied supporters with a violent language and condemned the opposition governors saying: "they are conspiring against us with a fascist, racist coup," adding that they were "the enemies of all Bolivians." Morales said Bolivia’s "democratic revolution" had to be carried out: "We have always cried ‘fatherland or death.’ If we don’t emerge victorious, we have to die for the country and the Bolivian people."[3] Many analysts say that the tone and language used sounds just like Chavez.

In an effort to divert attention from the country’s problems, Morales blamed the United States as being the cause of the crisis, accusing Washington of instigating the protests. The Bolivian President even expelled the US ambassador Philip Goldberg from the country saying that he was "conspiring against democracy" and "fomenting the break-up of Bolivia." Mr. Goldberg responded by saying that the expulsion was a "grave error," adding that the accusations were "baseless." The U.S. government declared that "In response to unwarranted actions and in accordance with the Vienna Convention (on diplomatic protocol), we have officially informed the government of Bolivia of our decision to declare Ambassador Gustavo Guzmán persona non grata," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.[4]

Morales has lost control over most of eastern Bolivia, where protests have blocked highways, closed border crossings and pipeline sabotage has forced a cutoff of nearly half his nation’s natural gas exports to Brazil. Many of the blockades were dismantled as a goodwill gesture on Sunday as both sides sought to establish ground rules for negotiations, but political unrest continued Monday as more than a thousand Morales supporters marched on the U.S. Embassy in Bolivia’s capital, La Paz.[5] Insiders argue that these "spontaneous" demonstrations were actually carefully organized by the government and financed by Caracas.

Hugo Chavez is openly intervening in the ongoing turmoil in Bolivia: both politically and militarily. Last week, he warned Bolivian opposition groups saying that he would support an armed resistance movement in Bolivia and would send troops if Mr. Morales was removed in a coup. The intromission was so blatant that Bolivian General Luis Trigo, who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces (in this Andean nation it is not the President), declared on the following day: "To the President of Venezuela, Señor Hugo Chávez, and to the international community, we say that the Armed Forces (of Bolivia) emphatically reject external interference of any nature, from wherever it may come, and we will not permit any foreign military or army to enter the national territory." But many locals say that members of the Venezuelan armed forces are already in the country and that they have infiltrated the protests to create chaos so they can blame the opposition. This will inevitably make the Morales’ regime appear as a victim of the "oligarchs" generating sympathy from regional leaders and international forums.[6]

Since Chavez is concerned about the forth coming regional elections this November, and there is an embarrassing criminal trial going on in Miami which is revealing his hand in political meddling in Argentina, he has tried to garner support effort by expelling the U.S. Ambassador, Patrick Duddy from Caracas. At a recent political rally, Chavez used profane language and shouted insults saying: "The Yankee ambassador to Caracas has 72 hours to leave Venezuela, in solidarity with Bolivia, with the Bolivian people, and with the Bolivian government." "Go to hell 100 times," he said.[7]

The expulsions of the U.S. ambassadors show that these two demagogues have run out of ideas and feel somewhat insecure about retaining their grip on power. Chavez and Morales are the kind of leaders who need instability to survive. They know that on their own, they can’t solve the real problems and they need to create divisiveness to attract attention and win votes.  In Bolivia’s case, Morales is exploiting the "indigenous cause" tapping into people’s sensitivities while the real problem is the future of the country’s gas reserves which need investment to keep up with production. The provinces argue they want a greater share of the revenues to become more productive but the President wants to give away the money to fund his socialist project.

In an attempt to solve the situation, Chilean President Michelle Bachelet called a meeting of the Unión de Naciones Sudamericanas aimed at preventing the collapse of Bolivia. Bolivia’s opposition was not present for the meeting, and it is not clear how rhetorical support for Morales in Santiago might help solve the crisis. As expected, the members of the UNASUR expressed their support for Bolivia’s Evo Morales and unanimously condemned the actions of the four provincial governors.[8] Many of these nations are allies of Chavez since he has made it a policy to give away Venezuela’s petrodollars to buy allegiances and influence the foreign and domestic agendas of their leaders.

The ongoing events in the region should be taken seriously. Chavez and Morales are inventing political crises to advance their selfish political interests and expand their authority.  They are intentionally acting in concert with U.S. adversaries in an effort to challenge American influence in the region. These two leaders are close allies with Iran, and with terror organizations such as the FARC, Hezbollah, Hamas and leaders of rogue nations. Morales visited Tehran earlier this month, and just this week two Russian long-range bombers arrived in Venezuela, precursors of a larger military contingent in November, when the country will host four Russian warships and 1,000 troops for joint military exercises. They thrive on conflict by convincing people that their sovereignty is at risk and that they have to "defend" their territories.  The question is when will the United States government wake up to these new realities now unfolding in Latin America. 

 

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

 

NOTES

[1] Bolivia: who controls Pando? September 15, 2008. World War 4 Report.

[2] Bolivia rivals eye compromise after talks. September 13, 2008. International Herald Tribune.

[3] Ibid.

[4] U.S., Bolivia, Venezuela Engaged in Diplomatic Row. September 11, 2008. ABC News.

[5] Bolivia’s president calls unrest an attempted coup. September 15, 2008. WTOP News.

[6] Alleging Coup Plot, Chávez Ousts U.S. Envoy. September 12, 2008. The New York Times.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

Iran in Latin America

Visit the Americas Report blog at http://themengesproject.blogspot.com and leave your comments


Highlighted Story:  “An Update on Iran’s Activities in Latin America” by David Witter 









Chavez and Ahmadinejad

Six years after President Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address, the United States may be facing a new Axis of Evil. Iran has been courting leftist political regimes throughout Latin America, using anti-American sentiment as the foundation for improving economic, political, and possibly military ties in the Western hemisphere. The increasingly strong alliance between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and leaders of the so-called New Latin Left could develop into a serious security threat in the near future. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez appears to be the linchpin of this alliance. US interests could be threatened by either the Islamic terrorist groups active on the continent or by the ramifications of regional economic and political exclusion. Both of these possible avenues pass through Venezuela on their way to Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. 


After enduring the most deadly attack on the continental United States since Pearl Harbor, the American government has worked tirelessly to ensure safety at home from Islamic terrorism. However, the pervasiveness of Islamic terrorist organizations in Latin America adds a new layer to this threat.   Hezbollah prior to 9/11, responsible for more American deaths than any other terrorist organization has been the most active Islamic terrorist group in Latin America.   That Iran supplies Hezbollah with money and arms makes their presence in our backyard all the more threatening.  









Logo of the “Party of Allah” in Chavez’s Venezuela

Hezbollah has been operating in Latin America since the early 1990’s. In Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994 the Israeli embassy and Jewish Community Center respectively were both bombed.   While no one has been brought to justice for these acts of terrorism, arrest warrants were issued to prominent members of Hezbollah and the Iranian government.   One warrant for these attacks was issued in 1999 for Imad Mugniyah, a Hezbollah military commander also responsible for the 1983 US Embassy bombings and the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847. Seven years later, Argentinian prosecutor Alberto Nisman indicted Iranian President Rafsanjani and seven other Iranian officials in absentia for masterminding the attacks, reinforcing the link between Iran and Hezbollah in Latin America.


Hezbollah continued to be active a decade later in the frontier region known as the Tri-Border Area (TBA) that spans the borders of Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina. US Southern Command estimates that Islamist terror groups based there raise between $300-500 million a year.  One such financier was Assad Ahmad Barakat, currently serving a six and half year sentence in Paraguay for tax evasion following his arrest in La Ciudad del Este. He was considered to be a deputy to Hezbollah finance director Ali Kazam, as well as Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s primary liaison in the TBA.  Barakat used two businesses as cover to generate over $50 million that was then transferred to Hezbollah in Lebanon. He was also involved in a counterfeiting ring that distributed fake American dollars throughout the TBA. Some believe that Barakat was a client of Mugniyah, who is thought to have established terrorist cells in la Ciudad Del Este.



This threat can only increase as Iran continues to strengthen its partnership with Venezuela. Hezbollah is known to have a strong presence in Venezuela. The US military’s Southern Command has reported that there are several Hezbollah support and logistics cells on Isla de Margarita, a Venezuelan island home to a large Lebanese expatriate community.   These cells have already demonstrated intent to infiltrate the United States; it is suspected that the members of a Hezbollah cell arrested in North Carolina in 1992 were assisted by a support unit in Isla de Margarita. Additionally, there are concerns of a home-grown Hezbollah faction operating in Venezuela.



Main News:



  • NEWS FLASH I: Venezuelan former Defense Minister reports assassination attempt . Venezuela confirms investigation of ex-defense minister. NEWS FLASH II: Chavez spends U$33 billion on regional influence. New Hampshire accepts cheap oil from Venezuela. Chvez arrives in Moscow to buy arms. Chvez: “Russian troops would be welcome in Venezuela.” Chvez heads for Belarus to meet with his “friend” Lukashenko. Russia’s Lukoil seeks energy deals with Venezuela.

  • Ecuador looks to Iran and China in new oil refinery. Ecuador dismisses Venezuela’s mediation in clashes with Colombia.

  • NEWS FLASH III: When Mrs. Kirchner’s resignation became a real option . Mrs. Kirchner cancels export tax; farmers’ conflict “is over.” Aides quit in Argentina tax crisis.

  • FARC rejects peace talks and promises to fight on.

  • Bush Makes Renewed Push for Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Colombian army kills 20 FARC terrorists in air raid.

  • Russia May Send Military Aircraft Back to Cuba, Izvestiya Says.

  • Chilean aide admits risk of loosing to conservatives.

  • Colombia : Uribe clears the ground for a possible third mandate.

  • Judge orders suspension of Bolivia referendum; government says it will go forward. Venezuela gives Bolivia four corn and plastics plants.

  • Brazil: Petrobras workers preparing nationwide strike in August.

View the full version of the Americas Report (PDF) 


 


Nancy Menges
Editor in Chief – “Americas Report”


Nicole M. Ferrand
Editor – “Americas Report”


 


For any questions, comments, or those interested in receiving this report in the future or seeking to have their email removed from our list please contact Nicole M. Ferrand at mengesproject@cen terforsecuritypolicy.org. If you have news stories that you think might be useful for future editions of this report please send them, with a link to the original website, to the same e-mail address. If you wish to contribute with an article, please send it to the same address, with your name and place of work or study.


 


 

The war with Iran

Last week’s Iranian missile tests prompted another round of fevered speculation that war might erupt between Iran and the United States. Largely lost in the frenzy is an unhappy fact:  The Iranian mullahocracy has been at war with this country since it came to power in 1979.

The problem is that the weapons available to Tehran for prosecuting its jihad against "the Great Satan" are no longer simply truck bombs and suicide vests.  Its proxy army, Hezbollah, has taken over Lebanon and operates terror cells from Iraq to Latin America and even inside the United States.  With help from Communist China and Russia, its Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps wields an array of anti-ship missiles, mines and go-fast boats capable of discouraging oil traffic from transiting the Straits of Hormuz – if not actually sealing that vital waterway for protracted periods.

Not least, Iran is now armed with ballistic missiles of ever-longer range.  Those missiles have been developed with help from North Korea for the purpose of delivering the nuclear weapons the mullahs have been developing covertly for over 20 years.  Once such weapons are in hand – perhaps just a matter of months now – Tehran will be in a position to execute its threat to wipe Israel (a.k.a. "the Little Satan") off the map.

As a blue-ribbon commission told the House Armed Services Committee last Thursday, moreover, by launching its nuclear-armed ballistic missiles off a ship, the Iranian regime could soon be able to make good on another of its oft-stated pledges: To bring about "a world without America."

The commissioners warned (http://www.empcommission.org/reports.php) that, by detonating a sea-launched nuclear weapon in space over the United States, Iran could unleash an intense electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that would have a "catastrophic" effect on much of the Nation’s energy infrastructure.  In short order, the ensuing lack of electricity would cause a devastating ripple effect on our telecommunications, sanitation and water, transportation, food and health care sectors and the Internet.  Iranian missile tests suggest an emergent capability to execute such an attack.

If we are already at war with the Iranian regime and the destructive power of our enemy is about to increase exponentially, what can we do to about it?  For various reasons, it remains undesirable to use our own military force against the mullahs if it can possibly be avoided.  If that alternative is to be made unnecessary, however, five things must be done as a matter of the utmost urgency:

Three have to do with greatly intensifying the financial pressure on Tehran.  First, we need to discourage investments in companies that provide the advanced technology and capital essential to the oil exports that underpin the Iranian economy.  The campaign aimed at divesting such stocks from private and public pension fund portfolios and, instead, investing "terror-free" had a signal victory last week when the head of the French oil conglomerate Total announced that "Today, we would be taking too much political risk to invest in Iran."

By moving billions of dollars into certified terror-free funds like those offered by the United Missouri Bank, U.S. investors can effect more of this sort of corporate behavior-modification.  Senator Joseph Lieberman is expected shortly to introduce legislation that will offer federal employees a terror-free investment option in their Thrift Savings Plan.  Every American should have such a ready choice – and be encouraged to exercise it.

Second, we need to deflate the price of oil that is sustaining the Iranian regime.  We can do so by ending the monopoly oil-derived gasoline enjoys in the global transportation sector.  (This imperative is the subject of a hilarious video by David and Jerry Zucker at www.NozzleRage.com.)  By adopting an Open Fuel Standard, Congress can set a standard assuring that new cars sold both in America and the rest of the world will be capable of using alcohols that can be made practically anywhere (for example, ethanol, methanol or butanol), as well as gasoline.  Long before vast numbers of such Flexible Fuel Vehicles are on the roads, the OPEC cartel-induced speculative bubble that has contributed to the recent run-up in the price per barrel of oil will be lanced.

Third, we must counter the effort being made by the Iranians and other Islamists to use so-called Shariah-Compliant Finance (SCF) as a means to wage "financial jihad" against us.  Before SCF instruments proliferate further in our capital markets, in the process legitimating and helping to underwrite the repressive, anti-constitutional and subversive program the Iranian mullahs (among others) call Shariah, that program must be recognized for what it is – sedition – and prosecuted as such.  The effect would be chilling for Iranian and other SCF transactions in Western markets world-wide.

Fourth, we need to deploy as quickly as possible effective anti-missile defenses – both in Europe and at sea.  Russian objections notwithstanding, we cannot afford to delay any further in protecting ourselves and our allies against EMP and other missile-delivered threats.

Finally, we must mount an intensive, comprehensive and urgent effort to aid the Iranian people in liberating themselves from the theocrats that have afflicted their nation for nearly thirty years and made it a pariah internationally.  Supplying information technologies, assistance to students, teachers, unionists and others willing to stand up to the regime, aid to restive minorities and covert operations should all be in play.

By adopting these measures, we may yet be able to bring about regime change in Iran – the only hope for avoiding full-fledged combat against the Islamic Republic there.  But we should be under no illusion:  We will not avoid war; it has been thrust upon us by the mullahs for many years now.  We may, however, be able to avoid the far worse condition they wish to inflict by unleashing the weapons now coming into their arsenal.

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

Bad deal: all carrots, no sticks

President George W. Bush Thursday formally abandoned the last vestiges of a once-robust policy towards a North Korean regime he had rightly said he “loathed.” Worse yet, he is doing so in the face of Pyongyang’s manifest contempt exhibited through, among other things, its serial refusal even to provide promised data about the status and disposition of its nuclear arsenal, let alone to eliminate it.

Consider the following egregious shortfalls in the “declaration” supplied by Kim Jong Il’s representatives to the United States via Communist China: 

The North Korean declaration was delivered six months late. As time dragged on without any submission, Amb. Hill began making excuses and signaling that the United States would be willing to accept less than the “complete and correct” submission Kim’s regime was obligated to provide. 

Not surprisingly, the declaration that was ultimately served up conformed to this advance billing. There is no indication that the North Koreans are dismantling their nuclear arsenal. In fact, it has not even declared the size or whereabouts of its stockpile of atomic weapons. It is hard to believe that the United States has been obliged by its incompetent diplomats to make concessions desperately sought by the North — namely, ending the application to North Korea of the Trading with the Enemy Act and removing it from the State Department list of terrorist-sponsoring nations — for so little in return.

Pyongyang has not disclosed the other countries to which it has proliferated nuclear technology. Such assistance to Syria was only prevented from translating into an indigenous source of bomb-ready plutonium for that state-sponsor of terror by an Israeli air force attack last September. Israel’s strike destroyed a North Korean-supplied nuclear reactor virtually identical to the weapons-related one in North Korea that Amb. Hill is taking such credit for dismantling.

Particularly worrisome are reports last week in the German publication, Der Speigel, that a further purpose of Pyongyang’s reactor project in Syria was to help yet another state-sponsor of terror — Iran — develop its nuclear program. It is hard to imagine how Pyongyang’s seeding of such states’ nuclear ambitions can be seen as anything other than state-sponsorship of terror.

What is more, in December 2007, the Congressional Research Service cited reputable sources in asserting that North Korea had provided arms and possibly training to the State Department-designated terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon. There is also abundant evidence of North Korean involvement in the shipment of ballistic missiles and other weaponry to despotic nations around the world. In fact, such arms are the North’s only real cash crop and are used to enhance the offensive potential of both officially designated and undesignated state-sponsors of terror.

Amb. Hill also allowed the North Koreans to get away with non-disclosure of any detailed data about North Korea’s separate program for developing nuclear weapons with enriched uranium. It was the discovery and acknowledgment by Pyongyang of that covert program early in the Bush administration that prompted this president to terminate his predecessor’s egregious act of appeasement of the North: the 1994 Agreed Framework.

In short, North Korea has done nothing that would justify lifting of U.S. sanctions under the Trading with the Enemy Act. To the contrary, it continues to deserve that designation. It is also utterly inaccurate to describe it as a country no longer engaging in acts of state sponsorship of terrorism in any commonsensical meaning of the term.

President Bush has evidently concluded that — despite the demeaning of the United States and discrediting of his presidency entailed in the appalling diplomatic malpractice of Special Envoy Hill and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — the bad deal they have served up is better than none. Sadly, that is not the case.

The effect of making such U.S. concessions in the face of a manifestly incomplete and incorrect North Korean declaration will be to: encourage financial life-support to hemorrhage to that odious regime; assure that Pyongyang persists in an array of dangerous activities at home and abroad that it has promised (repeatedly) to forego; and embolden others around the world to pursue nuclear weapons, confident in the knowledge that they will be rewarded — not penalized — for doing so.

The good news is that Congress has 45 days to block the removal of North Korea from the U.S. state-sponsors-of-terrorism list. The bad news is that to do so, veto-proof majorities in both houses would have to be found for resolutions of disapproval — something seen as unlikely. We are told that too many Democrats will support this initiative as a splendid opportunity to embarrass George Bush for failing to get such a deal years ago. Too many Republicans are said to be reluctant to criticize a leader of their own party for engaging in behavior they rightly would excoriate any Democrat for perpetrating.

Nonetheless, it stands to reason — especially given North Korea’s serial and continuing breaches of past commitments — that the United States would also defer complete fulfillment of its part of the present bargain by tying any rewarding of Kim Jong Il to his fulfillment of his part. At stake is not just President Bush’s legacy, but that bequeathed in terms of the future security of all Americans.

Originally published in National Review. 

Christopher Holton, the Center’s vice president, contributed to this article.

 

Bad deal: all carrots, no sticks

President George W. Bush Thursday formally abandoned the last vestiges of a once-robust policy towards a North Korean regime he had rightly said he “loathed.” Worse yet, he is doing so in the face of Pyongyang’s manifest contempt exhibited through, among other things, its serial refusal even to provide promised data about the status and disposition of its nuclear arsenal, let alone to eliminate it.

Consider the following egregious shortfalls in the “declaration” supplied by Kim Jong Il’s representatives to the United States via Communist China: 

The North Korean declaration was delivered six months late. As time dragged on without any submission, Amb. Hill began making excuses and signaling that the United States would be willing to accept less than the “complete and correct” submission Kim’s regime was obligated to provide. 

Not surprisingly, the declaration that was ultimately served up conformed to this advance billing. There is no indication that the North Koreans are dismantling their nuclear arsenal. In fact, it has not even declared the size or whereabouts of its stockpile of atomic weapons. It is hard to believe that the United States has been obliged by its incompetent diplomats to make concessions desperately sought by the North — namely, ending the application to North Korea of the Trading with the Enemy Act and removing it from the State Department list of terrorist-sponsoring nations — for so little in return.

Pyongyang has not disclosed the other countries to which it has proliferated nuclear technology. Such assistance to Syria was only prevented from translating into an indigenous source of bomb-ready plutonium for that state-sponsor of terror by an Israeli air force attack last September. Israel’s strike destroyed a North Korean-supplied nuclear reactor virtually identical to the weapons-related one in North Korea that Amb. Hill is taking such credit for dismantling.

Particularly worrisome are reports last week in the German publication, Der Speigel, that a further purpose of Pyongyang’s reactor project in Syria was to help yet another state-sponsor of terror — Iran — develop its nuclear program. It is hard to imagine how Pyongyang’s seeding of such states’ nuclear ambitions can be seen as anything other than state-sponsorship of terror.

What is more, in December 2007, the Congressional Research Service cited reputable sources in asserting that North Korea had provided arms and possibly training to the State Department-designated terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon. There is also abundant evidence of North Korean involvement in the shipment of ballistic missiles and other weaponry to despotic nations around the world. In fact, such arms are the North’s only real cash crop and are used to enhance the offensive potential of both officially designated and undesignated state-sponsors of terror.

Amb. Hill also allowed the North Koreans to get away with non-disclosure of any detailed data about North Korea’s separate program for developing nuclear weapons with enriched uranium. It was the discovery and acknowledgment by Pyongyang of that covert program early in the Bush administration that prompted this president to terminate his predecessor’s egregious act of appeasement of the North: the 1994 Agreed Framework.

In short, North Korea has done nothing that would justify lifting of U.S. sanctions under the Trading with the Enemy Act. To the contrary, it continues to deserve that designation. It is also utterly inaccurate to describe it as a country no longer engaging in acts of state sponsorship of terrorism in any commonsensical meaning of the term.

President Bush has evidently concluded that — despite the demeaning of the United States and discrediting of his presidency entailed in the appalling diplomatic malpractice of Special Envoy Hill and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — the bad deal they have served up is better than none. Sadly, that is not the case.

The effect of making such U.S. concessions in the face of a manifestly incomplete and incorrect North Korean declaration will be to: encourage financial life-support to hemorrhage to that odious regime; assure that Pyongyang persists in an array of dangerous activities at home and abroad that it has promised (repeatedly) to forego; and embolden others around the world to pursue nuclear weapons, confident in the knowledge that they will be rewarded — not penalized — for doing so.

The good news is that Congress has 45 days to block the removal of North Korea from the U.S. state-sponsors-of-terrorism list. The bad news is that to do so, veto-proof majorities in both houses would have to be found for resolutions of disapproval — something seen as unlikely. We are told that too many Democrats will support this initiative as a splendid opportunity to embarrass George Bush for failing to get such a deal years ago. Too many Republicans are said to be reluctant to criticize a leader of their own party for engaging in behavior they rightly would excoriate any Democrat for perpetrating.

Nonetheless, it stands to reason — especially given North Korea’s serial and continuing breaches of past commitments — that the United States would also defer complete fulfillment of its part of the present bargain by tying any rewarding of Kim Jong Il to his fulfillment of his part. At stake is not just President Bush’s legacy, but that bequeathed in terms of the future security of all Americans.

Originally published in National Review. 

Christopher Holton, the Center’s vice president, contributed to this article.