Tag Archives: Venezuela

Just Say NO to New START

The 111th Congress has been discredited by its arrogant disregard for the public and repudiated at the polls. President Obama and his allies in the Senate are, nonetheless, trying to use the lame duck session to get a "Zombie Senate" to foist on the American people right before Christmas a dangerous "New START" nuclear arms treaty with Russia.  There are compelling reasons why the handful of Republican Senators who will decide whether this treaty is approved in its present form – under artificially constrained circumstances that allow minimal opportunity for informed debate – should just say "No."

Some of the most compelling include:

The treaty would leave the Russians with thousands more nuclear weapons than the United States when their ten-to-one advantage in "tactical" arms is factored in.  Moreover, the Kremlin’s tactical weapons are mostly modern. Ours are, on average, over thirty-years old; some actually rely on vacuum tubes.  Theirs are deployed forward near our allies and, in some cases, are being moved still closer in order to intimidate America’s friends. Meanwhile, our tactical bombs, artillery shells, etc. are no longer deployed aboard Navy ships and many of them are kept in the United States, and therefore are of limited, if any, deterrent value. 

 

 

What is more, Russian doctrine holds that such weapons are useable and probably decisive in warfighting.  Moscow’s large arsenal of tactical nukes will be even more of a threat if sharp cuts are made in the "nuclear umbrella" historically provided to our friends by our strategic deterrent.  Does anyone think this will make the world safer and strengthen America security?

New START shrinks the U.S. deterrent at a time when the threat from dangerous countries is growing, unconstrained by the treaty.  China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Myanmar and Venezuela are among those increasingly hostile nations who have obtained nuclear weapons or are working to get them.  This list may shortly include others who have, until now, been American allies but may feel, under the circumstances, obliged "go nuclear," as well.  If we are seen as less able (or willing) to protect them with our deterrent, the world is likely to have a lot more nuclear weapons, not fewer of them (let alone be rid of them, as Mr. Obama hopes) and surely be a lot more dangerous for the United States.

New START will allow the Russians to have a say – and what amounts to a veto – over America’s defenses against missile attack.   The Russians have said they will withdraw from the treaty if we improve the quantity or quality of our very limited anti-missile capabilities.   That threat will be more than enough to dissuade an Obama administration that has already cut, slowed and refused to deploy U.S. anti-missile programs. 

Such an arrangement is especially crazy since other dangerous countries that are not parties to New START are building up their ability to attack us and our allies with ballistic missiles (see above).  For example, Iran will soon have a base for such missiles in Venezuela – a new "Cuban Missile Crisis" in the making.  Why should Moscow be able to decide whether we can protect the American people from those missiles?

Russian compliance with New START cannot be properly verified.  This is a particular problem because the Kremlin has cheated on every arms control treaty it has ever signed.  Incredibly, New START supporters say that, without this treaty, we won’t be able to monitor what the Russians are doing.  In fact, since the treaty provides quite limited verification arrangements, we will only be able to monitor what Moscow wants us to monitor. You can bet that cheating will take place in the future in Russia, but it will probably occur in the countless places where we are not allowed to conduct inspections.

Under the kleptocratic Vladimir Putin, the Russian government is not our friend, let alone a reliable partner.  The claim that New START is necessary to "reset" relations is misleading, and potentially dangerously so.  In fact, Putin and his ruling clique are deeply hostile to America.  He is continuing to arm, protect and otherwise embolden our enemies around the world.  For example, Russia is making nuclear weapons-relevant know-how and technology available to the likes of Iran, Venezuela and North Korea. And it is continuing to proliferate ballistic missile, advanced anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles, submarines, tanks, highly capable fighter planes and immense quantities of AK-47 automatic rifles – without regard for the danger they will pose in the Middle East, Far East and even Latin America.

As a result, the United States, its allies and interests are at greater risk by the day. New START would actually reward the Kremlin for such behavior, rather than end it.

Action on the treaty to date has shown that the Senate’s political equivalent of the "living dead" and other members of the 111th Congress cannot address, let alone fix, these problems in the few days left in the lame-duck session.  That is precisely why President Obama is insisting that it vote on New START before year’s end.

There is actually no compelling reason why the Senate should vote on New START under these circumstances – and plenty of reasons why it should not.  If President Obama insists on Senators approving this defective treaty without sufficient time and information to debate and assess – let alone actually fix – its problems, at least 34 of them should firmly just say "No."

 

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.

Why Latin America turned

Israelis can be excused for wondering why Brazil and Argentina unexpectedly announced they recognize an independent Palestinian state with its capital city in Israel’s capital city. Israelis can be forgiven for being taken by surprise by their move and by the prospect that Uruguay, and perhaps Paraguay, Chile, Peru, Ecuador and El Salvador, will be following in their footsteps because the Israeli media have failed to report on developing trends in Latin America.

And this is not surprising. The media fail to report on almost all the developing trends impacting the world. For instance, when the Turkish government sent Hamas supporters to challenge the IDF’s maritime blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza coastline, the media were surprised that Israel’s ally Turkey had suddenly become Hamas’s ally and Israel’s enemy.

Their failure to report on Turkey’s gradual transformation into an Islamic supremacist state caused the media to treat what was a culmination of a trend as a shocking new development.

The same is now happening with Latin America.

Whereas in Turkey, the media failed only to report on the significance of the singular trend of Islamization of Turkish society, the media have consistently ignored the importance for Israel of three trends that made Latin America’s embrace of the Palestinians against Israel eminently predictable.

Those trends are the rise of Hugo Chavez, the regional influence of the Venezuela-Iran alliance, and the cravenness of US foreign policy towards Latin America and the Middle East. When viewed as a whole they explain why Latin American states are lining up to support the Palestinians. More importantly, they tell us something about how Israel should be acting.

OVER THE past decade Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez has inherited Fidel Castro’s mantel as the head of the Latin American anti-American club. He has used Venezuela’s oil wealth, drug money and other illicit fortunes to draw neighboring states into his orbit and away from the US. Chavez’s circle of influence now includes Cuba and Nicaragua, Bolivia, Uruguay and Ecuador as well as Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina and Peru. Democracies like Colombia and Chile are also taking steps in Chavez’s anti-American direction.

Chavez’s choice of Iran is no fluke although it seemed like one to some when the alliance first arose around 2004. Iran’s footprint in Latin America has grown gradually. Beginning in the 1980s, Iran started using Latin America as a forward base of operations against the US and the West. It deployed Hizbullah and Revolutionary Guards operatives and other intelligence and terror assets along the largely ungoverned tri-border area between Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil. That staging ground in turn enabled Iran to bomb Israeli and Jewish targets in Buenos Aires in the early 1990s.

Iran’s presence on the continent allowed it to take advantage of Chavez’s consolidation of power. Since taking office in 2005, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has developed strategic alliances with Venezuela and Nicaragua.

With Chavez’s assistance, Teheran is expanding its web of alliances throughout Latin America at the expense of the US and Israel.

On the face of it, Chavez and Ahmadinejad seem like an odd couple. One is a Marxist and the other is a messianic jihadist. But on closer inspection it makes perfect sense. They share the same obsessions with hating the US and loving power.

Chavez has demonstrated his commitment to maintaining power by crushing his opponents, taking control over the judiciary and media, amending the constitution and repeatedly stealing elections.

Meanwhile, the WikiLeaks sabotage campaign against the US gave us a first person account of the magnitude of Ahmadinejad’s electoral fraud.

In a cable from the US Embassy in Turkmenistan dated 15 June 2009, or three days after Ahmadinejad stole the Iranian presidential elections, the embassy reported a conversation with an Iranian source regarding the true election results. The Iranian source referred to the poll as a "coup d’etat."

The regime declared Ahmadinejad the winner with 63% of the vote. According to the Iranian source, he received less than a fifth of that amount. As the cable put it, "based on calculations from [opponent Mir Hossain] Mousavi’s campaign observers who were present at polling stations around the country and who witnessed the vote counts, Mousavi received approximately 26 million (or 61%) of the 42 million votes cast in Friday’s election, followed by Mehdi Karroubi (10-12 million)…. Ahmadinejad received ‘a maximum of 4-5 million votes,’ with the remainder going to Mohsen Rezai."

There is no fence-sitting along the Iran-Israel divide. Latin American countries that embrace Iran always do so to the detriment of their ties with Israel. Bolivia and Venezuela cut their diplomatic ties with Israel in January 2009 after siding with Hamas in Operation Cast Lead. In comments reported on the Hudson New York website, Ricardo Udler, the president of the small Bolivian Jewish community, said there is a direct correlation between Bolivia’s growing ties with Iran and its animosity towards Israel. In his words, "Each time an Iranian official arrives in Bolivia there are negative comments against the State of Israel and soon after, the Bolivian authorities issue a communiqué against the Jewish state."

Udler also warned that, "there is information from international agencies that indicate that uranium from Bolivia and Venezuela is being shipped to Iran."

That was in October. With Iran it appears that if you’re in for an inch you’re in for a mile. This month we learned that Venezuela and Iran are jointly deploying intermediate range ballistic missiles in Venezuela that will be capable of targeting US cities.

THERE IS no doubt that the Venezuelan-Iranian alliance and its growing force in Latin America go a long way towards explaining South America’s sudden urge to recognize "Palestine." But there is more to the story.

The final trend that the media in Israel have failed to notice is the impact that US foreign policy in South America and the Middle East alike has had on the positions of nations like Brazil and Argentina towards Israel. During the Bush administration, US Latin America policy was an incoherent bundle of contradictions. On the one hand, the US failed to assist Chavez’s opponents overthrow him when they had a chance in 2004. The US similarly failed to support Nicaraguan democrats in their electoral fight against Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega in the 2007 elections. On the other hand, the US did foster strong alliances with Colombia and Chile.

Under the Obama administration, US Latin American policy has become more straightforward. The US has turned its back on its allies and is willing to humiliate itself in pursuit of its adversaries.

In April 2009 US President Barack Obama sat through a 50-minute anti-American rant by Ortega at the Summit of the Americas. He then sought out Chavez for a photo-op. In his own address Obama distanced himself from US history, saying, "We have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms. But I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations."

Unfortunately, Obama’s attempted appeasement hasn’t done any good. Nicaragua invaded neighboring Costa Rica last month along the San Juan River. Ortega’s forces are dredging the river as part of an Iranian-sponsored project to build a canal along the Isthmus of Nicaragua that will rival the Panama Canal.

Even Obama’s ambassador in Managua admits that Ortega remains deeply hostile to the US. In a cable from February illicitly published by WikiLeaks, Ambassador Robert Callahan argued that Ortega’s charm offensive towards the US was "unlikely to portend a new, friendly Ortega with whom we can work in the long-term."

It is not simply the US’s refusal to defend itself against the likes of Chavez that provokes the likes of Brazil’s President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva and Argentina’s President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner to embrace Chavez and Iran.

They are also responding the US’s signals towards Iran and Israel.

Obama’s policy of engaging and sanctioning Iran has no chance of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And just like the Arabs and the Europeans, the South Americans know it. There is no doubt that at least part of Lula’s reason for signing onto a nuclear deal with Ahmadinejad and Turkey’s Reccip Erdogan last spring was his certainty that the US has no intention of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear arms.

From Lula’s perspective, there is no reason to participate in the US charade of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power. He might as well be on the winning side. And since Obama doesn’t mind Iran winning, Iran will win.

THE SAME rules apply for Israel. Like the Europeans, the Arabs, the Asians and everyone else, the Latin Americans have clearly noted that Obama’s only consistent foreign policy goal is his aim of forcing Israel to accept a hostile Palestinian state and surrender all the land it took control over in 1967 to the likes of PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas and Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. They see that Obama has refused to rule out the possibility of recognizing a Palestinian state even if that state is declared without a peace treaty with Israel. That is, Obama is unwilling to commit himself to not recognizing a Palestinian state that will be in a de facto state of war with Israel.

The impression that Obama is completely committed to the Palestinian cause was reinforced this week rather than weakened with the cancellation of the Netanyahu-Clinton deal regarding the banning of Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. The deal was to see Israel banning Jewish construction for an additional 90 days, in exchange for a US pledge not to ask for any further bans; to support Israel at the UN Security Council for a limited time against a Palestinian push to declare independence without peace; and to sell Israel an additional 20 F-35 fighter jets sometime in the future.

It came apart because Obama was unwilling to put Clinton’s commitments – meager as they were – in writing. That is, the deal fell through because Obama wouldn’t make even a minimal pledge to maintain the US’s alliance with Israel.

This policy signals to the likes of Brazil and Argentina and Uruguay that they might as well go with Chavez and Iran and turn their backs on Israel. No one will thank them if they lag behind the US in their pro-Iran, anti-Israel policies. And by moving ahead of the US, they get the credit due to those who stick their fingers in Washington’s eye.

When we understand the trends that led to Latin America’s hostile act against Israel, we realize two things. First, while Israel might have come up with a way to delay the action, it probably couldn’t have prevented it. And second, given the US policy trajectory, it is again obvious that the only one Israel can rely on to defend its interests – against Iran and the Palestinians alike – is Israel.

 

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post. 

 

The WikiLeaks challenge

Make no mistake about it, the ongoing WikiLeaks operation against the US is an act of war. It is not merely a criminal offense to publish hundreds of thousands of classified US government documents with malice aforethought. It is an act of sabotage.

Like acts of kinetic warfare on military battlefields, WikiLeaks’ information warfare against the US aims to weaken the US. By exposing US government secrets, it seeks to embarrass and discredit America in a manner that makes it well neigh impossible for the US to carry out either routine diplomacy or build battlefield coalitions to defeat its enemies.

So far WikiLeaks has published more than 800,000 classified US documents. It has exposed classified information about US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and it has divulged 250,000 diplomatic cables.

One of the most distressing aspects of the WikiLeaks operation is the impotent US response to it. This operation has been going on since April. And the US had foreknowledge of the attack in the weeks and months before it began. And yet, the US has taken no effective steps to defend itself. Pathetically, the most it has been able to muster to date is the issuance of an international arrest warrant against WikiLeaks spokesman Julian Assange on rape charges in Sweden.

The US has not taken down the website. Aside from the US Army soldier Pfc Bradley Manning who leaked most of the documents to the website, no one has been arrested. And the US appears impotent to prevent the website from carrying through on its latest threat to publish new documents aimed at weakening the US economy next month.

Neither US President Barack Obama nor any of his top advisers has had anything relevant or useful to say about this onslaught. Defense Secretary Robert Gates assured journalists that the damage caused by publishing US operations on the battlefield, classified reports of meetings with and assessments of foreign heads of state and other highly sensitive information will have no long lasting impact on US power or status.

Ignoring the fact that the operation is aimed specifically against America, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it was "an attack on the international community."

While the expressed aim of the attackers is to weaken the US, Obama’s spokesman Robert Gibbs called them "criminals, first and foremost." And US Attorney-General Eric Holder said he’s checking the law books to figure out how to prosecute WikiLeaks personnel.

The leaked documents themselves expose a profound irony. To wit: The US is unwilling to lift a finger to defend itself against an act of information warfare which exposed to the world that the US is unwilling to lift a finger to protect itself and its allies from the most profound military threats endangering international security today.

In spite of the unanimity of the US’s closest Arab allies that Iran’s nuclear installations must be destroyed militarily – a unanimity confirmed by the documents revealed by WikiLeaks – the US has refused to take action. Instead it clings to a dual strategy of sanctions and engagement that everyone recognizes has failed repeatedly and has no chance of future success.

In spite of proof that North Korea is transferring advanced ballistic missiles to Iran through China, again confirmed by the illegally released documents, the US continues to push a policy of engagement based on a belief that there is value to China’s vote for sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council. It continues to push a policy predicated on its unfounded faith that China is interested in restraining North Korea.

In spite of the fact that US leaders including Gates recognize that Turkey is not a credible ally and that its leaders are radical Islamists, as documented in the classified documents, the US has agreed to sell Turkey a hundred F-35s. The US continues to support Turkish membership in the EU and of course embraces Turkey as a major NATO ally.

The publication of the US’s true feelings about Turkey has not made a dent in its leaders’ unwillingness to contend with reality. On the heels of the WikiLeaks exposure of thousands of documents from the US Embassy in Ankara discussing Turkish animosity towards America, Clinton flew to Turkey for the first leg of what The New York Times referred to as an "international contrition tour."

There she sucked up to the likes of Turkish Foreign Minister and Islamist ideologue Ahmet Davutoglu, who was kind enough to agree with Clinton’s assertion that the publication of the State Department cables was "the 9/11 of diplomacy."

THE MOST important question that arises from the entire WikiLeaks disaster is why the US refuses to defend itself and its interests. What is wrong with Washington? Why is it allowing WikiLeaks to destroy its international reputation, credibility and ability to conduct international relations and military operations? And why has it refused to contend with the dangers it faces from the likes of Iran and North Korea, Turkey, Venezuela and the rest of the members of the axis of evil that even State Department officers recognize are colluding to undermine and destroy US superpower status? 

The answer appears to be twofold. First, there is an issue of cowardice.

American leaders are afraid to fight their enemies. They don’t want a confrontation with Iran or North Korea, or Venezuela or Turkey for that matter, because they don’t want to deal with difficult situations with no easy answers or silver bullets to make problems disappear.

WikiLeaks showed that there is no Israel lobby plotting to bring the US into a war to serve Jewish interests. There is something approaching an international consensus that Iran is the head of the snake that must be cut off, as the Saudi potentate described it.

Yet that consensus opinion has fallen on deaf American ears for the past seven years. This despite the fact that both the Bush administration and the Obama administration certainly recognized that if the US were to attack Iran’s nuclear installations or help Israel do so, despite all the theater of public handwringing and finger- wagging at Israel, the Arabs and the Europeans and Asians would celebrate the operation.

THE SECOND explanation for this behavior is ideological. The Obama administration will not take concerted action against WikiLeaks because doing so will compromise its adherence to leftist politically correct nostrums.

Those views assert that there is something fundamentally wrong with the assertion of US power and therefore the US has no right to defend itself. Moreover, nothing the Arabs or any other non-Western governments do is a function of their will. Rather it is a function of their response to US or Israeli aggression.

So it is that in the wake of the WikiLeaks disclosures that put paid the fiction that Israel is behind the fuss over Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Juan Cole, the anti-Israel ideologue and conspiracy theorist favored by the Obama administration, published an article in The Guardian proclaiming that Israel is to blame for Saudis’ fear of Iran. If the Arab masses weren’t so worked up over Israeli aggression in Gaza, he claimed, the Saudi leadership wouldn’t have been upset about Iran.

It is this sort of non sequitur that allows the Obama administration to continue pretending that the world is not a hard place and that there are no problems that cannot be solved by pressuring Israel.

So too, Fred Kaplan at Slate online magazine claimed that the leaks showed that the Obama administration’s foreign policy is successful because it succeeded in getting China on board with UN sanctions against Iran. But of course, what the documents show is that China is breaching those sanctions, rendering the entire exercise at the UN worthless.

And the Left’s voice of "reason," the New York Times editorial page, lauded the Obama administration for its courage in rejecting the pleas of Arab states and Israel and fiddling while Iranian centrifuges spin. According to the Times, true courage consists of defying reality, strategic necessity and allies to defend the dogmas of political correctness.

Perhaps the best way to demonstrate how fecklessly the US is behaving is by comparing its actions to those of Israel, which suffered a similar, if far smaller case of data theft earlier this year.

In April, the public learned that towards the end of her IDF service, a secretary in the office of the commander of Central Command named Anat Kamm copied some 2,000 highly secret documents onto her zip drive. After leaving the army she was hired as a reporter by the far-left Walla news portal, which was then partially owned by the far-left Haaretz newspaper. Kamm gave the documents she stole to Haaretz reporter Uri Blau, who began publishing them in November 2008.

Haaretz used its considerable power to discredit the investigation of Kamm and Blau by falsely telling foreign reporters that the story was an issue of press freedom and that Kamm was being persecuted as a journalist rather than investigated for treason she committed while serving in the military.

In the face of the predictable international outcry, Israel stuck to its guns. Kamm is on trial for stealing state secrets with the intent of harming state security and Blau, who fled to London, returned to Israel with the stolen documents.

While there is much to criticize in Israel’s handling of the case, there is no doubt that despite its international weakness, Israeli authorities did not shirk their duty to defend state secrets.

THE FINAL irony of the WikiLeaks scandal is the cowardice of WikiLeaks that stands at the foundation of the story. Founded in 2006, Wikileaks was supposed to serve the cause of freedom. It claimed that it would defend dissidents in China, the former Soviet Union and other places where human rights remains an empty term. But then China made life difficult for WikiLeaks and so four years later, Assange and his colleagues declared war on the US, rightly assuming that unlike China, the US would take their attacks lying down. Why take risks to defend dissidents in a police state when it’s so much easier and so much more rewarding to attempt to destroy free societies? 

Assange and company are hardly the first to take this course. Human Rights Watch, created to fight for those crushed under the Soviet jackboot, now spends its millions of George Soros dollars to help terrorists in their war against the US and Israel. Amnesty International forgot long ago that it was founded to help prisoners of police states and instead devotes itself to attacking the imaginary evils of the Jewish state and Western democracies.

And that brings us to the real question raised by the WikiLeaks assault on America. Can democracies today protect themselves? In the era of leftist political correctness with its founding principle that Western power is evil and that the freedom to harm democracies is inviolate, can democracies defend their security and national interests? 

 

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post

 

Whose side is he on? “Disarmed And Dangerous” reveals why America’s enemies love Obama’s New START’

Washington, DC– The Center for Security Policy today launched an innovative and interactive Youtube feature exposing the danger that Obama’s New Start Treaty will disarm America in a threatening world of many emerging nuclear powers. Disarmed & Dangerous: Stop the New START Treaty presents an inventive and interactive video guide to how the treaty, in reality, escalates the threats from China, North Korea, Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

Watch Disarmed & Dangerous: Stop the New START Treaty now.

 

As President Obama pressures the Senate leadership to rubber-stamp his “New START” disarmament treaty with Russia, concerns continue to mount that the accord will actually make the world more dangerous, not less.

The case is becoming stronger by the day that senators should defer action on this flawed accord until the 112th Congress is seated – affording an opportunity to explore, debate and, where necessary, correct its defects. For example, recent Wikileaks documents have revealed that: North Korea has developed a sophisticated covert uranium enrichment program; Iran has acquired from Pyongyang nuclear-capable missiles capable of reaching much of Europe; and China has enabled North Korea’s proliferation activities.

In unveiling the new video campaign, Center President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. said:

President Obama’s claims that the New START Treaty will enhance American security and make the planet safer do not stand up to scrutiny.  Neither do his arguments for a truncated debate on this accord.  Senators and their constituents need the truth about the Obama administration’s dangerous plans to weaken the United States.  To get it, they are going to have to reject the bum’s rush they are being given – and consider the Treaty when it is possible to do so in a careful and constitutionally appropriate way, namely next year.

 

Rocking Obama’s world

Crises are exploding throughout the world. And the leader of the free world is making things worse.

On the Korean peninsula, North Korea just upended eight years of State Department obfuscation by showing a team of US nuclear scientists its collection of thousands of state-of-the-art centrifuges installed in its Yongbyon nuclear reactor.

And just to top off the show, as Stephen Bosworth, US President Barack Obama’s point man on North Korea, was busily arguing that this revelation is not a crisis, the North fired an unprovoked artillery barrage at South Korea, demonstrating that actually, it is a crisis.

But the Obama administration remains unmoved. On Tuesday Defense Secretary Robert Gates thanked his South Korean counterpart, Kim Tae-young, for showing "restraint."

On Thursday, Kim resigned in disgrace for that restraint.

The US has spoken strongly of not allowing North Korea’s aggression to go unanswered. But in practice, its only answer is to try to tempt North Korea back to feckless multilateral disarmament talks that will go nowhere because China supports North Korean armament. Contrary to what Obama and his advisers claim, China does not share the US’s interest in denuclearizing North Korea. Consequently, Beijing will not lift a finger to achieve that goal.

Then there is Iran. The now inarguable fact that Pyongyang is developing nuclear weapons with enriched uranium makes it all but certain that the hyperactive proliferators in Pyongyang are involved in Iran’s uranium-based nuclear weapons program. Obviously the North Koreans don’t care that the UN Security Council placed sanctions on Iran. And their presumptive role in Iran’s nuclear weapons program exposes the idiocy of the concept that these sanctions can block Iran’s path to a nuclear arsenal.

Every day as the regimes in Pyongyang and Teheran escalate their aggression and confrontational stances, it becomes more and more clear that the only way to neutralize the threats they pose to international security is to overthrow them. At least in the case of Iran, it is also clear that the prospects for regime change have never been better.

IRAN’S REGIME is in trouble. Since the fraudulent presidential elections 17 months ago the regime has moved ferociously against its domestic foes.

But dissent has only grown. And as popular resentment towards the regime has grown, the likes of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, supreme dictator Ali Khamenei and their Revolutionary Guards have become terrified of their own people. They have imprisoned rappers and outlawed Western music. They have purged their schoolbooks of Persian history. Everything that smacks of anything non-Islamic is viewed as a threat.

Members of the regime are so frightened by the public that this week several members of parliament tried to begin impeachment proceedings against Ahmadinejad. Apparently they hope that ousting him will be sufficient to end the public’s call for revolutionary change.

But Khamenei is standing by his man. And the impeachment proceedings have ended as quickly as they began.

The policy implications of all of this are clear.

The US should destroy Iran’s nuclear installations and help the Iranian people overthrow the regime. But the Obama administration will have none of it.

Earlier this month, Gates said, "If it’s a military solution, as far as I’m concerned, it will bring together a divided nation."

So in his view, the Iranian people who risk death to defy the regime every day, the Iranian people who revile Ahmadinejad as "the chimpanzee," and call for Khamenei’s death from their rooftops every evening, will rally around the chimp and the dictator if the US or Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear installations.

Due to this thinking, as far as the Obama administration is concerned the US should stick to its failed sanctions policy and continue its failed attempts to cut a nuclear deal with the mullahs.

As Michael Ledeen noted last week at Pajamas Media, this boilerplate assertion, backed by no evidence whatsoever, is what passes for strategic wisdom in Washington as Iran completes its nuclear project. And this US refusal to understand the policy implications of popular rejection of the regime is what brings State Department wise men and women to the conclusion that the US has no dog in this fight. As State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told The Wall Street Journal this week, the parliament’s bid to impeach Ahmadinejad was nothing more than the product of "rivalries within the Iranian government."

Then there is Lebanon. Since Ahmadinejad’s visit last month, it is obvious that Iran is now the ruler of Lebanon and that it exerts its authority over the country through its Hizbullah proxy.

Hizbullah’s open threats to overthrow Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s government if Hizbullah’s role in assassinating his father in 2005 is officially acknowledged just make this tragic reality more undeniable. And yet, the Obama administration continues to deny that Iran controls Lebanon.

A month after Ahmadinejad’s visit, Obama convinced the lame duck Congress to lift its hold on $100 million in US military assistance to the Hizbullah-dominated Lebanese military. And the US convinced Israel to relinquish the northern half of the border town of Ghajar to UN forces despite the fact that the UN forces are at Hizbullah’s mercy.

In the midst of all these crises, Obama has maintained faith with his two central foreign policy goals: forcing Israel to withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines and scaling back the US nuclear arsenal with an eye towards unilateral disarmament. That is, as the forces of mayhem and war escalate their threats and aggression, Obama’s central goals remain weakening the US’s most powerful regional ally in the Middle East and rendering the US incompetent to deter or defeat rapidly proliferating rogue states that are at war with the US and its allies.

HAVING SAID THAT, the truth is that in advancing these goals, Obama is not out of step with his predecessors. George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton both enacted drastic cuts in the US conventional and nonconventional arsenals. Clinton and George W. Bush adopted appeasement policies towards North Korea. Indeed, Pyongyang owes its nuclear arsenal to both presidents’ desire to be deceived and do nothing.

Moreover, North Korea’s ability to proliferate nuclear weapons to the likes of Iran, Syria and Venezuela owes in large part to then-secretary of state Condoleezza Rice’s insistence that Israel say nothing about North Korea’s nuclear ties to Iran and Syria in the wake of Israel’s destruction of the North Korean-built and Iranian-financed nuclear reactor in Syria in September 2007.

As for Iran, Obama’s attempt to appease the regime is little different from his predecessors’ policies. The Bush administration refused to confront the fact that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are to a large degree Iranian proxy wars.

The Bush administration refused to acknowledge that Syria and Hizbullah are run by Teheran and that the 2006 war against Israel was nothing more than an expansion of the proxy wars Iran is running in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama’s failed "reset" policy towards Russia is also little different from his predecessors’ policies.

Bush did nothing but squawk after Russia invaded US ally Georgia. The Clinton administration set the stage for Vladimir Putin’s KGB state by squandering the US’s massive influence over post-Soviet Russia and allowing Boris Yeltsin and his cronies to transform the country into an impoverished kleptocracy.

Finally, Obama’s obsession with Israeli land giveaways to the PLO was shared by Clinton and by the younger Bush, particularly after 2006. Rice – who compared Israel to the Jim Crow South – was arguably as hostile towards Israel as Obama.

SO IS OBAMA really worse than everyone else or is he just the latest in a line of US presidents who have no idea how to run an effective foreign policy? The short answer is that he is far worse than his predecessors.

A US president’s maneuver room in foreign affairs is always very small. The foreign policy establishment in the Washington is entrenched and uniformly opposed to bending to the will of elected leaders. The elites in the State Department and the CIA and their cronies in academia and policy circles in Washington are also consistently unmoved by reality, which as a rule exposes their policies as ruinous.

The president has two ways to shift the ship of state. First, he can use his bully pulpit. Second, he can appoint people to key positions in the foreign policy bureaucracy.

Since entering office, Obama has used both these powers to ill effect. He has traveled across the world condemning and apologizing for US world leadership. In so doing he has convinced ally and adversary alike that he is not a credible leader; that no one can depend on US security guarantees during his watch; and that it is possible to attack the US, its allies and interests with impunity.

Obama’s call for a nuclear-free world combined with his aggressive stance towards Israel’s purported nuclear arsenal, his bid to disarm the US nuclear arsenal, and his ineffective response to North Korea’s nuclear brinksmanship and Iran’s nuclear project have served to convince nations from the Persian Gulf to South America to the Pacific Rim that they should begin developing nuclear weapons. By calling for nuclear disarmament, he has provoked the greatest wave of nuclear armament in history.

GIVEN HIS own convictions, it is no surprise that all his key foreign policy appointments share his dangerous views. The State Department’s Legal Adviser Harold Koh believes the US should subordinate its laws to an abstract and largely unfounded notion of international law. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy believes terrorists become radicalized because they are poor. She is advised by leftist extremist Rosa Brooks. Attorney-General Eric Holder has decided to open criminal investigations against CIA operatives who interrogated terrorists and to try illegal enemy combatants in civilian courts.

In all these cases and countless others, Obama’s senior appointees are implementing policies that are even more radical and dangerous than the radical and dangerous policies of the Washington policy establishment. Not only are they weakening the US and its allies, they are demoralizing public servants who are dedicated to defending their country by signaling clearly that the Obama administration will leave them high and dry in a crisis.

When a Republican occupies the White House, his foreign policies are routinely criticized and constrained by the liberal media. Radical Democratic presidents like Woodrow Wilson have seen their foreign policies reined in by Republican Congresses.

Given the threats Obama’s radical policies are provoking, it can only be hoped that through hearings and other means, the Republicans in the Senate and the House of Representatives will take an active role in curbing his policies. If they are successful, the American people and the international community will owe them a debt of gratitude.

Originally published in the The Jerusalem Post. 

The FARC’s senator

On September 27, 2010, Colombian Senator Piedad Córdoba was removed from her senate seat.  The country’s Inspector General provided evidence that supported the long held claim by high ranking Colombian officials that Ms. Cordoba had close ties to the narco-terrorist group known as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The decision removing Cordoba from office also forbids her from holding any public office for eighteen years.

In a statement, Colombia’s Attorney General Alejandro Ordoñez explained that this sanction applies to Córdoba "for collaborating and promoting the illegal armed group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia." He stated that Cordoba clearly exceeded the duties specified in the authorization given to her by the Colombian government as an official mediator for the release of hostages. According to the charges [PDF], she advised the FARC to send voice recordings instead of video footage of the insurgent group’s hostages as "proofs of life" in order to improve their strategy. The evidence against the now former senator consists of emails and letters found in the computers of slain commander "Raul Reyes," who was killed on March 1 of 2008. They identify Córdoba by her aliases of ‘Teodora’, ‘Teodora Bolivar’ and ‘La Negra.’ The documents allegedly show that her exchanges with the group’s leaders were more than friendly.

For many locals, the decision to dismiss Cordoba could not have come sooner. The former senator has been known for her ties to the FARC for years. Mrs. Cordoba is also a close friend of Hugo Chavez and both have worked tirelessly to overthrow the government of Colombia in order to take power and then give the FARC a principal role. It has been suspected that Cordoba receives money from Caracas in order to continue her support of the FARC and Chavez.

Colombia has long stood as a stronghold against Chavez’s Bolivarian Revolution.  Bogota’s progress against the FARC represents a major obstacle in his pursuit of integrating more countries under his umbrella. He knows the only way he can endlessly get away with illegally grabbing power and money is if the U.S. is kept at bay. Chavez wants the FARC to become a legalized political party with representation. He already has the loyalty of Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Cuba, and Nicaragua who have become dependant on Mr. Chavez’s handouts and oil. In addition, many corrupt politicians and leaders have become accustomed to the gifts they receive from Venezuela in exchange for their support. Other countries and international bodies such as the OAS have preferred to appease Chavez and rarely raise any protest against his dictatorial ways.  Only a few openly confront Chavez and the most successful is Colombia. That is why Chavez and the FARC want its government destroyed.

To achieve this, the Venezuelan leader sought powerful allies within the Colombian government that could provide him with invaluable information and give him a powerful and visible voice for his cause. Piedad Cordoba is well respected by the international community and is an outspoken "human rights" activist, which gives her credibility in international forums and organizations. The socialist and leftist movements love her and portray her as an angel who wants to help in freeing the hostages held by the FARC. She even was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, by former Nobel Peace Prize winner, Argentinean writer Adolfo Perez Esquivel. She did not win.

Who is Piedad Cordoba?

Piedad Esneda Córdoba Ruiz (born January 25, 1955) is a Medellin native of mixed white and Afro-Colombian parents and the leader of the "Poder Ciudadano Siglo XXI" political movement. She has been a senator in the Colombian legislature for four terms from 1994 to 2010, and was a Member of the Chamber of Representatives  from 1994 to 1994. She was removed from her seat in 2005 for fraud.

In 1999 she was kidnapped by the paramilitary group called the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC). After several weeks she was freed and exiled with her family in Canada. After more than one year in exile, Córdoba returned to Colombia, leaving her family behind to resume her political duties.

A Controversial Figure

Mrs. Cordoba has always been surrounded by controversy. She has been outspoken in her support for a political solution to the FARC problem, and supports giving them the right to representation in the Colombian political system. In addition, she has legally defended several members of the FARC and the National Liberation Army (ELN). She was also an overt opponent of President Alvaro Uribe and even attended international forums to publicly criticize and condemn her own government. Case in point, three years ago, on March 11, 2007, she was invited to a symposium in Mexico City called Los Partidos Políticos y una Nueva Ciudad (Political parties and a new city) which was supported by the FARC and the National Liberation Army (ELN). Córdoba generated controversy after declaring that "the progressive governments of Latin America should break their diplomatic relations with Colombia" and also that Alvaro Uribe was a "paramilitary". Córdoba was later judicially denounced for treason after making these declarations, a charge which is currently being investigated by Colombia’s Supreme Court.

And just two months ago, Córdoba asked The European Union to put pressure on newly elected Colombian president, Juan Manuel Santos on the subject of ending Colombia’s violent internal conflict. The senator asked the E.U. to push Santos towards dialogue with groups such as the FARC and the ELN, which Santos has recently said he would not do until the groups cease their violent attacks. "Knowing the situation with human rights in Colombia, I invite the E.U. to pressure Colombia and put more emphasis on the government to start a political dialogue," said the Senator in a conversation with news agency EFE.

She became famous in 2007, when President Uribe appointed her as a mediator to help free some hostages held by the FARC. Soon after, she invited Hugo Chavez to join her in the mediation effort. Córdoba and Chavez met with Raul Reyes, spokesman and leader of the FARC, Rodrigo Granda, Ivan Marquez and other members as part of the negotiations. Photos of Córdoba, Chavez and the terrorists surfaced in an online website called Agencia Bolivariana de Prensa (ABP) which showed Córdoba in an amicable and cordial relationship with the FARC, receiving flowers, kisses and hugs. That mission did not accomplish its goal. On November 22nd President Uribe ended the mediation after Chávez broke with diplomatic protocol by placing a series of calls directly to the high command of the Colombian military.

Piedad Cordoba and the FARC: the Evidence

Colombia’s Inspector General announced that his office has compiled a list of charges against Senator Piedad Cordoba in relation to allegations that she collaborated with the FARC outside of the parameters of her role as a hostage release negotiator. The investigation stems from evidence found in dead FARC leader "Raul Reyes" files, which the Inspector General’s Office says suggest that the "Colombians for Peace" leader was involved in "FARC-politics." Email correspondence between Cordoba and the FARC allegedly "contains elements that are not about humanitarian aid."

Under the code name of "’Teodora de Bolivar," she would be one of twelve people mentioned as part of a potential transitional government set up by the FARC  and Hugo Chavez in the event that they seized power in Colombia.

The emails show that during the failed attempt to rescue the hostages in 2007, she acted more as a FARC collaborator than like an official mediator, and that she contacted the group after her official mediation had ended. Mrs. Cordoba vehemently denies being Teodora, but every trip mentioned by ‘Teodora’ on her mails to the FARC matches one made by Mrs. Cordoba. In one email, ‘Teodora’ writes: "I leave for Washington on Tuesday, going for Sonia and Simon T". The senator’s trip to D.C. and her meetings with the two FARC leaders (both of them extradited to the U.S. by Colombian authorities) were known.

The files also indicate that Córdoba would have received money from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to fund social projects.

She also appears to have collaborated with the defense on some of the FARC members’ court cases.

On another e-mail sent on June 14, 2007, two months before she was designated as a mediator by  President Uribe, ‘Raúl Reyes’ asks a fellow FARC member to include Senator Córdoba on a list, in order that she receive FARC documents. In the same text, he also requests calling her by the name ‘Teodora.’

In a communication from September 1, 2007, ‘Raul Reyes’ tells ‘Iván Márquez’, another High Commander, "’la negra’ is an important element for the future, given who she is and her proximity to the man". He also says that she’s got "a good position about our organization". The investigation concluded that "la negra" was, in fact, Piedad Córdoba.

Another document was found in which Reyes writes, "Piedad, with great energy, here expressed her thesis that without the existence and strength of the FARC there wouldn’t be any opposition in Colombia". Reyes added that Córdoba had told him that she felt "fully identified" with the 12 points that the FARC thought necessary for a new government. On September 14, ‘Raul Reyes’ wrote to the whole High Command: "Piedad …. Is very happy and is considering the right moment to strengthen relations with the FARC in order to support a new government, where ‘la negra’ would be assisted by Chavez and where the FARC would have a principal role".

Another email, from September 23, 2007, is even more damaging. Reyes wrote to Manuel Marulanda, Farc’s top leader at the time: "Piedad told me, asking for our discretion, that Chavez contributed 100 million pesos to social work in her district. If so, "it doesn’t seem impossible to get 250 million for our Plan".

In another message of October 27, 2007, ‘Teodora’ makes another suggestion to Reyes: "we must support Chavez before December 2nd; he must win on his constitutional reform. So, I here respectfully dare to ask for these life proofs, so that my commander Chavez can show them to the world, as you would like to show them". And then she concludes that she’s ready to meet "the entire High Command of the army of the people, which is to say the FARC." [Piedad Córdoba: What’s the evidence? Revista Semana. October 6, 2010] Although the FARC did send the life proofs, the Colombian Army intercepted them.

In one e-mail, a FARC commander writes that Bolívar suggested delaying the release of former presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt because without the famous hostage in the rebels’ hands, the world would ignore the FARC. In another message, Bolívar downplayed Betancourt’s failing health after shocking photos of the sick prisoner were released in 2007. "Ingrid is skinny but she’s always been skinny," Bolívar wrote. "She won’t die from that."

It is important to point out that Interpol validated the files and later reported that the Colombian government had not manipulated them.

The Inspector’s office concluded in its sentence that both "collaboration with and promotion of the FARC wasn’t only made in the period between August 15 and November 21, 2007 (when Córdoba was officially authorized to make the contacts), but also earlier and later in the years 2007, 2008 and 2010".

Córdoba rejected the Inspector General’s decision and accused him of "criminalizing humanitarian work." She has announced that she will counter the decision and intends to prove her innocence.

Colombia’s Supreme Court President, Jaime Arrubla said that his judicial body has not seen conclusive evidence that Senator Piedad Cordoba is guilty of "FARC-politics." However, many Colombians disagree with Justice Arrubla and accuse him of having a bias against the governments of Alvaro Uribe and Juan Manuel Santos for their strong hand against the terrorist groups FARC and ELN. Just in April of this year, Mr. Arrubla accused Colombia’s domestic intelligence agency, the Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad (DAS) of "a state conspiracy" against the Court and that the magistrates are facing "the biggest mafia" that has operated in Colombia. Mr. Arrubla has long been at odds with President Uribe.

Their troubles began when the Supreme Court issued an advisory opinion which found that the Justice and Peace Law introduced by the government, that set the rules for the 2003-2006 disarmament of the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) paramilitaries, was synonymous with impunity. Under the law, members of the paramilitary forces who took part in the demobilization process and gave a full confession of their crimes would receive a maximum sentence of eight years.

But the real confrontation between the Supreme Court and the government of Mr. Uribe began when the Court started to investigate the ties between politicians and the paramilitary groups. The Supreme Court has been after many members of Congress and even Uribe accusing them of having ties with the paramilitaries. Mr. Arrubla has now opened an investigation into Inspector General Alejandro Ordoñez’s decision to ban Senator Piedad Cordoba from public office for her ties with the FARC.

Legal experts who have seen the documents say the evidence is heavily weighted toward Cordoba being Teodora Bolivar. The problem is that she is now portraying herself as a victim and some international leaders and even some media outlets are now publicly voicing their support for her.

But her behavior towards the FARC constitutes a crime and a serious breach of ethics especially given her position as a senator representing the Republic of Colombia. Former Deputy Justice Minister, Rafael Nieto commented: "There is no doubt that if she had acted the same way with the paramilitaries, she would be in jail." In addition, some say that the way she has behaved with respect to her own country constitutes treason.

The evidence is there for everyone to see and the 140 – page document has been evaluated and combed through by many legal experts and politicians. According to Colombian law, it is illegal to have a connection with any terrorist group including the FARC. Mrs. Cordoba should not be above the law and the decision of the attorney general should be respected and obeyed.

Correas Ecuador: Defending an autocracy

On September 30, something important happened in Ecuador.

A rebellion by police officers took place in protest against cuts in their bonuses and salaries. The discontented police threw tear gas that directly reached President Rafael Correa who was lightly harmed. Correa reacted by inviting protesters to kill him if they so wished but vehemently reaffirmed that he would not back off from his economic measures. Correa was taken to the Police hospital immediately after. Meanwhile, countries in the region, along with the United States and European countries treated these events like a coup d’état. All of them including the U. S Administration expressed full support for President Correa and democracy.  

President Correa, a strategic ally of Hugo Chavez, was reported having been kidnapped by the police.  In fact, he was given a room where he was well taken care of and where he received cabinet members, Congressmen, journalists, and Venezuelan advisors.  It was from the hospital that Correa declared a state of emergency, mobilized the military, and called regional and world leaders to complain about the coup d’état. It was also in his hospital bed that he took control of radio and TV stations, where only pro-government broadcasters were permitted to speak, while others were not allowed to do so. The government called on the population to mobilize in order to free the president and fight against those who were trying to overthrow him.  Finally, President Correa was "rescued" by the military and "freed" back to the palace of government.

For those regional and world countries that know well that coup d’états are unacceptable their reaction seemed natural. There was no question that defending democracy must and should be the priority.  However, the question is whether Ecuador under Correa’s leadership is still a full fledged democracy.  As was the case with (Manuel) Zelaya’s Honduras fifteen months earlier, the case of Correa is another example of perverted democracy that the world often tends to ignore, intentionally or unintentionally. 

Indeed, shortly before the police rebellion the Ecuadorian Congress passed a set of social laws after reaching a consensus that included a dialogue with different social and political sectors. These laws did not satisfy everybody but were understood to be balanced, and, more importantly, the result of fair negotiation and compromise. However, the President chose to veto many of these laws despite the fact that his own party was part of the discussion. The Ecuadorian Congress (or assembly) remained impotent in the face of presidential aggressiveness. The President threatened to dissolve congress in case there was any opposition. In light of these events, street protests increased among students, public servants, retirees and indigenous populations.

The largest indigenous organization Confederacion de Nacionalidades Indigenas del Ecuador (CONAEI), – one of the most important bastions of support for Correa during  the 2006 Presidential elections- issued a statement on October 6th. In that statement, CONAEI claimed that "there was never a coup d’état nor had the president been kidnapped but there was a "legitimate expression of discontent with the Correa government". CONAEI called the Correa government a "dictatorial democracy" for restricting freedom of the press, for taking control of the legislative and judicial branches of government, and for eliminating all possibility of discussion of "laws proposed by the indigenous movement and other social sectors". The statement by CONAEI, that has had a tense relation with Correa over mining, environmental and other policies in the last two years , is a good illustration of the way the Ecuadorian president has conducted the business of government.

In 2008, the Ecuadorian constitution was approved and ratified. That constitution provides significant prerogatives to the state.  The state is responsible not merely for guaranteeing or expanding liberties and rights. The Ecuadorian constitution empowers the state as the guarantor of education, health care, food, social security, and water resources for its inhabitants. The state is also in charge of national planning, eradication of poverty, and making sure that national wealth is distributed in an even manner among its citizens. By the same token, the constitution talks about re-orienting the private sector, also called the strategic sector, to serve "the social interest."

Likewise, the constitution provides for the dissolution of Congress while calling for new elections. It allows the president to exercise executive prerogatives by ruling by decree. In addition, the constitution establishes that legislative ability to act against the president is limited in so far as it depends on the approval of a "constitutional court". The court at the same time is likely to be highly influenced by the president. In other words, the Ecuadorian constitution,-whose enactment and ratification was praised by the contentious Secretary General of the Organization of American States, Jose Miguel Insulza- is a document that empowers the government  against  democracy, individual rights  and private property.

The police uprising against Correa’s government is not merely the result of an economic policy of austerity. It is the very implementation of the spirit of Chavez-type authoritarianism and contempt for Congress and democratic procedures what brought about the shaking of Correa’s government on September 30th. This was accompanied by three years of systematic attacks against the press and furious intolerance against opponents.

Correa pointed out during the rebellion that his government will proceed with its policies, regardless of the protests. Correa also attributed the rebellion to a plot inspired by his political opponent, former president, Lucio Gutierrez.   He made people believe that he was another Yeltsin, heroically confronting a gang of reactionary armed plotters.  

But Correa paid a heavy price: His government was saved by the chief of staff of the Ecuadorian army, Ernesto Gutierrez, who also demanded that the president change the public sector law that generated the protest. Correa began to back off from his authoritarian policies, not like a hero but very much like a coward. 

What is pathetic about this episode is that the military had to restore the political order in exchange for presidential concessions that could have taken place reasonably (as it initially did) in the legislative democratic process. What this shows is that the risk of military political empowerment is higher when democracy is not properly respected.    

 Yet, countries of the region recognize a coup as the only way in which democracy breaks down.  Undemocratic practices performed by elected governments are not acknowledged. This is why the OAS, under the pitiful leadership of Mr. Insulza, remained paralyzed and impotent after the Inter- American Human Rights commission (an arm of the OAS) published late in 2009 a comprehensive report on Venezuela’s violations of human rights and democracy.

The events of September 30th add to the need for the United States and Latin American countries to reconsider upgrading the criteria by which democracy is judged.

Big European Oil Firms to End Iran Operations

Four of Europe’s five biggest oil firms have said that they would wind down their energy investments in Iran.

The U.S. is now trying to convince China to bar its companies from stepping into the vacuum created by the departing European firms, something the Chinese have shown a willingness to do elsewhere, particularly Sudan.

Royal Dutch Shell, headquartered both in the U.K. and the Netherlands; Total of France; Italy’s Eni ; and the Norway’s partially state-owned Statoil have committed to no further investments in Iran.

Unfortunately, these firms have major operations in Iran already, so their pledges to enter into “no further investments” is not what it may seem. Ongoing operations can last for years and in the past firms have used extensions to existing contracts to keep operations in targeted rogue nations going for years…

The State Department says that European and Kuwaiti firms along with Russia’s Lukoil, India’s Reliance and Turkey’s Turpras have stopped or promised to stop selling gasoline and other refined products to Iran. British Petroleum and Shell said they are no longer supplying jet fuel to Iran Air. And Lloyd’s of London announced it would not insure or reinsure petroleum shipments going into Iran. Iran only refines about 40% of its domestic petroleum needs. The remainder of its refined petroleum needs must be imported. Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez has committed to helping Iran obtain refined petroleum.

Iran is China’s third-biggest supplier of oil, after Angola and Saudi Arabia. Chinese state-owned oil companies have signed memorandums committing to invest more than $100 billion in Iran’s energy sector over the past few years.

Chinese companies have a history of moving in on projects that Western and Japanese firms have left dangling. In June 2009, China National Petroleum signed a $5 billion contract with National Iranian Oil to develop the massive South Pars gas field, after the Iranians accused French oil producer Total of delaying the project. And last year China National Petroleum reportedly agreed to invest around $2 billion to develop the South Azadegan fields in place of Inpex, which had cut its share.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/30/AR2010093007055.html

A political tremor brewing in Peru

A few weeks ago, we at The Americas Report wrote an article about the current situation in Peru, as a country finally laying the foundations for economic prosperity, this after years of struggle and internal conflicts against two major terrorist groups: Shining Path and the MRTA.

Peru is doing extremely well with its economy recording growth of over 8% annually over the past five years. Inflation has been relatively low, averaging 4.5 percent between 2006 and 2008 and analysts and experts agree that Peru has all the potential to achieve economic sustainability. Investment continues to grow in the mining and energy industries and seven interest rate cuts last year. Shockingly, recent events that are taking place in the municipal elections in Lima could well have national implications that could affect the Presidential Elections of April 2011.

Peru’s democracy is still weak and even local races and trends tend to have tremendous effects at the national level. Take the case of the municipal elections in Lima, the capital of Peru, that are to take place this Sunday, October 3rd.

The strongest candidates 2 months ago in order of popularity were:

  • Lourdes Flores, a lawyer, from the Unidad Nacional (National Unity) alliance and the Partido Popular Cristiano (Popular Christian Party or PPC) a right-of-center party. Flores was elected National Deputy from Lima to the Congress of the Republic in 1990. She was a Presidential candidate for the Presidential Elections of 2001 and 2006, losing to Alberto Fujimori and Alan Garcia respectively.
  • Alexander Kouri, also a lawyer, from Cambio Radical (Radical Change), former mayor of the city of Callao and is currently the governor of Callao region. Kouri is criticized for his ties to Vladimiro Montesinos, former president Alberto Fujimori’s (1990-2000) all-powerful intelligence chief who is in prison for corruption.
  • Susana Villaran, a journalist and career politician from the Partido Descentralista Fuerza Social (Social Force Descentralist Party), a new leftist political organization born in 2007 by the confluence of 7 regional movements, many of them with radical ties. She was Concertacion Descentralista’s presidential candidate for the 2006 national election, and a member of Lima’s Metropolitan Municipality from 1983 to 1985. She became Minister of Women’s Promotion and Social Development during Valentin Paniagua’s transitory government. In 2002 she assumed the role of Ombudsperson for the Police. She joined and became a leader of the Party for Social Democracy (Partido por la Democracia Social). From 2002 to 2005, she served as a member of the OAS’ Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

But things have changed; Mrs. Villaran is now in first place and many believe she is set to win.

What led to this shift?

In what many consider a political blunder, Mrs. Flores Nano, thinking that her main rival was Alex Kouri, tried to take him out of the race and made an accusation to the Jurado Nacional de Elecciones (JNE), Peru’s National Election Board, arguing that he lacked the residency requirements needed to be municipal candidate. In an unprecedented move, Mr. Kouri was disqualified which led many of his supporters to switch their support to the candidacy of Mrs. Villaran.

Experts agree that Mrs. Flores has demonstrated to be a naïve politician and instead of building bridges with people that share her political views, she started alienating people like the Kouri voters. Her advisors apparently told her that since Kouri was associated with the Fujiorismo, she should vigorously voice her opposition to both and its “corruption, dictatorial past” and that this would gain her votes. Well, the contrary happened. The Kouri voters, left without the option of voting for him, fled to Villaran, who had not attacked them. Mrs. Flores thought that Villaran was no competition, but once again she was wrong.

In addition to this, some media outlets for reasons still unknown to many analysts started attacking Mrs. Flores vigorously while at the same time supporting Villaran. Some media outlets, even broadcast private conversations of Mrs. Flores that had been illegally obtained which further diminished support for her. Nobody knows who provided these tapes. Making another huge mistake, Mrs. Flores said that the people behind this leakage were the Kouri and Fujimori people without any proof or evidence. Supporters of the Fujimorismo, a solid 30% of the electorate, felt attacked once again and continued abandoning Lourdes, as many people refer to her.

Many newspapers and TV programs also started to question Mrs. Flores’ clients as a private lawyer and publicly denounced her as corrupt. It has been a very dirty campaign and the public seems swayed by this. The polls reveal this trend.

The Villaran – Terror – Humala connection

Mrs. Villaran initially presented herself as a modern leftist with progressive views. She attracted the “gauche caviar” and young people who viewed her as “cool” and “intellectual.” But when her candidacy began gaining steam, reports appeared of her alliance with radical groups. These include: the New Left Movement (MNI), made up of the Peruvian Communist Party-Red Fatherland, the Peruvian Communist Party-Unity, and other leftist organizations, immediately backed Villarán. Other supporters are:

  • SUTEP, the Trade Union of Education Workers of Peru, the Peru Teacher´s Union, which has a history of radicalism and historical ties to terror groups such as the MRTA and the Shining Path.  This organization came to power in charge of the national schools during the leftist dictatorship of Juan Velasco Alvarado, in 1968 and is largely responsible for the current level of the Peruvian education system which has been ranked as the worst in the region by the Word Economic Forum. This group is notorious for its long and violent strikes, and opposes free market policies and foreign and local investments.
  • PATRIA ROJA (Red Nation), is a political party in Peru founded in 1970, through a split in the Peruvian Communist – Red Flag, but remains part of the Peruvian Communist Party. It wants to ouster democratically elected governments and impose socialism. They are also historic allies with the other radical political groups, the MRTA and the Shining Path.
  • OLLANTA HUMALA (from the Nationalist Party), is a Peruvian leftist Politician who once belonged to the military. In 2005, together with his brother Antauro, they seized a police station in a remote southern killing four officers and wounding several more. He ran for President in 2006 but lost to Alan Garcia. During his presidential campaign, it was revealed that he received financial support from Hugo Chavez from Venezuela. Since then, his friendship with Mr. Chavez has only strengthened and both see a great opportunity in this municipal election as an entrance the political scene to gain some power and then propel to the national scene for the presidential elections. Several members of the Nationalist Party are part of Mrs. Villaran’s municipal group. She initially denied it but then reluctantly accepted saying there are “just a few” and that they are “moderate youngsters.”
  • LIMA PARA TODOS (Lima for All): A Coalition of Ollanta Humala’s political Party, the Nationalist Party, (Partido Nacionalista) and thirteen groups of the radical left, which have also ties to the MRTA. This group has been caught in video chanting slogans about entering the municipality of Lima to impose their agenda and work their way to the national government. They demand the liberation of members of the MRTA who are now in jail.
  • THE CONFEDERATION OF PERUVIAN WORKERS (CGTP) (Confederación de Trabajadores del Perú), a communist labor movement, which was formed in 1968 under the leadership of the Peruvian Communist Party. It has a radical agenda in tune with the Communist Party.

Susana Villaran has hidden her ties to these people and groups in the past and continues to do so even though members of these groups have publicly said that they have an alliance. The problem for the electorate is that when directly confronted, she simply does not answer and claims to be the victim of a dirty campaign. In a televised debate two days ago, her opponent brought these facts to the discussion but Mrs. Villaran kept silent. In addition, the mainstream media has been extremely accommodating to her. Just yesterday it has been brought to the public’s attention that she has once belonged to the Revolutionary Communist Party of Peru, a secret she has kept from the public.

As these new revelations have gradually come to light, foreign investors and international banks such as Deutsche have voiced their concern about the possibility of the radical left winning this election and attaining power in Lima, Peru’s capital, which, they say, could change the dynamic of Presidential race set to take place next April. Currently, the candidates are Ollanta Humala, former President Alejandro Toledo, current Lima mayor Luis Cataneda and Keiko Fujimori, daughter of President Alberto Fujimori who governed Peru from 1990 to 2001. If the stakes for the left are so high, anything could happen in April 2011. More so, because the coalition behind Villaran is extremely radical.

One of the most serious problems with Mrs. Villaran is that her proposals are not economically viable, and economists say, would bankrupt Lima. Many fear and predict that if in fact, Villaran wins on Sunday, she will have a hard time controlling her coalition of leftist groups and radicals and accommodating the different factions. Others argue that once she is mayor, she will demand money from the Central government for her outlandish projects, money which will be probably withheld in large measure due to the lack of viability of her proposals. If this is the case, the SUTEP, the CGTP, Patria Roja, the Communist Party, the Humalistas and the rest of her coalition, will go to the streets, which is what they are used to do, and chaos will soon reign in Lima.

In addition, there are news reports that Chavez has donated 8 million dollars for her campaign and has great hopes for the outcome that would favor his people and his influence in local politics.

Another problem is that if she cannot please the different divisions within her alliance, fights and divisions will erupt making it practically impossible for her to actually do her job as mayor. She could well spend most of her time solving internal conflicts instead of governing.

We will have to wait until Sunday for the results. Lourdes Flores could still win, especially after these new revelations that have surfaced about Villaran and her supporters. It will be interesting to see how it all unfolds.

Beyond electoral illusions: the totalitarian regime of Hugo Chavez

On September 26, Venezuela will hold parliamentary elections. Since Hugo Chavez was elected to the presidency in 1998, Venezuela has been transformed from a country with democratic institutions to one where the president controls all branches of government. The upcoming elections serve the purpose of making Chavez look like he is presiding over a free society but in reality provide no real chance for change. In this context, it is important to understand the true nature of the present Venezuelan political reality.

Many observers, journalists and scholars have tried to define the Chavez regime. Some have referred to it as being neo-populist and others have called it an illiberal democracy. Neo-populist refers to a regime characterized by the mobilization of marginal masses led by a charismatic leader. Indeed, Chavez has established a direct and authoritarian relationship with the people and has redistributed state funds amongst the poor in order to secure their support and win legitimacy for his regime.  The legislature, the judiciary and other branches of government and civil society have become subordinated to his will and executive authority. Such was the case with regimes like that of Juan Peron in Argentina in the 40‘s and 50‘s and with some differences the government of Getulio Vargas in Brazil in the 30’s and 40’s. 

An illiberal democracy is a regime that mixes authoritarianism and elections. This type of regime uses democracy to take power and then governs in authoritarian ways.

Undoubtedly, the Chavez regime includes aspects of both populism and illiberal democracy. However, I would argue that the Chavez regime is moving beyond populism and illiberal democracy in the direction of totalitarianism.

Zbigniew Brzezinski defined totalitarianism as a system of government where instruments "of political power are wielded without restraint by centralized leadership … for the purpose of affecting a social revolution , including the conditioning of man on the basis of certain arbitrary ideological assumptions… in an atmosphere of coerced unanimity of the entire population". [1] This provides a good definition of where the government of Venezuela is heading.   

First, there is the element of indoctrination.

Hugo Chavez has created a new socialist ethos. Thus, a "new man" who embraces a revolutionary ethical spirit must be created.  This leads to the need to adopt a reform in the educational system, especially the adaptation of the curriculum to socialist values, along with measures to neutralize the competing capitalist ethos.  In August 2009, the Chavez-controlled Venezuelan parliament proceeded to adopt a new law of education. The law makes "Bolivarian doctrine" the basis of education at all levels, a move that educators view as requiring them to indoctrinate students with the views of the ruling party. Such an educational transformation is clearly a first step towards the consolidation of a totalitarian state since the state aims at having full control over the minds of people.

It is also the intention of the Chavez regime to abolish private property and to repress independent groups in society. Private property represents the ultimate bastion of individual and societal power and freedom because what belongs to individuals represents power that is independent from the state.  That is why authoritarian regimes that have abolished civil or political liberties but allowed private property to survive have not been able to exercise full control of society. Even in classical populist regimes which were authoritarian, entrepreneurs could often be intimidated but private property was never eradicated. 

Chavez has not only sought to uproot the business community  through expropriation but also  to eliminate the power of the labor unions and workers. The labor unions are seen by Chavez as tied to the old regime.  Chavez proceeded to suppress the labor unions by undermining their basic right to organize, by  interfering in union elections, by refusing to bargain collectively with them, by establishing mechanisms of union control and by vetoing unions thought to be opposed to the government.

The Bolivarian state wants to rule in a most arbitrary manner and have its prerogatives above any civil group. The Chavez regime has established a relationship with the people in the abstract. In the eyes of the regime the people are anonymous; a mass prone to manipulation. The connection of the people should be to the leader which in turn uses the masses to consolidate absolute power. Therefore, organizations, including workers organizations are nothing but an annoyance and an obstacle to the overwhelming power of the state.

Another symptom of totalitarianism inside Venezuela is that a society of fear has been established.  The media has been constantly harassed and media entrepreneurs have been jailed. Laws have been established criminalizing slander of the president and people holding public office. Blacklisting is another expertise of the Chavez regime. After the August, 2004 recall referendum that challenged the continuation of Hugo Chavez’s presidency, a process of systematic blacklisting began. Chavez authorized a Venezuelan congressman to obtain copies of the list of signatures of those who signed the petition for the recall referendum.  The government used these lists to fire workers and block job applications. Furthermore, during the 2005 parliamentary elections a new database was created called the "Maisanta" program. That program contained detailed information on all registered voters, totaling over 12 million citizens. It informed the user if the registered voter had signed the recall referendum against Chavez, abstained from voting in elections, participated in the government’s popular programs or signed a counter-petition for a recall referendum against opposition legislators. This list broadened the number of people targeted by the government to either be fired or denied a job or a contract.

By the same token, some opposition leaders have been forced into exile. Those opposition leaders who have won elections have been undermined and not allowed to perform their jobs. The central government interfered in local and municipal affairs and weakened the power of opposition leaders by using mostly illegal means.

Furthermore, in typical totalitarian fashion the written law becomes meaningless and irrelevant including the laws enacted by the regime itself. As an example; a banker was detained in 2007 on charges of corruption. A court ordered a retrial and reinstated a detention order but the appeals court for Caracas ordered his release in October 2009 because his detention exceeded a two year limit. Judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni, following the spirit of the law, granted the banker conditional release pending trial. Shortly after intelligence officers arrested the judge on charges of corruption, aiding an evasion of justice, abuse of authority and conspiracy.  President Chavez made a personal appeal to send Judge Afiuni to prison for a period of 35 years and the Bolivarian intelligence Service (SEBIN) issued a fugitive arrest warrant against the banker.

As it is in a totalitarian regime, there is no real distinction between government arbitrariness and the law. In the Chavista state the valid law is identical with "common sense". But this "common sense" is not the common sense of free individuals but the one dictated from above. This is identical with Hitler’s dictum that in Nazi Germany there was "no distinction between law and ethics" or between law and expected behavior. According to the Bolivarian-Chavista logic, Judge Afiuni was expected to send the banker to prison because that was Chavez’s implicit will. Afiuni "should have known this" instead of following the written law. Thus, Chavez does not respect laws, not even those written by his own regime. The principle of judicial procedure and court protection for individual rights is embedded in the Bolivarian-inspired 1999 constitution. Still, everyone is supposed to know that it does not apply to real life.

Analyzing the 1936 constitution of the Soviet Union, Hanna Arendt has made the following observation, whose relevance on the Venezuelan case does not need any further explanation:

The publication of the constitution turned out to be the beginning of the gigantic super purge which in nearly two years liquidated the existing administration and erased all traces of normal life …From then on the constitution of 1936 played exactly the same role the Weimar constitution played under the Nazi regime: it was completely disregarded but never abolished.[2]

Chavez has also moved to establish full control of the military by attempting to integrate the national armed forces into the Bolivarian political project.  Indeed, Chavez sees the military as the backbone of his social and political revolution. Consequently he has been trying to subordinate the army to a dictatorial-revolutionary process.  Chavez promotes or dismisses army officers based on loyalty to his regime. The military was given new roles in administration and in social welfare programs.

However, since Chavez does not fully trust the military, he passed a law creating a militia that depends directly on the executive branch. This militia has a privileged position within the armed forces. We are talking here about a parallel military force that can recruit from the people, whether they are Venezuelans or foreigners, which may include Cubans or even Iranians. In fact, Cuban officers were incorporated into the army and Iranian Revolutionary guards were reportedly seen in Venezuela. It is realistic to assume that this force could help protect and consolidate a totalitarian regime as the Iranian revolutionary guards and other similar praetorian forces usually do.

The upcoming parliamentary elections in Venezuela do not look very promising. Government money is being used to finance Chavez-backed candidates. Likewise, the electoral council is controlled by Chavez. A few months ago, a law was approved, redrawing the districts where the opposition could win. But even if the opposition wins, nothing will stop Chavez on his path towards tyranny.

Therefore, it is important that the opposition participates in the election because it is a sign that the opposition still exists and there is still hope. The fact that the opposition is running on a united front is also a good sign.  Beyond this, there is no way the opposition will be allowed to hold any power, even if they win a substantial number of seats.  This is why, the opposition can no longer relate to the country’s political system as a democracy.  It needs to be more active as a social movement by mobilizing the masses, by denouncing the regime and exposing its true nature; and; by vigorously demanding a restoration of true democracy.  

[1] This definition is provided by Zbigniew Brzezinsky. See Linz, Juan, Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes, Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc, Colorado, 2000, p. 66

[2] Arendt, Hannah, The Origins of Totalitarianism, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, New York, 1979, p. 394-395