Tag Archives: Menges Hemispheric Security Project

National Security Policy Proceedings, vol. 6: Fall 2011

This is the sixth issue of the Center for Security Policy’s National Security Policy Proceedings.

From Ben Lerner’s Editor’s Note:

National Security Policy Proceedings represents the Center’s compilation of transcripts of remarks given by featured speakers at these gatherings. In some cases, speakers have chosen to submit their remarks to Proceedings as original articles. Additionally, Proceedings includes book reviews of recently published national security-themed books, reviewed by eminent scholars in the field.

In publishing Proceedings, the Center has sought to provide the reader with authoritative yet accessible commentary on the most pressing issues of national security, foreign affairs, defense policy, and homeland security. Because the speakers and those in attendance are routinely in contact with one another and are often collaborating on analytical and educational efforts, it is our intention that Proceedings give the reader a unique window into how those in the national security policy community convey and exchange ideas with one another, among friends and colleagues.

 

National Security Policy Proceedings

Vol. 6: Fall 2011

 

 

 

Download the PDF

BEN LERNER
Editor’s Note

JACK SPENCER
After Japan
(Assessing Nuclear Energy)

AMB. ROGER NORIEGA
Ignoring Latin America

MICHAEL BRAUN
Terror & Drugs at the Southern Border

SAMARA GREENBERG
To the Arab Spring, Lessons from Lebanon

 

Assassination plot in DC related to increasing Iranian presence in Western Hemisphere

Until Chavez assumed power Iran’s presence in the Western Hemisphere was not as strong as it is today. Its proxy, Hezbollah, had presence and even committed a number of atrocities in Latin America such as the attacks on Israeli and Jewish targets in Buenos Aires. However, its presence increased manifold since Chavez and his Bolivarian revolution began to spread throughout the hemisphere.

Not surprisingly the Iranians have tried to carry out another act of terrorism by attempting to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States with the help of a Mexican criminal group. Iran intended to carry out this attack by using an American citizen of Iranian origins who contacted a member of a well-known Mexican gang and drug cartel called "The Zetas". It was also disclosed that during their exchanges, they discussed attacks on Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington and Buenos Aires.

This event surprised a number of analysts and journalists including the New York Times because Iran usually carries out its terrorist attacks through proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Mahdi Army. This time, however, Iran sought the help of a drug cartel and a gang that seeks to make money and not to carry out political terrorist attacks.

Thus, Max Aub, a Mexican journalist working in Miami, raised the question on Spanish language TV, why would the Zetas undertake such a risky operation for such a small amount of money- only $ 1.5 million?

From a different angle, Ali Alfoneh, an expert on Iran at the American Enterprise Institute doubts that Ayatollah Ali Khamanei planned such an attack because "he is a very cautious statesman and thus he would not gamble on something that involves so many risks". In Mr. Alfoneh’s view, this plot is indicative of an internal struggle within the Iranian leadership.

Nevertheless, the Menges Hemispheric Security Project has been warning for some time of the connections between Middle Eastern terrorist groups, rogue states and drug cartels. (See the latest here ).

Unlike countries in the Middle East where Iran has at its disposal, proxy groups such as the ones mentioned above, countries like those in the Western Hemisphere- far away from Iran’s natural geographical sphere of influence-consist of relatively unknown territory for Iran. Drug cartels and other local criminal elements on the other hand, being heavily involved in many types of criminal activities, possess logistical and strategic knowledge of their operational territory and are therefore capable of providing a tremendous service to rogue states with terrorist intentions such as Iran.

The attacks carried out by Iran against the Israeli Embassy and the Jewish community headquarters in Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994 respectively are a case in point. During the investigation of these attacks it became clear that top officers of the Buenos Aires Province-which is the largest and one of the most corrupt police forces in Argentina- were involved in providing logistical and institutional support to the terrorists who carried out the attack. The cases against these police officers were dismissed for reasons that are not at all clear or justified (except on internal political grounds).

In the case of the plot against the Saudi Ambassador, the logic seems to be that the Iranians knew that the "Zetas" had ways to penetrate U. S. territory, since they have already done it. Also, the "Zetas" is the most ruthless and murderous group of all the drug cartels and gangs combined. The "Zetas" have been responsible for many massacres in Mexico, including mass murder of immigrants near the border, as well as kidnapping and extortion activities and piracy. In addition, they have been the main providers of fire -power initially to the Mexican Gulf Cartel and most recently to the families that control drug trafficking in Guatemala. Of course the "Zetas" are a drug cartel. However, they have always mainly been a supplier of violence. I would dare to say that for the "Zetas" being a killing and torture machine comes first and being a drug cartel comes second. Ruthlessness and audacity are key factors that the Iranians need. In answering the question why the "Zetas" would take such risk when the profit is not worthwhile, we can say that killing is part of the equation. Drug gangs are not there only for the money. There is a psychological element that plays a role. Killing is a challenge that is not necessarily limited by the need to make a profit. As an example a Mexican gang leader captured by Mexican authorities last summer, Oscar Garcia, admitted to killing 300 people with his own hands (he used to sadistically decapitate his victims with a knife) and ordered the death of another 300 people. This man- who confessed not without amusement that he was born to kill- began his career, like the majority of the "Zetas" members, in the police and the military. In other words, this is a vivid example of a man who joins the drug cartels not to become rich but to kill. It is safe to assume that he is not the only one.

Iran’s Strategy

It was the Iranian Quds force that planned the plot. Interestingly enough, the Quds force was established as a special branch of the Revolutionary Guards to help export the revolution through subversion and terrorism. Therefore, the Quds Force’s activities take place beyond the borders of Iran and it reports directly to the Supreme leader, Ali Khameini, and most probably to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as well. There is no reason to believe that these leaders did not know about the plot. To talk about an internal plot against the will of these leaders whose ruthlessness has been proven beyond any doubt, is also a baseless speculation.

A totalitarian state such as Iran is designed to inflict damage on what it considers to be its enemy. Iran has carried out a number of operations where it has not assumed responsibility for them. First the attacks in Buenos Aires mentioned above; the attacks on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996; a series of attacks on Paris’ metro systems; the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 from Athens to London in 1985 where a U.S navy diver was murdered and others. Iran never assumed responsibility of these lethal attacks precisely because evidence beyond reasonable doubt against Iran was never clear. It was always Lebanese Shiites or unknown people who committed these crimes. This time Iran tried to do the same thing, which is to carry out an attack where there is no evidence of its involvement.
As scholar, Walid Phares, has rightly pointed out in an interview with Fox News, "in its operation against embassies in DC, Iran’s regime subcontracted cartels to strike, so that the Ayatollahs would escape international responsibility".

At this point there is little reason to doubt Iran’s responsibility for the plot against the Saudi Ambassador. What Iran is capable of doing on American soil or in any other country in the Western Hemisphere is a serious challenge that cannot be ignored. It requires heavy involvement by the White House. It cannot be delegated to any bureaucracy or agency that would treat these events as business as usual.

Iran has allies in the Western Hemisphere, first and foremost Venezuela under the leadership of Hugo Chavez. But other countries, following Chavez’ lead, such as Ecuador, Bolivia, Cuba, and Nicaragua have also deepened relations with Iran at a very dangerous level.

Venezuela is Iran’s Main Gate to the Western Hemisphere

Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, has been a major facilitator of the Iranian banking system by helping create a joint Iranian Venezuelan bank to fund "development" projects. CSP staff member, Nicolas Hanlon reported that this bank is the offspring of The Export Development Bank of Iran. This Iranian institution is under sanctions from both the U.S. Treasury and the international community for its alleged involvement in Iran’s nuclear program. The joint bank venture is aimed at finding new ways to finance Iran’s nuclear program, and mainly avoid sanctions imposed on Iran by the international community.

Moreover, Chavez also maintains a relationship with the Al Quds Force.

In fact, in January 2009, the Italian daily "La Stampa", reported that the regular flights between Caracas, Damascus and Tehran constitute a device for Venezuela to help Iran send Syria material for the manufacture of missiles. Accordingly, the materials are destined for the "Revolutionary Guards", the main force protecting the Iranian regime. In exchange for those materials Iran provided Venezuela with members of their revolutionary guards and their elite unit, "Al Quds", to strengthen Venezuela’s secret services and police. Finally, In April 2010, the Pentagon reported the presence of the Quds Force in Venezuela.

Chavez also provides logistical help to Iran. In 2008, it was reported at a conference organized by the CSP Menges Hemispheric Security Project that there were Iranian partnerships with dubious local businessmen in factories located in sensitive areas with access to strategic routes. One of the speakers at the conference talked about those partnerships as possibly including connections between drug trafficking networks that control sensitive strategic areas and Iran. In fact, Iran has established a financial and business infrastructure with Chavez’s consent and encouragement that now includes banks, gold mining, a cement plant, a tractor and bicycle factory, a tuna processing plant and a joint oil venture. On December 30th, 2008 twenty two containers were confiscated from an Iranian cargo ship bound for Venezuela. When the Turkish authorities inspected the shipment, they did not find tractor parts but components to build weapons, bombs and possibly some radioactive material (See story here)

Finally, a 2009 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that for some time Venezuelan ports and airports are being freely used by drug traffickers. It is no secret that Venezuela has become a major trans-shipment point for drugs coming from Colombia and Ecuador and that Chavez has close connections to the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) who in turn work closely with the Mexican cartels.

U.S. Policy Action Required: Sanctions Against Venezuela Are Crucial

Thus far, U.S. policy has detached Venezuela policy from Iranian policy despite everything mentioned above. Venezuela has served as Iran’s main ally in helping Iran to avoid sanctions, to increase its presence in the Western Hemisphere and has even maintained nuclear cooperation with Iran.

Currently there are sanctions against Iran imposed by the United Nations and by the United States. These are sanctions directed primarily against Iran’s energy sector but these measures need to be fully implemented. In addition, the Central Bank of Iran must be sanctioned. This past August, more than 90 U.S. senators signed a letter to President Barack Obama pressing him to sanction Iran’s central bank, with some, threatening legislation to force the move. Such a step could freeze Iran out of the global financial system.

In regard to Venezuela, U.S policy has been very mild towards Chavez for fear of looking like a "bully" and for fear of losing influence on a continent where the left has gained substantial power.

The Venezuelan oil-giant PDVSA was mildly sanctioned last summer. The sanctions imposed on PDVSA only prohibit the company from obtaining either a U.S. export visa or money from the U.S. Import-Export Bank, as well as banning them from attempting to obtain U.S. procurement contracts. These sanctions, however, are remarkably limited in scope. They do not affect PDVSA’s U.S. branch (CITGO), nor does it stop the import of Venezuelan oil to the U.S. About 10% of the total oil the U.S imports comes from Venezuela. (See more about sanctions on Venezuela here)

Since Venezuela is a key Iran partner it only makes sense for the United States, the European Union and the United Nations to impose sanctions on Venezuela, as well. Additional sanctions against Iran will only be partially effective as long as the Iranian government has carte blanche to launder their money through the Venezuelan banking system.

The U.S needs to be assertive also with other countries in Latin America that maintain relations with Iran. Not only Chavez and his Bolivarian allies hold strong relations with Iran but also moderate socialist countries such as Brazil and Uruguay have strengthened their relations with Iran as a show of independence from the United States. This includes trade relations and stronger political relations. With news about murderous Iranian intentions, it is vital that the United States along with Europeans press Latin American countries to distance themselves from Iran and join the sanctions policy.

In conclusion, security challenges emanating from the Western Hemisphere have long been neglected. It is not that surprising that Iran hatched a plot reaching out to a Mexican drug cartel to carry it out. What is surprising is the lack of awareness of Iran’s substantial presence in our hemisphere and the seeming nonchalance with which the U. S. treats this ever rising danger.

 

Originally published at The Americas Report, a project of the Center for Security Policy.

Congress Hears Again About Hezbollahs Role in Latin America

The Committee on Homeland Security met on July 7th to discuss Hezbollah’s growing influence in Latin America. Testifying at the hearing were Roger Noriega, former Under Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere and American Ambassador to the Organization of American States; Douglas Farah, Senior Fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center and a former Washington Post journalist; Ilan Berman, Vice President of the American Foreign Policy Council; and; Dr. Melanie Cammett, professor at Brown University.

Taking Iran’s missiles in Venezuela seriously

In the last several days it has been reported that Iran is planning to place medium-range missiles in Venezuela. Such information seems to confirm last November’s article published by the German daily Die Welt. The newspaper reported that an agreement was signed last October between the two countries; a fact that has remained mostly unknown to the public.

The Menges Hemispheric Security Project has often spoken about such a possibility. Indeed, Venezuela and Iran have mutual interests in doing this. Iran which has come under international sanctions initiated by the United States is constantly seeking ways to avoid them. But most importantly, Iran also seeks the ability to deter the U.S.  Certainly, the missiles positioned on Venezuelan soil could become not just mere assistance to Venezuela but also a direct threat to the U.S. This is especially the case should the U.S or Israel take military action against Iran’s nuclear facility or any other act perceived by the Iranians as hostile.

On the other hand, there is also a Venezuelan agenda that makes this type of action a perfect match between the two countries.

Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez has aggressively tried to influence the different countries of the region and pretends to be the regional leader that will put an end to American influence in the region. He has systematically allied himself with U.S enemies as is the case with Iran and has taken hostile, mostly indirect, action against U.S friends such as Colombia. Colombia is an obsession in Chavez’ eyes.  Currently, the Venezuelan army is no match for the Colombian army which is far superior in numbers and training. This is why Venezuela has been arming itself mostly by purchasing weapons from Russia for billions of dollars. Moreover, there has even been suspicions that Chavez was seeking nuclear weapons as he himself publicized in the fall of 2009.  He said that Venezuela and Iran were working to build a "nuclear village". Sophisticated weaponry could give Chavez the military might he has pursued for a long time.

Iran already has ballistic missiles with a range of more than 1,500 miles. This represents a real threat to the U.S. If Iran goes nuclear the chances of facing a crisis similar to the 1962 Cuban crisis is higher. The Nuevo Herald cited intelligence sources who pointed out that a number of underground bunkers have already been built in different areas of Venezuela. Some former members of the Venezuelan military confirmed that Iranian war material was found in these bunkers.

General Douglas Frasier commander of Southern Command, at a recent conference sponsored by the Center for Hemispheric Policy at the University of Miami pointed out that there is no indication that the Iranian presence in Latin America constitutes a threat to the U.S.  

In a different presentation in Florida a week later, former U.S Ambassador to Venezuela, Patrick Duddy, omitted to speak about the security challenges posed by Chavez and did not mention a word on the Venezuelan-Iranian relation.   What we learned from Ambassador Duddy’s presentation is that there is an extraordinary, almost superhuman effort on the part of our foreign policy establishment to work things out with Chavez even if this task is virtually impossible

It was only last year Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed a bill that imposed very harsh economic sanctions against Iran precisely because Iran is a threat to world security. Certainly, the Obama Administration’s recent placement of sanctions against Venezuela’s state oil company, PDVSA, is a positive step. It is also known that Iran is involved in a plethora of places such as Iraq, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. It sponsors terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and has relations with Al Qaeda, Hamas and other such organizations. In fact, the man chosen to replace Bin Laden in that organization, Saif al- Adel,  found refuge in Iran after he was expelled from Afghanistan by U.S. forces. In the last several years, Iran has maintained a very close relationship with Venezuela including nuclear cooperation and now placement of medium range missiles. The fact that Venezuela is cooperating with Iran on weaponry and nuclear matters places it in violation of the sanctions against Iran approved by the United Nations Security Council.   

Now that this information is known what else does the U.S. defense and foreign policy establishment need in order to understand that Venezuela is a rogue state. Both countries, Iran and Venezuela, given the opportunity, would do harm to the United States. As in many past foreign policy challenges, waiting for the current situation to worsen will only require more drastic measures in the future.

Cuba going the way of China?

On April 16th and April 19th, Raul Castro delivered his opening and closing speeches before the sixth assembly of the Cuban Communist party in Havana. The speech spoke about reform and questioned a number of aspects of business as usual in Cuba. The speech generated a great deal of skepticism, particularly among those who have already witnessed unfulfilled promises on the part of the Castros’ regime.

Castro criticized the gerontocracy of the Cuban communist party and proposed that politicians be limited to two five-year terms in an effort to give opportunities to the younger generation, whose access to power has been blocked and thus is not prepared to lead the country.

In economic terms he blasted government subsidies for creating an unbearable load on the economy and has discouraged people from working.

Castro also criticized Cuban centralization of power as an obstacle to incentives for the development of society.

Thus, the government has granted 180,000 licenses for small businesses like coffee vendors, fast-food stands and house rentals, with tens of thousands more expected to be issued in the coming months. According to Castro, large parcels of arable land are waiting for those willing to farm them. Castro pointed out that the Cuban population and the national economy are demanding such production in order to avoid costly imports.

The reforms suggested by Castro are mostly economic and not political. He believes they are necessary in order to secure the character of the Cuban revolution. He spoke about the need for transparency and also stressed the need to listen to feedback from the Cuban people in order to rectify the imperfections of the programs application.

Analysis of Raul’s Speech

Those who are skeptics cannot be blamed given the history of the communist party in Cuba and the often brutal rigidity that has characterized Fidel Castro’s rule for the last 50 years. His brother, Raul, now in power, has been Fidel’s partner all along.  Political parties have been formed in Cuba since the late 1990s and more so in the last several years since Fidel stepped down. Moreover, these parties were mostly formed in opposition to the Castro regime and the views such parties represent vary from social democracy to socialist to liberal. The Castro regime has cracked down on all of them. The leader of one of the parties, the left-wing Arco Progresista (Progressive Arc) died after 85 days of a hunger strike. The Party convention that was to take place in January 2011 was aborted when Cuban security forces entered the room arresting party members and participants. Other parties such as the Liberal national party of Cuba and the Social Democratic Party of Cuba have denounced the rise of repression against their members.

Optimistic economic analysis has claimed that the liberalization of market forces could unleash a major change in the Cuban economy and even move Cuba into a mixed economy relatively fast.

However, if political parties continue to be repressed such transformation of the Cuban economy could lead to another China where there is a capitalist economy alongside a nefarious authoritarian state that has no regard for human life or human rights. Like China, Cuba could attract a large number of investors and continue a policy of repression and a foreign policy aimed at curbing American influence in the region. This is why it is important for the opposition parties to claim a place in the national debate, particularly if Mr. Castro stated his willingness to get the peoples’     input on its reform.

Perhaps, political parties should not demand the immediate removal of the Castro regime but make Castro accountable on his promises of reform. If such reforms initiate a reformist movement within the communist party (this is not certain at all), parties could become part of a roundtable that might eventually negotiate a transition to democracy in the same way that it happened in countries such as Hungary. To accept an economically liberal but authoritarian Cuba as fact of life as we did with China should not be an option.

Making sense of Argentina’s frenzied policy

Since the arrival of the Kirchner phenomenon to Argentinean politics in 2003, there has been a sense that history has begun again. The late Nestor Kirchner served as president of the country from 2003 to 2007 when his wife Cristina was elected to the presidency.   

The Kirchner era is not merely seen as another presidential term that has brought change. It is considered by many of its supporters as an era of major change that is almost revolutionary. Kirchner’s popularity is helped by the fact that Argentina has seen economic growth mostly thanks to the international price of Argentinean commodities; mainly soy.

However, it is Kirchner’s policies of populist redistribution and rejection of Argentina’s political past that makes the government revolutionary. Yet, such rejection is only partial since old practices have prevailed in the Kirchner era.

On the one hand, Kirchner reopened the trials against the military involved in human rights violations during the dirty war (1977-1983). Thus, the amnesty given by former president, Carlos Menem, to those who killed close to 30,000 people, kidnapped and stole the victims’ babies, and tortured thousands of people, was revoked. This is a major historical vindication that made the Kirchner government popular among much of the middle class, human rights groups and most intellectuals.

By the same token, Kirchner’s redistribution policies and the government’s populist discourse that claims it represents the poor and the oppressed have made the Kirchners real heroes among the lower classes.  

On the other hand, the Kirchners have behaved like dictators; intimidating the business sector every time there were price increases; attacking the media that criticized them and taking steps to destroy them while buying and co-opting media outlets they thought were supportive of the government. By the same token, the Kirchners not only treated the opposition unkindly but also used the prerogatives of executive power to make decisions while skipping public debate and scorning dissent.  A case in point was when the government unilaterally decided to impose a tax on the rural sector; a sector considered to be traditionally an ally of the most conservative, right-wing governments. Likewise, private businesses have been forced, via threats, to reduce their prices and very often have been blamed for economic hardships such as inflation.

Without judging the merit or intentions of the Kirchner’s policies, whether they are economic or human rights oriented, the Kirchner government has generated an atmosphere of bullying, anger, revenge, and intolerance. Such an atmosphere is against the spirit of democracy and worse it is not consistent with the past the Kirchner’s claim to reject. Such a past is rooted mainly in the political culture of the Peronist Party, which aggressively appeals to the masses and tends to deny the legitimacy of those who do not stand by its side.

These old- new practices have not prevented the Kirchner government from being supported by many left-wing intellectuals who welcomed the Kirchners as revolutionary. That was the kind of government they were waiting for. Moreover, these intellectuals have justified the Kirchner’s crackdown on the media, despite the fact that they themselves benefitted from a free press for the past 27 years.

Thus, the Kirchner era has been defined by a number of supporting intellectuals in Argentina as a new era of recovery of new spaces and new discourse. They have denounced the fact "that criticism of the Kirchner government was leading to a climate of destitution and intolerance".  Furthermore, these intellectuals attack the media for "irresponsibly attacking judges, congress and the government" and they have accused it of "taking away the wisdom of the experts" (like themselves) and "exploiting the emotions of those who suffer".

Moreover, these intellectuals have accused the media of "raising a daily voice and influencing people’s minds despite the fact that the people did not elect it". Indeed, the Kirchners tried to make the life of the opposing media impossible while rewarding those who supported them.

These intellectuals mostly gathered within a group called "Open Letter" which is made up of journalists, artists and academicians. The group includes among many others, a well known public intellectual, a well known philosopher who teaches at the University of Buenos Aires and the University of Maryland, and, a journalist who made his career by denouncing the corruption in the government of former Argentinean president, Carlos Menem. The group is both nationalist, populist and opposes neo-liberalism and the "subordinate role" of Argentina in a globalized economy.  It has attacked the rural sector, and even the anti-Cuban establishment in Miami.

Hence, it is no wonder that leaders like Hugo Chavez are not only heroes for the Kirchners but also for these intellectuals, many of whom blasted the anti-democratic practices of Argentinean dictatorships but have been perfectly comfortable with Chavez’s everyday violation of democracy and increasing repression of his people.

In their writings these intellectuals praise the virtues of Chavez’s social justice policies. In 2004, one of them was sent as an observer to the Venezuelan recall referendum. Of course, the objectivity of such a person is questionable as he wrote about having been in a party organized by Hugo Chavez on the eve of the referendum.

The Kirchner’s support for Chavez was not merely because Chavez helped bail out Argentina financially even though this is the oft used excuse rationalizing the Argentinean government’s attitude. The truth of the matter is that Argentinian rejection of U.S -promoted neo-liberal policies is deeply felt and Chavez’s anti-American discourse fascinates the genuflected intellectual circle of the Kirchners’ supporters and, of course, the Kirchners themselves. This explains the fact that Kirchner allowed Chavez to hold an anti-U.S. demonstration during the visit of President George W. Bush to Argentina.

Yet, despite the Kirchner’s anti-American rhetoric, Argentina did not go along with everything Chavez did. One such example is Argentina’s policy towards Iran.      

Nestor Kirchner appealed to all those who were not pleased with the government of President Menem (1989-2000). One of those groups was the Argentinean Jewish community.  The Jewish community felt that the investigation of the terrorist attacks against the Embassy of Israel and the Jewish Community Center that took place in 1992 and 1994 were defective. Some had suspicions that the Menem government, itself, assisted in the undermining of the investigation.

Thus, Kirchner embraced the cause of the Jewish community and as a result openly accused Iran of carrying out the lethal attacks.  It required Interpol to extradite key Iranian officials including people who worked at the Iranian embassy during those years; like major Hezbollah terrorist, Imad Mujniah, (later assassinated in Lebanon; presumably by Israelis) and high Iranian government officials such as former Iranian president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and seven members of his cabinet. Most of these people are either high level or former high level government officials and therefore, the possibility of extradition was highly unlikely. One was arrested in Great Britain but released shortly afterwards. Contrary to Chavez, the Kirchner government denounced Iran’s nuclear ambitions and considers Iran a terrorist state. Likewise, unlike Brazil, Argentina has refrained from seeing Iran as part of a South-South alliance.

However, according to wikileaks the U.S Embassy in Buenos Aires has suspicions regarding the behavior of the prosecutor in the case of the terrorist attack on AMIA. The prosecutor ordered the arrest of former President Carlos Menem and the judge that investigated the case under his government. The U.S embassy and some others estimated that these arrests were politically motivated and that no evidence was presented. The prosecutor was described in the memo as an ambitious man who responded to the wishes of the then presidential chief of staff. As a result the U.S. embassy seemed to have lost confidence in the prosecutor.

Most recently a local paper published a story according to which Argentina had offered Iran (in a meeting with President Bashar Assad of Syria) to stop investigations into the bombing. According to the story, the Argentinean government pointed out that it is interested in deepening economic relations with Iran.

The Israeli government asked the Argentinean government to respond to this. Strangely enough, Foreign Minister Hector Timmerman first chose not to answer. Later he responded that "he would not dignify the report with a comment, and that he does not have to give a third country an accounting of Argentina’s relations with Iran."

This answer was shocking given the fact that Israel is not merely a third country but a country whose embassy was allegedly bombed by the Iranians.

Even though Timmerman later fully denied these allegations his reaction was far from convincing.

 

Regional Issues

On regional matters, Argentina supports regional integration of Latin American nations.  The intellectual and journalistic circle that surrounds Kirchner probably aspires to reduce U.S. influence in the region. However, the Kirchner government has not been as clear as Brazil in terms of their willingness to reduce U.S influence or take initiatives that openly challenge the U.S as Brazil did in trying to cut an independent deal with Iran on the nuclear issue. Nor does Argentina openly question the American government’s ability to lead (as Brazil’s former president, Lula Da Silva, did in regard to the U.S Administration’s role in the peace process).

Kirchner has, at times, used harsh rhetoric against the U.S. As a result of the investigation carried out by a Miami prosecutor on the alleged transference of money from Hugo Chavez to Cristina Kirchner’s electoral campaign, there have been tensions between the two countries. Most recently, foreign minister Timmerman resuscitated old accusations that U.S police training programs were used to torture Argentineans. Then, the government proceeded to seize equipment sent by the U.S to the Argentinean police claiming that the cargo contained "from weapons to different drugs, amongst others, various doses of morphine". The U.S denies those charges. The incident looks like a demagogic show orchestrated by the Argentinean government.

 

Commerce

On issues related to commerce, exports to Argentina represents about 0.5 of the total U.S exports and 0.24% of its total imports in the year 2007. That year Argentina received only 0.4% of total U.S. investments. Most of these investments go to Mexico and Brazil. Fairly recently,  Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere, Arturo Valenzuela, stated that there is no legal security for business investments in Argentina. Likewise, foreign investors have been driven away as a result of Argentina’s lack of credibility and the government’s alleged manipulation of numbers on economic growth and rates of inflation.

Argentina, however, looks at China and India as possible vehicles that could help the country play an important role in the global economy. Trade with China has increased substantially in the last 10 years.  Prof. Evan Ellis, from the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, said that in 2009, China and Argentina formalized a $10.2 billion debt swap. Chinese companies have made significant investments and purchases in such Argentinean sectors as energy, exploration of minerals, urea production, soybean, and port construction. Argentina also purchased military vehicles from China; cooperates with China in space while Chinese telecommunications companies have a significant presence in Argentina.

As Argentina’s commercial and technological cooperation with China continues to grow, the Kirchner government continues to vocally oppose a free trade agreement with the U.S. This is primarily due to the high price of Argentine commodities. Thus, Argentina’s products have become less dependent on the subsidies the U.S government provides its farmers. However, these policies could also be motivated by the instinctive anti-Americanism of Cristina Kirchner and her entourage.

 

Conclusion

Although Argentina is not a country the U.S. can count on to be a stabilizing factor against Chavism or the extreme left, it can not be considered an enemy either.

Argentina’s rejection of Iran is an asset that the U.S cannot afford to give up on; particularly when Brazil has supported the Islamic Republic under the government of former president, Jose Inazio Lula Da Silva. However, Argentina is not credible when it comes to the war against terrorism. Not only was Argentina’s AMIA’s case prosecutor’s credibility put in doubt but also all the request for the extradition of Iranians sounds like a political move because none of the people whose extradition was requested is likely to be apprehended. It was an easy way out for a government that did not want to deal with pressures over a case that Argentinean law enforcement and justice system could not solve. In addition, Kirchner’s identification with third world anti-American views and its admiration for Chavez, puts in doubt Argentina’s sincerity and long-run sustainability of its current anti-Iran policy. Reports about an Argentinean-Iran deal at the expense of a serious investigation into the terrorist attacks against the Israeli embassy and the Jewish community Center in Buenos Aires might be an indication that Argentina cannot be trusted.

Kirchner and her circle see themselves as revolutionaries and have shown support for Chavez. Yet, the Kirchner government has not established domination over Argentinean society as Chavez has and it is not even part of the Bolivarian Alliance (ALBA). Democracy in Argentina is stronger than in Venezuela and the president has faced major setbacks such as in the 2009 congressional mid-term elections where President Kirchner lost control of Congress. This loss included Kirchner’s husband (now deceased) who went from being a popular president to losing the election for a congressional seat.

Argentinean democracy should not be underestimated. It works. Elections are not fraudulent despite the authoritarian instinct of Ms. Kirchner.  Even though Argentina is far from being a reliable international partner the U.S should continue its efforts to reach out to Argentina.

While Argentina and Brazil’s attempt at creating regional independence should not be discouraged, China’s heavy investment in Argentina could have negative geopolitical consequences as the U.S. loses leverage throughout the continent, both as an investor and as a buyer. This will most likely continue to make China into a major political player in an area where the U.S has traditionally had a significant presence. In addition, the euphoric perception that the U.S is in decline could create an adverse atmosphere for American geopolitical influence in the region and even in other parts of the world.

 

Protecting Chavez, endangering America?

President Obama’s recent trip to three Latin American nations was absolutely surreal.  For one thing, he launched a war against Libya from there.  For another, he lauded and pledged support for offshore drilling in Brazilian waters that he has shut down in our own.  And he spoke glowingly of the progress of democracy as though its forces were on the march in the region, rather than those of enemies of freedom.

What might have passed for Mr. Obama’s willful blindness with respect to the rising threat posed by Chavismo – the rabidly anti-American regional campaign named for and sponsored by the dictator of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez – was revealed last week as perhaps something far more worrying, if not downright sinister:  A deliberate effort by the Obama Justice Department to impede U.S. access to a key witness to Chavez’s multifaceted malevolence.

If any reminder were needed of the threat posed by Chavez, Sunday’s election in Peru would provide it.  The top vote-getter in the first-round of presidential balloting there was Ollanta Humala, a military officer cut from the same radical leftist cloth as his ally and enabler who runs Venezuela increasingly with an iron fist.  If Humala prevails in the run-off, his increasingly prosperous nation will join Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua in moving squarely into Chavez’s orbit.

Add in the mentoring of the Castro brothers in Cuba and close working relationships with Brazil and Argentina through, among other channels, the insidious Forum of San Paolo, and you have a Latin America in which hostility towards the United States is fast becoming the norm, and freedom imperiled to a degree not seen since Ronald Reagan took on the Sandinistas in the 1980s. Mexico, long a buffer, is now embroiled in what some consider a civil war, effectively removing whatever impediments – however inadequate – previously existed there to migration into our country of dangerous elements from further south.

Meanwhile, unfriendly foreign powers – including China, Russia and Iran and terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad – are, with the active assistance of Chavez and his allies, establishing beachheads throughout the region.  Beijing is buying up resources and establishing intelligence operations; Russia is selling arms and reestablishing its Soviet-era influence operations; and Middle Eastern terrorists, both state-sponsors and their proxies, are joining forces with narco-traffickers to make money, convert locals to shariah and run smuggling operations into the United States.

An indication of just how serious a problem all this can become was revealed recently in an op.ed. in the Washington Post by one of the United States’ top hemispheric diplomats, former Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega.  In it, he revealed that Hugo Chavez convened a terror summit in Caracas in August 2010, attended by senior members of Hamas and Hezbollah. The precise upshot of this secret meeting has not yet been revealed.  Suffice it to say though that no good can come of such brazen associations and that we should be doing everything possible to ascertain what they will precipitate.

The good news in that department is that Colombia has managed to apprehend a man who may be able to shed much light on just such questions: Walid Makled.  A Venezuelan of Syrian descent but known as "the Turk," Makled was arrested on a U.S. warrant in connection with his role as what has been described by InterAmerican Security Watch as "one of the world’s most important, yet little known, drug lords."

In a recent television interview with Univision, Makled described Chavez’s Venezuela as a "narco-state" in which the government was "100 percent" involved in narco-trafficking.  He implicated "40 generals" and "ministers, congressmen [and] governors" – including two top Chavez allies, Commander-in-Chief Henry Rangel Silva and intelligence chief Hugo Carvajal – in such activities.  The drug kingpin also claimed that the military was protecting Hezbollah’s Venezuelan operations.

U.S. prosecutors have made clear their desire to extradite "the Turk" to the United States to stand trial for his crimes and to provide incriminating testimony against others. In an interview last week on Secure Freedom Radio, Michael Braun, a former top Drug Enforcement Agency official, declared that such testimony could be absolutely indispensible to American efforts to protect our nation against the various threats of which this top drug-trafficker has first-hand knowledge.

The bad news is that on Friday, Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) revealed on Secure Freedom Radio that he had confirmed an astounding, indeed scandalous, development:  Eric Holder’s Justice Department had declined Colombia’s offer to extradite Makled to the United States.  In that case, it seems "the Turk" will be sent back to Venezuela.  At that point, he will clearly be beyond the reach of American jurisprudence, assuming he is not simply liquidated in short order.

If Rep. Diaz-Balart’s information is correct, the question occurs:  Why would the Obama administration not want to have the ability to interrogate comprehensively a man who purportedly knows a lot about one of this country’s most determined adversaries and his far-flung network of criminal, terrorist and other anti-American allies?  A possible explanation is that President Obama would find it inconvenient to have to come to grips with the reality of what Hugo Chavez is about.  Is there another?

One thing is clear:  We as a nation cannot afford to be willfully blind about Chavismo and its architect.  Consequently, every effort must be made to get Walid Makled to the United States – and to withhold Miranda rights until he has been fully and competently debriefed.

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.

Qaddafi and Latin America

The positions that different Latin American countries have taken towards Colonel Qaddafi and the crisis in Libya present some interesting connections worth exploring.

It is not surprising that Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua have supported Qaddafi’s regime despite the severe crisis of legitimacy it is now facing. The reason for such support is obvious: Colonel Qaddafi is a ruthless dictator who has controlled Libyan society through coercion and fear. He has sustained his regime based on a socialist and anti-imperialist ideology, while seeking to extend his revolution to the rest of the region.

Influenced by the ideas of Pan-Arabism and former Egyptian leader, Jamal Abdel Nasser, Qaddafi tried to create a pan-African revolutionary government and supported subversion in Arab and African countries as well as international terrorism. Qaddafi trained terrorists in Libya including Latin American guerillas such as the Argentinean Montoneros and the Colombian M-19 and maintained strong relations with Carlos the jackal, a Venezuelan international terrorist that worked for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (one of the first terrorist organizations funded by Qaddafi).

Qaddafi has failed in every single project he tried to carry out. He failed to generate legitimacy through socialism; he failed to unite the region under his leadership and he even failed militarily against Chad. What Qaddafi tried to do in his country and region is what Chavez and Castro have tried to do in theirs. Despite Qaddafi’s failure and cruelty, Chavez, Castro and Ortega have remained supportive of the Libyan dictator and there is a reason for that.

The three Latin American leaders share with Qaddafi the desire to perpetuate themselves in power and pursue endeavors despite their foretold failure. These Latin American leaders, by supporting the Libyian dictator, are clearly showing their strong will to stay in power and to pursue their projects in spite of historical evidence of failure. This should send a clear message to their populations that neither Castro, Chavez or Ortega intend to give up power and that democracy in Venezuela and Nicaragua is a façade that will never enable change of governments. Like Qaddafi, these leaders are determined to rule without legitimacy, and are willing to repress opponents, regardless of the consequences. Their support for Qaddafi is equivalent to support for themselves

BRAZIL, CHILE, MEXICO, URUGUAY AND PERU

On the other hand, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Peru strongly condemned the Qaddafi regime. Peru was the first one in Latin America to break diplomatic relations with Libya. Chile’s attitude is not surprising given the stand they have taken since their transition to democracy in 1990 and their collective rejection of despotism.

Brazil constitutes the best surprise of all. Not only has Brazil strongly condemned the Libyan dictator but has also used its place in the United Nations Security Council to introduce and vocally support sanctions against the North African country. President Dilma Rouseff was the chief of staff to her predecessor, Lula da Silva. Lula’s foreign policy was characterized by protecting brutal dictatorships, such as Iran, while using the excuse that a foreign outcry over a country’s treatment of its citizens constitutes interference in their sovereignty.  

Undoubtedly, had Lula been in power he would have opposed sanctions against Libya because he would have viewed them not only as interference but also as an American-Western agenda. Furthermore, under Lula, Brazil has maintained strong economic relations with Libya. Brazilian construction companies have been a large part of the construction projects in the Libya. Since 2003, Brazil’s economic presence grew astronomically and contracts increased particularly in the last few years.   Libya has invested, by some accounts, more than $120bn in infrastructure projects. Petrobras, Brazil’s state controlled oil company established exploration operations in Libya in 2005. Likewise, Brazilian exports to Libya increased three times between 2003 and 2009. 

Lula purposely developed economic ties with Qaddafi. In July, 2009 Lula visited Libya and took with him 90 business representatives from Brazil. On that trip Lula called Qaddafi a ‘brother’ and ‘friend’.

Rouseff, a former prisoner of the Brazilian dictatorship of the 1960’s and 70’s, broke the scheme set by Lula and placed Brazil in a different light.  Uruguayan President Jose Mujica, also a former guerilla imprisoned by the military regime and a strong supporter of Brazil’s leadership in the region, followed suit by condemning Qaddafi’s actions against his own population.

ARGENTINA

So far Argentina has remained silent in relation to events in Libya. President Cristina Kirchner visited Libya in November, 2008 in what was defined as a business trip. During that visit Ms. Kirchner stated that she and Qaddafi have been political activists since they were very young. Likewise, both "shared strong convictions" and "questioned the status-quo that always avoids change and transformation".  This remark is as delirious as the whole phenomenon called "kirchnersim" but it is not coincidental. The Kirchner government has pursued a human rights agenda by reviving the trials against the inquisitors of the dirty war that took place in Argentina between 1976 and 1983.  Yet, the fact that Qaddafi has ran a murderous regime for the last 42 years means nothing to President Kirchner and the obsequent intellectual apparatus that supports her and views her and her late husband as the most progressive presidents Argentina ever had.  

However, for Kirchner, Qaddafi is a progressive in that he built his country on the principles of socialism and was an enemy of the U.S. In other words, Kirchner’s mindset is similar to Lula’s: if the perpetrator is on the right side of the ideological spectrum, violation of human rights and destruction of democracy is tolerable.  The fact that Qaddafi has made people disappear through his wicked secret service and continues to do so even with more fury as dissidence increases means little to Kirchner and her associates.

What we learn from this is that Argentina is morally neutral. Furthermore, it is neither a strong nor a reliable country. Kirchner’s Argentina continues to have a close association with Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez.  In the future, it will be hard to count on Argentina as a partner of the West when significant events take place.

ECUADOR AND BOLIVIA

President Evo Morales of Bolivia is another interesting case. Qaddafi began to build strong relations with Bolivia in 2008. Morales, a  staunch follower of Hugo Chavez, visited Qaddafi in Libya in 2008 and received, along with President Ortega of Nicaragua, a human rights award. It is not surprising that President Morales so far has remained silent on events taking place in Libya.

The same applies to President Rafael Correa of Ecuador, another Chavez ally.

SOME CONCLUSIONS

Reactions towards events in Libya may lead us to some interesting but nonetheless partial conclusions. Could Rouseff’s Brazil be a positive force against the nefarious influences of Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua in the region and a partner of the West in the international arena? Brazil could certainly be a valuable partner since it is today one of the largest economies in the world and an active international political player. However, this will need to be tested in the near future. One of the tests for Brazil will be its position towards Iran, a country embraced by former president Lula da Silva. Lula became an enabler of Iran’s nuclear program and an apologist for Iran’s repression of its dissidents. Likewise, Lula’s foreign policy and international approach has been aimed at reducing U.S power. Brazil’s alliances with authoritarian countries such as China and Iran were part of its support for a so-called "multi-polar world" which for Lula was a euphemism for reducing U.S influence in the world.

Roussef’s moral stand in the Libyan crisis provides us with some hope for positive change, but the future still remains to be seen.

The attitudes of Bolivia’s Morales and Correas’ Ecuador are difficult to interpret with certainty. However, these countries’ neutrality contrary to Argentina could be interpreted as a sign that they are less inclined to be Chavez’s poodle dogs. In the past, Morales nationalized foreign companies hours after meeting with Hugo Chavez. Correa, with strong encouragement of Chavez, has provided shelter to and established relations with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Lately, Bolivia and Ecuador have faced dissidence and rebellions against their policies. Both lack Chavez’s ability to exercise full control of their country. At times they have both found that following Chavez’s prescriptions and style has not been a blessing.

We are still far away from seeing an improvement in the situation in Latin America which could be considered highly dangerous. The continent faces increasing despotism, anarchism, loss of state authority, presence of local and foreign terrorism and dangerous foreign influences. All this constitutes a threat to regional and U.S. national security. This is why it is important to be aware of events and shifts in the region and adopt a dynamic, flexible and serious U.S. foreign policy towards Latin America.

A closer look at Brazil’s foreign policy

Latin America is increasingly turning into a geo-political and international challenge. On the one hand, Venezuela, under the leadership of Hugo Chavez, continues to support the Colombian narco-guerilla group known as the FARC. The FARC protects the activities of drug cartels, and cooperates with terrorist groups such as Hezbollah. On the other hand, a number of Southern Cone countries led by Brazil (and supported by Argentina and Uruguay) did not  go as far as Venezuela but have conducted a foreign policy which is detrimental not only to the United States but to the free world, in general.

Brazil under the government of Jose Inazio Lula Da Silva took advantage of the country’s economic growth (which was the cumulative result of years of economic and developmental polices that began before Da Silva took office) to flex its muscles in the regional and international arena.

President Lula Da Silva surprised the world, when despite having a left-wing background plus having been a co-founder along with Fidel Castro of the anti-American Foro de Sao Paulo, appointed conservative figures to his cabinet. That move was aimed at maintaining the continuity of Brazil’s economic development which was pretty much based on the strong role and cooperation of the business community. The fact that Lula did not go left on domestic and economic polices led many people in the region and in Washington to believe that Brazil’s stand in the international arena would be similar.

Thus, Washington policy makers sought out Brazil as an ally to counteract the growing malicious influence of Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez. However, they were very disappointed and astonished by the fact that Lula not only failed to play such an expected role but also became an enabler of Chavez’s revolutionary and expansionistic agenda.

In Lula’s own words, "Chavez has been the best Venezuelan president in 100 years". Likewise, Lula pointed out that the anti-democratic practices employed by the Venezuelan government belong to the realm of Venezuelan sovereignty and not to the domain of universal human rights. Just  last week Brazil and its allies in the Southern Cone supported the inclusion of Venezuela in Mercosur, the South American common market, despite Chavez’s anti-democratic practices which contradicts the group’s clause that conditions membership on the existence of fully democratic institutions.

In addition, Lula helped smuggle the deposed pro-Chavez former president of Honduras back into Tegucigalpa and shelter him there in the Brazilian Embassy. Lula has so far refused to recognize the elected government of Honduran president, Porfirio Lobo. The Brazilian president has also warmed up to the long and discredited die hard autocratic Cuban leader, Fidel Castro and called a Cuban political prisoner who died from a hunger strike a "criminal."

Beyond the region, Brazil joined forces with Turkey a number of months ago to cut a deal with Iran that would not only have not prevented Iran from developing a nuclear bomb but also encouraged it to develop more. Likewise, Brazil voted against sanctions on Iran imposed by the UN National Security Council. Thus, we have discovered that Brazil has had and continues to have its own distinctive foreign policy which requires further scrutiny and analysis.

First Brazil seeks to become an independent country with a personality of its own. It has sought to become influential in the region by supporting the principle of integrating Latin American countries into an autonomous group, independent of the United States or any world power. There is, in principle, nothing wrong with this type of policy.  On the surface, there is no reason to think that this policy represents a threat to the United States.   If the U.S can live with a strong European Union and European common market, there is no reason why a similar Latin American and Caribbean body should be a problem. Brazil also aspires to secure a permanent place on the United Nations Security Council along with long-established world powers. In principle, there is nothing wrong with such a desire. Brazil is a strong and large country. It is also democratic and historically tied to the West.

Along with China, India and Russia, Brazil seeks a multi-polar world where the United States is not the only superpower. According to their thinking, world power is best shared among a number of countries. This scenario is not necessarily a bad one if maximum cooperation is achieved between these different political poles.  One might question why the United States, alone, should be involved in every single case of counties that wish to develop nuclear weapons. Why should the U.S. be the only country to care about events in the world while the rest of the world waits for America to deliver a ready-made product? Why should the U.S. be the only country to raise concerns when democracy or human rights are violated while the rest of the nations seek only to satisfy their national interests?  Indeed, there is nothing wrong with multi-lateral cooperation.

However, Brazil’s international behavior under Lula has been guided by a strong and obsolete dose of anti-Americanism brought directly from Lula’s radical left political upbringing. Brazil does not really seek a multi-polar world of cooperation.  Lula’s notion of multi-polarity is based on his opposition to the power and policies of the U.S.  Thus, Brazil has cooperated with Iran‘s agenda of developing nuclear weapons and gave Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahamdinejad, a hero’s welcome when the latter visited Brazil. Brazil also recognized the fraudulent elections that gave a victory to Ahmadinejad in June, 2009 with no regard for the violence with which anti-government demonstrations were repressed.  This insensitivity is reflected in repeated statements made by Lula according to which Iran "has a right" to a nuclear program.

In this context, it is easy to understand why the Brazilian president was the first to unilaterally recognize the creation of a Palestinian state (with pre-1967 borders) while the U.S was making serious efforts to bring the Israelis and Palestinians together. According to Lula, who was successful in getting the Argentinean and the Uruguayan presidents to go along with this recognition, "it is a step to move forward a stagnant peace process". In fact, Lula was not only giving a free pass to the Palestinians in exchange for nothing but also trying to symbolically show its independence from and opposition to the United States and its ally, Israel.

Lula’s foreign policy logic is embedded not just on the fact that Brazil is now a great country and therefore it demands a place in the world. Such policy is also guided by a strong desire to diminish U.S influence; not only in the region but in the world. Lula’s policy is amoral and is deprived of any global responsibility. Jorge Castaneda, a former Mexican Foreign Minister, has observed that Brazil is part of a group of countries that oppose "more or less explicitly and more or less actively" notions such as human rights, democracy and non-proliferation. Castaneda pointed out Brazil’s foreign policy under Lula is closer to that of authoritarian China (with which Lula has astronomically increased commercial and political relations) than it is to the West. 

Lula’s logic is of a political not economic nature. Like his fellows on the radical left, he dreams of a world with little American influence and claims a leadership role without offering any ideas that contribute to world peace: such as stability, human rights, opposition to international terrorism and nuclear proliferation ,or,  any moral problems that have traditionally been the West’s preoccupation. Lula’s Brazil represents another version of Third World obsessed and outdated anti-colonialism. Under, a veil of sophistication (made possible due to comparisons with the ruthless and thuggish Hugo Chavez) Lula’s Brazil has become a negative force in the region (attracting Argentina and Uruguay, countries now run by two leaders who share Lula’s triumphalist attitude).  Brazil is largely seen by Western countries as an emerging economic power but not necessarily a reliable political player. Under the new Brazilian president, Dilma Rouseff, no change should be expected except for the worse since Ms. Rouseff is a former guerilla and as such is likely to strengthen the policies of her predecessor.

Meanwhile, the U.S and the Western powers should continue to block Brazil’s attempts at playing greater roles in international affairs (including its demands to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council) and treat that country with the suspicion it has earned.

National Security Policy Proceedings, vol. 3: Fall 2010

National Security Policy Proceedings, vol. 3 – Fall 2010

This is the third issue of the Center for Security Policy’s National Security Policy Proceedings, a new quarterly journal.

From Ben Lerner’s Editor’s Note:

National Security Policy Proceedings represents the Center’s compilation of transcripts of remarks given by featured speakers at these gatherings. In some cases, speakers have chosen to submit their remarks to Proceedings as original articles. Additionally, Pro- ceedings includes book reviews of recently published national security-themed books, reviewed by eminent scholars in the field.

In publishing Proceedings, the Center has sought to provide the reader with authoritative yet accessible commentary on the most pressing issues of national security, foreign affairs, defense policy, and homeland security. Because the speakers and those in atten- dance are routinely in contact with one another and are often col- laborating on analytical and educational efforts, it is our intention that Proceedings give the reader a unique window into how those in the national security policy community convey and exchange ideas with one another, among friends and colleagues.

 

National Security Policy Proceedings

Vol. 3: Fall 2010

 

 

 

Click the cover above for a
PDF version.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Order the book at
Amazon soon.

 

BEN LERNER
Editor’s Note

GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN
US Intelligence: A Structural Assessment

TED R. BROMUND
CIFTA: More Than A Bad Treaty

ERIC STERNER
Scrutinizing National
Space Policy

OTTO REICH
Colombia’s Continuing
Success Story

MARK A. GROOMBRIDGE
In Search of a North Korea Policy: Time to Pursue “Aggressive Isolation”

JEFF SMITH
Assessing US-India Relations

MICHELLE VAN CLEAVE
National Security & the Press
A review of Necessary Secrets: National Security, the Media, and the Rule of Law by Gabriel Schoenfeld

CHRISTOPHER FORD
South Asian Stability & Nuclear Weapons Proliferation
A review of India, Pakistan, and the Bomb: Debating Nuclear Stability in South Asia by Sumit Ganguly and S. Paul Kapur

JOHN NOONAN
No Better Friend
A review of New Dawn: The Battles for Fallujah by Richard S. Lowry

JONATHAN SCHANZER
A Nomad’s Journey
A review of Nomad: From Islam to America. A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations by Ayaan Hirsi Ali