Tag Archives: United Nations

Apostasy and the Islamic Nations

The 1990 Cairo Declaration, or so-called "Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam", was drafted and subsequently ratified by all the Muslim member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Now a 57 state collective which includes every Islamic nation on earth, the OIC, currently headed by Turkey’s Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, thus represents the entire Muslim umma (or global community of individual Muslims), and is the largest single voting bloc in the United Nations (UN). 

Both the preamble and concluding articles (24 and 25) make plain that the OIC‘s Cairo Declaration is designed to supersede Western conceptions of human rights as enunciated, for example, in the US Bill of Rights, and the UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The opening of the preamble to the Cairo Declaration repeats a Koranic injunction affirming Islamic supremacism, (Koran 3:110; "You are the best nation ever brought forth to men…you believe in Allah"), and states,

Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made the best nation…

The preamble continues,

Believing that fundamental rights and universal freedoms in Islam are an integral part of the Islamic religion and that no one as a matter of principle has the right to suspend them in whole or in part or violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commandments, which are contained in the Revealed Books of God and were sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages thereby making their observance an act of worship and their neglect or violation an abominable sin, and accordingly every person is individually responsible  —  and the Ummah collectively responsible  —  for their safeguard."

In its concluding articles 24 and 25, the Cairo Declaration maintains, [article 24],

All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’a"; and [article 25] "The Islamic Shari’a is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.

These statements capture the indelible influence of the Islamic religious law Shari’a — the Cairo Declaration claiming supremacy based on "divine revelation," which renders sacred and permanent the notion of inequality between the community of Allah, and the infidels. Thus we can see clearly the differences between the Cairo Declaration, which sanctions the gross inequalities inherent in the Shari’a, and its Western human rights counterparts (the US Bill of Rights; the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights), which do not refer to any specific religion or to the superiority of any group over another, and stress the absolute equality of all human beings.

 

Continue Reading at The American Thinker…

Our irredeemable international system

Our international institutions are irredeemably corrupted. From the United Nations to the International Criminal Court and their affiliate and subordinate bodies, these institutions are rotten at their core.

It isn’t that they don’t function. They function just fine. The problem is that through their regular functioning, they advance goals antithetical to those they were established to achieve. Instead of promoting global security, human rights, freedom and international peace, they facilitate war and aggression, human suffering and tyranny.

The UN General Assembly is now convening its 64th session. As they do every year, heads of state from across the globe are descending on the Big Apple to participate in the proceedings. As they convene, their agenda will demonstrate the failings of the UN. On the one hand, they will consider the UN Human Rights Council’s latest broadside against Israel, which comes this week in the form of the UNHRC’s 575-page report of its probe of Israel’s behavior in its military campaign against the Hamas terror regime in Gaza this past December and January.

On the other hand, they will not give the slightest consideration to the fact that Iran is about to become a nuclear power, in contempt of its international obligations, and so is poised to become the gravest threat to international security in the past 25 years. Moreover, they will pay no attention to the fact that as it sprints toward the nuclear finishing line, the Iranian regime is engaged in a systematic and brutal repression of its political opponents, who since the stolen June 12 presidential election have been clamoring for freedom and democracy.

Both in its treatment of Israel and in its treatment of the Iranian regime, the UN demonstrates that its practices are an inversion of its stated mission. Despite its leaders’ and supporters’ repeated claims to the contrary, the UN stands shoulder to shoulder with tyrants and aggressors against democrats and democracies seeking to advance the causes of freedom, human rights and international security.

MANY ISRAELIS reacted angrily to the UNHRC’s probe of Israel’s prosecution of Operation Cast Lead, claiming that its final report presents Israel – a liberal democracy – as the moral equivalent of Hamas – an illegal terrorist organization dedicated to the commission of genocide against Israelis. Yet in their anger, they missed the real problem with the report.

As Prof. Avi Bell from Bar Ilan University law school notes, Richard Goldstone’s report does not present Israel and Hamas as moral equivalents. Rather, it presents Israel as a terrorist and Hamas as a legitimate government.

The Goldstone Report does not accept as fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization and that consequently, in accordance with binding UN Security Council resolutions, all UN member states are required to work to disband it and give no quarter to its members and supporters. Instead it treats Hamas – which is charter-bound to a policy of genocide against Jews and rose to power through a campaign of murder and intimidation – as the legitimate governing authority in Gaza, which, the report’s authors irrationally claim, is simultaneously governed by an Israeli occupation four years after Israel withdrew its civilians and military forces from the area. In the UNHRC’s parallel universe, Hamas is the only lawful actor in town. Israel – and the Palestinian Authority under Fatah – are guilty of illegally persecuting Hamas by arresting its members.

Hamas, which is working to establish a terrorist Islamic theocracy in Gaza, is not seen as systematically violating human rights and freedom. Israel is. Since it downplayed the 12,000 rockets, mortars and missiles that Hamas and its terror affiliates in Gaza have shelled southern Israel with during the eight years preceding Operation Cast Lead, the Goldstone Commission was unable to understand the overwhelming popularity the operation enjoyed among the Israeli public. Consequently, their report attributed that public support to Israel’s abrogation of the civil liberties of the operation’s opponents.

In contrast, the Goldstone Report downplays the importance of Hamas’s systematic persecution of women, Christians and its political opponents.

And so it goes. For 575 pages, rather than promote the cause of human rights as one would expect from the UN’s Human Rights Council, the Goldstone Report promotes a fiction of Israeli criminality and Hamas victimization. That is, it promotes the cause of human rights abusers against human rights defenders.

Many Israelis have expressed disgust with Goldstone, a South African Jew who purports to "love Israel."

This is a reasonable reaction, for Goldstone indeed disgraced himself by leading this commission. But the fact is that the report would have drawn the same conclusions based on the same lies regardless of who led the commission. By its very nature, the UNHRC is incapable of doing anything else. Like the UN itself, it is a body dominated by dictatorships and supported by leftist elites who love them. Its political agenda, of supporting dictatorships on the one hand and attacking Israel on the other, is indistinguishable from that of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

THEN THERE is Iran. Before he flies to New York for his annual visit, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad intends to finish off his political opponents back home.

Friday is Jerusalem Day in Iran. Jerusalem Day is the day the regime organizes mass demonstrations throughout the country calling for Israel’s destruction. The regime’s democratic opponents, who since the stolen June 12 election have been doggedly maintaining their protests against Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the police state they run, are planning to use the day to stage renewed protests. Aware of their intention, Khamenei warned that anyone demonstrating for anything other than Israel’s destruction will be severely punished. Reports abound of the regime’s plan to use the day to arrest opposition leaders Mir Hossain Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, who both ran against Ahmadinejad in June.

Friday would be a good day to arrest them. After all, now that the US has agreed to hold negotiations with Ahmadinejad’s representatives next month about whatever Iran would like to discuss, the Americans have lost any residual leverage they still held over Iran. Today it is Ahmadinejad, not the US or the UN Security Council, who sets the agendas and conditions for meetings. And Ahmadinejad can be certain that in light of this, no one will utter a peep if on the eve of his trip to America, he arrests or even murders his chief political opponents.

In the weeks following the election, before the regime began its crackdown and arrested, killed, tortured and raped thousands of its opponents, many of the demonstrators held signs demanding to know where the UN was. Why, they wished to know, was no one at the UN supporting them in their demands for democracy and human rights? Why was there no international community standing at their side as they sought to bring down the most dangerous regime on earth – a regime that has made genocide a strategic goal and is steadily working to acquire the means to commit genocide through nuclear war even as it murders its own people?

And that’s the thing of it. The same UN that appoints a new commission to criminalize Israel seemingly on a weekly basis, has been a major facilitator of Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

First, for three years, from 2003 until 2005, the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency ignored mountains of evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and refused to refer the issue to the Security Council. Then, after the IAEA finally referred the issue to it, the Security Council failed to pass anything but the mildest of sanctions against Iran. Worse than doing nothing to prevent Teheran from acquiring nuclear weapons, these Security Council sanctions actually facilitated the Iranian program. While passing ineffective sanctions, the council gave the appearance of addressing the issue and so made it impossible for individual states to convince other states to adopt harsher, and perhaps more effective measures – like for instance cutting off trade with Iran or divesting from companies that trade with Iran – outside the Security Council.

DUE TO the UN’s unvarnished belligerence toward it, in recent years a consensus has formed in Israel that there is nothing to be gained from cooperating with this openly and dangerously hostile body. Reflecting this consensus, Israel’s leaders, from former prime minister Ehud Olmert to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to President Shimon Peres, are united in their condemnation of the Goldstone Report.

For a time during president George W. Bush’s first term in office, the US also recognized that the UN and the UN-based international system is irredeemably corrupt. Bush and his senior advisers spoke of the need to build international coalitions of willing governments to advance the causes of international security, human rights and freedom that the UN and its affiliated bodies are inherently incapable of advancing. Although this policy received public support at home, it provoked fierce opposition among the US foreign policy elites in Washington and in the media and among their allies on the political Left.

Due to their criticism, by his second term in office, Bush agreed to give the UN a leading role in dictating US foreign policy. He subordinated American policy to the Security Council on the issue of Iran’s nuclear weapons program and cooperated with the UN as it advanced its openly anti-Israel agenda, even increasing US funding of such anti-Israel groups as UNRWA.

Bush’s eventual surrender to the establishment set the course for what under President Barack Obama has become a cornerstone of US foreign policy. Unlike Bush, Obama has enthusiastically embraced the notion that the UN should by rights have a leading role in international affairs. He has also accepted the UN’s basic notion that in the interest of world peace, the US and its democratic allies should bow to the desires of despots and dictators.

So it is that this week he abandoned US allies Poland and the Czech Republic in his bid to appease Russia. So it is that his administration has sided with ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya, who, with the support of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, sought to undermine Honduran democracy, against Honduras’s lawful government and democratic defenders. So it is that the administration has sided with the genocidal mullahs in Teheran over their democratic opponents. So it is that the administration has adopted the view that Israel is to blame for the absence of peace in the Middle East and embraced as legitimate political actors Palestinian terror groups that refuse to accept Israel’s right to exist.

Until Obama came along, Israel could afford not to make too much of the fact that its enemies control the UN-led system of international institutions, because it could trust that the US would use its Security Council veto to prevent these forces from causing it any real harm. This is no longer the case. With the Obama administration fully on board the UN agenda, Israel and other threatened democracies like Honduras, Poland, the Czech Republic, South Korea and Japan will have to loudly proclaim the UN-based international system’s inherent moral, political and legal corruption and seek ways to undermine and weaken its power.

Originally published in the Jerusalem Post.

Obama’s big UN adventure

President Obama’s upcoming visit to the 64th UN General Assembly, which opened yesterday, will be nothing if not entertaining. Substantively, Obama should be delighted. A confluence of recent events has brought to fruition his campaign promises to launch diplomacy with our adversaries: Negotiations without preconditions are blooming everywhere.

Whether these negotiations will benefit the United States is, of course, a different question. Nonetheless, Obama’s UN appearances will showcase that he now unambiguously "owns" (as he likes to say) our foreign policy.

The President’s speech to the General Assembly a week from today is his first major UN public event, and we can predict he will receive a rapturous reception. This was not true for President George W. Bush, who described his annual UN remarks as a "visit to the wax museum" because of the audience’s unenthusiastic response.

And why should we not expect a visible demonstration of Obamamania at the UN? He is giving them pretty much what they ask for, as did President Bill Clinton.

As Obama speaks, the General Assembly will be chaired by former Libyan Foreign Minister Ali Abdessalam Triki, who was elected president of that body yesterday. Libyan leader Moammar Khadafy himself addresses the General Assembly right after Obama, and they will certainly have a chance to speak together in the cozy waiting area just behind the General Assembly podium. This would be an excellent opportunity to discuss the health of recently released mass murderer Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, convicted of destroying Pan Am Flight 103 and killing 270 people, including 189 Americans, and now free in Tripoli, Libya.

Even if their paths don’t cross then, Khadafy will be only a few seats away from Obama at the Security Council table on Sept. 24, when the President chairs a meeting on nonproliferation and disarmament. Khadafy can easily walk over to Obama and present him, a la Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, with a copy of the "Green Book," Khadafy’s 1975 best seller (in Libya at least). They will certainly have a chance at the Security Council to muse about eliminating the U.S. and Israeli nuclear stockpiles, always popular subjects at the UN.

There is no word yet whether Khadafy is invited to our President’s traditional reception for heads of state and government. But certainly, now that the U.S. has accepted Iran’s offer for open-ended diplomacy with the Security Council’s five permanent members (and also Germany), there is no reason why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should not be on the guestlist.

Perhaps he and Obama can have a photo together as Ahmadinejad goes through the receiving line and begin those direct, unconditional talks that Obama promised during the 2008 campaign. Ahmadinejad might well offer a few thoughts on his overwhelming presidential reelection victory on June 12, and his techniques for handling partisan opposition. Even if Ahmadinejad’s invitation gets lost in the mail, there are still photo opportunities in abundance, perhaps at the UN secretary general’s annual luncheon for visiting heads of state.

North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il is unlikely to attend the opening festivities, because, due to unfortunate "technicalities," his country is still at war with the UN, and has been since it invaded South Korea in 1950. Nonetheless, the Obama administration has enthusiastically embraced negotiations with Pyongyang over its nuclear weapons program, so perhaps Kim can be persuaded to come next year for a proper presidential photo.

With so many opportunities for a handshake and a big hug with authoritarian leaders, so many compromises and concessions to make and so much adulation to receive, it will be a busy time for the President.

One interesting question, especially for New Yorkers: Will Secretary of State Clinton be with Obama at all the key meetings, public and private, or will she be hard at work at her desk in Washington?

 

John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad."

‘Going Wobbly’

In the late 80s, Margaret Thatcher warned George H.W. Bush "not to go wobbly" on her; in the past week both the Scottish Justice Secretary and the government of the United States have "gone wobbly" in the fight against terrorism.

Let’s review what happened on December 21, 1988. Pan Am flight 103 was en route from London’s Heathrow Airport to New York’s JFK carrying 259 people. They were citizens of 21 nations, among them students returning from study abroad, young families, honeymooners, United Nations officials, and members of the U.S. military. They all became unsuspecting victims of the most heinous terror attack prior to 9/11, their plane ripped from the sky by an explosion. The plane splintered into pieces and fiery wreckage was hurtled across over one mile of Lockerbie, Scotland killing 11 more people on the ground.

The U.K. dealt with this crime against humanity in a manner consistent with liberal democracy and the rule of law. Scottish authorities jointly investigated the bombing with the FBI, identified Abdel Basset Megrahi, tried and convicted him, and sentenced the 48-year-old to die in jail.

Last week, Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill decided to free Megrahi on compassionate grounds-this terrorist has terminal cancer-and his return to Libya was viewed on both sides of the pond as a shameful indulgence in liberal jurisprudence.

Mr. MacAskill’s decision was an affront to those who suffered this grisly fate and to a nation’s longing for justice. And contrary to what Mr. MacAskill may have imagined, those who gave Megrahi a hero’s welcome saw only weakness in the minister’s decision. This wobbliness, far from endearing us to the terrorists, only stiffens their resolve to build a world-wide Caliphate on the rubble of Western Democracy.

Mr. MacAskill’s decision, however, is an isolated one. His indulgence does nothing to undermine the United Kingdom’s or the United States’ common efforts to find, interrupt, interrogate, and occasionally-as we saw in Pakistan last week with the demise of Baitullah Mehsud-kill a terror mastermind.

The same cannot be said of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to unleash a special prosecutor on past CIA interrogation practices. Unlike Mr. MacAskill, Mr. Holder speaks for the U.S. government; his decision has game changing consequences that will affect the safety of free world.

First, the Obama Administration is going to pay a big political price for indulging the civil libertarians of their party. The American television show 24 is in its 7th season because its portrayal of a life-and-death fight against terrorism in the face of political meddling appears to most Americans-and I would add Britons-both believable and justified. When the American people find out that the real "Jack Bauers" of our government act, for the most part, according to well thought out procedures-procedures that have concretely contributed to our national security-they will draw the conclusion the Obama administration lacks the prudence and stomach for its post-9/11 responsibilities.

Second, this inquisition will have a chilling effect on our protectors. While the fictional Bauer is willing to pay the consequences of his public service, most real life operatives will likely never again attempt "enhanced" interrogation, even on the most hardened jihadists. One of the report’s findings was that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the principal architect of 9/11, proved resistant to softer techniques, but sang like a canary when waterboarded. Consider the lives saved as a result of thwarting just two of KSM’s deadlier plots: One was an attack aimed at Heathrow Airport and the other was to have hit a West Coast version of the World Trade Center, likely the Trans America building in San Francisco.

To date, the Obama administration has successfully skated a thin line between indulging its civil libertarian wing’s desire to put the Bush Administration on trial and their desire to maintain the tools that have kept America safe from terrorism for the 2907 days since 9/11. With Holder’s act of wobbliness, the administration has crossed that line. And the consequences will extend far beyond the shores of the United States.

The War on Terror is not America’s fight alone. The U.K. is shedding its blood and spending its treasure in the prosecution of what President Obama has rightly called the "war of necessity" in Afghanistan. American and European intelligence services and police agencies have been working together and sharing information. This cooperation springs from the understanding that we all share the risks of global terrorism. A safe New York means a safe London, Paris and Madrid. America’s post 9/11 security has been product of tactics that have successfully balanced our common principles and the requirements of necessity. But America might be fighting terror from here on with one hand tied behind her back. That doesn’t bode well for any of us.

Until recently, Amanda Bowman was the Center’s New York Director. She is now the C.E.O. of the Atlantic Bridge, a policy organization that seeks to promote a special security relationship between the U.S. and U.K.

Sudans Extermination of Christians: an Interview With Simon Deng

As a child, American human rights activist Simon Deng survived brutal enslavement by Islamists and witnessed their destruction of his village in Sudan. 

Today, at 50, Deng is an American citizen and one of the leading advocates for the rights of his people, the Christians of South Sudan. In 2006 he organized a walk from the United Nations to the Capitol in Washington D.C. to protest the massacre of Darfuri Muslims by the government of Sudan, the same government that he says has brutalized Sudan’s Christians, killing over three and a half million since 1955 through slaughter and starvation.

Deng was joined on his historic Freedom Walk by basketball legend Manute Bol, originally of Sudan, who played for the Washington Bullets and the Philadelphia 76ers. The march received coverage in the New York Daily News and other outlets, gaining Deng an audience with President George W. Bush, whose efforts to end the war between Sudan’s Islamist government and the country’s Christian and animist populations produced a Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005. This agreement provides for a referendum, in 2011, in which South Sudanese Christians will have the opportunity to vote to form an autonomous nation. Today, Deng reports that Sudan’s Islamist government in the north is failing to abide by the CPA, resulting in chronic food shortages, sporadic violence, and insecurity among Christians in the south.

With high hopes for South Sudan’s independence, Deng is working to promote alliance among the U.S. government, the Israeli government, and a future South Sudanese Christian state to promote international security. Recently the Center for Security Policy sat down with him to discuss these possibilities, and to report on his experiences on the African front of the war between radical Islamism and rest of the world.

Below is the first segment of the interview.

 

Heather Robinson: I understand you were the victim, as a child in the 1960’s, of the radical Islamist government of Sudan, which has waged war on its Christian population intermittently since 1955. Can you share with me a bit of your firsthand experiences of violence directed at Sudan’s Christians by the government?

Simon Deng: As a child, the first words I was taught were, ‘When you see an Arab, you have to run, and you have to run for your life.’ Year after year, we came to know a routine. The village being burned, us being chased … [We spent] days in the bush which is full of hyenas, lions and snakes. We did not even have mosquito nets at that time. When we got one mosquito net, the whole village would preserve that for the kids, to be the ones under that mosquito net, and grownups had to stay out.

HR: The government burned your village regularly?

SD: Yes. …Whenever we escaped, we came back to the village we loved and we [would] find the horrible smell of people who had been burned alive. I smelled this. The two elders, one blind, being burned alive. Grownup people, people who were too old to run. They were too weak to run, and one of them was blind. These were the people that I knew…that we used to play with…[They would] tell us history of the past, and now being told-remember, we are kids now-being told these are the people that were burned alive. It was a horrible thing.

HR: Was this burning of villages official government policy? Why was it taking place?

SD: The village [would be] going through burnings every year. The government [would] come and burn it down…not just human beings but this place, because according to them, we will go to the inner city, where we would be converted to Islam. None of us knew this was their policy. We only knew the horrible death, running when the machine guns come, seeing the bullets flying and seeing my friends being shot, two of them. There were five of us. We were seven, eight years old…And for us who remained running, if it was not for those who ran before us we would have just gone and gone and probably I would not be here. Because people had to run after us to stop us.

HR: What happened to your friends who were shot?

SD: One died, one was shot in the leg and [crippled] for life.

HR: These were government soldiers purposely shooting at you-at children?

SD: The Sudanese Army, yes. To them, you are not a child, you are an enemy to be killed. This [was] not just happening in our village alone, it [was] happening in the whole entire Southern Sudan.

HR: How much of this do you believe was spurred by Islamist ideology?

SD: A lot of it…Omar al Bashir, the President of Sudan, has spoken about how he managed to achieve the objective [of] converting more Southerners to Islam than any other President before him. He did this not only through violence but through [withholding] food aid. When the government in the North got food from international organizations and the United Nations, he would control it. When starving [Christians] needed food he would say, ‘If you convert to Islam.’ When people are starving, they will do [what they have to] to eat.

HR: As you know, many people are unaware that radical Muslims are enslaving thousands of Christians and animists [those who practice native African religions] in Sudan even today. You experienced this reality firsthand and can testify to it, since as a child of nine, you were abducted and enslaved. Can you tell me how you were captured?

SD: In 1968, my father decided to take his family to stay in the city of Malaka, in Southern Sudan. He-this man who tricked me and took me into slavery-was in Malaka. His sister was a neighbor to us…He was there for a month and was on his way to the North [Muslim part of Sudan]. He …asked me to help him with his luggage. He was a neighbor. He took me to a boat and told me to sit next to his luggage because he has to go to the market and buy things and he will come back.

HR: Was he an Arab?

SD: Yes, he was.

HR: But, even knowing that the [Arab Muslim] North was at war with the black Christians and animists in the South, you still were not afraid of him?

SD: We were not in a place of war. The war was being carried out in the villages, and this is a town. But the war was being conducted in every single village in the Southern Sudan. Killing and slaughter was taking place outside the town…there [was] also killing within the cities by the government but not to compare [to the amount taking place in the villages].

(According to Deng, between 1955 and 1972, one and a half million Sudanese Christians and animists were killed by the Islamist government of Sudan. From the early 1980’s until 2005, 2 million South Sudanese were killed through violence and the withholding of food aid. Thousands were enslaved.)

HR: At that time, did you hear that black Africans were being enslaved by Arab Muslims in Sudan? I’m just surprised you were not suspicious.

SD: I had not heard of it at the time, no…so I was not [suspicious] … The man didn’t come back immediately. What happened was, probably, he didn’t go to the market. Because when the boat started moving, when I started crying, he immediately came to tell me not to cry. To convince me the boat has left, there’s no way to stop so I can get out. The only way is to go to the last stop, a city in the North, Kosti. And he will put me on the next boat coming back to the South.

He is the only person I know in hundreds on that boat. I have to believe everything he says.

When we arrive in Kosti it turns out he has three other kids that I didn’t know. They were on the boat [with him] too, probably from other cities. We got off together with this man in front…Probably he was tricking these kids [into slavery] the way he tricked me.

Before we left Kosti for the village, he got rid of two kids. What happened to them, I don’t know. He sold them, I don’t know. He gave them away, I don’t know. I was just carrying [in my mind] what he told me, that he’ll put me on the next boat so I can go back to the Southern Sudan.

HR: Were these also Southern Sudanese Christian children?

SD: Yes, All Sudanese Christian kids. So, there is one other boy with us. It is two hours drive or maybe an hour. Everybody is happy when we arrive. This man came from the South and most important, he brought two slaves. I didn’t know what the word is then, what is a slave.

The following morning there is a dispute, who is going to take the bigger kid? The other boy was bigger than me, by two years, I guess. Nobody wanted to take me because probably they knew what a slave will be doing, so they need somebody with physical ability, and I was a young child. I end up being given to a family, not a large family. I ask them where is Abulay? [the man who had kidnapped him but promised to return him to the South]. I was still [clinging to] this hope in my mind, you see. I was told I should not ask about him because I had been given to them by him – as a gift.

What came to my mind was, No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Because I could not believe what I heard.

So for them to calm me down, they had to beat me down.

But nobody there had sympathy…nobody had any remorse that a child is crying. To them I’m not a child…I came to know three and a half years of captivity…Understand that, from a very loved child of my Mom and Dad, I became a piece of property…

Somebody may decide whether I get to go to sleep or not, whether I get to eat or not…if there is any leftovers, that is my food. I don’t have a regular place to sleep as a human being. My place can be anywhere, even the place where they keep the animals …I have to make sure this place is clean, because it is my duty to do all the domestic jobs.

I am nine years old.

Somebody may decide to say, "I called you and you did not say ‘yes,’ so loud." That’s all it takes for me to be beaten. In other words, I know only one word, and that word is yes, and yes to everything. People have to understand that, anyone who is put in a position where he or she can’t say "no" and can only say "yes" must even say "yes" to being violated. There are very difficult parts [to remember] … very difficult… that’s why people have to close their eyes and even for one minute put yourself in a position where you cannot say "no."

In their eyes, I am a slave, not a human being, not a child.

HR: You’ve spoken about how they offered you an option to be treated better?

SD: Yes. To convert to Islam and become their "son."

HR: Do you feel they would have treated you with more kindness, decency, or respect had you converted to Islam? Were they better towards Sudanese who converted to Islam?

SD: At that time, those [blacks] who happened to be Muslim were being treated better, even though not as well as Arabs. But [those blacks who converted to Islam were treated] fifty times better than an ‘infidel’. For instance, if you acted like them and became a Muslim, you could share food with them, [not just leftovers].

HR: It is amazing you remained a Christian throughout your ordeal. I’m surprised they did not just grab you and say, "You’re Muslim now."

SD: In this one way, believe it or not, the mother [of the family] was nice to me because there were…neighbors angry they did not force me into Islam, even to the point there were those willing to buy me from them so they could convert me to Islam.

HR: Curious, despite the way they treated you, that they did not forcibly convert you.

SD: I look back now, the woman did protect me from the others who were worse. She would say [when the subject of his religion came up], ‘Don’t rush–‘

HR: It’s striking that in this one matter, religion, they seemed to have some respect for your choice.

SD: They did not look at it as a choice. They looked at it like, eventually their wish will become reality.

HR: Do you believe the way they dealt with the issue of your religion has something to do with the culture of radical Islam? In other words, was it part of their ideology to break your spirit first, so in their minds, they could believe they were giving you the "choice" to become a Muslim, when of course in reality it was not a real choice?

SD: This is my story and what I went through. I would not speak so generally. But I will say, after I got out of slavery and looked back to where my dehumanization took place at the hands of the Muslims, I saw I was not alone. There are thousands of South Sudanese who went through what I went through. There were those that took the option to convert to Islam. And if you go to Sudan today you’ll be shocked to see South Sudanese who look like [me] with shilluk tribal mark … but [who] took the option to convert and get an Arab name. Some of them are even leaders in Sudan, in the North, being used by the North as footsoldiers [in the war to Islamicize the South].

 

In segment II of the interview, Simon Deng discusses his escape from slavery, the plight of Christian and animist South Sudanese today, the condition of South Sudanese Christians in Israel, and his high hopes for South Sudanese independence in 2011.

 

Clinton’s unwise trip to North Korea

The Obama administration characterized Bill Clinton’s unexpected visit to Pyongyang to secure the release of two American reporters, held unjustifiably by North Korea for nearly five months, as a private, humanitarian mission. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has insisted that the fate of the women who strayed into the North (whether accidentally or deliberately is still not clear), should be separated from the unresolved issue of the North’s nuclear weapons program.

But North Korea has seen it very differently. Former president Clinton was met at Pyongyang’s airport by notables led by Kim Kye Gwan, the North’s long-time chief nuclear negotiator, an unmistakable symbol of linkage. In Pyongyang’s view, the two reporters are pawns in the larger game of enhancing the regime’s legitimacy and gaining direct access to important U.S. figures. The reporters’ arrest, show trial and subsequent imprisonment (twelve years hard labor) was hostage taking, essentially an act of state terrorism. So the Clinton trip is a significant propaganda victory for North Korea, whether or not he carried an official message from President Obama. Despite decades of bipartisan U.S. rhetoric about not negotiating with terrorists for the release of hostages, it seems that the Obama administration not only chose to negotiate, but to send a former president to do so.

While the United States is properly concerned whenever its citizens are abused or held hostage, efforts to protect them should not create potentially greater risks for other Americans in the future. Yet that is exactly the consequence of visits by former presidents or other dignitaries as a form of political ransom to obtain their release. Iran and other autocracies are presumably closely watching the scenario in North Korea. With three American hikers freshly in Tehran’s captivity, will Clinton be packing his bags again for another act of obeisance? And, looking ahead, what American hostages will not be sufficiently important to merit the presidential treatment? What about Roxana Saberi and other Americans previously held in Tehran? What was it about them that made them unworthy of a presidential visit? These are the consequences of poorly thought-out gesture politics, however well-intentioned or compassionately motivated.

The Clinton visit may have many other negative effects. In some ways the trip is a flashback to the unfortunate 1994 journey of former president Jimmy Carter, who disrupted the Clinton administration’s nuclear negotiations with North Korea and led directly to the misbegotten "Agreed Framework." By supplying both political legitimacy and tangible economic resources to Pyongyang, the Agreed Framework provided the North and other rogue states a roadmap for maximizing the benefits of illicit nuclear programs. North Korea violated the framework almost from the outset but nonetheless enticed the Bush administration into negotiations (the six-party talks) to discuss yet again ending its nuclear program in exchange for even more political and economic benefits. This history is of the United States rewarding dangerous and unacceptable behavior, a lesson well learned by other would-be nuclear proliferators.

We cannot presently foretell whether or not Clinton’s visit will lead to renewed negotiations over North Korea’s nuclear program, but that appears to be the conclusion the Obama administration hopes to draw. Ironically, both Kim and Obama may well want to kick start bilateral negotiations, or, failing that, at least renew the six-party talks. Obama’s "open hand" promise in his inaugural address isn’t having much success around the world, and North Korea can always use new infusions of economic aid, which may well be the hidden cargo of the Clinton mission.

The point to be made on the Clinton visit is that the knee-jerk impulse for negotiations above all inevitably brings more costs than its advocates foresee. Negotiating from a position of strength, where the benefits to American interests will exceed the costs, is one thing. Negotiating merely for the sake of it, in the face of palpable recent failures, is something else indeed.

 

Originally published in The Washington Post

John Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006.

Zeroing in on Peru

Today, Peru is one of the strongest economies in Latin America. In 2007, the Peruvian economy grew 9% and continued at that rate through 2008, only slowing in 2009 due to the world economic crisis. However, it remains structurally strong with a gross domestic product that surged 9.84% in 2008; it’s fastest pace since 1994. In addition to achieving economic growth, Peru has also successfully implemented market friendly policies, and increased property rights while recently ratifying a mutually beneficial Free Trade Agreement with the United States. Economists agree that things are looking up for Peru. Unfortunately, this doesn’t sit well with some; in particular Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez who has targeted countries that develop peacefully because their success proves to the world and the majority of Venezuelans that his policies are completely misguided.

In June 2009, Peru was rocked by violent confrontations between normally peaceful indigenous groups in the city of Bagua and local police. Bagua is a province of the Amazonas region, which is located in the north and central part of the department of Amazonas, rich in oil and gas resources.

Peru has started to restructure their economy under a 2006 free trade deal with the U.S. and key is a focus on property rights and titling of property, which is essential for capital formation. Earlier this year, President Alan Garcia used his executive authority to give title to land in the north of Peru and government officials spoke with indigenous people there, 400,000 of whom still live in Peru’s Amazon. In January of 2009, Garcia gave them title to 12.4 million hectares of land and another 15 million hectares were set aside for ecological sanctuaries. [1]

In an unprecedented move, native groups, led by indigenous leader Alberto Pizango, started to violently demonstrate to "reclaim" more than half of the land that was to be kept as sanctuary. Pizango, 43, a member of the Shawi-Campu Piavi tribe of the Loreto region had worked as a teacher in Yurimaguas in the Loreto region until he was elected president of Aidesep, in December 14, 2008. Aidesep is the Association for the Development of the Peruvian Jungle (Asociación Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana), which in reality is a radical proponent of "indigenous rights" and a vicious opponent of free market policies. [2] Ideologically, Aidesep is aligned with the Peruvian Communist Party, and former presidential candidate, radical leftist Ollanta Humala, Chavez’s handpicked candidate for the presidency of Peru.

These demonstrations were accompanied by propaganda that blamed the Garcia regime for, according to them, "robbing land and refusing to talk." The natives appeared defiant on TV with spears and feathers while leftist organizations and the mainstream media began to portray Peru as an oppressive state that doesn’t deserve free trade because it exploits its population.

During this time, a major highway in Bagua had been blocked for fifty-five days by approximately five thousand indigenous protesters. Many analysts agreed that the tactics used by these people looked eerily similar to the ones used by radicalized indigenous protesters in Bolivia in recent years. [3] In such demonstrations, roadblocks are basically used to isolate cities by halting shipments of food, medicine and energy, as well as trade, to make the government give concessions to avoid major confrontations. Garcia had sought to avoid conflict by engaging Aidesep in dialogue for more than five weeks, seeking agreements to end the road and river blockades. But its leader, Pizango, would not cooperate and it was clear from the start that he was looking for a violent row with the government to gain supporters, delegitimize the government and appear as a victim of the "inhuman" free trade agreement signed with the United States. The native leader had a clear agenda with the mindset to cause unrest and plenty of cash to mobilize people. Insiders close to Pizango said from the beginning that he was operating under Hugo Chavez’s orders, which had provided him and his followers with financing, promising them a safe haven just in case things went south. On the other hand, if successful, Pizango and Aidesep would achieve great riches, paving the way for Ollanta Humala to become president, and converting Hugo Chavez into the supreme leader of yet another Latin American nation, in addition to Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela and Nicaragua.

On June 4th, the local police received orders to end the blockade of the Belaúnde Terry highway, one of the country’s principal land routes for the transport of passengers and goods, which passes through Bagua. Unfortunately, the officers in charge of the operation, under-estimated the violent protesters. Only three hundred police officials were deployed without adequate anti-riot gear and when they tried to clear the highway on June 5, they were attacked by several thousand protesters, many of whom were armed. A total of thirty-three people died including twenty-four unarmed police officers whose throats were brutally cut by the natives. [4] Only nine indigenous protesters were killed but only after they clashed with their own forces who were members of Aidesep.

Police investigations indicate that Pizango ordered armed gunmen to attack the police and that he personally approved the executions of the police officials. The Peruvian government has already charged Pizango with homicide [5] but the native leader has been granted asylum by Nicaragua’s President, Daniel Ortega. Pizango now lives comfortably in Managua and openly gives speeches promoting Chavez’s cause while thousands of Peruvians yell for his return.

President Alan Garcia said the government will continue seeking dialogue with the country’s indigenous groups while also giving Peru’s national police commanders orders to "dialogue faster and act immediately" when confronted with road blockades and other indigenous protests which disrupt the free transit of people and goods. Interestingly, Garcia blamed the violence in Bagua on "external" forces, which are competing with Peru’s oil and gas resources. Clearly, he was referring to Venezuela and Bolivia.

There is mounting evidence that the Chavez regime provides financial support to Pizango and Aidesep. Venezuelan funds seem to be flowing to the protesters through Ollanta Humala and the ALBA houses, grass roots support centers named after Chavez’s alternative trading bloc, known as the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas. The Peruvian congress is actively working on closing these "medical centers" and those lines of financing. Peruvian newspapers claim that radical Bolivian indigenous militants supported by Evo Morales are also working with radical Peruvian indigenous groups including Pizango’s group. These people are extremely poor, so you have to ask how they can afford to travel large distances, camp, obtain weapons and feed themselves for weeks at a time.

Separately, Chavez and Morales hold other grudges with the Garcia regime when it gave asylum to top Venezuelan dissidents, including Manuel Rosales, who ran against Chavez for president in 2006, and Carlos Ortega, the oil workers union boss who crossed Chavez. More recently, Peruvian writer, Mario Vargas Llosa, delivered a highly critical and apparently quite effective speech that ridiculed Chavez at a conference in Caracas. With regards to Bolivia, Peru granted political asylum to three former Bolivian cabinet officials accused of involvement in the killing of sixty-three demonstrators in the Andean city of El Alto in 2003 during the Sanchez de Lozada administration. [6]

In fact, local authorities have known for some time that Pizango and Aidesep are associated with the Congreso Bolivariano de los Pueblos (CBP), which was created in 2003 by Chavez to finance and promote his Bolivarian revolution together with the ALBA houses. The CBP is a consortium of indigenous groups in various Latin American countries that embraces a radical strategy and openly supports the idea that if the revolution cannot achieve power peacefully and democratically, it will trigger social, economic and political unrest. [7] To accomplish such a goal, they portray themselves as oppressed, and engaged in class warfare between the poor and the "mean imperialist elites," lead by the "Satan" United States.

Bolivia initially denied any involvement with the violence in Bagua, but President Morales finally said he supported Pizango’s indigenous movement. "It’s not possible that most reviled (people) in Latin American history should be humiliated as we have just seen," Morales declared, adding that the "Indigenous movement of Latin America is a great defender of the planet Earth, of the environment, and that is why the struggles to defend equality and social justice will continue." In addition the Bolivian President has called the government crackdown "genocide," stating that "free trade agreements break up harmonious human relationships with nature; they illegally sell natural resources and national cultures; they privatize basic services; they try to patent life itself." [8] Peru responded to the genocide comment by recalling its ambassador to Bolivia for consultation. The government has stated that there is no excuse for Morales to refer to the Bagua incident as "genocide" since a United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and the fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples ratified this past week that no genocide had occurred. The Garcia government sees the Morales administration as meddling in Peruvian sovereignty and has even publicly implied that Bolivia has manipulated the Peruvian indigenous groups in order to stir them to action. Separately, Bolivian Justice Minister, Celima Torrico, accused the Garcia government in Peru of unleashing a "bloody repression" against the country’s indigenous population.

For her part, Venezuela’s Minister of Indigenous Peoples, Nicia Maldonado, launched a furious public tirade against Garcia, accusing him of perpetrating "genocide…a terrorist act," and "confirming (he) is a fascist." "Unlike the Chavez government," she added, Garcia has confirmed he "hates the people, hates the poor, hates the indigenous tribes" of Peru. "We absolutely and categorically condemn this genocide against our brothers of the Peruvian Amazon jungle," Maldonado continued. She also said, without offering any proof, that Peruvian police had burned some bodies and thrown others into rivers in order to obscure the number of people killed. By publicly embracing Pizango’s cause, they have given the indigenous leader international political recognition, which makes him seem more influential in Peru than he actually is.

After these incidents, the Garcia administration was forced to repeal the two decrees that caused the crisis in the first place. President Garcia even admitted that it was a mistake not to consult the heads of the indigenous groups prior to implementing the decrees. This may signify that the political elite in Peru is coming to terms with the fact that Peruvian indigenous groups are much better organized now than they were in the past.

The problem with these protests and what has the government confused is that, according to the polls, the overwhelming majority of Peruvians, over 80%, including a substantial percentage of its indigenous people support sustained economic development of the country’s abundant energy and mineral resources. So it is clear that someone is manipulating these people with the sole purpose of crippling the economy and destroying Garcia’s popularity while setting up a radical like Ollanta Humala for election as president in 2011. Peru would then be the next Marxist revolutionary and anti – American regime of the Chavez – Morales – Ortega – Correa axis. This would leave Colombia’s Alvaro Uribe almost alone at the mercy of the FARC.

The implications of the conflict in Bagua are ominous for Peru and for the stability of the region. Garcia faces powerful enemies who have instigated violence inside the country; especially Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales. In addition, he has to contend with powerful organizations dedicated exclusively to "protecting the environment at all costs" and preserving, intact, the world’s remaining indigenous cultures and tribal societies. A case in point is the NGO, Amazon Watch, infamous for supporting the harassment of Chevron in Ecuador and paying protesters and launching a new campaign against "Big Oil." Peru has the world’s third largest tropical rain forests, after Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Deforestation rates in Peru are significantly lower than in Brazil, Ecuador or Colombia and the Andean nation has large reserves of oil, gas and minerals in its rain forests. But these resources remain untapped, and the forces against Garcia want to make sure they remain unexploited – at least until the radicals take power in Peru.

Unfortunately, not many are at Mr. Garcia’s side since Chavez has transformed the Organization of American States (OAS) into his echo chamber. By generously giving away oil to companies such as PetroCaribe and many nations represented in the OAS, Chavez has brought them around to his revolutionary cause. So far the Obama Administration treats Chavez as a nuisance to be left alone but not challenged or reckoned with in any substantial way. Brazil’s President Lula da Silva avoids direct confrontation with Chavez but in regional disputes always sides with the Chavista countries, as does Argentina. Looking South, Chile’s Michele Bachelet is unlikely to back Garcia in a diplomatic standoff with Chavez and Morales since OAS Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza is Chilean and has sat placidly as Chavez has devoured democracy in his own country.  Chilean diplomacy will stay away as long as its territory is left alone.

It is clear that President Garcia faces increasing pressure from Venezuela and Bolivia and that subversive groups are likely to increase its operations inside the country to intensify the conflict and destabilize the regime. Colombia and Brazil would be wise to cooperate on the intelligence front to protect their territories from this violence.

The Bagua attacks could provide an opportunity for Mr. Garcia to balance strong economic growth with social programs, even in the most remotes areas. The goal should be to stop fostering conditions for the emergence of radicals who only want violence and conflict with the current government.

Radicals in the Peruvian Congress from the Nationalist Party wanted to impeach Prime Minister Yehude Simon and Interior Minister Mercedes Cabanillas for the clashes, placing the Garcia regime in a precarious position to govern; fortunately sanity prevailed: Congress gave them a vote of confidence and it appears that democracy still has a chance in Peru. But the situation is far from over and the upcoming months will be vital for the stability of Latin America.

 

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

 

NOTES

[1] Chavez’s War On Free Trade In Peru. Investor’s Business Daily. June 9, 2009.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Miembros de Sendero y el MRTA se infiltraron en las protestas del Cusco. June 24, 2009. El Comercio, Peru.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Gobierno asegura que policías en Bagua fueron asesinados a sangre fría. June 6, 2009. El Comercio, Peru.

[6] Investor’s Business Daily – Ibid.

[7] Perú: Gobierno denuncia que los indígenas traman un golpe de Estado. June 8, 2009. Infolatam.

[8] Evo Morales vuelve a criticar: "Lo que pasó en Perú es el genocidio del TLC." July 13, 2009. El Comercio, Peru.

[9] Ministra Venezolana: Hubo un genocidio en Perú en protestas de nativos. June 8, 2009. Radio Programas del Peru.

[10] Los Movimientos Populares Indígenas en la encrucijada. July 1, 2009. Indymedia.

Supporters of ‘dialogue’ with the Iranian Mullahs help keep the US from ‘meddling’ on behalf of freedom

The Obama administration’s failure to stand firmly with the forces of opposition to the mullahs’ regime in Tehran is drawing criticism at home and around the world. Even as many thousands of young Iranians take to the streets, furious at brazen election-rigging and fed up with corrupt clerics and their thuggish enforcers, the United States, erstwhile leader of the free world, has maintained a strict official policy of neutrality.

The question is, how did America  fall from the soaring rhetoric of President George W. Bush’s 2005 State of the Union address – when he said: "And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you" – to a position on the sidelines, passively watching Iranian security forces club and shoot unarmed demonstrators on the streets of Tehran?

The apparent answer is that advocates of a policy of accommodation that is more in sync with the priorities of the Tehran regime than with U.S. national security interests now wield influence from inside the Obama administration.

To be sure, President Barack Obama issued a belated and weakly-worded statement on Saturday, 20 June 2009: "The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights." [1] Still, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton set the United States’ official, hands-off policy the day after Iran’s elections, when during a trip to Canada, she said: "We are monitoring the situation as it unfolds in Iran. We, like the rest of the world, are waiting and watching to see what the Iranian people decide. The U.S. has refrained from commenting on the election in Iran. We obviously hope that the outcome reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people." [2]

Given that Iran’s democratic processes are but a façade for a constitutional system that endows an unelected Shi’a clergy with essentially all power in the country, and where both polling places and ballot boxes are under the physical control of the Interior Ministry, Clinton’s statement must be characterized as disingenuous, at best. As late as 18 June 2009, Clinton still hewed to the Obama administration’s policy of non-involvement, saying, "It is for the Iranians to determine how they resolve this internal protest concerning the outcome of the recent election." [3]

What motivated this policy might be found in Secretary Clinton’s  comment of the previous day to reportersthat "The Obama administration will pursue talks with Iran on nuclear and other issues regardless of who emerges as president in the aftermath of Iran’s disputed election. We are obviously waiting to see the outcome of the internal Iranian processes, but our intent is to pursue whatever opportunities might exist in the future with Iran [to discuss those issues]." [4]

And indeed, on 21 June 2009, even as the details on the dead and injured from the previous day’s street clashes were still filtering in, the home page of the Department of State’s website showed nothing about Iran at all. There were stories about India, Iraq, Turkey, World Refugee Day, Gay and Lesbian Pride Month, and Secretary Clinton’s elbow surgery – but not so much as a link to anything about the momentous events taking place in Iran. [5]

On election day, Iran’s English TV news outlet, Press TV, quoted the U.S. envoy to the United Nations, Amb. Susan Rice, speaking to the same point about this administration’s unshakeable determination to conduct negotiations with Iran, no matter the regime in power: "American policy with respect to Iran and its nuclear program is not dependent on which administration is governing Iran," Rice told reporters. [6]

 

The People Behind Obama’s Iran Policy

Unfortunately, the present U.S. policy towards Iran was set long before the rigged presidential election there began spinning out of control. That policy is the product of an Obama administration populated with figures, like Rice, who have a record of advocacy in support of a policy of rapprochement with Tehran’s clerical regime. Prior to her ambassadorial appointment to the UN, for instance, Rice served on the board of directors of an organization called the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) [7] and also as a Senior Fellow for Foreign Policy and Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. CNAS produced two reports in September 2008 called "Iran: Assessing U.S. Strategic Options," and "The Case for Game-Changing Diplomacy with Iran."  Both papers advocated engagement, diplomacy and negotiations with Tehran and advised strongly against the use of forceful pressure – exactly the sort of policy the mullahs themselves would encourage. [8] Among the co-authors of "Iran: Assessing U.S. Strategic Options," was Dr. Vali Nasr, now senior advisor to President Obama’s Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. Nasr, who served as a professor at Tufts University’s Fletcher Schooland  formerly taught at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, was born in Iran and raised in Scotland and the U.S.  He is the author of The Shia Revival, a 2006 book about the Sunni-Shi’ite rivalry.

A frequent commentator and briefer to Congress and the White House, Nasr consistently has advocated a policy of accommodation with the mullahs’ regime, even as a nuclear weapons state. Tehran signaled its apparent approval of Dr. Nasr’s positions when one of its online news outlets, Baztab, carried a glowing profile of him in October 2006 written by Mohsen Rezai, the former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). [9]

More recently, Nasr’s appointment in the Obama administration garnered warm congratulations from the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which carried an announcement on its website on 29 January 2009. [10] NIAC and its Iranian-born founder-president, Trita Parsi, have been active over the last several years organizing and supporting a network of individuals and groups that recommend a policy of accommodation with the Iranian regime.  The Iranian media outlet Aftab News called NIAC the Tehran regime’s "Iranian Lobby in the United States." [11]

NIAC issued a statement on 16 June 2009 about events in Iran, asserting that the U.S. government "shouldn’t interfere" as its "involvement would be counterproductive." While the organization allowed that the U.S. should "voice its support for the demonstrators," [12] Parsi took issue with a strong statement of support for the young Iranian freedom fighters issued by Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn).  Sen. Lieberman urged the Obama administration to "speak out, loudly and clearly, about what is happening in Iran right now and unambiguously express their solidarity with the brave Iranians who went to the polls in the hope of change and who are now looking to the outside world for strength and support." [13] Claiming that in the past such support has "been detrimental" to Iranian opposition figures, Parsi asserted that, "The administration is doing exactly the right thing. They’re not rushing in and they’re not playing favorites." [14]

Another co-author of the CNAS report, "Iran: Assessing U.S. Policy Options" is Dennis Ross, the Middle East expert who was appointed Special Advisor to Secretary of State Clinton for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia in early 2009.  He was reportedly abruptly reassigned in June 2009 as the senior Iran official on the National Security Council at the White House, a post that would afford him close proximity to, and presumably considerable influence with, President Obama. [15]

Amb. Ross’ contribution to the CNAS paper comes down on the side of an Iran policy he calls "The Hybrid Approach – Engagement Without Preconditions, but with Pressures. [16] The essential premise of his approach is that Iran’s leadership is rational and would be responsive to traditional diplomatic solutions that include a multilateral approach, Western concessions and what he calls trying "to resolve our differences with Iran in a serious and credible fashion." [17]

Nowhere in the Ross chapter is there any recognition that this is an ideologically-motivated regime that has: been at war with the United States for 30 years;kidnapped, killed, held hostage and tortured American citizens; staged assassinations and suicide bombings around the world; supported terrorist organizations from Hamas and Hezbollah to al-Qa’eda; and pursues nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles with which to exercise the genocide it regularly threatens to inflict on Israel, a key U.S. ally and fellow member of the UN.  Regrettably, Dennis Ross’ conclusion that "It is time to try a serious approach to diplomacy" with Iran fits well with an Obama administration policy that refuses to take seriously Tehran’s visceral enmity towards the United States.

Finally, there is Ray Takeyh, the newly-appointed Assistant to the U.S. Special Advisor for the Gulf and Southwest Asia (the post formerly held by Dennis Ross). Takeyh is a former Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an Iran expert, and author of Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic and Guardians of the Revolution: Iran and the World in the Age of the Ayatollahs.

Takeyh has long advocated a U.S. policy based on engagement and rapprochement with Iran. A December 2008 report produced by the Brooking Institution’s Saban Center was entitled, "Restoring the Balance – a Middle East Strategy for the Next President. [18] Its Iran chapter was written by Ray Takeyh and his wife, Susan Maloney (also at the CFR), and urges a soft diplomatic approach to the Tehran regime. A Washington Post opinion piece by Takeyh that same month looked hopefully to the prospect of "direct dialogue" with the mullahs and implausibly suggested that "As Tehran gains power and influence in the Gulf, it may prove moderate on more distant terrain. [19]

 

The End of the Line for the ‘Engagers’?

While there are certainly  analysts who sincerely believe that a forthright U.S. position in support of Iran’s democracy movement might create a nationalistic backlash against outside interference or somehow taint the movement’s legitimacy in the eyes of other Iranians, those who advance such arguments ill-advisedly serve – whether wittingly or not – to shield the Iranian regime from U.S. and Western condemnation.

The one thing the mullahs’ regime fears is the outrage of a world community unified in resolve to hold them to account. Even though Senator Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CNN’s "State of the Union" program on 21 June 2009 that "I don’t think candidly that our intelligence [on Iran] is that good," modern technology leaves no excuse for not knowing what is going on in Iran these days. [20] Now, smart phones with cameras, tech-savvy bloggers who know how to get around the regime’s censors and Twitter are allowing the outside world to witness in real time the brutality of the Iranian security services, as they club, stab, and shoot unarmed young demonstrators on the streets.

The students are not the ones asking the U.S. to remain on the sidelines.  To the contrary, students who were imprisoned for their parts in a1999 uprising say that they found the courage to remain strong in jail when word reached them that not only did the outside world know of their plight, but was speaking out forcefully on their behalf .

Today, it is becoming increasingly clear that the controversial engagement policy towards Tehran promoted by President Obama and his key subordinates is insupportable. With luck, when all is said and done, the mullahocracy may no longer be around.  

At the very least, even if the regime manages to maintain a blood-soaked grip on power for the time being, a government headed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei  and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be unable to claim legitimacy in the international arena. The sort of appeasement strategy towards such a regime fancied by Team Obama should be effectively foreclosed by the dozens of YouTube postings showing the vicious, unprovoked savagery of Iranian security forces (and proxy paramilitary units supplied by Hezbollah and Hamas) attacking, beating and killing young protestors.

In the absence of fundamental changes in policy and behavior towards the people of Iran, even a regime with the current chairman of the Assembly of Experts, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, as Supreme Leader or with challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi as president would be no better for the Iranians, or for us.

Whether they mean to or not, those who advocate a U.S. policy of passivity in the face of a repressive Iranian government (either today’s or tomorrow’s) play into the hands of such a regime by supporting a course of action that supports its agenda – not ours. Both national security priorities and the moral high ground demand such a regime be confronted, not accommodated.

There should be no dialogue with a theocratic dictatorship that stays in power through sheer brute force, defies the international community by developing nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction (and the means to deliver them) and exports  terrorist operatives to undermine Iran’s neighbors and kill our countrymen and women  in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.  That such a regime  has succeeded in persuading an American administration to adopt as U.S. foreign policy so much of the mullahs’ preferred agenda is testament to the sophistication of its operational expertise and its success in placing its sympathizers inside our government.

Now, it is time for President Obama to reject the counsel of such agents of influence and demonstrate a U.S. resolve to match the courage of Iran’s freedom fighters.

 

Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President of the Intelligence Summit and a Professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence & Security Studies. She is the author of Rise of the Iran Lobby, a Center Occasional Paper.

 NOTES

[1] The White House website posted the president’s statement on July 20, 2009. Accessed online on 21 June 2009 at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/The-Presidents-Statement-on-Iran/

[2] NECN/CTV film clip of Secretary Clinton’s statement on Canadian TV, 13 June 2009. Accessed online on 21 June 2009 at: http://multimedia.boston.com/m/22499652/clinton-canada-s-cannon-react-to-iranian-election-reports.htm?pageid=20 

[3] TV Washington, "Clinton defends U.S. efforts over Iran election," 18 June 2009. Accessed online on 21 June 2009 at  http://televisionwashington.com/floater_article1.aspx?lang=en&t=3&id=11365  

[4] "Clinton: U.S. Intent on Direct Talks with Iran," Associated Press, 17 June 2009. Accessed online 21 June 2009 at http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=statesmanjournal&sParam=35381852.story.

[5] The Department of State home page was accessed on 21 June 20098 at http://www.state.gov/

[6] "Rice: Iran policy not bound by elections," Press TV, 12 June 2009. Accessed online 21 June 2009 at http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=97957&sectionid=3510203

[7] See "The Iran Lobby," a Center for Security Policy Occasional Paper by Clare Lopez.  Accessed on 21 June at http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p17907.xml

[8] Center for a New American Security, Publications page. Accessed on 21 June 2009 at http://www.cnas.org/publications?page=3

[9] Baztab, October 27, 2006. The English language homepage is at http://en/baztab.com, accessed on 30 December 2006.

[10] "NIAC welcomes appointment of Iranian American Vali Nasr to Obama Administration," 29 January 2009. Accessed at http://www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1323&Itemid=2 on 21 June 2009.

[11] "Iran Lobby in the U.S. Becoming Active?" Aftab News, 7 December 2007.

[12] "Iran Election Violence: What Should the US Do?", NIAC statement, 16 June 2009. Accessed on 21 June 2009 at  http://www.niacouncil.org/

[13] Ackerman, Spencer, "Obama’s Iran Policy to Focus on Human Rights, Not Election," The Washington Independent, 15 June 2009. Accessed 21 June 2009 at http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=97957&sectionid=3510203

[14] Ibid.

[15] Harnden, Toby, "US envoy to Iran removed amid divisions over policy, "Telegraph," 16 June 2009. Accessed on 21 June 2009 at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/5552485/US-envoy-to-Iran-removed-amid-divisions-over-policy.html 

[16] Iran: Assessing U.S. Strategic Options," CNAS, September 2008. Accessed 21 June 2009 at http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/MillerParthemoreCampbell_Iran%20Assessing%20US%20Strategy_Sept08.pdf. Ross is author of Chapter II, "Diplomatic Strategies for Dealing with Iran," pgs. 33-54. 

[17] Ibid, pg. 51.

[18] Brookings Institute, Saban Center, "Restoring the Balance in the Middle East," December 2, 2008. Accessed on 21 June 2009 at http://www.brookings.edu/interviews/2008/1202_middle_east_indyk.aspx 

[19] Takeyh, Ray, "What Iran Wants," Washington Post, 29 December 2008. Accessed on 21 June 2009 at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content /article/2008/12/28/AR2008122801273.html 

[20] Top Intelligence Democrat: No Interference in Iran," Associated Press, 21 June 2009. Viewed by the author on CNN TV and available online at http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jrMPfLa7wHBXn8XwHZfyDJjgtxCgD98V3HG81  

What if Israel strikes Iran?

Whatever the outcome of Iran’s presidential election tomorrow, negotiations will not soon — if ever — put an end to its nuclear threat. And given Iran’s determination to achieve deliverable nuclear weapons, speculation about a possible Israeli attack on its nuclear program will not only persist but grow.

So what would such an attack look like? Obviously, Israel would need to consider many factors — such as its timing and scope, Iran’s increasing air defenses, the dispersion and hardening of its nuclear facilities, the potential international political costs, and Iran’s "unpredictability." While not as menacingly irrational as North Korea, Iran’s politico-military logic hardly compares to our NATO allies. Central to any Israeli decision is Iran’s possible response.

Israel’s alternative is that Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs reach fruition, leaving its very existence at the whim of its staunchest adversary. Israel has not previously accepted such risks. It destroyed Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 and a Syrian reactor being built by North Koreans in 2007. One major new element in Israel’s calculus is the Obama administration’s growing distance (especially in contrast to its predecessor).

Consider the most-often mentioned Iranian responses to a possible Israeli strike:

1) Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz. Often cited as Tehran’s knee-jerk answer — along with projections of astronomic oil-price spikes because of the disruption of supplies from Persian Gulf producers — this option is neither feasible nor advisable for Iran. The U.S. would quickly overwhelm any effort to close the Strait, and Iran would be risking U.S. attacks on its land-based military. Direct military conflict with Washington would turn a bad situation for Iran — disruption of its nuclear program — into a potential catastrophe for the regime. Prudent hedging by oil traders and consuming countries (though not their strong suit, historically) would minimize any price spike.

2) Iran cuts its o wn oil exports to raise world prices. An Iranian embargo of its own oil exports would complete the ruin of Iran’s domestic economy by depriving the country of hard currency. This is roughly equivalent to Thomas Jefferson’s 1807 embargo on American exports to protect U.S. shipping from British and French interference. That harmed the U.S. far more than the Europeans. Even Iran’s mullahs can see that. Another gambit with no legs.

3) Iran attacks U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some Tehran hard-liners might advocate this approach, or even attacks on U.S. bases or Arab targets in the Gulf — but doing so would risk direct U.S. retaliation against Iran, as many U.S. commanders in Iraq earlier recommended. Increased violence in Iraq or Afghanistan might actually prolong the U.S. military presence in Iraq, despite President Barack Obama’s current plans for withdrawal. Moreover, taking on the U.S. military, even in an initially limited way, carries enormous risks for Iran. Tehran may believe the Obama administration’s generally apologetic international posture will protect it from U.S. escalation, but it would be highly dangerous for Iran to gamble on more weakness in the face of increased U.S. casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan.

4) Iran increases support for global terrorism. This Iranian option, especially stepping up world-wide attacks against U.S. targets, is always open. Assuming, however, that Mr. Obama does not further degrade our intelligence capabilities and that our watchfulness remains high, the terrorism option outside of the Middle East is extremely risky for Iran. If Washington uncovered evidence of direct or indirect Iranian terrorist activities in America, for example, even the Obama administration would have to consider direct retaliation inside Iran. While Iran enjoys rhetorical conflict with the U.S., operationally it prefers picking on targets its own size or smaller.

5) Iran launches missile attacks on Israel. Because all the foregoing options risk more direct U.S. involvement, Tehran will most likely decide to retaliate against the actual attacker, Israel. Using its missile and perhaps air force capabilities, Iran could do substantial damage in Israel, especially to civilian targets. Of course, one can only imagine what Iran might do once it has nuclear weapons, and this is part of the cost-benefit analysis Israel must make before launching attacks in the first place. Direct Iranian military action against Israel, however, would provoke an even broader Israeli counterstrike, which at some point might well involve Israel’s own nuclear capability. Accordingly, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards would have to think long and hard before unleashing its own capabilities against Israel.

6) Iran unleashes Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel. By process of elimination, but also because of strategic logic, Iran’s most likely option is retaliating through Hamas and Hezbollah. Increased terrorist attacks inside Israel, military incursions by Hezbollah across the Blue Line, and, most significantly, salvoes of missiles from both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip are all possibilities. In plain violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, Iran has not only completely re-equipped Hezbollah since the 2006 war with Israel, but the longer reach of Hezbollah’s rockets now endangers Israel’s entire civilian population. Moreover, Hamas’s rocket capabilities could easily be substantially enhanced to provide greater range and payload to strike throughout Israel, creating a two-front challenge.

Risks to its civilian population will weigh heavily in any Israeli decision to use force, and might well argue for simultaneous, pre-emptive attacks on Hezbollah and Hamas in conjunction with a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Obviously, Israel will have to measure the current risks to its safety and survival against the longer-term threat to its very existence once Iran acquires nuclear weapons.

This brief survey demonstrates why Israel’s military option against Iran’s nuclear program is so unattractive, but also why failing to act is even worse. All these scenarios become infinitely more dangerous once Iran has deliverable nuclear weapons. So does daily life in Israel, elsewhere in the region and globally.

Many argue that Israeli military action will cause Iranians to rally in support of the mullahs’ regime and plunge the region into political chaos. To the contrary, a strike accompanied by effective public diplomacy could well turn Iran’s diverse population against an oppressive regime. Most of the Arab world’s leaders would welcome Israel solving the Iran nuclear problem, although they certainly won’t say so publicly and will rhetorically embrace Iran if Israel strikes. But rhetoric from its Arab neighbors is the only quantum of solace Iran will get.

On the other hand, the Obama administration’s increased pressure on Israel concerning the "two-state solution" and West Bank settlements demonstrates Israel’s growing distance from Washington. Although there is no profit now in complaining that Israel should have struck during the Bush years, the missed opportunity is palpable. For the remainder of Mr. Obama’s term, uncertainty about his administration’s support for Israel will continue to dog Israeli governments and complicate their calculations. Iran will see that as well, and play it for all it’s worth. This is yet another reason why Israel’s risks and dilemmas, difficult as they are, only increase with time.

John Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad" (Simon & Schuster, 2007).

Cuba today

Any discussion of engagement with Cuba needs to take into account that Cuba is the last country in the hemisphere that represses nearly every form of political dissent. Those who lament Cuba’s absence from the summit should remember that the Cuban government systematically denies its people even the most basic freedoms. –José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch

The dawn of the new Obama Administration promised to bring change. To many Cuba watchers the hope is that it will come in the form of a new policy towards the Castro regime. Opponents and supporters of the embargo agree that it has not fulfilled its primary function of regime change. The question remains what to do.  Some argue that restrictions on trade and travel only serve to hurt and isolate the public while strengthening and legitimizing the regime. Yet, relaxing restrictions without reform could have the same effect.

Whatever form the new policy takes, it should be based on increased freedoms for the Cuban people.  Ideally, any new policy would bring about the release of all political prisoners and lead the Cuban government to observe the human rights treaties to which it is a signatory.

American policy toward Cuba should put a spotlight on the regime and hold it accountable.  In fact, Human Rights Watch has the same criticism for both the U.S. policy of isolation and South American states policies of engagement.  Not only do they counter act each other, they are equally "uncritical."  Leaders of the pro-democracy movement agree that if the international community did nothing else, they should at least bring scrutiny to the Castro’s and take account of one of the world’s most oppressive dictators.  This is the one thing that no state or international organization has done effectively.

 For more dialogue, information and commentary on hemispheric security, see the new Inter-American Liberty Forum

There are distinct differences in the proposed policies.  Some on the American left want to normalize relations with little or no cost to Cuba.  Considering the gross human rights abuses, torture, and the unlawful imprisonment of hundreds of political dissidents, there is much the U.S. can ask in return for opening relations.  Barring a counter-revolution, the Castro’s will continue to defy human dignity and human rights in the face of the world.  They have created the fulfillment of a totalitarian dream state.  Before selling a new policy to the American electorate, the administration should take a look at what living conditions are really like for the vast majority of the Cuban population.

 

Oppression in Society

There are several mechanisms for the surveillance and control of the citizenry.  According to research from Human Rights Watch [1], the Interior Ministry oversees the bodies that monitor the population for possible dissent.  These are the General Directorate of Counter-Intelligence and the General Directorate of Internal Order.  The General Directorate of Counter-Intelligence supervises The Department of State Security.  Also referred to as the Political Police, they divide counter-intelligence operations into specialized units.

One of these units is designated to monitor religious groups, writers, and artists.  The other main body under the Interior Ministry that deters dissidents is called the Directorate of Internal Order.  This office administers two police units.  These are the National Revolutionary Police and the Technical Department of Investigation who are responsible for internal surveillance.  These powerful institutions enable the government to reach deep into Cuban life and discourage people from daring to think or speak differently from the regime.  Cuban citizens know that they are constantly being observed for signs of non-conformity.  This creates a palpable fear for most Cubans that Americans can scarcely imagine.

Beyond official government enforcement bodies, government sponsored community organizations known as Committees for the Defense of the Revolution reach into every Cuban neighborhood encouraging citizens to monitor each other.  According to Castro, the intention was to create a, "system of collective revolutionary vigilance so that everyone will know who everyone else is … what they devote themselves to, who they meet with, what activities they take part in." [2] Community organizers known as block captains run patriotic group activities.  The role of the captains is to report and spy on those who do not participate.

The Communist Party has created similar groups called the Singular Systems of Vigilance and Protection and Rapid Action Brigades to intimidate activists and control dissidents.  The government keeps academic and labor files on every citizen.  Loyalty to the regime is measured before any advancement in work or school takes place.  The Cuban government’s housing authority even exercises its power by fining party opponents and taking away their homes.

In 2003, in what is now known as the Cuban Spring, Fidel Castro arrested seventy-five opposition members, journalists, human rights activists, and librarians.  These dissidents were hastily tried and were convicted to an average of twenty years in prison.  In addition to the notoriously inhumane Cuban prison conditions of physical neglect and torture, the prisoner’s families continue to be harassed and threatened by the government as a part of their psychological torture.

 

U.S. Policy

Mauricio Claver-Carone of the U.S. Cuba PAC offers three reasons why the current U.S. policy is correct.  First, there is a political basis because the U.S. does not financially support dictatorships.  Second, there is a geo-political interest.  The Obama administration has made statements that the promotion of democracy and human rights in Cuba is in our national interest.  Third, the idea of trade with Cuba is an illusion.  There is only one company in Cuba and the Castro brothers own it.  That is not trade.  It is mercantilism.

The pro-democracy movement here in the U.S. was encouraged when the Obama administration suggested in April that Cuba release all political prisoners to reciprocate their end of U.S. travel restrictions.  The hope is that while acting like he is making friends, President Obama will create tangible pressure on the regime to change.  Like Obama, the freedom fighters of Cuba have based their campaign on "Change."  For some of them the cost of simply wearing the word "cambio" on their sleeve was imprisonment.  It may also cost President Obama politically here in the United States to take a serious stance on Cuban political repression.  Several members of his party are open about their ideological sympathies with Fidel Castro.  Others in the Democrat party have at least pandered to the extreme left by having their picture taken with the dictator.

Congresswoman Barbara Lee recently led a delegation of Democrats to Cuba.  Composed of Representatives Mel Watt of North Carolina, Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, Marcia Fudge of Ohio, Mike Honda of California, Bobby Rush of Illinois, and Laura Richardson of California, their message was that the current U.S. policy was not working.  They essentially propose more openness with the regime despite the fact that the point of U.S. policy is to isolate the regime.  In response to the trip, Republican Mel Martinez suggested that it would be preferable to support the pro-democracy activists and not "the Castro Regime."

 

U.S. National Security perspective

From a U.S. national security perspective, a hard look at the Castro regime is also imperative.  It is a common foreign policy strategy among U.S. foes such as Iran, North Korea, Syria, China, and Russia to pay lip service to diplomatic pleasantries and simultaneously act against our interests.  The U.S. cannot take Fidel or Raul at their words while they plot against us.  A staff report from the Institute for Cuba and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami characterizes, to a great extent, the national security threat posed by Cuba.  They reported the following in reference to Cuba’s support of Iran:

During the widespread protests by reform-minded Iranian university students against repressive clerical rule in the summer of 2003, authorities in Tehran turned to Havana for assistance in interfering with the satellite transmission of broadcasts by U.S.-based Farsi-language TV stations. Cuba, with decades of experience in jamming U.S. broadcasts directed at the island, used its Chinese-equipped high-power antennae to effectively jam the U.S. satellite signals. The jamming was ultimately tracked by a U.S. company to a point of origin some 20 miles outside the city of Havana, in the vicinity of Bejucal, where a joint Sino-Cuban military signals intelligence and electronic warfare facility operates since 1999. [3]

Acting accordingly as a self-defined enemy of the United States, Castro’s alliance with Iran is unsurprising.  It does not only translate into Cuba enhancing the Iranian regime at home.  It has real time consequences in North America.  The University of Miami report also offered the following analysis:

The type of espionage carried out by Ana Belén Montes, the senior U.S. defense intelligence analyst who spied for Cuba during some 16 years until her arrest in 2001, has enabled the Castro regime to amass a wealth of intelligence on U.S. vulnerabilities as well as a keen understanding of the inner-workings of the U.S. national security system. Such information and analysis was provided to Saddam Hussein and would undoubtedly be provided to a strategic ally like Iran. While one may argue that factors such as Iran’s limited military capabilities and sheer distance diminish any conventional concerns, one should expect that Tehran, in case of preemptive strikes by American forces, would launch an asymmetrical offensive against the U.S. and its European allies through surrogate terrorist and paramilitary organizations.  In such a scenario, Cuban intelligence would be invaluable to Iran and its proxies and Cuban territory could be used by terrorist groups to launch operations against the U.S.

There is a level of frankness missing from the dialogue about U.S. – Cuban relations.  For the past fifty years, Cuba has acted against American interests. In fact, the Cuban government is not shy about trying to indoctrinate its citizens to believe that the United States is their enemy.  In reference to Cuba’s Dirección General de Inteligencia (DGI), or General Intelligence Directorate the Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence, and Security states:

Today DGI collects a wide variety of data through its operatives in Europe, the Third World, and North America-especially the last of these, because the United States is Cuba’s self-declared number-one foe. The Cuban delegation to the United Nations in New York City is the third-largest in the world, and it has been estimated that nearly half of its personnel are DGI officers. [4]

The common misconception about diplomacy is that talking has disproportionately good implications when results should be the real test.  U.S. foreign policy makers have been misguided in counter terrorism strategies in the past by failing to calculate ideology and the internal rhetoric of transnational organizations.  The principal holds true with hostile states that what they say to their own people about us reveals their true intentions.  The Cuban government defines the United States as the enemy and will act accordingly in their own interest.  Hence, human rights and national security concerns should be the primary context for formulating our foreign policy. 

 

Nicholas Hanlon is a foreign affairs writer and researcher at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C.

 

[1] Román Orozco, Cuba Roja (Buenos Aires: Información y Revista S.A. Cambio 16 – Javier Vergara Editor S.A., 1993), p. 158.

[2] Sarah A. DeCosse,  CUBA’S REPRESSIVE MACHINERY Human Rights Forty Years After the Revolution, Copyright © June 1999 by Human Rights Watch

[3] Staff Report, The Growing Iran-Cuba Strategic Alliance Focus on Cuba; Cuba Transition Project, Issue 76 May 16, 2006

[4] "Cuba, Intelligence and Security." Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence, and Security. The Gale Group Inc. 2004. Encyclopedia.com. 27 May. 2009