Tag Archives: United Nations

Latin American leaders at the UN

During Evo Morales’ and Daniel Ortega’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly, we witnessed and confirmed something that we at "The America’s Report" denounced a long time ago: the expansion of the alliance between Chávez and his supporters in Latin America with the Islamic Republic of Iran. An overview.

NEWS:

  • Value of the U.S. Dollar has reached an all time low in Peru.
  • US: success in cutting flow of cocaine from Mexico.
  • Brazil ‘s Real Falls on Speculation Central Bank May Limit Rally.
  • Guatemala : Pérez Molina Could Win Run-Off.
  • CAFTA Ratification Race Tight in Costa Rica.
  • Chile : Bachelet’s approval rating falls.
  • Pentagon Chief on Latin America Security Mission. US Defense Secretary: Chávez is a threat for Venezuela. Venezuela Offers Collaboration to Peruvian Firms.
  • Chavez Threatens to imprison university and school Principals. Venezuela to House Bank of the South.
  • Argentina : Cristina Kirchner accused of malfeasance of public funds. Argentina: Sempra Energy gets $172M settlement.
  • Colombia : FARC for New Government.
  • Bolivia : Paranoid Morales suggests move U.N. Headquarters from US.  

Editor’s note: "Ecuador’s National Assembly: Correa set to Follow Chávez’s Path"

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: mengesproject@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.

Latin American leaders at the UN

 

This past week we witnessed and confirmed something that we at "The America’s Report" denounced a long time ago: the expansion of the alliance between Chávez and his supporters in Latin America with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Whether in the past it was clear that the Bolivian president, Evo Morales, was following the Chavista blueprint in domestic politics by initiating a constitutional assembly and by promoting a revolutionary socialist regime, it was not at all clear as to what kind of foreign policy he would pursue. By the same token, Nicaraguan President, Daniel Ortega, who ran in the elections stating that he is "a changed man", was expected to follow a rather pragmatist foreign policy. This week these two leaders of small and impoverished nations clearly sided with Chávez’s foreign policy by openly supporting Iran and by making statements of hostility against US world leadership.

Indeed, during his speech at the United Nations General Assembly, President Morales criticized the concept of globalization as well as what he calls a "US policy of discrimination against indigenous rights in Latin America". Morales criticized US "policies of military and economic intervention" referring to the US intervention in the region in the fifties, sixties and seventies and in reference to the "Washington Consensus" that promoted neo-liberal policies in Latin America in the 1990’s. Literally following Chavez’ clichés pretty much like a parrot, Morales blasted the development of ethanol in Latin America promoted by the US and Brazil because; "it steals from the land food products to make automobiles run". Curiously enough, this statement reflects word-by-word Chavez’ emotional reaction to the US-Brazilian agreement last March for cooperation in the development of ethanol.   Last year Morales also nationalized the production of natural gas in Bolivia one day after a meeting he held with Hugo Chávez. All of the above confirms Morales’ undignified status as a "Chavez stooge".

Of course, the Morales performance did not end in mere rhetoric. A few days later in La Paz he hosted the embattled Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Together they signed an alliance of cooperation that had, on the one hand a symbolic component and on the other hand a very real one. Morales backed Ahmadinejad’s nuclear program joining Venezuela, Libya, and Cuba and moved to establish diplomatic relations with Teheran. This makes Bolivia into a de-facto international ally of Iran, joining countries considered to be rogue states. As such Bolivia runs the risk of isolation.

Bolivia and Iran signed an agreement on energy and industrial cooperation, which involved funding of $1.1 billion. According to this agreement both countries will cooperate in the areas of energy exploitation and exploration and in joint ventures involving petrochemical and hydroelectric development as well as hydrocarbons, mining, agriculture, infrastructure, science and technology.

The leader of Bolivia’s opposition, Jorge Quiroga, rightly criticized Morales stating that the Bolivian leader is following Chávez dictates. There is no question that the symbolic value of this alliance is more important because most likely Morales will become an instrument not only in the hands of Chávez but also in the hands of Ahmadinejad who is struggling to develop his nuclear program and to break his increasing international isolation.

The question is: what benefits Bolivia can extract from a technological cooperation with Iran? According to experts living and working in Iran, the state of technology and technological innovation in Teheran is precarious as it depends on international relations that are currently much deteriorated. Moreover, brain power has emigrated from the Middle Eastern country and state intervention in all areas has undermined an effective development of civilian technologies. This does not mean that Iran will not be able to complete a nuclear program, but civilian technologies including those where Bolivia seeks assistance are highly undeveloped except perhaps in the area of mining. Iran is definitely a semi-developed country (it was defined as such by the UN) despite the noise caused by its nuclear program. Most of its GDP is coming from petroleum, which constitutes 80% of its exports and almost half of its population is employed in the service sector.   Further sanctions against Iran are likely to worsen this situation.

Yet, according to some reports, Ahamdinejad is believed to be interested in mining because he is seeking Bolivian uranium to continue developing his nuclear program. This can place Bolivia in a very dangerous situation that this tiny and disadvantaged nation that is still struggling to get access to the sea may not be able to afford in the long run.  

In other words, Bolivia needs to engage in good relations with as many countries as possible and Morales’ actions are not helping this endeavor.  Morales’ goal of improving the situation of indigenous people in his country might be hard to achieve.  Moreover, his current actions will not only lead to losing status in the United States but also in the developed world, particularly Europe which is siding more and more with Washington, as is demonstrated in the new pro-American foreign policies of French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, and German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. International concern with terrorism does not make things any better for Bolivia.  Indeed, Morales’ alliance with Chávez and Ahmadinejad generates great concern in the US and among Latin American democracies but Bolivia will be the first to pay the price.

Nicaraguan President, Daniel Ortega, used the stage in the UN General Assembly to launch an attack against "imperialist global capitalism". He also called the US "the worst tyranny in the world". Ortega went a step further, blaming natural disasters and hurricanes like Hurricane Felix that recently devastated Nicaragua, as the result of "aggression against mother nature carried by the greediness of imperial capitalism". He stated that regardless of who is the President of the United States (be it Democrat or Republican) he/she would always be mere "instruments of the empire". "Empires, he added have a "short life in history" and sooner or later they will collapse." The US is more oppressive and violent today than ever, Ortega pointed out. Then he proceeded to reinforce a third world discourse by pointing out that the world is dominated by a minority of dictators that try to impose an economic order, subjugate African and indigenous peoples and expropriate land that "does not belong to them". Ortega blasted European immigrants to America for taking away property from the natives as well as for imposing their own foreign culture. This is why the West is the worst dictatorship on earth. Then, he moved to defend Iran’s nuclear program, which Ortega not only supports on the grounds of "being used for peaceful purposes" but also stated that he sees nothing wrong even if Iran wants to have a nuclear program for military purposes. Ortega went on to ask "What is the right of the only country that launched an atomic bomb on the innocent populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to demand from another country to abstain from developing nuclear technology?"

These words put Ortega not only at odds with the interests of his own nation but also portrayed him as being as unreliable as he was in the past. The man who declared during the elections that he is not the same that he was 20 years ago and who was defeated in three prior democratic elections has come back as a radical associated with Chávez and Ahmadinejad. Hurricane "Felix" showed how much the country needs international help and neither Chávez nor Ahmadinejad can help Nicaragua face this difficult situation. Such an impoverished country is now associating with two isolated countries whose promise of financial or other type of aid may not have a long-term effect. Indeed, the Nicaraguan daily "El Nuevo Diario" conducted a poll via Internet asking people if they agreed or not with Ortega’s speech. The poll indicated that 78% of the population opposed it. By the same token, 50 out of 92 members of Nicaragua’s National Assembly rejected it as well. This body also blasted Ortega for not raising awareness of those affected by "Hurricane Felix" and instead, promoting nuclear proliferation. The statement by the representatives of the national assembly also states (contrary to Daniel Ortega) that Nicaragua is interested in good relations with all the countries in the world and that they are grateful to those countries that have provided assistance.

Of course the declaration by the national assembly (which was blocked by the Sandinista legislators) speaks volumes for the value of these Latin American democracies. Evo Morales also confronts domestic criticism as his projects for constitutional reform continue to stagnate and raise animosity. As Morales was flirting with Ahmadinejad and being politically nursed by his fatherly mentor, Hugo Chávez, workers and indigenous representatives asked to dissolve the Bolivian constituent assembly accusing Morales’ party, MAS, of promoting violence and unnecessary dissent among Bolivians. These new "petty dictators" in Nicaragua and Bolivia reflect Chávez’ views but by no means the people’s will. This is why these two leaders along with the Venezuelan President and an embattled Rafael Correa in Ecuador, who this Sunday will see a vote on the constitutional assembly, are trying to shut down the voice of the people.   

The episodes of last week should reaffirm the principle, which the US and most Latin American countries have almost unanimously subscribed to in the last two decades:  it is only democracy that will counterbalance the power of fraudulent, authoritarian dictators. This is why the Organization of American States (OAS) with the help of the United States must make sure that democracy is not suppressed. Otherwise, it is an open gate for vicious elements such as Chávez and Ahmadinejad.

The OAS has done a very poor job in denouncing Chávez’ excesses and in protecting and monitoring democracy. On the other hand, the OAS has been very skilful in remaining attached to the principle of "not rocking the boat". They will pay a high price for this negligence.   As for the US, this is the time to become more active, leave the comfortable desks of Washington, DC and get to know and work with these heroic opposition forces operating in each of these countries and try to understand the realities of each country further.

 

The UN’s big power grab

If Americans have learned anything about the United Nations over the past fifty years, it is that that "world body" is, at best, riddled with corruption and incompetence.  At worst, its bureaucracy, agencies and membership are overwhelmingly hostile to the United States and other freedom-loving nations, most especially Israel.

So why on earth would the United States Senate possibly consider putting the UN on steroids by assenting to its control of seven-tenths of the world’s surface?  

Such a step would seem especially improbable given such well-documented fiascoes as: the UN-administered Iraq Oil-for-Food program; investigations and cover-ups concerning corrupt practices at the organization’s highest levels; child sex-slave operations and rape squads run by UN peacekeepers; and the absurd, yet relentless, assault on alleged Israeli abuses of human rights by majorities led by despotic regimes in Iran, Cuba, Syria and Libya. 

The UN: From Laughing-stock to World Government

Nonetheless, the predictable effect of U.S. accession to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea – better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (or LOST) – would be to transform the United Nations from a nuisance and laughing-stock into a world government: The United States would confer upon a UN agency called the International Seabed Authority (ISA) the right to dictate what is done on, in and under the world’s oceans.  By so doing, America would become party to the surrender of the immense resources of the seas and what lies beneath them to the dictates of unaccountable, non-transparent multinational organizations, tribunals and bureaucrats.

LOST’s most determined proponents have always been the one-worlders – members of the World Federalists Association (now dubbed Citizens for Global Solutions) and like-minded advocates of supranational government.  They have made no secret of their ambition to use the Law of the Sea Treaty as a kind of "constitution of the oceans" and prototype for what they want to do on land, as well. 

Specifically, the transnationalists (or Transies) understand that LOST would set a precedent for diminishing, and ultimately eliminating, sovereign nations.  It would establish the superiority of international mechanisms for managing not just "the common heritage of mankind," but everything that could affect it.

Eroding Sovereignty through Global Environmental Regulations, Taxes 

In the case of LOST, such a supranational arrangement is particularly enabled by the Treaty’s sweeping environmental obligations.  States parties promise to "protect and preserve the marine environment."  Since what goes on ashore – from air pollution to run-off that makes its way into a given nation’s internal waters – can ultimately have an impact upon the oceans, however, the UN’s big power grab would also allow it to exercise authority over land-based actions of heretofore sovereign nations.

Unfortunately, the Senate has been misled on this point by the Bush Administration .  Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte claimed in testimony before the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee last Thursday that the Treaty has "no jurisdiction over marine pollution disputes involving land-based sources." He insisted, "That’s just not covered by the treaty." Worse yet, State Department Legal Adviser John Bellinger, said, "[LOST] clearly does not allow regulation over land-based pollution sources. That would stop at the water’s edge."

Thank goodness for Senator David Vitter of Louisiana who caustically observed, if that were true, "Why is there a [LOST] section entitled ‘Pollution from Land-Based sources’?" He went on to note that there is not only a section by that name, but a subsequent section on enforcement concerning such pollution.

Few Senators have more immediate reason to worry about LOST’s dire implications for our sovereignty than Sen. Vitter and his Democratic colleague, Mary Landrieu.  After all, it is inconceivable that the crown jewel of their state, New Orleans, would be in business today – even in its diminished, post-Katrina condition – had the United States been subject to this Treaty when that devastating hurricane hit Louisiana and Mississippi.

Enforcement of the unprecedented commitment not to pollute the marine environment can be compelled via LOST’s mandatory dispute resolution mechanisms. In particular, the UN’s Law of the Sea Tribunal is empowered to "prescribe any provisional measures" in order "to prevent serious harm to the marine environment." States parties are required to "comply promptly with any [such] provisional measures."  

Surely, the sovereign act taken in an emergency situation – which dumped into the Gulf of Mexico vast quantities of toxic waste that had accumulated in Lake Pontchartrain after Katrina – would have been enjoined in this manner.  Does any Senator want to assure such interference in our internal affairs in the future?

Scarcely more appetizing is LOST’s empowering of a UN agency to impose what amount to international taxes.  To provide such an entity with a self-financing mechanism and the authority to distribute the ocean’s wealth in ways that suit the majority of its members and its international bureaucracy is a formula for unaccountability and corruption on an unprecedented scale.

To date, the full malevolent potential of the Law of the Sea Treaty has been more in prospect than in evidence.  Should the United States accede to LOST, however, it is predictable that the Treaty’s agencies will: wield their powers in ways that will prove very harmful to American interests; intensify the web of sovereignty-sapping obligations and regulations being promulgated by this and other UN entities; and advance inexorably the emergence of supranational world government.

The Bottom Line

Twenty-five years ago, President Ronald Reagan declined to submit our sovereignty to the United Nations and rejected the Law of the Sea Treaty.  If anything, there are even more compelling reasons today to prevent the UN’s big power grab.

Converging Interests and Shared Values: The U.S.-Japan Bilateral Alliance Enters the 21 st Century

 By Eric Sayers

Mr. Sayers is a graduate student in political science at the University of Western Ontario, and is an editorial assistant at the Center for Security Policy.

 

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, leaders in Washington and Tokyo questioned the continued viability of the US-Japan alliance. Washington’s desire to benefit from the newfound “peace dividend” led many in Tokyo to fear that the United States would discontinue its security commitments to Japan. Further complicating the alliance was Tokyo’s decision to assist only financially in the Gulf War and to deny Washington intelligence and logistical support during the 1993-94 North Korean nuclear crisis.  However, a series of events in the mid-1990s, including the growing strength of China and the continued belligerence of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK), forced Japan to rethink the direction of its foreign policy and its relationship with the United States. Although formal steps to strengthen the alliance were initially slow, the events of September 11th , and the subsequent Japanese response, helped prove to both states that a strengthened alliance was in their mutual interest.  In analyzing the relationship between the US and Japan, this paper will attempt to demonstrate how a convergence of interests since the mid-1990s in relation to the threat from rogue states and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and the rise of China have forced the two nations to reformulate their strategic relationship into a more “normal” alliance that can effectively cope with the challenges of the 21st century.

In order to analyze the reasons for the reemergence of the bilateral alliance, as well as the steps being taken to ensure its success, this essay will be divided into four sections. The first section will briefly outline the strains on the relationship following the end of the Cold War. The second section will focus on the security issues that helped drive Japan back towards the United States. These include the concern over China’s growing military build-up, which culminated with the Taiwan-strait crisis of 1996, as well as the threat posed by North Korea, specifically its test of a Taepodong 1 missile in 1998. The third section will look at the reemergence of the relationship after September 11th. The final section will discuss the challenges and opportunities both countries face as they work to reformulate the alliance for the 21st century. This section will also outline the work of the US-Japan Security Consultative Committee (SCC) during the past five years, in its efforts to shift the alliance from the traditional “shield and spear” concept, to a more balanced and integrated strategic relationship that will allow both states to ensure “a balance of power that favors freedom,” both globally and regionally.

A Strained Alliance

In September 1951, United States Secretary of State Dean Acheson and Japanese Prime              Minister Shigeru Yoshida signed the Security Treaty Between Japan and the United States of America. Under this treaty, the United States agreed to defend Japan against foreign acts of aggression, while Japan, now bound by the restraints of its new Constitution (specifically, the pacifistic Article 9), which disallowed its right to collective self-defense, agreed to allow the United States to establish military bases on its territory. This treaty established the beginning of the strategic bilateral alliance that has bound the US and Japan for the past half-century.

During the Cold War, Japan followed what became known as the Yoshida Doctrine. Under this doctrine, Japan chose to remain dependent upon the US security guarantee, while continuing to develop economically. However, by the 1970s and 1980s Japan’s situation in relation to the United States had changed considerably. In addition to becoming a major economic power, Japan was also responsible for financing much of the US debt and benefited from a large surplus in US-Japan trade relations. Relations were strained even further due to the inability of US businesses to access the Japanese market. By the end of the Cold War many in the United States, concerned with the concept of what Paul Kennedy called “imperial overstretch,” began to feel that Japan was exploiting the relationship by free-riding on US security guarantees.1 To its credit, Japan did increase its defense spending so as to allow it to maintain the world’s third largest military budget in absolute terms.2

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A Nuclear Iran: The Case for Action

By Clay Varney

Clay Varney is an intern at the Center for Security Policy and a Master’s candidate in International Security at the University of Denver.

Since August 9, 1945 no nuclear weapon has been deployed in warfare. Despite the tensions and volatile events such as the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Berlin Blockade, which might have precipitated such a use, the catastrophe of a subsequent nuclear attack has not occurred. Though it was widely assumed that an eventual nuclear exchange between the US and USSR was likely, cooler heads on both sides acted to ratchet down crises that might have escalated to a dangerous degree. At the outset of the Cold War, there was no clear reason to believe another attack would not have been the case. This of course begs the question, if so many states now possess nuclear weapons, why have they not been employed?

There are two primary reasons for this absence. First, as the United States and the Soviet Union developed increasing numbers of advanced nuclear weapons, the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) emerged. MAD, according to one definition, arose when “the nuclear arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union had grown so large and sophisticated that neither country could entirely destroy the other’s retaliatory force by launching first, even with a surprise attack. Starting a nuclear war was therefore tantamount to committing suicide.”1 Secondly, a complementary concept surfaced that reinforced the reluctance toward the first-use of nuclear weapons. Known as the nuclear taboo, this concept can be defined as: “A normative prohibition on nuclear use…although not (yet) a fully robust norm, has stigmatized nuclear weapons as unacceptable weapons of mass destruction. Without this normative stigma, there might have been more ‘use.’”2 In light of these corresponding forces, decision makers in various governments have been unwilling to employ nuclear weapons against other nations.

A New Kind of Threat

Unfortunately, a new, much more dangerous generation of nuclear weapons proliferators has emerged. North Korea recently tested a crude nuclear device, adding yet another member to that previously exclusive club of nuclear weapon states. Although North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons is far from comforting due to the seemingly unstable nature of the country’s leadership, a far greater threat looms on the horizon. The Islamic Republic of Iran is making substantial progress towards the development of a nuclear capability.  Assuming that this effort is not merely for peaceful purposes, as the clerical government claims, the consequences may be grave for the countries of the Middle East and for the United States itself.  Though the regime of Kim Jong-Il remains a significant threat, policymakers should be far more concerned with Iran.  North Korea can be deterred. Iran, however, is different.

As a result of particular internal characteristics unique to Iran, its possession of nuclear weapons may be far more problematic than that of any other state to have previously joined the nuclear club. Because of these characteristics, Iran may not be swayed by the two concepts.discussed previously: mutually assured destruction and the nuclear taboo. These internal characteristics, based upon the beliefs and practices of Shia Islam – specifically the Twelver branch predominant in Iran on which the regime garners its legitimacy – and on an intense antipathy towards Israel and Jews in general, provides a counterweight to the forces of MAD, the nuclear taboo, and other conventional forms of deterrence.

The argument presented here was first articulated by Bernard Lewis in a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled, “August 22: Does Iran gave something in store?,” published on August 8, 2006.3 The piece notes that Iran is unlike any other state with nuclear weapons in that its leadership holds an “apocalyptic worldview” which has a major impact on its decision making. In that article, Lewis speculated that in light of Iran’s declaration to give the United States a “final answer” about its nuclear development by August 22, Iran might have something major planned. He reasoned that this date, which coincided with an important date on the Islamic calendar, as it was the occasion of Muhammad’s Night Journey to the farthest mosque in Jerusalem, might be an occasion when the Iranian leadership decides to instigate the end times with a nuclear attack on Israel. 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Gangs and violence in Central America

Central America has the misfortune of being placed between drug supply and drug demand. The flow of cocaine from South America to the United States is one of the highest value illicit commodity streams in the world. Central America has been a conduit for these drugs for decades and now is the pathway for some 450 tons of cocaine headed to Mexico and the United States. This stream is worth about $10 billion US, and has a retail value of $50 billion US. The potential de-stabilizing effect of this massive contraband flow is considerable. [1]

[More]Drug trafficking is often associated with the growth of youth gangs in the region, in the form of the so-called ‘pandillas’ or ‘maras’ (both terms for gangs). The major gangs operating in Central America with ties to the United States are the "18th Street" gang (also known as M-18), and their main rival, the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13).  The Maras are part of a troubling trend in Latin America: the rise of transnational gangs, narcotraffickers, and terrorists. [2]

El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua are at the epicenter of the gang crisis and are seen to be at the core of the local crime problem. During the civil wars, large numbers of Central Americans sought refuge in the United States. There, they congregated in Hispanic urban neighborhoods, particularly those in Southern California. These areas suffer from a serious gang problem, and the new immigrants found themselves targeted by locals. Partly as a defensive action, many young men either joined the existing gangs or formed their own. When the U.S. began to tighten its immigration regime in 1996, many gang members were deported after being convicted of a crime, spreading the gang culture of Southern California to Central America. While assessing the scale of gangsterism is challenging, there are an estimated 70,000 gang members in the 7 countries of Central America today, with Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala being the worst affected. Up to 50% of violent crimes in these countries are their doing. [3]

National Gang Member Estimates

Country

Total Membership

Belize

100

Panama

1385

Costa Rica

2660

Nicaragua

4500

El Salvador

10500

Guatemala

14000

Honduras

36000

Total

69145

Source: UN Office on Drugs and Crime. Crime and Development in Central America, 2007.

Universally, most street crimes and a good share of violent crimes are committed by young men, usually between the ages of about 15 and 24. Like many developing regions, the population of Central America is very young. [4] Some analysts believe these gangs could pose a serious threat to the region’s stability. Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador have some of the highest murder rates in the world. In 2004, the estimated murder rate per 100,000 people was 45.9 in Honduras, 41.2 in El Salvador, and 34.7 in Guatemala. High murder rates have persisted in 2005 and 2006, with gang-related violence reportedly accounting for up to 50% of violent crime in each of those countries. [5]

Several factors have contributed to the problem of gang violence in Central America . Scholars have identified income inequality as the strongest predictor of violent crime rates. Overwhelmed and ineffective justice systems, easy access to arms and an illicit economy, high levels of intra-familial violence and an absence of political will to fight crime have also contributed to the gang problem. [6]

Type of activity

The gangs are involved in human trafficking; drug, auto, and weapons smuggling; kidnapping, e xtortion, prostitution, murder for hire, theft, assaults on law enforcement officials and homicide. Violence is also the hallmark of mara life. Would-be members must bear a 13-second, nonstop beating by four veterans. If strong, women undergo the same initiation; if not, they must sleep with each gang member. Just to prove their mettle, new members have to carry out a murder. Once done, the marero is emblazoned with distinctive tattoos. Maras also fight one another over turf and, naturally, the gangs are always battling the authorities. [7]

The Maras are heavily armed with M16s, AK-47s, and military grade explosives. Inspired by al-Qaeda, they have added beheadings to their repertoire and mutilations, slaughtering their rivals and leaving their heads for show. [8] As guerrilla factions and paramilitary groups have slowly disbanded, weapons have flooded the market and become easily available to youth. Thousands of children saw their families killed or were forced to flee their homelands. Central American gang members are identified by the tattoos that blanket their bodies. They are boys as young as 10 who feel hopeless and are looking for a sense of belonging, according to Central American immigrants and advocates. Many of them are forced to join a gang. [9] Since the end of the 1980s gang violence in Central America has evolved from a localized, purely neighborhood-based security concern into a transnational problem that pervades urban enclaves in every country in the region. Gang activity has developed into a complex, multi-faceted, and transnational problem. [10]

El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, and Nicaragua, have each responded differently to the gang problem.  By and large, Central American police lack the skills, technology and resources to combat the maras. Corruption among officers is a long-standing ill. El Salvador and Honduras, for example, have largely committed to the mano dura (firm hand) or super mano dura approach, which emphasizes zero-tolerance law enforcement for tackling gang violence issues. A suspect in violation of these laws could find themselves facing a 12-year prison sentence even if no crime had been committed. Having a gang tattoo was evidence enough. The remaining countries are pursuing different approaches. Nicaragua has adopted an anti-gang approach that is weighted more towards prevention and intervention than heavy-handed law enforcement. Guatemala continues to debate mano dura while it struggles to engage in prevention and intervention amid accusations of social cleansing tactics used on gang members. [11]

Mara Salvatrucha MS-13

The gang name is commonly abbreviated as MS-13, Mara, MS, and is composed mostly of Salvadorans, Hondurans and other Central Americans. The MS-13 gangs have cliques, or factions, located throughout the United States and Latin America. Membership is believed to total over 100,000 worldwide. In the United States, the gang’s strongholds have historically been in Washington D.C., Miami, and Southern California. [12]

In addition to violent acts committed by the gang against citizens and gang rivals, the gang has even engaged in organized violent acts against the government. In 1997 the son of Honduras’s President, Ricardo Maduro, was kidnapped and murdered by MS-13 members leaving a note for the Honduran president that "more people will die…the next victims will be police and journalists." In 2002 in the city of Tegucigalpa in Honduras, MS-13 members boarded a public bus and immediately executed 28 people including 7 small children.  On February 19, 2007, three Salvadoran representatives to the Central American parliament (Parlacen) in Guatemala were killed after inexplicably departing from their motorcade. The arrestees were never able to elaborate, however, as they were all shot dead in prison on February 25th. [13]

Costs of gangs and violence

Crime and gang violence is threatening economic and democratic development across the region. Estimates of the direct and indirect costs of violence suggest that the costs of crime are roughly 12 to 14 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).   Gangs such as MS-13 and 18th Street conduct business internationally, engaging in kidnapping, robbery, extortion, assassinations, and the trafficking of people and contraband across borders. The World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) have made significant strides in developing an understanding of violence more broadly and its costs. They estimate the cost of violence in Latin America to be 14.2 percent of GDP. [14]

Soaring violent crime rates could jeopardize democracy in Central America and the region in general. Finding regional solutions to the gang problem is absolutely essential . It is of utmost importance to prevent Venezuela and Cuba from co-opting these groups to use them for their revolutionary plans. M ost worrying is the scenario of future al-Qaeda and gang cooperation. That is why it is imperative for countries in Latin America to tackle this threat immediately and effectively.

  1. Source: UNDP HDR 2006, UNODC WDR 2006.
  2. Crime and Development in Central America. 2007. UN Office on Drugs and Crime.
  3. Sources: "Criminal Gangs in the Americas," Economist, January 5, 2006; "Gangs Undermine Security, Democracy," Miami Herald, March 30, 2006; "Marked Men," Dallas Morning News, October 29; 2006; Testimony of General Bantz J. Craddock, Commander, U.S. Southern Command, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, March 15, 2005.
  4. Gangs undermine security, democracy. The Miami Herald. March 30, 2006. By Marifeli Pérez-Stable.
  5. Sources: "Criminal Gangs in the Americas," Economist, January 5, 2006; "Gangs Undermine Security, Democracy," Miami Herald, March 30, 2006; "Marked Men," Dallas Morning News, October 29; 2006; Testimony of General Bantz J. Craddock, Commander, U.S. Southern Command, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, March 15, 2005.
  6. D. Ledermann et al., "Determinants of Crime Rates in Latin America and the World," World Bank, October 1998.
  7. Pérez-Stable Ibid.
  8. Gangs, Terrorists, and Trade. April 12, 2007. By Adam Elkus. Foreign Policy in Focus.
  9. Grim News in Central America: Wave of Gang Violence Grows. Resource Center of the Americas. January 29, 2004. By Kari Lydersen.
  10. Central America and Mexico Gang Assessment. USAID. April 2006.
  11. Ibid.
  12. The Most Dangerous Gang in America. By Arian Campo-Flores. March 2007. Newsweek.
  13. UN Office on Drugs and Crime. Ibid. 
  14. USAID. Ibid.

Moon falls down the rabbit hole

By Clay Varney

In an op-ed entitled "A Climate Culprit In Darfur," published in the Saturday, June 16 edition of the Washington Post, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon passes the buck for the devastation and genocide in Darfur away from the Sudanese government and Janjaweed militiamen, where it rightfully belongs, and attributes the violence to the consequences of global warming. According to the secretary, "Amid the diverse social and political causes, the Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change." Citing the lack of rain in the region, which Secretary Moon states is a result of man-made global warming, tensions began to build in Darfur between nomadic Arabs and settled black farmers. Due to the poor agricultural conditions, these farmers began to fence off their land, angering the nomads, which ultimately touched off the violence we see today, resulting in 2 million refugees and uncountable deaths.

Despite Secretary General Moon’s claims to the contrary, something other than global warming lies at the root of the genocide. Though the informed person is aware that the fighting in Darfur has been between rebel groups of black farmers and the nomadic Arab herders who compose the Janjaweed militia supported by the Sudanese government, there is another, lesser known, element to the conflict. This element, which Secretary Moon does not address in his opinion piece, is of a religious/political nature. The groups targeted for ethnic cleansing are in fact Muslim, coreligionists of the Janjaweed and the ruling government in Khartoum. However, the form of Islam practiced by the black African peoples of Darfur is influenced by Sufism, the mystical strain of Islam, and elements of animism, the mode of religion indigenous to the area. Of course, this practice rubs the Islamofascist regime of President Omar al-Bashir the wrong way. In a 1989 coup, al-Bashir joined forces with the National Islamic Front’s Dr. Hassan al-Turabi. Since consolidating power, the regime has implemented Sharia law and, quite famously, hosted Osama bin Laden. The Arab government, as so aptly demonstrated in Darfur, has sought to implement its form of religious practice on the other peoples of the country, through any means necessary. So, for Secretary Moon to claim global warming as the root cause of the genocide in Darfur ignores the reality of the situation, and the reality of the brutal nature of Sudan’s government.

Secretary Moon also ignores the complicity of the People’s Republic of China in the Darfur genocide. In the quest for natural resources to satisfy the thirst of its exploding economy, the Communist government of China has blatantly ignored the human rights violations of the Sudanese government, much as it perpetrates its own violations of human rights. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, Sudan exports 64% of its oil to the Chinese. The subsequent cash flows allows the government of Sudan to continue its policies in Darfur, allows for the purchase of Russian and Chinese arms used to kill innocents in Darfur, and otherwise allows the government to continue its support for the Janjaweed. China has also actively blocked efforts within Secretary Moon’s own United Nations to impose sanctions on Sudan and any efforts to send UN peacekeepers to Darfur, which President al-Bashir finally accepted this past week. Sadly, Moon seems to ignore the facts right under his nose.

In his assertion that global warming has caused the genocide in Darfur, Secretary Moon strains all credibility. By refusing to put blame for the conflict on the authoritarian nature of the Sudanese government, which is steeped in a violent religious ideology, Moon does not fault the concrete actions of individuals within the government and among the Janjaweed that have resulted in the genocide, those people who are truly responsible for the murderous violence in the region. One must wonder if Secretary Moon would similarly blame global warming for the recent Palestinian on Palestinian violence in Gaza, the conflict in Kashmir, or the bombings and shootings perpetrated between Sunnis and Shia in Iraq.

Sadly, Secretary Moon’s disjointed musings in the op-ed page of a major American newspaper offers yet another example of the futility of relying on the United Nations when issues important to the United States are at stake. After years of stalling due to Chinese interference in the UN, definitive action is finally being taken on Darfur. Unfortunately, Darfur is not an isolated case, and the dysfunction of the UN will no doubt continue. The United Nations acts as a repository of forces opposed to the interests of the United States, who use the body as a political tool to obstruct American freedom of action in the international arena. It is high time that US policymakers cease perceiving the United Nations as some kind of stamp of approval necessary before taking action, and instead act according to what is best for the security of the American people.

Clay Varney is an intern at the Center for Security Policy and a Master’s candidate in International Security at the University of Denver.

Don’t make the same mistake twice

By Clay Varney


 


The Gaza Strip exploded in violence yesterday as armed factions of Hamas, a spear carrier for Islamofascism, took to the streets in a concerted effort to challenge Fatah. Formerly led by Yasser Arafat and a staunch foe of Israel, Fatah and its Presidential Guard have received active support from the United States and Israel in an effort to prevent a hostile takeover of the now all but defunct Palestinian Authority. The internecine fighting, which had been percolating at a slow boil in recent months, seems to have finally reached a tipping point, overwhelming a weak and obviously temporary ceasefire brokered by Egypt. Since the factional warfare reignited on Monday, a multitude of Palestinians have been killed, many in particularly gruesome manners such as the execution of wounded fighters in hospital beds, various kneecappings, and the tossing of a member of the Presidential Guard from the top of an eighteen story building.


 


The Palestinian terrorist organizations, Hamas foremost among them, have long sought to blame all of the Palestinians problems on Israel. However, such unfortunate excuses have no credibility in the current situation. As is characteristic of totalitarian movements, Islamofascists have long put the blame for their own problems on an outsider, depending on the situation, Israel, the United States, or more loosely, the West. Hamas has led this approach, justifying violence against innocents as a necessary first response to those it falsely accuses of injustice. Much like the precursor ideologies of Nazism and Communism, Islamofascism seeks power out of the barrel of a gun. This veneration of violence, first demonstrated to the world in the form of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians on city buses, then followed by indiscriminate rocket fire at Israeli population centers, has come full circle.


 


As has been long feared about organizations espousing the Islamofascist ideology, Hamas has used a faade of democracy as an avenue for the outright takeover of the Palestinian Authority. Instead of upholding the unity government through peaceful democratic measures such as negotiation and arbitration, Hamas has instead resorted to violence in a bid to oust Fatah from the Gaza Strip. As Islamofascism is a tool for the seizure of political power, it comes as no surprise that an organization like Hamas would target fellow Muslims opposed to the takeover of Gaza by means of a military coup. A Palestinian, in reference to Fatah, said, They are not Palestinians, they are lost people. Hamas has exchanged terrorism against Israelis with terrorism against Palestinians.


 


Clearly, this violence is not something for which Hamas can blame Israel, as has long been its supposed prerogative. Having withdrawn from the Gaza Strip in 2005, Israel washed its hands of the territory. Though the Palestinians now had their chance to build a decent civil society without so-called Israeli interference, the outcome has been a disaster. Islamism has infiltrated the Gaza Strip to an alarming degree. In what is essentially a Mad Max environment, Islamofascist organizations potentially more dangerous than Hamas have emerged. These include the Army of Islam, responsible for the kidnapping of the BBC’s Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston and IDF Corporal Gilad Shalit, and al Qaeda itself, which has established a presence in the territory. In a campaign reminiscent of the Taliban, these shadowy organizations are now making their presence known through terrorist attacks on video stores, Internet cafes, and other establishments deemed blasphemous. In a particularly egregious offense, one person was killed in a grenade attack on a United Nations-run school, which was targeted for the crime of holding a mixed gender sporting event.


 


The security implications of an outright Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip cannot be overstated. With Gaza as a launching pad, Hamas and like-minded organizations would have an ideally located position in which to destabilize neighboring Egypt and Jordan. Further, Gaza would provide al Qaeda with the opportunity to directly strike Israel, a long sought goal. With these consequences in mind, it becomes obvious that the United States and its foremost ally in the region, Israel, cannot allow Hamas to succeed in the consolidation of power in Gaza.


 


Israel, under Ariel Sharon, decided that the continued protection of settlers in Gaza was not worth the cost. Faced with the intra-Palestinian violence on display this week, and its potential spillover effects to other areas of the Middle East, the current Israeli leadership is likely wishing that decision had never been made. As such, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert would be well-served by rethinking any prospects of a withdrawal from the West Bank. In a potential repeat of the rocket attacks on Sderot, Israeli towns near the West Bank would be highly vulnerable to increased Qassam rocket fire. Currently, Fatah is still predominant in the West Bank, but a removal of the IDF would allow for Hamas to operate in an open manner. With its obvious willingness to resort to violence, Hamas could likely gain significant traction in its struggle against Fatah, adding yet another vulnerability to Israels national security.


 


Concurrently, with few good options available for a resolution of the situation in Gaza, American policymakers should be loath to encourage a repeat in the West Bank out of a misguided and what would be ultimately foolish attempt to gain brownie points internationally. Unfortunately, Sharons disengagement did not go according to plan, and it is likely that any similar withdrawal from the West Bank would result in the same effect. The implications for the interests of the United States in the region are too grave, as Israel, a vital ally, would face an antagonistic force on yet another front, and the West Bank would provide another staging ground for Islamofascist terrorism, possibly into Jordan, or even, the United States itself.


 


Clay Varney is an intern at the Center for Security Policy and a Master’s candidate in International Security at the University of Denver.

Democracy in the Middle East

by Randy Wanis*

Several academics critical of the Bush administration’s foreign policy have begun to ask very basic questions regarding the president’s strategy in the Middle East.  Namely, “What is so good about democracy and why do you think it can work in the region?”  This question extends from a worldview prominent in academia—that the essential division in the world today is the line that separates those who are religiously fundamentalist from those who are not.  America’s fervent fidelity to democracy is equated with Islamic fundamentalism.  Although this comparison is false and intellectually dishonest, it is useful in that it forces those within the Bush administration to defend the value of what they are doing.  At the very least, being able to provide a sound and reasoned answer to those critical of democracy-spreading can only help to solidify in the minds of its champions – as well as to persuade those who are unconvinced – why democracy is not merely worth defending, but spreading and building, often at significant costs in terms of blood and treasure.

Disturbingly, however, an indication of a desire for this healthy debate has not been forthcoming.  Given the complexity of the conflict between Islamism and the West, famously described by Samuel Huntington as a “clash of civilizations,” a look into America’s embrace of democracy and its implications for the future of the Middle East is greatly warranted.

Today, many in America think, wrongly, that democracy, or rather democratic processes, has led to the prosperity and stability of the United States.  Those who make this correlation tend to view the promotion of democracy as tantamount to the promotion of American values.  Thus, justice, equality, and freedom are seen as wedded to American values such as individualism, entrepreneurship, and pluralism (to name only a few).  This marriage, although a happy one, is natural only to the extent that it is proprietary.  Democratic values and American values have rightfully intertwined through the passage of time within the United States, upholding and refining one another, and American society has flourished.  These American values, however, define who America is rather than what America is – i.e., they reflect this society’s “personality traits” and not its governmental structure.  This distinction is vital to understanding how democracy is viewed by dissimilar cultures and why there may be misgivings about democracy in societies that do not share or appreciate American values.

Another helpful question about American foreign policy in the Middle East has arisen due to the difficulties of implementing democracy: “If the greatest danger is populist religious fundamentalism and if opening the door to democracy means inviting fundamentalist forces to participate in politics, why should anyone urge democracy?”

In order to answer that rather tricky question, a standard definition of “democracy” must be established.  James Madison, for one, held a rather dim view of the classical definition of democracy when compared it to America’s form of government: “Such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”[i]  Certainly, this is no longer the popular understanding of the term.  It is therefore helpful to examine how Americans’ collective view of democracy has shifted over time.

In the past century, Americans’ conception of democracy witnessed three distinct phases.  The first phase was introduced by the modern age, which brought with it a belief in the ability of mankind, through reason, to perfect itself and to govern as equals with beneficence toward all.  Woodrow Wilson is without a doubt the iconic figure of this era.  The second phase began when this illusion came crashing down in the interwar period, during which foreign democratic movements were shown to be corrupt, inefficient, fraudulent, and easily consumed by demagoguery.  During this period, a collective ambivalence about the democratic form of government existed among policy-makers as well as average citizens.  Such cynical disillusionment in turn crumbled, however, as European dictators were found to be more corrupt, equally as inefficient, and brutal to an extent hardly fathomable in democracies.

The third phase emerged along with the Cold War, and democracy was called forth with nearly as loud a voice as that of the Wilsonians.  This occurred largely because the alternative was shown to be so bleak, most especially because nuclear weapons could not be trusted in the hands of a corrupt and single power and because personal rights and liberties were shown to be incompatible with despotism.  America came to the conclusion, through painful experience, that democracy is worth defending and promoting – not because it is inherently good, but because it is generally less bad.  Essentially, democracy was spread in tandem with, yet subordinate to, US security interests.

Due in part to the success witnessed in the third phase, Americans began transitioning into a fourth phase following the collapse of the Soviet Union that looks eerily similar to the first.  Many today—particularly those with influence in the US government—have begun to resuscitate the idealistic rhetoric that was earlier used to promote U.S. interests.  Fluid and smooth sounding phrases are becoming policy due to an unquestioning belief that they convey axiomatic, universal truths.

Democracy, however, must be questioned and vetted if it is to remain a viable form of government that is worth promoting.  If America loses sight of this realistic view of democracy, or if it fails to temper the tendency toward sentimentalism, it can expect painful experiences that will be eerie echoes of the past.

 

 

* It should be noted that while rights in America are conceived as non-religious with respect to enforcement by the state, religious citizens in America believe the rights to be rooted within religion.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Last stand for American sovereignty

CNN’s Lou Dobbs asked me, during a discussion of the North American Union, why our media show no interest in the issue of sovereignty. I said it wasn’t considered sexy enough. Perhaps if "sovereignty" had big breasts and shapely legs, like Anna Nicole Smith, we might stand a chance of getting some more coverage. Tragically, American sovereignty seems to be meeting the same fate as Miss Smith.

[More]The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), now being pushed by the Bush Administration for a quick vote, is already starting to get rave reviews from the press, with the Sacramento Bee saying that protecting the oceans of the world could be Bush’s "legacy." The message to Bush is that he should go out as a liberal and he may salvage some of his reputation. But he will lose what is left of his conservative base.

As President Reagan understood, UNCLOS creates another dangerous U.N. bureaucracy, with a seabed "authority" to run ocean affairs, as well as a court system and a global tax. It is a mechanism created by the World Federalists as a major stepping stone on the road to world government. It is also designed to make it easier for the "international community" to thwart the exercise of U.S. military power in foreign affairs. One of the main authors, Elizabeth Mann Borgese, was a socialist who admired Karl Marx. But don’t expect our media to report these facts to the American people.

U.S. Navy officials, acting clueless and completely in the dark about the nature of U.N. bureaucracies, are actually lobbying on Capitol Hill for Senate ratification of the pact. It is an example of how weak the U.S. has become that our military officials have been reduced to functioning as a lobbying arm of the Washington office of the U.N. Of course, they are only doing what the President tells them to do, and Bush says he wants immediate ratification of UNCLOS. Strangely, two years ago, even when his administration was officially endorsing the pact, Bush told conservatives he wasn’t sure why his administration was supporting it.

However, then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, pondering a presidential run, was studying the treaty to death and refusing to bring it up for a vote. Conservatives applauded his courage. But a Democratic takeover of the Senate has now provided the "opportunity" for Bush to promote the treaty that President Reagan rejected. Reagan’s U.N. ambassador, the late Jeane Kirkpatrick, was still rejecting it in 2004, supposedly after the treaty had been "fixed."

Recognizing the importance of words and what they mean, a top State Department official recently told a group of conservatives that he doesn’t like to refer to UNCLOS as a U.N. treaty. He wants to avoid any mention of the U.N. connection because he understands that the world body is so corrupt that any mention of it alongside the treaty can only hurt its chances of ratification.

Make no mistake: a vote for UNCLOS is a vote for increasing the power of the U.N. You can register your opinion on the treaty by calling the Capitol at 1-800-828-0498 and asking to be connected to the offices of your senators.

On another front, White House spokesman Tony Snow calls the North American Union (NAU) a "myth," despite the abundant evidence of White House involvement in the development of a North American identification card and security strategy. This is how the subject of national sovereignty gets marginalized and dismissed. In this case, our "adversary press" meekly accepts the White House line. Echoing Snow, Philip Dine of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has written an article saying the NAU is based on an Internet "rumor" with a "few grains of truth" that has led people to "an unsubstantiated conclusion." It is apparent that he didn’t attend the "North American Law" conference which I covered, featuring wide-ranging discussions on how the North American Free Trade Agreement is leading to the integration of the economic, legal and political s ystems of the U.S, Canada and Mexico.

This week, Robert Pastor’s Center for North American Studies at American University is co-sponsoring the "Model North American Parliament" for students from the three countries. Pastor, a former Carter official and Clinton adviser who persuaded Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn to introduce a Mexico financial bailout bill, is not the type who whistles Dixie. Wearing a lapel pin featuring the flags of the U.S., Mexico and Canada, he is an ardent advocate of what he calls the "North American Community."

Those concerned about our national sovereignty had better figure out a way to get some media attention on this subject rather quickly because we are losing our sovereignty on many fronts. From the North American Union to the Law of the Sea Treaty to the illegal alien amnesty bill, America as we know it is fading fast. The sad irony is that all of this is happening under the auspices of a supposed conservative Republican President who earned a reputation during the early years of his administration of pursuing a "unilateral" foreign policy by snubbing the United Nations on matters like adopting the global warming treaty and the International Criminal Court and withdrawing from the ABM treaty so the U.S. could pursue a missile defense.

How things change. The Bush White House, Democrats and the media currently work in concert to promote amnesty for illegal aliens as "comprehensive immigration reform." House Republicans like Reps. Edward Royce, Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter see through it. And illegal aliens, of course, don’t even exist in the world of politically correct journalism. All of this can be explained by the fact that our elite journalists are in the same class as those politicians who employ illegal aliens as gardeners, landscapers, housekeepers and nannies. While exploiting cheap labor themselves, they tell us the illegal aliens are simply "undocumented workers" supposedly doing the jobs Americans won’t do.

On all of these issues, it seems that Bush works better with liberal Democrats than conservative Republicans. This might lead the cynical to think that he wanted Republicans to lose power in Congress so he could finally leave a "legacy," in addition to the "No Child Left Behind" federal education bureaucracy and the monumentally expensive federal prescription drug program. But it’s impossible to believe that Bush intended for the war in Iraq to go this badly just so he could work with Democrats for his last two years. And that is mainly why the Republicans lost Congress and risk losing the White House in 2008. Bush could leave office as the President who failed to protect the borders of the United States and Iraq. The only question is which failure will prove more costly to our nation in the long run. On top of that, he now wants the Senate to ratify the most comprehensive treaty ever devised by the globalists. He is implementing the New World Order talked about by his father.  

These political dynamics have put the sovereignty of our nation increasingly at risk. If we have any hope of getting mainstream journalists to critically cover these major issues of public importance, we have to make the concept of American sovereignty and national identity into something that is interesting to write and talk about. Of course, this approach assumes that we have a media still capable of honest reporting. 

Ultimately, political pressure from the grassroots to force both political parties to deal with the survival of the nation may be the only way to get the attention of the press. We are beginning to see that groundswell developing on the subject of illegal immigration, as millions of Americans register their outrage at Republicans and Democrats who fail to take serious action to protect U.S. borders. The same outrage, if channeled into opposition to UNCLOS, could also make an impression on the Washington establishment and media. It will take 34 votes to sink UNCLOS but Republican sources on Capitol Hill say they can count less than 10 currently against it. Time is running out on the independent, free and strong America that so many sacrificed their lives for.

 

Mr. Kincaid is President of America’s Survival, Inc., and is editor of Accuracy in Media.