Tag Archives: Venezuela

Will Brazil and China abandon the dollar?

In March 2009, Premier Wen Jiabao made an astonishing announcement when he expressed his deep worries about the safety of China’s assets in the United States. In the financial world, most specialists understood that Beijing was growing increasingly concerned about holding nearly $2 trillion, with more than half of those holdings, estimated to be United States Treasuries and other dollar-denominated bonds. But what was unprecedented was for Mr. Jiabao to publicly declare his concern about the safety of those assets. Apparently his concern stemmed from President Obama’s huge economic stimulus plans that he believed could lead to soaring deficits in the United States, sinking the dollar’s value. After these remarks, the head of China’s central bank called for the creation of a new international currency reserve to replace the dollar. Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the People’s Bank of China, said a new currency reserve system controlled by the International Monetary Fund could prove more stable, economically viable and necessary, because the global economic crisis has revealed the "inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks in the existing international monetary system." The central idea is to create a reserve currency "that is disconnected from individual nations." [1] 

Even though many analysts agree that the dollar won’t be replaced in the short run, it is a notion that has been raised by other nations such as Russia and more recently Brazil, the fifth largest country in the world-after Russia, Canada, China and the United States and the third largest in the Americas. It is also a sign that former U.S. friends might be rethinking their alliances in times when the United States is losing ground in Latin America due to the financial crisis and the emergence of leftist leaders that seem prone to engage in partnerships with similar political actors.

Many nations in Latin America have grown increasingly weary of the United States’ seemingly double standards when dealing with its Latin American neighbors. Countries that have openly embraced U.S. values like Colombia find themselves at odds when Congress decides to stall a much needed free trade agreement. More so, any deal with the United States requires compliance in many aspects such as human rights and the environment, which in most cases are politically motivated. Not only that but trade deals and U.S. assistance requires legislative approval, which can be delayed for months and even years and which can be reversed at any moment. In response, many leaders such as President Lula da Silva from Brazil, Alan Garcia from Peru and Michelle Bachelet from Chile have decided to open their doors to China which seems more focused on a good deal and where the decisions are made by a single party, which can translate into more immediate results. Many Latin American presidents and business leaders also know that by engaging the Chinese, they will be better positioned to deal with the United States.

Brazil is an extremely important country for the United States and recently has positioned itself as a leader in the region. Even though most analysts feared that President Lula from the Workers’ Party would lead his country towards socialism, the Brazilian leader has been able to moderate his positions, adopting market friendly economic policies. He has also been able to manage his country’s relationships with Hugo Chavez from Venezuela as well as with Presidents Bush and Obama from the United States.  Impatient with the American backing of what he views as conservative and right wing governments, Lula wants to replace the hegemony of the United States in the region and wants Brazil to occupy that position, instead. In 2008, Brazil granted loans to Ecuador, sent peacekeepers to Haiti, lead negotiations between Chile and Bolivia to give the latter access to the Pacific, and offered to help the Bolivian government with anti-drug efforts after President Evo Morales kicked out the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration last year.

Brazil is the largest national economy in Latin America, the world’s tenth largest economy at market exchange rates and is big in agriculture, mining, manufacturing and service sectors. The country has been expanding its presence in international financial and commodities markets, and is regarded as one of the group of four emerging economies called BRIC (acronym referring to "fast growing developing countries" of Brazil, Russia, India and China).

 

Trade between Brazil and China

In April 2009, China became Brazil’s most-important trading partner, relegating the United States to second place for the first time since the 1930s. Welber Barral, the Brazilian trade minister, said total trade between Brazil and China had amounted to $3.2 billion in April, representing a near twelve-fold increase since 2001 due to a sudden surge in Chinese demand for Brazilian iron ore in the first quarter of this year. [2]

China continues to buy large amounts of raw materials for its growing population and industry and has found in Brazil a perfect partner since it produces commodities like iron ore, soybeans and petroleum. China, a huge steel producer, is in need of huge amounts of iron ore and that helps explain the surge in trade between these two countries.

Brazil and China have also agreed to further oil and gas deals. In fact, Brazil is seeking investors to help explore the Santos Basin, significant in oil fields, which will be very expensive to extract. But China needs all the oil it can get its hands on and can afford this venture.

 

Relations between Brazil and China

Significant economic relations between these two nations did not begin until 1990, whenChinese President Yang Shangkun visited Latin America signing various treaties of cooperation and trade. From then on, these two countries engaged in high-level missions and now consider each other strategic partners.

As early as 1999, Brazil and China began collaborating on spy satellite technology, providing rocket launch expertise in exchange for digital optical technology that would permit high resolution, real time imaging. In fact, access to Brazil’s space tracking facilities could give China the ability to attack U.S. satellites with a variety of technologies currently under development. [3]

The ties between these two nations intensified after November of 2004 when Chinese President Hu Jintao visited Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Cuba signing 39 bilateral agreements and announcing $100 billion in investments by 2010, mainly in infrastructure. The PRC understands that many Latin American nations have the natural resources but lack the technological means to extract and transport these raw materials. Such investments serve as a guarantee that these nations will continue to supply commodities to the Asian superpower, opening the door for increased operations and presence in diverse sectors of their economies.

In November 2008, the Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping, second in command to President Hu Jintao visited Costa Rica, Cuba and Peru. Then in March 2009, Mr. Jinping together with Vice Premier for agriculture, Hui Liangyu, visited nine Latin American countries including Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela, Ecuador and Colombia.

In May of this year, Communist Party Chairman Jia Qinglin traveled to Colombia, Mexico, Uruguay, and Cuba and during that same month, Brazilian President Inacio Lula da Silva flew to Beijing for a three-day visit. During this trip, China and Brazil signed several economic deals to strengthen the ties between these two nations.  The most important deal was a $10 billion loan from the Chinese government to Brazil’s oil Company, Petrobras, to increase oil production.  In exchange, Brazil will send 200,000 barrels of oil a day to Sinopec, China’s state oil company, for the next ten years. The Chinese Development Bank agreed to loan another $20 billion to be used for a five-year $175 billion investment venture by Sinopec to extract oil and gas reserves off Brazil’s southern coast. The two oil corporations also signed a memorandum of understanding on exploration and the supply of equipment and services. Lula and Hu also agreed to launch two new satellites together.

During Lula’s visit, China agreed to diversify the products they buy from Brazil agreeing to lift restrictions on imports of chicken, beef and pork. Brazil, for its part, invited China to participate in improving Brazil’s railways in order to enable a rail link in the Pacific to reduce transportation costs of iron ore and soybeans.

 

Importance of Latin America for China

China needs raw materials for its rapidly expanding economy and industry. On the other hand, it needs trade partners that can purchase its electronics, apparel, toys, and footwear. Brazil could serve both purposes since it has a huge population (approximately 192 million people) and is abundant in raw materials, especially the kind China needs.

China’s trade with Latin America has grown ten times over the past decade, with exports destined for Beijing rising in value from $3.8 billion in 2000 to $36.1 billion in 2007. China now receives 4.7% of Latin America’s exports, up from 1.1% in the year 2000. Chinese figures indicate that total trade had reached $102.57 billion in 2007. [4]

In recent years, China has been signing Free Trade Agreements with several Latin American nations, including Chile, Peru and soon Costa Rica.

As a sign of things to come, China is not only openly increasing its presence in the US’ sphere of influence in Latin America. In fact, the biggest Brazilian project announced by the Chinese, a joint venture of Baosteel Group Corp. and VALE to build a U$3.6 billion steel plant, was canceled in January. A Brazilian representative revealed that Beijing has made Africa their priority, and that they expect to have a bigger political influence in that region than in Brazil. [5]

 

China and Brazil on the world stage

Besides being a nuclear-armed nation, China is a member of the U.N. Security Council, the World Trade Organization, the Group of 77 developing nations, and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation group. In addition, it also holds observer status in the Organization of American States. Brazil and China both have sought an increasing role at the IMF as well. In fact, it was the Brazilian finance minister that called for emerging economies to be integrated into the financial stability forum (FSF) a process that is ongoing. Both are key members of the G20, which is now the key institution for responding to the financial crisis. [6]

 

The Taiwan Issue

China’s main rival for global preeminence is the United States. China sees the United States as preventing Taiwan’s reunification with the mainland as well as in competition for needed natural resources. In response, China now challenges U.S. influence wherever it can, especially in Latin America.

 

Dump the dollar?

The idea of replacing the dollar as the international currency arose at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on January 28, 2009 when China’s Prime Minister Wen Jiabao blamed the United States for the economic crisis the world is now experiencing. He talked in particular of "the failure of financial supervision". [7]

A month later, Brazilian President Inacio Lula da Silva and President Hu Jintao, in fact, discussed the idea of replacing the dollar with the Renminbi (RMB) and the Real as trade currencies when they met at the G20 summit in London.

Last month representatives of the two governments announced that the governors of the two countries’ central banks would meet soon to discuss replacing the US dollar with the Renminbi and the Real in trade transactions. Brazil has already signed an agreement in September with Argentina under which importers and exporters in the two countries may make economic transactions payments in Pesos, Reals or dollars.

In a recent interview, Lula furthered this notion by saying: "Between Brazil and China, we need to establish a trade that is paid for in our own currencies. We don’t need dollars. Why do two important countries like China and Brazil have to use the dollar as a reference, instead of our own currencies? We’ve already started doing this with Argentina. Our trade is taking place in our own currencies. Otherwise, we’ll be in an absurd situation, where the country that caused this crisis will be the country that gets the most dollars. It’s crazy that the dollar is the reference, and that you give a single country the power to print that currency. We need to give greater value to the Chinese and Brazilian currencies." [8]

Even though dumping the dollar will not happen any time soon, the announcements made by such power players as China and Brazil should be taken as an indication that they are looking away from the dollar and the United States, that the U.S. is rapidly losing its influence in Latin America and that the PRC is now a major competitor in the region.

Given the current situation, it is imperative for the Obama Administration to recognize this new reality and to have a more engaging approach to its Latin American neighbors by signing and ratifying any outstanding Free Trade Agreements, especially with Colombia. Not only is this important in economic terms but it is critical as a sign that aligning with the United States pays and that Washington honors its commitments. The U.S. should also stop its protectionist policies such as tariffs and engage Latin American countries as partners. It also has to continue promoting democracy and the respect for the rule of law in as many countries as possible. The Obama Administration should also reduce unproductive restrictions on assistance projects to its neighbors, in addition to pressing harder and aiding in economic reforms. Brazil is a very important player and if it decides to fully embrace the Chinese to the detriment of the United States, other nations could follow suit.

 

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.

NOTES

[1] Zhou Xiaochuan’s Statement on Reforming the International Monetary System. March 23, 2009. The Council of Foreign Relations.

[2] China overtakes the US as Brazil’s largest trading partner. May 9, 2009. The Telegraph.

[3] Balancing China’s Growing Influence in Latin America. October 24, 2005. The Heritage Foundation.

[4] China’s Latest Geopolitical Assault on Latin American Commodities and Bilateral Trade. February 17, 2009. Council of Hemispheric Affairs.

[5] Brazil and China: Moves Towards a New Economic Order? May 19, 2009. RGE.

[6] Ibid.

[7] China’s latest geopolitical assault on Latin American commodities and bilateral trade. Ibid.

[8] RGE – Ibid.

Ollanta Humala, Peru’s worst nightmare

The Peruvian presidential elections, to be held in 2011, will be very important for the future of that country.  The two candidates that are in first and second places in the polls are conservative Keiko Fujimori, daughter of former President Alberto Fujimori running for "Fuerza 2011," and leftist radical, leader of the "Nationalist Party," Ollanta Humala Tasso.  Humala Tasso’s candidacy has been plagued by accusations that he is an extremist, that he has murdered and tortured police officers and that he is being financed by Hugo Chávez. He has been accused of having an extremely close relationship with Chavez and with the Venezuelan funded ALBA houses. 

Ollanta Humala became the leader of the "Partido Nacionalista Peruano" (the Peruvian Nationalist Party) and ran for the presidency in 2006 on the Union por el Peru (UPP) ticket,[1] but fortunately lost in a runoff to current President Alan García when the population became fearful of his Chavista connections.

Now he plans to run in the upcoming elections and has been trying to convince voters that he has distanced himself from the Venezuelan leader.

Humala Tasso is the son of Isaac Humala, an ethnic indigenous lawyer, member of the Communist Party of Peru, and ideological leader of the "Etnocacerista movement."[2] He is also brother of Antauro Humala, former member of the military who is now in jail for participating with Ollanta in an uprising in Andahuaylas where they attacked a police station during the Fujimori regime and allegedly tortured and killed several police officers in the year, 2000. During this revolt, some 150 former soldiers were reported to have been in a convoy attempting to join up with Humala to overthrow the government. In the aftermath, the Army sent hundreds of soldiers to capture this group but Humala and his men managed to hide until President Fujimori was impeached from office and Valentín Paniagua was named interim president. Later Humala was pardoned by Congress and allowed to return to military duty. He was sent as military attaché to Paris, then to Seoul until December 2004, when he was forcibly retired.[3] Antauro was arrested but still was a candidate for congress in the April 2006 elections.

On March 17, 2006 Humala’s campaign came under attack as his father said, "If I was President, I would grant amnesty to Shining Path terrorist, Abimael Guzmán and the other incarcerated members of his group". He made similar statements about amnesty for Víctor Polay, the leader of the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement, and other leaders of the MRTA.[4]

When Ollanta Humala lost the election to Alan García, there was great relief in the region, especially in Washington, as the prospect of another country falling under Hugo Chavez’s influence seemed to disappear. However, as time passes and candidates intensify their electoral campaigns, the menace of Ollanta Humala looms once again.

Even though the allegations of an alliance with Hugo Chavez have been strongly denied by Humala Tasso and the Venezuelan President, there is mounting evidence to the contrary. During the "Nacionalista" campaign of 2005-2006, there was intelligence information that Chávez was sending money to Humala via suitcases through Bolivia, not only to finance his political aspirations, but also to create unrest and chaos in Perú. Indeed, efforts were made to block and close main avenues, to sponsor massive and violent protests in an attempt to destabilize the Toledo regime, as well as to promote a coup to place Humala and his nationalist party in power. In addition, Humala traveled several times to Caracas to meet with Chavez.

For some time now, Peruvians have been outraged at Chavez, Bolivian President, Evo Morales and Humala for illegally using their territory to establish the infamous "Houses of Alba." The Alba Houses are being used to promote the Chavista agenda inside Peru and are seen by them as the engines for revolutionary change in the 21st century. Unlike the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), who have attacked the institutions of Colombia’s democracy from their bases in the mountains for the last 40 years, the ALBA houses are right in the middle of cities and towns. Their activists undermine democracy from within (as Chavez and Morales have already demonstrated) by taking power through democratic elections and then methodically changing laws to subvert it."[5]

As Andrés Oppenheimer accurately points out in an interview with the Peruvian newspaper, El Comercio: "On the surface, the ALBA houses appear to be simply benevolent local associations offering literacy programs and delivering health care with Chavez-paid, Castro-supplied Cuban doctors. Local Peruvian Chavistas who operate the ALBA houses claim that they are merely engaged in charity work and point to the 5,000 impoverished Peruvians they have sent to Venezuela for eye surgery. What the ALBA house landlords fail to mention is that, at the same time, they are indoctrinating poor, mostly young Peruvians in the ideology of the extreme left and terrorism. The Cuban doctors frequently operate as Cuban intelligence officers. Although the Chavez government insists that it is not supporting the ALBA houses, Peruvian officials have said that Chavez’s financial support for the houses is being funneled through Bolivia. In the Bolivian capital of La Paz, Chavistas are building a large "Bolivarian Common Embassy." There they have assembled a group of young Peruvians from the main cities in the south (Cuzco, Puno, and Tacna) to receive indoctrination and military training."[6]

In reality, the intended purpose of these "houses" in Perú is to create a support system for the potential presidency of Ollanta Humala, and to help him advance Chavez’s totalitarian policies by force. Just to be clear of whom is in charge and to whom they are to pledge allegiance; there are pictures of Hugo Chávez all over the ALBA centers together with massive information on "the benefits of the Bolivarian Revolution." ALBA workers prey on the needy and offer them free eye treatments in Venezuela and Cuba in exchange for their loyalty to the Chavista Revolution and to Ollanta Humala. They are told to vote for the leftist candidate, convince their friends and family to do so in order for them to receive the aid they need. Many of the people that underwent eye surgery were later found participating in violent protests led by Humala.

The people joining the Chavez – Alba project are being trained to silence critics and to ultimately take over national and international property to promote and solidify the Bolivarian Revolution. In summary, these are centers of indoctrination for future Chavistas.

Not only is money being sent through suitcases. There are individual couriers that illegally enter Peru with cash to be funneled to the ALBA centers, to the Venezuelan embassy in Lima and to Humala, himself. Moreover, the local newspaper, Correo, has obtained information about the bank accounts of Nadine Heredia Alarcón, Humala Tasso’s wife. This would seem to prove that Chavez is not only invested in preparing a grassroots movement to carry out his plans through the ALBA project, but that he is preparing the leadership to implement his plans in Perú.  According to financial statements, Mrs. Humala has received regular payments from two well – known Venezuelan businesses with ties to the Chávez government.

Heredia alleges that the bank transfers she has received (reportedly amounting to $500,000 in less than a year) are actually her professional fees as a communications consultant for some companies based in Venezuela. However, many locals are convinced that Heredia is trying to hide the fact that her husband’s party (PNP) would be receiving Chavista funds from Venezuela to finance his presidential campaign and aid the ALBA houses.

The Government’s reaction

In early May, the Peruvian Congress voted unanimously to investigate the functions, organization and financing of the ALBA houses to determine whether Chavez is using his oil riches to expand his political movement into Peru. The motion was presented by the Congress’ National Defense Commission and approved 96-0. The investigative commission then issued a statement giving the Justice System the authority to close the ALBA centers. This commission found that these centers were in fact centers of propaganda for Chavez’s socialist revolution. Congress members are currently developing a legal mechanism to prevent international aid from infiltrating local politics.

The Commission that investigated Chavez’s meddling through these "social" centers, revealed disturbing information about the awful conditions of the eye surgeries offered by ALBA under the project name "Operación Milagro" (Operation Miracle[7]). Operation Miracle operates in many countries in Latin America, the Caribbean and in Africa. The allegations are that the doctors performing the surgeries are intelligence agents for the Cuban and Venezuelan governments that are there to indoctrinate people. Other accusations are that they enter the country illegally through neighboring countries or using fake documentation and smuggle with them revolutionary propaganda and money to fund social unrest. The so-called "doctors" also come with a literacy campaign to "teach people to read and write," when actually this is material used for training purposes.

The Government on Humala

The Peruvian government is also investigating Ollanta Humala and his wife. According to a local bank, "Banco de Crédito del Peru," Nadine Heredia de Humala has been receiving monetary transfers from two Venezuelan companies: "The Daily Journal," a local English language newspaper that has been out of circulation since November of last year, and "Venezolana de Valores" (Veneval) which offers custody, compensation and liquidation of securities in the Venezuelan market.

According to an ongoing investigation into these transfers, Mrs. Humala receives $4,000 every month from the Daily and $11,000 from Veneval. The problem is that she is supposed to serve as a correspondent, even though she has never published an article. When questioned, the representative from the Daily said that they sometimes don’t publish all the articles. Mrs. Humala must have negotiated an extremely good deal if she is getting paid for doing nothing.  When asked about how Mrs. Humala was receiving her salary in dollars when the Venezuelan government has strict control over U.S. currency, Mr. Lopez responded by saying that the Daily has accounts in several countries and from there they send the transfers. He then said he would only respond by e-mail but never got back to answer more questions.

Suspicions about the Humala’s began when Heredia de Humala used an alleged "contract" with the journalistic entity to obtain a mortgage of $100,000, which was approved by the financial institution (BCP). With this money, she bought a $160,000 house in the district of San Borja two years ago.

The president of the board of the Daily, Julio Augusto López Enríquez, born to Peruvian parents, together with other Venezuelan investors, bought the newspaper on March 1, 2006, five weeks before the 2006 Peruvian general elections. It has been reported that the business partners paid U$1,000,000 for the company. Mr. López traveled to Peru in 2006 and openly supported then-candidate Ollanta Humala.

In Caracas it is well known that Mr. Enríquez is a prominent member of the so-called "bolibourgeoisie," which include the people that illegally became rich with Chavez. Venezuelan journalists have revealed that López is a businessman that has enterprises with Chavista members of the military from where he obtained millionaire contracts and that’s where his fortune comes from. His main "partners" are retired general Jorge Luis García Carneiro, former minister and current mayor of the state of Vargas, who was crucial in Chavez’s return to the presidency in April 2002 when he was temporarily ousted and General Clíver Alcalá Cordones, commander of the district of Valencia, Carabobo.

What has many Peruvians outraged is that in addition to being so closely associated with Chavez, it has been revealed that Mrs. Humala has a close relationship and is on the payroll of General Carlos Indacochea, part of Vladimiro Montesinos’[8] corruption ring. Indacochea’s company in Arequipa, Apoyo Total S.A., that has paid Nadine Heredia U$5,555 per month since June 2, 2007 is run by Mariela Indacochea, the former general’s sister. According to public registry records, Mariela is the person responsible for representing her brother Carlos, now an ex-felon, in all "legal, judicial, political and police matters." It was also discovered that several family members of the Humala’s have "donated" huge amounts of cash to the campaign. The question is since they have no sources of income, where are they getting the money? Is it being sent from Venezuela to them through illegal accounts or personally through emissaries?

The Peruvian Congress is taking action to investigate the Humala’s funding, which could be illegal under Peruvian law and raises questions about where their money is coming from.

Nadine Heredia has decided not to respond saying that it is private money and that the government should investigate the current first lady’s finances, Mrs. Pilar Nores de Garcia, because she manages public funds. When asked about evidence, Mrs. Humala became upset and said she was being politically persecuted.

It is extremely important for the Humala’s to reveal who finances their political campaign especially if the "Nacionalista" wants to become president and she, first lady. Nobody is saying that the Humala’s cannot be gainfully employed, but it is awfully suspicious that their bank accounts have grown exponentially and that most of the funds are coming from Venezuela, from a Journal that doesn’t even circulate. The population seems to understand Ollanta Humala’s agenda since the polls reveal he is losing support. The Peruvian government’s reaction has been well received and hopefully they will find more evidence to set the record straight once and for all on Mr. Humala and his plans for Peru. It is also important to understand exactly how the money is getting from Chavez to Mrs. Humala and the ALBA houses. Why not answer the questions if there is nothing to hide?

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.

 

 

[1] Ibid.

[2] Justin Vogler (April 11, 2006). "Ollanta Humala: Peru’s next President?" Upsidedownworld.

[3] "Historia de Ollanta." November 1, 2000 BBC Mundo.  (Spanish).

[4] "Antauro Humala dice que su hermano es Capitan Carlos." February 6, 2006 El Universal (Spanish).

[5] Ibid.

[6] Andres Oppenheimer, "Alan García, Chávez y las casas del ALBA," El Comercio, March 18, 2008.

[7] Operación Milagro (Operation Miracle) is a joint health program between Cuba and Venezuela, set up in 2005. Many critics insist that the level of Cuban medical qualifications is very low and in reality, they are "political agents" who have come to Venezuela to indoctrinate the workforce. Opposition supporters in Venezuela have called Cuban doctors "Fidel’s ambassadors." Two defected doctors have claimed that they were told their job was to keep Chavez in power, by asking patients to vote for Chávez in the 2004 recall referendum. Operation Miracle currently operates in Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Panama, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Uruguay, Mali, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent, the Grenadines, Suriname and Angola.

[8] Vladimiro Montesinos was long-standing head of Peru’s Intelligence Service, Servicio de Inteligencia Nacional (SIN), under President Alberto Fujimori. In 2000, secret videos were televised revealing him bribing an elected congressman to leave the opposition and join the Fujimorista side of Congress; the ensuing scandal caused Montesinos to flee the country, hastening the resignation of Fujimori.

Iran’s global reach

US President Barack Obama underestimates the threat Iran poses to global security. Were this not the case, he would not have sent CIA Director Leon Panetta to Israel ahead of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House.

Panetta was reportedly dispatched here to read the government the riot act. Israel, he reportedly told his interlocutors, must not attack Iran without first receiving permission from Washington. Moreover, Israel should keep its mouth shut about attacking Iran. As far as Washington is concerned, Iran’s latest threats to destroy Israel were nothing more than payback for statements by Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials regarding Israel’s refusal to countenance a nuclear armed Iran.

Over the past several weeks, we have learned that the administration has made its peace with Iran’s nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. It is true, they say, that Iran may exploit its future talks with the US to run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon. But, they add, if that happens, the US will simply have to live with a nuclear-armed mullocracy.

The administration’s nonchalance about the threat of a nuclear armed Iran explains why the White House is so up in arms about the prospect of Israel acting independently to prevent Iran from building a nuclear arsenal. As far as the administration is concerned, the only reason Iran would threaten US interests is if Israel provokes it. As far as the administration is concerned, if Israel could just leave Iran’s nuclear installations alone, Iran would behave itself. But if Israel preemptively takes out Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and Iran in turn attacks Israeli and US targets in the region, the Obama administration will hold Israel – not Iran – responsible for whatever losses the US incurs. That was apparently the message Panetta wanted to transmit to Jerusalem during his recent visit.

WHILE LARGELY supported by the US media, the administration’s view of the Iranian threat is not without its domestic critics. Opponents of the administration’s policy of engagement and appeasement have pointed out that a nuclear armed Iran will surely destabilize the Middle East and as a consequence, will harm US national security interests. And this is true enough.

Whether by spurring a regional nuclear arms race; destabilizing with the intent of overthrowing Western-aligned regimes in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Morocco; enabling its terror proxies in Hizbullah and Hamas to operate under its nuclear umbrella; or attacking Israel with nuclear weapons, it is clear that the emergence of Iran as a nuclear power will cause tragedy, grief, chronic war and instability throughout the region. And – as the administration’s critics make clear – such a state of affairs would be antithetical to US national interests.

While correct, these warnings miss the mark. Yes, it is true that a nuclear-armed Iran would destabilize the Middle East. But the Obama White House doesn’t seem to care about that. What interests the White House apparently, is minimizing Teheran’s animosity towards Washington. If it can convince the mullocracy that Washington is not a threat, then – the thinking goes – perhaps, the buck will stop at the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf.

This bit of wishful thinking is wrong both theoretically and practically. It fails to take into account Iran’s stated intentions and the consequences of its likely behavior for the Middle East, and it ignores the fact that Iran’s intentions and actions for the past two decades have not been limited to the Middle East.

For upwards of 20 years, and at a break-neck pace since 1999, Iran has built up a long strategic arm in America’s backyard from which it is fully capable of attacking the US directly with the able and enthusiastic assistance of a network of proxies and allies.

IRAN POSES a direct threat to US national security through its alliances and military, intelligence and terrorist presence in South and Central America. Today Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Iran’s Hizbullah terror cells, and other Iranian agencies operate in open collaboration with anti-US governments throughout the Western Hemisphere. The South American lynchpin of this new and growing Iranian-centered alliance system is Hugo Chavez’s regime in Venezuela.

Through Chavez’s good offices, Iran has developed a strategic presence in Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Bolivia and warm ties with Cuba. It is exerting growing influence in El Salvador, Brazil, Argentina, Peru and among FARC terrorists in Colombia. And it has highly developed and already proven human smuggling routes to the US in Mexico. It is through this alliance structure with anti-American regimes in Latin America and with sub-national Islamic and narco-terrorist networks in failing states that Iran already constitutes a grave threat to US national security. And it is through this rapidly expanding alliance system that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an acute danger to US national security.

So far, the Obama administration has dealt with the threat posed by Iran’s strategic alliance with Venezuela and Chavez’s string of allied regimes in the same fashion as it has contended with Iran itself: It has blamed the situation on the Bush administration. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put it last week, the Bush administration’s policy of "isolating leaders who have led the opposition to US policies in Central and Latin America has failed and marginalized Washington’s interests."

CLINTON’S STATEMENT makes clear the basic and disturbing consistency of the administration’s failure to understand that there are regimes that are inherently hostile to the US and will remain irreconcilably hostile to the US regardless of what it does or who sits in the White House. Just as the administration cannot get its arms around the fact that the Iranian regime can only justify its existence by maintaining its hostility towards America, so it cannot countenance the fact that Chavez is only able to justify his existence through his hatred for Uncle Sam. It has no way of explaining for instance the fact that Iran and Venezuela responded to Obama’s attempts last month to extend an open hand to both countries by signing a memorandum upgrading their military alliance.

Were the administration able to understand the basic fact that some countries simply cannot abide by America, it would realize that the Iranian-Venezuelan military alliance itself is cause for a systematic reassessment of the rationale behind the US’s Western Hemispheric strategy. As Italy’s La Stampa reported last December, every week a Venezuelan airliner takes off from Teheran. It travels on to Syria’s Damascus airport before continuing on to Caracas. These flights have no commercial value, and the passenger manifest is kept secret. But as La Stampa reported and as both US officials and Venezuelan dissidents have testified, these flights are used to transfer prohibited military equipment, including missile parts from Teheran to Syria. Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese-Hizbullah and Palestinian terror personnel then board the plane to its final destination in Caracas. Iranian Revolutionary Guards are sent to Venezuela to among other things train Venezuela’s security services in methods for repressing internal dissent.

Venezuela’s military alliance with Iran places Iranian military personnel and Hizbullah operatives at every level of Venezuela’s military, intelligence and law enforcement establishment. For example, as the Washington-based Center for Security Policy’s Western Hemispheric Security Project documented in a recent report, Hizbullah agents control Venezuela’s passport agency.

In 2003, Chavez appointed Tarek el-Aissami, a known Hizbullah member to head the country’s passport agency. Last year Aissami was promoted to serve as Minister of Interior and Justice. Then too, last June, the US Department of Treasury designated Ghazi Nasr al Din, a Venezuelan diplomat who served as the deputy ambassador in Damascus and Beirut as a Hizbullah agent.

Hizbullah has a large and active presence in Venezuela. It operates openly throughout the country through both Lebanese cells and through native Venezuelan operatives who have converted to Islam. In 2006, a Hizbullah cell comprised of local converts staged an attempted bombing against the US embassy in Caracas.

Hizbullah has developed a formidable economic presence in Latin America. Although it has run a web of businesses in the region for decades, since 2005 the economic importance of these businesses has been eclipsed by the terror group’s involvement in worldwide cocaine distribution facilitated through its close ties with Chavez and FARC. According to the US military’s Southern Command, Hizbullah in Latin America earns between $300-500 million per year. This dwarfs the $200 million a year it receives from Iran.

Through Mexico, Hizbullah members and other terror operatives are able to enter the US relatively easily. In 2002 for instance the US arrested a Hizbullah operative in Mexico who admitted that he had facilitated the infiltration of several hundred Hizbullah operatives into the US.

THEN THERE is Nicaragua under the leadership of Chavez’s buddy Sandinista chief Daniel Ortega. Since he assumed Nicaragua’s presidency in 2007, Ortega has facilitated a massive expansion of Iran’s presence in Central America. With more than a hundred accredited diplomats, Iran’s embassy in Managua – a massive compound surrounded by four-meter-high concrete walls lined with razor wire – is one of the largest diplomatic compounds in the world.

Even more disturbing than Iran’s enormous diplomatic presence in Nicaragua are its massive maritime activities and plans. In 2007 Iran and Venezuela announced that they were investing $350 million to build a deep water port at Nicaragua’s Monkey Point along the Caribbean Sea. Iran also announced its plans to upgrade Nicaragua’s Pacific Port of Corinto. Finally, Teheran announced it would build a dry canal connecting the two ports. Such a building scheme would enable Iran to evade the Panama Canal; to build its own military infrastructure within the ports themselves; and to freely camouflage missile ships as civilian maritime traffic and use them to launch short and medium-range missiles against the US. Moreover, with its massive army of Hizbullah operatives on standby, Iran could launch attacks through its proxies – as it did in its 1992 and 1994 attacks against Israeli and Jewish targets in Buenos Aires – and so deny it had anything to do with the attacks.

None of this should suggest that anyone expects the US to attack Iran’s nuclear installations. The administration’s policies clearly rule out any such contingency. As for Israel, regardless of what the US does, it should be clear that Jerusalem will not stand by idly and allow existential threats to emerge and grow.

What people – and particularly Americans – could have expected is that the administration would take seriously the threat that Iran poses to the US in the Western Hemisphere. Depressingly however, the administration’s apparent decision to abdicate America’s position and responsibilities as the sole global superpower has led it to also abdicate its position and responsibilities as the most powerful nation in the Western Hemisphere. Indeed, what the administration’s refusal to acknowledge the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran – rich with proxies and allies at America’s doorstep – poses to America demonstrates is that in its haste to blame its predecessor for the fact that the US has real enemies, the administration is abdicating its responsibility to defend America itself.

La Creciente Afganizacin en Amrica Latina

Version in English

Cuando el Presidente Barack Obama fue criticado por su interacción amigable con Hugo Chávez durante la Cumbre de las Américas, él respondió diciendo que Estados Unidos no tenia nada que temerle a un país con una economía seiscientas veces menor que la Americana.

Esta curiosa observación por parte del Sr. Obama nos hace pensar entonces: ¿qué tan grande es la economía de Al Qaeda en comparación a la norteamericana? Lo más probable es que los activos de este grupo terrorista sean mucho menores que los de Venezuela. Asimismo, la economía de Irán no es comprable a la de Estados Unidos, aunque se esté viviendo una recesión económica.

Es lógico que nos preguntemos: ¿la seguridad nacional o regional corren peligro en relación a la capacidad económica o en tiempos de guerras asimétricas?  ¿Debe un país o una entidad ser económicamente o militarmente superior para poder generar una situación de inestabilidad y amenaza?

La administración Obama sabe la respuesta correcta. De lo contrario, el Presidente y su equipo de Seguridad Nacional no estarían agresivamente luchando contra el Talibán en Afganistán y Pakistán. Lo que esta administración más teme en esta región sudoeste Asiática es el colapso del estado en Pakistán y la inhabilidad de producir gobernabilidad en Afganistán. Ambos países están localizados a miles de kilómetros de distancia de los Estados Unidos pero, aún así, el gobierno americano reconoce que una situación de anarquía o de gobierno de los Talibanes en ambos casos podría llevar a una inestabilidad en toda la región. Al mismo tiempo, esta situación podría causar caos con el peligro adicional que grupos radicales podrían, no sólo, tomar posesión de un arma nuclear, sino que también, podrían ocupar los lugares que la autoridad dejara libres.

Las relaciones públicas de Obama con respecto a América Latina, la mayor parte de ellas dirigidas a abrir una nueva página en las relaciones de Estados Unidos con sus vecinos del sur, es consistente con las políticas de Bush. En ambas administraciones, la agencia encargada de la región parece ser el Departamento de Estado, cuya filosofía es tratar de mejorar la imagen de Estados Unidos en America Latina para mitigar el efecto de antiamericanismo. Al no confrontar a Hugo Chávez y sus aliados, parece ser un mecanismo dirigido a presentarlos como instigadores y a Washington como el civilizado y razonable actor. La actitud apologética de Obama en Trinidad y Tobago era consistente con esta concepción.

Pero hay un número de elementos que faltan en esta ecuación. En ediciones anteriores del "Reporte de las Américas," hemos descrito las intenciones de Chávez de revolucionar el área apoyando a grupos anti-sistema y candidatos como él por toda la región. También hemos informado acerca de las acciones de Chávez en su país, donde se han instalado el absolutismo y la eliminación de las libertades civiles y políticas, mientras que se evangelizan los ideales antidemocráticos al mismo tiempo que intentan remover a Estados Unidos en la lucha anti-drogas y en presencia militar. Su deseo de eliminar la esfera de influencia Americana e invitar a otros actores como China, Irán y Rusia, para que tengan un rol importante es más que evidente. Sin embargo, hay un aspecto que no ha sido previamente mencionado y que merece más atención, especialmente para los encargados de política exterior de los Estados Unidos; esto es la expansión de la anarquía a expensas de la autoridad del estado.

Un ejemplo es la introducción del Plan Colombia por el gobierno de Bill Clinton para ayudar a Colombia en su lucha contra los cárteles de drogas y las FARC, que para entonces, habían tomado el control del 40% del territorio. En aquel momento, peligrosos agentes no-gubernamentales tomaron el control de gran porción de estos terrenos en un estado democrático en el Hemisferio Oeste. Es gracias al arduo trabajo del Presidente Colombiano Álvaro Uribe que esa situación se revirtió de gran manera. En Venezuela y otros países aliados con Chávez, no sólo estamos siendo testigos de la consolidación de una autocracia socialista sino también de la proliferación de agentes no – gubernamentales peligrosos.

Hoy, los aeropuertos Venezolanos están siendo abiertamente utilizados por los narcotraficantes para exportar drogas a Estados Unidos y Europa; Chávez y Correa han ayudado a las FARC en su lucha contra Colombia; células de Hezbolá han  incrementado su recaudación de fondos y otras actividades en la región con el apoyo de Hugo Chávez; Irán y los carteles de drogas cooperan bajo los auspicios de Chávez; los terroristas de Sendero Luminoso en Perú, probablemente con la ayuda de elementos asociados con el líder Venezolano. En Venezuela, Hezbolá y otros grupos islámicos potenciados por el régimen mientras el mismo Chávez ha hecho del caos política oficial.

Ha sido reportado que 454 lideres sindicales independientes han sido asesinados por "sindicatos" oficiales paralelos.  También existe información que un líder sindical representando a los trabajadores de Toyota, fue asesinado por llegar a una solución pacifica con la compañía Japonesa. Al gobierno no le gustó el acuerdo que esta persona había logrado en forma pacífica. Los asesinos eran criminales reclutados en las prisiones por el gobierno de Chávez. La criminalidad en Venezuela ya tienen vida propia que va a ser muy difícil de controlar así Chávez se va del poder y puede bien ser utilizada a los carteles de drogas, las FARC y grupos radicales islámicos como Hezbolá.

De ser este el caso, ¿cuál será la situación en América Latina? Quizás, esto signifique que el síndrome anárquico Colombiano de los ’80 y los ’90 se expanda aun más. En otras palabras, una situación similar a la de Afganistán y Pakistán es muy probable que se convierta en omnipresente e irreversible. Si en Afganistán y Pakistán el peligro viene del Talibán, de Al Qaeda, de los auto llamados "lideres espirituales" y de otros agentes no gubernamentales poderosos, ¿qué nos hace pensar que en América Latina podremos controlar una coalición similar de los cárteles de drogas, las FARC, Hezbolá y otros criminales del régimen de Chávez?

Curiosamente, el Presidente Woodrow Wilson estaba muy preocupado por los acontecimientos en México durante la Revolución Mexicana temprano en el siglo 20. El orden y la estabilidad eran cruciales para los legisladores Americanos. Hoy, el desafío es más serio aun ya que los narcotraficantes y terroristas son mas sofisticados. Los países Latinoamericanos parecen indiferentes ante esta posibilidad o pueden estar esperando que otro país los rescate.

La OEA (Organización de Estados Americanos) y su Presidente José Miguel Insulza han mirado para el otro lado cuando estos sucesos han ocurrido; no sólo la OEA ha ignorado las agresiones de Chávez contra sus vecinos, pero también ha desconocido los asaltos a la democracia. Como el ejemplo de Chávez demuestra, el colapso de la democracia leva no sólo al autoritarismo pero también el caos y a la criminalización de la sociedad.

Los lideres latinoamericanos ¿no están preocupados? El avance de los carteles de drogas, grupos terroristas y criminalidad a expensas de la autoridad del estado es, en las mentes de los lideres de la OEA, sólo un problema norteamericano. Ellos parecen estar mas preocupados por el intento de Estados Unidos de influenciarlos en vez de ver el peligro real de los elementos mencionados anteriormente. Por eso, estaban contentísimos por el "acercamiento diferente" de Obama como si EE.UU. fuera realmente su problema. Por el contrario, es de su interés colectivo trabajar con Estados Unidos en contra de este fenómeno mientras que todavía hay posibilidades de hacerlo pacíficamente.

 

Luis Fleischman es un asesor senior del Proyecto Menges para la Seguridad Hemisférica en el Centro para Políticas de Seguridad en Washington DC. 

Nicole M. Ferrand es analista y editora del "The Americas Report" del Menges Hemispheric Security Project en el Center for Security Policy en Washington DC. Se graduó de la Universidad de Columbia en Economía y Ciencias Políticas. Estudió Derecho en la Universidad UNIFE y Finanzas Corporativas en Georgetown University.

The growing Afghanization of Latin America

Versión en Español

When President Barack Obama was criticized for his over friendly interaction with Hugo Chavez during the Summit of the Americas, he responded by saying that the U.S. has nothing to fear from a country that has an economy six hundred times smaller than ours. 

This curious remark by our President brings another logical question to mind: how big is Al Qaeda’s economy in comparison to ours? It is likely that Al Qaeda’s assets are substantially smaller than oil-rich Venezuela’s. Likewise, Iran’s economy is not comparable to the American economy, even in a time of recession and economic crisis.

It is then logical to ask whether national or regional security is endangered in relation to economic capability or in an era of asymmetric wars. Does a country or an entity need to be economically or (even militarily) superior to those who oppose it in order to generate a situation of instability and threat?

The Obama Administration knows the right answer. Otherwise, the President and his national security team would not be so aggressively pursuing a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. What this Administration most fears in that area of south-central Asia is the collapse of the state in Pakistan and the inability to produce governability in Afghanistan. Both countries are located thousands of miles away from the United States but still the U.S. government recognizes that a situation of anarchy or Taliban rule in both countries would lead to regional instability. That, in turn, could lead to a situation of chaos with the danger that rogue elements could not only posses a nuclear weapon but also could take over in those places where state authority vanishes.

Obama’s public relations strategy in Latin America, mostly aimed at opening a new page in U.S.-Latin American relations, is consistent with Bush’s policies. In both the Bush and the Obama Administrations, the leading agency in charge of this policy seems to be the State Department whose philosophy is to try to improve the image of the United States in Latin America in order to mitigate the effect of anti-Americanism in the area. Not confronting Hugo Chavez and his allies appears to be a device aimed at portraying them as the instigators and the U.S. as the civilized and reasonable actor. Obama’s apologetic appearance in Trinidad & Tobago was consistent with this conception.

There are a number of elements missing in that view. In previous issues of the "America’s Report" we have described Chavez’s intentions at revolutionizing the area by supporting anti-establishment groups and candidates like himself across the region.  We also reported that Chavez has designed a new regime based on absolutism and the elimination of civil and political rights while evangelizing these anti-democratic ideas throughout the region. He has built alliances with rogue states on the basis of anti-Americanism while attempting to remove America’s anti-drug and military presence. His wish to eliminate the American sphere of influence and bring other actors such as China, Iran and Russia into play is more than evident. However, there is one aspect not previously mentioned which deserves more attention, especially for U.S. foreign policy makers; that is the spread of anarchy at the expense of state authority.

A case in point is the Clinton Administration’s introduction of Plan Colombia in order to help Colombia fight the drug cartels and the FARC which by then had taken over forty (40) percent of Colombian territory. At that time, dangerous non-state actors took over this large portion of a democratic state in the Western Hemisphere. It is because of the hard work of President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia that this situation has been largely reversed.  In Venezuela and other countries allied with Chavez, not only are we seeing the consolidation of socialist autocracies but also the proliferation of dangerous non-state actors.

Today, Venezuelan airports are being freely used by drug cartels to export drugs to Europe and the U.S.; Chavez and Correa have helped the FARC in the fight against Colombia; Hezbollah cells have increased their fund-raising and other activities in the area with the support of Hugo Chavez; Iran and drug cartels cooperate under the auspices of Chavez; the Maoist Shining Path is reviving its activities in Peru, probably with the help of elements associated with Chavez. In Venezuela Hezbollah and other Islamists are empowered by the regime while Chavez, himself, has made chaos into official policy.

It has been reported that 454 leaders of independent unions have been murdered by parallel official "union" mercenaries.  It was also reported that the union leader representing the Toyota workers was murdered after reaching a deal with the Japanese company. The government did not like the deal because an official union leader was able to negotiate a peaceful resolution to a labor conflict. These mercenaries are allegedly criminals recruited in the prisons by the Chavez government. Criminality has already taken on a life of its own which would be difficult to control even if Chavez were no longer president. High-level criminality could serve drug cartels and radical Islamist groups like Hezbollah, or the FARC. More and more potential seditious, underground and criminal groups are encouraged as these Chavez-type regimes advance in the region.

In other words, the monsters fed by the Chavista alliance now have a life of their own and are likely to survive even after their sponsors are gone.

That being the case, what will be the situation in Latin America?  Perhaps, it could mean that Colombia’s anarchical syndrome of the 1980’s and 1990’s will expand further. In other words, a situation similar to Afghanistan and Pakistan is likely to become omnipresent and irreversible. If in Afghanistan and Pakistan the danger is coming from the Taliban, Al Qaeda, the warlords and other non-state powerful actors, what makes us think that in Latin America we will be able to control a similar coalition of the drug cartels, the FARC, Hezbollah and the free criminals of the Chavez regime?

Curiously enough, President Woodrow Wilson was very concerned about developments in Mexico during the Mexican revolution early in the 20th century. Order and stability in Mexico were crucial to U.S. policy makers. Wilson and other U.S. administrations supported regional stability. Today, the challenge is even more serious as drug cartels and terrorist groups are far more sophisticated. Latin American countries seem to be apathetic to this possible development or may be they expect some other country to come to their rescue.

The Organization of American States (OAS) whose president is Miguel Insulza has looked the other way while these developments have taken place. The OAS not only has ignored Chavez’s aggression towards their neighbors but it has also ignored assaults on democracy. As the example of Chavez shows us, the collapse of democracy leads not only to authoritarianism but also to chaos and criminalization of society.

Latin American leaders, aren’t you concerned?  The advance of drug cartels, terrorist groups and criminality at the expense of state authority is, in the minds of the OAS leaders, only an American problem. They appear to be more concerned about America attempting to somehow influence them than about the dangers coming from the elements mentioned above. This is why they were delighted by Obama’s "different approach", as if the U.S. is really their problem.  To the contrary, it is in their collective interest to work with the United States against this phenomenon while there is still a chance to do so peacefully.

 

Dr. Luis Fleischman is a senior advisor to the Menges Hemispheric Security Project at the Center for Security Policy in Washington DC.

Transacciones bancarias entre Chavez y Ahmadinejad

Version in English

Los lideres de Irán y Venezuela han creado una impresionante red de comercio e influencia internacional con la que se oponen abiertamente a los Estados Unidos. Ya sea fundando el programa nuclear Iraní, comprando alianzas en países latinoamericanos o consolidando aún mas el poder de Chávez en Venezuela, esta movilización estratégica a alcanzado  un estatus global en finanzas internacionales. El bloque anti- mercado conocido como el ALBA y los nuevos consorcios petroleros con Rusia e Irán son sintomáticos de un sistema económico alternativo donde no existe el control sobre la tiranía. Justo en el mismo mes que el Tesoro americano acusa a seis empresas Iraníes basadas en Nueva York de transferir dinero ilegalmente para desarrollar tecnología nuclear,  Venezuela e Irán han inaugurado un banco para financiar "proyectos de desarrollo." Lo peligroso es que estos fondos pueden provenir del lavado de dinero, del crimen internacional, del tráfico de cocaína y de otras formas de comercio ilegal. Esto ocurre mientras estos dos lideres oprimen las libertades civiles en sus países. Y esto no queda aquí; Chávez piensa hacer lo mismo con Siria y Qatar.

El Reporte de las Américas ha venido siguiendo las actividades conjuntas entre Chávez y Ahmadinejad y sus esfuerzos para contrarrestar las políticas de los Estados Unidos utilizando los métodos menos imaginados. Las actividades de Irán en America Latina nos han demostrado que la habilidad de EEUU para impedir que Irán evada las sanciones internacionales es insuficiente. Por ello, la financiación para las operaciones conjuntas entre Irán y Venezuela se llevan a cabo cada vez con mayor independencia del sistema financiero internacional.  Esto significa que a pesar que el precio del petróleo ha bajado, las intenciones de la Revolución Islámica y la Revolución Bolivariana están ahora interconectadas. Los analistas contra el terrorismo y los expertos en política internacional deben entender y utilizar la retórica de estas revoluciones para crear sus propias estrategias.

El 3 de Abril del 2009, Hugo Chávez y Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inauguraron "El Banco binacional Venezolano – Iraní. Cada país ha puesto como capital inicial 200 millones de dólares, y los activos del banco se estiman en 1.2 billones.  Esta entidad bancaria es parte del Banco de Desarrollo de Exportaciones de Irán. Conocido en Venezuela como el Banco Internacional de Desarrollo, esta institución iraní, está bajo sanciones del Tesoro Americano y de la Comunidad Internacional por su supuesta implicancia en la financiación de desarrollo de tecnología nuclear en Teherán. Esta iniciativa financiera conjunta marca un paso histórico en el reposicionamiento estratégico de los enemigos de Estados Unidos. Con cada pedazo de influencia que Chávez compra de Centro y Sudamérica con los petrodólares Venezolanos, Irán gana también en términos de influencia o en capacidad operacional.  Este banco además dará una percepción de legitimidad a las transacciones financieras de Chávez.

El 7 de Abril del 2009, el Departamento del Tesoro Norteamericano designó a "un individuo chino iraní y seis entidades en virtud de la Orden Ejecutiva 13382 por su conexión a la proliferación de misiles de Irán." Además, "la Tesorería ha identificado ocho alias utilizados por EO 13382 designado LIMMT Económico y Comercio Company, Ltd. ( "LIMMT") para eludir las sanciones. La O.E. 13382 busca congelar los bienes de las instituciones que promueven la proliferación de Armas de Destrucción Masiva y sus socios para aislarlos de los sistemas financieros y comerciales de los Estados Unidos." El subsecretario del Tesoro de EU para Terrorismo e Inteligencia Financiera, Stuart Levey, apeló a la autoridad del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas para que impida a compañías falsas recaudar fondos para "tecnología nuclear para Irán." La procuraduría de la ciudad de Nueva York emitió una acusación contra estas entidades ese mismo día. Estados Unidos, la Unión Europea y Australia han nombrado al Banco Melli como proliferador por su papel en los programas nucleares y de misiles balísticos de Irán. Este banco, mantuvo cuentas y proporcionó cartas de créditos y servicios financieros para compañías pantallas iraníes que ayudaban a las empresas en cuestión.

Estos son sólo titulares tomados al azar que forman parte de una guerra asimétrica contra los Estados Unidos y sus aliados que comenzó en 1979. La novedad es que el esfuerzo Iraní ha ganado mucho gracias a su alianza con Hugo Chávez. Douglas Farah resumió la relación entre estos dos lideres así:

Irán patrocina a Hezbollah y se alía con Chávez. Chávez ayuda a las FARC y se alía con Irán. Las FARC tienen la droga, Hezbollah tiene la red de distribución, y  la experiencia de haber participado en tráfico de heroína y actividad criminal por años…. Lo que es alarmante es que, a pesar que la intención de Hezbollah de atacar a Estados Unidos y su evidente interés en tener la habilidad de poder efectivamente hacerlo, esta alianza (entre Chávez e Irán) causa muy poca alarma entre lideres de alto nivel."           

La falta de atención de la que Farah habla continúa con Obama. Nos podemos preguntar: ¿puede el Presidente de los Estados Unidos haberse tomado fotos tan alegremente si hubiera estado informado sobre el apoyo que Chávez da a las FARC y Hezbollah y sobre su comportamiento dictatorial en Venezuela? Estas fotos, sin duda, serán usadas para avanzar las agendas de líderes opresivos en Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador y Honduras. Un ejemplo de los beneficios de la alianza de la red Irán-Venezuela-Hezbollah salió a la luz el pasado Junio cuando Washington acusó a un diplomático venezolano, Ghazi Nasr al Din, de trabajar para Hezbola y acusó al Gobierno de Caracas de "dar refugio" a agentes de ese grupo radical chií. Al Din fue el encargado de negocios diplomáticos de Venezuela en Damasco y ahora trabaja como director de asuntos políticos en la embajada de ese país en Líbano. El gobierno estadounidense afirma que al Din utilizó su posición como diplomático y presidente del Centro Shi’ a Islamic con sede en Caracas para dar asistencia financiera a Hezbolá. Es sospechoso de asesorar a donantes de ese grupo extremista islámico y de aportar información específica bancaria en que los "depósitos de donantes irían directamente a Hezbolá", dijo el departamento. También fue acusado de organizar un viaje de miembros del grupo terrorista a Irán. Adam J. Szubin, Director de la Oficina de Control de Bienes Extranjeros (OFAC) dijo:

Es extremadamente perturbador ver que el gobierno de Venezuela emplea y provea un refugio seguro a facilitadores y financistas del (movimiento radical chiíta) Hezbolá. Continuaremos exponiendo la naturaleza global de la red de apoyo al terrorismo de Hezbolá.

Muchos analistas han sugerido que la amenaza de Chávez decrecerá con la caída del precio del petróleo, pero parece que el líder Venezolano le ha encontrado la vuelta a este problema. Hay que tener en cuenta que Chávez consolidó su poder prometiendo al electorado eliminar la pobreza con programas llamados "misiones," en tiempos que los ingresos por el petróleo eran abundantes. Entonces, cuando Chávez crea un nuevo Banco de Desarrollo con Irán, es bueno tomar distancia y tomar nota de los proyectos de desarrollo, contabilidad y gastos de estos dos países.

Es más, según expertos "el gobierno de Chávez no ha hecho más que los gobiernos venezolanos del pasado para combatir la pobreza y sus muy promocionados programas sociales han tenido un escaso efecto”, acotó Francisco Rodríguez, ex economista jefe de la Asamblea Nacional en Venezuela entre el 2000 y el 2004, en un estudio publicado en la revista Foreign Affairs el año pasado.

Ni las estadísticas oficiales ni los cálculos independientes muestran pruebas de que Chávez ha reorientado las prioridades del Estado para beneficiar a los pobres’", afirmó Francisco Rodríguez, economista de la Universidad Wesleyan en Connecticut. también llamó la atención sobre el hecho de que las políticas económicas del gobierno, incapaces de contener la inflación, terminan afectando a los más pobres, que ven su capacidad de compra reducida por la inflación. Que Chávez es bueno para los pobres, es una hipótesis que no se ajusta a la realidad.

Rodríguez también explica que Chávez ha logrado mantener la impresión de que sus programas son exitosos gracias a su manejo político. Pero la verdadera falta de éxito se debe a la corrupción y a la mala gestión, a lo que Rodríguez se refiere como una "Revolución Vacía." Pero ¿donde va todo el dinero del petróleo? La mayoría opina que Chávez ha logrado mantener al ejercito unido dándoles a sus generales todo lo que necesitan.  Aunque esa no es la única razón, los gastos en armamento revelan mucho.

 

El Semanal de Defensa Jane publicó en Noviembre del 2008 que el presupuesto del Ministerio de Defensa incrementó en un 25% para el año 2009. Desde que subió al poder, Chávez ha logrado acumular material militar que desafía toda necesidad convencional. En términos económicos, Ben Miller, resumió este punto en una edición anterior del Reporte de las Américas:

De acuerdo a la Oficina de Presupuesto Nacional, el Presidente Venezolano Hugo Chávez ha triplicado el presupuesto militar desde el año 2000 alcanzando los $3.3 billones en el 2008. Las compras más grandes de Chávez fueron a Rusia en el 2006, país con el que firmó contratos que llegaron a los $3 billones de dólares. Entre el 2004 y el 2005, Venezuela duplicó el valor de la importación de armas convencionales de $13 millones de dólares a $27 millones de dólares.

Esta cantidad se disparó a $406 millones en los siguientes 12 meses, causando que Venezuela sobrepasara a otros países como Argentina, Francia, Siria, Irak y Afganistán. La gran mayoría del armamento que recibió Venezuela fue de Rusia.

Esta cantidad de dinero gastada en armamento pesado innecesario, sería una noticia escandalosa si hubiera libertad de prensa en Venezuela. Tanques Rusos T-72, totalmente inútiles en la selva si Venezuela es atacada. Pero este equipo aunado a 50 helicópteros que el gobierno de Chávez compró a Rusia, sí podrían ser utilizados para oprimir cualquier movimiento de resistencia, para armar grupos terroristas y para convertirse en la fuerza militar dominante de la región. Por el momento, el poder de Chávez sigue creciendo.

El Grupo de Acción Financiera Internacional (GAFI), organismo supranacional que une a los ministros de Finanzas de los siete países más industrializados (Alemania, Canadá, Estados Unidos, Francia, Italia, Japón y Reino Unido), dice que "la falta de políticas contra el lavado de dinero, para prevenir y combatir la financiación de grupos terroristas en la República Islámica de Irán representa una gran vulnerabilidad en el sistema financiero internacional. Muchos han apodado a Irán como el "centro banquero del terror." No se puede combatir estos crímenes en un país donde estas son políticas de estado utilizadas por el gobierno. El gobierno de Ahmadinejad apoya a organizaciones terroristas lo que es completamente consistente con la agenda de la República Islámica de Irán y las declaraciones de Ahmadinejad durante la ceremonia de inauguración del Banco Venezolano – Iraní "Lo que ha ocurrido hoy representa una fuerte voluntad para construir un mundo nuevo." Estas palabras pueden parecer típicas para un acto así, cuando no están siendo dichas por una cabeza de estado que tiene una visión del mundo sin Estados Unidos y si  Israel.

Hugo Chávez ha hecho declaraciones delineando sus intenciones de crear una alternativa internacional financiera. De hecho, el nuevo bloque comercial comunista de las Américas  tiene el titulo de "La Alternativa Bolivariana de las Américas (ALBA). De Alba, Chávez dice: "Un nuevo mapa político, económico y geopolítico se puede percibir en America Latina y el Caribe."  Como el banco conjunto con Irán, una aversión a la democracia liberal y con tendencias dictatoriales, parecen ser el común denominador  de los países miembros. Los miembros de ALBA son Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia, Honduras, Dominica, y Nicaragua. Por ello, mientras que la visión revolucionaria progresa en Latinoamérica  y el Caribe, Hugo Chávez ha recurrido al Medio Oriente para globalizar su alternativa anti-capitalista. El dijo durante la inauguración: "Esto es parte de una estrategia para formar una nueva arquitectura financiera entre nosotros." Chávez raramente desperdicia una oportunidad para denunciar al capitalismo y ridiculizar al Fondo Monetario Internacional. El describió el  reciente compromiso de $ 1 trillón al G20 como "darle carne a los buitres." Se asume que él y sus aliados son una alternativa confiable.

 

Nicholas Hanlon es escritor e investigador en el "Center for Security Policy en Washington DC. Es graduado de la Universidad de Georgia. El Sr. Hanlon estudió Ciencias Políticas y Relaciones Internacionales.   

Traducido Por Nicole M. Ferrand

Transacciones bancarias entre Chavez y Ahmadinejad

Version in English

Los lideres de Irán y Venezuela han creado una impresionante red de comercio e influencia internacional con la que se oponen abiertamente a los Estados Unidos. Ya sea fundando el programa nuclear Iraní, comprando alianzas en países latinoamericanos o consolidando aún mas el poder de Chávez en Venezuela, esta movilización estratégica a alcanzado  un estatus global en finanzas internacionales. El bloque anti- mercado conocido como el ALBA y los nuevos consorcios petroleros con Rusia e Irán son sintomáticos de un sistema económico alternativo donde no existe el control sobre la tiranía. Justo en el mismo mes que el Tesoro americano acusa a seis empresas Iraníes basadas en Nueva York de transferir dinero ilegalmente para desarrollar tecnología nuclear,  Venezuela e Irán han inaugurado un banco para financiar "proyectos de desarrollo." Lo peligroso es que estos fondos pueden provenir del lavado de dinero, del crimen internacional, del tráfico de cocaína y de otras formas de comercio ilegal. Esto ocurre mientras estos dos lideres oprimen las libertades civiles en sus países. Y esto no queda aquí; Chávez piensa hacer lo mismo con Siria y Qatar.

El Reporte de las Américas ha venido siguiendo las actividades conjuntas entre Chávez y Ahmadinejad y sus esfuerzos para contrarrestar las políticas de los Estados Unidos utilizando los métodos menos imaginados. Las actividades de Irán en America Latina nos han demostrado que la habilidad de EEUU para impedir que Irán evada las sanciones internacionales es insuficiente. Por ello, la financiación para las operaciones conjuntas entre Irán y Venezuela se llevan a cabo cada vez con mayor independencia del sistema financiero internacional.  Esto significa que a pesar que el precio del petróleo ha bajado, las intenciones de la Revolución Islámica y la Revolución Bolivariana están ahora interconectadas. Los analistas contra el terrorismo y los expertos en política internacional deben entender y utilizar la retórica de estas revoluciones para crear sus propias estrategias.

El 3 de Abril del 2009, Hugo Chávez y Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inauguraron "El Banco binacional Venezolano – Iraní. Cada país ha puesto como capital inicial 200 millones de dólares, y los activos del banco se estiman en 1.2 billones.  Esta entidad bancaria es parte del Banco de Desarrollo de Exportaciones de Irán. Conocido en Venezuela como el Banco Internacional de Desarrollo, esta institución iraní, está bajo sanciones del Tesoro Americano y de la Comunidad Internacional por su supuesta implicancia en la financiación de desarrollo de tecnología nuclear en Teherán. Esta iniciativa financiera conjunta marca un paso histórico en el reposicionamiento estratégico de los enemigos de Estados Unidos. Con cada pedazo de influencia que Chávez compra de Centro y Sudamérica con los petrodólares Venezolanos, Irán gana también en términos de influencia o en capacidad operacional.  Este banco además dará una percepción de legitimidad a las transacciones financieras de Chávez.

El 7 de Abril del 2009, el Departamento del Tesoro Norteamericano designó a "un individuo chino iraní y seis entidades en virtud de la Orden Ejecutiva 13382 por su conexión a la proliferación de misiles de Irán." Además, "la Tesorería ha identificado ocho alias utilizados por EO 13382 designado LIMMT Económico y Comercio Company, Ltd. ( "LIMMT") para eludir las sanciones. La O.E. 13382 busca congelar los bienes de las instituciones que promueven la proliferación de Armas de Destrucción Masiva y sus socios para aislarlos de los sistemas financieros y comerciales de los Estados Unidos." El subsecretario del Tesoro de EU para Terrorismo e Inteligencia Financiera, Stuart Levey, apeló a la autoridad del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas para que impida a compañías falsas recaudar fondos para "tecnología nuclear para Irán." La procuraduría de la ciudad de Nueva York emitió una acusación contra estas entidades ese mismo día. Estados Unidos, la Unión Europea y Australia han nombrado al Banco Melli como proliferador por su papel en los programas nucleares y de misiles balísticos de Irán. Este banco, mantuvo cuentas y proporcionó cartas de créditos y servicios financieros para compañías pantallas iraníes que ayudaban a las empresas en cuestión.

Estos son sólo titulares tomados al azar que forman parte de una guerra asimétrica contra los Estados Unidos y sus aliados que comenzó en 1979. La novedad es que el esfuerzo Iraní ha ganado mucho gracias a su alianza con Hugo Chávez. Douglas Farah resumió la relación entre estos dos lideres así:

Irán patrocina a Hezbollah y se alía con Chávez. Chávez ayuda a las FARC y se alía con Irán. Las FARC tienen la droga, Hezbollah tiene la red de distribución, y  la experiencia de haber participado en tráfico de heroína y actividad criminal por años…. Lo que es alarmante es que, a pesar que la intención de Hezbollah de atacar a Estados Unidos y su evidente interés en tener la habilidad de poder efectivamente hacerlo, esta alianza (entre Chávez e Irán) causa muy poca alarma entre lideres de alto nivel."           

La falta de atención de la que Farah habla continúa con Obama. Nos podemos preguntar: ¿puede el Presidente de los Estados Unidos haberse tomado fotos tan alegremente si hubiera estado informado sobre el apoyo que Chávez da a las FARC y Hezbollah y sobre su comportamiento dictatorial en Venezuela? Estas fotos, sin duda, serán usadas para avanzar las agendas de líderes opresivos en Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador y Honduras. Un ejemplo de los beneficios de la alianza de la red Irán-Venezuela-Hezbollah salió a la luz el pasado Junio cuando Washington acusó a un diplomático venezolano, Ghazi Nasr al Din, de trabajar para Hezbola y acusó al Gobierno de Caracas de "dar refugio" a agentes de ese grupo radical chií. Al Din fue el encargado de negocios diplomáticos de Venezuela en Damasco y ahora trabaja como director de asuntos políticos en la embajada de ese país en Líbano. El gobierno estadounidense afirma que al Din utilizó su posición como diplomático y presidente del Centro Shi’ a Islamic con sede en Caracas para dar asistencia financiera a Hezbolá. Es sospechoso de asesorar a donantes de ese grupo extremista islámico y de aportar información específica bancaria en que los "depósitos de donantes irían directamente a Hezbolá", dijo el departamento. También fue acusado de organizar un viaje de miembros del grupo terrorista a Irán. Adam J. Szubin, Director de la Oficina de Control de Bienes Extranjeros (OFAC) dijo:

Es extremadamente perturbador ver que el gobierno de Venezuela emplea y provea un refugio seguro a facilitadores y financistas del (movimiento radical chiíta) Hezbolá. Continuaremos exponiendo la naturaleza global de la red de apoyo al terrorismo de Hezbolá.

Muchos analistas han sugerido que la amenaza de Chávez decrecerá con la caída del precio del petróleo, pero parece que el líder Venezolano le ha encontrado la vuelta a este problema. Hay que tener en cuenta que Chávez consolidó su poder prometiendo al electorado eliminar la pobreza con programas llamados "misiones," en tiempos que los ingresos por el petróleo eran abundantes. Entonces, cuando Chávez crea un nuevo Banco de Desarrollo con Irán, es bueno tomar distancia y tomar nota de los proyectos de desarrollo, contabilidad y gastos de estos dos países.

Es más, según expertos "el gobierno de Chávez no ha hecho más que los gobiernos venezolanos del pasado para combatir la pobreza y sus muy promocionados programas sociales han tenido un escaso efecto”, acotó Francisco Rodríguez, ex economista jefe de la Asamblea Nacional en Venezuela entre el 2000 y el 2004, en un estudio publicado en la revista Foreign Affairs el año pasado.

Ni las estadísticas oficiales ni los cálculos independientes muestran pruebas de que Chávez ha reorientado las prioridades del Estado para beneficiar a los pobres’", afirmó Francisco Rodríguez, economista de la Universidad Wesleyan en Connecticut. también llamó la atención sobre el hecho de que las políticas económicas del gobierno, incapaces de contener la inflación, terminan afectando a los más pobres, que ven su capacidad de compra reducida por la inflación. Que Chávez es bueno para los pobres, es una hipótesis que no se ajusta a la realidad.

Rodríguez también explica que Chávez ha logrado mantener la impresión de que sus programas son exitosos gracias a su manejo político. Pero la verdadera falta de éxito se debe a la corrupción y a la mala gestión, a lo que Rodríguez se refiere como una "Revolución Vacía." Pero ¿donde va todo el dinero del petróleo? La mayoría opina que Chávez ha logrado mantener al ejercito unido dándoles a sus generales todo lo que necesitan.  Aunque esa no es la única razón, los gastos en armamento revelan mucho.

 

El Semanal de Defensa Jane publicó en Noviembre del 2008 que el presupuesto del Ministerio de Defensa incrementó en un 25% para el año 2009. Desde que subió al poder, Chávez ha logrado acumular material militar que desafía toda necesidad convencional. En términos económicos, Ben Miller, resumió este punto en una edición anterior del Reporte de las Américas:

De acuerdo a la Oficina de Presupuesto Nacional, el Presidente Venezolano Hugo Chávez ha triplicado el presupuesto militar desde el año 2000 alcanzando los $3.3 billones en el 2008. Las compras más grandes de Chávez fueron a Rusia en el 2006, país con el que firmó contratos que llegaron a los $3 billones de dólares. Entre el 2004 y el 2005, Venezuela duplicó el valor de la importación de armas convencionales de $13 millones de dólares a $27 millones de dólares.

Esta cantidad se disparó a $406 millones en los siguientes 12 meses, causando que Venezuela sobrepasara a otros países como Argentina, Francia, Siria, Irak y Afganistán. La gran mayoría del armamento que recibió Venezuela fue de Rusia.

Esta cantidad de dinero gastada en armamento pesado innecesario, sería una noticia escandalosa si hubiera libertad de prensa en Venezuela. Tanques Rusos T-72, totalmente inútiles en la selva si Venezuela es atacada. Pero este equipo aunado a 50 helicópteros que el gobierno de Chávez compró a Rusia, sí podrían ser utilizados para oprimir cualquier movimiento de resistencia, para armar grupos terroristas y para convertirse en la fuerza militar dominante de la región. Por el momento, el poder de Chávez sigue creciendo.

El Grupo de Acción Financiera Internacional (GAFI), organismo supranacional que une a los ministros de Finanzas de los siete países más industrializados (Alemania, Canadá, Estados Unidos, Francia, Italia, Japón y Reino Unido), dice que "la falta de políticas contra el lavado de dinero, para prevenir y combatir la financiación de grupos terroristas en la República Islámica de Irán representa una gran vulnerabilidad en el sistema financiero internacional. Muchos han apodado a Irán como el "centro banquero del terror." No se puede combatir estos crímenes en un país donde estas son políticas de estado utilizadas por el gobierno. El gobierno de Ahmadinejad apoya a organizaciones terroristas lo que es completamente consistente con la agenda de la República Islámica de Irán y las declaraciones de Ahmadinejad durante la ceremonia de inauguración del Banco Venezolano – Iraní "Lo que ha ocurrido hoy representa una fuerte voluntad para construir un mundo nuevo." Estas palabras pueden parecer típicas para un acto así, cuando no están siendo dichas por una cabeza de estado que tiene una visión del mundo sin Estados Unidos y si  Israel.

Hugo Chávez ha hecho declaraciones delineando sus intenciones de crear una alternativa internacional financiera. De hecho, el nuevo bloque comercial comunista de las Américas  tiene el titulo de "La Alternativa Bolivariana de las Américas (ALBA). De Alba, Chávez dice: "Un nuevo mapa político, económico y geopolítico se puede percibir en America Latina y el Caribe."  Como el banco conjunto con Irán, una aversión a la democracia liberal y con tendencias dictatoriales, parecen ser el común denominador  de los países miembros. Los miembros de ALBA son Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia, Honduras, Dominica, y Nicaragua. Por ello, mientras que la visión revolucionaria progresa en Latinoamérica  y el Caribe, Hugo Chávez ha recurrido al Medio Oriente para globalizar su alternativa anti-capitalista. El dijo durante la inauguración: "Esto es parte de una estrategia para formar una nueva arquitectura financiera entre nosotros." Chávez raramente desperdicia una oportunidad para denunciar al capitalismo y ridiculizar al Fondo Monetario Internacional. El describió el  reciente compromiso de $ 1 trillón al G20 como "darle carne a los buitres." Se asume que él y sus aliados son una alternativa confiable.

 

Nicholas Hanlon es escritor e investigador en el "Center for Security Policy en Washington DC. Es graduado de la Universidad de Georgia. El Sr. Hanlon estudió Ciencias Políticas y Relaciones Internacionales.   

Traducido Por Nicole M. Ferrand

Banking 101 with Chavez and Ahmadinejad

Versión en Español

The leaders of Iran and Venezuela have created an impressive network of trade and international influence with which they openly oppose the United States.  Whether the funding goes to Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Hezbollah, the purchase of Latin American politicians, or the further consolidation of Chavez’s power at home, this mobilization of strategic advantage has reached a global status in international finance.  The anti-free-trade bloc, known as ALBA, and the new oil consortiums with Russia and Iran are symptomatic of a rising alternative economic system where there are no checks on tyranny.  Now, in the same month when the U.S. Treasury named six New York based Iranian front companies who move money for the proliferation of sanctioned weapons technology to Iran’s nuclear program, Venezuela and Iran have inaugurated a joint bank to fund development projects.  These projects benefit Iran and Venezuela as they jockey petrol dollars and, if needed, subsidize them with profits from organized crime, cocaine traffic, and other forms of illicit trade all while oppressing civil liberties.  Hugo Chavez hopes to create similar joint development banks with Syria and Qatar. 

The Americas Report has chronicled how these unchecked advances will lead to the ability of foreign powers to leverage U.S. foreign policy in ways never imagined.  This past month, and even this past year, has demonstrated that our ability to slow or handicap Iran’s circumvention of sanctions is instructive but insufficient.  Hence, funding for the Iranian-Venezuelan agenda will become increasingly autonomous from the international finance system.  This means that despite the drop in oil consumption and declining prices, the overt intentions of both the Islamic Revolution and the Bolivarian Revolution are now more inter-connected.  Counter terrorism analysts and U.S. foreign policy makers must use the rhetoric of these revolutions as context for the formation of their own strategies.

On April 3rd, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated ‘The Iran-Venezuela Joint Bank."  Each country has put up their own half of an initial capital base of 200 million dollars, which they plan to raise to 1.2 billion.  The new bank is the offspring of The Export Development Bank of Iran.  Known in Venezuela as the Banco Internacional de Desarrollo, this Iranian institution is under sanctions from both the U.S. Treasury and the international community for its alleged involvement in Iran’s nuclear program.  Chavez and Ahmadinejad must find new ways to finance Iran’s nuclear program among other suspect programs because sanctions are having some effect.  Ultimately, they prefer a completely new and alternative way to fund their endeavors.  The joint bank marks another historical step in the geo-strategic repositioning of the United States’ enemies in their alliance against the West.  With each bit of influence that Chavez buys in Central and South America with Venezuelan petrodollars, Iran either takes a cut in terms of assets, influence, or increased operational capabilities.  The joint bank will add to the perception of legitimacy in Chavez’s financial transactions.

On April 7, 2009 the U.S. Department of the Treasury named a "Chinese individual and six Iranian entities under Executive Order 13382 for their connection to Iran’s missile proliferation network.  Additionally, Treasury identified eight aliases used by E.O. 13382 designee LIMMT Economic and Trade Company, Ltd. ("LIMMT") to circumvent sanctions.  E.O. 13382 is an authority aimed at freezing the assets of weapons of mass destruction proliferators and those who support them." [1]  The Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Stuart Levey, appealed to the authority of the Security Council and international obligations to stop the fake companies from procuring "centrifuge and missile technology for Iran." The New York County District Attorney’s Office filed a criminal indictment against the procurement network on the same day.  In March, the Treasury designated companies associated with Iran’s Bank Melli for the banks part in Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.  The U.S., the E.U., and Australia had already named Bank Melli as a proliferator.  The bank maintained accounts and provided letters of credit and financial services for Iranian front companies who were moving materials for and giving support to sanctioned activities.

All of this occurred in the last several months.  Yet, these are almost arbitrary headlines of a thirty-year-old all out overt asymmetrical war against the U.S. and its allies that began in 1979 for Iran and dates back even further for the leftists in Central and South America.  What is new here are the exponential strategic leaps forward that Iran has gained from its alliance with Hugo Chavez.  Douglas Farah summed up the relationship on his blog last year like this:

So, Iran sponsors Hezbollah and allies with Chavez.  Chavez sponsors the FARC and allies with Iran.  The FARC has the dope; Hezbollah has the international distribution network, having been involved in heroin traffic and organized criminal activities for years.

What is alarming to me is that, despite Hezbollah’s stated intention to attack the United States and Iran’s evident interest in having the ability to strike at the United States, this alliance (and the Chavez-Iran alliance) attracts very little attention at senior policy levels." [2]

That lack of attention Farah mentions has continued in the present Administration.  It begs the question; would the leader of the free world have been duped into such photo ops in Trinidad had he been properly briefed on Chavez’s willful facilitation of the FARC and Hezbollah, let alone his dictatorial behavior inside Venezuela?  Such choice propaganda material will undoubtedly reinforce the propaganda machines that power oppressive leftist regimes in Cuba and their aspiring counterparts like Ortega in Nicaragua, the FMLN in El Salvador, and Zelaya in Honduras.  This goes especially for Iran.  One specific example of the benefits of the Iran-Venezuela-Hezbollah network surfaced last June when the Treasury department named a Venezuelan diplomat in Damascus as a Hezbollah fundraiser.  Ghazi Nasr al Din, former Charge d’ Affaires at the Venezuelan Embassy in Damascus, gave Hezbollah donors information on bank accounts where the deposits would go directly to Hezbollah.  Adam J. Szubin, Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), had this to say:

It is extremely troubling to see the Government of Venezuela employing and providing safe harbor to Hezbollah facilitators and fundraisers. We will continue to expose the global nature of Hezbollah’s terrorist support network, and we call on responsible governments worldwide to disrupt and dismantle this activity.

Several analysts have suggested that any threat posed by Chavez will decrease with the price of oil but it appears that he has found ways around this.  Keep in mind that Chavez consolidated power in the electorate with the promise of poverty reduction programs, known as "misiones", at a time when oil revenue was abundant.  So, when Chavez creates a new development bank with Iran it is good to take a step back and get a snap shot of each countries development projects, accounting, and expenditures.

In the 2008, March/ April edition of Foreign Affairs, the former chief economist of the Venezuelan National Assembly from 2000 to 2004 analyzed Chavez’s poverty program and presented evidence that there was a negative impact of the "Revolution" that actually hurt the poor of Venezuela the most.  According to Francisco Rodriguez;

Neither official statistics nor independent estimates show any evidence that Chávez has reoriented state priorities to benefit the poor. Most health and human development indicators have shown no significant improvement beyond that which is normal in the midst of an oil boom. Indeed, some have deteriorated worryingly, and official estimates indicate that income inequality has increased. The "Chávez is good for the poor" hypothesis is inconsistent with the facts. [3]

Rodriguez further explains how Chavez has been able to maintain the perception of success through political maneuvering.  The real lack of success is partly due to corruption and mismanagement, which Rodriguez attributes to the assertion that Chavez’s "Empty Revolution" is no different in practice from his Washington Consensus predecessors.  Yet, where does all that oil money go?  A popular view among regional analysts is that Chavez has staved off dissention in the military ranks by buying toys for his generals.  That is certainly not the only factor that stands between Venezuelan military elites and Chavez’s grasp on power.  However, the price tag on Chavez’s military expenditures explains a lot.

Jane’s Defense Weekly reported last November that Venezuela’s Defense Ministry increased its defense spending by 25% for the 2009 budget.  In the years, prior Chavez had amassed a military that defies conventional necessity.  In monetary terms, Ben Miller sums it up in a previous Americas Report as follows:

According to the National Budget Office, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has tripled his country’s defense budget since 2000 to a whopping $3.3 billion in 2008.  Chavez’s biggest purchases from Russia came in 2006 when, in that year alone, he signed deals for over $3 billion in weapons. Between 2004 and 2005, Venezuela doubled the value of the major conventional weapons it imported from$13million to $27million…. This number then sky-rocketed to $406 million over the next 12 months, causing Venezuela to surpass other nations such as Argentina, France, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan in the index. The large majority of the weapons it received came directly from Russia. [3]

In terms of hardware this amount of spending on unneeded military expenditures would be scandalous were there true freedom of the press in Venezuela.  Among the hardware are Russian T-72 tanks which military analysts find hard to imagine a use for in the jungle with no outside threat.  Combined with the 50 helicopters in Venezuela’s last order from Russia they do have the hardware to oppress a resistance movement, arm revolutionary terrorists, and to become the dominant military power in the region.  In the end, Chavez’s bills are piling up, he is successfully consolidating his power, and new revenue sources are opening to reinforce an increasingly oppressive regime.

The official statement of the Financial Action Task Force, the primary international body for countering terrorist financing and money laundering, is "that the Islamic Republic of Iran’s lack of comprehensive anti-money laundering / combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regime represents a significant vulnerability within the international financial system."

Many consider this an understatement and cite the common pet name for Iran in the international finance community as the "central banker of terror."  There is no place for "anti-money laundering" and "combating the financing of terrorism" when those are the primary means of advancing Iran’s foreign policy.  Iran’s overt government policy to support terrorist organizations is completely consistent with the agenda of the Islamic Revolution and Ahmadinejad’s statements about the new Iran-Venezuela Joint Bank.  Ahmadinejad said of the inauguration, "What happened today represents a strong will to build a new world." These words may seem typical for the christening of a grand endeavor were they not spoken by a head of state known for envisioning a world without America and the annihilation of Israel.

Hugo Chavez has made many statements outlining his intentions to create an alternative international finance system.  In fact, the new communist trade bloc in the Americas bares the title, "The Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas" (ALBA).  Of ALBA, Chavez said, "A new political, economic, and geopolitical map can be perceived in Latin America and the Caribbean."  Like the joint bank with Iran, an aversion to liberal democracy and dictatorial tendencies seem to be the common requirement for membership.  ALBA includes Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia, Honduras, Dominica, and Nicaragua.  Therefore, as the revolutionary vision progresses in Latin America and the Caribbean, Hugo Chavez has turned to the Middle East to globalize this anti-capitalist alternative.  He said at the bank inauguration "This is part of a strategy to form a new financial architecture between us".  Chavez rarely misses an opportunity to denounce capitalism and ridicule the International Monetary Fund.  He described the recent G20 pledge of $1 trillion to the IMF as, "entrusting beef to vultures."  The assumption being that he and his anti-western counterparts are a trustworthy alternative.

 

Nicholas Hanlon is a foreign affairs writer and researcher at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. He is a graduate of Georgia State University and has a BA in Political Science with a concentration in International Affairs and a Minor in French.

 

NOTES

[1] PRESS ROOM Treasury Designates Iranian Proliferation Network and Identifies New Aliases April 7, 2009 tg-84, U.S. Department of the Treasury, http://treas.gov/press/releases/tg84.htm

[2] PRESS ROOM Treasury Targets Hizballah in Venezuela June 18, 2008 hp-1036, U.S. Department of the Treasury, http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/hp1036.htm

[3] Miller, Ben, The Russian-Venezuelan Strategic Alliance The Americas Report October 6, 2008

Ecuador’s Correa until 2017?

As many polls had predicted, President Rafael Correa was re-elected for a second term in the Ecuadorian general elections, which were held last Sunday, April 26 2009. He was running against banana magnate, Alvaro Noboa and former president Lucio Gutierrez. Ecuador has had a turbulent political past, having elected ten Presidents since 1997, three of which were ousted by revolt. "Onward with the socialist revolution!" Correa told his supporters after exit polls showed he’d won by a wide margin.

Ecuador is of strategic importance to the United States since it is home to the only U.S. air base in South America, called Manta. In addition, Ecuador is the smallest member of OPEC. The country is the largest banana exporter in the world and is the biggest economy outside of the United States that uses the dollar as its currency.

Politically, things seem to be settling in for the left leaning, Correa who appears to have played his cards well, so far. Although he had little support when he was first elected, he quickly put together a plan to rewrite the constitution. Correa won the Referendum on September 2008, which allowed him to seek re-election this year and again in four years. The Constitution also gave the state greater control over the economy. Since coming to office, Correa has tripled government spending, focusing on the poor classes, his main support base. The administration has built schools, invested in health care for the lower classes, increased pensions, hiked the minimum wage and doubled a monthly payment for single mothers. These measures have won him the support of many poor and marginalized individuals.

Theoretically, Sunday’s victory has given Correa the chance to be president until 2017 but the opposition fears that he could extend his time in office and become president for life, just like his close ally Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Even though these worries were modulated by the inclusion of a clause that allows Congress to censure and impeach the president, the new constitution gives more power to Correa while weakening Congress at the same time, thus making it harder for Ecuadorians to oust him.

Since becoming President in January 2007, Rafael Correa, who holds a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, has remained popular because he has relied on high commodity prices to finance his populist measures. However, with falling oil prices, less money coming in from remittances and declining bananas prices, it remains to be seen whether he will be able to keep the people’s support.

 

Correa’s Policies

Correa appears to be following in Hugo Chavez’s footsteps and has publicly declared that he wants to carry out ‘socialist revolution’ in his country. Correa is considered to be a member of a ‘leftist coalition’ led by Venezuelan President, Hugo Chávez, which also includes, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, Fidel and Raul Castro of Cuba, Evo Morales of Bolivia, and newly elected Mauricio Funes of El Salvador.

Many critics consider Correa’s position as unique among the left-leaning South American nations.  The new constitution has many socialist principals such as increased governmental control over monetary policy, over oil policy, (significant, since 45% of Ecuador’s annual budget comes from oil revenues), as well as reduced power of the legislative and judicial branches. However, contrary to the nationalization strategies being pursued by Chávez and Evo Morales, Correa has not moved to take over the telecommunications or electricity industry. Despite having attempted to renegotiate mining contracts, the mining industry has not been nationalized. It is true that there are clauses to tighten control of vital industries to reduce monopolies and to declare some foreign loans illegitimate as well as to allow the government to designate idle farmland for expropriation and redistribution. So far none of these measures have been enacted yet. Now that Correa has won re-election, he may well decide to take action and speed up his socialist agenda, as he has been promising all along.

Many analysts in fact, see some differences between Correa and Hugo Chavez especially when in June 2008, Ecuador announced that it would not join the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), a "socially-oriented" regional trade bloc promoted by the Venezuelan leader. Correa, instead, accepted a credit of $150 million from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), signaling that he would continue to depend on U.S. funding. To this day, Correa maintains that Ecuador will become a member of ALBA only after Venezuela rejoins the Andean Community of Nations (CAN). [1]

Correa appears to be operating on two levels: on the one-hand, he pledges to kill free trade agreements with the United States while saying he will further ties with Venezuela, but then decides not to join ALBA. During his political campaign, he threatened to stop using the dollar as official currency but until now that policy remains unchanged. At the same time, Correa, like Chavez, has been openly critical of the United States and has even expelled U.S. diplomats for allegedly "interfering" in Ecuadorian affairs.[2] His administration has defaulted on billions of dollars of foreign debt, which the President referred to as "illegal". Correa’s foreign policy mimics the same anti- American bias as that of Chavez. In line with Chavez he has developed a close relationship with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Correa has refused to allow the U.S. to renew its military lease at Manta, which is due to expire this May.  There is concern about his ties not only with Chavez but also with the FARC.[3]

 

The Manta Air Base

Since his presidential campaign of 2006, President Correa has vowed to terminate the lease on the Manta Air Base (also referred to as "Eloy Alfaro"). In 1999, a deal was signed between the Ecuadorian government and the Clinton administration to grant permission to the United States to use Manta, a port city on Ecuador’s coast as a base to patrol the transport of narcotics in the region; especially along Colombia’s Pacific Coast. Manta is considered a key strategic outpost for SOUTHCOM (US Southern Command) in its successful efforts to combat drug trafficking in Latin America. The base houses 250-300 U.S. Air Force Personnel. (To learn more about Manta, please see ‘The Americas Report’, May 4, 2008 titled: ‘China to Displace the U.S. at Ecuador’s Manta Base,’ by Nicole M. Ferrand). Citing sovereignty issues, Correa said "Ecuador would extend the treaty only if the United States allows us to put a base in Miami."

In November 2007, Correa announced his intention to grant the Chinese access to Manta in efforts to strengthen Sino-Ecuadorian relations at a time when China was looking to satisfy its growing demand for natural resources while Correa was looking to finance his increased social spending. For some time, China has been trying to increase its presence in the United States’ sphere of influence and has increased trade and military ties with many countries in the region. In regard to the Chinese presence, the Ecuadorian government has stated: "it is not only Ecuador which will benefit. Brazil will likewise profit since Ecuador and Brazil signed an agreement building the Manta-Manaus link by rail. Aside from Terminales, other Chinese firms are interested in investing in the rail project. Ecuador also wants to connect highways with neighbors Colombia, Peru and Brazil."[4]

The negotiations were at an advanced stage and ‘Hutchinson Port Holdings’ (HPH), the port business of Hong-Kong based Hutchinson-Whampoa (who also controls both entrances to the Panama Canal) was to invest US$578 million over the course of 30 years to transform Manta into one of South America’s largest ports and China’s gateway to the Americas. There was even talk of using the landing strip for a direct flight between Quito and Beijing.[5]

Negotiations hit a bump in January 2009 and Correa threatened to expel HPH if they did not fulfill their part of the agreement by investing the promised amount of money. With the global economic slowdown, China seemed less prepared to engage in such a venture and appeared to be reconsidering their investments. They were also skeptical about considering a long-term deal after Ecuador expelled Brazilian multinational, Odebrecht, when the company had been building a dam in Ecuador. But things seem to be back on track and in February 2009, the Chinese Vice-Prime Minister, Hui Liangyu visited Ecuador to deepen bi-lateral relations and to discuss the Manta Base venture.

According to reports, the U.S. government is in talks to move the air base from Ecuador to Colombia.  American Ambassador to Colombia, William Brownfield, made no secret that his country was considering this option to continue the successful programs to fight against drugs and narco-terrorism. The air base will be under Colombia’s control and jurisdiction, just as Manta was under direct control of the Ecuadorian government. The Colombian Defense Minister, Juan Manuel Santos has also declared that his country is open to such a deal. It is possible that Washington will ratify the Free Trade Agreement with Bogotá if the air base deal is agreed on. This is good news since the U.S. has been able to curb drug production and shipment and such efforts need to be continued.

It is apparent that President Correa is ideologically tied to Chavez though he has gone at somewhat a slower pace in consolidating his power. In terms of regional relations, he has given sanctuary to the FARC while snubbing the president of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe. He has managed to maintain fairly good relations with the United States in spite of his hostility towards free trade with Washington and his refusal to renew our lease at Manta. Washington may want to rethink how much aid we give to the Correa government as it extends its hand ever more firmly to the Iranians while assisting the Chinese government to increase its influence in the region.

Whether Rafael Correa will be able to maintain his popularity internally will depend on the economic situation and the patience of the Ecuadorian people. Since the new Correa-backed constitution has weakened the institutions of government and placed greater control and power in the hands of the executive, it remains to be seen what steps Correa will take in the future.

 

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.

 

NOTES

[1] Chávez refused to have Venezuela remain a CAN member, which he meant as a snub to Washington for the Bush administration’s anti-Venezuela policies and its free trade agreements (FTA’s) brokered with both Peru and Colombia.

[2] In February 2009, Ecuador expelled two US diplomats, accusing them of meddling in the country’s internal affairs – charges Washington rejected.

[3] On March 7, 2008 in the Dominican Republic, the XX Rio Group Summit of Latin American leaders was held and tensions were at an all time high after the death of terrorist leader Raul Reyes by the Colombian military. His laptops had been seized and, during the meeting, President Alvaro Uribe said that there was "no doubt that the governments of Ecuador and Venezuela were negotiating with narco-terrorists (FARC)." He then handed the information to the attendees. The computers also included information about Correa receiving campaign contributions from the FARC during his 2006 presidential campaign.

[4] Ecuador Offers Concession Of Manta Air Base To China. Declines To Renew Contract With U.S. November 26, 2007. AHN News.

[5] Ecuador ofrece a China el aeropuerto de Manta. NOVEMBER 30, 2007. El Comercio, Ecuador.

“Never Again,” Obama Style

No president in modern times has managed to conceal so much of his biography as this one.  The journalists assigned to the Obama beat seem to have lost their traditional avidity for digging out the missing details.   We do not have a medical report, or a college transcript from Columbia, or a notion of how well he did in Harvard Law School.

These things are not automatically significant, but they can be.  Nobody thinks the president has some basic medical problem.  He shows every sign of being in excellent physical condition.  But so did John F. Kennedy, who turned out to have had Addison’s Disease, and was taking steroids and pain killers, which had an effect on his performance.  We didn’t know it at the time.  We should have.

What did Obama study?  With whom?  How well did he do?  Obama occasionally says things that are uncharacteristic of cultured persons, as when he flubs the number of states in the U.S., or when he seems to believe that they speak “Austrian” in Vienna.  Are these just occasional slips of the tongue?  Or did his college and law school years show a pattern of ignorance?  We’re entitled to know these things, but there is a disappointing, albeit quite predictable, lack of curiosity by the usual suspects in the media hunter/killer packs.

A great quantity of newsprint was filled with criticism of the Bushitlercheney insistence on secrecy, and rightly so.  Critics, and even would-be friends of the Bush Administration, were encouraged to believe all kinds of nonsense, much of which was fueled by the administration’s famous inability to explain what it was doing, and why.  In like manner,   the stonewalling of basic information about Obama fuels dark suspicion about the very legitimacy of his presidency, as in the ongoing demand that he prove his constitutional qualification for the office.

Lacking the basic information, we must use the old tools.  We must infer, deduce, and guess.  We have to parse his words and compare them with his actions.  He himself insists on this.  In March, when the North Koreans launched a rocket in the teeth of multiple international warnings, Obama insisted that “words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response.”  He rightly insisted that mere talk wasn’t good enough, because if warnings were ignored and no price was subsequently paid, warnings would become meaningless.  Without action, words mean nothing.

A joint U.S.-Europe declaration reiterated this theme, noting that North Korea was developing “the ability to threaten countries near and far with weapons of mass destruction. This action demands a response from the international community, including from the U.N. Security Council to demonstrate that its resolutions cannot be defied with impunity.”

Which brings me to his little-analyzed recent speech in the Capitol on the Holocaust Day of Remembrance, a theme inevitably close to the heart and soul of our first black president.  Some of it is Obama at his best, elegant, spare, right to the point.  He made a point near to my heart, which is often forgotten in the history of fascism:

It is the grimmest of ironies that one of the most savage, barbaric acts of evil in history began in one of the most modernized societies of its time, where so many markers of human progress became tools of human depravity: science that can heal, used to kill; education that can enlighten, used to rationalize away basic moral impulses…

Yes, fascism and Nazism came from two of the most advanced and most cultured Western societies, Italy and Germany.  And the institutions of those societies were enlisted in the service of the Holocaust, with precious little protest from the most cultured and advanced individuals in those societies.

the bureaucracy that sustains modern life, used as the machinery of mass death, a ruthless, chillingly efficient system where many were responsible for the killing, but few got actual blood on their hands…

Those words about bureaucracy, “that sustains modern life,” are a useful window into the way Obama views government.  He loves government, especially his own. But he’s got the Nazi story wrong.  The bureaucracy that conducted the mass murders was largely military, and the most important component was not part of the bureaucracy, or even the traditional army, but rather the SS, which was tied directly to the Fuhrer, not to the old German state.

Obama’s description of the killing process, in which the victims were processed on a mass assembly line of death, was accurate and important, but he didn’t recognize that Hitler created a new kind of state.  Nazism seized power in Germany, but the Nazi state was very different from the “state of laws” that preceded it.

He then gave his version of “never again,” and it’s a very odd version indeed. First, he draws hope from the survivors of the Holocaust.  Those who came to America had a higher birthrate than the Jews who were already living here, and those members of “a chosen people” who created Israel.  These, he says, chose life and asserted it despite the horrors they had endured.  And then he goes on:

We find cause for hope as well in Protestant and Catholic children attending school together in Northern Ireland; in Hutus and Tutsis living side-by-side, forgiving neighbors who have done the unforgivable; in a movement to save Darfur that has thousands of high school and college chapters in 25 countries and brought 70,000 people to the Washington Mall, people of every age and faith and background and race united in common cause with suffering brothers and sisters halfway around the world.

Those numbers can be our future, our fellow citizens of the world showing us how to make the journey from oppression to survival, from witness to resistance and ultimately to reconciliation. That is what we mean when we say “never again.”

So “never again” means that we learn from others how to forgive and forget, and ultimately live happily with one another.  But that is not what “never again” means, at least for the generation of the Holocaust and for most of those who followed.  For them, “never again” means that we will destroy the next would-be Fuhrer.  In his entire speech, Obama never once mentions that the United States led a coalition of free peoples against Germany, Italy and Japan, nor does he ever discuss the obligation of sacrifice to prevent a recurrence. Indeed, his examples suggest that he doesn’t grasp the full dimensions of the struggle against evil.   Northern Ireland is a totally inappropriate example (nothing remotely approaching a Holocaust took place there), the relations between Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda and Burundi are hardly characterized by forgiveness, even though the president of Burundi is striving mightily to achieve a peaceful modus vivendi, and as for Darfur, well, despite the tens of thousands who demonstrated on the Mall, nobody has done much of anything to stop the Khartoum regime from slaughtering the peoples of the south.

In the history of modern times, the United States has done more than anyone else, perhaps more than the rest of the world combined, to defeat evil, and we are still doing it.  Yet Obama says that we must “learn from others” how to move on, forgive and forget, and live happily ever after.  But these are just words, they are not policies, or even actions.  And the meanings he gives to his words show that he has no real intention of doing anything to thwart evil, any more than he had any concrete actions to propose to punish North Korea.

Significantly, Barack Obama is a lot tougher on his domestic American opponents than on tyrants who threaten our values and America itself.  He tells the Republicans that they’d better stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, but he doesn’t criticize Palestinians who raise their children to hate the Jews.  He bows to the Saudi monarch, but humiliates the prime minister of Great Britain.  He expresses astonishment that anyone can worry about a national security threat from Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela, even as Chavez solidifies an alliance with Iran that brings plane loads of terror masters, weapons and explosives into our hemisphere from Tehran via Damascus, fuels terrorists and narcotics traffic, and offers military facilities to Russian warships and aircraft.  He is seemingly unconcerned by radical Islam and a resurgent Communism in Latin America, even as his Department of Homeland Security fires a warning shot at veterans–the best of America–returning from the Middle East.  He seeks warm relations with Iran and Syria–who are up to their necks in American blood–while warning Israel of dire consequences if she should attempt to preempt a threatened Iranian nuclear attack.

Thus far, at least, the one clear message from President Obama is that he is not prepared to fight…our international enemies.  He sounds more like a psychotherapist than a national leader in these words from his Holocaust Day speech:

…we have the opportunity to make a habit of empathy, to recognize ourselves in each other, to commit ourselves to resisting injustice and intolerance and indifference, in whatever forms they may take, whether confronting those who tell lies about history, or doing everything we can to prevent and end atrocities like those that took place in Rwanda, those taking place in Darfur…

These words are calculated to internalize conflicts that are raging in the real world, and they are precisely the sort of words that will encourage our enemies to redouble their efforts to bring us down.  For if the president of the United States will not act, who can stop them?

 

Originally published at Pajamas Media