Tag Archives: Venezuela

Taking Iran’s missiles in Venezuela seriously

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making sense of Argentina’s frenzied policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Regional Issues

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

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

 

Commerce

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

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

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

 

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

 

Obama’s altruistic foreign policy

If only in the interest of intellectual hygiene, it would be refreshing if the Obama administration would stop ascribing moral impetuses to its foreign policy.

Today, US forces are engaged in a slowly escalating war on behalf of al-Qaida penetrated antiregime forces in Libya. It is difficult to know the significance of al-Qaida’s role in the opposition forces because to date, the self-proclaimed rebel government has only disclosed 10 of its 31 members.

Indeed, according to The New York Times, the NATO-backed opposition to dictator Muammar Gaddafi is so disorganized that it cannot even agree about who the commander of its forces is.

And yet, despite the fact that the Obama administration has no clear notion of who is leading the fight against Gaddafi or what they stand for, this week the White House informed Congress that it will begin directly funding the al-Qaida-linked rebels, starting with $25 million in non-lethal material.

This aid, like the NATO no-fly zone preventing Gaddafi from using his air force, and the British military trainers now being deployed to Libya to teach the rebels to fight, will probably end up serving no greater end then prolonging the current stalemate. With the Obama administration unwilling to enforce the no-fly zone with US combat aircraft, unwilling to take action to depose Gaddafi and unwilling to cultivate responsible, pro-Western successors to Gaddafi, the angry tyrant will probably remain in power indefinitely.

In and of itself, the fact that the war has already reached a stalemate constitutes a complete failure of the administration’s stated aim of protecting innocent Libyan civilians from slaughter.

Not only are both the regime forces and the rebel forces killing civilians daily. Due to both sides’ willingness to use civilians as human shields, unable to separate civilians from military targets, NATO forces are also killing their share of civilians.

In deciding in favor of military intervention on the basis of a transnational legal doctrine never accepted as law by the US Congress called "responsibility to protect," President Barack Obama was reportedly swayed by the arguments of his senior national security adviser Samantha Power. Over the past 15 years, Power has fashioned herself into a celebrity policy wonk by cultivating a public persona of herself as a woman moved by the desire to prevent genocide. In a profile of Power in the current issue of the National Journal, Jacob Heilbrunn explains, "Power is not just an advocate for human rights.

She is an outspoken crusader against genocide…"

Heilbrunn writes that Power’s influence over Obama and her celebrity status has made her the leader of a new US foreign policy elite. "This elite," he writes, "is united by a shared belief that American foreign policy must be fundamentally transformed from an obsession with national interests into a broader agenda that seeks justice for women and minorities, and promotes democracy whenever and wherever it can – at the point of a cruise missile if necessary."

As the prolonged slaughter in Libya and expected continued failure of the NATO mission make clear, Power and her new foreign policy elite have so far distinguished themselves mainly by their gross incompetence.

But then, even if the Libyan mission were crowned in success, it wouldn’t make the moral pretentions of the US adventure there any less disingenuous. And this is not simply because the administration-backed rebels include al-Qaida fighters.

The fact is that the moral arguments used for intervening militarily on behalf of Gaddafi’s opposition pale in comparison to the moral arguments for intervening in multiple conflicts where the Obama administration refuses to lift a finger. At a minimum, this moral inconsistency renders it impossible for the Obama administration to credibly embrace the mantel of moral actor on the world stage.

Consider the administration’s Afghanistan policy.

Over the past week, the White House and the State Department have both acknowledged that administration officials are conducting negotiations with the Taliban.

Last week, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton defended the administration’s policy. During a memorial service for the late ambassador Richard Holbrooke, whom at the time of his death last December was the most outspoken administration figure advocating engaging Mullah Omar and his followers, Clinton said, "Those who found negotiations with the Taliban distasteful got a very powerful response from Richard – diplomacy would be easy if we only had to talk to our friends."

Of course, the Taliban are not simply not America’s friends. They are the enemy of every good and decent human impulse. The US went to war against the Taliban in 2001 because the Bush administration rightly held them accountable for Osama bin Laden and his terror army which the Taliban sponsored, hosted and sheltered on its territory.

But the Taliban are America’s enemy not just because they bear responsibility for the September 11 attacks on the US. They are the enemy of the US because they are evil monsters.

Apparently, the supposedly moral, anti-genocidal, pro-women Obama administration needs to be reminded why it is not merely distasteful but immoral to engage the Taliban. So here it goes.

Under the Taliban, the women and girls of Afghanistan were the most oppressed, most terrorized, most endangered group of people in the world. Women and girls were denied every single human right. They were effectively prisoners in their homes, allowed on the streets only when fully covered and escorted by a male relative.

They were denied the right to education, work and medical care. Women who failed to abide in full by these merciless rules were beaten, imprisoned, tortured, and stoned to death.

The Taliban’s barbaric treatment of women and girls probably couldn’t have justified their overthrow at the hands of the US military. But it certainly justified the US’s refusal to even consider treating them like legitimate political actors in the 10 years since NATO forces first arrived in Afghanistan. And yet, the self-proclaimed champions of the downtrodden in the administration are doing the morally unjustifiable. They are negotiating, and so legitimizing the most diabolical sexual tyranny known to man. Obama, Clinton, Power and their colleagues are now shamelessly advancing a policy that increases the likelihood that the Taliban will again rise to power and enslave Afghanistan’s women and girls once more.

Then there is Syria. In acts of stunning courage, despite massive regime violence that has killed approximately two hundred people in three weeks, anti-regime protesters in Syria are not standing down. Instead, they are consistently escalating their protests. They have promised that the demonstrations after Friday prayers this week will dwarf the already unprecedented country-wide protests we have seen to date.

In the midst of the Syrian demonstrators’ calls for freedom from one of the most repressive regimes in the Middle East, the Obama administration has sided with their murderous dictator Bashar Assad, referring to him as a "reformer."

As Heibrunn notes in his profile of Power, she and her colleagues find concerns about US national interests parochial at best and immoral at worst. Her clear aim – and that of her boss – has been to separate US foreign policy from US interests by tethering it to transnational organizations like the UN.

Given the administration’s contempt for policy based on US national interests, it would be too much to expect the White House to notice that Syria’s Assad regime is one of the greatest state supporters of terrorism in the world and that its overthrow would be a body blow to Iran, Venezuela, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaida and therefore a boon for US national security.

The Syrian opposition presents the likes of Obama and Power with what ought to be a serious moral dilemma. First, they seem to fit the precise definition of the sort of people that the transnationalists have a responsibility to protect.

They are being gunned down by the dozen as they march with olive branches and demand change they can believe in. Moreover, their plan for ousting Assad involves subordinating him to the transnationalists at the UN.

According to a report last week in The Washington Times, Washington-based representatives of several Syrian opposition groups have asked the administration to do three things in support of the opposition, all of which are consonant with the administration’s own oft stated foreign policy preferences.

They have requested that Obama condemn the regime’s murderous actions in front of television cameras. They have asked the administration to initiate an investigation of Assad’s murderous response to the demonstrations at the UN Human Rights Council. And they have asked the administration to enact unilateral sanctions against a few Syrian leaders who have given troops the orders to kill the protesters.

The administration has not responded to the request to act against Assad at the UN Human Rights Council. It has refused the opposition’s other two requests.

 

There responses are no surprise in light of the Obama administration’s abject and consistent refusal to take any steps that could help Iran’s pro-democracy, pro-women’s rights, pro-Western opposition Green Movement in its nearly two-year-old struggle to overthrow the nuclearproliferating, terror-supporting, genocide-inciting, elections-stealing mullocracy.

Power’s personal contribution to the shocking moral failings of the administration’s foreign policy is of a piece with her known hostility towards Israel. That hostility, which involves a moral inversion of the reality of the Palestinian war against Israel, was most graphically exposed in a 2002 interview. Then, at the height of the Palestinian terror war against Israel, when Palestinian terrorists from Hamas and Fatah alike were carrying out daily attacks whose clear aim was the massacre of as many Israeli civilians as possible simply because they were Israelis, Powell said in a filmed interview that she supported deploying a "mammoth" US military force to Israel to protect the Palestinians from the IDF.

In periodic attempts to convince credulous pro-Israel writers that she doesn’t actually support invading Israel, Power has claimed that her statements calling for just such an invasion and additional remarks in which she blamed American Jews for US support of Israel were inexplicable lapses of judgment.

But then there have been so many lapses in judgment in her behavior and in the actions of the administration she serves that it is hard to see where the lapses begin and the judgment ends. Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran and Israel are only the tip of the iceberg. Everywhere from Honduras to Venezuela, from Britain to Russia, from Colombia to Cuba, Japan to China, Egypt to Lebanon, to Poland and the Czech Republic and beyond, those lapses in judgment are informing policies that place the US consistently on the side of aggressors against their victims.

Back in the pre-Obama days, when US foreign policy was supposed to serve US interests, it would have mattered that these policies all weaken the US and its allies and empower its foes. But now, in the era of the purely altruistic Obama administration, none of that matters.

What does matter is that the purely altruistic Obama foreign policy is empowering genocidal, misogynist, bigoted tyrants worldwide.

Protecting Chavez, endangering America?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Qaddafi and Latin America

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

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

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

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

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

BRAZIL, CHILE, MEXICO, URUGUAY AND PERU

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

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

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

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

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

ARGENTINA

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

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

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

ECUADOR AND BOLIVIA

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

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

SOME CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

Malign Neglect: Misguided US Foreign Policy in Latin America

51GsJHS3EoL._SL500_AA300_The Menges Hemispheric Security Project of the Center for Security Policy Presents the Proceedings of the Second Annual Capitol Hill National Security Briefing on Latin America, focused on current challenges to democracy, human rights and regional stability in the context of threats to U.S. national security. The event took place on Thursday, April 22, 2010 at the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, DC.

Malign Neglect: Misguided US Foreign Policy in Latin America features transcripts of discussions with Nancy Menges, Dr Norman Bailey, Rep Brian Bilbray, Rep Illeana Ros-Lehtinen, Gustavo Coronel, Dr Luis Fleischman,Frank Gaffney, Jon Perdue, Dr Angel Rabasa, Amb Otto Reich, Dr Curtin Winsor and Juan Carlos Urenda Diaz, and Edited by Adam Savit

The Israeli Left’s loser message

The Israeli Left was once an optimistic place. But that is no longer the case. It once promised peace and happiness. But that is no longer the case.

Today the Left is marked by equal doses of doom and gloom, irrationality and delusion. It operates in a closed universe in which reality has no place and opposing views are systematically ignored.

The Left’s defeatism was brought home to me last Thursday during the Ariel University Center of Samaria’s conference on Law and Mass Media. There I participated in a panel entitled, "Is the idea of a ‘two state solution’ feasible or doomed to failure?" 

The first two speakers on the panel were Dr. Martin Sherman from Tel Aviv University and myself. Sherman explained in great detail how a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem will imperil Israel.

Without control over these areas, Israel will lack defensible borders. And given that there is no Palestinian leadership willing to accept Israel’s right to exist, this strategic vulnerability will invite a war that Israel will be hard-pressed to survive.

Both Sherman and I explained at length that due to the Palestinian and the larger Arab world’s rejection of Israel’s right to exist, the "two-state solution" policy paradigm is delusional. It is not a policy paradigm. It is a fantasy. A debate about the two-state solution is not a policy debate, but a debate about the attractiveness of a pipe dream.

Our point was emphasized last week in an op-ed by Deputy Knesset Speaker MK Ahmad Tibi in the Washington Times. Tibi called for the Obama administration to end US support for the Jewish state. Instead of supporting Israel, Tibi asked the US to lend its support to support the partition of the land west of the Jordan River between a Jew-free Arab state of "Palestine," and a non-Jewish state in the rest of the area.

Given our arguments on the panel, and Tibi’s effective international declaration of war against Israel in the name of its Arab community, one might have thought that at the Ariel conference, our fellow panelists from the Left would have been hard pressed to maintain their allegiance to the two-state formula. Then too, the fact that the PA’s chief negotiator Saeb Erekat published an article in The Guardian two weeks ago in which he implicitly called for Israel’s destruction, one could be forgiven for thinking Ma’ariv’s former opinion editor Ben Dror Yemini and Shaul Arieli from the EU-funded Council for Peace and Security might have attenuated their support for Israeli land giveaways.

BUT ONE would be wrong for thinking that. Abiding by the Left’s standard practice, rather than contend with opposing views or reality, our fellow panelists pretended we didn’t exist.

I devoted most of my time to discussing a policy that is not based on fantasy. Such a policy, which I call the Stabilization Plan, (and here), involves a mix of military and law enforcement operations, a political and international law offensive, and the application of Israeli law in the Jordan Valley and the major blocs of Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria. As I said in my presentation, the policy has advantages and disadvantages. But it is a policy, not a fantasy. Therefore, I argued, it represents a major step forward in Israel’s national discourse.

Yemini has done good work exposing the European campaign to delegitimize Israel. He has been outspoken in condemning the New Israel Fund and J Street for their efforts to delegitimize Israel. He has angered his fellow leftists with his warnings that Fatah continues to reject Israel’s right to exist. Yet despite all of this, in his remarks, Yemini ignored what I had asserted just moments before and claimed there is no alternative to the two-state solution. The international community, which is waging a political war against Israel, will accept nothing less. Surrender is the only option.

Arieli for his part said that Israel has two options. We can surrender voluntarily or we can be forced to surrender by the international community. If we want to remain part of the Western world, we’d better do it ourselves. The two-state solution, he said, is Israel’s only hope.

Arieli assured his audience that Israel has no reason to worry about surrendering defensible borders because everything will work out fine. If we go with option one and voluntarily deny ourselves the means to defend what will remain of our country after we fork Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem over to the Palestinians who reject our right to statehood in what will remain of the country, we will definitely be safe.

During his remarks, Arieli repeatedly argued that his position is the same as opposition leader Tzipi Livni’s. And he was correct.

In her interview on Friday with the Post’s Editor-in-Chief David Horovitz, Livni made also argued that Israel has no option but surrender. Israel will lose all international support, not to mention its Jewish character if we don’t give the Palestinians what they want.

Livni’s withering criticism of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu revolves around what she considers his insistence on placing limitations on the scope of Israeli surrenders. Livni admitted that Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas rejected former prime minister Ehud Olmert’s generous offer of a Palestinian state in Jerusalem, most of Judea and Samaria, and Gaza. But she denied that his action means that the Palestinian leader isn’t interested in Palestinian statehood.

Ridiculously, Livni claimed that what her own boss offered the Palestinian leader was irrelevant. Livni asserted that as Olmert’s foreign minister, she was the only one empowered to make offers in Israel’s name. Since she says she made no offer, as far as she is concerned, the fact that Abbas rejected her boss’s offer is irrelevant.

Like Yemini and Arieli, Livni sees no option but surrender. And like them, she admits that surrender will not bring peace. As she put it, a surrender deal "would be very fragile," and "it might be accompanied by terrorism."

As she summed things up, if she gets her way and Israel gives up the store, "I have no illusions about a ‘New Middle East.’ I don’t believe that, the moment an agreement is signed, we’ll live in a fairy tale world of prosperity and happiness."

But still, as far as she is concerned, this is Israel’s only choice.

AND IT is not only regarding the Palestinians that the Left feels that Israel can do nothing but surrender. The same is true regarding Hizbullah and Syria. In her interview Livni defended her role in producing UN Security Council Resolution 1701 that set the terms for ending the war with Hizbullah in 2006.

Resolution 1701 by most accounts was the single worst failure of Israeli diplomacy in recent memory. It placed Hizbullah – an illegal terrorist army run by Iran – on equal footing with Israel. It empowered the Hizbullah-dominated Lebanese government and army to prevent Hizbullah’s rearmament and so paved the way not only for Hizbullah’s rearmament, but for Hizbullah’s takeover of the Lebanese government and military. Moreover, it enhanced the power of the Hizbullah-appeasing UN forces in south Lebanon.

All of these things made 1701 a strategic disaster for Israel. But Livni refuses to acknowledge this.

In her interview, she defended 1701 by claiming that unlike then prime minister Ehud Barak’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, 1701 gave Israel legitimacy for striking Hizbullah in the future.

As she put it, "We for the first time created a situation in which that rearmament was not legitimate, with the natural consequent options if we need to use them."

Ironically, that is precisely what Barak claimed he was doing when he pulled out in 2000. In March 2006, just four months before the war which was to see Israel demonized on virtually every diplomatic stage, Haaretz’s Ari Shavit claimed that by withdrawing to the internationally recognized border with Lebanon in May 2000, "Barak built the invisible wall of international legitimacy," for future Israeli combat operations in Lebanon.

And since 2006, the international campaign to deny Israel the right to defend itself has only gained ground.

As for Syria, following the Obama administration’s lead, today the Israeli Left is revving up its old push to surrender the Golan Heights. The Left contends that Syrian dictator Bashar Assad is keen to abandon his strategic alliance with Iran and that by handing over Israel’s defensible border in the north, Israel will convince him to do so and so weaken Iran.

But of course, reality tells an opposite tale. If Israel renders itself defenseless, it will invite war.

Moreover, Assad’s growing power owes solely to his alliance with Iran. As Michael Young from Lebanon’s Daily Star wrote last week, "Washington wants to engage Syria so that it will give up on alliances that the Syrians will never willingly surrender, because doing so would so weaken Damascus politically that it would defeat the very purpose of engagement."

The Americans wouldn’t care about Syria if it were moderate. The US wouldn’t be seeking to appease Assad if he didn’t allow Hizbullah to use Syria as its logistical base, if he hadn’t directed the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri or if he wasn’t Iran’s junior partner in its proxy war against the US in Iraq. If Assad weren’t a nuclear proliferator together with Iran, North Korea and Venezuela, he would be treated with the same reproach as Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak.

And yet, none of this matters for the Left. In its view, Israel can completely change Syria – and Iran – by denying itself the ability to defend northern Israel.

To support this view, on Friday Haaretz’s Aluf Benn wrote that outgoing IDF Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi intends to make a name for himself in politics by championing an Israeli surrender of the Golan. Ashkenazi – who has enjoyed an intimate relationship with the Obama administration – has been the chief opponent of an IDF strike on Iran’s nuclear installations. His personal mentor is Maj. Gen. (ret.) Uri Saguy. Saguy has served as the chief champion of a Golan Heights surrender for more than a decade.

UNTIL THE peace process spawned the Palestinian jihad and the surrenders of south Lebanon and Gaza brought war, the Left’s message was, "Join us and we’ll bring peace and prosperity."

That was an optimistic, attractive message and it won the Left a couple of elections. But now that their plans have all failed, the Left’s message has become, "Join us because resistance is futile. We are doomed."

This is not an attractive message. Happily, it is also not true.

What is true is that together with the reality of the failure of the Left’s delusions, its defeatist message has lost the Left the support of the public.

 

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

 

Job #1 for Congress

By all accounts, the 112th Congress is going to be consumed with cutting government spending and creating jobs.  This agenda reflects the election campaign of 2010 in which matters of national security featured not at all. 

As in the past, however, when the nation and its leaders indulge in the temptation to focus exclusively on domestic matters and ignore present – and growing – dangers, there are usually nasty surprises in store.  Such surprises frequently compel the federal government to give urgent attention to its constitutional mandate to "provide for the common defense," often at the expense of fiscal discipline and other priorities.

One need not look too hard to discern the sorts of threats that could well preoccupy official Washington in the months ahead.  For example, the Obama administration’s much-ballyhooed "reset" in relations with Russia is becoming ever more one-sided as Vladimir Putin cracks down at home and sells dangerous arms to, and otherwise provides diplomatic protection for, the world’s most dangerous regimes.  And Communist China is operationalizing its ability to engage in what its military planners have described as "unrestricted warfare" – a strategy for using every instrument of power, from traditional and unconventional weaponry to financial attacks and terrorism – to decisively defeat the United States.

Other sources of what would be, at best, instability, and, at worst, war include: a succession crisis in a bankrupt and nuclear-armed North Korea; the prospect of another nuclear-armed nation, Pakistan, becoming a failed state; the Palestinians obtaining international recognition – including quite possibly from President Obama – for their unilaterally declared statehood; meltdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan catalyzed by the U.S. withdrawal from each; and one-time allies in the Far East, Mideast and Latin America adapting to perceived new realities of waning American power and protection.  They may manifest this by capitulating to emerging regional hegemons or by arming themselves to the teeth, in some cases at least with nuclear arms.  Either way, our interests will likely suffer.

Two national security threats are particularly likely to demand congressional attention in the New Year: 

First, Iran has reportedly reached an agreement with Venezuela to deploy ballistic missiles on Venezuelan territory.  Initially, these Scud and Shahab 3 missiles may not be able to reach the continental United States, unless employed in a sea-launched mode (a capability the Iranians have demonstrated) and brought closer to our shores aboard ships equipped for that purpose.  Certainly, if this deployment goes forward unchallenged – and so far, President Obama has taken no public steps to prevent it – over time, longer-range missiles will surely migrate to our hemisphere, as well.

Such a prospect is all the more alarming insofar as the Senate has just approved a New START Treaty that the Russians say they will remain party to only as long as the United States refrains from making "any quantitative or qualitative improvements" in our missile defenses.  Since we have no defenses in place at the moment to defend against threats emanating from the south, Congress will have to reckon with whether to provide for the common defense come what may, or allow Moscow to veto protection for the American people.

Second, the effort to impose or otherwise insinuate into this country the totalitarian, supremacist program the authorities of Islam call "shariah" is likely to intensify in 2011.  Our government remains unwilling to recognize this wellspring of jihadist terrorism and insists on legitimating and empowering organizations and individuals associated with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).  The latter practice is unconscionable since the MB absolutely shares the same goal as violent groups like al Qaeda, even though, for the moment at least, it chooses in the West use more stealthy forms of jihad to pursue shariah’s worldwide triumph under a caliphate. 

As a new book entitled Shariah: The Threat to America and published in November by the Center for Security Policy describes, such governmental behavior makes it is impossible to defeat such enemies.  If allowed to persist, there will not only be more deadly attacks perpetrated in this country in the name of Islam.  There will also be further, serious erosion of our Constitution and freedoms as serial accommodations are made to shariah’s adherents and their determination to create here, as in Britain, a parallel system of laws.

The good news is that Rep. Pete King (R-NY) the new chairman of the Homeland Security Committee has announced his intention to hold hearings addressing the nature of the threat of what he calls "radical Islam."  He wants to end the "political correctness" that has obscured our understanding of and hamstrung our response to this threat.  Congressman King’s efforts may prove to be among the most important of the 112th Congress and a model for oversight and corrective measures by its intelligence, foreign affairs and armed services committees.

History suggests that, if Congress properly attends to these and related matters, it will have time and resources to address other domestic priorities.  If legislators fail to do their part to identify and stave off such dangers, though, they may find their plans for budget cutting and the like go by the board, as they have to refocus big time on Job #1: providing for the common defense.

 

 

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

The denuclearizers dangerous ambitions

Hold on to your hat.  No sooner had the Senate finished approving the so-called New START Treaty by the closest margin of any bilateral arms control agreement with Moscow than the accord’s principal architect served notice of her ambitious plans for further denuclearizing the United States.  Unfortunately, the disarmament agenda Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller is helping President Obama pursue will make the world more dangerous, not safer for America and its interests.

As with Mr. Obama, who reportedly first espoused the idea of ridding the world of nuclear weapons while a radical undergraduate at Columbia, Ms. Gottemoeller is no newcomer to the idea of "global zero."  In the 1990s, she even lent her name to a report recommending that the United States engage in nuclear disarmament unilaterally, if necessary.  During the Clinton administration, then-Secretary of Defense William Cohen declined to give her a top Pentagon post in the face of intense controversy about her views.  She subsequently secured a consolation prize in the form of a succession of senior positions in the Department of Energy. 

Last year, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton entrusted Rose Gottemoeller with responsibility for negotiating the so-called "New START" Treaty with the Russians.  Their shared determination to secure that accord no matter what led to a succession of concessions that made the final product lopsidedly advantageous to the Kremlin. A desire to obscure that reality doubtless contributed to the administration’s refusal to share with the U.S. Senate the record of the New START negotiations – which, in turn, contributed to the uninformed nature of the abbreviated debate and vote for the treaty during the just-concluded lame-duck session.

Next up on Secretary Gottemoeller’s agenda are the following, among other, problematic initiatives:

  • The Senate’s urgent reconsideration of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).  A majority of Senators rejected that accord in 1999 on the grounds that it is unverifiable and inconsistent with the maintenance of a safe, secure and reliable U.S. nuclear deterrent.  Both defects persist today.
  • Further and still-more problematic cuts in U.S. and Russian strategic forces.  Such reductions would likely preclude the maintenance of the sort of balanced deterrent posture based on a "Triad" of land- and sea-based missiles and long-range bombers that the United States has correctly deemed necessary for decades – and that may be needed more than ever in the future.
  • A treaty on so-called "tactical" nuclear forces.  A clear defect of New START was that it left Moscow with a ten-to-one advantage in such weapons, whose destructive power is often greater than that of the Hiroshima bomb. Even if the Kremlin dropped its historic opposition to limiting these arms in a new accord, verification would be impossible as a practical matter and the price high in terms of further reducing the "nuclear umbrella" U.S. tactical nukes provide our allies.

We know from reporting by the Washington Times’ Bill Gertz that Ms.  Gottemoeller and her boss, Under Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher, are beavering away at  negotiations with Russia that would add to the already ominous constraints New START will impose on U.S. missile defenses.  Having largely kept the Senate in the dark about these talks, it remains to be seen if the Obama administration will be willing to submit whatever they produce to the Senate for its advice and consent, or use the Bilateral Consultative Commission the new treaty establishes to circumvent legislators altogether.

Unfortunately, that uncertainty is only increased by the way the Senate conducted the "debate" on New START.  Despite the best efforts of critics led by Republican Whip Jon Kyl, the Senate’s truncated lame-duck deliberations were, by and large, superficial and uninformed.  All too often, testimonials from former officials substituted for due-diligence. Binding remedies to the treaty’s defects were blocked in favor of cosmetic, and surely fleeting, understandings with Team Obama.

In the end, however, the size of the vote – 71-26 with 13 Republicans siding with the majority – obscured a reality that Ms. Gottemoeller and her colleagues would do well to bear in mind.  New START would likely not have been approved next year. Eleven of the incoming GOP freshmen senators asked the leadership not to deny them a chance to consider and vote on this accord.  Between those who are replacing Democrats who voted for New START and those taking the seats of Republicans who did so, it appears that the next Senate will be able to block further, reckless denuclearization initiatives.

That prospect looms particularly large insofar as the new membership in the Senate and the new Republican management in the House of Representatives are going to have to reckon with powerful reasons to proceed on such an agenda with extreme caution.  These include: the un-reset hostility of Vladimir Putin Kremlin; the rising power and increasing aggressiveness of Communist China; the imminent nuclear weapons capability of Iran together with the proliferation cascade it is setting in train; and Iran’s basing of ballistic missiles in Venezuela.

Time will tell how damaging the denuclearizers’ efforts to date will be. Before more harm is done, though, it behooves the Congress as a whole – and most especially the new chairmen and women of House committees responsible for the implementation of treaties (even if they are not party to their approval) – to serve notice on Mr. Obama, Ms. Gottemoeller and those who share their vision of a denuclearized America and world:  Not so fast.

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

A closer look at Brazil’s foreign policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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