Tag Archives: Latin America

Center’s Menges Hemispheric Security Symposium Flays Obama’s Rapprochement With Cuba And His Support For Venezuelan Dictator

The Center for Security Policy’s Menges Hemispheric Security Project yesterday convened its fourth annual Latin America Symposium on Capitol Hill.  The half-day program focused on two issues: 1) the domestic repression and foreign adventurism of Cuba’s Castro regime in the wake of President Obama’s normalization of relations with Havana and 2) the rapidly deteriorating political, economic and security situation with regard to the one-time patron, now client of Cuba: Venezuela.

The Symposium featured remarks by the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Chairman Emeritus, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and two panels of former senior U.S. government officials, national security experts, human rights activists, prominent academics and a top international journalist.  The participants persuasively argued that the Obama opening to Cuba is providing legitimacy and life-support to one of the world’s most odious dictatorships and that Venezuela’s conduct warrants its listing as a state-sponsor of terrorism.
In addition to Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, the following made remarks in the course of the program:
  • Menges Hemispheric Security Project Director Nancy Menges
  • Dr. Jose Azel, Director of the University of Miami’s Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies
  • Frank Calzon, Director of the Center for a Free Cuba
  • Jose Cardenas, former Acting Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean
  • Venezuelan expatriate human rights activist Adriana Vigilanza
  • Emili Blasco, correspondent with Spain’s ABC Network and the author of Bumeran Chavez
  • Amb. Otto Reich, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs and former US Ambassador to Venezuela
  • Counterterrorism expert Joseph Humire, the Executive Director of the Center for a Secure Free Society AND
  • Dr. Luis Fleishman, the Menges Project’s Senior Fellow and editor of its Americas Report
Videotaped highlights of their remarks will be available shortly at the Center’s YouTube channel.
Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., who served as the program’s moderator, said at the conclusion of the Latin America Symposium:
“The powerful, fact-based and analytically rigorous interventions by these world-class authorities underscore a reality lost on most Americans:  The stakes regarding developments in Cuba and Venezuela – and, indeed, in much of the Western Hemisphere – could not be higher for the United States.  The Castro brothers’ regime is a metastasizing cancer in our region, as is its client in Venezuela.  President Obama’s much-ballyhooed rapprochement with the former is national security fraud.  His administration’s ongoing efforts to achieve a similar outcome with the latter would greatly compound that act of malfeasance.”

American Moral Leadership and the Future of the Organization of American States (OAS) to be Tested During the Upcoming Summit of the Americas

On April 10th and 11th, the Summit of the Americas will take place in Panama. More than 35 heads of state are expected to participate, including the president of the United Sates, Barack Obama and the Cuban leader, Raul Castro.

The theme of the summit is “Equality and Prosperity” which will give room for countless speeches highlighting the importance of equality, the fight against poverty, and other related issues.

However, what really highlights this summit is that it is taking place in the aftermath of the new U.S./Cuba agreement.

Thus, this summit will not only have at its center, the heads of state and their often meaningless speeches but will also include civil society groups. These groups will be there and will bring back the elephant in the room: the question of democracy.

The summit is taking place against the background of an Organization of American States (OAS) that the former Panamanian Ambassador to the OAS, Guillermo Cochez described as an organization that has been destroyed in the past decade. According to Cochez, “the promising democratic principles and respect for human rights established in the OAS Democratic Charter have given room to a bunch of presidents that have done anything to stay in power even at the expense of trashing the same democratic principles that enabled their election”. Cochez rightly blamed Brazil for weakening the OAS by not paying its dues and by protecting regimes such as Venezuela. Cochez concluded, “the state of affairs in Venezuela has required for a long time the invocation of the democratic charter”.

It is not clear what should be expected from Latin American leaders in this summit. Latin American rulers have been the same for almost a decade now.

The new OAS secretary, Luis Almagro promised a return to the relevance and importance of the organization. However, the sincerity of this promise remains to be seen as Mr. Almagro, as Uruguayan Minister of Foreign Affairs, was sympathetic to the Venezuelan government.

Now, however, Almagro speaks about reinforcing the institutional capability of the OAS and strengthening its “legal credibility”.

This sounds good in principle. However, does it mean that the Democratic Charter of the OAS will be implemented as the law mandates? Almagro did not specify this. Likewise, he has remained ambiguous with regard to the role of the OAS Commission for Human Rights. This body within the OAS protected rights violated in different countries in Latin America like freedom of the press in Venezuela and Ecuador. ALBA countries objected to such a role and worked to destroy the Commission.

However, in a curious remark, Almagro pointed out that the Commission must be thought of as a technical entity in its promotion of human rights in the region. It cannot be a political body. In other words, those in the Commission cannot behave like activists, like civil society groups. Yet, political opinions do not have a technical component.

Almagro’s statement is obscure. Isn’t the defense of freedom of the press mandated by the OAS law? Is such an action an act of politics? How exactly should the Commission for Human Rights behave in order to be non-political? If the decisions or the judgements of the Commission upset some head of state, does it mean that the Commission is entering the realm of politics and not of law? What does Mr. Almagro mean exactly?

Almagro also added that the “Commission for Human Rights should establish a dialogue with countries and should promote a constructive agenda. Likewise, he pointed out, “the Commission must create mutual trust with the different countries and two way cooperation between the commission and these countries”. Is Almagro implying that there should be a consensus between the Commission that determines if there is a violation of human rights that needs to be brought to the Interamerican Court and the country that is accused of violating it?

If this is not what Almagro means, he must clarify it. The Obama Administration must ask the very same question. After all, Dan Restrepo, President Obama’s former director of the National Security Council’s Desk on Latin America, is part of Almagro’s team.

Almagro also pledged to increase the dialogue between the OAS and the Union of South American nations (UNASUR) and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). Both organizations have thrown their support behind Chavez and Maduro at the peak of their violation of human rights. The question is how the spirit of UNASUR fits with the democratic effervescence that emerged in the OAS during the 1990’s? Most probably the spirit of the latter will succumb to the former unless Washington, the main funder of the OAS, makes its weight felt. Will the Obama Administration do this? It remains to be seen.

Almagro also pledged to create the conditions for the incorporation of Cuba  into the organization stating that the “OAS has the obligation to create a political agenda and a dialogue with Cuba in order to bring the parties together”. This is going to be a key issue during this summit.

But in the civil society forums there will be representatives from different Cuban, Venezuelan and other groups. These organizations include dissident groups such as the “Ladies in White” and others. They will be asking to apply the Democratic  Charter to the entire region including Cuba. These organizations are scheduled to discuss a number of issues including democratic governance and citizens’ participation. Following this they would bring their recommendations to the heads of states.

While considering the role of the United States at the summit, it is not clear to what extent the Obama Administration will demand that Cuba respect human rights and open its system in total accordance with the spirit of the OAS charter. However, it is clear that given the fact that Obama showed willingness to accommodate his policies to the wishes of Latin American countries, Obama will be under pressure to accept Cuba as it is.

Furthermore, it is expected that Obama will be under pressure to eliminate his recent executive order that sanctions seven Venezuelan individual violators of human rights. Of course, it is obvious that the tyrannical government of Nicolas Maduro will not accept changes to the nature of its regime any more than Cuba will. Yet, this pressure will be applied. If the Obama Administration surrenders to such pressure only for the sake of better relations with Latin American countries, such an action would betray the citizens of those countries that have fallen victims to those regimes.

Most recently Charles Shapiro, a former U.S Ambassador to Venezuela, defined the summit as a Club of Presidents that protect each other without really caring for what is happening in their countries. Shapiro urged President Obama to insist the OAS Democratic Charter be respected.

Shapiro is right, if President Obama wants to leave a decent legacy, the least he can do is to side with civil society organizations that demand respect for human rights and democracy. These organizations are not even demanding the exclusion of Cuba but only that Cuba respect the OAS Democratic Charter.

Obama needs to listen to them, not to a handful of rulers that have looked the other way as democracy was being burnt to death.

Soviet Era Techniques in Present Day Latin America

In 1961, the communist led government of Cuba created their intelligence agency known as the Dirección de Inteligencia (DI or Intelligence Directorate). With the help from the Soviet Union’s Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti (KGB) agents, Cuba followed their parent nation’s orders in organizing their intelligence service. The function of these intelligence apparatuses differs from that of western society. Like the United States and Britain, the Cuban intelligence community’s main goal is collect intelligence on foreign governments. However, the Cuban intelligence service’s other main function is to suppress political dissidents within their totalitarian borders.

Even with the decline, and eventual defeat, of the Soviet Union, Cuban intelligence has flourished since its inception. In 2001, following 16 years of employment at the Defense Intelligence Agency, Ana Belen Montes was arrested on charges of conspiracy to commit espionage for the Cuban government. This successful penetration of the United States’ intelligence community by the Cuban government shows a high caliber ability to collect intelligence on foreign nations. In relation to their second function, according to the International Federation for Human Rights, between January and May of 2014, the Dirección de Inteligencia (DI) arrested nearly five thousand political dissidents. Even following the Obama Administration’s recent restorations of diplomatic relations with the communist government, it has been reported that the Cuban Dirección de Inteligencia is still monitoring political dissidents whom have recently been released from prison.

Cuba’s Dirección de Inteligencia has shown their competence in following in the KGB’s footsteps. Over the past decade, Cuba has increased the exportation of their intelligence collecting know-how to other Latin American nations. The most obvious case of this influence is the growing relationship between Cuba and Venezuela. Following President Hugo Chavez rise to power in 1999, Cuban intelligence officers began building a working relationship between the two nations. Beginning in 2011, President Chavez routinely traveled to Cuba for cancer treatment, which he eventually succumbed to in 2013. Prior to his death, he appointed Vice President Nicolas Maduro as his successor.  Since his reelection last year, President Maduro has accelerated the Cuban-Venezuelan relationship. This is not shocking given the fact that following his high school graduation, President Maduro forewent attending college in order to receive training from Cuban officials in organizational skills needed for union mobilization.

In recent years, the Venezuelan Servicio Bolivariano de Inteligencia Nacional (SEBIN), has taken actions comparable to that of the Soviet KGB or Cuban Dirección de Inteligencia (DI). The most alarming issue revolves around the SEBIN’s acceptance and protection of urban guerrillas, known as colectivos, whom are recruited and trained by Cuban agents in order to “kill and repress” opposition in Venezuela. Most notoriously, these social destabilizers were used in an attempt to disperse crowds following the 2014 student protests in Caracas, which left 3 individuals dead. Furthermore, there have been numerous accounts of the torturing of prisoners by government officials in order to obtain confessions from political opposition.

The problem of Cuban influence in Venezuela has not gone unnoticed. Following questioning from reporters, Foreign Minister Elias Jaua stated that the total number of Cubans working in Venezuela tops twenty-six thousand individuals. What Minister Jaua did not report was the fact that all of Cubans have had constitutionally mandated military training, many of who may be covertly working for the Cuban government. In addition to the penetration of the intelligence apparatus in Venezuela, it has been reported that Cuban intelligence has began to influence Venezuelan politicians directly in order to push Havana’s agenda.

Even though the Soviet Union collapsed nearly 25 years ago, their backwards and repressive form of controlling a population has lived on through the Cuban Dirección de Inteligencia, which attempts to continue spreading the ideology throughout Latin America.

New Cuba-US Relations Leave Old Security Issues Unreconciled

President Obama and his aides raised a number of arguments justifying their sudden decision to normalize relations between U.S and Cuba.

They have claimed the status quo and the embargo have not helped topple the Cuban dictatorship. I concede this is true. Secondly, although Cuba made no commitment to decompress or alter in any way its repressive regime, President Obama believes that “more contact will do more to empower the Cuban people”. The assumption is in Obama’s own words that “through a policy of engagement, we can more effectively stand up for our values, and help the Cuban people help themselves as they move into the 21st century.”

The President apparently believes that by expanding commercial sales and exports of goods and services to Cuba and providing more business training and communication between the two countries, the regime will liberalize and adapt our values of free market, democracy and human rights.

This argument is doubtful because except for the U.S, Cuba was open to every other country in the world. China is instructive as an example. China has adopted a policy of economic openness, but this openness has not mitigated the oppressive character of its regime. Whereas there is always the possibility of liberalization — it is by no means guaranteed.

The Cuban regime is as stubborn as the Chinese and the upcoming death of the old generation and founding fathers of the revolution does not guarantee change. It is enough to look at Iran and North Korea to see this.

Third, the Obama Administration also justified its move by claiming that the status quo in U.S-Cuban relations constituted an impediment to our regional policy.

On this point, Brazil, the leader of Latin American regional policy, welcomed the decision. Furthermore, according to Brazil’s chief foreign policy advisor Marco Aurelio Garcia, Brazil had assisted to advance the normalization. Garcia is the chief architect of Brazil’s foreign policy, which aims at developing an independent foreign policy, mostly pro-third world, firmly protective of the principle of national sovereignty and against the interference even on human rights issues.

Likewise, Brazil is protective of the Venezuelan socialist dictatorship. Finally, Brazil is also harshly opposed to the expansion of American influence in the region where the South American giant claims leadership and hegemony.

I see the normalization more like a victory for this regional block and Brazil’s foreign policy because the U.S runs the risk of being effectively neutralized from taking unilateral action when it comes to issues of national security and human rights. The reality is that Cuba did not pledge to improve its ongoing negative record on human rights, which include unfair imprisonment and assassination of political opponents.

While Obama’s signing the Venezuelan sanctions bill one day after the Cuba deal was announced is an encouraging step, it is not clear if Obama will go beyond. The region is likely to rally behind Venezuela as they did with Cuba and the U.S is likely to be forced to go along.

Finally, the Obama Administration pledged to review Cuba’s status place on the list of countries that sponsor terrorism. Cuba continues to send military advisers to Venezuela where they assist in developing Venezuela’s repressive apparatus and totalitarian state.

Venezuela itself harbors members of Hezbollah, Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the Basque guerilla group ETA.

According to a thorough report by Dr. Jaime Suchliki, head of Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami , Cuba directly and through Venezuela continues to provide intelligence to Hamas and Hezbollah. Likewise, Cuba works with Venezuela in promoting Hezbollah and Iranian objectives in South America and against the U.S. Furthermore, Iran-Cuban cooperation on intelligence matters and sabotage has dramatically increased.

Cuba was reported to have facilitated the smuggling of narcotics and terrorists to the U.S. through Mexico and arms and explosives under Iranian diplomatic cover. Likewise, Cuban military officers work together with Venezuelan military, drug cartels and the FARC. It has also been reported that Cuba trains Venezuelan guerillas and Para-military that terrorize the Venezuelan population.

In mid 2013 Cuba tried to smuggle large amounts of sophisticated weapons to North Korea. The Economist reported that under Raul Castro, military and commercial co-operation between the two countries appears to have increased.

These are important issues that affect our security and also the well being of the region. I doubt that any of these issues was addressed.

If these issues are not addressed the normalization could turn only into another bombastic show of shocking news without tangible or positive results.

 

Originally Published at Newsmax

José R. Cárdenas: Venezuela, Brazil and U.S. National Security — Latest Developments in Latin America

José R. Cárdenas, Former Chief of Staff to the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs; Former Staff Member, National Security Council; Former Acting Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean, U.S. Agency for International Development speaks at the Center for Security Policy’s National Security Group Lunch on Capitol Hill regarding the Latest Developments in Latin America.

José Cárdenas: Venezuela — Latest Developments and the Case for Sanctions

José Cárdenas, Former Acting Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean, U.S. Agency for International Development; Former Chief of Staff to the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs speaks at the Center for Security Policy’s National Security Group Lunch on Capitol Hill regarding the latest developments in Venezuela, and the case for sanctions.

The Importance of Sanctions to Uphold Democracy and Human Freedoms in the Western Hemisphere

The House of Representatives version of the Venezuela sanctions bill passed the full House on May 28th. Now a very similar bill is paralyzed in the Senate as senators continue debating whether or not such sanctions are   worthwhile to pursue. . Meanwhile, it is our understanding derived from various conversations with a number of members of Congress, that the White House and some Senators continue to oppose the bill.

According to informal conversations   with offices of some Senators, the main question hesitant legislators are asking is whether these sanctions will have any effect at all. It seems that Senator Bob Corker on the Republican side and Senator Tom Udall on the Democrat side are the two opponents of the legislation who are now holding it hostage in Committee. While one never knows how effective sanctions will be, it is rather a false argument to claim they won’t work since it is impossible to know the answer unless they are operationalized. What is equally important is the message such sanctions would send to the people of Venezuela and to the opposition, many of whom have been brutalized and imprisoned by the Maduro regime.

The bill imposes “targeted sanctions on persons responsible for violations of human rights of antigovernment protesters in Venezuela, to strengthen civil society in Venezuela and for other purposes”. Likewise, the bill, called the ‘‘Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014’’, calls “to support the people of Venezuela in their aspiration to live under conditions of peace”; “to work in concert with the other member states within the Organization of American States, as well as the countries of the European Union, to ensure the peaceful resolution of the current situation in Venezuela”; and “to hold accountable government and security officials in Venezuela responsible for or complicit in the use of force in relation to the antigovernment protests that began on February 12, 2014, and similar future acts of violence”; and” to continue to support the development of democratic political processes and independent civil society in Venezuela”.

In practical terms, besides freezing assets of individual perpetrators of human rights, the bill also allocates 15 million dollars for civil society organizations that support democracy.

If we judge by the numbers it may not impress those who expect a major change in the Venezuelan government’s attitude. However, these sanctions represent an important first step in setting up a precedent and getting the U.S. Government and our foreign policy establishment fully involved in what is occurring in Latin America.

Very often when the White House or Congress thinks of Latin America, they do not think in terms of priority. Certainly the crisis in the Ukraine and now in Iraq are likely to push our neighbors from the South further to the margins of our foreign policy agenda.

But is Latin America really as unimportant as our establishment seems to think?

For example, there are certain events that occur in our Hemisphere that may not set off alarm bells but at the very least should garner some attention and concern. Recently, in the Bolivian area of Santa Cruz, a major gathering of the United Nations group called the G-77 plus China took place. That group originally formed in 1964 with the objective of “putting an end to the world division between the spheres of opulent wealth and unbearable poverty”.

A large number of countries that form this third world block are non-democratic or do not hold democracy in the same high esteem as they hold economic equality or their own thirst for power.

The main organizer of this gathering is also host, President Evo Morales of Bolivia. As soon as he took the presidency of the group he set up the agenda, which includes the “refoundation of democracy from representative to participatory democracy” and makes “basic services (welfare and distribution) the main universal human right”.

Of course this is exactly what the Bolivarian Revolution under Hugo Chavez set up as the main pillar of his ideology. What this means in practice is the elimination of liberal democracy in favor of a sort of “populist democracy” which in empirical terms has meant nothing but populist authoritarianism at the expense of human and civil rights.

In the name of welfare and the people, the leader is elected by the people therefore his will is equal to the will of the people.

Likewise, Morales pointed out before the gathering “we need to make clear to all those present here, that the real enemy of the people is imperialism, colonialism and capitalism”.

According to Alvaro Garcia Linera, Bolivia’s Vice-President, Evo Morales is the natural successor of Hugo Chavez. Garcia Linera is the organic intellectual of the Bolivian government and had a lot to say in the preparation of the G-77 plus China conference. He has advocated for “the elimination of the party system, its representatives, and the destruction of the legislative and judicial powers, the electoral courts, the mass media and its owners”. He has also supported violence against political enemies and opponents.

These kinds of anti-democratic policies are all part of the Chavez legacy of hostility towards the United States and the West.

As an example, among the resolutions adopted by the G-77 is one that blames Britain for the current serious economic crisis Argentina is facing because Great Britain is unwilling to negotiate on the Falkland Islands. A second resolution refers to the debt Argentina has with holdout hedge funds, a long running litigation that has reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The resolution states “the importance of not allowing these vulture funds to paralyze the debt restructuring activities of developing countries nor impede these States their right to protect their peoples in accordance with international law”. In other words both resolutions hold the U.S. and Great Britain responsible for a problem that   Argentina’s national government created.

No less surprising is that the 133 countries represented in the G-77 stressed their support for the Government of Venezuela as “it faces imperialist aggression from the United States that threatens to intervene in Venezuela”. Ironically, these resolutions were being adopted while President Obama and others were trying to prevent sanctions aimed mainly at the thugs that rule Venezuela. Are we underestimating these events?

Latin American countries are at the forefront of this gathering and several Latin American presidents attended this event that seems to be a combination of third world countries with emerging markets. The only world power participating, unsurprisingly, is China that seeks to make geo-political gains and reduce U.S. political influence around  the globe.

In other words, the Chavez legacy, despite the multiple protests in Venezuela continues to exercise international leadership while downgrading democracy.

If the United States does not watch events in Latin America and does not speak up when democracy comes under assault, what kind of message are we conveying?

Sanctions against Venezuelan perpetrators and support for the democratic movement in Venezuela is just a beginning but it is taking a stand and making an important statement that will be deeply appreciated by those fighting on the front lines for their basic human rights. Those who fight for democracy need to know that the U.S. is on their side And as President Obama said in his West Point speech: “When we protect democracy, we protect our national interests”. However, thus far, we have done neither.

Another Blow to Democracy and Human Rights at Latin American and Caribbean Conference

A significant but under-reported meeting of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) took place on January 28 and 29th in Havana, Cuba.

CELAC is an organization created in order to promote regional integration. It includes almost all the Latin American and Caribbean countries but   excludes the United States and Canada.  It is also a political organization, created in Caracas in 2011 and inspired by the late Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez whose implicit aim was to diminish the influence of the Organization of American States (OEA) and the United States.

This summit had strong political connotations with implications for the future of the region. Several key resolutions were adopted.

First, CELAC affirmed the right of each nation to choose any type of “political and economic organization”. By the same token CELAC affirmed its support for the principle “of self-determination, respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each country; and; support for the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign countries”.

It is interesting that in the same resolution, even in the same sentence, CELAC expresses support for the “protection and promotion of all human rights, respect for the rule of law at the national and international levels and the promotion of citizens’ participation and democracy”.

This first resolution then continues “ we are also committed to work together for the prosperity of all, in such a way that all forms of discrimination, inequality, marginalization, violations of human rights and the rule of law be eradicated”.

Of course this main resolution of CELAC is clearly ambiguous and misleading even though it looks perfectly acceptable to the naked eye. However, if we look carefully, we can see that CELAC is asking that the international community and the region accept any form of political or economic regime chosen by each member country while calling for non-interference in that countries’ internal affairs. In other words, what CELAC is requesting is that if a country chooses to become a dictatorship, it should be accepted without questioning. The principle of sovereignty and self-determination stands above the principle of human rights or liberty.

It is no wonder that the resolution does not call to protect “human rights” but “all human rights”.  This language is problematic as it implies that human rights are not just violations of the right to life and liberty but also  “social rights” which are fundamentally the right to an income or the right to economic equality.

It is not that social rights are to be dismissed but what would happen if in the name of social rights, human and civil rights are violated?

We can find the answer in the next paragraph where the resolution implies that if prosperity for all is achieved, problems of human rights will be eradicated.

In other words, economic prosperity is directly tied to the diminishing of violations of rights (which for CELAC includes “inequality” as a main component). Common sense tells us that if inequality is indeed a socio-economic problem, civil and human rights are tied to the rule of law independently of economic performance. However, for CELAC the constitutionality and legal character of rights seems to be subjected to economic performance and reduction of inequality.

Thus, CELAC is in fact legitimizing dictatorship.

It is no wonder that leaders from all over the continent visited the old leader of the Cuban revolution, Fidel Castro as if the Caribbean dictator were the Dalai Lama or the Pope. All the presidents, one after another, were there to receive the blessing of the old man. The list included Presidents Dilma Roussef (Brazil), Cristina Kirchner (Argentina), Jose Mujica (Uruguay), Enrique Pena Nieto (Mexico), and, of course the presidents of the countries of the Bolivarian alliance (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua).

These meetings actually took place when human rights in Cuba continue to be practically non-existent.  In other words there is no freedom of the press, of free speech, and no elections on a municipal or national level. Cuba continues to be a fifty-five year old Communist, anti-American dictatorship that has impoverished the vast majority of its people.

In Cuba there are political prisoners detained without any fair trial. Today, we have a remarkable group of wives of political prisoners called the Ladies in White (Las Damas de Blanco”). This group protests every day in downtown Havana demanding the release of their husbands. The “Ladies in White” follow the model of the “Mothers of Plaza de Mayo”, a group of mothers that during the 1977-1983 military dictatorship in Argentina demanded information about their children who disappeared during that dark time.  The “Ladies in White”, like other peaceful opponents of the regime, are constantly subjected to harassment by the Cuban security forces. Likewise, the prison system in Cuba has been described by human rights organizations as “cruel, inhuman and degrading”. The Cuban government continues to refuse to cooperate with the International Red Cross and other humanitarian bodies.

We should not forget the case of Alan Gross, a U.S government sub-contractor for the U.S Agency for International Development (USAID). He was falsely accused of crimes against the Cuban state for bringing computer equipment to Cuba’s Jewish community. He has been a prisoner in Cuba for the last four years and since 2011 he is serving a 15year sentence.

The number of political prisoners has doubled, according to a report by the Miami Herald from a year ago.

Of the 33 leaders at CELAC, only the outgoing Chilean president Sebastian Piñera met with representatives from the “Ladies in White”. In another such gesture, Costa Rica received in its Havana embassy a delegation of Cuban dissidents.

What is worse, the Cuban government is exporting its repression tactics to newly elected dictatorships such as Venezuela.

However, CELAC managed to condemn the U.S. economic blockade against Cuba.

In response, the U.S. State Department rightly accused Latin American countries of “betraying democracy” by giving diplomatic support to Cuba. Even the well- known and widely circulated Spanish leftist newspaper “El País” suggested that the CELAC summit was a farce that only served to legitimize the Castro dictatorship and increase its political capital.

But as a result of the CELAC summit not only the Cuban dictatorship was legitimized but also, all forms of authoritarianism were given legitimacy. That means that no undemocratic country or violator of human rights (as long as he belongs to the “social equalizer” camp) will be condemned or reprimanded by the region.

Secondly, this tendency was reaffirmed by the position of the Mexican government and the European Union.

Mexican President Pena Nieto met with Castro, and contrary to his two predecessors Felipe Calderon and Vicente Fox, totally ignored the dissidents. Pena Nieto also called Castro “Cuba’s moral and political leader” and proceeded to renew relations between the two countries that suffered a breakdown in their relationship (mostly over human rights) since 2002.

Likewise, the European Union announced that it would deepen relations with Cuba. On February 10th, 28 European foreign ministers are expected to give a green light to begin talks with Havana in order to increase trade, investment and dialogue on human rights. I have my doubts that the stubborn Cuban regime will even agree to discuss human rights but it will certainly benefit from European investments. Europe is expected to look for its own economic and political interests. What is worse the EU announcement is a major political victory for the Cuban regime.

Here again, the United States is a passive observer having failed to develop a sound human rights agenda and establish   a suitable Latin American policy. Instead, the U.S. has adapted to the “natural” course of events dictated by the likes of Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, Evo Morales and Rafael Correa.

China’s Pivot to Latin America

The quest for global naval power runs parallel to competition for control of markets in Latin America.. The two largest world economies, the United States, and China are vying for control of these markets.

China has an enormous population of approximately 1.3 billion people but is only able to use a very small percentage of its land mass. Its’ consumer market is the wealthiest it has been in modern times. China desires access to key resources such as petroleum, coal, iron, uranium, as well as agricultural products. Latin America is in high global demand, with 500 million people, and a $3trillion market. In its quest to be Latin America’s foremost business partner, China has risen out of ambiguity to become one of the top three exporters, sometimes surpassing the United States in countries like Argentina, Peru, Venezuela, Chile, and Brazil.

China has sought to be the prime lender in Latin America, loaning $110 billion dollars thus exceeding the World Bank’s contribution for the past two years. Some of China’s other most noteworthy loans include $28 billion to Venezuela, $10.2 billion to the Argentine debt swap, and 10 billion to Brazilian oil company, Petrobras. China wishes to benefit from developing infrastructure, ports, roads and rail systems in Latin America. In Nicaragua,  China is planning the start of a canal bigger than the Panama Canal, facilitating passage to larger container ships than the Panama Canal is now able to handle. In Panama,  China controls the leases at both ends of the Panama Canal and is in the process of widening the Canal in order to accommodate larger vessels. This constitutes excellent strategic positioning for China, giving them virtual control over two major passageways. Though a huge amount of the world’s trade transits the Panama Canal, the United States remains its biggest user.

China’s economic relations in the Caribbean are also growing by leaps and bounds. Consider a $2.6 billion resort, among a gaggle of Chinese owned hotels and casinos being built by the Chinese in the Bahamas, 80 miles off the U.S. coast. Or Complant, a Chinese company, investing millions of dollars in Jamaica’s sugar industry. The Bahamas and Jamaica are great strategic places for the Chinese to invest due to their close proximity to the U.S., as well as in Cuba, with whom they already have solid military, diplomatic and commercial relations.

In recent years, China has embarked on a well-planned pivot to Latin America, focusing on a multifaceted military approach. In terms of soft military power, the Chinese naval hospital, Peace Ark has sailed the Caribbean offering medical and military services, similar to America’s USNS Comfort, but, with the addition of military council. China conducts military exchange and arm sales with Colombia, Chile, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay.  In Argentina, the Chinese are providing  technological assistance  with aircraft and helicopters and in Brazil with civilian and military operations. In addition, specific attention is being paid to Venezuela as a launching pad for military and diplomatic influence in South America.

One cannot completely blame the Chinese for wanting to establish trade relations with countries in close proximity to the United States. As a result of the magnitude of American influence in China’s neighborhood,  China has globally voiced its disapproval of the U.S. Military. In its pivot to Asia, the U.S. has enhanced its military relationships with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Vietnam. China believes that the U.S. is practicing containment of Chinese diplomatic, military, and economic relations. Recently, the U.S.  made a deal with Australia for the installation of new military hardware in existing military bases in Darwin. Interestingly, China is Australia’s largest trading partner. It can be deduced that the military climate in Asia is escalating to Cold War proportions as China has recently launched its first aircraft carrier, and has been having territorial disputes in the South China Sea with its neighbors; Vietnam, Japan and the Philippines.

Both China and the U.S. are focused on South America for trade, financial and military investment due to its wealth in commodities and fuels. Washington has signed annual exchanges of $800 billion dollars with Latin America for the development of trade pertaining to various goods and services. Ideally, however, this should have happened sooner as the U.S. has reacted to China’s push toward Latin America with delay.  For example, China has become the largest trading partner of South America’s most pivotal economy, Brazil, in pursuit of iron and soy. As stated by Bill Gertz of the Washington Free Beacon in 2013, “China has been quietly taking steps to encircle the United States by arming western hemisphere states, seeking closer military, economic, and diplomatic ties to U.S. neighbors, and sailing warships into U.S. maritime zones.”

In response to the U.S. pivot to Asia, China wishes to rival the U.S. in Latin America. China is aggressively seeking commercial, diplomatic, and military ties with countries in the Americas. Recently, the Chinese president Xi Jin Ping visited Trinidad, Costa Rica, and Mexico offering loans in the hundreds of millions of dollars, including $4 billion to Venezuela for oil development. China may float money easily to Latin American regimes, but these loans usually come with pre-conditions. For instance, it is highly possible that countries receiving money from China will have to support their claim to the Senkaku islands, or perhaps their sovereignty over Taiwan. Such indirect coercion ought to indicate to these countries the true nature of the Chinese government, and should make them think twice about wanting to take easy money from China.

As the Chinese increase the size of their navy, they are also drastically growing the size and significance of their influence in the Americas, not just in South America, but in Cuba, Nicaragua, Mexico and even Canada. As the emerging world super power, China has been steadily gaining the reputation of being a country that is coercive with regard to the current treatment of its neighbors, as well as being politically manipulative in the way it drafts treaties with new trading partners, especially those in Latin America. The U.S. and the rest of the free world should take notice of this as an indication of what will happen if the Chinese surpass the U.S. as the world’s most dominant economic and naval power.

Fleischman warns post-Chávez Venezuela is exporting Bolivarian revolution

Luis Fleischman is co-editor of the Americas Report, a featured product of the Center for Security Policy‘s Menges Hemispheric Security Project. He is the author of Latin America in the Post-Chávez Era. He speaks with Allen West about the legacy of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez. Did Chávez create a Bolivarian anti-American revolutionary movement throughout Latin America? Find out.

[ CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE INTERVIEW AT PJ MEDIA’S NEXT GENERATION TV]