Tag Archives: Venezuela

Entrevista Keiko Fujimori Higuchi

Nicole M. Ferrand editora del Americas Report del Menges Hemispheric Security Project del Center for Security Policy estuvo en Lima, Perú en Agosto del 2010 y tuvo la oportunidad de entrevistar a Keiko Sofía Fujimori Higuchi posible candidata del Partido político "Fuerza 2011" con cara a las elecciones que se llevarán a cabo en Perú en Abril del 2011. La Sra. Keiko es hija del Presidente de la Republica Alberto Fujimori Fujimori y la ex Congresista Susana Higuchi y actualmente se desempeña como congresista de la República por Lima representando al partido político Alianza por el Futuro. Keiko se desempeñó como primera Dama de la Nación con tan sólo 19 años desde el 1994 hasta el año 2000 cuando su Padre era Presidente. Ella realizó sus estudios superiores en Estados Unidos, donde obtuvo un bachiller en Administración de Empresas en la Universidad de Boston. Posteriormente hizo una maestría en administración de negocios en la Universidad de Columbia en Nueva York. Según el último sondeo de Ipsos Apoyo Keiko comparte el primer lugar en las encuestas electorales con un 22% de apoyo popular con el actual alcalde de Lima, Luis Castañeda Lossio.. La candidata Keiko tiene una agenda muy apretada ya que, además de trabajar en el Congreso, ella viaja al interior del país muy a menudo, pero se dio un tiempo para darnos esta entrevista. Keiko nos recibió en su despacho del Congreso de la Republica.

NF: ¿Keiko, cómo ha sido tu experiencia como candidata? ¿Cómo ha sido el recibimiento de la gente?

Bueno, oficialmente todavía no soy candidata presidencial pues tiene que haber un proceso interno dentro del partido político y de acuerdo a la ley también que establece los tiempos. Me imagino que en Diciembre va a ser la elección interna dentro de mi partido y a partir de Enero se podrá anunciar ya oficialmente la candidatura. Pero a diferencia de los otros políticos, yo sí digo que voy a ser candidata y espero obtener el respaldo, en primer lugar de mi partido y obviamente también del pueblo.

Con respuesta a tu segundo punto, en los últimos meses he estado viajando mucho los fines de semana. En primer lugar, para la creación del partido, y ya en esta segunda etapa para presentar a los candidatos municipales y regionales. Y me ha sorprendido el gran apoyo y la gran receptividad de la gente. Como por ejemplo, en el Cuzco, que se supone que es el bastión de Ollanta Humala, llegué a Quillabamba, que es la segunda provincia más importante, y fui hasta Charate, que es un distrito donde están los pozos del Gas de Camisea. El respaldo fue muy abierto, con mucha alegría, y con un gran recuerdo del gobierno de mi padre. También estuve la semana pasada en Pucallpa, en la región de Ucayali, a donde no iba desde hace 10 años. Yo durante mis años como primera dama he viajado muchísimo, pero hay regiones como las de Ucayali a las que no volvía después de muchos años, y me sorprendió ver el cariño de la gente, de las mujeres, que me recibían con los brazos abiertos, de las personas mayores que se acordaban de todas las obras que hizo mi padre, también de los jóvenes que tienen ilusión de conocerme y ver en mí a la candidata que representa a la juventud. Yo estoy muy contenta con el respaldo, el apoyo y el cariño de la gente.

¿Cómo ha sido tu experiencia en el Congreso? ¿Cómo es tu relación con las otras agrupaciones politicas? ¿Sientes que esta experiencia te ha ayudado en tu formación política?

Cuando yo fui Primera Dama, mi labor era mas que nada social, y era poco política; trataba de no meterme en muchos temas políticos, sólo durante los últimos dos años empecé ya a participar un poco más en los temas coyunturales y de trascendencia. Pero ahora que he llegado al Congreso de la República, sin lugar a dudas, estoy en el centro de la política del Perú. Para mí, ha sido una experiencia muy enriquecedora también, en primer lugar,  porque he podido conocer las diferentes posiciones políticas de los diferentes grupos a quienes yo respeto muchísimo, y además he podido aprender de las comisiones a las que pertenezco, como la comisión de economía, la comisión de presupuesto, a la que pertenecí hasta este año ya que decidí cambiarme a la comisión de vivienda;  pero en estas comisiones en las que yo he priorizado el debate técnico, he podido conocer mucho más el funcionamiento del Estado, hacer una evaluación de cómo se están invirtiendo los presupuestos nacionales. Veo con preocupación que muchos de los presupuestos de inversiones tanto en el nivel municipal, regional y del gobierno central, se invierte sólo el 50%. Pero he aprendido mucho en el tema político y he aprendido mucho también en el tema técnico.

¿Algunos críticos dicen que tu no tienes experiencia y que eres candidata por ser la hija de Alberto Fujimori. Cómo les respondes a estas personas?

Quizás soy joven en edad, es cierto, tengo 35 años, pero empecé mi labor en un cargo muy importante a los 19 años. A esa edad me convertí en Primera Dama. Aprendí desde muy joven el sentido del deber; uno tiene que hacer lo que debe, y no lo que quiere. Además tengo una preparación académica de universidades que son muy competitivas de entrar. Estudié en la Universidad de Boston mi carrera y luego una maestría en administración de empresas de Columbia University Business School. Y tengo un equipo de primera, así es que el que me critiquen por mi juventud, creo que se equivocan, creo que mi juventud es una de mis grandes fortalezas, y con referencia a la experiencia, tengo mucha, y para complementarla además tengo un equipo extraordinario.

Una vez llegues al Gobierno, a quiénes piensas llamar para formar tu gabinete? Si no puedes decir nombres, ¿qué perfiles buscaras? ¿Incluirías gente de otros partidos?

Uno de mis objetivos, es rescatar a los mejores técnicos que trabajaron en la reforma de los 90’s. Para mi es un honor que Jaime Yoshiyama haya aceptado ser parte de Fuerza 2011, y me esté ayudando en la elaboración del plan de gobierno, y en la búsqueda de buenos talentos como candidatos para el Congreso. Sin lugar a dudas, si es que llegáramos a ser gobierno, vamos a buscar personas con el siguiente perfil: preparados, con experiencia, con una trayectoria intachable, y con un gran compromiso de trabajar y servir al Perú. No me voy a fijar en colores políticos y abriré las puertas a los independientes y a personas de otros partidos políticos pero que quieran trabajar por nuestro país.

En el tema de terrorismo y seguridad nacional, qué proyectos tienes y como responderás a los Miembros de organismos de derechos humanos, que muchas veces obstaculizan la labor en esta materia?

En primer lugar, tenemos que mantener una posición firme contra el terrorismo y entender que es un flagelo que afecta al mundo entero; a los Estados Unidos, a España, Colombia, y que en nuestro país se ha controlado. Pero hay que tener en cuenta que siempre hay un riesgo a que se vuelva a reorganizar. Por lo tanto nuestras leyes tienen que mantenerse y tiene que haber cero tolerancia y la rigidez necesaria que merece este tema. Hemos retrocedido en el 2003, cuando el Presidente Toledo decidió darles beneficios penitenciarios a los sentenciados por terrorismo sin que un organismo internacional o una corte internacional nos lo haya pedido. Esta fue una iniciativa del Presidente Toledo, y es por eso que hoy hay más de 400 terroristas que gozan de libertad. En el año 2007, estos beneficios se eliminaron, pero el daño ya está hecho porque hay 400 terroristas liberados. Creo que es fundamental que el poder ejecutivo haga un seguimiento a estas personas y no dejar que ellos se organicen ni se fortalezcan. Me ha preocupado mucho que algunos estudiantes salgan a marchar pidiendo la libertad de Abimael Guzmán. Esto es la punta del iceberg. No sabemos exactamente cuán organizados ni cuán fortalecidos están pero es importantísimo que el servicio de inteligencia tenga toda esta información.

Con referencia a la delincuencia, también hemos retrocedido bastante. Hay muchas ciudades en el país en donde hay un ambiente de impunidad y los delincuentes sienten que pueden hacer lo que quieren. Por eso es fundamental que el Congreso tome medidas mucho más drásticas. Nosotros hemos planteado, por ejemplo, el establecer la pena de muerte para casos excepcionales como para los violadores de niños menores de 10 años, o para casos de robo o asalto seguido de muerte. Yo soy Católica y no creo en la utilización de la pena de muerte, sino creo en esta medida como una medida disuasiva, para evitar que este tipo de crímenes sigan ocurriendo. Acabamos de plantear la eliminación de beneficios penitenciarios para crímenes graves, y este es un proyecto de ley que el día de hoy se va a debatir, a la que ya varias bancadas políticas han anunciado su respaldo y debemos seguir evaluando qué otras medidas debemos de tomar para luchar contra la delincuencia, no solamente endurecer las penas sino cómo fortalecer a nuestra policía, y hacer que los jueces tengan mucho más valor para poder imponer sanciones más drásticas. Este es un trabajo que se tiene que hacer en conjunto con las diferentes instituciones.

 

 

¿Piensas que Perú debe retirarse de la competencia contenciosa de la Corte Inter-Americana de Derechos Humanos?

Yo espero que no. Nuestro Poder Judicial no es uno de los más eficientes, los procesos judiciales demoran muchos años, y no siempre hay la garantía de que emitan una sentencia justa. Por eso es importante tener una instancia internacional. Sin embargo, yo rechazo, por ejemplo, el pedido de la Corte para indemnizar a terroristas. Veo que los jueces no conocen el sufrimiento del pueblo peruano y se equivocan al pedir indemnización. Quienes deben ser indemnizados son los policías, las fuerzas armadas y las familias de las víctimas de los terroristas. Ahora el Presidente García ha planteado una fórmula que creo que va a permitir que ni un solo dólar vaya a un terrorista. Primero deberían pagar los terroristas por los millones de dólares que el estado Peruano ha perdido por su causa. Espero que esta Corte actúe más cuidado y pueda conocer más de cerca, no solamente los casos que se presentan, sino la realidad de nuestro país antes de emitir una sentencia.

¿Cómo ves la economía actualmente? ¿Qué medidas se podrían implementar para continuar con un crecimiento sostenido y real? ¿Cómo salir del problema de la falta de infraestructura y capacidad del personal?

Como Peruana me siento muy orgullosa que seamos uno de los pocos países en el mundo que a pesar de la crisis financiera internacional, hayamos seguido creciendo. Esto se debe a las grandes reformas que se iniciaron en la década de los ‘90’s, y es un proceso de 20 años en el que se ha seguido el mismo rumbo económico. Sin embargo, creo que debemos, de todas maneras, mirar con precaución el futuro inmediato que nos viene. Yo no creo que la crisis haya pasado del todo. Si vemos las estadísticas, en los Estados Unidos, el desempleo sigue alto, las normas para estimular la economía no han causado el impacto que se esperaba, entonces creo que debemos ver con mucha precaución qué es lo que está ocurriendo en las economías del mundo. Es importante que el Perú siga creciendo pero no debe crecer de una manera muy rápida porque esto puede generar también inflación en nuestro país. Y la inflación genera sobretodo, la disminución del poder adquisitivo de la gente más pobre. Por eso debemos tener cuidado al momento de crecer. Yo voy a plantear precaución en la elaboración del presupuesto para el próximo año, en la que se está planteando utilizar un déficit de 1 punto, osea de 1%. Creo que ese punto debemos mantenerlo en reserva, y sólo si es que hay un enfriamiento mundial, pues estimular y utilizarlo. Pero debemos, en primer lugar, ver con mucha preocupación los niveles de crecimiento para evitar la inflación.

Con referencia a la falta de infraestructura, hay como te mencioné hace un momento, una ineficiencia en los tres niveles: en el gobierno central, en las regiones y en las municipalidades. Y esto se da por muchas razones. Pero una de las más importantes, creo yo, es porque no hay la capacidad técnica del personal que puede realizar las obras. El Presidente García, en el año 2006, redujo los sueldos, que me pareció importante dar un mensaje de austeridad en esos momentos. Sin embargo, considero que esa reducción de sueldos se debió dar solamente para los políticos, mas no para las personas técnicas. Y obviamente los viceministros, los directores de los diferentes ministerios, se fueron al sector privado y hoy no contamos con personas que tengan la capacidad para ejecutar los presupuestos. Hoy tenemos el doble del presupuesto que teníamos en el año ’99 pero solamente ejecutamos el 50% de sus inversiones. Esto está mal. Tenemos que contratar a gente buena, gente capaz gente preparada, pagarles bien, porque si no, no vamos a poder contratarlos para poder hacer las obras que nuestro país necesita y debemos tratar de eliminar las trabas burocráticas que sí existen en el procedimiento para poder hacer las obras. Creo también que es importante generar algunos organismos especializados en cierta construcción de infraestructura, como por ejemplo, en la década de mi padre se creo que INFES, una institución especializada sólo en construir colegios, entonces cuando tu construyes con economías de escala, puedes lograr mejores precios, adquirir productos mucho más baratos, lo que te permite construir con mucha más eficiencia. Entonces debemos evaluar, y yo voy a proponer de llegar a ser gobierno, volver a implementar INFES, sólo y exclusivamente para construcción de  colegios, y evaluar qué otras instituciones necesitamos para acelerar la implementación de la infraestructura.

En política exterior, ¿Cómo piensas que será tu relación con la actual administración Obama?

Yo soy una admiradora del Presidente Obama. He apoyado el Tratado de Libre Comercio, y creo que la buena relación que existe entre ambas naciones es fructífera para ambos países. Además, he estudiado en Estados Unidos y tengo esposo Americano, por lo tanto, aspiro y trabajaré para que nuestras relaciones se sigan fortaleciendo.

¿Como será la relación del Perú con Hugo Chávez, en un eventual Gobierno de Keiko Fujimori?

Yo creo que hay que diferenciar entra la relación con Chávez y la relación con el pueblo Venezolano. Y nuestra relación con los Venezolanos pues va a ser siempre muy buena porque ambos países necesitamos crecer juntos y porque hay una gran comunidad de peruanos en Venezuela. Pero eso no significa que nosotros vamos a permitir que el Presidente Chávez se inmiscuya en asuntos políticos dentro de nuestro país. Y en ese sentido yo soy a ser muy firme e impediré que el Presidente Chávez haga daño.  Por el contrario,  nosotros, al igual que muchos políticos en el Perú, rechazamos sus declaraciones irresponsables y considero que él (Chávez), ha hecho mucho daño en la integración de America del Sur.  

Si bien la pobreza ha ido disminuyendo, ¿qué otras medidas se podrían implementar para reducirla aún más?

Efectivamente, si uno ve las cifras macroeconómicas, el Perú ha crecido, pero cuando yo viajo por la zonas alejadas y marginales, pues no hay obras que hayan llegado hasta poblaciones y la gente obviamente ha perdido la esperanza y siente que Lima crece, pero sus comunidades no. Creo que uno de los aspectos más importantes de lucha contra la pobreza, es la construcción de infraestructura. Cuando las personas tienen acceso a agua, desagüe, electrificación rural y caminos, el poder adquisitivo de las personas se incrementa en un 60%. No creo que se pueda construir todo a la vez, porque los recursos son escasos, pero sí debemos priorizar la infraestructura en aquellas zonas que se encuentran muy alejadas. Creo que es fundamental mejorar el sistema educativo. Durante el gobierno de mi padre se priorizó la construcción de colegios, se construyeron mas de 3,000 colegios, se inauguraba un colegio por día. Reconozco de durante el gobierno del Sr. Toledo se aumentaron los sueldos de los maestros, pero ninguna de estas dos reformas nos ha servido para mejorar la calidad de la educación. Considero que es fundamental hacer una modernización de todas las escuelas, darles computadoras, acceso a Internet, laboratorios. Además, y esto es muy importante, darles a los niños su desayuno escolar, sobre todo en aquellas zonas rurales. Los niños en estas zonas caminan entre 1 a 3 horas para llegar a su escuela y cuando llegan obviamente se duermen pues están cansados de haber caminado tanto. Pues en las zonas rurales, a los niños de primaria estamos pensando complementarles con un almuerzo escolar. Estimamos que esto tendrá un costo de s./100 millones de soles, 0.4% del presupuesto, por eso considero que es algo factible de hacer. Y la otra cosa fundamental es la capacitación de los maestros. El niño aprende hasta el nivel de conocimiento que tiene el maestro, por lo tanto creo que debemos subir el nivel de conocimientos que tiene el maestro. Es fundamental hacer alianzas con las universidades privadas y nacionales para que los maestros, en sus meses de vacaciones, puedan seguir cursos de capacitación, sobretodo aquellos maestros que están motivados y debemos subir la escala salarial especialmente a aquellos maestros que tengan mejores evaluaciones hechas por los propios estudiantes. Creo que debemos dar más espacio a la meritocracia y debe haber más competividad dentro de los profesores.

Hay mucha desinformación en el exterior con respecto a las razones por las que tu padre está hoy preso. ¿Tienes algún proyecto para revertir esto?

Ha habido una campaña mediática de 8 años fuertísima en el Perú y en el mundo, contra Alberto Fujimori, su grupo político, y su familia. Revertir una imagen y una percepción, demora muchos años. Por eso es que muchos periodistas internacionales se sorprenden al ver que el Fujimorismo hoy está empate en primer lugar en las encuestas, después de haber escuchado tantas cosas negativas, y hoy vienen al Perú sorprendidos de ver este respaldo popular. Creo que la historia le va a dar a mi padre el espacio que se merece como el mejor presidente que ha tenido el Perú. Pero esto es un proceso que demora, en el que se tiene que separar lo bueno de lo malo, e ir viendo los resultados con más objetividad. Yo creo que el pueblo peruano será quien reivindique también a mi padre y entonces poco a poco la percepción en el Perú y en el mundo cambiará.

¿Qué les responderías a los críticos que dicen que el Fujimorismo esta desunido?

El 99% de los dirigentes está trabajando bajo el liderazgo de Fuerza 2011. Es cierto que ha habido una familia, la familia Reggiardo, que se ha separado, pero el resto de dirigentes históricos como Martha Chávez, Carmen Lozada, Luz Salgado, Absalón Vásquez, con quien yo tuve discrepancias en algún momento, trabajamos todos juntos. Dentro de la bancada Fujimorista, hay personalidades fuertes como Martha Hildebrandt y Luisa María Cuculiza pero todos estamos unidos. Para mí es una gran satisfacción ver que las diferentes facciones y personalidades del Fujimorismo están trabajando con un mismo objetivo. Pero lo más importante es que a través de Fuerza 2011 se están abriendo las puertas para que gente joven entre. Ese era uno de los problemas que yo veía en los últimos años, porque había cierto celo para que una nueva generación de políticos participe también dentro del Fujimorismo. Hoy eso se está logrando. Creo que el resultado del trabajo en equipo, sobretodo se va a ver el día de las elecciones del 10 de Abril del próximo año.

Estas son las preguntas que tenía preparadas, ¿quisieras agregar algo más?

Quisiera ratificar nuestro compromiso de luchar contra la pobreza, contra el terrorismo, mantener los lineamientos económicos para que el Perú siga creciendo; nosotros vamos a mantener la política de libre mercado, el tratamiento de dar igualdad de condiciones a los inversionistas extranjeros como a los peruanos, mantener reglas claras y predictibilidad para fomentar las inversiones. Y si este mensaje llega a Estados Unidos, creo que es muy importante ratificar nuestro compromiso de luchar contra el narcotráfico. Uno de los grandes logros del gobierno de mi padre fue haber reducido de 120,000 hectáreas a 30,000 hectáreas de cultivos de hoja de coca. Y esto se hizo no con erradicaciones compulsivas sino con programas y proyectos de cultivos alternativos y un trabajo en conjunto con la población, en la cual los Estados Unidos nos ayudó muchísimo para el financiamiento de estos proyectos. Hoy el Perú ha retrocedido y tenemos nuevamente más de 100,000 hectáreas de hoja de coca. Creo que es fundamental trabajar con las poblaciones para que hagan sus cambios de cultivos pero no de manera obligada ni de manera compulsiva. Finalmente, nosotros ratificamos nuestro compromiso de seguir luchando y de alcanzar logros como los que conseguimos ya en la década de los ’90, cuando teníamos menos recursos. Hoy que tenemos más recursos, pues tenemos más posibilidades de obtener mejores resultados.

 

 

The next president of Peru? A conversation with Keiko Fujimori Higuchi

Versión en Español

While recently in Peru, The Americas Report editor Nicole Ferrand interviewed Keiko Sofia Fujimori Higuchi. Congresswoman Fujimori will most likely be a presidential candidate representing the political party Fuerza 2011 (Strength 2011), in the April 2011 presidential elections.

Mrs. Fujimori is the daughter of former President Alberto Fujimori, who governed Peru from 1990 to 2000, and former Congresswoman, Susana Higuchi. "Keiko," as people in Peru know her, is currently a Congresswoman in the Peruvian legislature representing the Alianza por el Futuro (Alliance for the Future) party.

During her father’s tenure, when she was only 19 years old, Keiko acted as First Lady from 1994 until 2000. Keiko Fujimori went to college in the United States where she earned a bachelor’s degree from Boston University in Business Administration. Soon after, she went to New York where she completed an MBA at Columbia University. According to the latest poll conducted by Ipsos Apoyo, Keiko is tied in first place with 22% of popular support.

On August 19, 2010 Mrs. Keiko invited us to her offices in Congress for the purpose of this interview.

NF: Keiko, how has your experience as a presidential candidate been and what has been the reaction of the Peruvian people to your possible candidacy?

Well, officially I am not a candidate yet since elections within my political party have to take place first. It is quite possible that in December "Fuerza 2011" will have primaries and the official results will be announced in January. But what sets me apart from other candidates is that I do publicly say that I want to be a candidate and I hope to have my party’s support and obviously the support of the Peruvian people. To answer the second part of your question, in recent months I have been traveling non-stop during the weekends inside Peru, first to help in the creation of our party and during this second stage, to introduce the regional and municipal candidates.  And I am very surprised to see the support and receptivity of the Peruvian people. For example, I recently visited Cuzco, where I traveled to Quillabamba and Charate where the wells of the Camisea Gas are located, which is supposedly the bastion of Ollanta Humala, and the support of the population was overwhelming. Most of the people remembered my father’s time in office fondly and were extremely happy to see us there. When I was First Lady I traveled a lot but there are regions that I have not returned to since then, and one of them is Ucayali. I was there last week and was surprised to see the warmth of the residents who welcomed us with open arms; especially the women and the elderly who remembered dearly the public works my father inaugurated. In addition, young people seemed quite enthusiastic to get to know the candidate that represents them and I am quite happy with the warmth and the support that the Peruvian people have showed me so far.

How has your experience in Congress been? How is your relationship with the other political parties? Do you feel your time as a Congresswoman has helped you in your political training?

When I was First Lady, I was focused on social programs and it was only during the last two years when I became more involved in politics, participating actively in the decision-making process. But now that I am a Congresswoman, I am, without a doubt, in the center of Peruvian politics. For me it has been an enriching experience first, because I have been able to get to know the different political groups, whom I deeply respect and secondly because I have learned immensely from the Committees I have been part of. For example, the Committee of Economy, and the Committee that oversees the Budget where I worked until this year. Now I am working on the Housing Committee. In these groups, I have prioritized the technical debate and I have been able to understand much better how the State actually works, which has helped me evaluate how the national budget is being invested. One of my concerns is that only 50% of the municipal, regional and central investment budgets are being invested and we can do much better than that.

Some critics say that you don’t have experience and that you are a candidate because you are the daughter of Alberto Fujimori. How do you respond?

I may be young in age. I am 35 years old, but I became First Lady when I was only 19. I learned, since very young, the sense of duty; one has to do what one must, not what one wants. In addition, I have a pretty good academic background from some of the most competitive universities, such as Boston University where I obtained my bachelor’s degree in Business and also Columbia University where I earned an MBA.  And most importantly, I have an exceptional team; so if some people decide to criticize me for my youth, I think they are mistaken; my youth is actually one of my biggest strengths and with reference to my experience, I have tons and to complement it, I have an extraordinary group of people behind me. 

If you become President, what type of people will you look for?

One of my goals is to work with the best technicians that implemented the reforms of the ‘90’s. For me, it is an honor that Jaime Yoshiyama accepted an invitation to be part of "Fuerza 2011." He is helping me formulate a government plan and is also assisting in the search of great talent for the candidates that will represent us in Congress. Without a doubt, if we become government, we will look for people with the following characteristics: well prepared, with experience, with an impeccable reputation and with a great compromise to work and serve Peru. I will open the doors to independents and people from other political parties that want to work for our country.

With respect to terrorism and national security, what projects do you have and how will you respond to members of human rights’ groups that often obstruct progress in this matter?

In the first place, we have to act firmly against terrorism and we have to understand that it is a serious problem that affects the entire world; the United States, Spain, Colombia.  In our country it has been controlled somehow, but we have to have in mind that there is always a risk that these groups get reorganized again. Therefore, there has to be zero tolerance. We have gone back, especially in 2003, when President Toledo, decided to grant penitentiary benefits to convicted terrorists without ever having received pressure from any international body. This was an initiative of President Toledo, and that is why there are more than 400 terrorists free today. In 2007, these benefits were eliminated but the damage has been done. I think it is imperative for the executive to do a follow-up of these people and make sure that they are not allowed to reorganize and strengthen. I am extremely concerned to learn that some students have marched to ask for the liberation of Abimael Guzman. This is the tip of the iceberg. We don’t know their real strength. But it is imperative that the intelligence agency has all the necessary information about these groups.

With respect to crime, we have also retreated. There are many cities in Peru where there is total impunity and where criminals feel free to do as they will. So it is extremely important that we pass laws in Congress that help us fight this problem. We have proposed that the death penalty be implemented for extreme cases such as child rape when the victim is younger than 10 years old, or for cases of assault followed by death. I want to make it clear, I am a Catholic and I do not believe in the death penalty, only as a dissuasive measure, to prevent these crimes from happening. We have just proposed the elimination of penitentiary benefits for grave crimes that is going to be debated today, and many political groups have already given their support to this proposal. But we must continue evaluating which other measures can be implemented to fight crime. In addition, we have to make sure the judges have the courage to impose drastic sanctions and it is an effort that has to be done together with the different governmental institutions.

Do you think Peru should withdraw from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights?

I hope not. Our Justice System is not one of the most efficient and sometimes, judicial processes take years to solve. Sadly, very often, the outcome is not fair. That is why it is so important to have an international body. But I reject, for example, the petition of the Court to financially compensate terrorists. I believe that these judges do not understand the suffering of the Peruvian people and I firmly believe they are mistaken when they ask for financial reward for terrorists. Now, President Garcia has proposed a formula that I think will stop any payment for these types of criminals. First, these people should pay back to the State the millions of dollars in damages they caused. I wish the Court would be more careful when they make such decisions and that they knew much better the reality of the cases they present and the reality of our country before they emit these sentences.

What do you think of the economy today? What measures could be implemented to continue growing but in a sustained way? How can we solve the problem of lack of infrastructure and capacity of the workers?

As a Peruvian, I am proud that we are one of the few countries that have continued growth despite the world crisis. This is due to the measures enacted during the ‘90’s, which has been a process of 20 years during which the same economic model has been followed. Nevertheless, we have to act with caution because I think the crisis has not passed in its entirety. If we look at the statistics, in the United States, unemployment continues to be high and the measures to stimulate the economy have not been successful so we have to be cautious when we look at the world economies. It is important that Peru continues to grow but this growth cannot be too fast because it can cause inflation, which affects the purchasing power of the poorest people. I am going to be cautious when preparing the budget for next year and we will have a maximum deficit of 1% which we will keep in reserve and use just in case of a crisis, where we can spend it and stimulate the economy.

With reference to the lack of infrastructure, there is inefficiency in three levels: the central government, the regions and the municipalities. And this is due to several reasons. But one of the most important causes is the lack of technical capacity of the workers. President Garcia, in the year 2006, lowered the salaries, which was important in terms of sending a message of austerity. Nevertheless, I believe that this salary reduction should have been for politicians and not for technical personnel. And obviously, the vice-ministers and directors of the different ministries migrated to the private sector and now we do not have capable people to execute the budgets. Today our budget is twice what it was in 1999 but we only execute 50% of their investments. This is wrong.

We have to hire capable people, and pay them well. If not, we will not be able to employ them to execute the public works Peru needs. We also have to eliminate all the bureaucratic barriers that exist. I also believe it is important to create organisms dedicated exclusively to the construction of infrastructure; for example, when my father was President, the INFES was created, which was an institution which specialized in building schools, and when you build scale economies, you achieve better prices, with better products and more efficiency. We should do something similar and evaluate which other institutions we need to build infrastructure.

In foreign policy, how do you think your relationship with the Obama administration will be?

I am an admirer of President Obama. I have supported the free trade agreement and I think the good relations that both countries enjoy, benefit both nations. In addition, I studied in the United States and my husband is American, therefore I aspire and will work to keep strengthening our relations.

 

Nicole Ferrand with Keiko Fujimori, at the interview.

 

How will a Keiko Fujimori government handle its relations with Hugo Chavez?

I believe that we have to differentiate between the relationship with Mr. Chavez and with the Venezuelan people. And our relationship with the Venezuelan people has always been good because we need to grow together and also because there is a big Peruvian community in Venezuela. But this doesn’t mean that we will allow President Chavez to interfere in the political affairs of our nation. And in this matter I will be very firm and will prevent Mr. Chavez from harming us. To the contrary, our party and many other Peruvian politicians reject outright the irresponsible declarations of Mr. Chavez and consider that he has caused great damage to the integration of South America.

The levels of poverty have been diminished, but what other measures can be implemented to reduce it even more?

It is true, [that] if you observe the macroeconomic data, Peru has grown but when I travel to the most remote and marginal places, there is a lack of government investment and these people have lost all hope. They see that Lima grows but their localities don’t. I believe that one of the most important aspects for the fight against poverty is the construction of infrastructure. When people have access to water, public drainage, rural electrification and roads, the purchasing power of the people increases by 60%. I do not believe that it all can be done at once because the resources are scarce, but we do have to prioritize the implementation of infrastructure in the areas that are most remote. I think it is of utmost importance to advance the education system. During my father’s time in office, the construction of schools was a priority and 3,000 were built, I remember we inaugurated 1 per day. I recognize that during Mr. Toledo’s government, the salaries of the teachers augmented. But we need to improve the quality of the education. I believe it is important to modernize schools and give students computers and access to Internet and labs. In addition, I think that it is key that we provide kids with breakfast, especially those who live in rural areas. Sometimes these children have to walk between 1 and 3 hours to get to school and therefore, they get tired after having walked so long and cannot concentrate. We are proposing that in rural areas, the kids that attend elementary schools should also be given lunch. We have estimated that this will cost the states 100 million soles, 0.4% of the national budget, which is completely feasible. We also need to prepare the teachers better because children learn according to the level of knowledge their professor’s have; therefore we have to improve their level. It is key that we develop agreements with private and public universities so that the teachers can attend, during their months of vacations, courses to improve their skills, specially those educators who are motivated. In addition, we have to improve their salaries, especially for teachers that are better evaluated by their students. I believe that we have to prioritize meritocracy and promote competition within the educators.

There is a lot of misinformation outside Peru with respect to the reasons why your father is in jail. Do you have a plan to change this?

There has been an extremely strong campaign in the media for 8 years, inside Peru and outside, against Alberto Fujimori, his party and his family. It takes years to change an image and a perception. That is why many foreign journalists are so surprised to learn that our political group, the Fujimorismo, is tied in first place in the polls with current Lima mayor Luis Castañda Lossio, and that it enjoys a lot of popular support after such a dirty media campaign. I firmly believe that history will give my father the place he deserves, as the best President Peru has had in its history. But this will be a long process where we have to differentiate the good from the bad and where we can evaluate results more objectively. I believe that it is the Peruvian people who will vindicate my father as well and then little by little the perception in Peru and in the world will change.

How do you respond to those that say that Fujimorismo is divided?

99% of the leadership of the Fujimorismo is working for Fuerza 2011. It is true that the Reggiardo family separated from the group, but historical leaders like Martha Chavez, Luz Salgado and Absalón Vasquez, are still working with us. Within the Fujimorismo, there are strong personalities like Martha Hildebrandt and Luisa Maria Cuculiza, but we are all together. It gives me great satisfaction to see that the different factions and personalities of the Fujimorismo are working together for the same goals. What is also important is that through Fuerza 2011, we are opening the doors for young people to participate, which was difficult before, but now we are right on track. And I believe that the results of our work will be seen in the elections of April 10, 2011.

In addition to the questions I have asked, do you wish to add anything else?

I want to ratify our compromise to fight against poverty, against terrorism and to maintain the economic principles for Peru to keep growing; and for this we will keep following the free market model. We will also provide an equality of conditions for foreign and local investors, providing clear and open rules and offer predictability to foment investments. And if this message reaches the United States, I believe it is imperative to ratify our compromise to fight against drug trafficking. One of the great achievements of my father’s government was to reduce the areas of coca leaf farming from 120,000 hectares to 30,000. And this was not done by compulsive eradication but with programs and projects of alternative farming. We also worked together with the population and the United States helped us in the financing of these programs. Sadly, Peru, today, has more than 100,000 hectares of coca leaf farming again because these programs were not continued. I think it is pivotal to work with the different populations for them to be able to change crops but not in a mandatory way. Finally, we are committed to keep fighting and achieve the levels of the ‘90’s. Today we have more resources and therefore, more possibilities to obtain better results.

 

Accepting the unacceptable

Last weekend the mullahs took a big step towards becoming a nuclear power as they powered the Bushehr nuclear reactor. 
Israel’s response? The Foreign Ministry published a statement proclaiming the move "totally unacceptable."
So why did we accept the totally unacceptable?
When one asks senior officials about the Bushehr reactor and about Iran’s nuclear program more generally, their response invariably begins, "Well the Americans…" 
Far from accepting that Israel has a problem that it must deal with, Israel’s decision makers still argue that the US will discover – before it is too late – that it must act to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power in order to secure its own interests. 
As for Bushehr specifically, Israeli officials explain that it isn’t the main problem. The main danger stems from the uranium enrichment sites. And anyway, they explain, given the civilian character of the Bushehr reactor; the fact that it is under a full International Atomic Energy Agency inspections regime; and the fact that the Russians are supposed to take all the spent fuel rods to Russia and so prevent Iran from using them to produce weapons-grade plutonium, Israel lacked the international legitimacy to strike Bushehr to prevent it from being fuelled last weekend.
BEFORE GOING into the question of whether or not Israel’s decision makers were correct in deciding to opt out of attacking the Bushehr reactor to prevent it from being fuelled, it is worth considering where "the Americans" stand on Iran as it declares itself a nuclear power and tests new advanced weapons systems on a daily basis.
The answer to this question was provided in large part in an article in the National Interest by former Clinton Administration National Security Council member Bruce Riedel. Titled, "If Israel Attacks," Riedel — who reportedly has close ties to the administration – asserts that an Israeli military strike against Iran will be a disaster for the US. In his view, US is better served by allowing Iran to become a nuclear power than by supporting an Israeli attack against Iran. 
He writes, "The United States needs to send a clear red light to Israel. There’s no option but to actively discourage an Israeli attack."
Riedel explains that to induce Israel to accept the unacceptable specter of a nuclear armed mullocracy, the US should pay it off. Riedel recommends plying Israel’s leaders with F-22 Stealth bombers, nuclear submarines, a mutual defense treaty and perhaps even NATO membership. 
Riedel’s reason for deeming an Israeli strike unacceptable is his conviction that such a strike will be met by an Iranian counter-strike against US forces and interests in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. While there is no reason to doubt he is correct, Riedel studiously ignores the other certainty: A nuclear-armed Iran would threaten those same troops and interests far more. 
Riedel would have us believe that the Iranian regime will be a rational nuclear actor. That’s the regime that has outlawed music, stones women, and deploys terror proxies throughout the region and the world. That’s the same regime whose "supreme leader" just published a fatwa claiming he has the same religious stature as Muhammed
. 
Riedel bases this view on the actions Iran took when it was weak. 
Since Iran didn’t place its American hostages on trial in 1980, it can be trusted with nuclear weapons in 2010. Since Iran didn’t go to war against the US in 1988 during the Kuwaiti tanker crisis, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can be trusted with nuclear bombs in 2010. And so on and so forth.
Moreover, Riedel ignores what any casual newspaper reader now recognizes: Iran’s nuclear weapons program has spurred a regional nuclear arms race. Riedel imagines a bipolar nuclear Middle East with Israel on the one side and Iran on the other. He fails to notice that already today Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan and Turkey have all initiated nuclear programs. And if Iran is allowed to go nuclear, these countries will beat a path to any number of nuclear bomb stores.
Some argue that a multipolar nuclear Middle East will adhere to the rules of mutual assured destruction. Assuming this is true, the fact remains that the violent Iranian response to an Israeli strike against its nuclear installations will look like a minor skirmish in comparison to the conventional wars that will break out in a Middle East in which everyone has the bomb.
And in truth, there is no reason to believe that a Middle East in which everyone has nuclear weapons is a Middle East which adheres to the rules of MAD. A recent Zogby/ University of Maryland poll of Arab public opinion taken for the Brookings Institute in US-allied Arab states Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the UAE shows that the Arab world is populated by jihadists. 
As Herb London from the Hudson Institute pointed out in an analysis of the poll, nearly 70 percent of those polled said the leader they most admire is either a jihadist or a supporter of jihad. The most popular leaders were Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Hizbullah chieftain Hassan Nasrallah, Syrian President Bashar Assad and Al Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden. 
So if popular revolutions bring down any of the teetering despotic regimes now occupying the seats of power in the Arab world, they will likely be replaced by jihadists. Moreover, since an Iranian nuclear bomb would empower the most radical, destabilizing forces in pan-Arab society, the likelihood that a despot would resort to a nuclear strike on a Western or Israeli target in order to stay in power would similarly rise. 
All of this should not be beyond the grasp of an experienced strategic thinker like Riedel. And yet, obviously, it is. Moreover, as an alumnus of the Clinton administration, Riedel’s positions in general are more realistic than those of the Obama administration. As Israeli officials acknowledge, the Obama administration is only now coming to terms with the fact that its engagement policy towards Iran has failed. 
Moreover, throughout the US government, the White House is the most stubborn defender of the notion that the Iranian nuclear threat is not as serious a threat as the absence of a Palestinian state. That is, President Barack Obama himself is the most strident advocate of a US Middle East policy that ignores all the dangers the US faces in the region and turns American guns against the only country that doesn’t threaten any US interest.
And now, facing this state of affairs, Israeli leaders today still argue that issuing a Foreign Ministry communiqué declaring the fuelling of the Bushehr nuclear reactor "unacceptable," and beginning worthless negotiations with Fatah leaders is a rational and sufficient Israeli policy. 
WHAT LIES behind this governmental fecklessness?
There are two possible explanations for the government’s behavior. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu may be motivated by operational concerns or he may be motivated by political concerns. 
On the operational level, the question guiding Israel’s leaders is when is the optimal time to attack? The fact that government sources say that it would have been diplomatically suicidal to attack before Bushehr became operational last weekend makes it clear that non-military considerations are the determining factor for Israel’s leadership. Yet what Riedel’s article and the clear positions of the Obama administration demonstrate is that there is no chance that non-military conditions will ever be optimal for Israel. Moreover, as Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor shows, Israel can achieve its strategic objectives even without US support for its operations. 
From a military perspective, it is clear that it would have been better to strike Iran’s nuclear installations before the Russians fuelled Bushehr. Any attack scenario from now on will have to either accept the prospect of nuclear fallout or accept leaving Bushehr intact. Indeed from a military perspective, the longer Israel waits to attack Iran, the harder it will become to accomplish the mission.
So unless Israel’s leaders are unaware of strategic realities, the only plausible explanation for Netanyahu’s decision to sit by idly as Israel’s military options were drastically diminished over the weekend is that he was moved by domestic political considerations.
And what might those political considerations be? Clearly he wasn’t concerned with a lack of public support. Consistent, multiyear polling data show that the public overwhelmingly supports the use of force to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. 
Then there is the issue of Netanyahu’s coalition. It cannot be that Netanyahu believes that he can build a broader coalition to support an attack on Iran than he already has by bringing Kadima into his government. Kadima leader Tzipi Livni is not a great supporter of an Israeli attack on Iran. Livni views being liked by Obama more important than preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear state.
The prospect of a Kadima splinter party led by former defense minister Shaul Mofaz joining the coalition is also raised periodically. Yet experience to date indicates there is little chance of that happening. Mofaz apparently dislikes Netanyahu more than he dislikes the notion of facing a nuclear-armed Iran, (and a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia and Egypt and etc., etc., etc.).
Only one possibility remains: Netanyahu must have opted to sit on his hands as Bushehr was powered up because of opposition he faces from within his government. There is only one person in Netanyahu’s coalition who has both the strategic dementia and the political power to force Netanyahu to accept the unacceptable. That person is Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
Barak’s strategic ineptitude is legendary. It was most recently on display in the failed naval commando takeover of the Turkish-Hamas terror ship Mavi Marmara. It was Barak’s idea to arm naval commandos with paintball guns and so guarantee that they would be attacked and forced to use lethal force to defend themselves. 
Barak’s ability to dictate government policy was most recently demonstrated in his obscene abuse of power in the appointment of the IDF’s next chief of staff. Regardless of whether the so-called "Galant" document which set out a plan to see Maj. General Yoav Galant appointed to replace outgoing IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi was forged or authentic, it is clear that its operative clauses were all being implemented by Barak’s own office for the past several months. So too, despite the fact that the document is still the subject of police investigation, Barak successfully strong-armed Netanyahu into agreeing to his lightning appointment of Galant.
Even if Galant is the best candidate for the position, it is clear that Barak did the general no favors by appointing him in this manner. He certainly humiliated and discredited the General Staff. 
Barak is the Obama administration’s favorite Israeli politician. While Netanyahu is shunned, Barak is feted in Washington nearly every month. And this makes sense. As the man directly responsible for Israel’s defense and with his stranglehold on the government, he alone has the wherewithal to enable the entire Middle East to go nuclear.
How’s that for totally unacceptable?
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

Guide to the perplexed

Israel’s leaders are reportedly concerning themselves with one question today. Are there any circumstances in which US President Barack Obama will order the US military to strike Iran’s nuclear installations before Iran develops a nuclear arsenal? 
From Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu down the line, Israel’s leaders reportedly raise this question with just about everyone they come into contact with. If this is true, then the time has come to end our leaders’ suspense. 
The answer is no. 
To all intents and purposes, there are no circumstances in which Obama would order an attack on Iran’s nuclear installations to prevent Iran from developing and fielding nuclear weapons. Exceptions to this statement fall into two categories. Either they are so implausible that they are operationally irrelevant, or they are so contingent on other factors that they would doom any US attack to failure. 
Evidence for this conclusion is found in every aspect of Obama’s foreign policy. But to prove it, it is sufficient to point out point three aspects of his policies.
First of all, Obama’s refuses to recognize that an Iranian nuclear arsenal constitutes a clear and present danger to US national security. Obama’s discussions of the perils of a nuclear Iran are limited to his acknowledgement that such an arsenal will provoke a regional nuclear arms race. This is certainly true. But then that arms race has already begun. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, the UAE, and Kuwait have all announced their intentions to build nuclear reactors. In some cases they have signed deals with foreign countries to build such facilities.
And yet, while a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is bad, it is far from the worst aspect of Iran’s nuclear program for America. America has two paramount strategic interests in the Middle East. First, the US requires the smooth flow of inexpensive petroleum products from the Persian Gulf to global oil markets. Second, the US requires the capacity to project its force in the region to defend its own territory from global jihadists. 
Both of these interests are imperiled by the Iranian nuclear program. If the US is not willing to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it will lose all credibility as a strategic ally to the Sunni Arab states in the area. For instance, from a Saudi perspective, a US that is unwilling to prevent the ayatollahs from fielding nuclear weapons is of no more use to the kingdom than Britain or China or France. It is just another oil consuming country. The same goes for the rest of the states in the Gulf and in the region.
The Arab loss of faith in US security guarantees will cause them to deny basing rights to US forces in their territories. It will also likely lead them to bow to Iranian will on oil price setting through supply cutbacks. In light of this, the Iranian nuclear program constitutes the greatest threat ever to US superpower status in the region and to the wellbeing of the US economy. 
Then there is the direct threat that Iran’s nuclear program constitutes for US national security. This threat grows larger by the day as Iran’s web of strategic alliances in Latin America expands unchallenged by the US. Today Iran enjoys military alliances with Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Brazil and Bolivia. 
As former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton has argued, at least the Soviets were atheists. Atheists of course, are in no hurry to die, since death can bring no rewards in a world to come. Iran’s leaders are apocalyptic jihadists. Given Iran’s Latin American alliances and Iran’s own progress towards intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran makes the Cuban missile crisis look like a walk in the park.
In the face of this grave and gathering threat, Obama cancelled plans to deploy anti-ballistic missile shields in Poland and the Czech Republic. He has shunned the pro-American Honduran and Colombian governments in favor of Nicaragua and Venezuela. He has welcomed Brazil’s anti-American president to the White House. He cancelled the F-22. 
THE FACT that Obama fails to recognize the danger an Iranian nuclear arsenal poses to the US does not in and of itself prove that Obama would not attack Iran’s nuclear installations. After all, the US has fought many wars and launched countless campaigns in its history against foes that posed no direct threat to the US. In most of these cases, the US has fought on behalf of its allies. 
In the case of Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, because the Iranians have openly placed Israel first on their nuclear targeting list, US debate about Iran’s nuclear program has been anchored around the issue of Israel’s national security. Should the US attack Iran’s nuclear installations in order to defend Israel? 
Given the distorted manner in which the debate has been framed, the answer to that question hinges on Obama’s view of Israel. Recent moves by Obama and his advisors make clear that Obama takes a dim view of Israel. He views Israel neither as a credible ally nor a credible democracy. 
First there is the character of current US military assistance to Israel and to its neighbors. In recent months, the Obama administration has loudly announced its intentions to continue its joint work with Israel towards the development and deployment of defensive anti-missile shields. Two things about these programs are notable. First, they are joint initiatives. Just as Israel gains US financing, the US gains Israeli technology that it would otherwise lack. 
Second, as Globes reported last week, the Obama has actually scaled back US funding for these programs. For instance, funding for the Arrow 3 anti-ballistic missile program – intended to serve as Israel’s primary defensive system against Iranian ballistic missiles — was cut by $50 million. 
The defensive character of all of these programs signals an absence of US support for maintaining Israel’s capacity to preemptively strike its enemies. When the Pentagon’s refusal to permit Israel to install its own avionics systems on the next generation F-35 warplanes is added to the mix, it is difficult to make the argument that the US supports Israel’s qualitative edge over its enemies in any tangible way.
An assessment that the US has abandoned its commitment to Israel’s qualitative edge is strengthened by the administration’s announcement this week of its plan to sell Saudi Arabia scores of F-15 and F-16 fighter jets for an estimated $30 billion. While the US has pledged to remove systems from the Saudi aircraft that pose direct threats to Israel, once those jets arrive in the kingdom, the Saudis will be able to do whatever they want with them. If one adds to this equation the reduced regional stature of the US in an Iranian nuclear age, it is clear that these guarantees have little meaning. 
Obama’s moves to reduce Israel’s offensive capacity and slow its acquisition of defensive systems goes hand in hand with his rejection of Israel’s right to self-defense and dismissive attitude towards Israel’s rule of law. These positions have been starkly demonstrated in his administration’s treatment of Israel in the wake of the IDF’s takeover of the Turkish-Hamas Mavi Marmara terror ship on May 31. 
In the face of that blatant display of Turkish aggression against Israel as it maintained its lawful maritime blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza’s coastline, Obama sided with Turkey and Hamas against Israel. Obama demanded that Israel investigate its handling of the incident. Moreover, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed that Israel was incapable of credibly investigating itself and so required Israel to add non-Israeli members to its investigative committee. 
Yet even Israel’s acceptance of this US humiliation was insufficient for Obama. His UN envoy Susan Rice then demanded that Israel accept a UN investigative panel that is charged with checking to see if the Israeli committee has done its job. And if the UN panel rejects the Israeli commission’s findings, it is empowered to begin its own investigation. 
As to the UN, as former Obama and Clinton administration officials Ray Takeyh and Steven Simon explained in an article in the Washington Post last week, Obama’s national security strategy effectively revolves around subordinating US national security policy to the UN Security Council. In the remote scenario that Obama decided to use force against Iran, his subservience to the UN would rule out any possibility of a surprise attack. 
 Although in theory the US military’s capacity to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities is much greater than Israel’s, given its practical inability to launch a surprise attack, in practice it may be much smaller. 
ALL OF these factors constitute overwhelming evidence that there are no conceivable circumstances under which Obama would order a US strike on Iran’s nuclear installations to forestall Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. And this reality should lead Israel’s leaders to three separate conclusions. 
First, and most urgently, Israel must attack Iran’s nuclear installations. Iran’s nuclear ambitions must be set back at least until 2017, the latest date at which a new — and hopefully more rational — US administration will certainly be in office. 
Second, given the fact that the US will not take action against Iran’s nuclear installations, there is no reason for Israel to capitulate to US pressure on lesser issues. The Obama administration has nothing to offer Israel on this most important threat and so Israel should not do anything to strengthen its position. Among other things, this conclusion has clear implications for Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, Israel’s future responses to Lebanese aggression, as well as for Israel’s continued cooperation with the UN probes of the Turkish-Hamas terror ship. 
Finally, Obama’s behavior is a clear indication that Israel was wrong to allow itself to become militarily dependent on US military platforms. Former defense minister Moshe Arens wrote recently that Israel should strongly consider abandoning plans to purchase the F-35 and restore the scrapped Lavi jetfighter to active development. Arens suggested that in doing so, Israel may find willing collaborators in the Indians, the French and even the Russians. 
No, the US has not become Israel’s enemy – although the Obama administration has certainly struck an adversarial chord. Polling data suggests that most Americans disagree with Obama’s treatment of Israel and recognize that Iran is a threat to the US.
 
But polls aside, the answer to Israel’s desperate queries is that it is up to us. If the Obama administration teaches us anything, it teaches us that we must rely first and foremost on ourselves. 
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

Peru today

It is hard to believe that just twenty years ago, Peru was going through one of its worst crises in its history. After years of irresponsible economic policies and public spending, the nation was isolated, plagued by a soaring hyperinflation, widespread terrorism, insurmountable debt, high unemployment, falling wages and a sense of hopelessness that made looking into the future extremely dim. Peru ended the 1980s with one of the worst recessions in Latin America, including an inflation rate of 7,000 percent, one of the highest in the world. Access to credit, foreign or local, was unattainable and the country was in desperate need of order and change. But thanks to tough measures taken in the 90’s to correct the nation’s course, Peru today is a totally different country.

Upon arrival at Jorge Chavez’s International Airport, one can sense that the economy is thriving. The airport is extremely modern with high-end stores and duty-free businesses full of people actualy buying. Leaving the airport is just as easy and fast, with modern routes, national and international stores along the way that have replaced the tanks and military personnel which not too long ago guarded the city day and night.

In the streets of Lima, construction of modern and expensive residential buildings and offices is everywhere and local businesses are enjoying better wages and access to credit. For instance, it is practically impossible to go to eat in one of the city’s restaurant without a reservation. More shopping malls with internationally renowned stores are being built in several districts and international firms have opened their doors in Lima. Analysts already say that Peru has become one of the most open investment regimes in the world and, despite the current economic turmoil that has engulfed the globe, it is enjoying excellent economic growth.

The road to Recovery

It was only in 1990 that the foundations for the economic, security and social recovery were laid. Prior, Peru was often criticized for constantly changing its legal framework. To address this problem, the Fujimori administration established the current regime which allow investors to enter into so-called Stabilization Agreements. These ensure investors that the legal framework in place at the time they enter into a contract will continue to apply to their investments for a set period of time. Since Peru enacted these laws, the country has attracted numerous foreign investors and opened its markets.

Overall, the 90’s were generally a time of economic growth, and the neoliberal policies implemented at the time, ended price controls, protectionism, restrictions on investment and most state ownership of companies. Since 1993, reforms have provided the basis for economic growth and in 2007; the Peruvian economy experienced a growth rate of 9%, the largest in Latin America. This was repeated in 2008 with a 9.8% rate

Today, Peru’s economy is well managed with better tax collection which is increasing revenues while expenditures are keeping pace. Private investment is rising and becoming more broad-based. Peru obtained investment grade status in 2008. The García administration is pursuing decentralization initiatives, and is focused on bringing more small businesses into the formal economy. Peru weathered the 2008 global financial crisis well, and was one of the few Latin American countries that had a positive growth rate.

On the security front, strong measures were adopted to combat terrorism, which ran its operations on funding from the cocaine trade. The effort was extremely successful.  Some remnants of the Shining Path and the MRTA are still active today but the country can be traveled safely. In this respect, tourism is flourishing and the hotel industry is also thriving in the capital and major cities of Peru such as Cusco, Arequipa, Puno, Ica and hubs in the Selva Region.

The routes of Peru have also undergone major improvements and the airports all over the country have adopted modern systems, which make traveling inside the Andean nation, a pleasure.

The transportation sector still needs to be improved inside the major cities. Public transportation in Lima is handled by buses and taxicabs but the "Metropolitano" will soon be unveiled to alleviate the heavy traffic problem. The Lima Metro or "Metropolitano" is an electric mass transit system, which currently consists of one 9.8 km line and seven stations in the southern area of the city. Six additional lines are planned. The system is three times faster than the previous service, and it is safer, thanks to its high technology level and computerized sensors. The work will be finished on July 5th, 2011. This electric train will integrate the Independent Corridor of Mass-Transit Buses and link the principal points of Lima and transport an estimated 120,000 daily. Also there will be stores and kiosks in the central station, a shopping mall, a movie theater, a large playground area, food court, and offices. This is all very exciting. Lima is finally taking the steps to modernize its public transportation system and the goal is to have an integrated public transportation system in Lima that is safe, on time and of utmost quality.

The Garcia Presidency

Even though President Alan Garcia’s first term was marked by bouts of hyperinflation, which reached 7,649% in 1990 and had a cumulative total of 2,200,200% over the five years, thereby profoundly destabilizing the Peruvian economy, Peruvians decided to give him a second chance and re-elected him in 2006.

During his election campaign, Garcia assured Peru’s business sector that he would not repeat the leftist populist policies of his 1985-1990 presidency – a promise he has kept. True to his word, Garcia has followed free market policies, signing free trade agreements with the United States, Canada and Singapore, and pursuing free trade deals with China, the European Union and Chile.

Peru’s economy has shown strong growth over the past 7 years, averaging 6.8% a year, helped by market-oriented economic reforms and privatizations in the 1990s, and measures taken since 2001 to promote trade and attract investment. Recent economic expansion has been driven by construction, mining, and private investment, exports, and domestic consumption. Inflation (annual average) jumped to 5.8% in 2008, due mostly to substantial global foods and oil prices increases, and the fiscal surplus (third year in a row) was 2.1% of GDP. Thanks to pre-payments, public external debt in 2008 dropped to $19.2 billion, and foreign reserves were a record $31.2 billion.

In fact, Peru, South America’s sixth largest economy, is rebounding faster than its neighbors from the global recession. Bank of America said in a May report that Peru "is in a growth league of its own" after GDP expanded 8.8 percent in the 12 months to March, led by construction and manufacturing. The International Monetary Fund forecasts growth of 6.3 percent this year, the most in the Western Hemisphere.

But despite these achievements, Garcia’s popularity is low, standing at 26 percent, according to an Ipsos Apoyo Opinion y Mercado poll taken May 12-14 for Lima’s El Comercio newspaper. That’s down from 29% in March and a high of 58 percent two months after he took office.

Even though the economy has performed well under Garcia, poverty and corruption have kept discontent bubbling at dangerous levels. The economic benefits have yet to reach vast sectors of society. In addition, people associated with Garcia’s party have been involved in scandalous corruption cases. Also, the latest paroles of convicted terrorists such as US citizen, Lori Berenson, and revelations of financial reparations from the state done in secret during the Toledo regime have produced a backlash against the Garcia administration, with people blaming him for not stopping what they consider blatant injustices.

The problem with this scenario is that the hostility towards Alan Garcia and his administration increases the chance of Ollanta Humala, an ally of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, taking power in the April, 2011 presidential elections. Even though Humala is currently in third place with 13% popularity behind Keiko Fujimori (23%) and current Lima major Luis Castañeda (21%), he is ahead of former President Alejandro Toledo by 1 point, which many analysts consider alarming.

In order for a democratic centrist to win the next election, they may not only have to contend with Garcia’s inability to sufficiently bring down the poverty rate and reduce corruption but with the interference of Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chavez. Prior to the last elections, it was reported that Chavez was supporting Humala to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars per month. It is likely that some of that support is continuing along with Chavez’s Houses of Alba that are political indoctrination fronts providing free services to the poor. Peru is a big prize and Chavez would like nothing more than to bring it into his orbit further increasing his power and enlarging his Bolivarian Revolution.

So there is a great danger that the people that are not satisfied with the results democracy brings will likely vote for a populist candidate in 2011 like Ollanta Humala.

More so, Garcia’s failure to win popular backing may jeopardize economic stability and foreign investment by boosting the expected candidacy of Humala whom Garcia defeated by 52.5% to 47.5% in a 2006 runoff. Even if Humala is not elected, populist candidates may secure victories in regional elections in southern Peru which could discourage foreign investment putting a damper on Peru’s growing economy.

 

 

Guatemala: A security challenge

I had a great opportunity to be part of group organized by the Atlas Foundation that participated in a seminar on security and economics that took place in Guatemala late in June.

Interestingly enough the focus of the conference was on the relationship between economic investment and security. Participating in the conference were academics, lawyers and businessmen from Central America as well as economic and security experts from the United States.

There were so many points presented during the conference that summarizing it in a short article is difficult. However, it is possible to have a sense of what countries like Guatemala are experiencing, and this is not good news, not for the country’s citizens and not for the United States.

Guatemala is a country where insecurity prevails and the state is in disarray. Power and order are in the hands of groups and actors outside the state. The law is ineffective. The police are useless and have lost respect of the citizenry.

Indeed, Guatemalans today face a situation where their security is threatened. They can be attacked in the streets, robbed, kidnapped and extorted with minimal or no response from the authorities.  Private security, local and foreign, is being hired to protect the citizens. Likewise, Guatemalans must resort to self-help to counteract the prevailing violence and criminality. At this point there is no condo, neighborhood or business that does not enjoy the protection of private security. People have lost confidence in state institutions and therefore do not even report crimes as they do not expect any response.

Likewise, the uselessness of the authorities has also lead people to take the law in their own hands. Lynching of people and criminals is very common. Talking to a resident of a predominantly indigenous town in the area of Atitlan, he told me that most recently residents of the town captured three people suspected of committing crimes in the town. Instead of handing them to the police, the residents lynched the criminals in front of the local police station by spraying them with gasoline and then setting them on fire. Upon looking at the burned up bodies the police abandoned the area immediately. In many cases local police were expelled by local residents from the town by force due to their clumsiness. These types of events do not only occur in the towns. They have occurred in the center of the capital, Guatemala City, mostly by citizens, angry with crime and criminal impunity.

I was astonished to hear decent people justify these types of actions. They claimed that in light of police ineptness they are left with no choice. As barbaric and unacceptable as this type of punishment appears, I could not avoid appreciating the sincerity and despair of the person speaking to me.

Attending Church is not only a religious act in Guatemala. I could see the people assembling in the House of Worship as if it were a shelter in time of war. The community gathers in acts of solidarity during mass and not only were the words of the priest heard. I could hear members of the community take the pulpit and denounce corruption, bad government, and criminality.

The presence of gangs is also a serious challenge. The majority of the extortion cases, kidnappings and assassinations are carried out by them. As the presence of Mexican drug traffickers increase in Guatemala due to the Mexican government’s heavy pressure on them, the "narcos" hire them as paid assassins. Gangs are mostly in charge of networks of narcotic distribution. They also traffic illegal immigrants (mostly drug traffickers) across the borders.

The government of President Alvaro Colom is widely-viewed as incompetent and indifferent to the fate of Guatemalans.   The people’s plea for more security is ignored by the government. The institutions of government are perceived as being corrupt and easily bribed by drug traffickers. It is no surprise that The International Crisis Group reported that in Guatemala, despite the bitter memories of the bloody civil war (1960-1996), the military remains the second most popular institution after the Catholic Church. Many in Guatemala tend to believe that the military is the only institution capable of restoring order.  Police are feared by society and considered corrupt. The chief of police, himself, was involved in a case of corruption and money laundering. Members of the police have joined gangs in extortion and other criminal activities. A large number of police officers, like the gangs, seem to actively cooperate with drug trafficking organizations. The chair of the United Nations-sanctioned Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CIGIG), and whose mission is to help Guatemala establish and consolidate the rule of law, resigned over the appointment of an attorney general widely perceived as being corrupt.

Against this background of chaos and anarchy, Mexican drug traffickers have inundated Guatemala, and not merely because they are being forced out of Mexico by (Mexican) President Felipe Calderon’s anti-drugs policies.  They are settling in Guatemala precisely because of the general corruption, the easiness with which police are bribed and co-opted, the government’s weakness and the heavy presence of gangs that extend a hand to them.

But this is not just a Guatemalan problem. It is very much an American and regional problem. The collapse of state authority and the rule of thugs and criminals pose a security threat. Guatemala is not the only country facing disintegration. El Salvador and Honduras where gang activity is strong will soon follow the Guatemalan model.   A chaotic environment attracts terrorist groups such as the FARC and Hezbollah.

Last but not least the chaotic Guatemalan environment has already attracted Hugo Chavez. I was told by credible sources that Venezuelan planes have been actively involved in providing transportation of drugs from Guatemala’s airports. The Guatemalan government allowed this to happen. Chavez is interested in destabilizing countries in Latin America as a way to destroy any government in the region that is not pro-Chavez in order to turn it into a pro-Chavez government. This is why criminality is one of the weapons used to achieve this goal.

I was also told that Chavez’s people have been seen in the palace government and he reportedly has connections to President Alvaro Colom. It will not be long until Guatemala becomes another bastion of Hugo Chavez. As we know wherever Chavez goes Iran also follows.

The U.S government needs to pay serious attention to these developments in Central America not only as a criminal problem but as a serious national security challenge. This is only the beginning of the nightmare. The worst is still to come.

 

Luis Fleischman is a Senior Advisor for the Menges Hemispheric Security Project, Center for Security Policy.

The growing concern of Brazil & Iran

In recent months there has been a growing interest in the deepening relationship between Brazilian President Inacio Lula da Silva and Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Brazil has long been an American ally and analysts are questioning the motives behind Lula’s eagerness in furthering ties with Iran; a long-time US enemy. Understandably, this new friendship has raised concerns among many foreign relations experts and the intelligence community.

But this relationship is not new. In reality, Brazil began economic relations with Iran in the early 90’s when they started trading foodstuffs. It was only in 2003 when both nations started to make energy sector deals that the National Iranian Oil Company granted Brazil’s oil giant Petrobras rights to explore Iran’s offshore oil reserves in the Persian Gulf. Petrobras signed a second, larger exploration deal with Iran in 2004 for $34 million to drill in the Caspian Sea. And just this year, in April, the president of Petrobras announced that, in spite of the current lack of investments in Iran, they plan to keep their offices there. There have been reports that in recent years the Brazilian oil giant has invested some $30 million in oil development; however, test wells have failed to provide commercially viable volumes. This cooperation was made possible through government-owned companies and high-level state-to-state discussions.

Brazilian companies have found ways to circumvent the trade sanctions that the UN Security Council placed on Iran. Using a triangular trade network, Brazilian goods stop in Dubai, and in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), before entering Iran. Sugar and beef are two of the most significant commodities traveling from Brazil to Iran in this fashion. Brazilian-Iranian trade totaled over $1.5 billion in 2007.

In addition to these economic ventures, Brazil and Iran enjoy a close diplomatic relationship. In November 2008, President Lula invited Ahmadinejad to visit Brazil, and Iran invited Brazil to join the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). In June 2009, Lula da Silva congratulated his Iranian counterpart on his re-election and expressed his hope for expanded relations between Iran and Brazil, stating, "I believe the visit of the Iranian President to Brazil and my return visit will play a significant role in expansion of ties between the two countries."

However, what has many US government and intelligence officials worried is a May, 2010 trip Lula took to Tehran where a nuclear fuel swap agreement was signed between Brazil, Turkey and Iran.

For years, the international community has been attempting to curb nuclear proliferation in one of the most volatile regions of the world, the Middle East. Since 2006, there have been four rounds of sanctions aimed at forcing Iran to halt a nuclear program that the U.S., the European Union, and Israel believe is aimed at acquiring nuclear weapons. These sanctions have sharpened political division among world powers, especially when both Turkey and Brazil, non-permanent members of the UN Security Council, have and continue to resist U.S.-led efforts to push for sanctions over Iran’s failure to halt its uranium enrichment program.

Is Lula in Support of a Nuclear Iran?

Brazil’s policy towards Iran’s nuclear program has been to engage in normal relations despite sanctions against Tehran; Brasilia’s stated position is that the International Atomic Energy Agency should resolve the dispute over the program. In September 2007, Lula da Silva said, "Iran has the right to proceed with peaceful nuclear research and should not be punished just because of Western suspicions that it wants to make an atomic bomb. Iran has committed no crime regarding the U.N. guidelines on nuclear weapons." Then in November 2008, Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim stated, "Brazil does not recognize unilateral sanctions imposed on Iran, whether by the United States or the European Union. The Iranian government should fully cooperate with the agency because it is the best way to avoid sanctions."

In July of last year, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman embarked on a ten-day visit to several Latin American countries, including Brazil. Speaking at a press conference with President Lula da Silva and Celso Amorim, Lieberman insisted that Brazil use its influence to curb Iran’s nuclear program. Lula responded by criticizing Israel’s refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, stating, "Brazil would like all countries to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and would like to see the Middle East free of nuclear weapons." In late November 2009, the IAEA issued a warning to Iran for building a second enrichment plant in secret. But Brazil, along with five other countries, abstained. Brazilian IAEA Ambassador Antonio Guerreiro explained the abstention, saying, "the resolution clears the way for sanctions and sanctions will only lead to a hardening of the Iranian position."

In February 2010, after speculation that Brazil could be involved in direct bilateral talks to provide Iran with high-grade uranium, Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said, "at no time in conversations held with Iran was enrichment of Iranian nuclear material discussed." But Lula was working together with Turkish and Iranian leaders on the deal that was just signed between the three nations.

The Deal

The Obama administration has been trying to convince Brazil and Turkey for months to support a new packet of UN sanctions against Iran. In fact, on March 3, 2010, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Brasilia for talks aimed at convincing senior Brazilian officials to back new punitive measures against Iran’s nuclear program. Clinton said: "It has been found to be a violation by the International Atomic Energy Agency and by the United Nations Security Council. These are not findings by the US. These are findings by the international community. It is going to be the topic at the United Nations Security Council. So I want to be sure (President Lula) has the same understanding that we do as to how this matter is going to unfold."

But on June 9, 2010, it was clear Mrs. Clinton had been unsuccessful. A divided United Nations Security Council voted to tighten sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. Brazil and Turkey, both non-permanent members of the UN Security Council, and both having a voting history of supporting the US agenda, voted against the measure in a public display of support for Iran, openly snubbing the United States.

The agreement Lula helped broker would require Iran to ship more than 2,500 pounds of its enriched uranium across the border to Turkey. In exchange the Iranians would receive fuel rods containing about 250 pounds of uranium enriched to 20% for use in their low-wattage Tehran Research Reactor, which the regime says will be used for medical purposes. But the Brazil-Turkey deal does not change Iran’s nuclear program. Iran’s centrifuges will continue working and the regime’s stockpile of enriched uranium will continue to grow.

In reality, this deal is worse than a nearly identical proposal made by the Obama Administration last fall that was rejected by Iran. First, the amount of uranium that Iran has agreed to ship to Turkey is identical to the amount proposed last fall, except more time has passed and now Iran has a much larger stock, retaining more than enough to make a nuclear weapon. Second, the new deal has an out clause that allows Iran to demand its uranium back at any time. Third, there are no provisions to allow inspectors into Iran’s enrichment facility near Qom. In essence the deal will allow Iran to enrich uranium at a considerably higher level of purity, that is, higher than levels permitted by international law.

Brazil: a Dwindling Friend or Emerging Enemy?

Many analysts are puzzled by Lula’s behavior. Is he being used by Ahmadinejad to advance Iran’s nuclear program and help Tehran gain more presence in Latin America? Perhaps. In fact, in late May 2009, the Israeli news website Ynet obtained a detailed dossier drafted by the Israeli Foreign Ministry on Iran’s activities in South America. The report claimed that Iran had begun building friendships in Latin America as early as 1982. The Foreign Ministry report claimed that particularly "since Ahmadinejad’s rise to power, Tehran has been promoting an aggressive policy aimed at bolstering its ties with Latin American countries with the declared goal of "bringing America to its knees." So Lula could be serving that purpose though not unknowingly.

It could also be that Lula is the one that could gain by this friendship. He is leaving office in January, 2011. With the Iranian deal he helped broker with Turkey; he has received the world’s attention as a successful negotiator involving major powers such as the United States and Iran. This has raised Brazil’s status as an emerging power and could also serve Lula well in any new endeavor of international relevance at any world body he wishes to pursue. In addition, one of Lula’s goals has been to gain a seat for Brazil as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

As stated, Lula da Silva is a pragmatist but as leader of the Workers Party he is also a man of the left. He has deftly navigated between maintaining a positive relationship with the West while deepening his ties with Iran, Russia and China. This is also the same Lula that was a co-founder along with Fidel Castro of the Forum of Sao Paulo (an organization with a membership that includes many communist and guerilla groups and was formed largely to counter the influence of the US). It is also the same Lula who has chosen for the duration of his presidency to either support or ignore but never to question or counter the policies of his comrade, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Now that Lula only has a year and a half remaining in his presidency, he is more actively pursuing his true ideological tendencies.

In addition, the Iranian deal reveals something extremely worrisome about a new world order. Brazil and Turkey were considered to be more US friendly and have always stood with Washington in its struggles. Turkey is a NATO member and Brazil has emerged as an economic and political power on the world stage. This agreement shows that Lula has come to realize that being at odds with the Obama administration’s agenda brings no real consequences. In essence, many foreign policy experts conclude sadly that there is a loss of respect for the US on the world stage.

 

 

 

Notes

"Brazil Oil Giant Petrobras to Keep Iran Office- Estado," By Tom Murphy. Fox Business, April 12, 2010.
"Building Latin Ties," Iran Daily, September 4, 2008; "Brazil 2004 Exports to Iran Seen At $1 Billion," Latin American News Digest, June 18, 2004.
"According to Brazil, There Was No Fraud", O Estado de Sao Paulo digital, June 15, 2009.
Turkey and Iran: A genuine friendship or a relation of convenience. By Salah Bayaziddi, The Kurdish Globe. June 19, 2010.
"Brazil Doesn’t Recognize Unilateral Sanctions on Iran," Tehran Times, November 10, 2008.
"Brazil Gives Israel Cold Shoulder Over Iran," Fars News Agency, July 23, 2009.
"Brazil Not in Talks to Enrich Iran’s Uranium," Wall Street Journal, February 3, 2010.
"Clinton Seeks to Press Brazil on Iran," by Matthew Lee, Associated Press, March 3, 2010.
"Iran, Turkey, Brazil, and The Bomb." The Weekly Standard. May 20, 2010.
"Israel: Ties to South America Aiding Iran’s Nuclear Program," Ynet, May 25, 2009.

American weakness on display

When the United States commanded "street respect," it was achieved by adhering to a policy of "peace through strength." This was a proven policy that, regretfully, has been squandered over the past almost two decades. Nowhere is this more evident than in the failure of President Obama’s outreach to America’s enemies, particularly those in the Islamic world. The repeated humiliating gestures to Iran have been met with nothing but public mockery and contempt by the illegitimate Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He has cast our president as an amateur.

The latest round of watered-down United Nations sanctions against Iran for its continued enrichment of uranium at an accelerated pace and to 20 percent purity – far in excess of what is required for a medical reactor – is another facade. China’s and Russia’s votes for the weakened sanctions were bought only by exempting their key business ventures with Iran. Further, Brazil and Turkey’s agreement with Iran on processing its nuclear fuel only provided cover for Iran’s nuclear-weapons program. This agreement on the eve of the U.S. sanctions vote was nothing but a slap in the face to our president. He is seen as someone who can be rolled. This is clearly evident from Mr. Ahmadinejad’s brazen ventures with the ideologue Hugo Chavez and his placement of Iranian Quds Forces in Venezuela.

Compounding our relations with Turkey, our old Cold War NATO ally that refused to let our forces transit its territory into Northern Iraq in 2003, was Turkey’s sponsorship of the Gaza-blockade-running ship. From this act, the perception is that Turkey has allied itself with the Muslim Brotherhood and other advocates of global jihad. Even though Israel botched the confrontation, you don’t let an ally down. It is clear that Turkey is hedging its bets on a new regional power structure.

In the past, with our 6th Fleet controlling the Mediterranean, it would have been inconceivable that such an operation would have been undertaken. Today, however, with the 6th Fleet reduced to just one ship, my old flagship the USS Mount Whitney (LCC-20), there is not much deterrence, particularly when it is conducting an exercise in the Baltic Sea.

At home, President Obama’s growing image of ineffectiveness and weakness has been reflected in his slow reaction to the oil leak in the Gulf and his inability to mobilize the resources of the U.S. government to contain it. Furthermore, to refuse to accept the oil-spill containment resources offered by 13 countries, citing the Jones Act (which easily could be waived) was unconscionable.

Abroad, we are still involved in fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have made some semblance of progress in Iraq, but Afghanistan is an entirely different situation. With a weak, corrupt central government with little control, our "population-centric" mini-nation-building is not feasible. In order for such a strategy to be successful, we must have a trustworthy, reliable partner. Certainly, President Hamid Karzai’s performance to date is not reassuring. The culture of corruption is endemic throughout the country.

You also must have a national army and a functional police force that have a sense of national commitment and pride. As of now, such characteristics have not been evident. Mr. Karzai’s recent firing of two Cabinet ministers with close ties to the U.S., plus his refusal to remove his corrupt half-brother from a position of power in Kandahar, suggests that he is positioning himself for a future alliance with the Taliban and Pakistan.

I have always had trouble with the concept that it is better to put your forces at risk in an effort to limit fatalities to the civilian population. In war, you always try to limit civilian casualties, but when the insurgency is embedded with them, it becomes a difficult situation. Those Washington politicians who state that this a burden we are prepared to accept know full well it will never be their butts on the line. My paramount concern has always been the safety of my men and women. In short, the restricted rules of engagements in force in Afghanistan are tying the hands of our military and costing American lives.

Let’s remember, we never went into Afghanistan for nation-building. We went in to kill or capture Osama bin Laden and destroy al Qaeda’s base of operations. Columnist Tony Blankley said it best when he wrote recently that "only self-deception" can justify further sacrifice of our forces in Afghanistan.

Retired Navy Adm. James A. Lyons was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

Otto Reich: Colombia’s continuing success story

Former US Ambassador to Venezuela Otto Reich speaks to the Center for Security Policy’s National Security Group Lunch on Capitol Hill on the topic of the elections in Colombia. The runoff pitted Defense Minister (under the pro-American Uribe government) Juan Manuel Santos against leftist Antanas Mockus of the Green Party. Since the video was taped, Mr. Santos has won handily, with 69% of the vote.

 

Chavez’s prisoners

Venezuela is suffering from one of the worst cases of oppression in its modern history. Under the leadership of Hugo Chavez, liberties have been stripped away from ordinary citizens that oppose the President or voice their discontent. The independent media is being relentlessly persecuted and journalists have been thrown in jail for voicing their opinions. Judges and even private business people are being harassed and the situation is getting worse by the day. In spite of this Chavez operates with total impunity.

After the 2002 coup attempt against him,  Chavez became so paranoid about losing power he thought it best to surround himself with people who would consider his position  key to their survival.  This meant turning to the Cuban regime that now depends heavily on Venezuela for oil and other supplies, which Caracas provides at little cost.

Chavez has adopted the Castro’s modus operandi to stay in power while oppressing the Venezuelan people. According to Havana, Chavez needed to go after the people who supported the coup to warn others of the perils of being against him. He knew that going after important media outlets would have immense repercussions and instill fear among journalists, owners of TV and radio stations. It is vital to control the message and prevent the magnitude of his mismanagement of the country and his international ties with rogue nations and terror groups from reaching the public. Life is very hard for Venezuelans and while the rest of Latin America is recovering strongly from the world recession, Venezuela is suffering stagflation. There is electricity, food and oil rationing and people are unhappy. He fully understands that independent citizens hold some power and pose a danger to his "Bolivarian Revolution" need to be silenced.

That is why in 2006, Chávez announced that the broadcast license for the second largest TV station, RCTV would not be renewed due to its open support of the 2002 coup attempt against him. In fact, Chavez has cancelled the licenses of dozens of critical radio stations and carries out daily attacks against the only independent TV network left in the country: Globovisión.

In recent months, Chavez has forcefully adopted a new tactic to silence the opposition and is using the anti-defamation law and the judicial courts to go after anyone that he deems a potential problem. Nearly 400 politicians are currently barred from running for office because they are under "investigation for corruption." In many cases these probes take years without charges being brought against suspects. More than 2000 people have been indicted on criminal charges stemming from their participation in protests over the last four years.

The following cases are  examples of what happens day after day under a government that has no respect for the rule of law.

One of the most prominent and saddest cases is that of Venezuelan biologist and farmer, Franklin Brito, whose torment began in 2002 when he dared to submit a project to solve a problem in Sucre Municipality, Bolivar state. His "crime" was to design a project using an approach that differed from the one adopted by Sucre’s Mayor, Juan Carlos Figarrella, and member of the government coalition party MVR. Brito demonstrated that the model that Sucre municipal council was proposing to combat the disease affecting the crop was not advisable. For doing so, Brito lost his job and other sources of his family’s income. Since 2005, Franklin Brito has gone on  six hunger strikes to demand an end to the violation of his rights. In December 2009, Chavez’s guards violently took him  from outside the OAS’ offices to put him in the Military Hospital’s psychiatric ward. Brito fears he will be declared insane and committed to a mental institution for life or even killed.

Then there is the case of Oswaldo Álvarez Paz, member of Congress for over 20 years who in 1989 became the first Governor of the State of Zulia being re-elected for a second period in December 1992. In May 2005,  Álvarez Paz created a new party called "Alianza Popular." But due to his growing popularity, on March 22nd 2010, he was arrested and charged with conspiracy, public instigation of criminality and spreading false information–crimes that could draw sentences of up to 27 years. Álvarez Paz had made televised statements on March 8th 2010, about Venezuela becoming a haven for drug trafficking and citing accusations by a Spanish court that the Chávez regime supports Basque and Colombian terrorists. In fact, his arrest was plotted by Chavez’s Cuban advisers from the moment he wrote a column in a local newspaper denouncing the arrival of a commander of the Cuban revolution, Ramiro Valdez Caracas, which stated: "The homeland has been sold to a foreign, miserable and failed communist regime. We are being governed by a traitor, who has no morals or principles, and who will bend to the will of his international handlers. It is no surprise that Cuban troops have arrived to defend the Chávez revolution." In May, Álvarez Paz was conditionally released, pending a criminal trial. He cannot leave the country and cannot talk about the case. He must also appear before the court every 15 days.

Another Chavez detainee is his former Defense Minister, friend and ally, General Raúl Baduel, who was, in fact, responsible for restoring Chávez to power when the 2002 coup occurred. After retiring as Defense Minister in 2007, he emerged as an opposition leader, publicly braking with Chavez. While the President was campaigning to change the constitution to allow him to stand for office beyond the limit of two terms, Baduel accused the President of attempting to usurp the constitutional powers of the Venezuelan people. He even wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times entitled "Why I Parted Ways with Chavez." A few months later, on April 2009, Baduel was arrested on corruption charges, accused of misappropriating state funds while he was defense minister. Baduel, who insists he is innocent, has been sentenced to eight years in jail and has been banned from ever holding political office again. All of the evidence against him was provided by pro Chavez sympathizers.

Another victim is Eligio Cedeño, a Venezuelan banker. He is in the United States, having been released on bail from charges in Venezuela of circumventing government currency rules to gain US dollars. In 2007 Cedeño was arrested and over the next year prosecutors repeatedly failed to turn up for court dates due to lack of evidence. As result, the United Nations in September 2009 declared Cedeño’s detention arbitrary. Cedeño’s friends and lawyers say that he became a target of the Chávez government, as a consequence of his support for political opponents including union leader Carlos Ortega and columnist Patricia Poleo, both of whom were forced to flee Venezuela and seek political asylum. Still, according to Cedeño’s lawyers, the criminal charges against Cedeño were part of an effort to force him to sell bank assets to individuals close to Chávez at an enormous discount. He was held in jail pending trial for 34 months, and was paroled on December 10th 2009 by judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni. Then he fled to the United States, where he was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. On December 2009 he was released on parole pending an immigration hearing.

Due to her decision to liberate Cedeño, judge Afiuni was herself jailed in 2009 for alleged corruption. In reality, she was taken by intelligence officers after ordering his conditional release pending trial for evading currency controls. A pro-Chavez congressman stated that a bribe was paid to Afiuni to release the businessman; she denies the charge. Afiuni said she was following United Nations’ guidance when she released Cedeño, who had been detained longer than the time allowed under Venezuelan law. The pretrial detention process had been delayed because prosecutors failed to appear at hearings due to lack of evidence. Her decision irked Chavez so much that he went on national television and said that she would have been put before a firing squad in earlier times. Immediately, he sent his secret intelligence police after her and she was put in a cell near inmates whom Judge Afiuni had sentenced on murder and drug smuggling. "I’ve received threats from inmates telling me they will burn me alive because they see me as a symbol of the system that put them in prison," said Afiuni, 46, in her prison cell. "I’m in this hell because I did my job as a judge in a way that didn’t please Chávez."

There is also the case of Mr. Guillermo Zuloaga, president of Venezuelan TV network Globovisión, who was arrested in an airport on March 25 for criticizing Hugo Chavez’s government in a media forum. Mr. Zuloaga was released several hours later and told not to leave the country while the investigation continued. International human rights groups and the OAS had pressed the government to release him. Attorney General Luisa Ortega said that Mr. Zuloaga had been arrested in connection with comments he made at an Inter American Press Association meeting in Aruba that were considered false and "offensive" to Mr. Chávez. Mr. Zuloaga criticized methods used by Chávez’s government to shut down news outlets, and was quoted as saying "You cannot talk about freedom of expression in a country when the government uses force to close media." He faces 3 to 5 years in jail for giving false information and offending the president.

Another regime enemy currently in exile is Manuel Rosales, a Venezuelan politician who was the most prominent opposition candidate in the 2006 presidential election, losing to incumbent Hugo Chavez. At the time he was the governor of Zulia, Venezuela’s richest and most populous state. Prosecutors say it was during his time as governor that he amassed illicit wealth – charges he denies. In April 2009, he stepped down as Mayor of Maracaibo when he was charged with corruption in Venezuela and fled to Peru. Rosales denies the charges, and Lima granted him political asylum. Rosales was also accused of participating in the 2002 attempt to oust the president. He was considered the most prominent leader among the fractured ranks of Venezuela’s opposition, frequently attracting the ire of President Chavez, who railed against him, threatening him with prison and accusing him of corruption and plotting to assassinate him.

These are some of the names of  Chavez’s victims. But there are many more  in the same condition that remain anonymous. Even though the OAS and the UN have somehow criticized the Venezuelan government for these abuses, the fact is that there are no serious consequences for Chavez and his cronies. These organizations do not directly demand the release of political prisoners nor do they call for special meetings of their member states to condemn in unison what is now taking place in Venezuela. The United States’ government remains silent, further empowering Chavez, making him feel free to continue on his present course.  Not only is Chavez following the Cuban model of governance but the same tactics of repression as he systematically silences those he perceives to be his enemies.