Tag Archives: Venezuela

The first rule of strategy

The first rule of strategy is to keep your opponent busy attending to your agenda so he has no time to advance his own. Unfortunately, Israel’s leaders seem unaware of this rule, while Iran’s rulers triumph in its application.

Over the past few weeks, Israel has devoted itself entirely to the consideration of questions that are, at best, secondary. Questions like how much additional assistance Israel should provide Hamas-controlled Gaza, and how best to fend off or surrender to the international diplomatic lynch mob have dominated Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s and his senior ministers’ agendas. Our political leaders – as well as our military commanders and intelligence agencies – have been so busy thinking about these issues that they have effectively forgotten the one issue that they should have been considering.

Israel’s greatest strategic challenge – preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons – has fallen by the wayside.

In the shadow of our distraction, Iran and its allies operate undisturbed. Indeed, as our leaders have devoted themselves entirely to controlling the damage from the Iranian-supported, Turkish- Hamas flotilla, Iran and its allies have had a terrific past few weeks.

True, Wednesday the UN Security Council passed a new sanctions resolution against Iran for refusing to end its illicit uranium enrichment program. But that Security Council resolution itself is emblematic of Iran’s triumph.

It took a year for US President Barack Obama to decide that he should seek additional sanctions against Iran. It then took him another six months to convince Iran’s allies Russia and China to support the sanctions. In the event, the sanctions that Obama refers to as "the most comprehensive sanctions that the Iranian government has faced," will have no impact whatsoever on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
They will not empower the Iranian people to overthrow their regime. And they will not cause the Iranian regime to reconsider its nuclear weapons program. They won’t even prevent Russia from supplying Iran with S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to protect its nuclear installations from air assault.

THOSE LONG-awaited and utterly worthless sanctions underline the fact that life is terrific these days for Iran’s leaders and their allies. A year ago, the Iranian regime was hanging by a thread. After stealing the presidential elections last June 12, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his boss Ali Khamenei required the assistance of all their regime goons to put down the popular revolt against them. Indeed, they needed to import Hizbullah goons from Lebanon to protect themselves and their regime from their own people. European leaders like French President Nicolas Sarkozy were openly supporting the Iranian people as they announced their intention to overthrow the regime.

But then Obama sided with the regime against its domestic, democratic opposition. Intent on giving his appeasement policy a whirl, Obama took several days to express even the mildest support for the Iranian people. In the meantime, his spokesman continued to refer to the regime as the "legitimate" government of Iran.

Obama’s support for Ahmadinejad forced European leaders like Sarkozy to temper their support for the anti-regime activists. Even worse, by keeping the democracy protesters at arm’s length, Obama effectively gave a green light to Ahmadinejad and Khamenei to resort to brute force against them. That is, by failing to back the democracy protesters, Obama convinced the regime it could get away with murdering scores of them, and torturing thousands more.

A year on, although the regime’s opponents seethe under the surface, with no leader and no help from the free world, it will take a miracle for them to mount major protests on the one-year anniversary of the stolen elections. It is unimaginable that they will be able to topple the regime before it gets its hands on nuclear weapons.

A year ago Ahmadinejad was afraid to show his face in public. But this week he received a hero’s welcome in Istanbul. He had a bilateral meeting there not only with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, but with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

In the past year Iran has deepened its strategic ties with China and Russia. It has developed an open strategic alliance with Turkey. It has expanded its strategic web of alliances in Latin America. Now in addition to Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia, Iran counts Brazil among its allies.

THEN THERE is Lebanon. Like the regime in Teheran, Iran’s Lebanese proxy Hizbullah lost the Lebanese elections last June. And like the regime in Teheran, Hizbullah was able to use force and the threat of force to not only strong-arm its way back into the Lebanese government, but to guarantee itself control over the Lebanese government.

Now in control, with Iranian and Syrian support, Hizbullah has an arsenal of 42,000 missiles with ranges that cover all of Israel.

Then, too, Hizbullah’s diplomatic situation has never been better. This week former US ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker called for the US to initiate a policy of diplomatic outreach to the Iranian-controlled illegal terrorist group. Ryan is the second prominent US official, after Obama’s chief counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan, to call for the US to accept Hizbullah as a legitimate actor in the region.
As for Syria, it too has only benefited from its alliance with Iran. The Obama administration has waived several trade sanctions against Damascus.

As it battles the Senate to confirm its choice for US ambassador to Syria, the administration has become the regime’s champion.

Assuming the Senate drops its opposition, Syria will receive the first US ambassador to Damascus in five years as it defies the International Atomic Energy Agency and openly proliferates nuclear technology. Today Syria is both rebuilding its illicit nuclear reactor at Dar Alzour that Israel reportedly destroyed on Sept. 6, 2007 and building additional nuclear installations.

Luckily for Bashar Assad, the IAEA is too busy trying to coerce Israel into agreeing to international inspections of its legal nuclear installations to pay any attention. Since June 2008, the IAEA has carried out no inspections in Syria.

AND THAT’S the heart of the matter. The main reason that the past year has been such a good one for Iran and its allies is because they have managed to keep Israel so busy fending off attacks that Jerusalem has had no time to weaken them in any way.

It is true that much of the fault here belongs to the US. Since entering office, Obama has demonstrated daily that his first priority in the Middle East is to force Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians. As for Iran, Obama’s moves to date make clear that his goal is not to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Rather, it is to avoid being blamed for Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Moreover, Obama has used Iran’s nuclear weapons program – and vague promises to do something about it – as a means of coercing Israel into making unreciprocated concessions to the Palestinians.

The problem is that despite overwhelming evidence that Obama is fundamentally not serious about preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel’s leaders have played along with him. And in so doing they have lost control over their time and their agenda.

When Obama first came into office, he was committed to three things: appeasing Iran, attacking Israel for constructing homes for Jews in Judea and Samaria, and condemning Israel for refusing to support the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Obama was only partially dissuaded from appeasing Iran when Ahmadinejad rejected his offer to enrich uranium for the mullahs last December. As for his other goals, he coerced Netanyahu into agreeing to support Palestinian statehood last June and coerced him into ending Jewish home building in Judea and Samaria last September.

Ahmadinejad’s rejection of Obama’s outstretched hand forced Obama to launch his halfhearted drive for worthless UN sanctions. But he used this bid to coerce Israel into making still more unreciprocated concessions. After pocketing the prohibition on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria, Obama moved on to Jerusalem.

From there he moved to forcing Israel to accept indirect negotiations with the Palestinians through his hostile envoy George Mitchell. And once he had pocketed that concession, he began pressuring Israel to surrender its purported nuclear arsenal.

Following that, he has moved on to his current position of pressuring Israel to accept a hostile international investigation of the navy’s enforcement of Israel’s lawful blockade of the Gaza coast. He also seeks to weaken Israel’s blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza and force Israel to accept a massive infusion of US assistance to Hamas-controlled Gaza.

This last Obama action plan was made explicit on Wednesday when the US president announced that his administration would give $400 million in assistance to Gaza, despite the fact that doing so involves providing material aid to an illegal terrorist organization controlled by Iran.

OBAMA’S ACTIONS are clearly disturbing, but as disturbing as they are, they are not Israel’s main problem. Iran’s nuclear program is Israel’s main problem. And Netanyahu, his senior cabinet ministers and the IDF high command should not be devoting their precious time to dealing with Obama and his ever-escalating demands.

To free himself and Israel’s other key decisionmakers to contend with Iran, Netanyahu must outsource the handling of the Palestinian issue, the Obama administration and all the issues arising from both. He must select someone outside active politics to serve as his special envoy for this purpose.

Netanyahu’s envoy’s position should be the mirror image of Obama’s Middle East envoy George Mitchell’s role. He should be given a suite of fancy offices, several deputies and aides and spokesmen, and a free hand in talking with the Palestinians and the Obama administration until the cows come home.
In the meantime, Netanyahu and his senior cabinet ministers and advisers must devote themselves to battling Iran. They must not merely prepare to attack Iran’s nuclear installations.

They must prepare the country to weather the Iranian counter-attack that will surely follow.

Those preparations involve not only fortifying Israel’s home front. Netanyahu and his people must prepare a diplomatic and legal offensive against Iran and its allies in the lead-up, and aftermath, of an Israeli strike against Iran.

The most obviously qualified person to fill this vital role is former defense minister Moshe Arens.
Aren has the experience, wisdom and gravitas to handle the job. Bereft of all political ambitions, Arens would in no way pose a threat to Netanyahu’s leadership.

Whoever Netanyahu chooses, he must choose quickly. His failure to bear in mind the first law of strategy places Israel in greater and greater peril with each passing day.

 

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

No worse friend, no better enemy

Generations of U.S. Marines have exemplified the motto "No better friend, no worse enemy" with their unstinting dependability in the face of adversity, and their ferocity in combat.  To the extent that the country as a whole has hewed to these time-tested principles, the world has been made more stable and American interests more secure.

In its time in office, however, the Obama administration has increasingly turned that formula on its head.  The message of its policies and conduct is as unmistakable as it is ominous:  Better to be an enemy of the United States than its friend.

Consider, for example, the starkly contrasting treatment associated with two recent episodes at sea.  In the first, a North Korean submarine engaged in an act of war when it covertly torpedoed a South Korean naval vessel on March 21, resulting in the latter’s sinking with the loss of 46 lives.

The second occurred last week when Israeli commandoes, acting lawfully in enforcing a declared naval blockade, intercepted a Turkish ship determined to violate it.  Upon boarding the vessel, they were set upon by a mob comprised, it turns out, of weapon-wielding jihadists – not humanitarian-minded "peace activists."  The commandoes defended themselves, killing nine of the would-be "martyrs."

To date, there has been no UN resolution denouncing the first.  No calls for an international investigation.  No talk of retaliation by the so-called "community of nations" if the perpetrator does not recant and make amends.

By contrast, the UN Security Council was immediately "seized" with the second.  It adopted in short order a resolution condemning those responsible (read, the Israelis) and demanded an international investigation.  Given the predictable hostility of virtually any "international" participants in such an inquiry, the result can only be a new basis for vilifying  Israel, and for insisting that it ends the blockade of Gaza – something the Obama administration seems to be preparing to support.

To what can the very different treatment of the two naval incidents by the "international community" be attributed?  That’s easy: Principally it reflects the fact that North Korea has as its greatest friend Communist China, while Pyongyang considers the United States to be its main enemy.  Beijing does not want the UN (or, for that matter, anybody else) challenging or otherwise calling into question the legitimacy of its ally’s actions.  The United States has no intention of upsetting the PRC – what with all the "help" Team Obama keeps hoping the Chinese will provide on sanctions on Iran, trade, currency revaluation, the "Six-Party talks," etc., etc.

By contrast, Israel has traditionally had but one powerful friend: the United States.  This alliance has been all the more important since most of the rest of the world is at least somewhat, if not actually rabidly, hostile towards the Jewish State.  Under President Obama, however, Israel seems to have in the U.S. a friend in name only. American diplomacy did nothing to prevent passage of the Security Council’s condemnatory resolution, focusing instead on making UN’s criticism of the Jewish State a tad more oblique.

Regrettably, the Obama administration’s complicity in the latest UN-administered assault on Israel is but one manifestation of a troubling pattern.  It follows months of Washington-induced turmoil over: housing construction permits in Jerusalem, U.S. demands for Israeli concessions that ostensibly would resuscitate the so-called "peace process" and the humiliation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his last visit to Washington. 

Then, the United States supported a deeply problematic final document at the just-completed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference.  In the process, Team Obama pledged to support a conference in 2012 whose stated purpose is to denuclearize Israel, but says nothing about Iran.  Here again, the administration acquiesced to better treatment for America’s enemies than for its friends.

Sadly, other allies – including Britain, Honduras, Poland, the Czech Republic, Georgia, Ukraine, India and Colombia – have also been given short shrift (or worse) by an Obama administration much more interested in cultivating ties with nations that are, at the very least, unfriendly.  In addition to Communist China, the objects of such "engagement" efforts have included the unsavory regimes in Russia, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Cuba and Venezuela.  Another intense – and appalling – "outreach" effort involves the Muslim Brotherhood’s international arm, the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Of particular concern is the evident ascendancy within the Obama administration of Homeland Security Advisor John Brennan.  A long puff-piece in Sunday’s Washington Post reported that Brennan has "emerged as one of [the President’s] most trusted advisors" and "for all the near misses [that is, attempted terrorist attacks] on his watch… Brennan has grown only more powerful within the White House."  

If true, the President’s worst instincts with respect to America’s enemies and her friends are being reinforced by someone who believes, for example, that the "moderates" of Hezbollah can safely be treated as among the latter.  The result can only be a more dangerous world for all who love freedom, and a further diminishing of the one country they still hope will protect them.

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WTNT 570 AM.

Israel’s daunting task

The ferocity and speed of the current international assault on Israel has left the government in a daze. Statements from our leadership are marked by confusion. This reaction is understandable. Everywhere Israel turns it is met with hostility.

Turkey — which just a decade ago was Israel’s most important regional ally – has taken a leadership position next to Iran in the Islamist and global assault against the Jewish state.

Under President Barack Obama’s stewardship, the US has joined the international bandwagon against Israel. Ireland – never a friend — is now openly siding with Hamas against Israel. And as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu noted on Wednesday evening, Britain, France and Germany and the rest of the Western democracies calling for Israel to end its blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza’s coast are effectively arguing that Israel should give Iran – which controls Hamas – a seaport on the Mediterranean.

The footage of the IDF’s celebrated naval commandos falling prey to an Islamic lynch mob on the deck of the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara on Monday morning serves as a perfect simile for the national mood. The commandos boarded the ship armed with paintball guns expecting to be greeted by hostile, but non-violent humanitarian activists. Instead they were accosted by a murderous mob.

Similarly, the Israeli public feels that when we go out of our way to show our peaceful intentions and nature to the world, we are greeted with an international lynch mob. Rather than listen to us, the world shouts us down with mendacious propaganda in act after act of political theater.

In a situation when everything seems hopeless and futile, it is important to take a step back and consider what stands behind the assault. Only by understanding why what is happening is happening will Israel’s leaders be able to formulate a strategy for navigating the country through the current straits.

TODAY’S GLOBAL campaign against the Jewish state is the product of three recent developments: The waning of traditional Arab power relative to the waxing of non-Arab Islamic states including Iran, Pakistan and Turkey; the concomitant rise of anti-Semitic incitement throughout the Islamic world; and the US’s attenuation of its ties with its allies generally and the US abandonment of its support for Israel specifically.

Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, Arab states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia have been the widely recognized leaders of the Islamic world. Over the past several years, their power has diminished and it is now being overwhelmed by the rising non-Arab Islamic states Iran, Pakistan and Turkey.

Pakistan – so far the only Islamic country with a nuclear arsenal — is the home base of the wildly popular al Qaida movement. Despite its nuclear and jihadist cachet, Pakistan’s ability to challenge the power of Arab governments is limited. Its financial dependence on Saudi Arabia, its strategic ties with the US and the ongoing war between its government and the Taliban/al Qaida have all rendered Pakistan – for now – unable to compete with the Arab world for the mantle of Islamic leadership.

But Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal has helped place Iran on the verge of regional domination. Iran’s long-held nuclear aspirations only became realistic when Pakistan shared its nuclear and ballistic missile technologies with the mullocracy. Iran’s nuclear weapons program is the stick it now wields to coerce the Arab world to bow to its will.

Iran isn’t all about threats and coercion though. It also offers the Arab world an attractive carrot. Since the US invasion of Iraq and even more forcefully since the 2006 war between Israel and Hizbullah, Iran has taken the lead in fighting the great enemies of the Arab world: the US and Israel.

In 2006, the Arab masses rallied to Iran’s side as Israel fought its Shiite Arab proxy to a draw in Lebanon. Hamas’s willingness to serve as Iran’s Palestinian proxy has given Iran complete control over the most active fronts against the hated Jews.

Since the radical Islamic AKP party took over Turkey in 2003, its leader Prime Minister Recip Erdogan has presided over the thorough brainwashing of the Turkish people. According to repeated polling data, the majority of Turks believe that Israel and America are demonic, murderous nations that kill innocent people for entertainment.

Erdogan has cultivated anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism for two reasons. First, doing so enables him to divert his people’s attention away from his government’s economic failures. Stirred into frenzies of hatred, the Turks willingly rally behind their leader who is saving them from the Jewish and Yankee beasts.

Then there is Erdogan’s goal of reasserting Turkish regional dominance and reclaiming the lost power of the Ottomans as the leader of the Islamic world. His decision in 2006 to be the first world leader to host Hamas terror masters on an official visit after their victory in the Palestinian elections was a clear bid to win popularity for Turkey among the Arab masses.

Iran and Turkey understand that attacking the Jewish state is the fastest route to the top of the Muslim world.

For decades two things limited the salience of Jew hatred as a political force in the Muslim world. First, Israel’s reputation as a regional power deterred Arab states from attacking it. And second, the US’s Middle East policy of rewarding states that lived at peace with Israel and spurning those that did not made attacking Israel a less attractive option for most Muslim states. The likes of Iran and Syria were punished for their support for terrorism and their refusal to make peace with Israel. Then too, Turkey’s rise in prominence in the US in the 1990s owed a great deal to its close strategic ties with Israel.

Israel’s reputation as a regional power was diminished by its 2000 withdrawal from south Lebanon and its less than stellar performances in the 2006 war.

As for the US, in the year and a half since Obama took office he has fundamentally restructured US foreign policy in a manner that rewards US enemies at the expense of US allies. From Honduras and Columbia to Britain, Poland, and the Czech Republic, to Japan and India to Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama has treated US allies with contempt and hostility. At the same time, his repeated bids to woo US adversaries have rewarded the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, Russia and others for their aggression.

Israel of course is the US’s most threatened ally. And Obama’s treatment of Israel has been uniquely shabby– and dangerous. Guided by his ideological worldview which argues that US support for Israel is the root of the Arab and Islamic world’s animus towards the US, Obama has advanced a policy of punishing Israel and wooing its worst enemies that has radically changed the Islamic power calculus. By seeking to appease Iran and Syria for their aggressive behavior and by courting an ever more radical Turkish regime, Obama has humiliated Egypt and Jordan that signed peace treaties with Israel. In so doing, he has convinced the Arabs that the only way to retain and expand their power is by attacking Israel.

THIS BRINGS US to Israel’s current quandary about how to respond to the international campaign against it. Israel of course can do nothing to change the potency of Jew hatred in the Islamic world. It can also do nothing to change American behavior. For as long as Obama is president, US foreign policy can be expected to remain on its current trajectory. That is, for at least the next two and a half years, the US will continue to play a destabilizing and hostile role in the region.

What this means is that Israel should adopt a strategy that minimizes the international lynch mob’s ability to get close to it and maximizes Israel’s ability to knock the mob off balance.

Take for instance the UN Security Council call for an independent investigation of the Mavi Marmara incident. Israel rightly rejected such a UN inquiry understanding that its aim is to diminish Israel’s sovereign right to self defense. On the other hand, on Thursday morning Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman offered that Israel could establish its own judicial inquiry and that there was no reason for international investigators not to be members of the Israeli committee.

This idea is ill-advised for two reasons. First by its very nature, a judicial inquiry would place Israel in the role of criminal defendant. And second, given the nature of the international assault on Israel, no international observers or investigators can be given any role in investigating the Mavi Marmara episode.

In contrast, Israel could benefit from a domestic investigation of the operational and diplomatic aspects of its handling of the Turkish-Hamas flotilla. It is in these areas– rather than the legal areas– that Israel has failed and must learn the lessons of those failures. Moreover, appointing a committee would buy Israel time in the face of the anti-Israel campaign now sweeping the globe.

And as to that campaign, it is time for Israel to launch a counter-offensive. Its representatives at the UN should demand an investigation into Turkey’s illegal sponsorship of the pro-Hamas flotilla. They should raise such protests at every UN forum and continue to protest until they are thrown out of the meetings and then return, the next day to relaunch their protests.

The Justice Ministry should issue international arrest warrants against the flotilla’s organizers and participants and prepare indictments against them for trial in Israeli courts. Israel’s embassies throughout the world should call for their host governments to outlaw organizations involved in the Gaza flotilla movement.

No, these Israeli efforts will not change anyone’s vote in any UN forum. But they will place these wholly corrupt institutions on the defensive. For decades Israel has taken for granted that the UN is hopelessly hostile and left things at that. Israel’s willingness to declare defeat has emboldened UN officials. By putting them on the defensive, Israel will force them to devote time to staving off Israeli attacks and so have less time available for initiating new assaults against Israel.

IN LOS ANGELES on Monday, a crowd of Muslims carrying signs calling for Israel’s destruction gathered outside the Israeli Consulate. As they shouted Allahu Akhbar, a lone Jewish high school student carrying an Israeli flag appeared on the scene. Suddenly, the protesters forgot that they were supposed to be demonstrating against the State of Israel and began threatening this single Jewish boy who held his head high and waved the Israeli flag.

As they converged around him, a cordon of policemen headed them off and surrounded the young Jewish boy who refused to be intimidated. Speaking to reporters, clearly moved by his courage, the boy said, "I came out because I want to defend Israel." Asked if he was affiliated with any group, he responded, "Just Judaism and Israel."

Israel’s task is daunting and the stakes couldn’t be higher. But our cause is great and it is far from lost. 

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

La Relacin Entre Procesos Polticos en Amrica Latina y La Seguridad Regional

Version in English

Una gran parte del continente Latinoamericano corre el peligro de caer en una situación que oscila entre el totalitarismo y la anarquía, entre el autoritarismo y el caos. La región ya está siendo victima de una nefasta combinación de factores como la influencia de grupos insurgentes y de grupos terroristas extranjeros, carteles de la droga, y la cercanía con países que históricamente opuestos en cultura con la región, principalmente Irán, China, y Rusia. Esto se debe en gran parte a la emergencia de Hugo Chávez y la revolución Bolivariana. Esta revolución, que ha tenido repercusiones domésticas y regionales, le ha abierto la puerta aun más a todos estos elementos mencionados.

A nivel doméstico, el régimen es socialista y absolutista, hostil a la propiedad privada, a las fuerzas del mercado. Además oprime a la oposición política y civil así como también a los medios de comunicación. En cuanto a su política exterior, el modelo tiende a expandir la revolución Bolivariana más allá de las fronteras Venezolanas y tiende a maximizar la unidad latinoamericana bajo el liderazgo e influencia de Hugo Chávez. 

Este modelo se ha reproducido en países como Bolivia, Ecuador y Nicaragua. De este modo, bajo la consigna de justicia social,  las prerrogativas del poder ejecutivo han sido reforzadas a expensas de los derechos y libertades de la sociedad civil. Así también, la independencia del poder judicial y la libertad de expresión han sido obstaculizadas.

La perpetuación del poder es importante no sólo para consolidar un régimen autoritario. La perpetuación del poder es también importante porque Chávez tiene un proyecto continental donde lo que busca es crear un nuevo bloque en la región bajo hegemonía Venezolana. La presencia de regímenes autoritarios Pro-Chávez,  hacen la dominación continental más fácil en donde decisiones con implicaciones regionales importantes sólo requerirían un puñado de líderes que no rendirían cuentas ni al Congreso, ni al poder judicial ni a la sociedad civil.

Chávez también intenta co-optar a organizaciones y movimientos de base en el continente e incorporarlos a su huracán revolucionario. Lo peligroso es que Chávez cuenta también con grupos violentos siendo su mejor aliado las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, también conocidas como la FARC. 

A medida que este grupo terrorista es derrotado en Colombia y expulsado de ese país, sus miembros van escapando a países fronterizos con la ayuda de Hugo Chávez. En Ecuador, las relaciones con la FARC involucran a altos  funcionarios del gobierno Ecuatoriano, incluyendo el Presidente Rafael Correa, el poder judicial y el ejército. En Bolivia, los lazos del gobierno con las FARC han aumentado desde que el Movimiento la Socialismo (MAS) subió al poder. Más significativo es el hecho que las FARC junto con Chávez han creado un grupo internacional llamado la Coordinadora Continental Bolivariana (CCB) que incluye grupos como el vasco ETA y otros. La CCB probablemente esté destinada a difundir la revolución Bolivariana a través del continente.

La revolución Bolivariana también esta ligada a los carteles de la droga. El año pasado, la oficina de Responsabilidad Gubernamental de los Estados Unidos (GAO) publicó un informe para el comité de asuntos exteriores del Senado Norteamericano. Según el informe "Venezuela ha extendido un salvavidas a grupos armados ilegales y carteles de la droga proveyéndolos de apoyo y de refugio"

Así, el flujo de cocaína que transita desde Venezuela a los Estados Unidos, Europa y África occidental se ha cuadriplicado en un periodo de tres años y continúa creciendo. El negocio de la droga y sus redes de contacto también se expanden a través de América Latina incluyendo a America Central, el Caribe, Ecuador, Bolivia y Perú.

Lo mas grave de este fenómeno es que el negocio de las drogas corrompe el estado y obstaculiza su autoridad. El narco-dinero puede comprar abogados, policías, políticos, empleados públicos, y otros. Esto se agrava por el hecho de que países como Venezuela, Ecuador y Bolivia han expulsado a la agencia Norteamericana DEA cuya presencia servía para controlar y disuadir tal tráfico.

Los ejemplos de Méjico y Guatemala son alarmantes. En algunos estados mejicanos que bordean la frontera con los Estados Unidos no se puede distinguir entre los miembros de los carteles y miembros de la policía. Guatemala ha contratado empresas privadas de seguridad porque no logra ejercer control policial sobre su propio territorio.

Cuando Chávez y sus aliados se asocian con los carteles de la droga, esto estimula la inestabilidad en los países donde el narco-trafico opera. Esto serviría a Chávez quien busca desestabilizar gobiernos, deponerlos y luego imponer sobre ellos su visión revolucionaria.

Aún más, la anarquía que se genera con la proliferación de los carteles de la droga mas las FARC puede generar una situación similar a la de Afganistán donde la autoridad del estado ha cedido y el poder se ha trasladado a los feudos de la droga o grupos terroristas ligados al Talibán y Al Qaeda. Esta situación en América Latina puede llegar a tener repercusiones terribles incluso si Chávez desaparece de la escena.

La expansión de tal situación conduciría a la inestabilidad regional. Bajo este telón de fondo de anarquía no es difícil comprender la facilidad con que los grupos Islámicos y el estado forajido de Irán avanzan en la región. Terroristas florecen por lo general en territorios considerados ingobernables. Se sabe que hay cooperación entre Hamas, Hezbollah y otros grupos radicales Islámicos con carteles de la droga Mejicanos. En realidad una de las especialidades de Hezbollah parte de actividades terroristas, es el trafico de drogas.  

Hay informes de presencia de guardias revolucionarias Iraníes en Venezuela y que jóvenes Venezolanos afiliados al Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela, han sido entrenados en campos manejados por Hezbollah en le Sur del Líbano.

Esto podría bien estar ligado al concepto de Guerra asimétrica, una doctrina difundida en los ejércitos de Venezuela y Bolivia, donde se enfatiza el método de hombres suicida para combatir un ejército convencional.

Por otro lado es probable que estos "Mujadeen" Venezolanos puedan ser integrados al aparato represivo de los países asociados con la revolución Bolivariana. El gobierno Venezolano ha formalizado la formación de una milicia paralela al ejército Venezolano con una ley promulgada en Octubre pasado. Según esta ley, esta milicia puede reclutar ciudadanos extranjeros. Esto fácilmente podría llevar a la incorporación de guerrillas como la FARC y grupos terroristas Islámicos como Hezbollah. Estos elementos, combinados con las guardias revolucionarias Iraníes y expertos del  régimen Cubano podrían catalizar la consolidación de regimenes totalitarios en los gobiernos que siguen a Chávez.

A esto se le suma la presencia de Irán a quien Chávez ha apoyado a nivel internacional en todo sentido. Ha apoyado su programa nuclear, la Guerra de Hezbollah y Hamas contra Israel, al igual que ha ayudado a Teheran a evitar sanciones internacionales facilitándole su sistema bancario. Según fuentes del propio gobierno de Chávez, Venezuela ha ayudado a Iran a producir Uranio.

Por lo tanto hay una gran probabilidad de que en le momento que Irán logre la capacidad de producir una bomba nuclear, este país podría proveer a Chávez con armas nucleares. Esto no sólo representaría un peligro para Colombia, país al que Chávez detesta por su alianza con los Estados Unidos y en varias ocasiones ha amenazado, sino también abriría una carrera nuclear en la zona.

Además de la relación con Irán, Chávez y sus aliados han desarrollado fuertes relaciones con China y Rusia. Si bien lo han hecho también otros países Latino americanos como Brasil, la presencia de China en América Latina ha sido económica y GEO-política.

Dado que China controla puertos en ambos lados del canal de Panamá, así como también en Freeport, Bahamas y que pronto obtendrá también un Puerto de aguas profundas en Manta, Ecuador, es lógico concluir que China busca influencia más allá de lo económico.

China ha aumentado su inversión en un 400% en los últimos anos en América Latina y las exportaciones Latinoamericanas a China han aumentado substancialmente. Así, las actividades económicas Chinas y sus inversiones le dan un peso político de gran significancia al país asiático. Esto permitiría a Chávez y sus aliados perpetuar sus dictaduras en forma indefinida con el apoyo político y económico de China. Evidencia de esto es le préstamo de $20 mil millones de dólares que China otorgó a Chávez recientemente.

China podrá tener interés en perpetuar dictaduras también para frenar el poder de las democracias mundiales que le generan presión directa o indirecta para que democratice sus propias instituciones o para cesar sus serias violaciones a los derechos humanos. El poder económico Chino permite incrementar  su influencia en el mundo y al a vez apoyar a dictaduras como las Bolivarianas.

Algo similar ocurre con Rusia cuyas ventas de armas a Chávez se han evaluado en 5.400 millones de dólares. El académico especialista en Rusia Stephen Blank ha dicho que Rusia activamente promueve la revolución Bolivariana en su ambición de retener su status de potencia mundial y contrabalancear el poder de los Estados Unidos.

Es importante que líderes democráticos regionales y organizaciones de la sociedad civil en America Latina presten atención a estos fenómenos. No es nada menos que la libertad la que esta en juego.

Connecting the dots: Internal developments in Latin America & regional security

Versión en Español

Today, a large part of the Latin American continent is in danger of collapsing into a situation that fluctuates between totalitarianism and anarchy; between authoritarianism and chaos. The region is also in danger of falling under the strange influence of insurgent and terrorist groups, drug cartels and distant countries that historically have been poles apart from the region’s culture and civilization (mainly Iran, China, and perhaps Russia).

Part of the reason for this is the rise of Hugo Chavez and his Bolivarian revolution, which has had a mix of domestic, and foreign policy repercussions. The Bolivarian revolution has opened up a "window of opportunity" for external actors such as those mentioned above.

Venezuela has established a model of government and ideology that have implications on domestic and foreign policy. In terms of domestic policy, the regime is socialist and absolutist. It attacks private property and market forces, and, it suppresses the political and civil opposition as well as the media. For foreign policy, the model expands the Bolivarian revolution and is inclined to unify Latin America as much as possible under Chavez’s leadership.  

Domestically, the model is currently being reproduced by other leaders in the region (so far Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua).  Thus, under the veil of pursuing social justice, executive power has been strengthened at the expense of civil society. Likewise, judicial independence and freedom of expression have been undermined.

Important to note is the perpetuation of power at the expense of civil society. Chavez has a continental agenda where he seeks to create a new block in the country under Venezuelan hegemony. The existence of pro-Chavez authoritarian regimes makes the decision making process faster and Bolivarian continental domination easier. Indeed, decisions that affect a vast region could ultimately be made by a handful of leaders that do not have to be accountable to Congress, civil society or any other institution. 

Chavez also tries to co-opt grassroots and indigenous movements emerging in different countries in order to incorporate them in his revolutionary hurricane. However, Chavez as a true revolutionary relies and appeals mostly to violent groups. Thus, his main ally is none other than the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

As the FARC is being defeated in Colombia and expelled from the country, it has emerged in other countries with the help of Chavez and his allies. In Ecuador, relations with the FARC go up to the highest levels of government, including the president, the judiciary and the army. In Bolivia, ties with the FARC have increased since the MAS took over the reins of power. Most significantly, the FARC along with Chavez have created an international terrorist group, called the Coordinadora Continental Bolivariana (Bolivarian Continental Coordinator or CCB). The CCB has included revolutionary groups such as the Spanish ETA, and, will most likely try to spread insurgency across Latin America on behalf of the Bolivarian revolution.

The Bolivarian revolution is also related to the drug cartels. Last year, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report for the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. According to the report "Venezuela has extended a life line to Colombian illegal armed groups and drug cartels by providing them with support and safe heaven."

 Thus, the flow of cocaine transiting from Venezuela to the U.S, Europe and West Africa increased more than four times from 2004 to 2007 and continues to sharply increase. The drug business continues to expand all across Latin America including Central America, the Caribbean, Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru.

What is worse, the drug business corrupts the institutions of the state and undermines its authority. Drug money can buy lawyers, judges, policemen, politicians, and almost everyone and everything. This is further aggravated by the fact that Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador expelled the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from their countries

The example of Mexico and Guatemala are very alarming examples of the devastating effects of drug cartel activity. In some of the Mexican states that border the U.S, there is no real distinction between members of the drug cartels and members of the police department. Guatemala has hired private security companies because it is unable to exercise monopoly of force over its own territory.

Thus, when Chavez and his allies associate themselves with the drug business, it helps destabilize the region. Chavez seeks to destabilize governments, overthrow them, and later tilt them towards his revolution and join forces with him.

Moreover, the anarchy that is being created with the proliferation of the drug cartels and the FARC could lead to a situation of Afghanization where the authority of the state is given up and power is transferred to non-state groups or warlords.  That situation can perpetuate itself even if Chavez were to disappear. As a situation like this spreads it will lead to regional instability. Against this background of anarchy, it is not hard to understand the growing presence of Iranians and radical Islamists in the region. Terrorist usually flourish in territories that are ungovernable. Indeed, it was reported that there is an association between Hamas, Hezbollah and other radical Islamic groups with Mexican drug trafficking cartels. This is a direct threat to U.S security given the Mexican cartels access to the U.S Southern border.

 It was reported that members of the Iranian revolutionary guards have been traveling to Venezuela and that young Venezuelans affiliated with the ‘Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela’ (Chavez’s party) have been trained in Hezbollah camps.

In addition, it is likely that the Venezuelan "Mujadeen" could be used for acts of violence and be part of the repressive apparatus. The Venezuelan government has formalized the creation of a parallel Militia in a new law passed last October. The Militia can recruit foreigners. This situation may lead the way to an incorporation of guerillas such as the FARC and Islamic terrorists such as Hezbollah into the Bolivarian Militia in order to consolidate totalitarian regimes across Latin America.  

Chavez has supported Iran internationally, by supporting its right to pursue a nuclear program. He has also supported Iran- mentored groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas in their war against Israel, and, has helped Iran avoid sanctions by facilitating its banking system. Venezuela has also reportedly produced uranium for Iran and it is most likely that once Iran has a nuclear capability, if requested, Iran could provide Chavez with nuclear weapons.

 In addition to his relations with Iran, Chavez has been successful in moving closer to China and Russia. China’s outreach to Latin America has been both of an economic and geo-political nature. Given that China controls the ports at both ends of the Panama Canal, has a major port in Freeport, Bahamas, and is about to obtain a deep water port in Manta, Ecuador, one might conclude that China seeks to expand its influence in America’s backyard.  

China increased its investment in Latin America by 400 percent. China’s trade with Latin America grew by 40% between 2007 and 2008 making their trade with the region in 2008 three times higher than in 2004. Likewise, Latin American exports to China increased by 41% between 2007 and 2008. As China’s demand for raw materials continues its economic and industrial operation will expand throughout the continent.  In this sense, Chinese economic activities and investments provide China with tremendous leverage over these countries.  Chavez and his allies might be perpetuated China’s help, as demonstrated recently by China’s twenty billion dollar loan to Venezuela.

China might also be interested in perpetuating dictatorships in Latin America because China has a major interest in reducing the influence of world democracies. Through its trade and financial assistance, China seeks to ease international pressure on various regimes concerning the issue of democracy and human rights. China’s economic growth and increasing influence in the world enables it to support and even bail out the Bolivarian regime and its allies.

The same applies to Russia, whose arms sales to Chavez are currently valued at $5.4 billion. According to scholar Stephen Blank, Moscow’s arms sales to Venezuela and Cuba are aimed at giving Chavez what he needs to promote the Bolivarian revolution throughout Latin America.

 The U.S Administration needs to pay attention to these developments. Soon, we will wake up to the day where we will find the nightmare not in Iraq or in Central Asia, but right here in our own backyard.

El Obama colombiano

Version in English

Hace seis semanas parecía imposible.  Hoy, parece improbable pero posible: Colombia podría rechazar al candidato presidencial que más se ajusta al molde del presidente saliente, Álvaro Uribe Vélez.

Podría decirse que Uribe ha sido el presidente más popular de Colombia en los 200 años de historia del país; en casi ocho años, su índice de aprobación nunca ha bajado del 60 %, en julio de 2008 subió hasta 80% y actualmente se sitúa alrededor del 75%. Su aspiración a gobernar durante un tercer periodo, sin precedentes en el país, fue negada por la Corte Constitucional en febrero.  Esto les abrió el campo a candidatos que van desde la derecha hasta la extrema izquierda y ninguno es más cercano al presidente saliente que Juan Manuel Santos, su ex-Ministro de Defensa, candidato por el Partido de la U (Unidad), fundado por Uribe.  Los sondeos iniciales mostraron un apoyo a Santos del 40% o más, muy por encima de su más cercana competidora, Noemí Sanín del Partido Conservador, quien ha sido candidata presidencial dos veces, sin lograr el triunfo.  En un lejano tercer puesto, con un solo dígito, estaba Antanas Mockus del Partido Verde. Después de las elecciones legislativas del 14 de marzo, la situación de Santos se veía aún mejor pues los candidatos de la U ganaron una pluralidad en el Senado y la Cámara de Representantes.

A menos de tres semanas de las elecciones del 30 de mayo, el Dr. Mockus ha saltado de 9 a 34 por ciento de apoyo, mientras que el Sr. Santos se ha deslizado hasta un 35 por ciento [la Sra. Sanín, antes ubicada en segunda posición, se encuentra ahora en tercer lugar, después de haber caído de 17 a sólo ocho por ciento].

Para ganar, los candidatos presidenciales deben obtener el 50% de los votos y parece que Santos y Mockus se enfrentarán en una segunda vuelta a mediados de junio en la que Santos podría encontrarse con una oposición cerrada de la izquierda de todos los partidos y facciones.

Hay múltiples razones para el declive de Santos y el ascenso de Mockus:

Claramente, Juan Manuel Santos es el candidato mejor preparado, después de haber sido  excelente ministro en tres administraciones.  Aunque nunca ha ocupado cargos de elección popular, está mostrando notable fuerza y equilibrio tanto en las correrías de la campaña como en los debates presidenciales.

Su campaña, no obstante, ha ganado fama de desorganizada e insensible ante los intereses políticos pues, en la opinión de un experimentado analista, "han creído que esto es una coronación y no una elección".  Por ejemplo, recientemente Santos visitó Popayán, antigua capital de Colombia,  y sin reunirse con el alcalde,  se entrevistó con un líder político minoritario que representa una pequeña fracción de la base política del alcalde.

 

El nombramiento de Roberto Prieto, estrecho confidente de Santos, y el experimentado asesor politico J.J. Rendon son ejemplos de los esfuerzos radicales para corregir en gran parte la desorganización y falta de decisión evidentes desde principios de la campaña, mediante el remplazo de personal ineficaz y la revisión de los temas de la campaña.

La sorpresiva selección por parte de Santos de un comunista reformado, ex dirigente sindical,  ministro y gobernador del Departamento del Valle, está haciendo campaña por su cuenta con un pequeño equipo de campaña y fondos modestos.

El presidente Uribe, aunque sin duda apoya a Santos, ha hecho dos declaraciones innecesarias y poco útiles para el candidato del Partido de la U que han sido explotadas por los medios.  Recientemente ha adoptado una actitud de apoyo mucho más decidido.

El cubrimiento que los medios han hecho de Santos, miembro de la familia fundadora de El Tiempo, el periódico  más importante de Colombia, es escaso debido en parte al mal manejo de prensa por parte de la campaña.  Recientemente, una conferencia de prensa anunciada con antelación en un acto de campaña, se limitó a dos preguntas porque Santos llegó tarde. Este observador, a quien Santos le dijo dos veces que quería tener una entrevista , no pudo obtener durante seis semanas una respuesta concreta de ningún miembro de la campaña, una situación que se ha replicado muchas veces con otros periodistas.

 

Por su parte, la campaña de Mockus está recibiendo un gran cubrimiento de los medios y como resultado este bogotano hijo de inmigrantes lituanos goza de una aura de Obama entre los votantes.

Aparte de dos periodos como alcalde de Bogotá y dos candidaturas presidenciales, la experiencia profesional de Mockus es como profesor y rector de la Universidad Nacional de Colombia.

Como alcalde no hizo mayor cosa fuera de remendar las agujereadas calles de Bogotá y apropiarse del crédito de un esfuerzo nacional para disminuir tajantemente el secuestro y el asesinato. 

Otras actividades de su alcaldía incluyeron caminar por las calles vestido de Súper Ciudadano en mallas y capa, para fomentar el compromiso civil de los sorprendidos ciudadanos, y además, declarar la noche de las mujeres, mientras los hombres se quedaban en casa cuidando a los niños, para reducir el miedo femenino a ser víctimas de abusos.

La fórmula vicepresidencial de Mockus, Sergio Fajardo, un antiguo profesor y alcalde de Medellín, sufre de acusaciones recurrentes de haber tenido relaciones cercanas con los grupos paramilitares colombianos y el régimen de Chávez en Venezuela [Mockus mismo se vio forzado a cambiar una declaración de "admiración" a "respeto" por el déspota venezolano].

Recibió menos del 6% del voto presidencial en 2006 pero la prensa y el público están engrandeciendo  a Mockus en 2010.  De vuelta a Bogotá desde Cartagena hace poco, casi todos los pasajeros de un avión lleno se pusieron de pie y aplaudieron al candidato. Más aun, varios líderes cívicos y hombres de negocios, cansados del lento crecimiento económico a pesar de la mayor seguridad, están hablando positivamente de este "enfoque fresco" sobre los problemas.

 

Antanas Mockus es impredecible  Entre sus puntos de vista "frescos", como lo expresó a un prominente abogado bogotano, es que las muertes de los casi tres mil prisioneros durante el régimen del fallecido hombre fuerte chileno Augusto Pinochet, son más significativas que las de los 400 mil colombianos masacrados por las FARC, por ser aquellas acciones del gobierno. 

En un debate en abril 18 entre los seis principales contendores presidenciales, Mockus fue el único candidato en afirmar que no hubiera bombardeado el territorio vecino de Ecuador para matar al famoso líder narcotraficante Raúl Reyes, donde el segundo líder de las FARC se escondía, y que no lo haría si una situación parecida se presentara de nuevo. Cuando le preguntaron si había apoyado la aclamada acción en 2008, dijo que no se acordaba.  Recientemente, afirmó que extraditaría al Ecuador al presidente Uribe si era solicitado; aunque ya se retractó también de esta posición.

Luego está la presión de los vecinos de Colombia. El dictador venezolano Hugo Chávez ha anunciado que cortará todas las importaciones y no se reunirá con el Sr. Santos si éste es elegido presidente. Rafael Correa, Presidente del Ecuador y aliado de Chávez, ha etiquetado al mismo tiempo a Juan Manuel Santos como "un peligro no sólo para el Ecuador sino para toda la región".

Este agudo contraste entre los dos candidatos presidenciales colombianos tiene grandes similitudes con la elección de Estados Unidos en 2008.  La sólida experiencia ejecutiva de Santos, particularmente como el arquitecto principal del  notable éxito del país contra las guerrillas revolucionarias narcotraficantes, contrasta con la limitada y a menudo quijotesca experiencia política de Mockus.

En una posible segunda vuelta en junio, los votantes colombianos probablemente tendrán que elegir entre una experiencia centrista ya probada y la idiosincrasia idealizada de izquierda que bordea la duplicidad.  Su decisión impactará significativamente la dirección sociopolítica de América Latina durante muchos años hacia el futuro.

El analista geopolítico  y antiguo diplomático John R. Thomson se concentra en asuntos de los países en desarrollo.

Introducing Colombias own Obama

Versión en Español

Six weeks ago, it seemed impossible. Today, it seems improbable but all too possible: Colombia could reject the Presidential candidate most in the mould of retiring President Alvaro Uribe Velez.

Arguably Colombia’s most popular President in its 200 year history — in nearly eight years, his approval rating has never fallen below 60 percent, peaked as recently as July 2008 in the low 80s and is currently hovering around 75 percent – Mr. Uribe’s hope to serve an unprecedented third term was quashed by the country’s Constitutional Court in February.  This left the field wide open to candidates from right to extreme left, with none closer to the outgoing President than his former Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos, the candidate of Partido de la U [for unity], founded by Mr. Uribe.

Initial soundings showed Mr. Santos with 40 percent or more support, well ahead of his closest competitor, Noemi Sanin of the Partido Conservador, twice an unsuccessful presidential candidate.  Running a very distant third, in single digits, was Antanas Mockus of the Partido Verde.

Following legislative elections on March 14, Mr. Santos’ situation looked even brighter, as U candidates won pluralities in the Senate and House of Representatives.

Less than three weeks before the May 30 elections, Dr. Mockus has vaulted from nine to 34 percent support, while Mr. Santos has slipped to 35 percent [Ms. Sanin, previously second ranked, is now in third position, having tumbled from 17 to eight percent].

To win, presidential candidates must receive 50 percent of the vote, and it appears very likely Messrs. Santos and Mockus will compete in a mid-June runoff, in which Mr. Santos could well face united opposition from all left of center parties and factions.

There are multiple reasons for the Santos decline and the Mockus ascent:

  • Having held three senior ministerial positions with distinction in three administrations, Juan Manuel Santos is clearly the most qualified candidate. Although never having held elective office, he is showing remarkable strength and balance both on the road and in presidential debates.
  • His staff, however, has earned a reputation as disorganized and insensitive to political interests, because in one seasoned analyst’s view, "they have considered this a coronation rather than an election". For example, when Mr. Santos traveled recently to Colombia’s former capital, Popayán, he bypassed the city’s popular Mayor to meet privately with a minor political leader who represents a small fraction of the Mayor’s political base.
  • Appointment of close Santos confidante, Roberto Prieto, is exemplary of sweeping efforts to rectify much of the disorganization and indecisiveness the campaign witnessed earlier, with ineffective staff replaced and campaign themes revised.
  • Mr. Santos’ surprising vice presidential pick, Angelino Garzon, is a reformed communist, former union leader, minister and governor of Valle Department, and is campaigning on his own with a small campaign staff and funds.
  • President Uribe, although clearly supporting Mr. Santos, has twice made statements, unnecessary and unhelpful to the Partido de la U standard-bearer, that have been picked up by the press. He is now taking a more openly supportive stance.
  • Media coverage of Mr. Santos, member of the founding family of El Tiempo, Colombia’s leading newspaper, is consistently meager, in part attributable to poor handling of the press by the campaign. Recently, a previously announced press conference during a campaign stop, was limited to two questions because Mr. Santos was running late. This observer, twice told by Mr. Santos he wished to have an interview with me, was unable during six weeks to get a straight answer from any campaign staff member, a situation replicated many times with other journalists.

To the contrary, the Mockus campaign is heavily and favorably covered by the press, resulting in the Bogota-born son of Lithuanian immigrants enjoying an Obama aura among voters.

  • Apart from two elections as Bogota’s Mayor and twice running for national office, Dr. Mockus’ professional experience is as professor and rector of the National University of Colombia.
  • While Mayor, he did little of significance beyond mending Bogota’s potholed streets and taking full credit for a national effort to sharply curtail widespread murder and kidnapping.
  • Other Mayoral activities included walking the streets dressed as Super Citizen in tights and cape to urge civic involvement on surprised citizens, plus declaring a women’s night out, while men stayed home to care for the children, to reduce female fear of being molested.
  • Dr. Mockus’ vice presidential running mate, Sergio Fajardo, a former university professor and Medellin Mayor, suffers from recurring allegations of close relations with both Colombian paramilitary groups and the Chavez regime in Venezuela. [Dr. Mockus, himself, has been forced to downgrade a recent statement of "admiration" to "respect" for the Venezuelan communist despot.]
  • Recipient of less than five percent of the 2006 Presidential vote, press and public alike are lionizing Dr. Mockus in 2010. Returning to Bogota from Cartagena recently, virtually all passengers on a packed flight stood and applauded the candidate. Moreover, numerous business and civic leaders, weary of slow economic growth despite greatly improved security, are speaking positively of his "fresh approach" to issues.

Antanas Mockus, is nothing if not unpredictable.  Among his "fresh" views, as expressed to a prominent Bogota attorney, is that the deaths of some three thousand prisoners during the regime of late Chilean strong man Augusto Pinochet are more significant because they were actions of a government, than 400 thousand Colombians massacred by FARC and other guerrilla groups.

In an April 18 debate among the six leading Presidential contenders, Dr. Mockus was the sole candidate to declare he would not have fired missiles into neighboring Ecuadorian territory to kill notorious narco-trafficking leader Raul Reyes, where the number two FARC leader had sought refuge, and would not do so should a similar situation arise again.  Asked if he had supported the acclaimed 2008 action at the time, he said he could not remember.  Most recently, he stated he would extradite President Uribe to Ecuador for trial, if asked, a position he has since retracted.

Then there is the pressure from Colombia’s neighbors.  Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez has announced he will cut off all imports and will not meet with Mr. Santos if he is elected President.   Chavez ally, Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador, has simultaneously labeled Juan Manuel Santos ¨a danger not only for Ecuador but for the entire region¨.

The sharply drawn contrasts between Colombia’s two leading presidential contenders have striking similarities to the United States’ 2008 election.  Mr. Santos’ solid executive experience, particularly as chief architect of the country’s remarkable success versus Colombia’s narco-trafficking revolutionary guerrillas, contrasts with Dr. Mockus’ limited and frequently quixotic political experience.

In a prospective June runoff, Colombian voters will very likely be asked to choose between proven centrist experience and idealized leftist idiosyncrasy. Their decision will significantly impact Latin America’s socio-politico direction for several years to come.

 

Geopolitical analyst and former diplomat John R. Thomson focuses on issues in developing countries.

Challenges to democracy, human rights & regional stability in Latin America

The Center for Security Policy’s Menges Hemispheric Security Project presented its Second Annual Capitol Hill National Security Briefing on Latin America, focused on current challenges to democracy, human rights and regional stability in the context of threats to US national security. Moderated by Frank Gaffney, the briefing was opened by introductory remarks by The Americas Report Editor-in-Chief Nancy Menges, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA).

The first panel included: Gustavo Coronel (Venezuelan geologist and political scientist; former board member of PDVSA; former Venezuelan congressman); Dr. Luis Fleischman (Senior Advisor, the Menges Hemisheric Security Project; Adjunct Professor at the Wilkes Honor College, Florida Atlantic University); Jon Perdue (Director of Latin America Programs, the Fund for American Studies); Dr. Norman Bailey (Consulting economist, President of the Institute for Global Economic Growth; Adjunct Professor of Economic Statecraft, the Institute for World Politics) and Douglas Farah (Senior Fellow, International Assessment and Strategy Center).

The second panel included: Douglas Farah (International Assessment and Strategy Center); Juan Carlos Urenda Diaz (Bolivian attorney); Dr. Angel Rabasa (Rand Corporation); Amb. Curtin Winsor, Jr. (Former US Ambassador to Costa Rica); Amb. Otto Reich (Former US Ambassador to Venezuela).

The YouTube playlist, 2010 Capitol Hill Briefing on Latin America, plays the complete briefing (approx. 3 hours) and is included below. 

 

 

 Transcript to follow shortly.

Arsenal of roguery

Sixty years ago, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt announced to the nation in one of his famous "fireside chats" that America must be "the great arsenal of democracy."  It was a visionary and, at the time, controversial declaration that a nation dead-set against becoming entangled in the war then-consuming Europe must nonetheless help arm democratic nations fighting for their survival.  This initiative proved critical to Britain’s defense in the run-up to Pearl Harbor, at which point the United States became decisively not just the Free World’s armory, but its savior.

Today, we find another country putting its formidable military-industrial complex in the service of others around the globe. The arsenal is Russia’s, the recipients are virtually without exception the world’s most dangerous enemies of freedom.  This practice is making a mockery of President Obama’s much-touted "reset" of relations with the Kremlin – including, notably, the new, bilateral START Treaty.  It also increases exponentially the dangers associated with his policy of "engaging" rogue states, a practice that is simply affording them time to buy ever-more-advanced and -deadly weapons from Moscow.

Consider just a few examples of the Arsenal for Roguery at work, and its implications for our security, and that of what’s left of the Free World:

  • Even as the President continues to claim that the Russians are willing to be more helpful in getting tougher UN sanctions on Iran, the Kremlin is allowing the nuclear reactor it previously sold Tehran to be brought on line.  It is pledging to complete the transfer of advanced S-300 air defense systems, which will greatly complicate – if not effectively preclude — aerial attacks by the Israelis or U.S. forces aimed at destroying that facility and others associated with the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
  • Russia is also selling the S-300 to Syria. This is important because the Syrians have justly been put on notice by Israel that they would be subjected to retaliatory strikes in the event Russian-designed (and perhaps -supplied?) Scud missiles transferred recently by Damascus to Hezbollah in Lebanon are used against the Jewish state.  Such Russian protection may embolden Syria to believe that it can unleash with impunity death and destruction on Israel (perhaps by using Scud-delivered biological or chemical weapons) via its terrorist proxies – and Iran’s.
  • The Russians have also been marketing to international customers a family of deadly sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles with air-, surface- and submarine-launched variants.  These Brahmos rocket/ramjet missiles were jointly developed with the Indians and can fly at up to 2.5 times the speed of sound.  The proliferation of such missiles constitutes a serious threat to American naval and other vessels given the difficulties of defending against a weapon with these flight characteristics.

 

  • Then, there is the up-to-$5 billion in arms sales that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin claims to have concluded with our hemisphere’s most dangerous dictator, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.  What exactly is on offer is unclear.  But the purchase reportedly includes T-72 tanks and S-300 missiles.  This comes on top of Chavez’s earlier acquisitions of 100,000 Kalashnikov automatic rifles, helicopters, fighter jets and submarines. Evidently, a Russian nuclear reactor is also being promised.

But, not to worry.  According to the Associated Press, Putin declared during his most recent sales visit to Caracas earlier this month: "Our objective is to make the world more democratic, make it balanced and multi-polar.  The cooperation between Russia and Venezuela in this context has special importance."  Feel better?

If any further evidence were needed that the Russians are enabling through their arms sales a grave new threat to American interests and those of other freedom-loving peoples, there’s this:  The London Sunday Telegraph reported on the April 25th that Moscow was marketing a new "Club-K container missile system."  For just $10 million, one can acquire a launcher and four sea- or land-attack cruise missiles concealed in what otherwise appears to be a standard shipping container.

The newspaper reports that "Iran and Venezuela have already shown an interest in the Club-K…which could allow them to carry out pre-emptive strikes from behind an enemy’s missile defences."

As President Obama is fond of saying, let me be clear:  Vladimir Putin’s Russia – yes, he still runs the place – is cynically exploiting the U.S. administration’s fecklessness in blindly pursuing improved relations.  So far, this has gotten Moscow, among other things: the cancelation of a near-term deployment of U.S. missile defenses in Europe; American acquiescence to increasing Russian aggressiveness in reestablishing a sphere of influence in the "near-abroad"; and no objection to the Kremlin’s acquisition of a French amphibious assault ship well-suited for that purpose.

Worse yet, Russia has pledged it will abrogate the START accord should the United States improve "qualitatively or quantitatively" the sorts of missile defenses Moscow’s arms sales to rogue states (and perhaps others) are making ever-more-necessary.

History will show that the metastasizing danger of the Russian arsenal for roguery’s world-wide operations has been greatly compounded – if not fundamentally enabled – by the assiduous application of the Obama Doctrine:  "Embolden our enemies.  Undermine our allies. Diminish our country."  If the latter doctrine is not swiftly corrected, and the former not effectively thwarted, America and the rest of the Free World may soon find themselves confronting threats even greater than those at large when first we rose to the challenge of being the indispensable arsenal for democracy.

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program "Secure Freedom Radio" heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 on WTNT 570 AM.

Experts warn of escalating Chavez threat

Latin America experts are warning about the growing threat from Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, citing new evidence of Chavez’s expanding ties with Iran and Hezbollah and other terrorist groups.

The Venezuelan president also has demonstrated his willingness to buy elections throughout the hemisphere to empower enemies of the United States, several experts said in presentations Thursday during a conference that the Center for Security Policy sponsored on Capitol Hill.

“Today, Venezuela airports are being freely used by drug cartels to export drugs to Europe and the United States,” said Luis Fleischman, senior adviser for the center’s Menges Hemispheric Security Project. “Chavez has helped the FARC fight against Colombia, [while] Hezbollah cells have increased their fund-raising and other activities in the area.”

What’s more, Fleischman said, “Young Venezuelans are being trained in Hezbollah camps in Lebanon . . . and Venezuela has reportedly produced uranium for Iran.”

Because of the close ties between Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, “there is a real possibility” that Chavez could get a nuclear weapon from Iran after Iran acquires that capability itself, he said.

Obama’s “friendly interaction” with Chavez at last year’s Summit of the Americas has only emboldened the Venezuelan strongman in thinking that the United States will do nothing to oppose his regime or his anti-American activities, Fleischman said.

Also hammering that point was Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who blasted the Obama administration for helping to bring back to power a communist dictator in Honduras and for empowering a return of Sandinista thugs to Nicaragua.

The Cuba-born Floridian also warned of the “growing Iranian influence throughout the hemisphere.”

“The flights that take place all the time between Tehran and Caracas should be a worry to anyone who cares deeply about our national security,” Ros-Lehtinen said.

Norman Bailey, a senior Latin America intelligence analyst whom National Intelligence Director Admiral Mike McConnell fired for warning about the Chavez threat, said Tehran-to-Caracas flights by Iran Air and the Venezuelan national carrier “are permanently full,” although ordinary citizens are not allowed to use them.

“The people on those flights don’t go through customs,” he said. “But the cargo area is always full.”

He alleged that Iranian-built factories in Venezuela are being used for nefarious purposes.

“The tractor factory doesn’t make tractors, and the cement factory doesn’t make cement,” Bailey said. “The tractor factory makes weapons, and the cement factory is used for the export of cocaine.”

Bailey believes that Iran has cultivated Chavez in part “to make it possible for Iran to retaliate against the United States in the event Iran is attacked by Israel or the U.S.”

Iranian experts have mined Venezuela’s main port and refineries, and have trained Venezuelan state oil workers to trigger the bombs in the event of a conflict, Bailey said.

“For all practical purposes, Venezuela is on a war footing,” he said.

He also noted the ability of drug traffickers tied to Venezuela to weld special compartments onto the outside of ships to carry drugs to Europe.

“They could just as easily put cylinders of high explosives on those ships instead of drugs, and blow them up in the Panama Canal,” he said.

Chavez’s strategy was to build allies in the United States by offering low-cost heating oil to lower-income Americans through Joseph Kennedy Jr. and his Citizens Energy nonprofit, in the hopes that security-conscious voices would be drowned out.

“My favorite Chavez quote is, ‘I will put my enemy to sleep, so that one day he will wake up dead,’” said Jon Perdue, Latin American programs director at the Fund for American Studies.

The Venezuelan-funded Telesur network sent a reporter and cameraman to the conference, and attempted to take over the meeting by making long speeches and challenging the evidence the experts cited about the ties between Chavez and the FARC guerillas.

At one point, former Assistant Secretary of State Otto Reich accused the Telesur reporters of “harassment,” and threatened to call the sergeant at arms to get them tossed out of the House meeting room.

“You are not reporters,” he said. “You are probably in violation of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, because you work for a foreign government.”

Reich called Chavez the “head of the snake” of a revolutionary movement aimed at subverting his neighbors. “The brain is in Havana, but the head of the snake is in Caracas,” he said.

Several years ago, the Colombian armed forces seized a computer during a raid on a FARC compound that included documents detailing the financial ties between Chavez to the FARC.

Since then, Chavez has sought the overthrow of Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, who has spearheaded the crackdown on the FARC.

Tensions between the two presidents flared during a “Unity Summit" near Cancun, Mexico, in February, when Chavez shouted that Uribe should “go to hell.”

Reich said the evidence of Venezuela’s support for the FARC and other terrorist groups is so overwhelming that the United States “should declare Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism. The evidence is there. The Defense Department has it. The Congress has it. The political will is missing.”

The United States should revoke the visas of Chavez’s business partners, the “Bolivarian billionaires . . . who own homes in the United States and travel back and forth and who are the ones who carry those bags of money to the Daniel Ortega’s” and other Chavez political allies in the region, Reich said.

“This is a subversion of democracy under our noses and the United States is saying nothing,” he said.

The third measure Reich advocated is to end U.S. dependence on Venezuelan oil.

“People say we can’t do this. Of course we can do this. We import 6 percent of our consumption from Venezuela.” But two years ago, with rising oil prices, “we reduced our consumption by 8 percent . . . Of course we can replace Venezuela.”

Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, blasted the State Department for what he described as its “malign neglect” of Chavez’s misdeeds, and warned of the peril if the United States doesn’t take action.

“We don’t have the luxury of ignoring this,” he said. “We will be hurt badly by it . . . We have enemy armies now operating from safe havens in our hemisphere that we know have the capacity to bring weapons of mass destruction” into the United States. “So the cost of waiting could be high.”

 

Originally posted at Newsmax