Tag Archives: Venezuela

The perils of peripheral warfare: Iran & Venezuela share the tactics of asymmetric war

When Epifanio Flores Quispe, the mayor of Requena, Peru received an invitation recently to visit Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, he wondered to himself what had made him so important. Requena is a very small city in the Upper Amazon region of Peru (population 25,000), near a tri-border area with Colombia and Brazil. Although Flores Quispe refused the invitation, he said that he knew other mayors in the region that had accepted.

Requena is just downriver from Leticia, Colombia and Tabatinga, Brazil, two port cities that are the gateways to enter the remote corners of both countries. Analysts in the region speculate that Chávez is searching for friends on the border with Colombia because he considers Colombian President Alvaro Uribe an enemy and a threat.

Peruvian President Alan Garcia actually won the 2006 presidential race against the Chavez-backed candidate, Ollanta Humala, by aggressively denouncing Chavez’s meddling in Peruvian politics and by properly portraying his opponent as a Chavez proxy. Prior to the election, Chavez had been infiltrating parts of Peru by opening "ALBA houses" – supposed medical centers for the poor that also serve as propaganda mills and recruiting centers for budding left wing revolutionaries. [1]

A more recent incident in the Amazon town of Bagua, Peru ended in a blood bath last June, when members and supporters of a far-left "indigenous rights" group slit the throats of police officers that had been sent to end the group’s roadblock that had closed the city’s only highway for over a month. Leaders of the group AIDESEP (Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest), had ties to Chavez and Bolivia’s Evo Morales, and had previously traveled to Caracas to participate in a meeting of radical indigenous groups. [2]

This method of utilizing proxies and perimeter footholds has also been the modus operandi of Iran in its arms-length war with Israel. Since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected in 2005, he has consolidated power in Iran by utilizing the Basij militia to suppress opposition while embedding the Revolutionary Guard Corps in positions within the government and the bureaucracies. This was part of the basis for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent comments that Iran is "becoming a military dictatorship." [3]

Since the end of the Iran-Iraq War, Iran decided not to develop a conventional force structure, but to focus instead on missile capacity to harass its neighbors and naval capacity to be able to cause problems in the Persian Gulf. More importantly, Iran has invested heavily in supplying and training its international subversive forces via Hezbollah.

Similarly, after narrowly surviving a coup in 2002, Chávez first purged his military of any soldiers that appeared supportive of the coup, and soon after began to indoctrinate his military in "asymmetric warfare." At the "1st Military Forum on Fourth Generation War and Asymmetric War" in 2004, Chavez instructed his soldiers to change their tactical thinking from a conventional style to a "people’s war," which glorified the tactics used by revolutionary Islamists. [4]

Chávez then had a special edition of La Guerra Periferica y Islam Revolucionaria (Peripheral Warfare and Revolutionary Islam: Origins, Rules and Ethics of Asymmetric Warfare by Jorge Verstrynge) printed in Spanish and distributed to the Venezuelan Army to replace the U.S. Army training manual.

Verstrynge’s book idolizes Islamic terrorism, calling it, "the ultimate and preferred method of asymmetric warfare because it involves fighters willing to sacrifice their lives to kill the enemy." [5] The manual also contains instructions for making and deploying a "dirty bomb." Verstrynge, a Spanish socialist, is now a hired consultant to Chavez’s army, whose members must also now recite the Cuban-style pledge "Fatherland, Socialism or Death." [6]

"Peripheral Warfare" strategy was recently tested by Iran in its proxy war with Israel, when two of its surrogate forces, Hezbollah and Hamas, utilized specialized missile crews to bomb Israeli civilians, as well as to cause a distraction while it fired upon Israeli border patrols in 2006 to start the Israel-Hezbollah War. Even prior to the decision to remove Saddam Hussein in 2003, Iran was perfecting the use of peripheral warfare by supplying and training Shiite groups in Iraq. [7]

Iran also used this strategy against Egypt when it built up a presence just south of its border with Sudan in order to support terrorist operations against President Hosni Mubarak’s government, and it supported subversive groups in Yemen that could threaten Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure.

In April of 2009, Egypt arrested members of a Hezbollah cell consisting of Egyptians, Lebanese and Palestinians that were smuggling arms to Hamas. The charges were verified by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. [8] A few weeks later, Egypt arrested four agents from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) that had been sent to Egypt to set up an intelligence network. [9] Egypt, a long time foe of Iran, has to contend with its own potential insurgency via the Muslim Brotherhood, which has close ties with Hamas.

The major difference between Iran’s use of peripheral warfare in the Middle East and Venezuela’s is that the latter can much more easily find allies in the region willing to overtly offer support. Whereas Iran must maintain some semblance of plausible deniability in its subversive activities, the correspondingly lesser scrutiny and import given to Latin America allows Chavez to openly tout his "Bolivarian Socialism" throughout the region. 

Aside from the use of "ALBA houses," peripheral warfare conducted by Hugo Chávez has included setting up the "Venezuela Information Office" in Washington, DC, and hiring PR firms to improve his image in the U.S. [10] One of the propaganda tools that has emerged is the notorious campaign with Joseph Kennedy to supply cheap heating oil to down-and-out New Englanders who enjoy a standard of living only dreamed about by poor Venezuelans who suffer constant electricity and food shortages on top of a newly devalued currency.

The exclusivity of Chavez’s access to oil has also allowed him to subvert corrupt politicians in the region, as well as to offer a sanctions-busting 20,000 barrel a week deal to Iran. But it is the "benign neglect" policy of the United States toward Venezuela that may also end up enticing Chavez to overstep.

Although Chavez has been implicated in supporting terrorists in the region, he has managed to avoid being declared a state sponsor of terror because of his perceived relative unimportance when compared to Iran and Al Qaeda, and because of the possible disruption in oil markets that could occur. However, the closer Iran gets to a deployable nuclear weapon, any assistance from Chavez will edge ever so closer to a sanctions trigger.

 

Jon Perdue is a founder of the Latin America Research Group and serves as the Director of Latin America Programs for the Fund for American Studies

 

 

Notes

1. Pleno del Congreso amplía plazo para investigar a las llamadas Casas de Alba, September 4, 2008, ANDINA Agencia Peruana de Noticias.

2. Chavez’s War On Free Trade In Peru, Investors Business Daily, June 10, 2009.

3. Clinton: Iran Is Becoming a Military Dictatorship, Associated Press, February 15, 2010
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/15/clinton-iran-military-dictatorship/

3. Suspicions link Chavez to Peru revolt, Kelly Hearn, The Washington Times, Monday, June 8, 2009

4. Latin America’s New Security Reality: Irregular Asymmetric Conflict and Hugo Chávez, Max G. Manwaring, August 2007, published by Strategic Studies Institute, pp. 23-24.

5. "Jorge Verstrynge: The Guru of Bolivarian Asymmetric Warfare," Joe Sweeny, http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200509091152

6. Chávez Seeks Tighter Grip on Military, New York Times, May 29, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/world/americas/30venez.html

7. Egypt-Hezbollah standoff dents Egypt-Iran relations by Amr Emam, April 13, 2009, Xinhua, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/13/content_11180887.htm

8. Israel praises Egypt for counter-terror ops – Security forces in Sinai reportedly seize weapons, including anti-aircraft missiles, ‘destined for Gaza’, Jerusalem Post, http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=142414

9. Friends of Hugo: Venezuela’s Castroite boss has all the usual U.S. supporters, John J. Miller, National Review, December 27, 2004.

10. Iran: Ready to Defy, Human Events, by Robert Maginnis September 29, 2009.

The US vs. Honduran democracy

The image of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wielding what resembled an oversized mallet while leading a mob of congressmen across Capitol Hill on the day of the health-care vote is the stuff of nightmares. It is also instructive. As a metaphor for how the Democrats view their power, the Pelosi hammer-pose could not be more perfect.

Just ask Honduras.

Last year, the U.S. tried to force the reinstatement of deposed president Manuel Zelaya. When that failed and Team Obama was looking like the Keystone Cops, it sent a delegation to Tegucigalpa to negotiate a compromise.

Participants in those talks say Dan Restrepo, senior director for Western Hemisphere affairs at the National Security Council, let slip that the U.S. interest had to do with American politics. The Republicans, he said, were using the administration’s support for Mr. Zelaya, an ally of Venezuelan Hugo Chávez, against the Democrats. It’s not going to work, Mr. Restrepo is said to have informed the other negotiators, because "we have the power" and would be keeping it for a long time.

It can’t have been comforting for Hondurans to learn that while their country was living a monumental crisis, fueled by U.S. policy, Mr. Restrepo’s concern was his party’s power. For the record, an NSC spokesman says "Mr. Restrepo didn’t say that." But my sources are more plausible considering what has transpired since.

Four months after a presidential election, reports from Honduras suggest the Obama administration remains obsessed with repairing its foreign-policy image by regaining the upper hand. The display of raw colonialist hubris is so pronounced that locals now refer to U.S. ambassador Hugo Llorens as "the proconsul."

Washington’s bullying is two-pronged. First is a maniacal determination to punish those involved in removing Mr. Zelaya. Second is an attempt to force Honduras to allow Mr. Zelaya, who now lives in the Dominican Republic, to return without facing any repercussions for the illegal actions that provoked his removal. Both goals are damaging the bilateral relationship, polarizing the nation and raising the risk of a resurgence of political violence.

The U.S., as represented by Mr. Llorens, has been at the center of the Zelaya crisis all along. People familiar with events leading up to Mr. Zelaya’s arrest on June 28 say that had the U.S. ambassador not worked behind the scenes to block a congressional vote to remove the president a few days earlier, the dramatic deportation would never have happened.

The State Department denies this allegation. But numerous sources maintain that Mr. Llorens’ interference allowed Mr. Zelaya to push ahead with an unconstitutional referendum. Fearing he would use violence-as he had before-to trample the rule of law, the Supreme Court took action. Mr. Zelaya was arrested, shipped off to San José, and removed from power by a vote of Congress the same day.

Honduras had defied Uncle Sam and the U.S., led by Mr. Llorens, decided that it had to be taught a lesson. It took out the brass knuckles and tried hard to unseat interim president Roberto Micheletti in the interest of restoring Mr. Zelaya to the office.

Honduras wouldn’t budge. That’s when Mr. Restrepo traveled to the capital with a U.S. delegation. The agreement reached included U.S. recognition of the November election. For a time it seemed things might return to normal.

But the Americans had scores to settle. The U.S had already yanked dozens of visas from officials and the business community as punishment for noncompliance with its pro-Zelaya policy. Then, just days before President Porfirio Lobo’s inauguration in January, Hondurans estimate it pulled at least 50 more from Micheletti supporters. The visas have not been returned, and locals say Mr. Llorens continues to foster a climate of intimidation with his visa-pulling power.

He hasn’t stopped there. In early March he organized a meeting of Liberal Party Zelaya supporters and the party’s former presidential candidate, Elvin Santos, at the U.S. Embassy. Some 48 hours later the party’s zelayistas and its Santos faction voted to remove Mr. Micheletti as party head. Rigoberto Espinal Irías, a legal adviser to the independent public prosecutor’s office, complained that the "meeting generated much bad feeling in Honduran civil society" because it was "perceived to have the purpose of intervening in Honduran national politics."

Now more trouble is brewing: Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes, according to press reports, has said that Mr. Lobo made a promise, in front of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mr. Funes, that Mr. Zelaya could return "without fear of political persecution." Mr. Lobo subsequently announced that Mr. Zelaya is free to enter the country. In exchange, it is expected that foreign aid flows to Honduras will resume. But the minister of security maintains that if Mr. Zelaya returns he will be arrested.

It’s hard to imagine what the U.S. thinks it achieves with a policy that divides Hondurans while strengthening the hand of a chavista. Revenge and power come to mind. Whatever it is, it can’t be good for U.S. national security interests.

 

Originally published in the Wall Street Journal

Time to get tough with Iran and the IRGC

The Obama administration, clearly exasperated that Iran’s terrorist state hasn’t reciprocated its public and private engagement overtures, took a new tack during U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent Mideast tour. The secretary declared that the Islamic Republic’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is supplanting the country’s clerical and political leadership and moving the nation toward a “military dictatorship.” And it seeks another U.N. Security Council resolution as a remedy.

Newsflash to Team Obama: Iran’s theocratic rulers, president and their IRGC protectors share the same nuclear weapons and terrorism goals and are the driving force behind the regime’s 31-year one-sided “Death to America” war. Collectively they have managed to successfully thwart all previous economic sanctions imposed by the United States and the United Nations.

There are plenty of reasons why the Iranian regime (dating back to Reagan administration) and the IRGC (during George W. Bush administration) have been labeled “terrorists” by the United States. With the consent of the Iranian regime, IRGC members participated in seizing the American embassy in 1979 and holding 52 hostages for 444 days – in violation of international law and centuries of diplomatic protocols. Its Quds Force used Hezbollah proxies to target and bomb the U.S. embassy and the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, bomb U.S. residences in Saudi Arabia, and kidnapp and murder American captives (such as William Buckley and USMC Lt. Col. William Higgins). The Quds Force now manufactures and supplies lethal roadside bombs (IEDs) to Shi’ite militias in Iraq and the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan that kill and maim American troops.

If that isn’t bad enough, the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog (IAEA) recently said the regime, with IRGC leading the way, may be on the verge of producing a nuclear warhead, to go along with their long-range missiles, which many believe will further threaten regional and global peace and security. Others believe Iran already possesses a nuclear capability and is in the process of achieving the capability of matching warheads to missiles.

Surprisingly, many Americans know little about the IRGC although it wields considerable security, political and economic clout in Iran. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini created the IRGC in 1979 primarily to safeguard the ideal of his Shi’ite Islamic Revolution, protect his regime from domestic and foreign enemies, and export his brutal brand of Islamic fundamentalism, influence and terrorism to neighboring states.

The IRGC operates independently from Iran’s regular military – reporting directly to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It currently has about 200,000 members assigned to special army, air force, navy and intelligence units in all 30 of Iran’s provinces. At the behest of the Supreme Leader during the past year, the IRGC cracked down on innocent Iranians protesting the questionable reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Islamic Republic’s 31st anniversary celebration.

The IRGC exports the revolution through their notorious Quds (Jerusalem) Force. This force has about 20,000 highly trained personnel specializing in international terrorism, armed conflict and support of proxies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza. 

Former and current IRGC members occupy 14 of 21 cabinet positions, about 90 of 290 parliament seats, and a host of local mayor ships and council seats. Past and present IRGC members include President Ahmadinejad, ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi-Qomi and parliament speaker Ali Larijani. IRGC is also a business conglomerate controlling some 500 companies active in a wide range of industries including nuclear power, banking, insurance, and recreation.

IRGC and Quds Force headquarters are located in Tehran, the latter in the former U.S. embassy. The IRGC oversees at least seven nuclear facilities including those at Isfahan, Natanz, and Qom. And the IRGC/Quds Force operates at least 20 terrorist training centers including the Imam Ali Training Garrison, Tehran; Bahonar Garrison near Karaj Dam; and the Abouzar Garrison, Ahwaz, Khuzestan Province. Lethal roadside bombs are produced by Sattari Industries in Tehran’s Lavizan District.

The IRGC and Quds Force are currently led by Maj. Gen. Mohammed Ali Jafari. He was appointed by Supreme Leader Khamenei in 2007. His portfolio includes command of Iran’s nuclear weapons and missile programs, relations with countries like Venezuela and terror proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas, and liaison with intelligence organ Ministry of Intelligence and Security.

One cannot fault Secretary Clinton for putting the well-deserved spotlight on the IRGC. However, her declaration about it becoming an emerging “military dictatorship” misses the mark. In reality, it doesn’t matter whether Iran is ruled by clerics, if the country has a card-carrying IRGC member as president, or if the IRGC it will still continue developing nuclear weapons, engaging in terrorism, oppressing millions of freedom-seeking Iranians, ignoring Team Obama’s rapprochement overtures and economic sanction threats, and dismissing another worthless U.N. Security Council resolutions watered down by Iran’s security council veto-wielding friends in Russia and China.

The time has come for Team Obama to shelve its idealistic, naïve and dangerous “open-hand” diplomacy in favor of “bold and aggressive” action against Iran and to support the Iranian opposition organizations. The best way to get the Iranian regime’s attention would be to inform them that President Obama will (1) ask Congress to pass a resolution making Iranian regime change a U.S. policy (similar to what Congress and President Clinton did in passing and signing the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act; (2) direct, under executive authority or with congressional permission, precise military strikes on Iranian nuclear development sites as well as regime targets like terrorist training facilities, IRGC and Quds Force headquarters if Iran doesn’t cease its nuclear weapons program and supporting radical Islamic/global caliphate activities; and (3) overtly and covertly encourage and support all Iranian opposition and freedom seeking groups to foster regime change.

Let’s “hope” President Obama makes these policy “changes” before it’s too late. Global peace and security depends on it.

Paul E. Vallely, U.S. Army Maj. Gen., retired, is chairman of Stand Up America, an Iran Policy Committee member, and a co-author of “Endgame.” Fred Gedrich is a foreign policy and national security analyst who served in the Departments of State and Defense.

Time to get tough with Iran and the IRGC

The Obama administration, clearly exasperated that Iran’s terrorist state hasn’t reciprocated its public and private engagement overtures, took a new tack during U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent Mideast tour. The secretary declared that the Islamic Republic’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is supplanting the country’s clerical and political leadership and moving the nation toward a “military dictatorship.” And it seeks another U.N. Security Council resolution as a remedy.

Newsflash to Team Obama: Iran’s theocratic rulers, president and their IRGC protectors share the same nuclear weapons and terrorism goals and are the driving force behind the regime’s 31-year one-sided “Death to America” war. Collectively they have managed to successfully thwart all previous economic sanctions imposed by the United States and the United Nations.

There are plenty of reasons why the Iranian regime (dating back to Reagan administration) and the IRGC (during George W. Bush administration) have been labeled “terrorists” by the United States. With the consent of the Iranian regime, IRGC members participated in seizing the American embassy in 1979 and holding 52 hostages for 444 days – in violation of international law and centuries of diplomatic protocols. Its Quds Force used Hezbollah proxies to target and bomb the U.S. embassy and the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, bomb U.S. residences in Saudi Arabia, and kidnapp and murder American captives (such as William Buckley and USMC Lt. Col. William Higgins). The Quds Force now manufactures and supplies lethal roadside bombs (IEDs) to Shi’ite militias in Iraq and the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan that kill and maim American troops.

If that isn’t bad enough, the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog (IAEA) recently said the regime, with IRGC leading the way, may be on the verge of producing a nuclear warhead, to go along with their long-range missiles, which many believe will further threaten regional and global peace and security. Others believe Iran already possesses a nuclear capability and is in the process of achieving the capability of matching warheads to missiles.

Surprisingly, many Americans know little about the IRGC although it wields considerable security, political and economic clout in Iran. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini created the IRGC in 1979 primarily to safeguard the ideal of his Shi’ite Islamic Revolution, protect his regime from domestic and foreign enemies, and export his brutal brand of Islamic fundamentalism, influence and terrorism to neighboring states.

The IRGC operates independently from Iran’s regular military – reporting directly to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It currently has about 200,000 members assigned to special army, air force, navy and intelligence units in all 30 of Iran’s provinces. At the behest of the Supreme Leader during the past year, the IRGC cracked down on innocent Iranians protesting the questionable reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Islamic Republic’s 31st anniversary celebration.

The IRGC exports the revolution through their notorious Quds (Jerusalem) Force. This force has about 20,000 highly trained personnel specializing in international terrorism, armed conflict and support of proxies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza. 

Former and current IRGC members occupy 14 of 21 cabinet positions, about 90 of 290 parliament seats, and a host of local mayor ships and council seats. Past and present IRGC members include President Ahmadinejad, ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi-Qomi and parliament speaker Ali Larijani. IRGC is also a business conglomerate controlling some 500 companies active in a wide range of industries including nuclear power, banking, insurance, and recreation.

IRGC and Quds Force headquarters are located in Tehran, the latter in the former U.S. embassy. The IRGC oversees at least seven nuclear facilities including those at Isfahan, Natanz, and Qom. And the IRGC/Quds Force operates at least 20 terrorist training centers including the Imam Ali Training Garrison, Tehran; Bahonar Garrison near Karaj Dam; and the Abouzar Garrison, Ahwaz, Khuzestan Province. Lethal roadside bombs are produced by Sattari Industries in Tehran’s Lavizan District.

The IRGC and Quds Force are currently led by Maj. Gen. Mohammed Ali Jafari. He was appointed by Supreme Leader Khamenei in 2007. His portfolio includes command of Iran’s nuclear weapons and missile programs, relations with countries like Venezuela and terror proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas, and liaison with intelligence organ Ministry of Intelligence and Security.

One cannot fault Secretary Clinton for putting the well-deserved spotlight on the IRGC. However, her declaration about it becoming an emerging “military dictatorship” misses the mark. In reality, it doesn’t matter whether Iran is ruled by clerics, if the country has a card-carrying IRGC member as president, or if the IRGC it will still continue developing nuclear weapons, engaging in terrorism, oppressing millions of freedom-seeking Iranians, ignoring Team Obama’s rapprochement overtures and economic sanction threats, and dismissing another worthless U.N. Security Council resolutions watered down by Iran’s security council veto-wielding friends in Russia and China.

The time has come for Team Obama to shelve its idealistic, naïve and dangerous “open-hand” diplomacy in favor of “bold and aggressive” action against Iran and to support the Iranian opposition organizations. The best way to get the Iranian regime’s attention would be to inform them that President Obama will (1) ask Congress to pass a resolution making Iranian regime change a U.S. policy (similar to what Congress and President Clinton did in passing and signing the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act; (2) direct, under executive authority or with congressional permission, precise military strikes on Iranian nuclear development sites as well as regime targets like terrorist training facilities, IRGC and Quds Force headquarters if Iran doesn’t cease its nuclear weapons program and supporting radical Islamic/global caliphate activities; and (3) overtly and covertly encourage and support all Iranian opposition and freedom seeking groups to foster regime change.

Let’s “hope” President Obama makes these policy “changes” before it’s too late. Global peace and security depends on it.

Paul E. Vallely, U.S. Army Maj. Gen., retired, is chairman of Stand Up America, an Iran Policy Committee member, and a co-author of “Endgame.” Fred Gedrich is a foreign policy and national security analyst who served in the Departments of State and Defense.

Morales in Bolivia: ‘If you are not with the Party, you are the opposition. There is no middle ground.’

Evo Morales won the Bolivian presidency in 2005 with an overwhelming 54% of the vote with his Movement toward Socialism (Movimiento al Socialismo) gaining control of the lower house of congress. However, he failed to win the majority in Bolivia’s Senate, and that body was able to stop some of his radical initiatives. However, in the General elections of December 6th 2009, President Morales won 63%% of the popular vote and his party achieved 85 out of 130 seats in the House of Deputies and 25 of 36 seats in the Senate. With these results, the administration can pass any law or make any constitutional change it wants, which has many Bolivians and various democratic leaders deeply concerned.

Morales, who was declared the "first fully indigenous head of state, ran on the premise that he would "refound" Bolivia focusing on socialist and indigenous principles, but pledged to work with all Bolivians within the context of respect for the rule of law and tolerance. Unfortunately, he has turned his back on this promise and has lead Bolivia into one of its worst political crises.

Since the beginning of his mandate, Morales has focused on changing the Constitution and indefinitely extending his presidency following in the footsteps of his closest ally, Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez. On numerous occasions, he has repeated that he did not come to the presidential palace as a "visitor, or someone passing through, but we have come to stay for a long time, until we change Bolivia." [1]

He also has publicly declared himself a "Marxist-Leninist," which has many fearing the worst of outcomes for the future of the Andean nation. In order to extend his time in power, Morales inaugurated the Bolivian Constituent Assembly on August 6, 2006, to begin writing a new document. His aim was to also give more power to the indigenous majority, which he claims, has been "marginalized by the elites."

However, problems immediately arose when, unable to obtain two-thirds of the votes needed to approve a new constitution, Morales announced that only a simple majority would be needed. Huge protests erupted, mostly in the eastern, richer provinces of Pando, Santa Cruz, Tarija, and Beni that form the Media Luna: a half-moon-shaped area on the country’s eastern border with Brazil. This region of Bolivia is where the majority of the opposition is centered, where much of the hydrocarbon wealth is located and is the source of most of the nation’s agricultural output. The reform process has been considered illegal at every stage, as the opposition has been excluded, sometimes even physically, from participating. Huge dissatisfaction and resentment towards Morales remains in these provinces and many there are in favor of their region becoming autonomous and separate from the rest of Bolivia.

As part of the process to change the constitution, a recall referendum was approved on December 2007, by the Chamber of Deputies, where the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) party has a majority. The referendum was initially suggested by Morales in December 2007, but was rejected by the opposition at the time. However, the opposition-controlled Senate brought back the suggestion following their victory in the Santa Cruz province autonomy referendum on May 4, 2008. Analysts agree that the opposition miscalculated the degree of support it enjoyed. For the president, vice-president or prefects to remain in office, they had to win more votes than they had in the December 2005 elections.  On August 10th 2008, Evo Morales was ratified by 67% of the vote.

As part of the process to change the constitution, a recall referendum was approved on December 2007, by the Chamber of Deputies, where the Movement towards Socialism (MAS) party has a majority. The referendum was initially suggested by Morales in December 2007, but was rejected by the opposition at the time. However, the opposition-controlled Senate brought back the suggestion following their victory in the Santa Cruz province autonomy referendum on May 4, 2008. Analysts agree that the opposition miscalculated the degree of support it enjoyed. For the president, vice-president or prefects to remain in office, they had to win more votes than they had in the December 2005 elections.  On August 10th 2008, Evo Morales was ratified by 67% of the vote.

Following these results and after months of fierce battles between the government and the opposition group, PODEMOS, the parties eventually reached a compromise on October 20, 2008 and agreed to hold the referendum on January 25, 2009 and early elections on December 6 2009. Morales in turn promised he would not run again in 2014 after his reelection in 2009. The referendum took take place on January 25, 2009. With a 61% majority, a new constitution came into effect on February 7th.

The new document includes an entire chapter dedicated to Bolivia’s indigenous populations. It puts the economy in the hands of the state, limits landholdings and redistributes revenues from gas fields in the eastern lowlands to poorer areas of the country.

One of the most contentious issues for Bolivians is control over natural gas. Since his campaign, Morales vowed to tighten state control over this resource and the mining industries and as of May 1, 2006, he signed a decree stating that all natural gas reserves were to be nationalized. Bolivia has the second largest deposits of natural gas in South America – 1.38 trillion cubic meters – after Venezuela. Even though he promised that the nationalization would not take the form of expropriations or confiscations, he ordered the military and engineers of YPFB, the state firm, to occupy energy installations, giving foreign companies a six-month period to renegotiate contracts, or face expulsion. US Exxon Mobil Corporation, Brazil’s Petrobras, Spain’s Repsol YPF, UK BG Group Plc, and France’s Total are the main gas companies present in the country. All foreign energy firms were required to sign new contracts giving Bolivia majority ownership and as much as 82% of revenues. [2]

The opposition insists that the President wants to impose a socialist economic model, copying his Venezuelan counterpart, and argues that Bolivia is turning into a totalitarian state. "Podemos" insists that the President is only focused on making a new constitution to stay in power and unfairly privilege indigenous groups. They also accuse him of misusing the revenues of gas to instill a "socialist revolution."

Analysts agree that Morales’ programs to assert greater state control over the economy will destroy national productivity. They also state that Morales, a fierce critic of Washington and a leader of the emerging Latin American left, is destroying democracy. Roger F. Noriega, a former Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America, and now visiting fellow at AEI and managing director of Vision Americas LLC, accurately states, "Morales has proven to be the archetypical new brand of authoritarian populist in Latin America who wins power by electoral means and then sets out to destroy the very democracy that elected him in the first place. Rather than make any effort to govern within democratic institutions meant to check state power… such caudillos abuse their popularity to wage warfare against their opposition and to impose their radical agendas. Determined to put Bolivia’s institutions and resources at the service of the indigenous majority… he considers it an essential part of his mission to shatter the old order and attack the privileged establishment." [3]

Another problematic development is the government’s intolerance of any type of opposition. The Morales’ regime uses mass violent mobilizations to intimidate any dissident voice and independent media. He even confiscates personal property and illegally detains opposition leaders. On more than one occasion, he has expressed publicly that he views all opponents as traitors, "I want to tell you, companions and union leaders, to all of you, if you are not with the official party (MAS) at this time, you are the opposition. There is no middle ground. Define yourselves." [4]

In addition to endangering the Bolivian people’s future by implementing a socialist, backward model, Morales has also developed close ties with the FARC and with autocratic, non-democratic states such as Cuba, Nicaragua and more recently Iran, in addition to Venezuela.

There are credible reports that there are significant numbers of Venezuelan military and governmental advisers in Bolivia and that the intelligence apparatus is being advised by Havana and Caracas. Both countries have sent special envoys to oversee matters of national security. It has also been reported that Venezuela is in charge of   voter registration rolls and that Bolivian passports are actually being printed in Venezuela and Cuba. This means that Chavez and Castro could have access to identification and registration files, enabling them to ensure MAS electoral victories. [5]

There is also information that each year, the Venezuelan regime directly pays millions of dollars to senior leaders of Bolivia’s military and that it is building a series of new military posts as well as providing intelligence training. At least another $110 million a year goes to directly paying for a presidential program called "Bolivia Changes, Evo Fulfills His Promises." This money goes directly to the presidency with no outside accountability or oversight. [6]

An agreement between the two countries calls for Venezuela to train Bolivian troops and upgrade military equipment. Chavez also agreed to finance the construction of ten customs and border control installations and has also provided two Super Puma helicopters for the president’s transportation, as well as loaning Morales a Venezuelan presidential jet for international travel. In addition, Venezuelan security personnel act as Morales’ primary security providers. [7]

The Cubans are primarily in charge of placing hundreds of doctors across rural Bolivia to administer medical care, and oversee an ambitious literacy program, which many claim is being used to indoctrinate the population on the "benefits" of Chavez’s "Bolivarian Revolution." Cuba is also reported to oversee internal security structures to actively monitor the opposition. [8]

In addition, documents found in the computer of Raúl Reyes, the FARC commander killed in the March 1, 2008 raid by the Colombian military, show the ties, including the training of Bolivian students in FARC camps. Some of the correspondence mentions FARC contacts with Morales, both before he was president and afterward. In one 2007 missive, Reyes asks a member of the FARC’s International Commission to "take good care of our relations with Evo." [9]

Venezuela’s Chavez has been key in the close relationship now in place between Bolivia and Iran. Both countries have opened diplomatic relations with each other. Like Venezuela, Bolivia eliminated the need for Iranian citizens to get visas to enter the country and Morales recently announced that he’s moving his country’s only embassy in the Middle East from Cairo to Tehran. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Bolivia in 2007, and Morales paid a reciprocal visit to Tehran in September 2008. Upon arrival Morales declared Bolivia and Tehran "two friendly and revolutionary countries."

When Ahmadinejad visited La Paz in 2007, he promised $1.1 billion in aid to Bolivia over five years, including a television station, to cover all of Latin America. Morales said the station would turn Bolivia into "the center of revolutionary democracy," Which has yet to materialize. Even though only a couple of factories have been actually built by Iran, Ahmadinejad has in fact given a $230 million loan to help Bolivia establish a cement company. There has been no public statement as for how that money has been spent.

The main problem with the Iranian presence is that it has a history of using its embassies to support and finance the terror activities of Hezbollah. Case in point, in 1992 and 1994 respectively, this terrorist group bombed the Israeli Embassy and the Amia Jewish Cultural Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

On the security front, the Bolivian-Venezuelan-Iranian axis poses a real threat to regional stability and democracy and because of the ties of Iran and Venezuela to terrorist groups such as FARC and Hezbollah, this alliance poses a significant threat to the United States. Morales’ continuation in power will deepen these relationships.

On the economic front, analysts say that in the short-term, Morales’s decision to nationalize all oil and natural gas companies was productive because of record high prices. The country’s economy grew by 3.7 percent last year. However, they also predict that things will prove much more difficult in his second term. Foreign companies no longer invest in Bolivia due to changing rules and the United States cut off the tariff benefits it used to give Bolivian-made products because of Morales’ decision to stop cooperating with the United States in its war against the drug trade. In addition, Venezuela will find it very difficult to keep sustaining Bolivia due to the current crisis it is going through. The upcoming months will be crucial, as Morales’ next moves remain uncertain.

 

Nicole M. Ferrand is the editor of "The Americas Report" of the Menges Hemispheric Security Project. She is a graduate of Columbia University in Economics and Political Science with a background in Law from Peruvian University, UNIFE and in Corporate Finance from Georgetown University.

 

[1] INTO THE ABYSS: BOLIVIA UNDER EVO MORALES AND THE MAS. June 18, 2009. By Douglas Farah. Strategy Center.

[2] Tillerson’s Exxon Mobil Faces Eviction From Bolivia. May 5, 2006. Forbes.

[3] Ibid – Into the Abyss.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Into the Abyss – Ibid.

[6] "Iran’s Unlikely Embrace of Bolivia Builds Influence in U.S. Backyard," McClatchy Newspapers, Feb. 9, 2009.

[7] Hugo Chavez And Evo Morales Increase Their "Cooperation" V Crisis. By Tony Pagliaro. June 2006.

[8] Ibid.

[9] "Las FARC Buscaron el Respaldo de Bolivia Para Lograr Su Expansión," July 21, 2008. La Razón, Bolivia.

Latin America in American national security

The Christmas bombing attempt at blowing up a Northwest Airline flying from Amsterdam to Detroit has rightly raised the level of concern regarding national security.

If some still believe that the 9/11 attacks were isolated cases that were not likely to be repeated, the Christmas event as well as the massacre perpetrated by a radical Islamist at a military base at Fort Hood Texas and the capture of five Pakistani-Americans who tried to enlist with Al Qaeda, confirm that national security issues need to be comprehensively addressed. This is why paying full attention and giving priority to events occurring in Afghanistan, Yemen and Pakistan is imperative.

However, a national security policy cannot be subject to emotions or to the ideology of people who profess mere pacifism or wrongly believe that the enemy would not be our enemy if we treat it differently. Likewise, it is reasonable to say that no national security policy should be based only on a reaction to one specific dramatic event.

With all the bad news we have been hearing lately, there is also good news. The Christmas episode is the beginning of the end of illusions about the nature of our enemies. It is now up to the Obama Administration and the political community to lead us towards a systematic and well-thought national security policy. This policy should not be reactive. It should not only focus on areas that have been clearly identified as enemy bastions but also on those regions where no attack has yet been perpetrated on us but where we know there are potential threats.

A case in point is Latin America. The following are some of the challenges faced in that part of the world, which also happens to be a region in close proximity to our shores:

In the summer of 2009, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report at the request of the U.S Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  What they found was that the flow of cocaine transiting Venezuela towards the U.S., West Africa and Europe increased more than four times from 2004 to 2007 and continues to sharply increase. The majority of the cocaine originates in Colombia and goes to the United States but also a substantial amount goes to Europe. It takes place with the cooperation of Venezuelan authorities via air, land and sea. Venezuela has extended a life line to Colombian illegally armed narco- terrorist groups like the FARC by providing them with support and safe heaven both inside their country and along the border.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is engaged in a deliberate policy aimed at weakening the Colombian state by strengthening drug trafficking. The GAO report also states that Venezuelan officials provided material support primarily to the FARC in order to help sustain "the insurgency and threaten security gains achieved in Colombia". Cooperation between Venezuela and the FARC was documented in the computers seized from the FARC by a Colombian army raid into Ecuador in March 2008.

It is also established that the Venezuelan government may have provided hundreds of millions of dollars to the FARC as well as weapons and ammunition from official Venezuelan army stocks and facilities. Likewise, Venezuelan documents such as passports and identification cards have also been given to illegally armed groups. Finally, it was reported that top Venezuelan government officials are involved in these operations.

What is worrisome about this is not the mere criminality of these actions. Drug trafficking enables these criminals to buy law enforcement officials and thus destroys state mechanisms to enforce the law. Drugs promote corruption among state institutions including the police, the military, the rule of law, public officials and all those actors and public entities that enable governability in society. Mexico is a case in point.

In Mexico, drug cartels have been able to co-opt, bribe and kill hundreds of policemen, judges, and politicians at all levels. In the Mexican states bordering the United States there is no distinction between law enforcement and drug cartels. Drug trafficking has caused anarchy, general violence and societal fear.  Bolivia and Ecuador have already removed the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)’ from their territory.  With more countries in Latin America and the Caribbean facing an increasing amount of drug related crimes, the prospect of a widespread general state of anarchy and lawlessness in the region becomes a real possibility. If that turns out to be the case, a situation similar to the one existing in Afghanistan will take place just south of our border.

Naturally, where chaos exists, terrorist groups flourish. As in the Middle East and Central Asia, the FARC has a presence in countries such as Ecuador and possibly Bolivia. Encouraged by Hugo Chavez, Hezbollah has dramatically increased its presence in Latin America. Hezbollah is cooperating with the FARC and the drug cartels. It also has training camps in Venezuela.  The more anarchy spreads in Latin America, the number of Hezbollah and other Islamic radicals will increase, putting at risk institutions and citizens alike. By the same token, should this scenario play out, there will be a higher risk of penetration into U.S territory as Hezbollah uses routes already paved by Mexican drug cartels.

As it is known, Hezbollah is one of the most precious tools of Iran, an archenemy of the United States and an imminent nuclear power. Iran has spread its presence in Latin America in the last two years. Iran not only seeks to use Latin America to avoid sanctions as many analysts, including Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, have pointed out. Iran might also be seeking to increase the presence of armed groups such as Hezbollah as the latter represents a weapon of subversion and asymmetric war. Iran has invested more in subversion and nuclear military power than on conventional weapons because it is aware that its leverage would not exist if it were to rely on conventional weapons only. Iran can only deter through either terrorism or nuclear power.

Thus, Hezbollah’s presence in Latin America could turn the area into an instrument of Iran from where they could launch terrorist attacks. Likewise, Venezuelan territory could serve as a place from where a nuclear threat might emerge. 

Indeed, as international pressure on Iran increases and Iran is less willing to make concessions, Iran will seek means to deter the United States up to the point of threatening its own existence. Hugo Chavez has been Iran’s staunchest supporter in the world. Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, have comfortably penetrated Latin America thanks to Chavez. Venezuela and its ALBA allies (Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua) have provided the friendliest welcome to Iran second only to the Southern Lebanese Shiites.

Given all of the above, it should not be difficult to imagine a nefarious scenario: if Iran is to develop an atomic bomb, it will either transport clandestine nuclear missiles to Venezuela or provide direct nuclear technology or even a nuclear weapon to the Venezuelan regime which is also a revolutionary regime and an archenemy of the U.S.

Pressure in Central Asia and the Middle East should not reduce the focus in other regions of the world such as in Latin America. National security must be a worldwide comprehensive enterprise. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton seems to have some awareness of the dangers of the growing Iranian presence in our hemisphere as evidenced by her December 11, 2009 speech on Latin America. It is now up to her team and other members of the Obama Administration to uphold our national security interests and take this threat seriously and pursue the appropriate counter-measures.  

 

Dr. Luis Fleischman is Senior Advisor for the Menges Hemispheric Security Project at the Center for Security Policy in Washington D.C.

 

Pro-Iranian Chavista Daniel Ortega overturns term limits

In recent years, we have been witnessing a pattern in Latin America, where Presidents are elected democratically and then abuse their powers to extend their time in office. Coincidently, these new caudillos are all leftist populists and followers of Hugo Chavez from Venezuela, who started the trend. After 10 years in power, the controversial leader won a referendum in February that abolished term limits for presidents – a move he says is critical to carrying out his "Bolivarian Revolution." His allies Evo Morales in Bolivia and Rafael Correa in Ecuador have followed suit, each winning the right to consecutive reelection through constitutional reform, after illegally appointing people of their own political parties to key justice positions. 

Most recently, former Honduran President and Chavez’s ally, Manuel Zelaya, was close to securing an indefinite time in power, when he was stopped in his tracks by a resilient opposition who, in spite of being pressured by the OAS and the United States to reinstate the former leader, has stuck to its democratic principles. This loss was almost too much for Chavez, who wants to have control over Latin America to carry out his "Revolution of the XXI Century." Luckily for him, Daniel Ortega from Nicaragua whose first five-year term began in 1985 has stepped to the plate and has won a Supreme Court ruling last month that paves the way for his reelection in 2011. And he did it in the right moment too, just when the focus of the US administration and the OAS has been on Honduras. Few have paid attention to Nicaragua’s alarming situation that affects both regional and US national security.

Since being elected President in 2007, the first thing on Ortega’s agenda has been to seek reelection, following Chavez’s steps. It is important to point out that article 147 of the Nicaraguan constitution clearly states that a President cannot run for a consecutive reelection campaign and cannot be President more than twice. Ortega is seeking to run for reelection for a consecutive term and wants to be president for the third time. [1] Incredibly, on October 19, 2009, the Supreme Court of Justice in Nicaragua ruled in favor of Ortega making his presidential bid possible for 2011.

How did Ortega accomplish a favorite ruling from the Supreme Court?

The Nicaraguan Supreme Court is composed of 16 members and thanks to a political deal made by Ortega and Arnoldo Alemán, a former Nicaraguan president who went to jail for massive corruption, half the magistrates are appointed by the ruling Sandinistas, and the other half are appointed by the opposition Liberals. But due to the May 2009 death of one Liberal-appointed magistrate, and the fact that his seat still has not been filled, the Sandinistas currently enjoy an 8-7 majority, which means the court is effectively Sandinista. [2]

Six magistrates made the decision to let Ortega seek reelection. And guess what? All six were Sandinista appointees–even though the court’s six-member constitutional panel includes three Liberal magistrates. Those three Liberal judges were not summoned to the meeting at which the decision was made. Instead, the Sandinistas called in three "replacement" judges to guarantee their preferred ruling. [3]

Clearly, the decision to allow Ortega to be re-elected as many times as he wants is illegal. Basically what Ortega did was just copy Chavez’s power grabbing methods: pack the Supreme Court with supporters to get favorable rulings, place close allies in the National Electoral Council to prevent opponents from getting on the ballot, suppress the press when all this fails, resort to mobs on the streets to intimidate. Case in point, when the U.S. ambassador in Managua, Robert Callahan criticized the pro-Ortega Supreme Court ruling as improper, Ortega followers vandalized the U.S. embassy. The next day, Ortega supporters surrounded Mr. Callahan at a university fair, forcing him to dash to his sport utility vehicle in a hasty getaway that was televised locally. [4]

After the opposition voiced their outrage and started to protest, Ortega declared that the ruling is "written in stone" and is unchallengeable. He then called his political opponents "residual garbage" who should be thrown in jail.

Due to the threat to democracy, civil society organizations and opposition political parties in Nicaragua have begun to unite. The Bancada Democrática Nicaragüense, Partido Liberal Constitucionalista, Movimiento Renovador Sandinista, and the Alianza Liberal Nicaragüense are looking for legislative tactics in order to revoke this ruling. The unification of all the political parties guarantees 48 votes, which is a majority in the Nicaraguan National Assembly. Hopefully, the unification can last long enough in order to stop Ortega’s reelection. The past has proven that it is extremely difficult for all these leaders to stay united through the crisis at hand. Private sector organizations such as the Consejo Superior de la Empresa Privada (Cosep) and the Cámara de Comercio Americana Nicaragüense (Amcham) have also spoken publicly against the ruling by the Supreme Court. [5]

But as Nicaraguan citizens learned last year, the Supreme Electoral Court cannot be trusted in conducting a fair, free, and transparent election. In June of 2008, the Nicaraguan Supreme Electoral Council disqualified opposition political parties including Sandinista Renovation Movement and the Conservative Party from participating. Last November, the Supreme Electoral Council received national and international criticism following irregularities in municipal elections. For the first time since 1990, the Council decided not to allow national or international observers to witness the election. Accusations of intimidation, violence, and harassment of opposition political party members and NGO representatives have been recorded. Official results show Sandinista candidates winning 94 of the 146 municipal mayorships, compared to 46 for the main opposition Liberal Constitutional Party (PLC). The opposition claimed that marked ballots were dumped and destroyed, that party members were refused access to some of the vote counts and that tallies from many polling places were altered. As a result of the fraud allegations, the European Union suspended $70 million in aid, and the US $64 million. [6]

The latest developments are that Nicaraguan Lawmakers are refusing to recognize a Supreme Court decision that would allow Ortega to run again in 2011. The National Assembly approved a resolution on Thursday December 3rd to oppose the top court’s decision The electoral commission’s president says the Supreme Court’s ruling is final. But he leaves the post in 2010 and lawmakers are betting his replacement will side with them.

 

Iranian – Nicaraguan relations

Iran has been making inroads into Latin America for some time, especially in countries with strong Chavista influence, including Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and dangerously Nicaragua, which is very close in distance to the US. Iran has come under increased criticism for its secret construction of a uranium-enrichment plant that could be used to make an atomic bomb. Ahmadinejad and the leaders of friendly Latin American countries have signed numerous cooperation agreements, in which Iran has pledged to build factories, hydroelectric power plants, provide low-interest loans and invest in oil and gas projects.

Specialists agree that the Iranian move to Latin America and Nicaragua makes perfect sense for them in light of the American-led trade sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program.

The problem is that if Ortega perpetuates himself in power, the United States’ and the region’s national security could suffer a serious blow. We have to consider that Iran has already used Hezbollah to attack what it considers enemies in Latin America, when they blew up the Israeli embassy and a Jewish center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in the early -90’s killing and wounding hundreds. This is according to a recent 800-page Argentine indictment and still outstanding arrest warrants for top Iranian officials and Revolutionary Guards who carried out the bombings under diplomatic cover provided by Iran’s Buenos Aires embassy. [7]

When Ortega became President of Nicaragua in 2007, Ahmadinejad considered his ascension so important that he was in Managua to attend the inauguration. Ortega even honored Ahmadinejad with two of the country’s most prestigious awards (the Liberty Medal and the Rubén Darío Medal). The two heads of state then toured shantytowns in Managua and Ortega told the press that the "revolutions of Iran and Nicaragua are almost twin revolutions…since both revolutions are about justice, liberty, self-determination, and the struggle against imperialism."

Within months, Iran was promising hundreds of millions in economic projects to Nicaragua- and quickly set up a diplomatic mission in a Managua neighborhood where it could all supposedly be coordinated. [8] In addition, there were plans to build a $350 million port on the eastern seaboard bay known as Monkey Point. But according to recent reports, no Iranian money or concrete planning has materialized yet for this project. The Iranians had made only a few trips around the country aboard helicopters. Iran was also supposed to set up the port of Corinto, which supposedly would be linked to the Monkey Point port by a dry land canal, but this project has not materialized either.

However there is a diplomatic mission, which has steadily expanded its staff under the leadership of its envoy Akbar Esmaeil-Pour. This building provides a huge blanket of diplomatic cover to Iran and its embassy personnel. What are all those Iranian diplomats doing in Nicaragua? Alarms were set off already in 2007, when suspected Iranian Revolutionary Guard operatives were seen moving in and out of the country. Ortega, through his ministry of migrations permitted 21 Iranians to enter the country without visas.

There has been confusion for some time about the size of the Iranian embassy in Managua. Initial reports described the mission as being massive in size. But thanks to new information, we now have a better idea of what went on. Local reporters where focusing on a huge compound being built, reportedly, with Iranian money. It turns out, the construction was actually a huge mosque in an upscale suburb of Managua.

The problem is that even though Muslims, particularly Palestinians, have been emigrating to Nicaragua for decades and have established a number of businesses here, especially in the fabric trade, their numbers are so small, in fact just over 300, that a mosque of this size raises suspicions. According to reports, the embassy cost U$600,000. But the question remains, who paid for it? According to Iranian diplomats in Managua, the Iranian government did not donate the cash and declared that the primary funder was a Pakistani-born businessman who lives in Honduras. After seeing how tiny the old mosque was, the man offered to help finance a new prayer center on a piece of land purchased several years ago by local Muslims. The donor was identified as Yusuf Amdani. The mosque offers services five times a day, beginning at 4:30 a.m.

Reached by telephone in Honduras, Mr. Amdani, who is chief executive of Grupo Karim’s, a textile-and-construction company based in Honduras and Mexico, said, "There’s no mystery about the mosque" but says he didn’t pay for an adjoining annex that includes a school and an apartment for the imam, and suggested the Iranian government may have helped fund that. "I wouldn’t doubt if they gave some money to help them out," he says. "I would say they must have."

On a recent visit to the mosque, a Wall Street Journal reporter was stopped by security guards at the front gate and, without explanation, was denied access to an afternoon ceremony. Why the secrecy?

 

The bottom line

While the US Department is mostly focusing on Honduras, Ortega is moving fast to cripple democracy and establish himself as president for life. This would surely have a negative effect on the region while benefitting Chavez and his allies. If Ortega remains in power, he is sure to continue supporting and encouraging the Iranian presence in his country.

What is becoming dangerous is that Nicaragua is providing a safe place where Iran can send Revolutionary Guards and move them in and around the region. It is clear that the Iranians are allowed to come and go as they wish and there is no surveillance by the Nicaraguan regime. It is not far fetched to think that the embassy and the mosque could be used to store weapons and to develop and execute plans to attack American interests. What is certain is that urgent vigilance is required.

 

Nicole M. Ferrand is the editor of "The Americas Report" of the Menges Hemispheric Security Project. She is a graduate of Columbia University in Economics and Political Science with a background in Law from Peruvian University, UNIFE and in Corporate Finance from Georgetown University.

 

NOTES

[1] Constitutional Danger in Nicaragua: Ortega Up to His Old Tricks

[2] Losing Nicaragua

[3] Ibid.

[4] In Nicaragua, Opposition Sees an End Run.

[5] Constitutional Danger in Nicaragua: Ortega Up to His Old Tricks.

[6] The Betrayal of the Sandinista Revolution

[7] Iran’s Push Into Nicaragua: Why Is No One Concerned

[8] Ibid.

Champions of democracy

"Let every nation know… that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." – John F. Kennedy, from his Inaugural Address

Tegucigalpa, Honduras– These words do not describe the foreign policy of the United States today.  They do describe a fundamental American principal that has defined us and makes us unique when we put them in to practice.  We have fought for freedom many times throughout our history. Those were times when American leadership knew who we were.  The battles for freedom in Latin America may be joined by the United States in word but not in deed.  Today’s American leadership accepts the false label of ‘imperialist’ given to us by sworn enemies of democracy.

Yet, it is the imperialist behavior of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez that is forcing a pseudo- Bolivarian, neo- Communist wave across the region.  And so, the value of improving our image has taken precedence over the principles of democracy by which we should define ourselves. 

So, who are today’s modern Champions of Freedom and Democracy?  What comes to mind when you hear that question? The first to come to my mind are the freedom fighters of the Iranian resistance.  American leadership has been too silent while the Iranian government continues to imprison, persecute, and torture its own people because they have bravely and peacefully stood up to fight for the most basic freedoms.

This week is special for Democracy and Freedom for the world because this past Sunday a small nation of smart and brave people stood on the side of Democracy against more powerful and aggressive forces.  They did it without the help of the United States.  Hondurans, like the Iranian resistance, saw that they could not count on the U. S. for help.  They would have to do it themselves, and they did.

The election of Porfirio Lobo of the Honduran National Party on Sunday, November 29 was both glorious and tragic.  From what some may debate is due to a flawed American press, there is an alarming lack of awareness of the gravity of the threat posed to democracy and U.S. and regional security by Hugo Chavez and those who align themselves with him.  With Venezuelan oil money, corruption, and the leverage of the drug cartels, democratic institutions of Latin America are being threatened.  Legislators are bought and influenced, and constitutions changed while power shifts steadily towards totalitarianism.  Venezuela is becoming Cuba. Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua follow in lock step.  They are cheered on by leaders in Argentina and now Brazil.  Panama is under pressure.  As a result of Chavez’s ideological affinity with the Iranian regime, the presence and influence of Iran continues to grow.

And so the November 29 presidential and congressional election was glorious because the Honduran people saw the writing on the wall, stood up to anti-democratic forces, and stopped Chavez at the door. 

The tragedy is that the Chavistas have been writing the narrative for the international press all along.  This great victory for democracy may go unnoticed. While the world should be cheering the Honduran election as we did the fall of the Berlin wall, international opinion continues to turn against them.  Chavez was so successful in leveraging U.S. foreign policy that the United States government, that was so carefully slow in judging the ‘elections’ in Iran, delegitimized the defenders of democracy in Honduras by labeling their actions as a ‘coup’ before they bothered to consult the State Department.  (This forced the State Department to make an embarrassing post facto argument which would not with stand public debate and will never have to due to the current state of transparency in the U.S.)  However, the Administration finally did do the right thing by supporting and recognizing the outcome of the elections.

There is a saying down here; "Chavez never loses because the fight is never over".  Honduras was, in a sense, an experiment for Chavez.  He normally buys off a chunk of the legislature to change the constitution.  This time he tried to use the executive branch to destroy the Honduran constitution.  By personally leveraging Mel Zelaya, Chavez made a succession of attempts to subvert Honduran democracy throughout Zelaya’s term.  Though traumatic for Hondurans, little of it registered in the international press until he was legally removed from the country to avert violence that was being provoked by Zelaya, himself.  The attempts of Zelaya and Chavez did not work.   However, Chavez will most likely change tactics and use the international political capital he has gained to try and make life hard for the new government. 

Honduras has a long fight ahead but they have two things going for them.  First, there is no bad blood in Honduras.  Honduras cannot be understood through the American prism of political division.  This country is united.  The perception of Zelaya representing some populist movement comparable to the FMLN or the Sandinistas is a fantasy.  This is a conservative country that rejects communism as a valid critique of capitalism. They are unique in Central America because they lack the history of a bloody civil war unlike so many of their neighbors.  And so, Chavez has duly noted that he will not be able to divide this country ideologically.

Their second asset is their combination of bravery and peacefulness.  In the months before the election foreign agents did their best to create a climate of fear.  Many, amongst the poorest of Hondurans, were exploited and paid to march in contrived rallies.  Many were promised money to protest but were not paid.  One woman I spoke to told me that a few months ago she would have been afraid to vote because of threats. 

Rumors of arms shipments coming in for the ‘Resistance’ were abounding.  A low budget graffiti campaign sent signals to those who would dare to vote.  Zelaya, himself, failed to instigate violence prior to his removal from office.  Few outside tell the story of how he led an angry mob to seize the ballots he had illegally spent government money on to hold his referendum.  Despite his best efforts, peace prevailed.  And as time passed, something happened.  The Honduran people moved on.  People stopped caring about Mel. They stopped believing his rhetoric inside Honduras.  He is no longer a political entity here even within his party.   The resistance faded.  The bravery and peacefulness of the Honduran people reigned on the 29th.  I can best describe the elections that took place here as gloriously boring and highly organized.

The struggle for democracy will continue here.  For the near future it is Hondurans who will champion democracy and freedom.  Unfortunately, many Americans may never know about this important story.

 

Nicholas Hanlon is a foreign affairs writer at the Center for Security Policy and the producer of Secure Freedom Radio with Frank Gaffney.

 

 

Humbled by the Honduran people

I had the privilege of being part of a distinguished group that traveled to Honduras to serve as an international observer for the Honduran elections that took place on November 29, 2009.

We were warmly received by our hosts, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal. (TSE) Hondurans were happy to see international observers, almost 400 strong from various nations, which came to their country to offer support for the electoral process. This was a controversial election largely de-legitimized by the international community including the European Union and the Organization of American States (OAS).   

These organizations plus numerous other countries in Latin America chose not to recognize the outcome of the elections because the voting was taking place five months after the Supreme Court and the Honduran Congress ordered the military to expel the former, President Mel Zelaya, from the country. He was removed from office amid accusations that he violated the constitution on eight accounts.

Though the military forcibly removed Zelaya and placed him on a plane to Costa Rica this was not a classical coup as the military was carrying out orders issued by the civilian government. In spite of the fact that Zelaya had violated the Honduran Constitution by calling for an illegal referendum to perpetuate himself in power and though the Congress and Supreme Court acted to protect the constitution, the removal of Zelaya was viewed by many countries as an illegal act. In calling the removal of Zelaya a coup, many have failed to recognize that the military retreated to their barracks and have had no role in governing the country since then. 

The Honduran government’s main concern about the elections was that many citizens would either abstain or simply not vote. These elections were not about who the winning candidate was going to be but about the legitimacy of the system and the constitutional continuity of the country.

We arrived two days before the election. Members of the team assigned to escort me and my teammate, Kerry Healy, former Lt. Governor of Massachusetts on Election Day, introduced themselves to us on the first night. Composed by a very nice group of young lawyers, the local team kindly placed itself at our service a day before Election Day. We gladly accepted their offer but we also expressed our desire to mingle with the crowd in Tegucigalpa and talk to the people we choose. This was no problem.

For several hours that day and on the day of the elections, we talked to ordinary people in the streets. We spoke with rich and poor, white, mestizo and African. We went to the rich neighborhoods and to the shantytowns. We talked to civilians and soldiers. We spoke with supporters of Micheletti and of Zelaya. They were a definite minority but nonetheless felt that Zelaya’s removal was like removing the people’s power. We even spoke with Zelaya’s first cousin and Zelaya’s own Defense Minister, Edmundo Orellana, who resigned from the cabinet because of his opposition to Zelaya’s constitutional reform and the ouster of the chief of the armed forces. We met Mr. Orellana at a voting center where he told us that he was voting only because this was a form of respect for Honduras’ laws. However, he told us he disagreed with the way Zelaya was ousted. According to Orellana, Zelaya should have been arrested and prosecuted but not sent into exile. 

The shantytowns we visited had no infrastructure, no electricity and no normal running water.  The first question we asked was; "have you been intimidated by anyone to vote or not to vote? Unanimously the answer was "no". Nobody was threatened one way or the other. We could also see the faces of the people on Election Day and before that, they looked mostly glad and very proud of their country’s procedures.  

As we were talking to people we asked the question; "why did you reject Zelaya knowing that his connection to Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez may have benefited poor people in the country"? The answer we received was that most probably Honduras may have become another Venezuela, a country ruled by a dictator on the one hand, and immersed in intense civil conflict and violence on the other hand.  We were astonished as to how these simple people living in one of the most underprivileged countries in the world came to a conclusion that the most educated in the first world have not yet reached.  

Following this, some explained to us that Honduras is a country largely dominated by the Catholic Church, which has encouraged peaceful attitudes and civic discourse. Thus, they claim, "It was foreign elements that wanted us to move in a direction of strife and conflict". Members of the military and law enforcement we talked to found a plethora of foreign elements involved in the resistance particularly from Venezuela and Nicaragua. A middle rank officer I spoke with, showed me an e-mail sent to him by somebody in the "Resistance" (the name given to Zelaya’s supporters) warning the officer that the Venezuelan embassy was planning some demonstrations and mutinies on Election Day. Other officers in the military also told us about the presence of Iranians in the country.

Yet, according to the police and according to what we saw with our own eyes, the intensity of the "resistance" was not very significant. Most of the opposition activity consisted of painting graffiti and of property vandalism usually carried out at night. In other words, they did not feel strong enough to act during the day.  On Election Day, we did not see any sign of "resistance" activity not even a light demonstration.

Contrary to the Government’s concerns, there was a high voter turnout of 62%, which was higher than in 2005 with voter participation at 46%. Hondurans wanted to restore democracy and repudiated Chavez’s puppet, Manuel Zelaya. The "resistance" was weakened not by police repression but by the fact that it remained isolated under the overwhelming force of the people’s will.  There was no intimidation either by the government or by the opposition.

I am still amazed how this small country where the US Ambassador enjoys almost the status of a second president gave a lesson to the world. Honduras stopped Chavism with a pacific attitude. Chavismo was rejected by the good instincts of the Honduran people.

Whereas the military and other government functionaries in Venezuela allowed Hugo Chavez to bribe them; while some members of the opposition in Venezuela continue supporting an institutional setting that no longer serves them or the people; and; where many "good people" in Latin America have been co-opted by Bolivarian "easy money", and false promises, Hondurans rejected the imperial human corruption of Chavez.

What motivated the poor and simple Hondurans to reject this? It is my conclusion that it was a high degree of moral clarity, a moral clarity that is not shared either by OAS President, Jose Miguel Insulza, Brazilian President, Lula Da Silva, Argentinean President, Cristina Kirchner, and Spanish Prime Minister, Rodriguez Zapatero. 

By far my role as an election observer in Honduras on Thanksgiving Weekend was one of the most humbling experiences I ever had. Events in Honduras helped to open a debate that has been non-existent in over a decade of Chavez’s rule.  For academics, foreign policy experts and decision makers, Latin America is currently offering a model without precedent in history. Indeed, in the continent there are dictatorships that are born as outcomes of democratic practices and there are "coups" that counteract authoritarian practices.  In Honduras, Chavism was stopped. As a result, Honduras could be called the political Stalingrad of Latin America.   The Honduran people are unique. They deserve our utmost respect for displaying high morals and for having played an exceptional role in history.  

 

Luis Fleischman, senior advisor to Menges Security Project at the Center for Security Policy. He served as an international observer during the last Honduras general elections.

A Chavista in Uruguay?

As in Honduras, Uruguayans will go to the polls to elect a new president on Sunday November 29th. The most likely candidate to win the elections is Jose Mujica, a leader of the former guerilla movement "Tupamaros" and a likely ally of Hugo Chavez. However, before reaching conclusions, it is important to understand the characteristics of this small country in order to evaluate the situation correctly. 

Uruguay is a small country sitting as a buffer between Argentina and Brazil.In later times, Uruguay evolved differently than neighboring Argentina. While in Argentina, Peron ruled undemocratically, Uruguay maintained a vibrant democracy, which continued until its collapse in 1973. Uruguay also established a benevolent state early in the 20th century aimed at preventing class conflict by redistributing goods and providing employment. The state later expanded its economic activities by creating their own companies.

Thus, state bureaucracy grew under the multi-tasking role of the government as an entrepreneur and an employer.  Political democracy and social welfare led to Uruguay becoming known as the ‘Switzerland of South America.’

Later, as the economy began to collapse and the state was unable to deliver the goods, discontent also grew. Left wing and guerilla activism led to an increasing militarization of government.  Thus, from 1973 until 1985 Uruguay was ruled by a rigid military dictatorship that forced thousands into prison and exile. However, since 1985 it has evolved into a steady and stable democracy despite serious times of economic hardship. Contrary to Argentina, the political discourse in Uruguay is polite and political campaigns take place respectfully and uneventfully.

Uruguay has been ruled for most of its existence by two traditional parties: the Blanco and the Colorado. Then in 2004, a new political force called the Frente Amplio (Broad Front) won the presidential election under the leadership of Tabaré Vazquez, an accomplished oncologist and a former Mayor of Montevideo. 

 

The Government of the Broad Front (FA)

The Frente Amplio (FA) is a coalition of factions, which include socialists, the former "Tupamaro" guerilla movement, Communists, Christian democrats, and others.  The party’s rise to power came at a time of high economic turmoil.  As a result of the 1999 Brazilian economic crisis and later as a result of the collapse of the Argentinean economy in 2001 and the overall deterioration of the global markets, Uruguay faced one of the worst crises in its history. Argentina and Brazil constitute close to 50% of Uruguay’s foreign trade and 90% of its tourism industry. In addition, the devaluation of both countries’ currency significantly diminished the ability of Uruguayan products to compete in the world market. 

The government of the FA was generally not radical. Despite the introduction of some social programs for the poor, the restoration of collective bargaining, and tax increases, the FA government, unlike the government of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia did not undergo a process of radicalization. Except for tax policy, the capitalistic system itself remained intact. Foreign investment was encouraged and the democratic rules of the game were fully respected.

 

The Relation to Chavez and the United States

As with other countries in the region, Hugo Chavez also tried to expand his influence in Uruguay. He helped in the recovery of factories that either closed down or entered a situation of near bankruptcy. Most of these factories converted into coops or factories that were owned and managed by the workers themselves. Venezuela also signed a number of agreements with Uruguay, which strengthened ties between the two countries in energy, agriculture, housing, mining and commerce. Following these agreements, trade between the two countries quadrupled. Uruguay also joined Telesur, a South American TV network modeled after Al Jazeera.  This network was created by Venezuela in conjunction with Cuba, Argentina and Uruguay with the purpose of expanding ideas aimed at counteracting the cultural influence of the U.S.

Despite the traditional anti-imperialism of the FA, the FA government also pursued trade with the United States in order to market Uruguayan products. The U.S. continues to be Uruguay’s largest trading partner as the former imports $1.8 billion in goods from the latter. In spite of this, there were anti-American protests at the time of President George W. Bush’s visit to Uruguay that Chavez helped to organize.

An attempt to sign a free trade agreement between the two countries was supported mainly by Finance Minister, Danilo Astori. However, opposition within the party aborted such attempts, as the discussion remained purely ideological and unrelated to the economic benefits such an agreement might bring.  Yet, economic growth and stability have made the Vazquez government into the most popular in modern Uruguayan history.

However, like every moderate left government in Latin America, the FA government was not free of ambiguities. On the one hand, it did not fall under the petro-spell of Mr. Chavez despite the fact that Uruguay is totally dependent on foreign oil.  On the other hand, it is under this government that Iran established an embassy in Montevideo encouraged by the Uruguayan Vice-President. Apparently, he wanted to expand and strengthen relations with the Iranian government with no reflection on its terrorist nature.

Coincidentally, it was also during the years 2005 to 2008 that 141 Iranian citizens entered Uruguay. Uruguayan intelligence estimates that many of these Iranians might have been seeking refuge in Uruguay because of escaping from other countries where they may have been sought by law enforcement.  Likewise, intelligence sources reported that two Iranians tried to enter the facilities of the largest electrical plant in the country on the day the Israeli Ambassador visited the building. The Police did not arrest suspects. However, the presence of Iranians in the country is definitely problematic as they might be involved in terrorist or drug trafficking activities. That there is now an Iranian Embassy in the country, welcomed by the FA government, is part of Iran’s expansion in Latin America, which they could use to promote terrorist and drug, related activities.      

 

The 2009 Elections 

The winner of the Uruguayan presidential elections on October 25, 2009 was Jose Mujica, a candidate for the FA. However, Mujica received a little more than 47% of the vote.  Therefore, there will be a run-off that will take place on November 29th. The second candidate is Luis Lacalle who in the October elections received a little over 28% of the votes. It is assumed that Mujica will be the winning candidate in the run-off. 

Jose Mujica is the leader of "Tupamaros" a former guerilla movement that morphed into a political faction within the FA.  The "Tupamaros" is a movement initially influenced by the Cuban revolution and Guevarismo, which sought to achieve socialism through armed struggle. However, contrary to the Argentinean "Montoneros", they were considerably less violent. Yet, they caused sufficient concern as to generate a strong reaction that transformed Uruguay into an authoritarian regime. During the military dictatorship Mujica was imprisoned for almost 15 years under the threat of execution if the Tupamaros were to resume their guerilla activities. The Tupamaros joined the electoral process after democracy was restored in 1985 and currently constitute the majority sector of the FA.  Mujica might well be the first guerilla leader to become President after Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega. During the Vazquez government he was minister of Livestock and Agriculture.

Mujica is perceived as a more radical candidate. Mujica’s electoral campaign was aimed at calming the fears of the center-left. He stated that he supports a reformist and not revolutionary policy following the model of Brazilian President, Luis Inazio Lula Da Silva. He promised to continue the work of his predecessor including the continuation of foreign investments and appointed pro-American former Finance Minister, Danilo Astori as his vice-presidential candidate. He stated that negotiation is always the path to follow to solve conflicts and sees the private sector as a producer of goods.  He claims that he regrets having been involved in violence in the past even though such violence "was justified". 

However, there are several problems to be taken seriously.  Mujica has stated, with admiration, that Chavez has had very successful social programs. By the same token, he abstained from commenting on Chavez’ violations of democratic rules and liberties. Mujica described Chavez’s Venezuela as "a great country" ("país de locura") and stated that he has good feelings for Chavez.   He also promised to deepen relations with Chavez because Uruguay is heavily dependent on foreign oil and Venezuela needs Uruguayan milk.

Most importantly, the "Tupamaros" is a member of the Congreso Bolivariano de los Pueblos, an umbrella organization run by Chavez to reach out to different parties, social movements and grassroots organizations across the continent whose purpose is to spread Chavez’s Bolivarian message.  Furthermore, Mujica spoke about the possibility of a constitutional reform to deal with changes in private and land property. Mujica did not specify much but if the idea is to get advice from Chavez, we may well face an authoritarian situation in Uruguay as has been happening in Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua. 

Likewise, during the electoral campaign, reports emerged about possible funding coming from Venezuela for Mujica.  According to these reports, books were sold to Venezuela for $32 million. The sale was made through a company owned by a family member of Mujica’s wife. Suspicions arose because the value of the sale has been estimated to be no more than $500,000, namely 60 times less than the amount received from Venezuela.   There are reasons to believe that the company served as a vehicle to funnel money from Chavez to Mujica. 

 

Some Reflections 

Whether Mujica will join Venezuela and the Chavista countries of Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua is an extremely important question. However, Mujica seems to be a man of many contradictions and, therefore, raises concerns. Has his talk about continuity been a strategic devise to appeal to moderates while fully intending to pursue radical policies once he assumes office?  Is the appointment of Danilo Astori a public relations mask, which may place Astori as a figurehead just as Daniel Ortega did with his non-Sandinista vice president in Nicaragua?

However, what is more worrisome is his suspected closeness to Hugo Chavez. Mujica may well deserve the benefit of the doubt but his government needs to be monitored. An alliance with Chavez is eventually another curse for the continent as it is likely to be followed by undemocratic practices and an Iranian penetration, this time giving Iran a new strategic position in a country located relatively far away from Venezuela. Yet, Uruguay has a solid democratic tradition and vibrant civil society, which may offer resistance to the Chavisation of the country.

In that case, Mujica could act as the Kirchners have in Argentina. It could be that Mujica will be part of Chavez’s sphere of influence without formally being part of ALBA or any other formal Chavista group.

Under Mujica, there might be an expansion of offices of the Bolivarian circles and of ALBA. Likewise, it might be easier for Iran to increase its presence in Uruguay. The Iranian Embassy will have more freedom to act and consequently there will be greater potential for an increase in terrorist and/or criminal activity. Likewise, Uruguay’s well-known secrecy banking laws might be used by Iran to avoid international sanctions.

There have also been reports of Bolivian coca producers using Uruguayan ports to export drugs. Uruguay offered Bolivia use of its ports and President Vazquez has also supported the elimination of the prohibition of consumption of the coca leaf.  It is likely that Mujica will deepen this path and thus some problematic activities might expand. If Uruguayan ports become centers of drug shipment it will represent a serious problem for the United States.  

Washington should never underestimate this tiny country and certainly must not fall asleep.     

 

Luis Fleischman is Senior Advisor for the Menges Hemispheric Security Project at the Center for Security Policy in Washington D.C.