Tag Archives: United Nations

Islamists’ Catch-22

Try a little thought experiment.  What would have happened in this country during the Cold War if the Soviet Union successfully neutralized anti-communists opposed to the Kremlin’s plans for world domination?

Of course, Moscow strove to discredit those in America and elsewhere who opposed its totalitarian agenda – especially after Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s excesses made it fashionable to vilify patriots by accusing them of believing communists were "under every bed."

But what if the USSR and its ideological soul-mates in places like China, North Korea, Cuba, Eastern Europe and parts of Africa had been able to criminalize efforts to oppose their quest for the triumph of world communism?  What if it had been an internationally prosecutable offense even to talk about the dangers inherent in communist rule and the need to resist it?

The short answer is that history might very well have come out differently.  Had courageous anti-communists been unable accurately and forcefully to describe the nature of that time’s enemy – and to work against the danger posed by its repressive, seditious program, the Cold War might well have been lost. 

Flash forward to today.  At the moment, another totalitarian ideology characterized by techniques and global ambitions strikingly similar to those of yesteryear’s communists is on the march.  It goes by varying names: "Islamofascism," "Islamism," "jihadism" or "radical-" "extremist-" or "political Islam."  Unlike the communists, however, adherents to this ideology are making extraordinary strides in Western societies toward criminalizing those who dare oppose the Islamist end-state – the imposition of brutal Shariah Law on Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Consider but a few indicators of this ominous progress:

  • In March, the 57 Muslim-state Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) prevailed upon the United Nations Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution requiring the effective evisceration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Henceforth, the guaranteed right of free expression will not extend to any criticism of Islam, on the grounds that it amounts to an abusive act of religious discrimination. A UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has been charged with documenting instances in which individuals and media organizations engage in what the Islamists call "Islamophobia."  Not to be outdone, the OIC has its own "ten-year program of action" which will monitor closely all Islamophobic incidents and defamatory statements around the world.
  • Monitoring is just the first step. Jordan’s Prosecutor General has recently brought charges against Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders. According to a lawsuit, "Fitna" – Wilders’ short documentary film that ties certain Koranic passages to Islamist terrorism – is said to have slandered and insulted the Prophet Mohammed, demeaned Islam and offended the feelings of Muslims in violation of the Jordanian penal code.  Mr. Wilders has been summoned to Amman to stand trial and, if he fails to appear voluntarily, international warrants for his arrest will be issued. 
  • Zakaria Al-Sheikh, head of the "Messenger of Allah Unites Us Campaign" which is the plaintiff in the Jordanian suit, reportedly has "confirmed that the [prosecutor’s action] is the first step towards setting in place an international law criminalizing anyone who insults Islam and the Prophet Mohammed."  In the meantime, his campaign is trying to penalize the nations that have spawned "Islamophobes" like Wilders and the Danish cartoonists by boycotting their exports – unless the producers publicly denounce the perpetrators both in Jordan and in their home media.

Unfortunately, it is not just some companies that are submitting to this sort of coercion – a status known in Islam as "dhimmitude."  Western officials and governmental entities appear increasingly disposed to go along with such efforts to mutate warnings about Shariah law and its adherents from "politically incorrect" to "criminally punishable" activity.  

For example, in Britain, Canada and even the United States, the authorities are declining to describe the true threat posed by Shariah Law and are using various techniques to discourage – and in some cases, prosecute – those who do.  We are witnessing the spectacle of authors’ books being burned, ministers prosecuted, documentary film-makers investigated and journalists hauled before so-called "Human Rights Councils" on charges of offending Muslims, slandering Islam or other "Islamophobic" conduct.  Jurists on both sides of the Atlantic are acceding to the insinuation of Shariah law in their courts.  And Wall Street is increasingly joining other Western capital markets in succumbing to the seductive Trojan Horse of "Shariah-Compliant Finance."

Let’s be clear: The Islamists are trying to establish a kind of Catch-22: If you point out that they seek to impose a barbaric, repressive and seditious Shariah Law, you are insulting their faith and engaging in unwarranted, racist and bigoted fear-mongering.  On the other hand, pursuant to Shariah, you must submit to that theo-political-legal program.  If you don’t, you can legitimately be killed. It is not an irrational fear to find that prospect unappealing. And it is not racist or bigoted to decry and oppose Islamist efforts to bring it about – ask the anti-Islamist Muslims who are frequently accused of being Islamophobes!

If we go along with our enemies’ demands to criminalize Islamophobia, we will mutate Western laws, traditions, values and societies beyond recognition.  Ultimately, today’s totalitarian ideologues will triumph where their predecessors were defeated.

To avoid such a fate, those who love freedom must oppose the seditious program the Islamists call Shariah – and all efforts to impose its 1st Amendment-violating blasphemy, slander and libel laws on us in the guise of preventing Western Islamophobia. 

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

 

 

Amnesty ignorant again

This spring and summer, as part of their "Counter Terror with Justice" initiative, members of Amnesty International will be touring both seaboards of the United States complete with a replica of a standard cell at Guantanamo Bay. Indeed, as evidenced in a recently aired piece on the Daily Show [1], national director Larry Cox and his cronies have responded to the repeated refusals of the United States government to let a known anti-American NGO into a highly sensitive post with their own response; that of building their own Gitmo cell and trying to show off its "horrors" to the American public. According to their own people (posted on their cell tour subsection of their website) "Most detainees at Guantánamo are held in isolation, many of them with virtually no access to natural light or contact with other human beings, for up to 24 hours a day. Compounding their suffering is the fact that they have no indication of when or if they will be freed from Guantánamo. [2]" In addition, the Amnesty’s "Counter Terror with Justice" campaign website cites the entire Guantanamo Bay institution as "illegal" [3]. Once again, the fine folks at Amnesty International have shown a clear misunderstanding of the facts; perhaps a few clarifications would help.

To begin with, why does Amnesty International even feel it has a right to demand the United States government let them see Guantanamo Bay? First, Amnesty International has no special legal right to inspect any installation, as opposed to organizations such as the Red Cross that do. Secondly, there is no document the United States government has ever signed allowing Amnesty unfettered access to its installations. In fact, no such government agreement exists anywhere. Naturally then, what choice did the military have but to deny this organization access? After all, Amnesty has shown itself to be remarkably anti-American in its orientation (this Counter Terror with Justice campaign seems to only focus on the United States), and the increase in non-military personnel at a secure location would increase to the possibility for leaks exponentially (which as noted worryingly in recent literature may be impossible to track if the new Media Shield bill passes).

Legal grounds aside, there are a number of other reasons why this campaign is foolhardy and misguided. First of all, one of the issues Amnesty has cited as its reasoning for this campaign is our so-called "mistreatment" of prisoners [4]. They claim that the 8×10 cells at Gitmo are inhumane because of their size. Just out of curiosity, but does Amnesty remember that this part of the installation is meant as a prison? How big are prison cells supposed to be? In fact, using the state of Florida (which has a high number of prisoners) as an example, the average cell size for the state is around 7×12.5 [5]. That equates to about 88 square feet as opposed to the 80 at Guantanamo, and a very small actual difference in size. Hence when the United States incarcerates people who have not committed war crimes or terrorism in marginally larger cells that those who have, its hard to say that the size of the cell "violates human rights". (Unless Amnesty would just like to release all criminals altogether, in which case why even bother with laws.)

Another complaint in regards to the cells at Guantanamo Bay put forth by Amnesty International (or at least what they hope viewers of their replica will conclude) is the cell’s sparseness. Amnesty does have it right in this case; the cells have only a bed area, toilet, and a sink. What a travesty is being perpetrated to deny to men accustomed to living in the caves of the Afghan-Pakistani border their daily allotment of DirectTV! Once again I feel compelled to ask the leadership of Amnesty International if their heads are on straight. This is a prison, not a day spa. These men aren’t here for jaywalking or a speeding ticket; they’re here for playing a role in supporting terror and contributing to the deaths of innocent civilians worldwide. Why should this be made an enjoyable experience for them? Did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed make the lives of the people he plotted to murder on September 11th comfortable? Of course he didn’t. Are the lives of the people all around the world that have lost loved ones to acts of terrorism comfortable? Obviously they aren’t. It really is strange that Amnesty is choosing to focus on trying to help the perpetrators of terrorism rather than its true victims.

Having shown that its accusations in regards to the material aspects of the cells at Guantanamo Bay being "inhumane" to be baseless, it is time to challenge the very legal basis of Amnesty International’s oft made assertion that these detentions are "illegal" in the first place. Perhaps the leadership of this organization hasn’t done its research, but speaking as someone who has, there is not a single piece of legislation making the detentions at Guantanamo Bay illegal. However, the casual reader need not take just my word for it; instead go straight to the documents themselves. Let us begin with the major ones; the Geneva Convention comes first to mind. Frequently terrorists (as they’ve been trained to do) and their supporters such as Amnesty will cry that America is violating the Geneva Convention by holding these men in "inhumane" conditions (which has proven to be a false allegation) without charging them and so on. On the surface that may seem to be true, but there’s just one tiny catch; the Geneva Convention doesn’t cover terrorists [6]. According to the Third Geneva Convention itself (the one covering POWs), for a person to qualify as a POW and be accorded the treatment proscribed in said convention, that person must be affiliated (either regular army or militia meaning some sort of uniform) with a "High Contracting Power" (a state that was party to the convention but for argument’s sake we’ll say any state). This poses a bit of a legal issue for terrorism and its supporters as terrorists neither wear uniforms nor are affiliated with a "High Contracting Power" (Osama bin Laden’s signature is curiously missing from any Geneva Convention). All of this is certainly not to mention the fact that groups like Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Jemiyat al-Islamiyah and numerous others routinely violate the Geneva Convention with respect to their practices of directly targeting civilians.                     

With the Geneva Conventions clearly not applicable, what else can groups like Amnesty and the ACLU turn to when defending terrorists? Well, as far as major treaties go, the only thing they are left with is the 8th Amendment of the Constitution (the "cruel and unusual punishment" amendment). Here the argument is that practices our interrogators at Guantanamo use, such as never turning off the lights, playing music loudly and so on violate this amendment. There is only one problem; once again this document is not applicable. As written, the United States Constitution applies to citizens (as exemplified in the word "people") and to a lesser extent residents of this country almost exclusively, not unlawful foreign combatants working against it (especially ones being held outside of the United States where a foreign country retains de facto jurisdiction) [7]. Some readers may be a bit confused as to how the above statement could be true given that the activist judges on the Supreme Court last week ruled that detainees could challenge their detentions in U.S. Civil Courts. After reading the opinion, it turns out that the only reason the detainees are even allowed a single privilege under the Constitution (habeas corpus, which is not in the nominally separate Bill of Rights, an important distinction) is because the Supreme Court ruled that the Detainee Treatment Act, previously the standard used as a substitute by the government in place of habeas corpus, was deemed to be an inadequate one. Thus, in a 5-4 ruling on Thursday the justices insisted that the detainees be allowed true habeas corpus, though they made no attempt to insinuate that any other part of the Constitution applies to the detainees, even noting the narrowness of this case [8]. To allay a related issue, with regard to Americans working with terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay, any such American citizens caught working with or as terrorists would have violated the Constitution and be subject to laws concerning high treason, for which execution is a perfectly legal sentence; hence Guantanamo would be unnecessary in those cases. So then, with the two most often used documents out, what’s left? How about the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights then, or the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights, all of which address detention issues? First, like everything the General Assembly of the United Nations does, the UDHR is non-binding. As for the second two treaties, neither was ever signed by the United States of America. It seems then that the search for legally binding documents that would make any part of our operations at Guantanamo Bay illegal has been exhausted, with a decidedly anti-terror result.  

Having taken apart both the legal and material basis for Amnesty International’s most recent publicity stunt, let’s return to their newest campaign and correct their mistakes. On June 26th, Amnesty will be bringing their cell to Washington D.C., a perfect time to tell them about all the things their unbiased analysts missed when doing their research. Rather than crying for Islamic extremists who happened to get caught as Amnesty would like people to do, I encourage upstanding citizens to march out to that "cell" display and boldly proclaim the idiocy of their claims. Tell them that the cells at Guantanamo Bay are roughly the same size as state penitentiaries in this country and that their conception of legality is seriously flawed. Let them know that most Americans don’t support their ridiculous ideals. I’ll be right there alongside you.  

[1] "The Daily Show." June 10th, 2008.

[2] "Cell Tour Videolog Homepage." Amnesty International. Accessed June 11, 2008.

[3] "Counter Terror With Justice Campaign Homepage." Amnesty International. Accessed June 11, 2008.

[4] Ibid.

[6] "Full text of the Third Geneva Convention." International Committee of the Red Cross.  Accessed June 11, 2008.

[7] "Majority Opinion of the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush, ruled 6/12/08." No. 06-1195. Authored by Justice Kennedy. (This is also the opinion of the many Constitutional scholars which is only confirmed by the court’s avoidance of saying that the rest of Constitution is applicable.)

[8] Ibid.

We must stand with Colombia

by Nancy Menges









Free trade with Columbia will cement Democracy in the Americas


 


The free trade agreement between the United States and Colombia is in many ways more about the future direction of Latin America than about trade policy. Colombia has lobbied hard for passage of this agreement because it would make permanent the trade preferences they now have, and to attract long term foreign investment.


 


What the Colombian Government cannot say in their lobbying efforts to US Congress members is that they need our support and financial backing in order to counter the many challenges presented by the narco-guerilla insurgency known as FARC (The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) and its patron in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez; both actively try to undermine Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. For Chavez, Colombia is the big prize and he will do everything possible to bring it into his sphere of influence. Already Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua are firmly in the Chavez camp with Argentina showing signs of a close affinity with the Chavistas. [More]


 


Instead of recognizing the outstanding leadership President Uribe has provided, the message he and the Colombian people are getting is that we are punishing them by not passing the FTA. This weakens Colombia in the eyes of other Latin American leaders and proves Chavez right that America cannot be counted on as an ally. In a show of support, the Presidents of Chile, Mexico, Canada and Peru wrote to House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress appealing for passage of the Colombia FTA, in the name of regional stability, but so far their request has been met with a deaf ear. On December 20, 2007, the CEOs of nineteen major American companies wrote a letter to the House and Senate leadership urging passage of the FTA with Colombia. In their letter they pointed out that this agreement would eliminate barriers to US farm products and manufactured goods while providing new sales opportunities for small, medium and large companies and their employees as well as American farmers and ranchers. (See Letter in Main News below).


 


In considering any legislation having to do with Latin America, one would be remiss to underestimate the danger that Hugo Chavez poses to regional stability as well as to the national security of the United States. Since becoming president of Venezuela in 1998, Chavez has used his countrys oil wealth to influence elections in neighboring states, has used indigenous and grassroots organizations to disrupt democratic, US friendly governments and has financially supported the FARC guerillas in Colombia. In addition, Chavez has opened Latin America to Iranian influence by establishing bilateral trade, by initiating weekly flights from Iran to Caracas via Syria and by encouraging an Iranian presence in Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua. Iran has a large embassy in Nicaragua and plans on building a deep water port on Nicaraguas Caribbean coast to be connected by dry canal to the Atlantic coast.  These are ominous developments since different terrorist groups already operate in such places as the tri-border region between Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina and use Venezuelas Margarita Island as a training area.


 


This is a struggle between Chavez and Uribe for the possible future for Latin America. On the one hand, Chavez is trying to turn Venezuela into a proletarian dictatorshipusing Cuba as his modelwhile Uribe has done everything to strengthen the institutions of democratic governance. Chavezs economic policies have led to the highest inflation (over 20%) of any country in South America as well as the highest food prices and food shortages; Uribe has brought consistent growth of about 7% annually and relatively low inflation, with food prices remaining fairly stable. While Venezuelans are losing their freedoms and becoming ever more impoverished, Colombians are enjoying greater prosperity and a renewed sense of stability and hope for their countrys future. That is why President Uribe has an 85% approval rating and Chavez a 37% rating. While Chavez is extremely hostile to the United States and to our values, Uribe has been a real partner in trying to work with the US to reduce the flow of drugs from Colombia. With US assistance through Plan Colombia, Uribe has been able to contain and reduce the number of FARC narco-terrorists from about 14,000 16,000 members several years ago to about 7,000 9,000 today. While Uribe has been successful in fighting against the guerilla insurgency, Chavezas documented in the captured documents of the FARCgives the FARC sanctuary inside his country and provides them with weapons.


 


Unions in Columbia


 


The Free Trade Agreement with Colombia may be considered by policy makers as solely a trade issue or in a broader strategic framework, taking into consideration some of the factors mentioned above. Since some members of Congress are not well informed and tend to cling to arguments that are factually untrue, I hope this will clarify the issues raised by many about labor unions in Columbia.


 


It is important to point out that we cannot compare the labor unions in the United States with the ones in Colombia. A great portion of unionists in the Andean Nation operate outside the law and are violent in nature. Often, terrorists, left-wing agitators, para-militaries and even Chavistas infiltrate these organizations for personal gain. What the mainstream media in the US doesnt say is that the majority of these unions behave like gangs and engage in violent disputes over particular territories or businesses.


 


Just 4.5% of Colombias 20 million workers are in unions. This is a decline from a decade ago when membership stood at 6%. The reason there are fewer union members now is due to the radicalized political agenda of the leadership of the large unions.


 


From about 200 assassinations of unionists a year in 2001 and 2002, the number fell by half in 2003 and has continued to fall since then. The AFL-CIO claims 38 unionists were assassinated in 2007, while the Colombian Ministry of Social Protection counts 25. Even if we accept the higher AFL-CIO fig­ure, that would mark a plunge of more than 80% in assassinations of trade unionists during President Uribes time in office; the decrease would be nearly 90 per­cent if the Ministry of Social Protection figure is accepted. Either number represents remarkable and welcome progress under President Uribe.


 


The government established a protection program for vulnerable groups of society. Currently 1,504 union members have enrolled in the program, more than any other group of civil society. Working with the International Labor Organization, Colombia has created a spe­cial unit under its Attorney General to investigate priority cases of violence against trade unionists.


 


Left-leaning groups in Colombia have col­luded with labor interests in the United States to convince the Democratic leadership in Congress that this FTA should be defeated on humanitarian grounds. The popular perception is that a trade agreement with Colombia would result in Colombian goods coming into the country, displacing American products and workers. Wrong! Most Colombian products, $9.2 billion in 2007, already pay no tariffs to enter America under the Andean Trade Preferences Act, enacted in 1991 and renewed again this year with Senator Clintons support. Yet American products, valued at $8.6 billion in 2007, pay substantial tariffs to enter Colombia. What FTA with Colombia would do is lift these tariffs. American exporters and workers would be the main beneficiaries of the trade agreement, which would put U.S. and Colombian exports on a level playing field.


 


At the insistence of the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charles Rangel, the pact was rewritten. In fact, the Colombian government is working together with the United Nations International Labor Organization to enhance its labor laws and their implementation and has taken steps to protect union members and end impunity in cases of violence against them. Colombia has incorporated obligations to enforce the UNs International Labor Organizations five fundamental labor rights: freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining, the elimination of compulsory labor, the abolition of child labor, and the elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation. In addition, Colombia raised its minimum wage and adopted provisions for overtime pay.


 


The Free Trade Agreement is widely popular among many labor union members in Colombia. The labor leaders opposing the FTA represent workers unaffected by trade and their arguments are clearly based on the fear that the potential success of the FTA will bring popularity to their political opponents in the Colombian government, even with a president who has an 85 percent approval rating, and simply because they dislike the United States. These leftist labor unions oppose every open market economic policy and often are involved in drug trafficking.  The real story in Colombia is not the current level of violence but its dramatic fall in a relatively short period since President Uribe came to power in 2002.


 


Free Trade


 


Todays global economy offers tremendous opportunities for the US. In general, lowering barriers to goods and services is in Americas interest. Though there are always some downsides, free trade and globalization has provided employment opportunities for people in countries with a long history of poverty and despair. Many of these people living in poorer countries have benefited from American investments that provided opportunities for a better life.


 


The United States is Colombias largest trading partner representing about 40% of Colombias exports and 29% of its imports. Two-way trade between Colombia and the US amounted to almost 16 billion dollars in 2006. The US would have an opportunity to increase the export of US farm products because the 11.3% percent tariffs on imported products that now exist would be eliminated in Colombia. A December, 2006 study by the US International Trade Commission estimated that the agreement would boost US exports to Colombia by $1.1 billion.


 


Economics is just one aspect of the US-Colombian relationship and perhaps not the most important. Highly important issues of national security and foreign policy are being pushed to the margins. Enormous progress made by Colombian President Alvaro Uribe in diminishing human rights violations and the harsh reality Colombia has faced in fighting a forty year long narco-guerilla insurgency has sometimes not been taken into consideration.  Uribe has not only been able to rebuild a state that for years was immersed in  anarchy but to do so with a low number of casualties; a phenomenon almost unseen in other cases of nation building.


 


Unlike many countries in Latin America that have used the excuse of guerilla activity to abolish democratic institutions, Colombia has been able to maintain a parliamentary and constitutional regime. In relation to the accusation of the killing of union leaders, it has been reported by a number of sources that since Alvaro Uribe took office in 2002 the number of killings of union leaders has sharply declined. Union leaders have been killed mostly by right-wing paramilitaries (even though it is estimated that one third of union activists were killed by left wing guerillas). Uribes Colombia has been remarkably effective in minimizing violence. No dirty war has taken place in Colombia. The Colombian government has shown significant progress in this area as more than 30,000 individuals belonging to para-military groups were peacefully disarmed in a deal with the Uribe government. The fact that pockets of para-military still exist in Colombia should not downplay this significant achievement by the Colombian government.


 


Colombia is still our best Latin American ally against the highly dangerous rule of Hugo Chavez. President Uribe has become a major target of US archenemy Hugo Chavez because Colombia is a vibrant democracy with a successful economy (growing at about 7%annually) and presents a distinct alternative to Chavezs ever more dictatorial tendencies and failing economy.


 


It is important that continuity be secured in Colombia. Without Americas support, it will be more difficult for President Uribe to fight against the forces that threaten Colombias progress and stability. Therefore, it is crucial that the US show support for this great and brave ally and ratify, without hesitation, the free trade agreement.


 


 


Nancy Menges, the co-founder of the Menges Hemispheric Security Project, writes the weekly edition of Americas Report for the Center for Security Policy.  Fluent in Spanish, she holds a degree in International Relations from the University of WisconsinMadison, and has studied at the University of the Americas in Mexico City.  Ms. Menges also holds a postgraduate degree from the University of Maryland. She writes at http://themengesproject.blogspot.com/


 

Lawfare: bleeping with the enemy

Piracy used to be a one way ticket to the gallows. With the Royal Navy these days, it may be a one way ticket to the pirates’ port of choice; or worse for the people of Britain, the chance for freebooters to claim asylum in the UK.

Last month, Britain’s Foreign Office instructed the Royal Navy not to return pirates to jurisdictions sporting Islamic law for fear that their human rights might be violated. It has even been discouraged from capturing pirates, because they might demand asylum in Britain, a request with which the UK might have to comply under international human rights law.

It isn’t that bad in the U.S. — yet — but things are getting worse. Welcome to the brave new world of “lawfare,“ the soft jihad that uses international organizations and treaties, but especially the courts, in an effort to undermine the ability of the West to fight Islamofascism; directly by making military action and law enforcement more difficult, and indirectly by suppressing free discussion of ideas that are crucial to understanding and confronting the Islamist threat.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference, for instance, has recently called on the United Nations to help stifle criticism of Islam and has announced it will be stepping up legal efforts to deter what it terms the “defamation” of Islam, i.e., discussion of the Koran, Islamic law, and the roots and nature of jihad.

Particularly active domestically is the Council on American Islamic Relations. CAIR is, to say the least, controversial. It has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal criminal case involving the Holy Land Foundation “charity,” a Hamas front; a number of its founders had connections to terrorist organizations; and at least three of its employees have been convicted for terrorism-related activity.

CAIR claims to be merely an advocacy organization for Muslims. And Hannibal Lecter is a meat-eater. Twice true. But of more interest and relevance is that both are predators, with CAIR using threats and intimidation, as well as the legal process, to undermine law enforcement and whitewash the Islamists’ true vocation.

Especially with shadowy backers, CAIR knows the power of strong arm legal jihad.

Last August, CAIR attempted to prevent Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer from speaking at a YAF student conference by sending a lawyer’s letter threatening to sue organizers. Their claims were baseless; their tone menacing; their purpose merely to bully.

The same MO was employed last year in response to a NYPD report on Muslim radicalization. CAIR organized opposition to the report, insisted that it not be shared with other law enforcement agencies before its “misconceptions and errors” were corrected and demanded to know follow-up policing policies.

When it’s handy, CAIR pursues its goals with charges of discrimination and ethnic intolerance, couched in the rhetoric of civil rights and human decency toward which Americans are instinctively deferential. When that doesn’t work, it lays siege to individuals and organizations by creating a sense of legal or other danger and by using smears that make those favoring the quiet life think twice before speaking or acting.

In fact, none of CAIR’s charges of defamation has been successfully pursued to conclusion. It has lost or backed down in cases involving, among others, Congressman Cass Ballenger, who called the organization “the fundraising arm for Hezbollah”; Canada’s National Post; and the “Anti-CAIR.net.org” website.

CAIR was also behind the attempt of the “Flying Imams” to intimidate – by a law suit — those who would report suspicious behavior, and its website invites complaints about alleged discrimination by airlines as well as law enforcement personnel.

An organization that often protests its concern for the safety of Americans has assailed lengthy naturalization proceedings and encouraged lawsuits. In 2006 it joined a lawsuit to curtail the National Security Agency’s electronic intercepts of terrorist suspects’ communications. And it has provided the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, as well as airports, with what can only be a tendentious “sensitivity training” that undoubtedly compromises their work.

But CAIR isn’t alone making use of lawfare’s bespoke subversion.

In Canada, writer Mark Steyn has been summoned to appear before two “human rights commissions” on charges of “Islamophobia” and encouraging “hatred and contempt” for Muslims, following publication in Macleans magazine of an excerpt from his book, “America Alone.” The action was instigated by the Canadian Islamic Congress pursuant to European-style “hate laws” that prohibit the general kind of speech that would be protected in the U.S.

In Britain, absurdly strict libel laws allow forum shoppers to force books from shelves around the world. Cambridge University Press, for example, was sued for publishing a book connecting a wealthy Saudi, Khalid bin Mahfouz, with “charitable” organizations supporting jihad. Even while the book was published in Britain, a court ordered it removed from print and every last copy pulped — wherever found.

Fortunately, those who courageously refuse to buckle increasingly have access to legal assistance provided by organizations like The Middle East Forum. In New York State, the “Libel Terrorism Protection Act” has been introduced to protect authors from meritless libel suits filed by plaintiffs taking advantage of foreign jurisdictions.

Still, many are deterred from exercising their First Amendment rights. They don’t want to get involved. The dread, the unknowns, and the mud.

A chill descends. The virus of dhimmitude infects non-Muslim countries. A healthy understanding of Islamofascism, sharia and jihad is replaced by ignorance or the Islamofascist line of a benign Islam and sharia, and skepticism about the terrorist threat — as it has in Europe and Britain.

In the U.S. lawyers haven’t yet forced our Navy to coddle pirates. A sense of reality remains that is not always shared by our European brothers and sisters.

But organizations like CAIR are increasingly using lawfare to pursue an agenda that stifles necessary analysis and discussion or otherwise compromises national security. The mischief continues, and the potential in our litigious society to advance Islamofascism through legal jihad is ultimately even greater than it is in Europe.

Originally Published in Human Events. 

 

Iranian entanglements

In recent weeks, two news reports have circulated about Iran’s relationship with al-Qaeda. On Tuesday, March 18, Sen. John McCain repeatedly stated that Iran was aiding al-Qaeda in Iraq. Later, however, he retracted this statement.

Senator McCain was right the first time. In fact, al-Qaeda and Iran have a rather long history of cooperation.

A few days before Senator McCain’s unfortunate retraction, a senior military adviser to the Barack Obama campaign, retired Air Force general Merrill McPeak, was quoted in the March 15 edition of the Washington Times as saying, “Iran is a big enemy of al-Qaeda.”

General McPeak’s statement is astonishing for its ignorance, especially coming from a flag-rank retired military officer.

The shadowy relationship between Iran and al-Qaeda was first revealed in the report issued by the bipartisan, independent 9/11 Commission back in 2004.

In compiling that exhaustive report, the 9/11 Commission interviewed over 1,000 people from at least 10 countries. Among the conclusions that they reached regarding Iran and al-Qaeda:

  • In late 1991 or early 1992, in meetings held in Sudan, Iran agreed to train al-Qaeda operatives. Not long afterwards, al-Qaeda terrorists traveled to Iran and received training in explosives. Subsequent to this, al-Qaeda terrorists also traveled to Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, where they received training from Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
  • Once Osama Bin Laden moved from Sudan to Afghanistan and established terrorist training camps there, Iran facilitated the transit of jihadists to al-Qaeda training camps via Iran. Among other things, Iran did not stamp their passports when they passed through Iran on their way to Afghanistan. This made it impossible for countries to know when someone had attended a training camp in Afghanistan because there was no record. This policy particularly benefited Saudi members of al-Qaeda, and the Commission reported that 8 to 10 of the Saudi 9-11 hijackers had transited through Iran.
  • The Commission said that intelligence reports indicated continued contacts between al-Qaeda and Iranian officials after Bin Laden had moved back to Afghanistan and it recommended that the U.S. government further investigate the ties between al-Qaeda and Iran.

Other reports have reinforced the 9/11 Commission’s findings of al-Qaeda/Iran cooperation in Iraq:

  • In November 2006, England’s Telegraph newspaper reported Western intelligence agencies as saying that Iran was training al-Qaeda operatives in Tehran and also that Iran had “always maintained close relations with al-Qaeda” despite differences between their Shiite and Sunni philosophies.
  • In January 2007, Eli Lake reported in the New York Sun that U.S. forces had captured documents detailing Iranian activities in Iraq, including the fact that Iran’s infamous Revolutionary Guards Quds Force was working with al-Qaeda there.
  • In May 2007, as reported by Bill Roggio at The Weekly Standard’s website, coalition forces captured a courier carrying messages from al-Qaeda in Iraq leaders to senior al-Qaeda leaders who have long been in safe haven in Iran, including Osama Bin Laden’s son, Said Bin Laden.
  • Also in May 2007, England’s Guardian newspaper reported that Iran was secretly forging ties with al-Qaeda elements in Iraq in an attempt to launch a summer offensive that would prompt Congress to vote for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.
  • In July 2007, the Financial Times reported that “western officials” said that Iranian territory was being used as a base by al-Qaeda for terrorist operations in Iraq.
  • In October 2007, the Dallas Morning News reported on warnings from Kurds in northern Iraq of Iranian support for an al-Qaeda affiliate, Ansar al-Islam, in their region of Iraq.
  • In February 2008, Muhamad Abdullah al-Shahwani, the chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, and Tamir Al-Tamimi, an advisor to the Iraqi Awakening Councils (a key component in the success of the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy), told the Iraqi news service, Azzaman, that Iran was targeting the Awakening Councils with al-Qaeda.

Most of the skepticism over Iranian involvement with al-Qaeda has centered around the fact that Iran is ruled by a Shia Islamic theocracy, whereas al-Qaeda is a Sunni Wahhabi Islamic group. Many are under the mistaken belief that Shiites and Sunnis are irreconcilable arch enemies and will never work with each other. This quaint notion flies in the face of reality.

There are at least three other major examples of Iranian cooperation with militant Sunni organizations besides al-Qaeda:

  • Hamas is a Sunni Palestinian jihadist terrorist organization. Both Hamas and Iran have acknowledged publicly that, at the very least, Iran funds Hamas. The most recent reports out of Israel indicate that Hamas has personnel training in Iran.
  • In January 2007, Iran and Sudan, a mostly Sunni nation, exchanged military delegations and subsequently announced a military accord for mutual training, education, and technical cooperation. At the signing ceremony, the speaker of the Iranian parliament, Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, said that Iran’s and Sudan’s mutual enemies were “focused on a strategy of disintegrating the Islamic states by stirring up sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims” and that "the only way to foil the satanic plot is strengthening unity among Muslim nations.”

    The Sudanese delegate, Sudanese defense minister Abdelrahim Mohamed Hussein, responded that he appreciated Iran’s role in helping foster solidarity among Muslim nations and said that the Islamic Revolution under leadership of the late Imam Khomeini was the greatest event of the century in the Islamic history, because it opened the way for unity between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

  • Finally, in November of 2006, a United Nations report included information that Iran had provided the Sunni Islamic Courts in Somalia — a group that has since been linked to al-Qaeda — with “shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, grenade launchers, machine guns, ammunition, medicine, uniforms and other supplies.” The U.N. report also said that Iran may have sought uranium in Somalia.

This overwhelming evidence clearly shows that it is General McPeak who should issue a retraction and Senator McCain who should have stuck to his guns and stood by his original statement.

Iran and al-Qaeda are in league and have been for some time. The sooner politicians on both sides of the aisle educate themselves about this reality, the more effective our global war on terrorism can be.

This article first appeared on National Review Online. 

Sirens in the Strait

In ancient Greek mythology, the Sirens were beautiful sea-maidens, known for chanting sweet melodies to lure hapless sailors into dangerous waters, only to face their demise amongst the jagged rocks. Today’s Sirens are similarly dangerous, using the promise of peace and stability on the oceans to lure various American constituencies into the perilous contours that make up the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (also known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST).

Because the melody takes many forms, numerous analysts have dutifully responded by providing warnings, on these pages and elsewhere, about the various pitfalls and shortcomings contained in this Treaty. We have yet to see, however, a direct response to a particularly disingenuous and dangerously naive siren song: the assertion that our maritime interaction with the terrorism-sponsoring, petro-dictators of Iran could prove less explosive, if only we sign up for the “legal order for the seas and oceans” that LOST holds itself out to be.

In the ongoing debate over whether to subject American maritime interests to the whims of the “international community,” a subset of LOST proponents have taken to pointing to the January 2008 near-altercation between U.S. warships and Iranian speedboats in the Strait of Hormuz as evidence of the necessity of U.S. ratification. The notion, however, that accession to LOST either could have prevented such a confrontation or will effectively do so in the future reveals both a lack of understanding about the nature of the leadership in Tehran, as well as a remarkable lack of understanding of the Treaty’s potential to enable and encourage Iranian aggression against the United States.

The incident at issue occurred on January 6, 2008, when, according to accounts by the U.S. Navy, five armed Iranian speedboats manned by the infamous Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps aggressively approached three American warships in the Strait. The speedboats maneuvered very close to the convoy, with at least one coming within 200 yards of one of the ships. Navy recordings picked up a heavily accented voice in English, the exact source of which was not entirely clear, saying “I am coming to you…You will explode after a few minutes.” One of the speedboats proceeded to drop several small, white box-like floating objects in the path of the American convoy.

In the course of the exchange, an American sailor was recorded as saying, “This is a coalition warship. I am engaged in transit passage in accordance with international law. I intend no harm.” After ignoring this and other repeated warnings from the warships for roughly 30 minutes, the speedboats fled as American commanders prepared to open fire. In a briefing given shortly after the incident, Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, Commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, maintained that the warships were traveling 15 miles from Iranian land territory at the time, and therefore outside the outer limits of the 12-mile Iranian territorial waters.

For its part, Tehran accused the United States of “fabricating” the video and audio footage that captured the episode. The Revolutionary Guard Corps maintained that it only asked the warships to identify themselves, as is typical Iranian practice with respect to ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, according to the Iranian Defense Minister. Vice Admiral Cosgriff responded that the American vessels were clearly marked, and had been identified by Iranian authorities earlier that day.

From this incident flows the argument in some quarters that American ratification of LOST will take away Iran’s “pretext” to challenge American warships in the Strait of Hormuz as it did in January. Apparently, by approving our previous signature to a piece of paper, the U.S. will change Iranian behavior by somehow strengthening the American position that LOST’s provisions allowing “transit passage” through international straits, such as the Strait of Hormuz, are already customary international law, of which the U.S. is entitled to avail itself.

Of course Iran, while having signed LOST, has yet to ratify it, and therefore would not be bound by any of its terms even if we were to commit ourselves. Putting that aside, with respect to Washington-Tehran tensions, American ratification of LOST would at best severely constrain American rights on the oceans while allowing Iran to continue to thumb its nose at whatever “international consensus” emerged on the Strait of Hormuz or other issues. Moreover, at worst, Iran could opt to ratify LOST in response, enabling Ahmadinejad and his masters to exploit the myriad opportunities the Treaty provides for waging “lawfare” against the U.S. in ways that put our national security at grave risk.

To assert that American ratification will strengthen the U.S. position on legality of passage in the Strait by bringing other countries on board with our interpretation is to ignore Iran’s track record of non-responsiveness to any semblance of international consensus. By all accounts, Iran remains well on its way to the level of independent uranium enrichment that would allow it to have nuclear weapons, despite successive rounds of United Nations sanctions intended to force Iran to suspend such activities. Through its proxy, Hezbollah, Iran also continues to disregard the U.N.’s explicit recognition that Israel, by withdrawing from southern Lebanon in 2000, fully implemented U.N. Security Council Resolution 425 — adherence to which was supposed to eliminate the “pretext” for further Hezbollah (Iranian) attacks. And of course one could write a treatise on Tehran’s ongoing persecution of religious minorities, despite the oft-expressed global condemnation of such practices, including most recently the State Department’s designation of Iran as a “Country of Particular Concern” on such matters.

If, for the sake of argument, there was reason to believe Iran would take seriously any global consensus on passage through the Strait of Hormuz that would supposedly emerge from American ratification of LOST, the U.S. would still be paying far too high a price simply to codify what we already maintain is our right under customary international law. Under LOST, state parties have the ability to use any number of LOST provisions to undermine American sovereignty and security.

The text of LOST would prevent Navy vessels from engaging in the very activities necessary for a strong national defense, for example, by reserving the oceans for “peaceful purposes” and prohibiting submarines from traversing below the surface in territorial waters, and would require the U.S. to transfer knowledge of sensitive marine technology to requesting parties. Although some contend that we already adhere to some of the navigational practices found in LOST, either because we recognize them as customary international law or consider ourselves bound to such practices by previous (non-LOST) treaty commitments, this Treaty alters the framework entirely by requiring state parties to submit to mandatory dispute resolution mechanisms, the rulings of which are binding and without appeal.

While the Department of Defense has maintained that American military activities will be exempt from dispute resolution, and that in any event the U.S. will only submit to LOST arbitration panels where the DoD insists we will win handily, there is plenty of room for abuse. “Military activity”, while nominally exempt from any dispute resolution, remains undefined in the treaty, leaving opportunity for parties hostile to U.S. interests to frame our exercises or operations as “environmental” activities subject to arbitration. The recent ruling by a U.S. District Court judge that sonar training off of the West Coast was not a national security issue, but rather an environmental issue subject to the constraints of federal environmental statutes, illustrates the reality of this risk.

This danger would be magnified in a LOST arbitration panel. Under LOST, if the disputing parties cannot agree on the make-up of the panel, the fifth panelist must be chosen by either the President of the International Law of the Sea Tribunal, or the Secretary General of the United Nations, neither of whom could be relied upon to select a “swing” panelist that would not, acting out of ultimately political motives, tip the panel against the U.S.

Even without any subsequent Iranian ratification, countries that are already party to LOST– including China and Russia, with their increasingly aggressive territorial claims and military confrontations with the U.S. — could take advantage of the obligations buried in the treaty text to our detriment. Iran, were it to ratify LOST, would be no less inclined to wage such lawfare to accomplish what five Revolutionary Guard Corps speedboats could not.

The United States cannot afford to be seduced by those who overestimate Iran’s sense of global responsibility while underestimating its potential to use LOST as yet another asymmetrical weapon. American sovereignty, an unfettered Navy, and where applicable, customary international law, remain our best tools for ensuring stability in critical ocean pathways like the Strait of Hormuz.

This article first appeared in American Spectator, and can be viewed in its original form here.

Peru: two terms of Garcia

When Peru’s Alan Garcia was elected President for a second time in 2006, I was perplexed. How could this happen I kept asking myself. His first term in office between 1985 and 1990 was catastrophic. He was voted the worst President of Latin America. While visiting Peru in February 2008 I wanted to find out the reasons behind his 2006 victory and how his current regime is progressing.

 

Garcia’s first term in office

 

Let’s recap Alan García’s first term in office between 1985 and 1990 tofully understand the magnitude of the Peruvian transformation. At 36 years of age García became the youngest civilian president in Peru’s history. His first regime was marked by bouts of hyperinflation which reached 7,649% in 1990, profoundly destabilizing the Peruvian economy.

 

Due to such chronic inflation, the Peruvian currency, the sol, was replaced by the Inti in mid-1985, which itself was replaced by the nuevo sol (“new sun”), at which time the new sol had a cumulative value of one billion (1,000,000,000) old soles. By the end of his term in 1990, national reserves were a negative $900 million dollars. García also made an attempt to nationalize the banking and insurance industries. He incurred the wrath of the International Monetary Fund and the financial community by unilaterally declaring a limit on debt repayment equal to 10% of the Gross National Product, isolating Peru from international financial markets. According to studies of the National Institute of Statistics and Informatics and the United Nations Development Program1, around the start of his presidency, 41.6% of Peruvians lived in poverty. During his presidency, this percentage increased by 13% (to 55%) in 1991.

 

This economic turbulence exacerbated social tensions in Peru and contributed in part to the escalation in violence of the terrorist groups: Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso) and Movimiento Revolucionario Tupac Amaru (MRTA). These groups controlled about a third of the country and were responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, and army and police personnel.

 

The SL and MRTA began attacking electric towers, causing almost daily blackouts all over the country. The García administration sought a military solution to the growing problem, but was unsuccessful. The MRTA used kidnapping and extortion as well as drug trafficking to finance their activities. In addition, the country was being ravaged by corruption, by drug problems, and by terrorist warfare. Most universities were inaccessible since they were dominated by these violent groups.

 

In general, everyday life was harsh. There were food, water and electricity shortages, car bombs exploded almost daily, killing and severely injuring thousands of people as well as members of the military and police. Soon, the attacks were also felt in the capital city of Lima and people lived in constant fear. There were limits on the amount of food each family could buy, and supermarkets were meagerly stocked as prices changed by the hour. By the end of García’s presidency Peru was suffering from hyperinflation, was isolated from the international financial community, had negative reserves of US$900 million, and was dealing with continuous subversive activities by the Shining Path and MRTA. There was also a great increase in poverty levels. I remember these days clearly since my siblings and I were sent daily to various supermarkets to buy what we could find.

 

In 1992, García went into self- exile and lived in Colombia and later in France. The Fujimori regime re-opened charges against him for allegedly taking millions of dollars in bribes. He denied the charges, and in 2001 Peru’s Supreme Court ruled that the statute of limitations had run out. García decided to ran for president in the new elections called by the temporary president, Valentin Paniagua, but lost against Alejandro Toledo.  Why did Alan Garcia win the 2006 Presidential elections: the “Humala”/Chavez factor  García officially started his campaign for the April, 2006 presidential election on February 18, 2005. Voting for Alan Garcia was considered by over 40% of the voters as “voting for the lesser of two evils”. Many citizens had a very negative impression of García after his first presidency but were scared by rumors that Humala would create a government based on Fidel Castro’s Cuba and would turn Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, into the virtual ruler of Peru, due to his patronage and financial support of Humala’s party. Humala denied these accusations, but his conflicting statements about his government’s vision and Chavez’s strong campaigning for him created enough suspicions among voters to cost him the election. President Chavez openly declared his support for Humala, and referred to García as a “robber”, and a “bandit.” García, in response, stated that Chávez was “not acting as a statesman” and challenged Chávez to a public debate. García also brought this issue to the Organization of American States. In the end, the Venezuelan leader cost Humala the election and García was inaugurated as President of Peru on July 28, 2006.

With thirty-six seats, Garcia’s Party, APRA, has the second largest bloc in the 120-seat unicameral Congress which was sworn in a couple of days before the President. With forty-five seats, Humala’s “Union por el Peru” Party has the largest bloc, although it has been divided into three factions.2

García’s victory was praised by democratic nations. It prevented Hugo Chávez’s left-leaning “socialist revolution” from spreading throughout the continent.

What Alan Garcia inherited from previous governments

 

The Government of Peru under former President Alberto Fujimori took the necessary steps to bring the problems created by the Garcia regime under control. Democratic institutions, however, and especially the judiciary, remained weak. Between 1992 and 2001, Peru attracted almost $17 billion in foreign direct investment, after negligible investment during the 1980s, mainly from Spain (32.35%), the United States (17.51%), Switzerland (6.99%), Chile (6.63%), and Mexico (5.53%).3 

The Peruvian economy underwent considerable free market reforms since 1992, from legalizing parts of the informal sector to significant privatization in the mining, electricity and telecommunications industries. The economic stabilization and liberalization program lowered trade barriers, eliminated restrictions on capital flows, and opened the economy to foreign investment. Thanks to strong foreign investment and the cooperation between the Fujimori government and the IMF and World Bank, growth was strong from 1994 to 1997 and inflation was brought under control. Peru now has one of the most open investment regimes in the world.

 

Alejandro Toledo’s presidency (2001-2006) was characterized by extremely low approval ratings but high economic growth rates; 5.9% in 2005 and 8% in 2006 due to the policies of the Fujimori regime. Toledo was able to push through several reforms, including tax reform and a pending free trade agreement with the United States. Despite the economic improvements, Toledo’s presidency was plagued with allegations of corruption and frequent popular protests.  Garcia’s current term in office  

I was impressed by what I found during my recent visit to Peru. The Jorge Chavez Airport has been modernized and the security systems are impeccable. The roads are in extremely good condition and there is construction everywhere which shows the confidence many Peruvians and international corporations have in Peru. Consumption has grown tremendously and there are small businesses, elegant restaurants and new shopping malls full of people. Tourism has reached levels never seen before and hotels are fully booked throughout the year.

 

It is a pleasure to go south using the highways and the country overall seems more secure and organized. Big exporting farms and packing plants in the south have incorporated and employed people from surrounding communities and social programs are present everywhere. Entrepreneurs provide social services as hospitals and schools are built. Many previously marginalized groups are now active participants in this new found economic expansion. Police officers in modern cars are present throughout and big trucks full of merchandise come and go, showing the growing commercial capacity in the countryside.

 

To the surprise of many, Mr. Garcia recruited a respected and competent cabinet, including an economic team of technocrats which increased the confidence of national and international investors and financial communities. He has continued the orthodox economic and fiscal policies carried out by the previous two Peruvian governments. These policies have contributed, along with the international commodities boom to Peru’s growth rate of more than 8% annually; expanding reserves while containing inflation. Construction and retail opportunities are spreading from Lima to several regions. Peru’s export sector, particularly specialty vegetables and fruits, is growing at an impressive rate, as well as mining investments. Garcia has since avoided abrupt policy shifts and has retained the political initiative and defused opposition to his government. When strikes and protests occurred, Garcia has tried to turn these to his political advantage, asserting national authority against the retrograde ultra-left members of some Unions who are not widely popular.

 During the first few months of his administration, Garcia boosted his approval rating into the high sixties, mainly by demonstrating that he was a force for stability, unlike Humala, and also for austerity, unlike his predecessor, Alejandro Toledo, who was given to extravagant personal spending and outright frivolousness. Garcia also promised a major expansion of investment, greater decentralization of public expenditures, big infrastructure projects, a campaign against malnutrition and a crackdown on crime, including application of the death penalty for pedophiles. According to estimates from analysts as well as local and foreign banks, Peru will register the lowest inflation rate in Latin America during this year and 2009. The president of the Central Reserve Bank of Peru (BCR), Julio Velarde, pointed out that the inflation rate in Peru would be within a range from one to three percent over the second half of this year. In addition, Julio Velarde forecasted that Peru’s economy would increase 7% this year – stimulated by both the public and private sectors.4 The Peru-United States Free Trade Agreement (FTA), also known as the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA), was signed on April 12, 2006 by President George W. Bush, and won Congressional approval on December 4, 2007. This accord is already benefiting producers in both countries with greater market access and consumers with less expensive products. From a security standpoint, this ratification consolidates a partnership with the South American country which is critical in a region where free markets and U.S. influence is being attacked by populist and nationalist governments in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. The following data show the benefits of the trade agreement: U.S. imports from Peru will increase by $439 million, or 8% and U.S. exports to Peru will increase by $1.1 billion, or 25%. The largest value increases in U.S. exports will be in machinery and electrical equipment, chemicals, rubber, plastics, wheat, rice, pork, and poultry. Trade facilitation provisions, such as the definition of custom procedures, administration, and dispute, will lead to a more stable and reliable trading environment, further buttressing U.S.-Peru trade and investment. The protection of intellectual property in Peru, through new rules Peru commits to under the agreement, will be significantly improved.5 FTA, Security and Humala  After Chile and Colombia, Peru is an important democratic ally in South America’s Andean region. It trades nearly $6 billion in goods and services annually with the United States and cooperates in combating illegal drug trafficking but poverty still afflicts about half the population. Peru needs a more skilled workforce, a stronger rule of law, a reduction in burdensome regulations, and a commercial code that promotes entrepreneurship. Having FTA will help to advance these objectives.

 

So far, Alan Garcia has taken the correct steps and Peru is still a growing economy. In addition, some groups which previously didn’t have access to private property are now enjoying the benefits of having their own houses and small businesses. Some even say that Peru has already reached a point of no return and a socialist appeal will hardly find much support. But let’s keep in mind that Chavez’s ally, Ollanta Humala, remains a threat to democracy and a free market economy since he is still popular in some provinces due to his socialist and nationalistic rhetoric. Some people remain convinced that he continues to receive financial support from Chavez and that he is quietly campaigning in many provinces. This is of concern to many locals and regional leaders. In fact the recent violent clashes between some groups of farmers and the police are believed to have been promoted by Humala who has organized “The People’s Social Summit”, which is to take place from May 13 – 15, the dates on which world leaders will come to Lima for the European Union-Latin America and Caribbean (EU-LAC) Summit, and financed by Chavez since both do not want economic prosperity in Peru and want to destabilize the country for their socialist plan. Economic growth could block their nationalistic plans in the region and they are taking advantage of the Summit which Peru is hosting to halt progress and gain international publicity. Peru and Colombia now constitute a headache for Chavez’s socialist revolution as they are examples of functioning democracies, with strong economic growth.

 

In this regard, successful economic policies and the ratification of the FTA are providing incentives for Peru to become more competitive and less likely to succumb to authoritarianism and closed markets. For the United States and its allies in the region, this is critical. It is hoped that the Peruvian example will provide an incentive to many Democrats in Congress who are still refusing to ratify the FTA with Colombia and Panama. Trade is important but the region’s security must be a priority. Latin America is still at risk and the trade accord and the continuous funding of Plan Colombia will help placate those who want to destabilize the region.  

Nicole M. Ferrand is a research analyst and editor of “The Americas Report” of the Menges Hemispheric Security Project at the Center for Security Policy in Washington DC. (www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org). 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. Alan García reta a Chávez a polemizar por CNN, El Universal, 28 April 2006.  
  2. Alan García in Dispute with Hugo Chávez, University of British Columbia — Peru Elections 2006, April 28, 2006  
  3. Exit Poll Results: Alan Garcia in First Place University of British Columbia — Peru Elections 2006, June 4, 2006.
  4. Peru will register lowest inflation in Latin America in 2008 and 2009. 11 February, 2008. Living in Peru.
  5. Congress Should Advance U.S.-Peruvian Free Trade Ties. July 12, 2006. The Heritage Foundation.

 

NEWS

  • Ex-army agent says he was offered lighter sentence to incriminate Peru’s former leader. Farmers strike turns violent in Peru. Peru-Chile Border Tiff to The Hague. Peru trusts free trade deal with Korea will be established soon. Ollanta Humala organizes ‘Social Summit’ near EU-LAC summit dates.
  • Panama : Chávez accused of backing protests against Torrijos.
  • Castro’s resignation believed to undermine ALBA. Cubans must demand their rights, former prisoners say.
  • French FM to visit Bogotá, Caracas to address hostage issue.
  • Former hostage reports pact between FARC and Chávez.
  • Chávez and FARC Leader Marulanda met last week in Venezuela. Pdvsa’s tax contribution down 38.7 percent of gross income. Venezuela does not plan on halting oil exports to the United States. Venezuela to tackle economic unbalances.
  • Colombia – Canada soon to sign a Free Trade Agreement.
  • Brazil to buy weapons from France.
  • Argentina: Cristina Kirchner travels to London and will press Malvinas issue.
  • Attempt to kill Paraguayan president discovered.
  • Nicaragua: Ex-vice president warns of Ortega’s dictatorial intentions. Venezuela ships oil to Nicaragua.
  • Morales: Iran to start TV channel in Bolivia. Government to preserve unity against pro -independence proclamations.
  • Mexico and Cuba to boost trade ties.

View the full version of the Americas Report (PDF)

 

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

Garcia’s two terms

Back in office, Garcia leads a transformed Peruvian nation.

When Peru’s Alan Garcia was elected President for a second time in 2006, I was perplexed. How could this happen I kept asking myself. His first term in office between 1985 and 1990 was catastrophic. He was voted the worst President of Latin America. While visiting Peru in February 2008 I wanted to find out the reasons behind his 2006 victory and how his current regime is progressing.    

Let’s recap Alan García’s first term in office between 1985 and 1990 to fully understand the magnitude of the Peruvian transformation. At 36 years of age García became the youngest civilian president in Peru’s history.  His first regime was marked by bouts of hyperinflation which reached 7,649% in 1990, profoundly destabilizing the Peruvian economy.

[More]Due to such chronic inflation, the Peruvian currency, the sol, was replaced by the Inti in mid-1985, which itself was replaced by the nuevo sol ("new sun"), at which time the new sol had a cumulative value of one billion (1,000,000,000) old soles. By the end of his term in 1990, national reserves were a negative $900 million dollars. García also made an attempt to nationalize the banking and insurance industries. He incurred the wrath of the International Monetary Fund and the financial community by unilaterally declaring a limit on debt repayment equal to 10% of the Gross National Product, isolating Peru from international financial markets. According to studies of the National Institute of Statistics and Informatics and the United Nations Development Program [1], around the start of his presidency, 41.6% of Peruvians lived in poverty. During his presidency, this percentage increased by 13% (to 55%) in 1991.

This economic turbulence exacerbated social tensions in Peru and contributed in part to the escalation in violence of the terrorist groups: Shining Path ( Sendero Luminoso) and Movimiento Revolucionario Tupac Amaru (MRTA) . These groups controlled about a third of the country and were responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, and army and police personnel. (Read "The Americas Report" from October 11 and 18 – Fujimori: the other side of the story – Part I and Part II by Nicole M. Ferrand).

The SL and MRTA began attacking electric towers, causing almost daily blackouts all over the country. The García administration sought a military solution to the growing problem, but was unsuccessful. The MRTA used kidnapping and extortion as well as drug trafficking to finance their activities. In addition, the country was being ravaged by corruption, by drug problems, and by terrorist warfare. Most universities were inaccessible since they were dominated by these violent groups.

In general, everyday life was harsh. There were food, water and electricity shortages, car bombs exploded almost daily, killing and severely injuring thousands of people as well as members of the military and police. Soon, the attacks were also felt in the capital city of Lima and people lived in constant fear. There were limits on the amount of food each family could buy, and supermarkets were meagerly stocked as prices changed by the hour.   By the end of García’s presidency Peru was suffering from hyperinflation, was isolated from the international financial community, had negative reserves of US$900 million, and was dealing with continuous subversive activities by the Shining Path and MRTA. There was also a great increase in poverty levels. I remember these days clearly since my siblings and I were sent daily to various supermarkets to buy what we could find.

In 1992, García went into self- exile and lived in Colombia and later in France. The Fujimori regime re-opened charges against him for allegedly taking millions of dollars in bribes. He denied the charges, and in 2001 Peru’s Supreme Court ruled that the statute of limitations had run out. García decided to ran for president in the new elections called by the temporary president, Valentin Paniagua, but lost against Alejandro Toledo.

Why did Alan Garcia win the 2006 Presidential elections: the "Humala"/Chavez factor

García officially started his campaign for the April, 2006 presidential election on February 18, 2005. Voting for Alan Garcia was considered by over 40% of the voters as "voting for the lesser of two evils". Many citizens had a very negative impression of García after his first presidency but were scared by rumors that Humala would create a government based on Fidel Castro’s Cuba and would turn Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, into the virtual ruler of Peru, due to his patronage and financial support of Humala’s party. Humala denied these accusations, but his conflicting statements about his government’s vision and Chavez’s strong campaigning for him created enough suspicions among voters to cost him the election. President Chavez openly declared his support for Humala, and referred to García as a "robber", and a "bandit." García, in response, stated that Chávez was "not acting as a statesman" and challenged Chávez to a public debate. García also brought this issue to the Organization of American States. In the end, the Venezuelan leader cost Humala the election and García was inaugurated as President of Peru on July 28, 2006.

With thirty-six seats, Garcia’s Party, APRA, has the second largest bloc in the 120-seat unicameral Congress which was sworn in a couple of days before the President. With forty-five seats, Humala’s "Union por el Peru" Party has the largest bloc, although it has been divided into three factions. [2]

García’s victory was praised by democratic nations. It prevented Hugo Chávez’s left-leaning "socialist revolution" from spreading throughout the continent.

What Alan Garcia inherited from previous governments

 

The Government of Peru under former President Alberto Fujimori took the necessary steps to bring the problems created by the Garcia regime under control. Democratic institutions, however, and especially the judiciary, remained weak. Between 1992 and 2001, Peru attracted almost $17 billion in foreign direct investment, after negligible investment during the 1980s, mainly from Spain (32.35%), the United States (17.51%), Switzerland (6.99%), Chile (6.63%), and Mexico (5.53%). [3]

 

The Peruvian economy underwent considerable free market reforms since 1992, from legalizing parts of the informal sector to significant privatization in the mining, electricity and telecommunications industries. The economic stabilization and liberalization program lowered trade barriers, eliminated restrictions on capital flows, and opened the economy to foreign investment. Thanks to strong foreign investment and the cooperation between the Fujimori government and the IMF and World Bank, growth was strong from 1994 to 1997 and inflation was brought under control. Peru now has one of the most open investment regimes in the world.

Alejandro Toledo’s presidency (2001-2006) was characterized by extremely low approval ratings but high economic growth rates; 5.9% in 2005 and 8% in 2006 due to the policies of the Fujimori regime. Toledo was able to push through several reforms, including tax reform and a pending free trade agreement with the United States. Despite the economic improvements, Toledo’s presidency was plagued with allegations of corruption and frequent popular protests.

Garcia’s current term in office

I was impressed by what I found during my recent visit to Peru. The Jorge Chavez Airport has been modernized and the security systems are impeccable. The roads are in extremely good condition and there is construction everywhere which shows the confidence many Peruvians and international corporations have in Peru. Consumption has grown tremendously and there are small businesses, elegant restaurants and new shopping malls full of people. Tourism has reached levels never seen before and hotels are fully booked throughout the year.

It is a pleasure to go south using the highways and the country overall seems more secure and organized. Big exporting farms and packing plants in the south have incorporated and employed people from surrounding communities and social programs are present everywhere. Entrepreneurs provide social services as hospitals and schools are built. Many previously marginalized groups are now active participants in this new found economic expansion. Police officers in modern cars are present throughout and big trucks full of merchandise come and go, showing the growing commercial capacity in the countryside.

To the surprise of many, Mr. Garcia recruited a respected and competent cabinet, including an economic team of technocrats which increased the confidence of national and international investors and financial communities. He has continued the orthodox economic and fiscal policies carried out by the previous two Peruvian governments. These policies have contributed, along with the international commodities boom to Peru’s growth rate of more than 8% annually; expanding reserves while containing inflation. Construction and retail opportunities are spreading from Lima to several regions. Peru’s export sector, particularly specialty vegetables and fruits, is growing at an impressive rate, as well as mining investments. Garcia has since avoided abrupt policy shifts and has retained the political initiative and defused opposition to his government. When strikes and protests occurred, Garcia has tried to turn these to his political advantage, asserting national authority against the retrograde ultra-left members of some Unions who are not widely popular.

During the first few months of his administration, Garcia boosted his approval rating into the high sixties, mainly by demonstrating that he was a force for stability, unlike Humala, and also for austerity, unlike his predecessor, Alejandro Toledo, who was given to extravagant personal spending and outright frivolousness. Garcia also promised a major expansion of investment, greater decentralization of public expenditures, big infrastructure projects, a campaign against malnutrition and a crackdown on crime, including application of the death penalty for pedophiles.

According to estimates from analysts as well as local and foreign banks, Peru will register the lowest inflation rate in Latin America during this year and 2009. The president of the Central Reserve Bank of Peru (BCR), Julio Velarde, pointed out that the inflation rate in Peru would be within a range from one to three percent over the second half of this year. In addition, Julio Velarde forecasted that Peru’s economy would increase 7% this year – stimulated by both the public and private sectors. [4]

The Peru-United States Free Trade Agreement (FTA), also known as the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA), was signed on April 12, 2006 by President George W. Bush , and won Congressional approval on December 4, 2007. This accord is already benefiting producers in both countries with greater market access and consumers with less expensive products. From a security standpoint, this ratification consolidates a partnership with the South American country which is critical in a region where free markets and U.S. influence is being attacked by populist and nationalist governments in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.

The following data show the benefits of the trade agreement: U.S. imports from Peru will increase by $439 million, or 8% and U.S. exports to Peru will increase by $1.1 billion, or 25%. The largest value increases in U.S. exports will be in machinery and electrical equipment, chemicals, rubber, plastics, wheat, rice, pork, and poultry. Trade facilitation provisions, such as the definition of custom procedures, administration, and dispute, will lead to a more stable and reliable trading environment, further buttressing U.S.-Peru trade and investment. The protection of intellectual property in Peru, through new rules Peru commits to under the agreement, will be significantly improved. [5]

FTA, Security and Humala

After Chile and Colombia, Peru is an important democratic ally in South America’s Andean region. It trades nearly $6 billion in goods and services annually with the United States and cooperates in combating illegal drug trafficking but poverty still afflicts about half the population. Peru needs a more skilled workforce, a stronger rule of law, a reduction in burdensome regulations, and a commercial code that promotes entrepreneurship. Having FTA will help to advance these objectives.

So far, Alan Garcia has taken the correct steps and Peru is still a growing economy. In addition, some groups which previously didn’t have access to private property are now enjoying the benefits of having their own houses and small businesses. Some even say that Peru has already reached a point of no return and a socialist appeal will hardly find much support. But let’s keep in mind that Chavez’s ally, Ollanta Humala, remains a threat to democracy and a free market economy since he is still popular in some provinces due to his socialist and nationalistic rhetoric. Some people remain convinced that he continues to receive financial support from Chavez and that he is quietly campaigning in many provinces. This is of concern to many locals and regional leaders. In fact the recent violent clashes between some groups of farmers and the police are believed to have been promoted by Humala who has organized "The People’s Social Summit", which is to take place from May 13 – 15, the dates on which world leaders will come to Lima for the European Union-Latin America and Caribbean (EU-LAC) Summit, and financed by Chavez since both do not want economic prosperity in Peru and want to destabilize the country for their socialist plan. Economic growth could block their nationalistic plans in the region and they are taking advantage of the Summit which Peru is hosting to halt progress and gain international publicity. Peru and Colombia now constitute a headache for Chavez’s socialist revolution as they are examples of functioning democracies, with strong economic growth.

In this regard, successful economic policies and the ratification of the FTA are providing incentives for Peru to become more competitive and less likely to succumb to authoritarianism and closed markets. For the United States and its allies in the region, this is critical. It is hoped that the Peruvian example will provide an incentive to many Democrats in Congress who are still refusing to ratify the FTA with Colombia and Panama. Trade is important but the region’s security must be a priority. Latin America is still at risk and the trade accord and the continuous funding of Plan Colombia will help placate those who want to destabilize the region.

[1] Alan García reta a Chávez a polemizar por CNN, El Universal , 28 April 2006 .

[2] Alan García in Dispute with Hugo Chávez, University of British Columbia — Peru Elections 2006, April 28, 2006

[3] Exit Poll Results: Alan Garcia in First Place University of British Columbia — Peru Elections 2006, June 4, 2006.

[4] Peru will register lowest inflation in Latin America in 2008 and 2009. 11 February, 2008. Living in Peru.

[5] Congress Should Advance U.S.-Peruvian Free Trade Ties. July 12, 2006. The Heritage Foundation.

Not on our dime

The Durban Conference: stoking hatred, in the name of "ending racism."

Few spectacles more clearly demonstrated what is wrong with the United Nations than the UN World Conference Against Racism held in Durban, South Africa in September 2001. Thanks to the domination of that conclave by a substantial majority led by the most despotic – and racist – regimes on the planet, "Durban" became synonymous with unbridled vilification of the United States and Israel.  Even the most pro-UN Secretary of State in memory, Colin Powell, was so infuriated by the proceeding that he felt constrained to walk out.

Ironically, the insights Durban provided into the extraordinary mutation of the United Nations – from an instrument the United States was indispensable to creating after World War II in the hope of preventing future conflicts into what amounts to the diplomatic equivalent of mob-rule in the hands of America’s enemies – were obscured by what happened within days of the conference’s conclusion: the September 11 attacks. Ironic because, as the most indefatigable journalistic observer of the UN, Claudia Rosett, has observed, those "hijackings [were] driven by the same kind of hate stoked at the Durban conference."

[More]It may well be that, because of our preoccupation with al Qaeda’s acting out the Durban agenda, we failed to respond properly as a nation to this 2001 orgy of anti-Western hate-mongering and racism.  There is no excuse, however, for what is about to happen:  American taxpayers are poised to be charged for the preparation of a follow-on conference that promises, if anything, to be even worse than what is now known as Durban I.

As Ms. Rosett and the Hudson Institute’s indispensable Anne Bayefsky have warned, the UN is now launching "Durban II," a conference to be held in 2009 for the purpose of reviewing "implementation of the Durban Declaration and Program of Action."  Given that these products of the first conference were so defective, one might think a review conference could be justified, provided it had any prospect of rectifying their myriad shortcomings.

Unfortunately, in the farce the United Nations has become, the job of preparing to review the Durban I conference is being entrusted to none other than Muammar Qaddafi’s despotic and Islamofascism-supporting regime. Worse yet, the Libyans are being helped in their work by other preposterous members of the UN’s Human Rights Council, including Pakistan, Cuba and Russia, and by non-Council member Iran.

(You might be confused by all this if you thought one of the "reforms" the United States wrested a few years back from the would-be "world government" on Turtle Bay was a panel on human rights that actually respected and strengthened them.  If so, see John Bolton’s excellent – albeit dispiriting – account in his just-released memoirs, Surrender is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad.  Amb. Bolton lays bare how the State Department, Europeans and others hostile to U.S. interests begat a new council essentially indistinguishable from its appallingly bad predecessor.)

In the UN’s inimitable fashion, there are now no fewer than five organs charged with advancing the Durban agenda. In addition to Qaddafi’s preparatory commission, these are: the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Program of Action; the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent; Five Independent Eminent Experts (I am not making this up) to Follow-up the Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Program of Action; and the Ad Hoc Committee of the Human Rights Council on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards.

Even the European Union has begun to balk at this absurd exercise, joining the United States and Israel in a recent vote on a resolution on Durban II promoted by the so-called African Group.  As is generally the case in the UN, though, the U.S. and its friends were simply outvoted by those more-or-less-explicitly hostile to freedom.

Two things are clear:  First, as is also generally true of all things related to the United Nations, the costs associated with the countless meetings, meals, perks and logistical requirements of these five, self-important entities and eminent experts are exorbitant.  The UN Secretary General’s office came up with an initial (and probably conservative) estimate of $7.2 million.

Insult will be added to injury however if oil-rich Durban II promoters like Iran, Libya and Russia and their allies are able to make you pay for the platform with which they intend to revile and hector America and Israel. All other things being equal, they stand to do so if they can get the tab picked up by the UN’s regular budget – of which this country underwrites nearly a quarter.

Second, Durban II’s architects have in mind making us pay even more dearly in another coin. As Rebecca Tobin put it in a December 8th posting on EyeOnTheUN.org: They seek to "create ‘new normative standards aimed at combating all forms of contemporary racism, including incitement to racial and religious hatred’ – in other words to turn the alleged defamation of Islam into a global witch-hunt in the name of human rights."

Will the Bush Administration and Congress allow a new Durban goat-rope to occur at our expense – literally on our dime and to the detriment of our moral standing, security and other interests? Now is the time to say "No" – No to conclaves that empower and embolden Islamofascists and other racists, and No to any underwriting of them by American taxpayers.

Happy birthday, UN

Proponents of the United Nation’s Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) came up with a brilliant idea. Led by the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, they hoped to celebrate Oct. 24 — also known as U.N. Day — by having that panel rubber-stamp LOST.

Fortunately, one of the Senate’s most knowledgeable and determined opponents of the Treaty, Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, exercised his right to defer its consideration, from the committee business meeting scheduled for Wednesday to at least the next one. Whether this will amount to more than a fleeting stay-of-execution depends on how many other senators — and their constituents — become aware of the implications of making the day in this manner of the United Nations and affiliated organizations.

[More]Mr. Vitter is certainly doing his part. He has asked for additional hearings before the Foreign Relations Committee, offering an opportunity for more witnesses to explain LOST’s myriad shortcomings. He has also provided a powerful briefing to many of his colleagues, prompting others to take up the cause.

Another leading critic of the Treaty, Sen. Jim Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, has asked for hearings before two committees on which he serves. Both the Armed Services and Environment and Public Works Committees would have their respective jurisdictions dramatically affected by LOST and the implementing legislation sure to follow from its ratification.

The same should certainly be occurring in at least six other committees. For example, the Finance Committee surely has an interest in the repercussions of LOST-established precedents for international taxation. The Judiciary Committee should consider how this accord will further the practice of subordinating domestic law to international jurisprudence.

The Intelligence Committee — whose Democratic Chairman Jay Rockefeller generally treats with extreme skepticism what Bush administration officials tell him — should obtain a "second opinion" on the latters’ assurances that U.S. intelligence will not be impaired by LOST.

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs would have a two-fer, due (1) to the fact LOST may require, among other things, the compromise of sensitive information about domestic industries in the name of environmental regulation, and (2) the growing allegations of corruption and incompetence in LOST’s utterly unaccountable International Seabed Authority.

The Energy and Natural Resources Committee should want to ascertain whether any American company is going to be willing to explore the ocean floors’ resources if, as the price of doing so, they have to give sensitive data and technology to international competitors. The Commerce Committee should have its own concerns about the prospective compromise of U.S. technologies and the Treaty’s other detrimental effects on our competitiveness (such as its socialist, redistributionist agenda, its imposition of the Luddite "precautionary principle" — which precludes innovation unless it can be proven harmless — and its adoption of European, rather than U.S., industrial standards).

What is certain is, if these committees fail to perform due diligence on the Law of the Sea Treaty, the United States could well soon find itself creating — and confronting — a United Nations on steroids.

LOST proponents tend to scoff at such a prospect. They point to the relatively small size of the Kingston, Jamaica-based international bureaucracy that has operated the International Seabed Authority in obscurity over the last 25 years. This is a deflection, as misleading as it is deliberate.

The truth is that the U.N. and its admirers are so keen on U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Treaty precisely because it will transform that so-called "constitution of the seas" into an actual charter for a new supranational order. As with the United Nations, American membership will infuse millions of dollars into LOST agencies’ budgets, as we pick up a quarter of the tab. Worse, the United States will lend legitimacy and real power to the Treaty’s mandatory dispute resolution mechanisms by subjecting itself, its businesses and taxpayers to their jurisdiction.

We are on notice, moreover, that — once these U.N.-affiliated arbitral panels come to exercise authority over our affairs — the international plaintiffs bar will exploit these vehicles as mechanisms for doing just that. Some have indicated they intend to use LOST to impose the Kyoto Protocol. Others clearly envision suing the U.S. Navy to force it to conform to vast new environmental and other obligations under the Treaty. Still others have not specified their targets, instead urging restraint in filing such suits until the U.S. becomes a party, lest our ratification be jeopardized by prematurely revealing the true costs of this treaty.

It would be one thing if Americans were brought into the decision to make the U.N.’s day by subordinating our constitutional, representative form of government and our sovereignty to the dictates of international bureaucrats and the generally hostile nations who typically call their tune. Instead, the Senate’s Democratic leadership seems determined to secure LOST’s ratification by running silent, running deep — preventing needed hearings, silencing the critics and otherwise suppressing debate.

So far, among major presidential candidates, only the GOP’s former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has aligned himself squarely with Ronald Reagan in opposing the Law of the Sea Treaty. Unless the other candidates promptly join him, they will share responsibility for, and have to live with, the consequences of a U.N. on steroids.