Tag Archives: Nicolas Maduro

Latin American Backlash to U.S. Sanctions on Venezuela

On March 9th President Obama issued an executive order implementing The Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014, which he signed last December 18th.  This measure blocks the property and interests in property of seven top Venezuelan government officials and would also block the property and interests in property of any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State.

The presidential order has imposed sanctions on mostly the top echelon of the state security apparatus   in charge of the repression during the 2014 anti- government demonstrations.

Although, this executive order is a good first step, it omits to punish the president, his cabinet and his closest civilian aides. Likewise, punitive measures are not being applied to lower ranking officers who have committed human right violations despite the fact that human rights organizations have provided names and details about these individuals and their transgressions.

Yet, president Obama’s executive order is the most positive element in a series of events inside Venezuela that have been more than dishonorable.

First, Nicolas Maduro imprisoned Antonio Ledesma, the mayor of Metropolitan Caracas in a most violent and humiliating way. Ledesma’s “crime” was just being an opponent of the Maduro regime.  While Ledesma was Mayor of Caracas, the Venezuelan government tried to duplicate the functions of city hall in order to disempower the mayor. Likewise, the central government made several changes in order to undertake functions, which belonged to the Caracas city hall.

Then, as a result of demonstrations in the state of Tachira, security forces reacted violently killing a 14-year-old child. Although the Maduro government arrested a policeman in the case, that killing was also the result of government policy. Indeed, the government adopted a resolution allowing riot police to use firearms to control protests effectively lifting police restrictions in handling demonstrators.

Besides the human rights violations mentioned above, the economic situation deteriorates day by day up to the point where there is scarcity of basic goods. . Thus, people stand in long lines to purchase food and other basic products. Often the police have kept order by using violence to control people’s wrath while standing in line. The government has also organized “popular military groups” to control the long lines in what Diosdado Cabello, president of the national Assembly says is  “an economic war against Venezuela”.

The government of Venezuela has made and continues to make huge mistakes and carries out bad polices while blaming the private sector or the United States. According to President Maduro, problems inside Venezuela are due to a conspiracy organized from Washington, which then causes public discontent, not the Venezuelan government’s misguided policies.

In the meantime, the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) has stepped up an effort “to resolve” the Venezuelan crisis.

As was expected, this body, whose mission is to promote regional integration and cooperation between the countries and includes the most important countries in the continent, issued a statement in support of the Maduro government.

In that statement, UNASUR’s Secretary, Ernesto Samper, a corrupt, former president of Colombia who was denied entry to the U.S. due to the fact that his presidential campaign received funds from drug cartels, pointed out that the organization “rejects any attempt to destabilize the Venezuelan democracy”.  Likewise, UNASUR took very seriously Maduro’s claim that there is an attempt to depose him through a military coup organized in the air force with support from the United States. UNASUR supported this paranoid vision after a meeting between Maduro and the foreign ministers of Colombia, Brazil, and Ecuador.

Ironically, Samper called for a dialogue between the Venezuelan government and the opposition, knowing such an   effort has proven to be futile time and again. The government has never seriously negotiated with the opposition and has made crystal clear that it wants to hold its power forever. So Samper’s proposal is nothing but a ploy to avoid making a decision on Venezuela.

This disgraceful attitude by UNASUR is likely to affect the Organization of American States (OAS). On March 18th, a new secretary will be named to replace the outgoing secretary, Jose Miguel Insulza. There is only one candidate and he is no other than the former Uruguayan foreign minister, Luis Almagro. Almagro is a staunch supporter of the Maduro regime and has strong connections with Iran.   He served as a commercial attaché in Teheran for about five years and under his watch commercial relations between the two countries flourished. Likewise, a Uruguayan parliamentary delegation visited Teheran to strengthen relations with Iran. Almagro defined Uruguay and Iran as “two countries that fight against injustice and oppression”.

In the face of these facts, the OAS is not expected to apply its democratic charter unless the left loses elections in key countries in Latin America.

Cuba, a country with whom the Obama Administration seeks to normalize relations, stood firmly in support of Maduro. The U.S. should also use its negotiations with Cuba as a means to demand that the dozens of    Cubans who are helping to develop the Venezuelan security apparatus be removed from Venezuela. If such a demand is not made, the U.S. will look like an accomplice of this immoral UNASUR attitude.

It is vitally important that the United States stand firm in its own principles and continue its pressure on Venezuela and even increase and expand sanctions as long as human rights violations, arrests of opposition figures and repression continues.  The same applies in the case of Cuba where the U.S. must also resolutely demand from Cuba that human rights be fully respected and that Cuba cease its support of the Venezuelan repressive apparatus.

The human rights agenda is not only a moral imperative. It is also an issue of national security as President Obama pointed out in his executive order. It is a security issue because more and more dictatorships are being elected in Latin America and have accumulated enormous power. Then, they use this power to carry out an agenda and this agenda includes dangerous items such as increasing connections to drug cartels, terrorist groups, Iran, and other elements that endanger regional and U.S. security.

The time has come to develop a consistent strategy to counteract the current dangers in Latin America.

Latin America’s Role in Arming Iran

It has been nearly five years since Colombian Special Forces detained Walid Makled Garcia. After extraditing the drug kingpin to his home country of Venezuela, a judge finally ruled on his fate last month. The narcotrafficker was sentenced to 14 years in prison for drug running and financing the guerrilla group known as the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC). Within twenty-four hours of the sentence, President Nicolas Maduro had the ruling judge arrested for being too lenient.

Colombia’s President, Juan Manuel Santos, had initially informed the United States in 2009 that Walid Makled had been apprehended; however, the US government did not see a need to extradite the criminal. According to President Santos, the United States did not believe he was a person of interest. How wrong the administration was.

Reports from former confidants of Hugo Chavez are confirming that the Venezuelan regime had indeed been involved in brokering deals between Iran and Argentina. Walid Makled had professed his willingness to assist American intelligence in exposing the Venezuelan government’s support of drug cartels, terrorist organizations, and various hostile nations – primarily that of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In 2007, President Chavez was a key figure in establishing payments to then-presidential candidate Christina Kirchner’s campaign from the Iranian regime. In return, the Iranians would receive nuclear know how from the Argentine defense minister.

According to the ex-Chavista informants, during a meeting between the Iranian and Venezuelan heads of state, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Hugo Chavez:

This is a matter of life or death. I need you to be an intermediary with Argentina to get help for my country’s nuclear program. We need Argentina to share its nuclear technology with us. It will be impossible to advance with our program without Argentina’s cooperation.

 

It has been reported that the current Argentine Ambassador to the Organization of American States and former leftist militant, Nilda Garre, served as the lead negotiator between the Iranian and Argentine defense departments.

The informants have stated they never witnessed the direct exchange of nuclear technology. However, upon further examination, the heavy water reactor located outside Arak in Iran and Atucha in Argentina share many structural and technological similarities. Coincidentally, the reactor in Arak was finished following the proposed deal between the two nations.

In addition to covert deals between Iran and Argentina, news broke that Iran has been sending financial aid overtly to Muslim organizations in order to influence Argentine society. Yussef Khalil, a person of interest in the murder of Alberto Nisman, declared that Mohsen Rabbani, the mastermind behind the 1994 AMIA bombing in Buenos Aires, has been sending money to Argentina in order to continue spreading Iranian Shia Islam– as well as the Islamic revolutionary ideology.

One can only imagine how different events in the Middle East could have been had the transfer of nuclear technology between Argentina and Iran been stopped. The United States should have acted on the opportunity to question Walid Makled Garcia.

The information Walid Makled had at the time could have prevented the Iranian regime from developing their current nuclear technology. Now the world waits for the details of a nuclear deal that will inevitably lead to Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Diplomatic Expulsions are Really a Political Ploy

Venezuelan Pro-Democracy advocate Alejandro Peña Esclusa was arrested on terrorism related charges in July 2010 by Venezuelan security forces under then President Hugo Chavez. In the subsequent search, police found explosives in Alejandro’s daughter’s desk; which the family claims was evidence planted by the police. Modern day Venezuelan socialism, known as Chavismo, practices the policy of labeling opposition leaders as terrorists due to their democratic ideologies.

Like Boris Nemstov, Alejandro Peña Esclusa was silenced. This only proves that Hugo Chavez’ heir, President Nicolas Maduro, comes from a totalitarian ideology that will do anything in their power to oppress democratic movements.

On February 28th, President Nicolas Maduro set his sights on former president George W. Bush and former vice president Dick Cheney, as well as Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Senators Bob Menendez and Marco Rubio, labeling them all persona non grata – citing “terrorists” activities against the Venezuelan state.

In the same speech, President Nicolas Maduro’s anti-American rhetoric announced a plan to limit the interference by foreign governments in Venezuelan affairs by limiting the amount of diplomats allowed in the country.

In reality, President Maduro’s actions serve as a cover-up of the political and social instability in Venezuela, while at the same time rebuilding support for his fledgling socialist movement.

Maduro took aim at the United States and it’s embassy in Caracas, singling out the fact that the embassy’s staff was nearly six times larger than that of Venezuela’s in the United States.

In addition to cutting back on the amount of American diplomats allowed in Venezuela, the outspoken leader declared that American tourists will need to apply for visas and pay hefty fees in order to enter the country. The Maduro regime claims this is in response to the similar treatment of Venezuelans tourists to the United States.

This all stems from President Maduro’s claim that the United States had implemented a plan to assassinate him – an accusation his predecessor used on numerous occasions. The exact details regarding this plot are murky to say the least, but the regime has claimed that Venezuelan forces have captured an American pilot of Hispanic origins suspected of conducting covert espionage activities in the Venezuelan rain forest. All this information of course is supported by evidence that the president has yet made public.

President Maduro’s actions against the United States have a direct correlation to the events that have unfolded in Venezuela over the last few months. President Maduro is attempting to save his political career by using the old Soviet tactic of blaming others for Venezuela’s troubles.

The recent political climate in Venezuela has been extremely tense. Venezuelan security forces arrested another major opposition leader, Caracas mayor Antonio Ledezma, in early February claiming that he had collaborated with the United States to overthrow the Maduro regime.

Five days later, Venezuelan security forces shot and killed a 14-year-old boy during anti-government protests in the city of San Cristóbal. This most recent example of state sponsored violence has reopened the emotional wounds left behind by the forty-three lives lost exactly a year ago during various anti-government protests throughout the country.

Venezuela’s economic future is also facing a continual downward spiral into chaos. Due to the falling oil prices, President Maduro was forced to devaluate the bolivar, Venezuela’s national currency, by nearly 32%. This caused the exchange rate of the bolivar to drop from 4.3 bolivars to the dollar in early February, to 6.3 bolivars to the dollar following the devaluation. Since Hugo Chavez assumed power in 1999, the Venezuelan regime has resorted to devaluating the currency on seven separate occasions.

Recent polls show that President Maduro’s approval rating has fallen to 22%, the lowest of his political career. By attacking the “Evil Empire” known as the United States, arresting opposition leaders, and oppressing public demonstrations, Maduro is using the old Soviet political machine, taught by the Cuban intelligence apparatus, to hold on to his last bit of political legitimacy.

President Maduro’s strategy of diplomatically attacking the United States has worked over the years by oppressive totalitarian regimes such as Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela under Hugo Chavez. Venezuela’s lower class will most likely believe anything Maduro or his cronies televise. However, the readily available social media outlets – primarily Twitter – used by the Venezuelan middle and upper class will only help to further expose Maduro’s inability to lead Venezuela to economic and social stability.

One should expect increased anti-government protests and violent clashes with Venezuelan security forces during the National Assembly elections in the coming months.

 

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.

Sanctions on Venezuelan Human Rights Violators: A New Momentum to be Seized

On December 11th the U.S House of Representatives signed a bill, which will impose sanctions on Venezuelan officials found to have in violation of human rights in Venezuela.

On December 8th, The Senate passed a similar bill after a long delay.

According to signals given by the White House, President Barack Obama is likely to sign the bill.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Ileana Ross Lethinen (R- FL) and by Senators Marco Rubio (R-Fl), Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Bill Nelson (D-FL) imposes visa restrictions, freezing of assets, and other types of targeted sanctions on persons responsible for violations of human rights of antigovernment protesters in Venezuela. The bill also calls for coordination between 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”. Likewise, it calls “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”.

Despite the fact that the delay in the Senate vote may have provided time to Maduro’s thugs to take preventive steps in anticipation of the sanctions, the impact of the sanctions is undeniable.

First these sanctions constitute a first step. It is reasonable to assume that Maduro did not believe the U.S. would dare to do it. As Republicans will be holding the majority in the next Congress, chances are that further sanctions may be approved without delay. This already has brought Maduro to a state of panic, particularly as Venezuela is now experiencing significant drops in oil prizes and as the economy continues its drastic decline.

It is less clear if this step represents a significant change in U.S foreign policy towards Venezuela.

U.S policy, particularly under President Barack Obama, has been based on the following premises:

  1. The U.S. cannot be seen as an unequal and condescending partner in the region.
  2. The U.S. should not impose its will on any country in the region since American history of past interference in Latin American countries’ internal affairs has raised negative feelings among the population and governments in the region.
  3. Therefore, the U.S. needs to work with regional partners to resolve any problem. Thus, the Venezuelan problem, like human rights challenges, or any other challenge in the continent, (including those that affect U.S. security), need to be addressed through countries in the region.

As the left began to consolidate in Latin America, countries began to protect each other as part of a philosophy and strategy of “regional integration” as a means of forming a new regional power block. This concept of block solidarity prevented proper denunciation by Latin American countries of human rights violations in Venezuela. For these countries to denounce human rights violations by another country runs the risk of affecting this new power block. Brazil insisted on the principle of sovereignty over universal rights and thus defended the principle of non-interference.

Henceforth, for the United States, such policy of non-confrontation and going along with regional wishes constituted nothing less than a seal of approval of human rights and democracy violations. This policy track has not been at all beneficial to U.S. interests. Let us remember that there are real dangers to U.S. and regional security given Venezuela’s key role in drug trafficking, harboring of terrorist groups, and cooperation with countries such as Iran.

Should we delegate our security to countries such as Brazil? Should we continue asking for permission to stand by our values and interests?

The recent agreement between the Obama Administration and the Castro regime seems to indicate that U.S policy continues to be the same. The U.S just promised to renew diplomatic relations with Cuba that does not guarantee or even demands from the Castro regime a commitment to changing its anti-democratic and anti-human rights policy. Obama himself pointed out that his decision to normalize relations with Cuba was due to the fact that this was the will of the countries of the region.

Therefore, unless the Republican majority in Congress applies pressure, nothing is likely to move forward.

Yet, these sanctions constitute the first significant step that show solidarity with those in Venezuela who have fought and are still fighting for a better future of freedom and economic opportunity.

The lukewarm response that their protests have had from the world has discouraged Venezuelan dissidents. By the same token, the Venezuelan government did not find any reason why it needed to reign in its’ repressive regime. To the contrary its’ repressive policies have continued. The indictment of political opponent, Maria Corina Machado on false charges is only one small example of how the Maduro government mocked its own Venezuelan citizens and the international community.

Thus, at least sanctions should give a new boost to protestors in Venezuela and provide hope to dozens of political prisoners forgotten and abandoned in their filthy cells.

From the pages of the Americas Report we denounced the situation of General Raul Baduel, a former Chavez Secretary of Defense, who despite his initial support for Hugo Chavez played an important role in inflicting Chavez’s first electoral defeat. . He has been in prison for years under false charges and long forgotten.

Sanctions provide an important momentum. Support for democracy and human rights from now onwards needs to take a high speed both inside and outside Venezuela.

This is the time to continue to raise the issue of Venezuela with the President, with Congress, and with the rest of the world.

Influential National Security, Human Rights Leaders Urge Opposition to Venezuela’s Security Council Bid

 

(WASHINGTON, DC): On the eve of action by the United Nations on Venezuela’s bid for a rotating two-year term on the Security Council, a group of national security and human rights experts has written President Obama urging him to ensure that the United States exercises all prerogatives available to it as a permanent member of the Security Council to oppose vigorously this initiative.

The group’s letter to President Obama notes that starting with the leadership of the late Hugo Chavez – and presently under the leadership of Nicolas Maduro – the government of Venezuela has undertaken policies hostile both to security and human rights in our hemisphere and beyond, including: the provision of safe havens within Venezuela, and other forms of material support, to terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the FARC; support for the nuclear weapons ambitions of North Korea and Iran; and harsh repression of the Venezuelan people.

Among the signatories of the letter, organized by the Center for Security Policy, were:

  • Otto Reich, Former U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela; Former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs
  • Roger F. Noriega, Former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs; Former U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of American States (OAS)
  • J. Kenneth Blackwell, Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission
  • James “Ace” Lyons, USN (Ret.), Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet; Former Senior U.S. Military Representative to the United Nations
  • Henry F. Cooper, Former Director of the Strategic Defense Initiative and former U.S. Chief Negotiator at the Geneva Defense and Space Talks
  • Tidal McCoy, Former Secretary of the Air Force (Acting)
  • José Cárdenas, Former Staff Member, National Security Council; Former Acting Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
  • Michael Braun, Former Chief of Operations, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., commented:
“The notion that international security would be well-served by Venezuela’s presence on the United Nations Security Council cannot withstand overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  Nicolas Maduro has continued Hugo Chavez’s legacy of destabilization and radicalization of Latin America, support for terrorism, and repression of human rights domestically, all of which stand in stark contrast to American, and indeed Western, national security interests and values.  President Obama should heed the advice of these national security and human rights experts and oppose Venezuela’s bid – neutrality on such a fundamental question is not an option.”
The full text of the letter can be found below.

The Venezuelan Sanctions Bill Awaits Senate Action

t has been two months since the House of Representatives version of the Venezuela sanctions bill was passed.  Avery similar bill titled  the ‘‘Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014” now awaits passage in the Senate, after having been voted out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The bill itself is limited in scope but would have a significant impact in Venezuela, especially on those individuals responsible for the brutal crackdown on peaceful protestors that took place last February. It 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”.’, 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”.

One might ask why these sanctions are necessary and what impact they would really have on the situation in Venezuela.. The Venezuela of today is a place where citizens often live in fear and are under a cloud of intimidation. Freedom of the press has been severely curtailed. The courts are now controlled by the absolute power of the President. Attacks on unions, demonization of political dissidents, arbitrary disqualification of political candidates, and a general atmosphere of intolerance prevail.

Venezuela has experienced an extreme climate of violence. The government has promoted an atmosphere of fear and intimidation by strengthening armed paramilitaries that carry out systematic repression and also criminal acts that have already placed Venezuela among the countries with the highest rates of violence in the world.

Additionally, Venezuela has prisoners who are being held without due process and has sent many people into exile. There is no democratic nation in the world that maintains such a negative record.

The situation continues to become ever more serious. The ruling party justifies its brutal repression of those who legitimately express their discontent by attributing the protests to external forces or non-existent conspiracies while the Venezuelan president amasses ever greater power.

Although some have argued that the human rights situation in Venezuela should be resolved through the electoral process rather than with the introduction of sanctions, it is the rampant abuse within the Venezuelan electoral system that helped prompt the protests in the first place.

In addition, there is no electoral exit  in Venezuela and this is one of the reasons why protests took place. First the population is intimidated and afraid. Therefore, many people vote thinking that somebody may find out whom they voted for. State employees, particularly from the oil giant PDVSA have been intimidated into voting for the ruling party. Furthermore, when the opposition won very often their work was obstructed. Such is the case of the Mayor of Caracas Antonio Ledezma who after taking office, the Central government created a de-facto parallel Caracas City Hall.

Up until July 29th, Senator Corker opposed the sanctions bill on the grounds that it was not part of a larger strategy. He was asking at the time for the Administration to define a strategy and explain how sanctions could advance that strategy.

Corker’s rationale for having questioned the value of sanctions at the time seems to have been  based on the notion that sanctions cannot work if they cannot achieve the desired results, insofar as  sanctions alone may prove to be insufficient and may also backfire by  encouraging the Maduro government to  increase the intensity of its repression.

Senator Corker was, indeed, right that the U.S. does not have a larger strategy to deal with Venezuela or for that matter with the challenges to democracy in the region or  the serious security threats Venezuela poses  to the United States.

Venezuela has indeed undertaken  dangerous policies that affect the entire hemisphere.

For example, Venezuela is heavily involved in the drug trade. The current flow of children and others to the United States from Central American countries is also the result of a state of anarchy caused by the drug trafficking that weakens state authority and makes the lives of people increasingly unsafe. Venezuela is the only country in Latin America that willingly makes its ports and airports available to drug cartels and harbors their leadership and operatives.

Just last week  General Hugo Carvajal, who served as Venezuela’s chief of intelligence between 2004 and 2011 and reappointed by Nicolas Maduro for a brief period last year, was arrested in Aruba at the request of the U.S. for his involvement in drug trafficking. Carvajal was allegedly in charge of collecting drug shipments from the Colombian narco-terrorist organization known as the FARC (Revolutioinary Armed Forces of Colombia). Carvajal allegedly controlled the entire distribution of drugs to the U.S. and Europe and was in charge of laundering   drug money through the Venezuelan oil giant, PDVSA. Unfortunately, under threats from the Venezuelan government, Aruba sent Carvajal back to Venezuela instead of responding to the U.S. request to have him placed in American custody.

Venezuela has also established connections with terrorist groups such as the FARC, ETA, and Hezbollah. It has established dangerous alliances with Iran that allegedly include supplies of uranium to the Islamic Republic. Additionally, two sources have reported the presence of Iranian missiles in the Paraguana Peninsula; something that puts the U.S. in a situation of vulnerability as failure of U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations or an Israeli military attack on the latter’s nuclear facilities could precipitate greater antagonism between the United States and Iran. Venezuela also cooperates with Hezbollah on money transfers, on training of terrorists, and on provision of passports to Middle Eastern individuals.

Despite Senator Corker’s legitimate concerns that sanctions may not have the desired impact, they present an opportunity to raise awareness in our political establishment and develop a larger strategy. In addition, the sanctions bill could be the impetus the Obama Administration needs to more actively and constructively engage in the protection and promotion of democracy in the region. But the idea that we can’t do anything because we can’t do everything cannot be the rationale through which we address these serious issues.

If we oppose sanctions we will encourage the Maduro Government to further increase its repression and we would be letting down those who look up to  the United States as a source of hope in a world increasingly influenced by authoritarianism. It is now up to the full Senate to pass this much needed legislation.

Friends of Freedom Make Case For Sanctions On Eve of Venezuela House Vote

On Eve of House Vote on Venezuela, Friends of Freedom Make The Case For Favorable Action on Sanctions

Washington, D.C.: The U.S. House of Representatives will take up The Venezuelan Human Rights and Democracy Protection Act (H.R. 4587) tomorrow. In the run-up to the vote to impose sanctions on individuals and institutions associated with the increasingly repressive regime of Nicolás Maduro, a just-released summary of the proceedings of an important, bipartisan meeting of champions of liberty in Venezuela offers fresh evidence of the need for such penalties.

The event was a roundtable featuring many prominent independent Venezuela thought-leaders and other friends of freedom who convened to address the topic: Pressure, Sanctions & Strategy – How to Influence Change in Venezuela. Sponsored by the Washington-based Center for Security Policy’s Menges Hemispheric Studies Program and Miami’s Foro de Promoción Democrática Continental and InterAmerican Institute for Democracy, the roundtable featured in person and recorded remarks by several of the nation’s most influential lawmakers: Sens. Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL).

The meeting brought together 100 individuals from Venezuela, the United States and other nations in the hemisphere who share a commitment to helping Venezuela’s beleaguered opposition challenge – through peaceful protests and civil activism – the crippling shortages, sky-high (60%) inflation, the worthless currency (88% devaluation in the last 3 months) and repression brought on by Cuban-style communism, as practiced by the regimes of the late Hugo Chavez and his chosen successor, Nicolás Maduro.

Since the protests started in February 2014, Maduro’s security forces have killed 46 people, injured more than 1000 and arrested over 3000, with reports that many of those in detention have been subjected to torture and other mistreatment.

Such outrages have inspired a desire on the part of Americans and their elected representatives on both sides of the aisle to stand with the people of Venezuela and against their tormentors. This sentiment was broadly shared by the participants in the roundtable who, when surveyed, responded as follows on two points directly relevant to tomorrow’s deliberations in the House of Representatives:

  • 71% of the participants agreed that U.S. sanctions in response to the Venezuelan government’s criminal abuse of power will put pressure on the regime’s illegal activity and cash flow, perhaps bringing it to the point of financial collapse. Such pressure may lead the regime to ask independent Venezuelans trusted by world investors to help fix the economic and financial mess Chavez and Maduro have created.
  • 90% of those present agreed that Venezuela’s operating model establishes state monopolies with absolute discretion to use public power and money secretly – and that U.S. sanctions would be vital for deconstructing the state monopolies and separating governing powers to counter official corruption, theft, despotism and secrecy.

On the occasion of the release of the summary of the roundtable’s proceedings, Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. observed: “The American people are shocked by what is going on in Venezuela – no longer our ally, but still our fourth largest oil supplier. We have a vital interest in what happens there and an obligation to help those who share our commitment to liberty but are afflicted by the Maduro regime’s repression at home and subversion in much of the hemisphere. The Pressure, Sanctions & Strategy Initiative is an important contribution to that end.”

Media coverage of the Roundtable was extensive (see, for example: NBC Telemundo television report, a front-page article in the Nuevo Herald , and reports in the Latin American Herald Tribune and PanAmPost).

Two of the presenters at the Roundtable – political consultant and columnist Michael Rowan and entrepreneur Russ Dallen – are in Washington this week and available for briefings and interviews concerning the situation on the ground in Venezuela and what should be done about it.  For more information, contact: Jordi Chervitz at 202-719-2411 or jchervitz@securefreedom.org.

Venezuelan Sanctions: A Response to Assistant Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson

On May 8th, while Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere Roberta Jacobson was testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Nicolas Maduro, the president of Venezuela was arresting 240 student protestors. In fact, since the beginning of the dialogue, the government has arrested more than 500 protestors. Protests in Venezuela have been going on for the last four months due to shortage of basic goods, a spectacularly high crime rate, a 57% inflation rate and an increasing oppressive government. Since the protests began in February, both houses of Congress have sponsored bi-partisan legislation to promote human rights in Venezuela and to sanction specific individuals in the Venezuelan government responsible for repression and violation of human rights in Venezuela as well as the torture and murder of at least forty one protestors. The irony here is that while members of the Foreign Affairs Committees in both houses of the United States Congress see a need for sanctions Ms. Jacobson continues to advocate for a dialogue between the two sides (the government and the opposition). This puts the Obama Administration at odds with Democrats in both the House and the Senate who believe the time has come to pressure the Venezuelan government. Ms. Jacobson’s main argument is that imposition of sanctions would undermine the current dialogue “while it still offers a chance of progress”. Does Ms. Jacobson presume that the Venezuelan government will engage in dialogue with the opposition when so many of them are now incarcerated?

In addition to supporting dialogue over sanctions, Ms. Jacobson stated that members of the opposition who are part of this dialogue share her thinking. So, she concluded that this is not the right time to apply sanctions. She did acknowledge that not every member of the opposition shares her views.

Jacobson seemed confused and defensive when Senator Rubio asked for specific names of those in the opposition who asked her to refrain from sanctions on perpetrators of human rights violations. The answer to why the chief U.S diplomat on Latin American Affairs experienced such feelings of embarrassment came just hours after the hearings.

Indeed, the executive secretary of the opposition party called Mesa de Unidad Democratica (MUD), Ramon Guillermo Aveledo issued a statement claiming that while MUD opposes general embargos against the people of Venezuela, it does not rule out that sanctions be applied against individuals responsible for human rights violations.

This shows that the opposition to sanctions comes from the Obama Administration and the State Department not from the Venezuelan opposition.

Is the position of the Administration logical? Does Ms. Jacobson really believe that there is any incentive the Venezuelan government has to conduct an honest dialogue that would ultimately restore democracy to Venezuela? Are Ms Jacobson and the State Department bureaucracy aware of what kind of regime the Bolivarian regime is? How exactly can they justify their current position against sanctions?

Most recently, Cesar Vidal, a Spanish historian who resides in Miami spoke about the conditions of possibility of dialogue in a symposium organized by the Miami-based Foro de Promocion Democratica Continental (FPDC). Dr. Vidal pointed out that dialogue couldn’t take place when it is dealing with 1) a totalitarian regime 2) An entity or group that has systematically violated the constitution and legality of the state 3) A terrorist group.

Although, some may argue whether the Venezuelan regime is totalitarian or not, its aspirations are definitely totalitarian. From the outset the regime declared itself revolutionary and did everything possible to perpetuate itself in power via repression and other means of intimidation, while denying the legitimacy of any other truth except its own ideology. True dialogue, a key element in democratic societies, has not existed in Venezuela. Elections were used as an excuse to legitimize a ruthless majority rule over a minority with limited rights. The majority of course is not really a majority but it is embedded in the power of the government that keeps growing At the expense of civil and political liberties. . Indeed, the government has displayed totalitarian behavior and this is the general direction in which it is currently going

In addition, Cesar Vidal pointed out that it is impossible to ask a totalitarian regime (or in this case a regime that tends towards totalitarianism) to change its ways. Furthermore, an agreement with totalitarian regimes that do not include its ultimate capitulation (or does not guarantee its eventual transformation) only strengthens totalitarian power.

The Chavez-Maduro regime, precisely because of its totalitarian aspiration has also broken the rule of law and systematically violated the country’s constitution to institutionalize an oppressive regime. The regime is the aggressor that denies the opposition and civil society a voice that it deserves. The opposition and civil society are the victims, not moral equals. As negotiations unfold the Maduro regime continues to arrest people by the hundreds, torture, and shooting protestors and dissidents. Likewise, it has stubbornly refused to release any of the prisoners it has unjustly jailed in a clear sign that it intends to keep the upper hand.

Simply supporting a plain dialogue assumes, as Vidal also pointed out, that the non-totalitarian side also shares some responsibility and provides legitimacy to the aggressive side by providing a false perception that two moral equals are negotiating and somehow both are equally responsible for the deterioration of the situation.

Thus, there will not be any compromise offered by the Venezuelan government if the opposition does not have some leverage. Iran is a case in point. Dialogue with Iran would not have been conceivable without the sanctions that preceded it

Sanctions as they are proposed in this bill should be a first step, a sort of a warning but the U.S government and, if possible, other countries should create a situation where the threat of more punitive action deters the Venezuelan regime. The final purpose should be to transform the nature of the regime. The goal should be at least to create a situation where the government allows more space and power to the opposition without interference and also restores the legality and constitutionality that existed previous to the rise of Hugo Chavez to power. This means to cease having totalitarian aspirations and to open the system to a true democracy without repression; without Para-military, without political prisoners; without political exiles, without subjugation of the judiciary; without arbitrary expropriation of private property; without restricting the freedom of the press and other individual liberties and with full respect for and inclusion of the opposition. In other words, the regime cannot do less than giving up its own tyrannical essence.

If these goals are not achieved, the dialogue failed. Any deal that compromises these parameters of democratic restoration will lead to the reinforcement and legitimization of the regime. If the dialogue fails to achieve this, new sanctions and total isolation of Venezuela should ensue.

The Dialogue Between the Venezuelan Government and the Opposition Must be Accompanied by Sanctions

The violence that began between the Venezuelan government and large segments of the opposition last February has now resulted in a dialogue between the opposing sides.

Although there is much wishful thinking on the side of the opposition represented by the Mesa de Unidad (MUD) coalition, a group that includes most opposition parties, the future is far from certain.

In the two meetings that have taken place between the government and the opposition an agreement was reached to create a Truth Commission to investigate the events of the last two months where 41 people lost their lives, hundreds were wounded, more than 2,000 were arrested, and many were tortured. In principle, the Truth Commission would integrate members of the Assembly with recognized public personalities that are not necessarily from the political arena. However, it has not yet been decided who these individuals will be.

The opposition also agreed to be part of the Pacification Plan aimed (Plan de Pacificacion) at improving citizens’ security in light of increasing crime.

Another aspect of the agreement is that public positions such as members of the National Electoral Council (CNE) or the Supreme Court would be properly elected by a two-thirds majority of the parliament. This particular aspect of the agreement is important because it not only adheres to the constitution of Venezuela but the last time the appointment of three members of the CNE was done it was by automatic extension not by a two thirds majority of the National Assembly.

The government, for its part, rejected an amnesty law proposed by the opposition that would have benefited political prisoners and political exiles. This, despite the fact that these imprisonments took place without due process, most notably the imprisonment of the leader of Voluntad Popular, Leopoldo Lopez whom the government arrested following the protests that erupted in February. Three elected mayors from the opposition suffered a similar fate.

This is the main reason why this important faction is not part of the dialogue. According to David Smolansky, mayor of the city of El Hatillo there is no way Voluntad Popular could participate if their people remain in jail.

Granting an amnesty to political prisoners and exiles would have been a great gesture that would have shown the government’s good intentions. The Truth Commission is a process whose outcome is not in the near future and could be subjected to manipulation. Making the opposition also responsible for bringing a solution to the security problem is a joke, particularly when much of the violence is the result of the fact that the regime empowered thugs to defend it and provided an entire “born to kill” generation all the freedom and protection criminals in civilized countries only wish they had.

Likewise, the implementation of the election of public positions needs to be monitored as well as the appointment of members of the Truth Commission.

Some leaders of the opposition claim that the agreements represent progress. However, based on what was heard in those hearings such prospects are not on the horizon. For example the Venezuelan president, Nicolas Maduro pointed out during the debates that “the bourgeoisie is no longer in power and it will never gain political power again”. If he were serious about respecting the democratic rules, the exclusion of the bourgeoisie like any other group or class would have been unacceptable. This means that Maduro intends to continue deepening the revolution and the authoritarian regime founded 15 years ago. Other members of the government repeated the usual ideological discourse. According to them, they never carried out any acts of violence. They don’t consider that the organized communal groups (colectivos) are the ones perpetrating acts of violence but instead blame the opposition and the demonstrators. Maduro talked about an armed insurgency rising against him and thus he justifies that his supporters have the right to arm themselves.

Likewise, the scarcity and economic hardship Venezuela is experiencing is not the result of bad government policy but the result of an economic war against Maduro’s regime. The aggressive discourse of the pro-Maduro representatives casts serious doubts about the intentions of the government. As we repeatedly pointed out, the Bolivarian regime has not been designed to give up power. It is a fully revolutionary regime and at the same time, it is a mafia state, to use the words of political scientist Ari Chapin.

The most significant shift has been the attitude of former Brazilian president Jose Inazio Lula Da Silva, who has always been, like his successor Dilma Rousseff, a strong apologist and enabler of the regime founded by Hugo Chavez. Yet, Lula issued surprising statements criticizing Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro for practicing political rhetoric instead of governing the country and dealing with the economic problems and the scarcity affecting the Venezuelan people. Although Lula did not make any reference to Venezuela’s political prisoners, the state of democracy or human rights, he praised the leader of the opposition MUD leader, Henrique Capriles, for resorting to dialogue and not acting in a radical extremist way.

Lula, who is believed to be an emissary of Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff, proposed a five-year coalition government that would include the opposition in order to deal with the current economic and political crisis in Venezuela.

Lula referred to Venezuela as being a country of strategic importance to Brazil. Many Brazilian companies have contracts in Venezuela for billions of dollars. A poor, chaotic and deteriorating Venezuela is not a good deal for the Brazilians.

Early in April Jose Miguel Insulza, secretary of the OAS, acknowledged at an event in South Florida that Venezuela is in a deep crisis and even if protests cease the crisis will continue, regardless. In a private conversation with others and me he acknowledged that Venezuela has violated human rights.

It is not clear how Lula and Insulza’s changed sentiments will influence the situation or if it will change anything but their respective statements were long overdue. Yet, they are very important, not because they are sufficient but precisely because they are a first step. If Venezuela has strategic importance to Brazil, it is more the case for the U.S. This is not because of the oil contracts or the oil supply but because Venezuela is a dangerous regime that declared it’s enmity to the U.S. In addition it is a rogue state that supports terror, as well as a narco-state, whose political and military elite is involved in drug trafficking. It is important for U.S. policy makers to recognize the fact that Venezuela, situated barely two hours away from Miami, is part of a geo-political security zone that affects our country’s security.

Therefore, it would be a wise move for the United States to capitalize on Brazil and Insulza’s change of attitude by insisting that the dialogue be fair. In addition, the U.S. should discuss this issue with the Brazilian government and try to work in coalition with Brazil to restore democracy to Venezuela. Although it remains unclear how far the Brazilians are willing to go in pressuring the Venezuelan government, this shift by Brazil should open an opportunity to engage the most important player in the continent.

It would also be incumbent for the U.S. government to follow the Senate initiative of Senators Robert Menendez, Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson and the House initiative of Congresswoman Ileana Ros Lehtinen and apply sanctions at least on those individuals responsible for the repression in Venezuela.

Those sanctions must not only be a first step but must be conditioned to provide a successful and clean outcome for the ongoing negotiations. Without pressure the Venezuelan government is unlikely to concede. Giving a blank check to a dialogue that is already going through a bumpy process would be a huge mistake and would only perpetuate the problem.