Tag Archives: Venezuela

Obama’s big UN adventure

President Obama’s upcoming visit to the 64th UN General Assembly, which opened yesterday, will be nothing if not entertaining. Substantively, Obama should be delighted. A confluence of recent events has brought to fruition his campaign promises to launch diplomacy with our adversaries: Negotiations without preconditions are blooming everywhere.

Whether these negotiations will benefit the United States is, of course, a different question. Nonetheless, Obama’s UN appearances will showcase that he now unambiguously "owns" (as he likes to say) our foreign policy.

The President’s speech to the General Assembly a week from today is his first major UN public event, and we can predict he will receive a rapturous reception. This was not true for President George W. Bush, who described his annual UN remarks as a "visit to the wax museum" because of the audience’s unenthusiastic response.

And why should we not expect a visible demonstration of Obamamania at the UN? He is giving them pretty much what they ask for, as did President Bill Clinton.

As Obama speaks, the General Assembly will be chaired by former Libyan Foreign Minister Ali Abdessalam Triki, who was elected president of that body yesterday. Libyan leader Moammar Khadafy himself addresses the General Assembly right after Obama, and they will certainly have a chance to speak together in the cozy waiting area just behind the General Assembly podium. This would be an excellent opportunity to discuss the health of recently released mass murderer Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, convicted of destroying Pan Am Flight 103 and killing 270 people, including 189 Americans, and now free in Tripoli, Libya.

Even if their paths don’t cross then, Khadafy will be only a few seats away from Obama at the Security Council table on Sept. 24, when the President chairs a meeting on nonproliferation and disarmament. Khadafy can easily walk over to Obama and present him, a la Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, with a copy of the "Green Book," Khadafy’s 1975 best seller (in Libya at least). They will certainly have a chance at the Security Council to muse about eliminating the U.S. and Israeli nuclear stockpiles, always popular subjects at the UN.

There is no word yet whether Khadafy is invited to our President’s traditional reception for heads of state and government. But certainly, now that the U.S. has accepted Iran’s offer for open-ended diplomacy with the Security Council’s five permanent members (and also Germany), there is no reason why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should not be on the guestlist.

Perhaps he and Obama can have a photo together as Ahmadinejad goes through the receiving line and begin those direct, unconditional talks that Obama promised during the 2008 campaign. Ahmadinejad might well offer a few thoughts on his overwhelming presidential reelection victory on June 12, and his techniques for handling partisan opposition. Even if Ahmadinejad’s invitation gets lost in the mail, there are still photo opportunities in abundance, perhaps at the UN secretary general’s annual luncheon for visiting heads of state.

North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il is unlikely to attend the opening festivities, because, due to unfortunate "technicalities," his country is still at war with the UN, and has been since it invaded South Korea in 1950. Nonetheless, the Obama administration has enthusiastically embraced negotiations with Pyongyang over its nuclear weapons program, so perhaps Kim can be persuaded to come next year for a proper presidential photo.

With so many opportunities for a handshake and a big hug with authoritarian leaders, so many compromises and concessions to make and so much adulation to receive, it will be a busy time for the President.

One interesting question, especially for New Yorkers: Will Secretary of State Clinton be with Obama at all the key meetings, public and private, or will she be hard at work at her desk in Washington?

 

John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad."

Delahunts Banana ‘Slip’

On September 4, 2009 on PBS’s Newshour with Jim Lehrer, US Rep – D. William Delahunt (member of the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs) from Massachusetts’s 10th District and U.S. Rep. – R. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida debated U.S. policy towards Honduras. During the discussion, Delahunt referred to Honduras as a "banana republic" adding that it was ruled by an "economic elite" that is unattached from the real needs of the population. 

"Banana republic" is a pejorative term for a country that is politically unstable, dependent on limited agriculture and ruled by a small, self-elected, wealthy, corrupt clique and uneducated and subservient populations. Clearly this is not the case of Honduras or any Latin American country.

Honduras is a representative democracy, where the President is both head of state and head of government. The government is in charge of the Executive and the Judiciary is completely independent of the executive and the legislative branches. The current constitution dates back to 1987. In fact, the legislative, executive and judicial powers are so well respected in Honduras that when President Manuel Zelaya wanted to illegally change the constitution to extend his term in office, these two branches conformed by sympathizers and opponents of Mr. Zelaya, acted independently and in accordance to the law declaring that this move was illegal.

Congressman Delahunt appears to have a misunderstanding about the events that took place in Honduras. It is incredibly clear that Manuel Zelaya, following Hugo Chavez’s plan, violated the law, which expressly states in Article 239 that any president who seeks to amend the constitution and extend his term in office is automatically disqualified and is no longer president. The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that Mr. Zelaya was attempting to extend his term with an illegal referendum. Thus, at the time of his arrest he knew, as well as everybody else, that he was no longer-as a matter of law, as far as the Supreme Court was concerned-president of Honduras. The Honduran leadership removed Zelaya because it was in accordance with the rule of law and the overwhelming majority of the population backed this decision.

But the problem doesn’t end there. It is quite disturbing to see the approach of the Obama Administration towards Honduras, which has decided to punish the Honduran people by declaring that they won’t recognize the election that’s going to take place in late November. In addition, the US government has suspended all military aid and has just withdrawn $30 million of foreign aid.

Is it so difficult for some to understand that Zelaya broke the law and that the decision taken by the Honduran leadership was the correct and lawful one? Why the insistence on restoring a president that violated the rule of law and the Constitution in many instances and who’s intent was to destabilize Honduras in order to instill a Chavista regime? Why do Mr. Delahunt and the Obama Administration so blindly side with the dictatorial ambitions of Manuel Zelaya, Hugo Chavez and their plans for a Latin American Bolivarian Revolution? This is clearly not what the Honduran people want.

Current President Roberto Micheletti succeeded Mr. Zelaya under the Honduran constitution’s order of succession (the vice president had resigned before all of this began so that he could run for president). This is and has always been an entirely civilian government. The military was ordered by an entirely civilian Supreme Court to arrest Mr. Zelaya. His removal was ordered by an entirely civilian and elected Congress. To suggest that Mr. Zelaya was ousted by means of a military coup is not true.

It is important to keep in mind that Delahunt’s point of view might be somewhat biased since in November, 2005, the Representative together with Joseph P. Kennedy II from Citizens Energy Corp. met with Venezuelan Hugo Chavez and engineered a deal in which Venezuela would supply winter home heating oil at a 40 percent price reduction to thousands of low-income Massachusetts residents. The deal was carried out via the Venezuelan owned CITGO, bringing accusations that Delahunt was assisting an anti-American leader. Maybe Delahunt had the best intentions to help the people in his state, but he must know better than to be used for the propagandistic agenda of anti- American Hugo Chavez.

With these statements, Mr. Delahunt demonstrates that he lacks understanding of Latin American politics, especially Honduras, and shows contempt for a loyal ally of the United States. Such labels are degrading to all Latin Americans and for this, he owes an apology.

 

Nicole M. Ferrand is a research analyst and 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.

Cuban Intelligence Operations in the US

Since Fidel Castro took over Cuba in 1959, one of the government’s top priorities has been to spy on the United States. Since Cuba is a small country with serious economic problems, most Americans would not assume that Cuba has a wide ranging spy network in place that in effect presents a threat to U.S. national security. Two recent cases of Americans spying for Cuba demonstrate the depth and effectiveness of their efforts. 

In the first place, Cuban spies are quite numerous in the United States. Christopher Simmons, a former counterintelligence analyst with expertise in Cuban intelligence operations, believes that Cuba has approximately 250 agents operating in the United States. [1] This includes six to nine senior agents in the U.S. government, a dozen in academia, 30-36 under diplomatic cover at Cuban missions, and approximately 135 observing Cuban-Americans in Florida. [2] There have been several high-profile cases of Cuban infiltration at top levels of the United States government. 

Most recently was the case of Walter and Gwendolyn Myers, a former State Department official and his wife who were discovered to have spied for Cuba for over thirty years. [3]According to the Justice Department Press Release,

Kendall Myers traveled to Cuba in December 1978 after receiving an invitation from an official who served at the Cuban Mission to the United States in New York City. His guide while in Cuba was an official with Cuba’s Foreign Service Institute. This trip provided the Cuban Intelligence Service (CuIS) with the opportunity to assess or develop Myers as a Cuban agent, according to the affidavit.

Approximately six months after the trip, the Myers were visited in South Dakota by the official from the Cuban Mission in New York and, according to the affidavit; Kendall and Gwendolyn Myers agreed to serve as clandestine agents of the Cuban government. Afterwards, the CuIS directed Kendall Myers to pursue a job at either the State Department or the CIA. Kendall Myers, accompanied by his wife, then returned to Washington, D.C., where he resumed contract work at the State Department and later obtained a State Department position that required a Top Secret security clearance."

According to the affidavit, during this time frame, the CuIS often communicated with its clandestine agents in the United States by broadcasting encrypted radio messages from Cuba on shortwave radio frequencies. Clandestine agents in the United States monitoring the frequency on shortwave radio could decode the messages using a decryption program provided by the CuIS. Such methods were employed by defendants previously convicted of espionage on behalf of Cuba. According to the affidavit, the Myers had an operable shortwave radio in their apartment and they told an FBI source that they used it to receive messages from the CuIS." [4]

Furthermore,

The Myers also discussed how they had passed information to CuIS agents, with both agreeing that the most secure way was "hand-to-hand." According to the affidavit, Gwendolyn Myers said her favorite way of passing information to CuIS agents involved the changing of shopping carts in a grocery store because it was "easy enough to do." According to the affidavit, Kendall Myers told the source that he typically removed information from the State Department by memory or by taking notes, although he did occasionally take some documents home. "I was always pretty careful. I didn’t usually take documents out," he said. According to the affidavit, he also acknowledged delivering information to the CuIS that was classified beyond the "Secret" level. He further stated that he had received "lots of medals" from the Cuban government and that he and his wife had met and spent an evening with Fidel Castro in 1995.

According to the affidavit, the FBI collects high frequency messages broadcast by the CuIS to its agents and has identified messages that it determined were broadcast to a handler of Kendall and Gwendolyn Myers. Furthermore, the FBI has confirmed trips by the couple to Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador and Jamaica that correspond to statements made by the defendants. In addition, the FBI has identified emails to the couple in 2008 and 2009 from a suspected representative of the CuIS in Mexico who was allegedly requesting that the couple travel to Mexico.

The affidavit states that an analysis of Kendall Myers’ classified State Department computer hard drive revealed that, from August 22, 2006, until his retirement on Oct. 31, 2007, he viewed more than 200 sensitive or classified intelligence reports concerning the subject of Cuba, while employed as an INR senior analyst for Europe. Of these reports concerning Cuba, the majority were classified and marked Secret or Top Secret.  An FBI review of Kendall Myers’ State Department security files further revealed numerous false statements by him to conceal the couple’s clandestine activities on behalf of the CuIS.

According to the affidavit, neither Kendall Myers nor Gwendolyn Myers ever provided notification to the Attorney General that either of them was acting as an agent of a foreign government, as required by law.

Finally, the affidavit alleges that Kendall Myers engaged in a scheme to defraud the State Department and the United States by means of false pretenses and caused the U.S. government to lose property, specifically money in the form of salary payments. By not disclosing his clandestine activity on behalf of the CuIS and by making false statements to the State Department about his status, Kendall Myers allegedly defrauded the State Department whenever he received his government salary. Gwendolyn Myers is also criminally liable for this alleged wire fraud scheme." [5]

Hence, the Myers not only caused a loss of property to the United States government, but also passed to the Cubans documents that were clearly considered top secret, and were well beyond the "secret" level, which dealt with Cuba as pertaining to American national security. Their motives appear to have been somewhat political, as Kendall Myers in 1978 wrote an article criticizing American imperialism and called Castro a great "leader of our time." [6] Kendall and Gwendolyn Myers are now standing trial.

Another famous case was that of Ana Montes, a Defense Intelligence Agency official who was discovered to have spied for Cuba for over sixteen years. [7] Although many details of her recruitment remain ambiguous, it was stated by her lawyer that she received no compensation for her efforts, and it is known that she had had one of the highest security clearances at the Defense Intelligence Agency. [8] She is believed to have handed the Cuban secret police numerous documents, including the identity of American secret agents operating in Cuba, information considered "Top Secret". Then in 1996, Montes was given a special computer program that would aid her in the encryption and decryption of messages. [9] Even more frightening is the fact that she was a frequent observer of American military exercises in Virginia, and likely would have been able to pass American military secrets to Cuba as well. [10] Also disconcerting is the fact that, as previously mentioned, she was doing these things for no pay, and even refused promotions in order to continue doing so. [11] Her motives were not financial, but instead appear to have been mainly political, as she stated that she believed Castro was being unfairly demonized by the United States, and she believed working for Cuba to be a noble cause. She is currently serving a 25-year sentence. If the Cubans were capable of making an ideologue out of a high-ranking intelligence officer such as Montes, it is likely that they are capable of doing so with others. There have been several such cases since the 1960s, in which Cuban intelligence managed infiltration of the United States government. 

Cuban intelligence is also active in trying to recruit individuals from American universities. They especially make an effort to recruit agents at schools in close proximity to Washington and New York and typically would try to infiltrate campuses such as New York University, Hunter College, American University, Georgetown, Florida International (significant Cuban-American presence), Barry University, Miami University, Harvard, Yale, Berkeley, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania. [12] Moreover, Cuba has a very specific and efficient system of recruiting, or talent spotting, as it has been called.

The process has been detailed by Jose Cohen, a former Cuban intelligence officer who defected to the United States. A Cuban agent would begin contact with someone they believe could be an asset to Cuba, whom they would call a studied person. [13] If they deem this person to have sufficient vulnerability, they will further investigate the person, who then becomes a person of interest. [14] If they sense that the person of interest has a true ideological commitment to Cuban interests, they become known as a candidate, and they will then move on to put them to work at one of three levels. [15] The first level is that of a useful link, in which the person is unaware of ties to Cuban intelligence, and they supply only minimal information. [16] The second is known as a relation of confidence, wherein the person is aware, but their contact is sporadic, and they only know some secrets. [17] The third level is that of agent, which requires special training, and allows for access to high-level secrets. [18]

It is quite evident that Cuban intelligence is extremely organized and sophisticated, and does not function like that of a typical isolated third-world rogue state. Cuba not only gathers top-secret information for its own use but sells the intelligence collected in the United States to potential American adversaries, most notably Russia, China, and Iran, according to Christopher Simmons. [19] For example, in 1999, Cuba and China signed an agreement allowing Communist China to establish signal intelligence stations in Cuba, which serve the purpose of monitoring American satellites, telecommunications, and computer data. [20] Similarly, Russia, between 1994 and 1997, constructed and used an electronic spy station at Bejucal, Cuba, and even though it no longer operates, Russia continues to consider Cuba a "key" partner in Latin America.

Cuba is more than a regional menace. It is a despotic Marxist state which seeks to create a like-minded network in Latin America and provide intelligence and logistical support to America’s adversaries. It has formed a convenient alliance with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and with radical Islam due to a shared hatred of the United States. Cuba is also a co-founder and promoter of the Forum of Sao Paulo, an organization originally intended to counter the OAS (Organization of American States) and the United States and includes amongst its members a number of terrorist organizations. Thus, in considering changes in U.S. – Cuban relations such as lifting the embargo, it is important for policy makers in the United States to understand the many ways Cuba works against our national security interests.

 

Jordan Everett has been an intern at the Center for Security Policy.

 

 NOTES

[1] Juan Tamayo, Revistas de Asignaturas Cubanas, June 6, 2009

[2] Ibid

[3] Toby Westerman, International Affairs, June 20, 2009

[4] Justice Department Press Release, June 5, 2009

[5] Ibid

[6] http://cicentre.com/spycase/MYERS_Walter_Kendall_and_Gwendolyn_Steingraber.html

[7] Andrew Richards, Washington Times, October 26, 2007

[8] Ronald Radosh, Front Page Magazine, "Castro’s Top Spy," March 29, 2002

[9] Ibid

[10] Ibid

[11] Ibid

[12] Jose Cohen, ICCAS Serie de Mongrafias, January 2002

[13] Ibid

[14] Ibid

[15] Ibid

[16] Ibid

[17] Ibid

[18] Ibid

[19] Andrew Richards, Washington Times, October 26, 2007

[20] Manuel Cereijo, La Nueva Cuba, October 9, 2006

Snakes in the grass

The Florida Everglades are reeling from an explosion in the number of deadly Burmese pythons.  By some estimates, there may be as many as 140,000 of them slithering around in a place they don’t belong.  These particular snakes are believed to have gotten their start in the Everglades through the well-intentioned, but ill-considered, action of a few Americans who thought they were doing the humane thing by turning their pet pythons loose in the swampy wilderness.

This story of the Burmese pythons seems like an appropriate metaphor for our time.  After all, another sort of snake in the grass from Burma is currently making its presence known on the world stage for the first time in years, thanks to the Obama administration and its emissary in fact, if not in name: U.S. Senator Jim Webb of Virginia.  The motivating good intentions notwithstanding, our global neighborhood is about to get considerably more dangerous.

Over the weekend, Sen. Webb paid court to Than Shwe, the senior general in the brutally repressive junta that has misruled Burma (which it renamed Myanmar) since 1962.  The visitor was rewarded for "engaging" with this pariah regime by securing the release of an ailing American hostage, John Yettaw.  The Burmese arrested Yettaw – a reportedly mentally unstable Vietnam veteran – after he swam across a lake in Rangoon to visit democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi, thereby violating the terms of the house arrest to which the latter has been subjected for over 14 years.

Although the junta apparently dismissed out of hand Sen. Webb’s suggestion that Suu Kyi be released, he was afforded an opportunity to pay her a brief visit.  Their conversation occurred shortly after the dissident learned of her punishment for Yettaw’s infraction: a further eighteen months in confinement.  That will be sufficient time to keep Burma’s leading opposition figure out of the so-called "elections" the autocrats have called for next year.

Unfortunately, Sen. Webb’s diplomacy appears to be part of a pattern being established under the Obama administration.   If you are a rogue regime and seize an American, chances are good you can arrange to have a high-level contact with a senior U.S. interlocutor.  Through the latter’s good offices, you can begin the process of "engaging" with the United States on your terms – or, as Candidate Obama famously put it, "without preconditions."

Give Sen. Webb credit for coupling his kow-tow to the Burmese despots with at least a nod to their opposition.  By contrast, during Bill Clinton’s recent visit to Pyongyang, the former president made no such public show of solidarity with the millions enslaved by Kim Jong-Il in North Korea.  Instead, he spent three hours hobnobbing with one of the planet’s most odious dictators, then departed with the two American reporters previously captured by Kim’s regime.  In both cases, however, the way now seems clear for "progress" to be made in normalizing relations with these snakes in the grass.

We must expect any day now a similar opportunity to present itself with the Islamic Republic of Iran.  It has recently taken not one, not two, but three Americans hostage.  The mullahs could be forgiven for thinking they are entitled to have a senior U.S. official (past or present) turn up in Tehran, holding out the prospect of better relations and promising to take back to Washington any demands the Iranian regime might convey.

Given Team Obama’s supine behavior in the face of deliberate and demeaning provocations by the North Korean and Burmese regimes, what it calls "the elected president of Iran" – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – will doubtless seek to add to the ignominy of American diplomatic approaches aimed at freeing the latest American captives, fostering improved ties, ending the Iranian nuclear program, etc.

Which of the other rogue state snakes in the grass will be the next to pull this maneuver?  Will it be Syria (already being romanced by Special Envoy George Mitchell)?  How about Venezuela? Or maybe Cuba?

The trouble, as Henry Kissinger recently observed in a Washington Post op.ed. following Bill Clinton’s foray in Pyongyang, is that this process makes every American a potential hostage.  The former Secretary of State wrote:

"It is inherent in hostage situations that potentially heartbreaking human conditions are used to overwhelm policy judgments. Therein lies the bargaining strength of the hostage-taker. On the other hand, at any given moment, several million Americans reside or travel abroad. How are they best protected? Is the lesson of this episode that any ruthless group or government can demand a symbolic meeting with a senior American by seizing hostages or threatening inhuman treatment for prisoners in their hand? If it should be said that North Korea is a special case because of its nuclear capability, does that create new incentives for proliferation?"

The truth of the matter is that the Obama administration – by facilitating if not actively encouraging the Clinton and Webb missions – has indeed invited more hostage-taking.  And, as Dr. Kissinger surmises, it has also created new incentives for nuclear proliferation by establishing that nobody trifles with those who have such weapons (or are about to get them).  It is no coincidence that the next snake in the grass to go nuclear with North Korea’s help may well be Burmese.

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated Secure Freedom Radio show.

What’s wrong with Insulza and the OAS

This is the second of two articles on the situation in Honduras and how it relates to OAS Secretary General, José Miguel Insulza. The first one is here.

What really happened in Honduras?

Mr. Zelaya was going to conduct a referendum on June 28th 2009 that he (the executive branch) had total control over: his plan was to execute it, tally the results, and announce them to the country. There were to be no independent observers, and no controls to ensure honesty. To this end, Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez supplied Zelaya with advisors and logistical support.

The ballots came from Venezuela on Chavez’s plane and the "YES" side was definitely going to win regardless of how Hondurans truly voted. Zelaya would "call a constituent assembly," and that very night (Sunday, June 28) as soon as the results "came in" he was going to call the constituent assembly, dissolving the Supreme Court, National Congress, and any other institutions he deemed necessary. The scheduled November General Elections would have been postponed if not canceled.

He was then going to form a "constituent assembly" composed of his supporters, and basically have a blank check to rewrite the Honduran constitution to his and Hugo Chavez’s liking.

Meanwhile, the Honduran Supreme Court, by a 15-0 vote, found that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally by proceeding with an unconstitutional "referendum," and it ordered the Armed Forces to arrest him. The military executed the arrest order of the Supreme Court because it was the appropriate agency to do so under Honduran law. 

Eight of the fifteen votes on the Supreme Court were cast by members of Mr. Zelaya’s own Liberal Party. Thus, Mr. Zelaya’s arrest was at the instigation of Honduran constitutional and civilian authorities-not the military.

The Honduran Congress voted overwhelmingly in support of removing Mr. Zelaya. The vote included a majority of members of Mr. Zelaya’s Liberal Party.

Independent government and religious leaders and institutions-including the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Administrative Law Tribunal, the independent Human Rights Ombudsman, four-out-of-five political parties, the two major presidential candidates of the Liberal and National Parties, and Honduras’s Catholic Cardinal-all agreed that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally.

The constitution expressly states in Article 239 that any president who seeks to amend the constitution and extend his term is automatically disqualified and is no longer president. The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision affirmed that Mr. Zelaya was attempting to extend his term with his illegal referendum. Thus, at the time of his arrest he was no longer-as a matter of law, as far as the Supreme Court was concerned-president of Honduras.

Days before his arrest, Mr. Zelaya had his chief of staff illegally withdraw millions of dollars (allegedly $40 million) in cash from the Central Bank of Honduras.

A day or so before his arrest, Mr. Zelaya led a violent mob to overrun an Air Force base to seize referendum ballots that had been shipped into Honduras by Hugo Chávez’s Venezuelan government.

Roberto Micheletti succeeded Mr. Zelaya under the Honduran constitution’s order of succession (the vice president had resigned before all of this began so that he could run for president). This is and has always been an entirely civilian government. The military was ordered by an entirely civilian Supreme Court to arrest Mr. Zelaya. His removal was ordered by an entirely civilian and elected Congress. To suggest that Mr. Zelaya was ousted by means of a military coup is demonstrably false.

Perhaps reasonable people could disagree about the decision to expel Mr. Zelaya from the country the evening of June 28 without a trial, and that this particular action could have been handled differently. But it is also necessary to understand the decision in the context of genuine fear of Mr. Zelaya’s proven willingness to violate the law and to engage in mob-led violence.

Instead of launching immediate consultations between the two sides to reduce the prospects for violence and seek some common ground and resolution of differences, the OAS chose confrontation and ultimatums by declaring on July 1 that if Zelaya was not reinstated within three days, Honduras would be expelled from the OAS. The Honduran interim government beat the OAS and quit first. It is worth noting that if the Honduran Constitution was good enough to allow Honduras to be a member of the OAS in the first place, even with its strict prohibition of multiple presidential terms, then it cannot be un-constitutional to remove Zelaya because he repeatedly violated it.

At Chávez’s request, Insulza went to Nicaragua, where a summit of the anti-democratic ALBA group became the hemisphere’s political center of gravity after the coup. Insulza and other populist presidents said nothing about Zelaya’s dictatorial conduct leading up to Sunday’s events.

On July 5, Zelaya tried to fly back to the country. As the plane Chavez had provided from CITGO was nearing Tegucigalpa, the ousted president broadcast that "the blood of Christ is coursing through my veins" and "soon I will be with you all to raise the crucifix." The Honduran government blocked the airport runways, so Zelaya flew dramatically into El Salvador to join Insulza and several Chavista presidents.

Twice, since then, Zelaya has illegally entered Honduras through Nicaragua, increasing the prospects for violence and unrest to further destabilize his nation. For this, he has been widely criticized by the United States.

Zelaya wanted to follow in Chavez’s footsteps by using the law to break the law and become President for life. Incredibly, Insulza decided to openly side with the dictator in the making, even though the Honduran Congress and the Supreme Court respected independent democratic institutions. The majority of the Honduran population supports the ousting of Zelaya because they understand that their country and their future were at risk. In spite of this, Insulza and his band of followers at the OAS, under the influence of Hugo Chavez, want to reinstate Zelaya at all costs. But why?

Who Exactly is Jose Miguel Insulza?

Insulza was born on June 2nd, 1943 and is a Chilean politician and member of the Chilean Socialist Party, and a founding member of the São Paulo Forum. After Augusto Pinochet became President of Chile, Insulza went into exile for 15 years, first in Rome (1974-1980) and after that in Mexico (1981-1988).

He has occupied many official positions under Presidents Patricio Aylwin, Eduardo Frei and Ricardo Lagos. Insulza faced constant fire during his time as Chile’s minister of interior, a position he held during Lagos’ regime, beginning in the year 2000 when he threatened to have a fist-fight with Chilean Deputy Jaime Naranjo, who protested the inefficiency of the police investigation of former Nazi and alleged child molester, Paul Schaeffer, leader of the Colonia Dignidad. The Chilean Carabineros (the national police), who served under Insulza’s command, were involved in the November 2002 death of mapuche worker Alex Lemún in Temuco in a protest between mapuches and timber companies. The case remains open.

Insulza was elected on May 28, 2005 as Secretary General of the OAS following the withdrawal from the race of Mexico’s Foreign Minister, Luis Ernesto Derbez, making Insulza the winner by default.

Insulza has been openly criticized by many Chilean politicians for using his post as OAS Secretary General as a launching pad for his failed pre-candidacy to become President of Chile. They claimed his frequent trips to Chile and continuing commentary on Chilean politics were a way to remain visible on the local political scene. Insulza openly stated his intention to run for President of Chile, but on January 5, 2009, he stepped out of the race and vowed to continue as OAS chief until the end of his mandate. He gave his support to Eduardo Frei Ruiz – Tagle as the Concertación candidate for President and many suggest that his plan to run for President remains very much alive.

He is nicknamed El Panzer, for his tank-like drive and reputation for charging hard in whatever endeavor he takes on. His critics also say that he is capable of crushing anyone that stands in his way. A case in point is that Insulza censured a blogger in Washington, DC, requesting through his Press secretary- that the Chilean newspaper, La Nación, revoke the OAS press accreditation for Montserrat Nicolas of the blog "Curvas Politicas" (Political Curves). Insulza was apparently angered because she informed the Chilean daily, that Santiago had withdrawn its ambassador from Honduras, just after Venezuela. La Nación decided to publish this news story on the front page, exposing Chile’s position.  Following the orders of Mr. Insulza, his press secretary, Patricia Esquenazi, made repeated phone calls to the Chilean newspaper pressuring them to fire Ms. Nicholas. This all took place during the height of the Honduran crisis. Ms. Esquenazi personally contacted the Director of La Nación, Marcelo Castillo, the General Manager, Francisco Feres and the President of the board, Mr. Valenzuela, to make them fire the blogger.

The Bottom Line

Instead of promoting democracy and the rule of law in the hemisphere, Mr. Insulza seems mainly concerned about his reelection as Secretary General of the OAS, which date has been set for May 2010. In this regard, it is important to point out that this past month, Chilean daily "El Mercurio" reported that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had "twice directly told Chilean government officials" that the U.S. would not support Insulza’s reelection in 2010 due to his role in personally promoting the unconditional readmission of Cuba to the OAS. Even though Insulza furiously denied this version, it is no secret that Insulza and the U.S. were openly at odds regarding the presidency of the OAS in 2005 when the latter staunchly promoted Mexican Foreign Minister Ernesto Derbez for the OAS appointment despite wide-ranging support for Insulza across the region.  The U.S. was reportedly concerned by Chávez’s support for Insulza, and favored a more pro-U.S. candidate in the form of Derbez. Following five successive tied ballots between the two candidates, the U.S. eventually gave way, with Derbez stepping out of the race thus allowing Insulza to take the presidency.

El Mercurio also reported that several U.S. senators are concerned that Insulza’s policies, such as his support of ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya, are designed to favor Venezuela’s influential president Hugo Chávez. Insulza understands that the Venezuelan has great power over many Latin American countries, which sadly have become dependent on his oil giveaways.

But what Mr. Insulza doesn’t seem to grasp is that the OAS was not created as a tool to be used at the will of any dictator. The OAS’ principles established at the Organization’s inception in 1948 are to promote democracy, defend human rights, and help to establish markets based on free choice with minimal government interference. But since Insulza achieved the leadership of the organization, he has not done anything to defend these statutes.

The OAS has been a complete failure and has demonstrated that it does not have what it takes to deal objectively and constructively with a regional crisis. As commentator, Gustavo Coronel, correctly states, "the tolerance Insulza has exhibited for Cuba’s dictatorship of 50 years contrasts dramatically with the 72-hour ultimatum he gave the new government of Honduras, to reinstate Zelaya in the presidency, without listening to what the other side had to say." 

Insulza has aligned himself so completely with Chavez that many people are beginning to wonder if there’s something more serious going on. To this end, the Secretary General should fully disclose his assets and personal accounts. Insulza’s membership in the Forum of Sao Paolo is also extremely worrisome and remains a threat to the region. At present, there are fourteen Latin American governments connected to the FSP, which was created in 1990 By Inacio Lula da Silva and Fidel Castro to regroup leftist groups after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The FARC and the ELN belong to the Forum as well. 

Given the fact that Insulza has not supported the democratic principles upon which the OAS was founded and has so completely aligned himself with Chavez, the question of his re-election to a second term as secretary general should be very carefully considered by the U.S. and other member states.

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.

 

What’s wrong with Insulza and the OAS

By now, we are all aware of the situation in Honduras where President Manuel Zelaya tried unsuccessfully to use the nation’s institutions to illegally convoke a referendum in order to change the constitution and perpetuate himself in power.

Zelaya took office in 2006 as the leader of one of the two center-right parties that have dominated Honduran politics for decades. His general platform, his support for the Central American Free Trade Agreement with the United States and his alliances with business organizations gave no hint that halfway into his term he would make a radical U turn. Suddenly, in 2007, he declared himself a socialist and began to establish close ties with Venezuela. He incorporated Honduras into PetroCaribe, a mechanism set up by Hugo Chávez for lavishing oil subsidies on Latin American and Caribbean countries in exchange for political subservience. Then his government joined the Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America and the Caribbean (ALBA), Venezuela’s answer to the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas. ALBA is ostensibly a commercial alliance but in practice a political movement that seeks to expand populist dictatorship to the rest of Latin America.

Last year, Zelaya announced that he would hold a referendum to set up a constituent assembly that would change the constitution that barred him from reelection. He was following in the footsteps of Venezuela’s Chavez, Bolivia’s Morales and Ecuador’s Correa. [1]

After Zelaya committed these illegal acts, it was interesting to see how the Organization of American States and, in particular, its Secretary General, Jose Miguel Insulza, reacted. He called for the restoration of Zelaya to the Honduran presidency, echoing the desires of Chavez and his cronies. The question is what motivated his position.

As background, it is useful to recap what the Secretary General has done in defense of "democracy, peace and freedom" in the region:

In March, 2008, instead of congratulating Colombia’s President Alvaro Uribe, for trying to reign in the narco-terrorist group known as the FARC, the OAS and Insulza reacted with outrage at the "illegal incursion of the Colombian army into Ecuadorian territory," disregarding the fact that it was the FARC which started the attacks on Colombia from Ecuadorian territory. Insulza decided to disregard the evidence found in Raul Reyes’ computers which linked Chavez to the FARC even after INTERPOL verified the files.

Insulza did not even raise an eyebrow when Chavez, Morales and Correa illegally changed the constitutions of their respective countries to enable themselves to remain in power indefinitely, even after evidence of these illegal acts were fully disclosed to the OAS.

For Insulza, the briefcases full of Venezuelan Petrodollars to finance Ortega in Nicaragua, Humala in Peru, the Kirchner’s in Argentina, Correa in Ecuador and many others, meant nothing and did not warrant any type of inquiry.

In 2007, Insulza obstructed the attempts to condemn Chavez for closing the TV Channel, RCTV in Venezuela. Then in April of 2008, in testimony before the U.S. Congress, Insulza denied that Chavez had any ties with the FARC or with any terrorist organization, even after evidence surfaced of his connections with radical elements in Latin America, with Iran’s Ahmadinejad and Middle Eastern terrorists operating in the region, including Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. For these remarks, Chavez publicly praised Insulza and the OAS referring to them as "dignified." A few months before, Chavez had called the Secretary "Insulso" (dull) and "pendejo" (jerk).

Insulza continues to remain silent about the political persecutions carried out by Bolivia’s Evo Morales against the opposition who have been labeled as "terrorists" and "separatists." He has not chastised the Bolivian President for the massacre in Pando, even after evidence was presented that it was a planned attack executed by high-ranking members of the government.

Insulza refuses to acknowledge the full-fledged attack on democracy and freedom that occurs every day in Venezuela. Mr. Insulza knows about the endless violations against the media, journalists and political opponents that are carried out by the Chavez regime; but the Secretary General has never dared even to question the leadership or to hear the pleas of the real victims in that country.

The latest example of Chavez’s abuse of power has been the manner in which his regime is treating the Governors and Mayors of the opposition who were elected last December 2008. Furious at his defeat he went on to harass those officers elected by the people, denying them the funds to which they are constitutionally entitled and, in the case of Caracas Mayor, Antonio Ledezma, ousting him from his legitimate headquarters to put there a "governor" of his choosing, who has assumed the role of the truly elected mayor. [2]  Ledezma has had to resort to a hunger strike at the OAS headquarters in Caracas to call attention to his plight. Insulza, afraid that Ledezma would die, met with Ledezma and later hypocritically declared that the OAS "cannot be involved in issues of internal order of member states" and that " he cannot say whether Venezuelan laws are good or not," adding that: "What has happened here is simply that the government has passed laws that are deemed illegal by the opposition" and that "The OAS is not a supra-power and cannot solve conflicts for governments and national Congresses," a declaration he quickly contradicted once the pro-Chávez Zelaya was deposed.

However, one of Insulza’s most outrageous decisions is to readmit the totalitarian Cuban regime as a member of the OAS. Cuba’s membership was revoked by OAS member countries in 1962. When Insulza was asked about why the OAS had now changed its position, he declared bluntly, "there is another regime ruling Cuba." Were there free and fair elections in Cuba that we don’t know about? Mr. Insulza’s explanation makes no sense, especially since Cuba remains a dictatorship.

In July 2009, the Colombian police found an hour-long video in the computer of a FARC member that confirms that the FARC gave money to the 2006 election campaign of President Rafael Correa of Ecuador, another Chavez ally. The video adds weight to evidence found in a half-dozen electronic documents recovered at a FARC camp last year. Correa has accused Colombia of fabricating the documents, despite an investigation by the global police agency, Interpol that determined they were not altered. In this case, Mr. Insulza flatly ignored the facts by saying: "At the beginning of the video there is a part missing" before the part where ‘Mono Jojoy’ speaks about supporting the Correa presidential campaign." "I prefer (Colombia) handles it completely to form a better judgment," he added. "The man says what they say he says. I suppose it is possible to verify that the video is authentic (it was verified), which does not necessarily mean that what is said in the video is authentic." Colombia’s Defense Minister Freddy Padilla denies Colombia sent an edited video and assures the video "is complete." [3] Just to be clear, the beginning was considered irrelevant by all media outlets, which decided to edit it, due to the length, because it does not add anything to the evidence. But Mr. Insulza as always, stands firmly with Chavez.

All of Insulza’s previous actions completely contrast with the path he has chosen to take in regard to Honduras. However, they are 100% in line with Chavez’s wishes.  It is very strange that now the new representatives of democracy in Latin America for Mr. Insulza are the same people who have carried out the most vicious attacks against it; these include the Castro brothers, Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, Evo Morales and Rafael Correa.

 

Part 2 of this article will cover "What really happened in Honduras" as well as well as "But who exactly is Jose Miguel Insulza"?

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] Honduras’ coup is Zelaya’s fault. By Alvaro Vargas Llosa. Wednesday, July 1, 2009. The Washington Post.

[2] The Chavez Adventure in Honduras: From Coup d’ Etat to Coup d’ Grace. Gustavo Coronel. July 13, 2009. Human Events.

[3] Rebel video hounds Ecuador’s Correa. July 19, 2009. Revista Semana, Colombia.

Latin American Yalta

As the Honduran crisis is still unresolved and attempts at mediation continue, the case has presented an interesting challenge whose outcome could be crucial for the future of the region and the United States.

For the time being Costa Rican President, Oscar Arias, is trying (so far unsuccessfully) to mediate between the current President of Honduras, Roberto Micheletti, and ousted Honduran President, Manuel Zelaya. The Obama Administration did the right thing by encouraging President Arias’s intervention as well as opposing Zelaya’s demand that a deadline be set for his return to power.

Yet the Obama Administration, in principle, has supported the return of Zelaya to power as part of any settlement. This point requires further analysis because we are not merely dealing with an internal Honduran problem but also with a problem that has far reaching regional and international implications. 

Zelaya was, indeed, democratically elected. In his attempt to pursue a constitutional reform via referendum he engaged in a violation of the constitution as it was sanctioned by the Honduran Supreme Court and the national Congress. The military intervened to prevent Zelaya from carrying out unconstitutional measures. Because that action involved a military intervention, it prompted negative reactions in the U.S., Latin America and Europe.

The action by the Honduran military was aimed at preventing Zelaya from doing what is being done in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador: that is strengthening the prerogatives of the executive power via a constitutional reform and using that as a stepping stone towards dictatorship.

In order to understand the severity of Zelaya’s actions, we have to imagine a situation where President Barack Obama tries to pass legislation on health care, immigration, or any other policy. For Obama to expect full support in Congress or even full support in the Democratic Party would be unrealistic. Yet President Obama would be so eager to pass legislation or implement policy in all these areas, that instead of negotiating with Congress, he appeals to popular referendums taking advantage of his current popularity. Thus, because Obama is annoyed at Congressional resistance and because he is aware of his popularity, he calls for a constitutional reform via a popular referendum that approves a constitution that increases the power of the President to carry out a "socially just policy".  Would not America be outraged at such an action? That is exactly what Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela, what Evo Morales did in Bolivia, what Rafael Correa did in Ecuador and what Zelaya tried to do in Honduras.

Zelaya’s actions also raise a serious suspicion regarding his dealings with Hugo Chavez.  In other words, it sounds like in exchange for economic support and other types of agreements beneficial to Honduras, President Zelaya seems to have compromised his country’s constitution and its democracy. This adds an element of corruption to a man who was elected as head of the liberal party, a party that holds conservative economic views, quite the opposite of views held by Chavez.  Certainly leaders can change their minds about certain things.  But how can we explain Zelaya’s quick ideological turn around? One thing is to accept Venezuelan largess but another thing is to move his country into a Chavista sphere of influence by showing disdain and undermining state institutions. This raises eyebrows as to whether Zelaya’s move could have been part of an unwritten agreement between him and Chavez. If this is the case we are talking about a major case of political prostitution where a whole country is put up for sale by a single man. If this is the case, Zelaya needs to be investigated on grounds of corruption.

If the Obama Administration insists on the principle that any settlement should return Mr. Zelaya to power we may be facing a case of a Latin American Yalta.

The Yalta conference that took place early in 1945 between U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, paved the way for the subjugation of Poland and later countries such as Hungary and Czechoslovakia into the Soviet sphere of influence.   At the time of the Yalta conference, the Soviets had the advantage of having their troops in the heart of Europe. This card was strongly used by Stalin to get strategic and political advantages from Roosevelt and Churchill in the negotiations.

In the current Latin American situation, Chavez has an advantage comparable with Stalin’s during Yalta. Chavez is a) generous oil producer and distributor of wealth among Latin American countries b) Chavez has integrated into his sphere of influence countries such as Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and probably El Salvador and Paraguay plus a few small Caribbean nations. c) In addition, populist governments such as Argentina support Chavez, and social democracies such as Brazil, Chile and Uruguay have displayed indifference towards the Chavista phenomenon or have been apologists of the dictator.  D) The organization of American States (OAS) under the leadership of Jose Miguel Insulza has de-facto empowered Chavez by conspicuously ignoring his anti-democratic steps against the rule of law, the political opposition, and the media and against his own interference in the internal affairs of other countries in an attempt to influence their political outcomes.   In other words, losing the battle in Honduras means a big victory for Chavez and the spread of dictatorship in Latin America.

At the minimum the Obama Administration needs to do no harm in this situation. By isolating Honduras and threatening to stop all financial aid, we are inadvertently strengthening the Chavista countries while discouraging Honduran resistance to dictatorship.

The best solution would be to move forward with the scheduled November elections without restoring Zelaya.  However, if the Administration’s idea is to restore Zelaya in order not to be an accomplice to a coup d’état, it needs to be done in a certain way. If restored, Zelaya should face impeachment over his constitutional violations and also undergo an investigation as to how exactly his dealings with Chavez are related to his project of constitutional reform.

These phenomena of "elected dictatorships" need to be exposed for what they are and countries need to find legal mechanisms of protection against them.  Honduras has taken a stand against dictatorship and provided us with a "wake up" call.

 

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

 

 

Zeroing in on Peru

Today, Peru is one of the strongest economies in Latin America. In 2007, the Peruvian economy grew 9% and continued at that rate through 2008, only slowing in 2009 due to the world economic crisis. However, it remains structurally strong with a gross domestic product that surged 9.84% in 2008; it’s fastest pace since 1994. In addition to achieving economic growth, Peru has also successfully implemented market friendly policies, and increased property rights while recently ratifying a mutually beneficial Free Trade Agreement with the United States. Economists agree that things are looking up for Peru. Unfortunately, this doesn’t sit well with some; in particular Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez who has targeted countries that develop peacefully because their success proves to the world and the majority of Venezuelans that his policies are completely misguided.

In June 2009, Peru was rocked by violent confrontations between normally peaceful indigenous groups in the city of Bagua and local police. Bagua is a province of the Amazonas region, which is located in the north and central part of the department of Amazonas, rich in oil and gas resources.

Peru has started to restructure their economy under a 2006 free trade deal with the U.S. and key is a focus on property rights and titling of property, which is essential for capital formation. Earlier this year, President Alan Garcia used his executive authority to give title to land in the north of Peru and government officials spoke with indigenous people there, 400,000 of whom still live in Peru’s Amazon. In January of 2009, Garcia gave them title to 12.4 million hectares of land and another 15 million hectares were set aside for ecological sanctuaries. [1]

In an unprecedented move, native groups, led by indigenous leader Alberto Pizango, started to violently demonstrate to "reclaim" more than half of the land that was to be kept as sanctuary. Pizango, 43, a member of the Shawi-Campu Piavi tribe of the Loreto region had worked as a teacher in Yurimaguas in the Loreto region until he was elected president of Aidesep, in December 14, 2008. Aidesep is the Association for the Development of the Peruvian Jungle (Asociación Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana), which in reality is a radical proponent of "indigenous rights" and a vicious opponent of free market policies. [2] Ideologically, Aidesep is aligned with the Peruvian Communist Party, and former presidential candidate, radical leftist Ollanta Humala, Chavez’s handpicked candidate for the presidency of Peru.

These demonstrations were accompanied by propaganda that blamed the Garcia regime for, according to them, "robbing land and refusing to talk." The natives appeared defiant on TV with spears and feathers while leftist organizations and the mainstream media began to portray Peru as an oppressive state that doesn’t deserve free trade because it exploits its population.

During this time, a major highway in Bagua had been blocked for fifty-five days by approximately five thousand indigenous protesters. Many analysts agreed that the tactics used by these people looked eerily similar to the ones used by radicalized indigenous protesters in Bolivia in recent years. [3] In such demonstrations, roadblocks are basically used to isolate cities by halting shipments of food, medicine and energy, as well as trade, to make the government give concessions to avoid major confrontations. Garcia had sought to avoid conflict by engaging Aidesep in dialogue for more than five weeks, seeking agreements to end the road and river blockades. But its leader, Pizango, would not cooperate and it was clear from the start that he was looking for a violent row with the government to gain supporters, delegitimize the government and appear as a victim of the "inhuman" free trade agreement signed with the United States. The native leader had a clear agenda with the mindset to cause unrest and plenty of cash to mobilize people. Insiders close to Pizango said from the beginning that he was operating under Hugo Chavez’s orders, which had provided him and his followers with financing, promising them a safe haven just in case things went south. On the other hand, if successful, Pizango and Aidesep would achieve great riches, paving the way for Ollanta Humala to become president, and converting Hugo Chavez into the supreme leader of yet another Latin American nation, in addition to Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela and Nicaragua.

On June 4th, the local police received orders to end the blockade of the Belaúnde Terry highway, one of the country’s principal land routes for the transport of passengers and goods, which passes through Bagua. Unfortunately, the officers in charge of the operation, under-estimated the violent protesters. Only three hundred police officials were deployed without adequate anti-riot gear and when they tried to clear the highway on June 5, they were attacked by several thousand protesters, many of whom were armed. A total of thirty-three people died including twenty-four unarmed police officers whose throats were brutally cut by the natives. [4] Only nine indigenous protesters were killed but only after they clashed with their own forces who were members of Aidesep.

Police investigations indicate that Pizango ordered armed gunmen to attack the police and that he personally approved the executions of the police officials. The Peruvian government has already charged Pizango with homicide [5] but the native leader has been granted asylum by Nicaragua’s President, Daniel Ortega. Pizango now lives comfortably in Managua and openly gives speeches promoting Chavez’s cause while thousands of Peruvians yell for his return.

President Alan Garcia said the government will continue seeking dialogue with the country’s indigenous groups while also giving Peru’s national police commanders orders to "dialogue faster and act immediately" when confronted with road blockades and other indigenous protests which disrupt the free transit of people and goods. Interestingly, Garcia blamed the violence in Bagua on "external" forces, which are competing with Peru’s oil and gas resources. Clearly, he was referring to Venezuela and Bolivia.

There is mounting evidence that the Chavez regime provides financial support to Pizango and Aidesep. Venezuelan funds seem to be flowing to the protesters through Ollanta Humala and the ALBA houses, grass roots support centers named after Chavez’s alternative trading bloc, known as the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas. The Peruvian congress is actively working on closing these "medical centers" and those lines of financing. Peruvian newspapers claim that radical Bolivian indigenous militants supported by Evo Morales are also working with radical Peruvian indigenous groups including Pizango’s group. These people are extremely poor, so you have to ask how they can afford to travel large distances, camp, obtain weapons and feed themselves for weeks at a time.

Separately, Chavez and Morales hold other grudges with the Garcia regime when it gave asylum to top Venezuelan dissidents, including Manuel Rosales, who ran against Chavez for president in 2006, and Carlos Ortega, the oil workers union boss who crossed Chavez. More recently, Peruvian writer, Mario Vargas Llosa, delivered a highly critical and apparently quite effective speech that ridiculed Chavez at a conference in Caracas. With regards to Bolivia, Peru granted political asylum to three former Bolivian cabinet officials accused of involvement in the killing of sixty-three demonstrators in the Andean city of El Alto in 2003 during the Sanchez de Lozada administration. [6]

In fact, local authorities have known for some time that Pizango and Aidesep are associated with the Congreso Bolivariano de los Pueblos (CBP), which was created in 2003 by Chavez to finance and promote his Bolivarian revolution together with the ALBA houses. The CBP is a consortium of indigenous groups in various Latin American countries that embraces a radical strategy and openly supports the idea that if the revolution cannot achieve power peacefully and democratically, it will trigger social, economic and political unrest. [7] To accomplish such a goal, they portray themselves as oppressed, and engaged in class warfare between the poor and the "mean imperialist elites," lead by the "Satan" United States.

Bolivia initially denied any involvement with the violence in Bagua, but President Morales finally said he supported Pizango’s indigenous movement. "It’s not possible that most reviled (people) in Latin American history should be humiliated as we have just seen," Morales declared, adding that the "Indigenous movement of Latin America is a great defender of the planet Earth, of the environment, and that is why the struggles to defend equality and social justice will continue." In addition the Bolivian President has called the government crackdown "genocide," stating that "free trade agreements break up harmonious human relationships with nature; they illegally sell natural resources and national cultures; they privatize basic services; they try to patent life itself." [8] Peru responded to the genocide comment by recalling its ambassador to Bolivia for consultation. The government has stated that there is no excuse for Morales to refer to the Bagua incident as "genocide" since a United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and the fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples ratified this past week that no genocide had occurred. The Garcia government sees the Morales administration as meddling in Peruvian sovereignty and has even publicly implied that Bolivia has manipulated the Peruvian indigenous groups in order to stir them to action. Separately, Bolivian Justice Minister, Celima Torrico, accused the Garcia government in Peru of unleashing a "bloody repression" against the country’s indigenous population.

For her part, Venezuela’s Minister of Indigenous Peoples, Nicia Maldonado, launched a furious public tirade against Garcia, accusing him of perpetrating "genocide…a terrorist act," and "confirming (he) is a fascist." "Unlike the Chavez government," she added, Garcia has confirmed he "hates the people, hates the poor, hates the indigenous tribes" of Peru. "We absolutely and categorically condemn this genocide against our brothers of the Peruvian Amazon jungle," Maldonado continued. She also said, without offering any proof, that Peruvian police had burned some bodies and thrown others into rivers in order to obscure the number of people killed. By publicly embracing Pizango’s cause, they have given the indigenous leader international political recognition, which makes him seem more influential in Peru than he actually is.

After these incidents, the Garcia administration was forced to repeal the two decrees that caused the crisis in the first place. President Garcia even admitted that it was a mistake not to consult the heads of the indigenous groups prior to implementing the decrees. This may signify that the political elite in Peru is coming to terms with the fact that Peruvian indigenous groups are much better organized now than they were in the past.

The problem with these protests and what has the government confused is that, according to the polls, the overwhelming majority of Peruvians, over 80%, including a substantial percentage of its indigenous people support sustained economic development of the country’s abundant energy and mineral resources. So it is clear that someone is manipulating these people with the sole purpose of crippling the economy and destroying Garcia’s popularity while setting up a radical like Ollanta Humala for election as president in 2011. Peru would then be the next Marxist revolutionary and anti – American regime of the Chavez – Morales – Ortega – Correa axis. This would leave Colombia’s Alvaro Uribe almost alone at the mercy of the FARC.

The implications of the conflict in Bagua are ominous for Peru and for the stability of the region. Garcia faces powerful enemies who have instigated violence inside the country; especially Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales. In addition, he has to contend with powerful organizations dedicated exclusively to "protecting the environment at all costs" and preserving, intact, the world’s remaining indigenous cultures and tribal societies. A case in point is the NGO, Amazon Watch, infamous for supporting the harassment of Chevron in Ecuador and paying protesters and launching a new campaign against "Big Oil." Peru has the world’s third largest tropical rain forests, after Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Deforestation rates in Peru are significantly lower than in Brazil, Ecuador or Colombia and the Andean nation has large reserves of oil, gas and minerals in its rain forests. But these resources remain untapped, and the forces against Garcia want to make sure they remain unexploited – at least until the radicals take power in Peru.

Unfortunately, not many are at Mr. Garcia’s side since Chavez has transformed the Organization of American States (OAS) into his echo chamber. By generously giving away oil to companies such as PetroCaribe and many nations represented in the OAS, Chavez has brought them around to his revolutionary cause. So far the Obama Administration treats Chavez as a nuisance to be left alone but not challenged or reckoned with in any substantial way. Brazil’s President Lula da Silva avoids direct confrontation with Chavez but in regional disputes always sides with the Chavista countries, as does Argentina. Looking South, Chile’s Michele Bachelet is unlikely to back Garcia in a diplomatic standoff with Chavez and Morales since OAS Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza is Chilean and has sat placidly as Chavez has devoured democracy in his own country.  Chilean diplomacy will stay away as long as its territory is left alone.

It is clear that President Garcia faces increasing pressure from Venezuela and Bolivia and that subversive groups are likely to increase its operations inside the country to intensify the conflict and destabilize the regime. Colombia and Brazil would be wise to cooperate on the intelligence front to protect their territories from this violence.

The Bagua attacks could provide an opportunity for Mr. Garcia to balance strong economic growth with social programs, even in the most remotes areas. The goal should be to stop fostering conditions for the emergence of radicals who only want violence and conflict with the current government.

Radicals in the Peruvian Congress from the Nationalist Party wanted to impeach Prime Minister Yehude Simon and Interior Minister Mercedes Cabanillas for the clashes, placing the Garcia regime in a precarious position to govern; fortunately sanity prevailed: Congress gave them a vote of confidence and it appears that democracy still has a chance in Peru. But the situation is far from over and the upcoming months will be vital for the stability of Latin America.

 

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] Chavez’s War On Free Trade In Peru. Investor’s Business Daily. June 9, 2009.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Miembros de Sendero y el MRTA se infiltraron en las protestas del Cusco. June 24, 2009. El Comercio, Peru.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Gobierno asegura que policías en Bagua fueron asesinados a sangre fría. June 6, 2009. El Comercio, Peru.

[6] Investor’s Business Daily – Ibid.

[7] Perú: Gobierno denuncia que los indígenas traman un golpe de Estado. June 8, 2009. Infolatam.

[8] Evo Morales vuelve a criticar: "Lo que pasó en Perú es el genocidio del TLC." July 13, 2009. El Comercio, Peru.

[9] Ministra Venezolana: Hubo un genocidio en Perú en protestas de nativos. June 8, 2009. Radio Programas del Peru.

[10] Los Movimientos Populares Indígenas en la encrucijada. July 1, 2009. Indymedia.

Time to reject dictatorship in Latin America

The June 28 coup d’état in Honduras that deposed President Manuel Zelaya raised international concern.  Brazilian President Lula Da Silva stated that he will not recognize any other president except Zelaya.  Most countries in Latin America echoed Lula’s sentiment.  President Obama also indicated the inadmissibility of deposing an elected president.

Let us face one truth.  Coup d’états no doubt look and sound like the opposite of democracy because in fact they depose an elected president or leader by force.  The traumas of the 1970’s, particularly after the 1973 coup against Chilean president Salvador Allende and the distress caused by a possible U.S. support for the coup as well as U.S. support for all the South American military dictatorships has generated among us a natural rejection for such actions.

It is good that the U.S. no longer supports coups and it is good that the U.S. no longer seeks to support them in the future.

Yet, what the U.S. State Department, the Obama Administration and the rest of the Latin American countries have not yet publicly acknowledged is the inadmissibility of creating a dictatorship using democratic practices as means for despotic projects.

Manuel Zelaya was trying to pass a non-binding referendum on the issue of constitutional reform.  Zelaya says the constitution protects a system of government that excludes the poor, but has not specified what changes he will seek.  Yet, he went ahead against a decision by the Supreme Court and by the Honduran Congress to hold the referendum.  The goal of such a referendum, according to Zelaya, himself, was to begin a consultation with the purpose of commencing to move from a "representative democracy to a participatory democracy."

What does this mean?  In very simple words what Zelaya had attempted was to repeat the experiences of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.  The formula is simple: social problems cannot be solved under the current constitution.  A new constitution would eventually provide maximum power to the elected leader.  Congress is useless unless it supports the goal of the president and the goals of the president are to impose social justice from above without congressional debate and with direct support from the people.  Congress, that embodies the mechanism through which debate takes place while taking into consideration a number of interests and groups, is perceived by these reformers as nothing but an obstacle to the goals of those leaders who believe in the absolute rightness of their social and political program.  Therefore, participatory democracy means that the people vote to give full powers to the president to carry out the will of the majority.  Thus, participatory democracy is only the act of voting.  After that there is no more participation because participation is embedded in the will of the president.  In fact, there is not even a need for debate, or discussion.  In other words, this is a dictatorship legitimized by popular vote, a form of tyranny.

The Organization of American States under the mediocre leadership of Miguel Insulza backed Zelaya even before the coup took place.  On Friday June 26, the OAS and all the countries backed Zelaya even after the Supreme Court and Congress made a decision not to support a referendum that Zelaya conveyed a few days before. Such a hasty decision to hold a referendum not only reduces the time needed to hold the debate but also the 1982 Honduran constitution states that "any politician who promotes presidential re-election will be barred from public service for 10 years."

Thus, the OAS interfered in the internal affairs of Honduras in favor of a president with a despotic project.  The fact that referendums and elections have taken place in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia is not a reflection of democratic practices but a reflection of the will of dictators to consolidate power via popular referendums while skipping institutional democratic procedure.

Countries in Latin America have always been morally weak and they are getting worse as time goes by.  Brazilian President Lula Da Silva declared, without any foundation, that the recent presidential elections in Iran were fair and there was no fraud.  Lula, who during the Brazilian dictatorship of the 1970’s, wished that the international community would speak against it, showed little sensitivity towards the people of Iran who courageously confronted a highly repressive theocracy.  Likewise, he signed, along with Arab countries a joint- resolution defending the genocidal policies of the government of Sudan against the people of Darfur.  Lula rejoiced over the economic crisis of the Western countries stating that the recession was caused by "blond white people" and has shown that he is unable to move beyond the narrow-minded and obsolete anti-imperialism of the third world.  Additionally, his tolerance and sometimes promotion of Hugo Chavez is worrisome. It reflects his inability to lead a modernizing, emerging country like Brazil and less so to be a reliable regional leader.

Furthermore, Latin American countries have lobbied for Cuba’s admission into the OAS while ignoring the demolition of democracy at the hands of Hugo Chavez who: destroyed congress; subjugated the courts and the national electoral council to presidential prerogatives; restricted freedom of the press and persecuted press institutions that criticized him; who took over local governments that were not part of his party or movement; persecuted and forced into exile political opponents; and now is also using common criminals to assassinate union leaders who "dare" to act  independently of his will. The democratic charter of the OAS does not seem to be worthy of the paper it is written on. Latin American leaders have destroyed it.

The moral character of most of today’s Latin American leaders is deplorable.  President Barack Obama cannot manage policy in this continent by pleasing the prevailing moral lightweight approach in Latin America. Furthermore, the model that President Zelaya pursues is usually followed by a foreign and regional policy that includes alliances with Iran, links to drug cartels and a systematic policy aimed at expelling U.S. influence in the region.  In fact, as I write these lines reports have emerged that President Zelaya may have allowed tons of cocaine to be flown into Honduras on its way to the United States, allegedly to circumvent Mexico’s government crack down on cartels. According to the allegation, the shipments were carried by Venezuelan planes.

If President Obama is to deplore the coup in Honduras, he must do the same with the Chavez-inspired new dictatorships. He will also have to use his influence to help the continent move away from the anti-democratic practices promoted by Hugo Chavez and his allies.  To date, the President has espoused a foreign policy that is basically a public relations policy with needless expressions of admiration in hyperbole for mediocre leaders, seemingly unconcerned by the dangers mentioned above. 

 

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

Ideologue-in-chief

For a brief moment it seemed that US President Barack Obama was moved by the recent events in Iran. On Friday, he issued his harshest statement yet on the mullocracy’s barbaric clampdown against its brave citizens who dared to demand freedom in the aftermath of June 12’s stolen presidential elections.

Speaking of the protesters Obama said, "Their bravery in the face of brutality is a testament to their enduring pursuit of justice. The violence perpetrated against them is outrageous. In spite of the government’s efforts to keep the world from bearing witness to that violence, we see it and we condemn it."

While some noted the oddity of Obama’s attribution of the protesters’ struggle to the "pursuit of justice," rather than the pursuit of freedom – which is what they are actually fighting for – most Iran watchers in Washington and beyond were satisfied with his statement.

Alas, it was a false alarm. On Sunday Obama dispatched his surrogates – presidential adviser David Axelrod and UN Ambassador Susan Rice – to the morning talk shows to make clear that he has not allowed mere events to influence his policies.

After paying lip service to the Iranian dissidents, Rice and Axelrod quickly cut to the chase. The Obama administration does not care about the Iranian people or their struggle with the theocratic totalitarians who repress them. Whether Iran is an Islamic revolutionary state dedicated to the overthrow of the world order or a liberal democracy dedicated to strengthening it, is none of the administration’s business.

Obama’s emissaries wouldn’t even admit that after stealing the election and killing hundreds of its own citizens, the regime is illegitimate. As Rice put it, "Legitimacy obviously is in the eyes of the people. And obviously the government’s legitimacy has been called into question by the protests in the streets. But that’s not the critical issue in terms of our dealings with Iran."

No, whether an America-hating regime is legitimate or not is completely insignificant to the White House. All the Obama administration wants to do is go back to its plan to appease the mullahs into reaching an agreement about their nuclear aspirations. And for some yet-to-be-explained reason, Obama and his associates believe they can make this regime — which as recently as Friday called for the mass murder of its own citizens, and as recently as Saturday blamed the US for the Iranian people’s decision to rise up against the mullahs — reach such an agreement.

IN STAKING out a seemingly hard-nosed, unsentimental position on Iran, Obama and his advisers would have us believe that unlike their predecessors, they are foreign policy "realists." Unlike Jimmy Carter, who supported the America-hating mullahs against the America-supporting shah 30 years ago in the name of his moralistic post-Vietnam War aversion to American exceptionalism, Obama supports the America-hating mullahs against the America-supporting freedom protesters because all he cares about are "real" American interests.

So too, unlike George W. Bush, who openly supported Iran’s pro-American democratic dissidents against the mullahs due to his belief that the advance of freedom in Iran and throughout the world promoted US national interests, Obama supports the anti-American mullahs who butcher these dissidents in the streets and abduct and imprison them by the thousands due to his "hard-nosed" belief that doing so will pave the way for a meeting of the minds with their oppressors.

Yet Obama’s policy is anything but realistic. By refusing to support the dissidents, he is not demonstrating that he is a realist. He is showing that he is immune to reality. He is so committed to appeasing the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei that he is incapable of responding to actual events, or even of taking them into account for anything other than fleeting media appearances meant to neutralize his critics.

Rice and Axelrod demonstrated the administration’s determination to eschew reality when they proclaimed that Ahmadinejad’s "reelection" is immaterial. As they see it, appeasement isn’t dead since it is Khamenei – whom they deferentially refer to as "the supreme leader" – who sets Iran’s foreign policy.

While Khamenei is inarguably the decision maker on foreign policy, his behavior since June 12 has shown that he is no moderate. Indeed, as his post-election Friday "sermon" 10 days ago demonstrated, he is a paranoid, delusional America-bashing tyrant. In that speech he called Americans "morons" and accused them of being the worst human-rights violators in the world, in part because of the Clinton administration’s raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas in 1993.

Perhaps what is most significant about Obama’s decision to side with anti-American tyrants against pro-American democrats in Iran is that it is utterly consistent with his policies throughout the world. From Latin America to Asia to the Middle East and beyond, after six months of the Obama administration it is clear that in its pursuit of good ties with America’s adversaries at the expense of America’s allies, it will not allow actual events to influence its "hard-nosed" judgments.

TAKE THE ADMINISTRATION’S response to the Honduran military coup on Sunday. While the term "military coup" has a lousy ring to it, the Honduran military ejected president Manuel Zelaya from office after he ignored a Supreme Court ruling backed by the Honduran Congress which barred him from holding a referendum this week that would have empowered him to endanger democracy.

Taking a page out of his mentor Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez’s playbook, Zelaya acted in contempt of his country’s democratic institutions to move forward with his plan to empower himself to serve another term in office. To push forward with his illegal goal, Zelaya fired the army’s chief of staff. And so, in an apparent bid to prevent Honduras from going the way of Daniel Ortega’s Nicaragua and becoming yet another anti-American Venezuelan satellite, the military – backed by Congress and the Supreme Court – ejected Zelaya from office.

And how did Obama respond? By seemingly siding with Zelaya against the democratic forces in Honduras who are fighting him. Obama said in a written statement: "I am deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the detention and expulsion of president Mel Zelaya."

His apparent decision to side with an anti-American would-be dictator is unfortunately par for the course. As South and Central America come increasingly under the control of far-left America-hating dictators, as in Iran, Obama and his team have abandoned democratic dissidents in the hope of currying favor with anti-American thugs. As Mary Anastasia O’Grady has documented in The Wall Street Journal, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have refused to say a word about democracy promotion in Latin America.

Rather than speak of liberties and freedoms, Clinton and Obama have waxed poetic about social justice and diminishing the gaps between rich and poor. In a recent interview with the El Salvadoran media, Clinton said, "Some might say President Obama is left-of-center. And of course that means we are going to work well with countries that share our commitment to improving and enhancing the human potential."

But not, apparently, enhancing human freedoms.

FROM IRAN to Venezuela to Cuba, from Myanmar to North Korea to China, from Sudan to Afghanistan to Iraq to Russia to Syria to Saudi Arabia, the Obama administration has systematically taken human rights and democracy promotion off America’s agenda. In their place, it has advocated "improving America’s image," multilateralism and a moral relativism that either sees no distinction between dictators and their victims or deems the distinctions immaterial to the advancement of US interests.

While Obama’s supporters champion his "realist" policies as a welcome departure from the "cowboy diplomacy" of the Bush years, the fact of the matter is that in country after country, Obama’s supposedly pragmatic and nonideological policy has either already failed – as it has in North Korea – or is in the process of failing. The only place where Obama may soon be able to point to a success is in his policy of coercing Israel to adopt his anti-Semitic demand to bar Jews from building homes in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria. According to media reports, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has authorized Defense Minister Ehud Barak to offer to freeze all settlement construction for three months during his visit to Washington this week.

Of course, in the event that Obama has achieved his immediate goal of forcing Netanyahu to his knees, its accomplishment will hinder rather than advance his wider goal of achieving peace between Israel and its neighbors. Watching Obama strong-arm the US’s closest ally in the region, the Palestinians and the neighboring Arab states have become convinced that there is no reason to make peace with the Jews. After all, Obama is demonstrating that he will deliver Israel without their having to so much as wink in the direction of peaceful coexistence.

So if Obama’s foreign policy has already failed or is in the process of failing throughout the world, why is he refusing to reassess it? Why, with blood running through the streets of Iran, is he still interested in appeasing the mullahs? Why, with Venezuela threatening to invade Honduras for Zelaya, is he siding with Zelaya against Honduran democrats? Why, with the Palestinians refusing to accept the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, is he seeking to expel some 500,000 Jews from their homes in the interest of appeasing the Palestinians? Why, with North Korea threatening to attack the US with ballistic missiles, is he refusing to order the USS John McCain to interdict the suspected North Korean missile ship it has been trailing for the past two weeks? Why, when the Sudanese government continues to sponsor the murder of Darfuris, is the administration claiming that the genocide in Darfur has ended?

The only reasonable answer to all of these questions is that far from being nonideological, Obama’s foreign policy is the most ideologically driven since Carter’s tenure in office. If when Obama came into office there was a question about whether he was a foreign policy pragmatist or an ideologue, his behavior in his first six months in office has dispelled all doubt. Obama is moved by a radical, anti-American ideology that motivates him to dismiss the importance of democracy and side with anti-American dictators against US allies.

For his efforts, although he is causing the US to fail to secure its aims as he
himself has defined them in arena after arena, he is successfully securing the support of the most radical, extreme leftist factions in American politics.

Like Carter before him, Obama may succeed for a time in evading public scrutiny for his foreign-policy failures because the public will be too concerned with his domestic failures to notice them. But in the end, his slavish devotion to his radical ideological agenda will ensure that his failures reach a critical mass.

And then they will sink him.