Tag Archives: Venezuela

Israel’s Arab cheerleaders

It is a strange situation when Egypt and Jordan feel it necessary to defend Israel against American criticism. But this is the situation in which we find ourselves today.

Last Friday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee that Arab support for Israel’s bid to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is contingent on its agreeing to support the rapid establishment of a Palestinian state. In her words, "For Israel to get the kind of strong support it’s looking for vis-a-vis Iran, it can’t stay on the sidelines with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts." As far as Clinton is concerned, the two, "go hand-in-hand."

But just around the time that Clinton was making this statement, Jordan’s King Abdullah II was telling The Washington Post that he is satisfied with the Netanyahu government’s position on the Palestinians. In his words, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has "sent a message that he’s committed to peace with the Arabs. All the words I heard were the right words."

As for Egypt, in spite of the Israeli media’s hysterical reports that Egypt won’t deal with the Netanyahu government and the Obama administration’s warning that Israel can only expect Egypt to support its position that Iran must be denied nuclear weapons if it gives Jerusalem to the PLO, last week’s visit by Egypt’s intelligence chief Omar Suleiman clearly demonstrated that Egypt wishes to work with the government on a whole host of issues. Coming as it did on the heels of Egypt’s revelation that Iranian-controlled Hizbullah agents were arrested for planning strategic attacks against it, Suleiman’s visit was a clear sign that Egypt is as keen as Israel to neutralize Iranian power in the region by preventing it from acquiring nuclear weapons.

And Egypt and Jordan are not alone in supporting Israel’s commitment to preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power. American and other Western sources who have visited the Persian Gulf in recent months report that leaders of the Gulf states from Bahrain – which Iran refers to as its 14th province – to Saudi Arabia to Kuwait and, of course, to Iraq – are praying for Israel to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities and only complain that it has waited so long to attack them.

As one American who recently met with Persian Gulf leaders explained last week, "As far as the Gulf leaders are concerned, Israel cannot attack Iran fast enough. They understand what the stakes are."

UNFORTUNATELY, THE nature of those stakes has clearly eluded the Obama administration. As the Arabs line up behind Israel, the Obama administration is operating under the delusion that the Iranians will be convinced to give up their nuclear program if Israel destroys its communities in Judea and Samaria.

According to reports published last week in Yediot Aharonot and Haaretz, President Barack Obama’s in-house post-Zionist, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, told an American Jewish leader that for Israel to receive the administration’s support for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it must not only say that it supports establishing a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and Gaza, it must begin expelling its citizens from their homes and communities in Judea and Samaria to prove its good faith.

With just months separating Iran from either joining the nuclear club or from being barred entry to the clubhouse, the Obama administration’s apparent obsession with Judea and Samaria tells us that unlike Israel and the Arab world, its Middle East policies are based on a willful denial of reality.

The cold hard facts are that the Middle East will be a very different place if Iran becomes a nuclear power. Today American policy-makers and other opponents of using military force to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons compare the current situation to what the region could look like in the aftermath of an Israeli campaign against Iran’s nuclear installations. They warn that Hizbullah and Hamas may launch massive retaliatory missile attacks against Israel, Egypt, Jordan and other states, and that US military personnel and installations in the region will likely be similarly attacked by Iranian and Syrian proxies.

Indeed, proponents and opponents of an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear installations alike warn that Iran’s deployment of terror proxies from Beirut to Bolivia, from Managua to Marseilles, and from Gaza to Giza means that things could get very ugly worldwide in the aftermath of an Israeli attack.

But all of that ugliness, all of that instability and death will look like a walk in the park compared to how the region – and indeed how the world – will look if Iran becomes a nuclear power. This is something that the Arabs understand. And this is why they support and pray for an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear installations.

IF IRAN acquires nuclear weapons, the Obama administration can throw its hopes for Middle East peace out the window. Today, even without nuclear weapons, Iran is the major force behind the continued Palestinian war against Israel. Iran exerts complete control over Hamas and Islamic Jihad and partial control over Fatah.

In and of itself, Iran’s current control over Palestinian terror groups suffices to expose the Obama administration’s plan to force Israel to destroy its communities in Judea and Samaria as misguided in the extreme. With Iran calling the shots for the Palestinians, it is clear that any land Israel vacates will fall under Iranian control. That is, every concession the US forces Israel to make will redound directly to Iran’s benefit. This is why Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s claim that it will be impossible to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians without first neutralizing Iran rings so true.

If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the situation will become even more destructive. A nuclear-armed Iran means that any chance of marginalizing these Iranian-controlled forces in Palestinian society will disappear. For Israel, the best case scenario in the age of a nuclear-armed mullocracy would involve continuous war with Iranian proxies – sort of expanded versions of the Second Lebanon War and Operation Cast Lead – in which it has little option for victory because the terror armies would fight under Iran’s nuclear umbrella.

Regionally, a nuclear-armed Iran would in short order compel both Egypt and Jordan to abrogate their peace treaties with Israel. The exposure of the Iranian sabotage ring in Egypt last week makes clear that Iran seeks to either overthrow or dominate the Arab world with its nuclear arsenal. If Iran becomes a nuclear power, roundups of Iranian agents like the one in Egypt will be inconceivable. Iranian agents will be given free reign both regionally and worldwide.

For Israel, the abrogation of its peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan would raise the danger of regional war to an all-time high. Goaded by Iran, and operating with Iran’s US- and Turkish-armed Lebanese proxy and Teheran’s Syrian slave, Egypt and Jordan may well be made to decide that the time has come to invade Israel again.

These scenarios, of course, are likely because they compare favorably to the worst case scenarios in which a nuclear-armed Iran decides to simply detonate its nuclear bombs over Israel, either in the form of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack or in the form of a direct nuclear strike. An EMP attack would not immediately kill anyone, but would destroy the country’s electricity grid and permanently paralyze its military and civilian infrastructures, rendering the population defenseless not merely from its neighbors, but from disease and starvation. If successful, a direct nuclear strike would likely kill between 50,000 and several million Israelis, depending on how many warheads reached their targets.

GLOBALLY OF COURSE, a nuclear-armed Iran would be well positioned to take over the world’s oil markets. With Saudi Arabia’s main oil installations located in the predominantly Shi’ite eastern provinces, it would be able to credibly threaten to destroy Saudi oil installations and so assert control over them. With Iran’s strategic alliance with Venezuela, once it controls Saudi oil fields, it hard to see how it would not become the undisputed ruler of the oil economy.

Certainly Europe would put up no resistance. Today, with much of Europe already within range of Iran’s ballistic missiles, with Iranian-controlled terror cells fanned out throughout the continent and with Europe dependent on Persian Gulf oil, there is little doubt of the direction its foreign policy would take in the event that Iran becomes a nuclear power. Obviously any thought of economic sanctions would disappear as European energy giants lined up to develop Iranian gas fields, and European banks clamored to finance the projects.

Finally, there is America. With Israel either barely surviving or destroyed, with the Arab world and Europe bowing before the mullahs, with much of Central and South America fully integrated into the Iranian axis, America would arguably find itself at greater risk of economic destruction and catastrophic attack than at any time in its history since the War of 1812. An EMP attack that could potentially send the US back to the pre-industrial age would become a real possibility. An Iranian controlled oil economy, financed by euros, would threaten to displace the dollar and the US economy as the backbone of the global economy. The US’s military options – particularly given Obama’s stated intention to all but end US missile defense programs and scrap much of its already aging nuclear arsenal – would be more apparent than real.

Yet what Clinton’s statements before Congress, Emmanuel’s statements to that American Jewish leader and Obama’s unremitting pandering to Teheran and its Syrian and Turkish allies all make clear is that none of these reasonable scenarios has made a dent in the administration’s thinking. As far as the Obama White House is concerned, Iran will be talked out of its plans for regional and global domination the minute that Israel agrees to give its land to the Palestinians. The fact that no evidence exists that could possibly support this assertion is irrelevant.

On Sunday, Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland claimed that Obama will not publish his administration’s policy on Iran until after he meets with Netanyahu at the White House on May 18. It will be during that meeting, Hoagland wrote, that Obama will seek to convince Netanyahu that there is no reason to attack Iran.

The fact that Obama could even raise such an argument, when by Israel’s calculations Iran will either become a nuclear power or be denied nuclear weapons within the next 180 days, shows that his arguments are based on a denial of the danger a nuclear Iran poses to Israel and to global security as a whole.

It is true that you can’t help but get a funny feeling when you see the Arabs defending Israel from American criticism. But with the Obama administration’s Middle East policy firmly grounded in La La Land, what choice do they have? They understand that today all that stands between them and enslavement to the mullahs is the Israel Air Force and Binyamin Netanyahu’s courage.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

Obama goes south: An analysis of the Summit of the Americas

For more than a half century, dating from FDR and Cordell Hull’s "Good Neighbor" policies, U.S. diplomacy in Latin America has been focused on encouraging democracy, free markets, and economic development.  Over those five decades there have been huge successes – and there have been dramatic failures.
 
An historical perspective, however, shows remarkable overall progress:

The 1980 map of Latin America was largely one of authoritarian, often military governments, generally controlled by small oligarchies, with hyper-cyclical, commodity-based economies, nearly all plagued by huge debt and hyper-inflation.

However, by 2000, Latin America was largely an array of broad-based popularly elected regimes, structured and diversified economies with low to moderate inflation and manageable debt.   The   problems of severe poverty, economic inequity, and drug cartels remained, but significant progress had been made.

The U.S., as the largest foreign direct investor and the largest supplier of development aid and offering the largest market for Latin American exports, as well as the most active supporter of centrist democratic movements, played a significant role in this massive transition.

For the most part, it is a record for which every American whatever his domestic political allegiance can be proud. Despite the overwhelming demands of the war on terrorism after 9/11 there were important continuing new initiatives by the Bush Administration in this tradition. Chief among these was a proposal for a hemisphere-wide free trade zone, which would boost investment in the Latin countries as well as expand trade along the lines of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

President Barack Obama seems to be largely unaware of this history.  Rather, he seems persuaded by radical critiques of the U.S. role — such as presented in the book Chavez gave him at the summit.  By the way, this book was repudiated by its author, and is an unbalanced screed on American and European transgressions over centuries. Curiously, there was little in Obama’s campaign oratory about opposing abuses of human rights in Latin America.

His tolerance – and what much of his audience interpreted as acceptance — for the most radical denunciations of the U.S. role at the recent Western Hemisphere summit was shocking. Obama’s seeming contrition before an avalanche of vicious attacks on the U.S. will simply discourage democratic allies and reconfirm the views of the autocrats that he may be weak and perhaps feckless. In fact, as one observer noted, Obama passed up a priceless opportunity to defend freedom in a region where it always seems in jeopardy. Instead, even a leftwing critic noted that Obama had let Latin American leaders off the hook by not holding Castroite Cuba to the standards they apply to Washington’s actions.

Instead, the Hemisphere has been treated to some incomplete early Obama Administration policy initiatives. These include a largely rhetorical outreach to Mexico which continues the policies of the previous administration; an amendment of regulations regarding migration and remittances to Castroite Cuba; and his personal, enthusiastic encounter with the leader of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. These signals by the new Administration could be seen as false steps that reward our enemies in the Hemisphere while ignoring or giving too little to our friends.

The response to his reduction of restrictions on Americans visiting Cuba and limits on remittances has been met by no concessions from the Castro Brothers. In fact, Fidel Castro has quickly rejected the spin the White House placed on Raul Castro’s one speech phrase suggesting negotiations might proceed without pre-conditions.

Neither his earlier pre-inauguration meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon nor his stop enroute to the Summit produced any new initiatives or impetus to what had been increasingly lagging Bush Administration aid efforts to boost relations with our southern neighbor. He still faces the problem of producing a winning policy on U.S. immigration, which is as important to the Mexican government as a successful attack on the drug cartels. He has added new tangles to the relatively minor problem of trucking across the international border which has led Mexico to slap on countervailing duties in defiance of the North American Free Trade Agreement in what they insist are U.S. violations.

Meanwhile, Chavez has been destroying Venezuela’s free society, while helping the Iranians establish a beachhead in the Hemisphere. At the very moment Obama’s summit tête-à-tête with Chavez was being aired on Venezuelan State Television – obviously as a prop for the Caudillo’s declining popularity – a leader of the opposition, the mayor of Maracaibo sought the traditional Latin American refuge in Peru to avoid assassination after being in hiding for months. The opposition mayor of Caracas, the largest city and capital of the country has been shorn of his prerogatives. Chavez, through a plebiscite in February, is aiming toward a "lifetime presidency", one of the basic relics of Latin America’s past that U.S. policy had hoped to have overcome.

At an international meeting where he was being welcomed – sometimes on terms bordering on racist – the U.S. President did not seize the initiative. He might at least have announced that he would renounce his campaign stand and move his fellow Democrats to finally lift their opposition to the long languishing free trade agreement with Colombia — the kind of economic initiative and reward intended for U.S.’ allies in the Hemisphere.

There was no follow up on his now almost standard mantra of condemning past American actions in what the President has called the necessity to "reverse the mistakes of the past to start a new dialogue."

What did the President do?

Obama tried to make friends among the Latin American leaders – notably the most repressive.  Although there was an obvious agenda based on earlier programs, he did little to advance U.S. interests or to even suggest what Obama Administration policy will be other than to say that it will be "different than his predecessor’s."  To a large degree, Obama seemed to have his eye on U.S. audiences and politics. He seemed proud that our former sworn enemies appeared to like him and applaud him – especially our traditional enemies in the region.  He failed to see that whether they like him is largely irrelevant as they now just see him as more malleable than his "predecessors."

Did the U.S. gain or lose?

The U.S. Lost Serious Ground at the Summit:

  • Our enemies in Latin America got the strong impression that we will be tolerant not only of their suppression of democracy at home but accept their links to terrorist groups and nations.
  • Democratic forces in Latin America got the impression that the U.S. is no longer interested in actively supporting democracy, market economies, or free trade – very discouraging to those who have followed the U.S. lead and struggled to advance the region over the last 20 years. In the post-summit press conference, Obama seemed to accept the left’s critique of "the Washington consensus" which in fact only puts forth what have historically been U.S. aims for the region.
  • China, Russia, and Iran got the strong impression that this President will not defend American strategic interests in the region, long considered "America’s backyard". Russia will see a green light for its rather feeble attempts to make trouble for the U.S. in the region and China will see a green light for aggressive commercial efforts and perhaps new naval bases – all of which could create a strategic military nightmare for the U.S.
  • Absolutely no adversary will interpret the friendly smile and the "apologies" as an "opening" to negotiate strategic interests or to change their policies. As was evident from the insults from Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, conversations constructive to U.S. interests will be even more difficult after this summit.

That is why, in our news digest "WorldBuzz.com," we gave him a D- for last week’s Latin American Summit.

In Latin America, with its long history of intimate [and sometimes difficult] relations with the U.S., perhaps more than elsewhere, fostering good relations requires a deep understanding of culture and history, as well as politics and political objectives – and not least economic relationships. If further progress is to be made – especially in the midst of a worldwide credit crunch and recession which is more slowly but inevitably impacting Latin America — a very clear plan and strategy is necessary to meet the issues.

What are those issues, many of them urgent and in need of attention by administrators as well as policymakers in Washington?

 

Mexico

  • Drug wars:  The Mexican cartels are growing in strength and carrying their battles into the U.S.  A destabilization of the Mexican government could lead to serious border frictions and even resultant unrest among illegal and legal Mexican immigrants in the U.S.  Pres. Felipe Calderon has taken aggressive and brave action to challenge the cartels. He needs U.S. help.  Obama did not conclude any agreement or begin to deliver on the already promised military equipment needs of the Mexican government in fighting the cartels, nor was progress made on any related issues.  Instead Obama apologized for the guns crossing the border from the U.S. to Mexico.  This turns out to be inaccurate. [They are mostly coming from Central America, pistols are not the problem and assault rifles are freely available on the world’s grey markets — including the notorious AK47.].
  • U.S. drug market: The Mexicans complain that the huge U.S. demand for drugs drives the illegal drug trade through Mexico.  Obama has responded by having the U.S. Attorney General indicate that restrictions on medical marijuana should be removed, opening a major new channel for illegal drugs.
  • Border control/trucking issue: the festering issue over Mexican truck drivers coming into the U.S. has prevented Mexico from agreeing on a pre-screening process for cargo crossing the border.  This has created gigantic border delays and much less effective vehicle checks.  The issue is partly caused by an Obama consideration to the Teamsters Union, and seems to ignore the broader national security issue.

 

  • Economic growth and stability: The declining price of oil has badly hurt the Mexican economy.  Obama has indicated that he wants to re-negotiate certain aspects of the NAFTA, creating further uncertainty for Mexico [as well as Canada] and investors.  In addition, his seeming advocacy of the "buy-America" aspects of the bailout initiatives creates further confusion in Mexico’s key export market.

 

Venezuela

  • Authoritarianism: the declining price of oil has under-cut Chavez’s primary political payoff tool and weakens his hold on power.  In response Chavez is moving quickly and aggressively to full dictatorial power.  Chavez cannot cooperate with Obama on moving back to democracy or lessen brutality and repression because he would quickly lose power.  Obama’s friendly embrace with Chavez and accepting his "gift" discourages democratic forces fighting to reverse Chavez’s brutal seizure of power.
  • Regional aggression: Obama seems to be unaware of official U.S. government public documentation of Chavez’ aid and trafficking with the narco-terrorists in Colombia. There is circumstantial evidence that his regime either collaborates or ignores the encroachment of the Mexican drug cartels working through Venezuela with the Colombian narco-terrorists.
  • Iran: Chavez and Iran have a close working relationship to overthrow democratic regimes in the region, to train terrorists, and find ways to work against the U.S. Chavez gets training from the Republican Guard, has set up a bank with Iran, and supports Hamas and Hezbollah.  Chavez reportedly provides Venezuelan passports to Iranian operatives so the can enter countries like Mexico secretly and link to Mexican cartels.  Obama’s "soft" tone with Chavez will only tighten the relationship with Iran since they have less to fear from the U.S.
  • China:  China is working with Venezuela on oil development and seeking Caribbean bases for the Chinese navy.  Obama can do little or nothing to reverse this relationship, but overly friendly gestures to Chavez will only encourage more aggressive PLA movement into the Hemisphere.
  • Russia: Russia is seeking military air basing agreements with Venezuela for planes that can carry nuclear weapons.  Russia will take the same view as China – that Obama is no threat to their ambitions in the Hemisphere to offset U.S./NATO power in Europe.

Cuba

  • Cuba is still a highly repressive, totalitarian regime, which shows little or no sign of change in the near future.  Obama made a number of concessions and got nothing in return (even China releases a few political prisoners as a sign of "good will.").  Fidel Castro made sure, after the summit, to reconfirm that Obama’s actions did nothing more than re-confirm the legitimacy of the "Revolution."

 

 

Colombia

  • Colombia’s Uribe is the other Latin American leader who has aggressively taken on the drug gangs and the terrorist, Venezuelan-supported FALN.  While Obama was courting the tyrants, he gave little attention to an important ally.  In addition, by refusing to throw his weight against the Congressional Democrats blocking a new free-trade agreement with Bogota, he under-cuts the political position of Uribe, and suggests what it means to be a partisan of the U.S. in Latin America.

Chile and Peru

  • Obama failed to recognize the tremendous success of these democracies and free-market economies as models, along with Brazil, for the rest of Latin America.

 

Nicaragua

 

  • Obama sat passively through a one hour, anti-American harangue without comment.  Then gave one of his First-Fist bumps to Ortega in spite of his efforts to renew Sandinista repression in Nicaragua and develop alliances with anti-American dictators throughout the world. The kind of menace even a relatively small anti-democratic regime in Central America poses is the news that Daniel Ortega is working with Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister of Thailand, trying to bring down the present government in Bangkok from exile with his billions.

What did the President do?

Obama tried to make friends among the Latin American leaders – notably the most repressive.  Although there was an obvious agenda based on earlier programs, he did little to advance U.S. interests or to even suggest what Obama Administration policy will be other than to suggest that it will be "different than his predecessor’s."  To a large degree, Obama seemed to have his eye on U.S. audiences and politics. (He was proud that the former sworn enemies appeared to like him and applaud him – especially our traditional enemies in the region).  He failed to see that they whether they like him is largely irrelevant but that they just see him as more malleable than his "predecessors".
 
Did the U.S. gain or lose? he U.S. lost serious ground at the summit:

Our enemies in Latin America got the strong impression that we will be tolerant not only of their suppression of democracy at home but accept their links to terrorist groups and nations.

  • Democratic forces in Latin America got the impression that the U.S. is no longer interested in actively supporting democracy, market economies, or free trade – very discouraging to those who have followed the U.S. lead and struggled to advance the region over the last 20 years. If they had any doubts, in the post-summit press conference Obama – whether he actually understands the concept or not – accept the left’s critique of "the Washington consensus" which in fact only sloganizes what have been U.S. aims historically for the region.
  • China, Russia, and Iran got the strong impression that this President will not defend American strategic interests in the region long considered "America’s backyard". Russia will see a green light for [its rather feeble attempts to make trouble for the U.S. in the region] and China will see a green light for aggressive commercial efforts and perhaps new naval bases – all of which could create a strategic military nightmare for the U.S.
  • Drug leaders saw a President who appears sympathetic toward further legalizing drug use and who will not "walk the walk" on supporting Mexico in fighting the cartels. Attorney General Holder has already announced a relaxation of prosecution of violations of the sale of "medical marijuana".
  • Absolutely no adversary will interpret the friendly smile and the "apologies" as an "opening" to negotiate strategic interests or to change their policies. As was evident from the insults from Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, conversations constructive to U.S. interests will be even more difficult after this summit.

Bottom Line:

  • Unprepared
  • Uninformed
  • Ineffective
  • Weak
  • Naïve
  • D-

Sol Sanders and Grady Means, the managing editor and the publisher of http://worldbuzz.com/. Mr. Sanders has been an international journalist for over 50 years and served as the International Outlook Editor for Business Week and is the author of the book "Mexico: Chaos on Our Doorstep."  Mr. Means served in the White House with Vice President Rockefeller and as a management consultant led many privatization initiatives throughout Latin America.

 

Obama goes south: An analysis of the Summit of the Americas

For more than a half century, dating from FDR and Cordell Hull’s "Good Neighbor" policies, U.S. diplomacy in Latin America has been focused on encouraging democracy, free markets, and economic development.  Over those five decades there have been huge successes – and there have been dramatic failures.
 
An historical perspective, however, shows remarkable overall progress:

The 1980 map of Latin America was largely one of authoritarian, often military governments, generally controlled by small oligarchies, with hyper-cyclical, commodity-based economies, nearly all plagued by huge debt and hyper-inflation.

However, by 2000, Latin America was largely an array of broad-based popularly elected regimes, structured and diversified economies with low to moderate inflation and manageable debt.   The   problems of severe poverty, economic inequity, and drug cartels remained, but significant progress had been made.

The U.S., as the largest foreign direct investor and the largest supplier of development aid and offering the largest market for Latin American exports, as well as the most active supporter of centrist democratic movements, played a significant role in this massive transition.

For the most part, it is a record for which every American whatever his domestic political allegiance can be proud. Despite the overwhelming demands of the war on terrorism after 9/11 there were important continuing new initiatives by the Bush Administration in this tradition. Chief among these was a proposal for a hemisphere-wide free trade zone, which would boost investment in the Latin countries as well as expand trade along the lines of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

President Barack Obama seems to be largely unaware of this history.  Rather, he seems persuaded by radical critiques of the U.S. role — such as presented in the book Chavez gave him at the summit.  By the way, this book was repudiated by its author, and is an unbalanced screed on American and European transgressions over centuries. Curiously, there was little in Obama’s campaign oratory about opposing abuses of human rights in Latin America.

His tolerance – and what much of his audience interpreted as acceptance — for the most radical denunciations of the U.S. role at the recent Western Hemisphere summit was shocking. Obama’s seeming contrition before an avalanche of vicious attacks on the U.S. will simply discourage democratic allies and reconfirm the views of the autocrats that he may be weak and perhaps feckless. In fact, as one observer noted, Obama passed up a priceless opportunity to defend freedom in a region where it always seems in jeopardy. Instead, even a leftwing critic noted that Obama had let Latin American leaders off the hook by not holding Castroite Cuba to the standards they apply to Washington’s actions.

Instead, the Hemisphere has been treated to some incomplete early Obama Administration policy initiatives. These include a largely rhetorical outreach to Mexico which continues the policies of the previous administration; an amendment of regulations regarding migration and remittances to Castroite Cuba; and his personal, enthusiastic encounter with the leader of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. These signals by the new Administration could be seen as false steps that reward our enemies in the Hemisphere while ignoring or giving too little to our friends.

The response to his reduction of restrictions on Americans visiting Cuba and limits on remittances has been met by no concessions from the Castro Brothers. In fact, Fidel Castro has quickly rejected the spin the White House placed on Raul Castro’s one speech phrase suggesting negotiations might proceed without pre-conditions.

Neither his earlier pre-inauguration meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon nor his stop enroute to the Summit produced any new initiatives or impetus to what had been increasingly lagging Bush Administration aid efforts to boost relations with our southern neighbor. He still faces the problem of producing a winning policy on U.S. immigration, which is as important to the Mexican government as a successful attack on the drug cartels. He has added new tangles to the relatively minor problem of trucking across the international border which has led Mexico to slap on countervailing duties in defiance of the North American Free Trade Agreement in what they insist are U.S. violations.

Meanwhile, Chavez has been destroying Venezuela’s free society, while helping the Iranians establish a beachhead in the Hemisphere. At the very moment Obama’s summit tête-à-tête with Chavez was being aired on Venezuelan State Television – obviously as a prop for the Caudillo’s declining popularity – a leader of the opposition, the mayor of Maracaibo sought the traditional Latin American refuge in Peru to avoid assassination after being in hiding for months. The opposition mayor of Caracas, the largest city and capital of the country has been shorn of his prerogatives. Chavez, through a plebiscite in February, is aiming toward a "lifetime presidency", one of the basic relics of Latin America’s past that U.S. policy had hoped to have overcome.

At an international meeting where he was being welcomed – sometimes on terms bordering on racist – the U.S. President did not seize the initiative. He might at least have announced that he would renounce his campaign stand and move his fellow Democrats to finally lift their opposition to the long languishing free trade agreement with Colombia — the kind of economic initiative and reward intended for U.S.’ allies in the Hemisphere.

There was no follow up on his now almost standard mantra of condemning past American actions in what the President has called the necessity to "reverse the mistakes of the past to start a new dialogue."

What did the President do?

Obama tried to make friends among the Latin American leaders – notably the most repressive.  Although there was an obvious agenda based on earlier programs, he did little to advance U.S. interests or to even suggest what Obama Administration policy will be other than to say that it will be "different than his predecessor’s."  To a large degree, Obama seemed to have his eye on U.S. audiences and politics. He seemed proud that our former sworn enemies appeared to like him and applaud him – especially our traditional enemies in the region.  He failed to see that whether they like him is largely irrelevant as they now just see him as more malleable than his "predecessors."

Did the U.S. gain or lose?

The U.S. Lost Serious Ground at the Summit:

  • Our enemies in Latin America got the strong impression that we will be tolerant not only of their suppression of democracy at home but accept their links to terrorist groups and nations.
  • Democratic forces in Latin America got the impression that the U.S. is no longer interested in actively supporting democracy, market economies, or free trade – very discouraging to those who have followed the U.S. lead and struggled to advance the region over the last 20 years. In the post-summit press conference, Obama seemed to accept the left’s critique of "the Washington consensus" which in fact only puts forth what have historically been U.S. aims for the region.
  • China, Russia, and Iran got the strong impression that this President will not defend American strategic interests in the region, long considered "America’s backyard". Russia will see a green light for its rather feeble attempts to make trouble for the U.S. in the region and China will see a green light for aggressive commercial efforts and perhaps new naval bases – all of which could create a strategic military nightmare for the U.S.
  • Absolutely no adversary will interpret the friendly smile and the "apologies" as an "opening" to negotiate strategic interests or to change their policies. As was evident from the insults from Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, conversations constructive to U.S. interests will be even more difficult after this summit.

That is why, in our news digest "WorldBuzz.com," we gave him a D- for last week’s Latin American Summit.

In Latin America, with its long history of intimate [and sometimes difficult] relations with the U.S., perhaps more than elsewhere, fostering good relations requires a deep understanding of culture and history, as well as politics and political objectives – and not least economic relationships. If further progress is to be made – especially in the midst of a worldwide credit crunch and recession which is more slowly but inevitably impacting Latin America — a very clear plan and strategy is necessary to meet the issues.

What are those issues, many of them urgent and in need of attention by administrators as well as policymakers in Washington?

 

Mexico

  • Drug wars:  The Mexican cartels are growing in strength and carrying their battles into the U.S.  A destabilization of the Mexican government could lead to serious border frictions and even resultant unrest among illegal and legal Mexican immigrants in the U.S.  Pres. Felipe Calderon has taken aggressive and brave action to challenge the cartels. He needs U.S. help.  Obama did not conclude any agreement or begin to deliver on the already promised military equipment needs of the Mexican government in fighting the cartels, nor was progress made on any related issues.  Instead Obama apologized for the guns crossing the border from the U.S. to Mexico.  This turns out to be inaccurate. [They are mostly coming from Central America, pistols are not the problem and assault rifles are freely available on the world’s grey markets — including the notorious AK47.].
  • U.S. drug market: The Mexicans complain that the huge U.S. demand for drugs drives the illegal drug trade through Mexico.  Obama has responded by having the U.S. Attorney General indicate that restrictions on medical marijuana should be removed, opening a major new channel for illegal drugs.
  • Border control/trucking issue: the festering issue over Mexican truck drivers coming into the U.S. has prevented Mexico from agreeing on a pre-screening process for cargo crossing the border.  This has created gigantic border delays and much less effective vehicle checks.  The issue is partly caused by an Obama consideration to the Teamsters Union, and seems to ignore the broader national security issue.

 

  • Economic growth and stability: The declining price of oil has badly hurt the Mexican economy.  Obama has indicated that he wants to re-negotiate certain aspects of the NAFTA, creating further uncertainty for Mexico [as well as Canada] and investors.  In addition, his seeming advocacy of the "buy-America" aspects of the bailout initiatives creates further confusion in Mexico’s key export market.

 

Venezuela

  • Authoritarianism: the declining price of oil has under-cut Chavez’s primary political payoff tool and weakens his hold on power.  In response Chavez is moving quickly and aggressively to full dictatorial power.  Chavez cannot cooperate with Obama on moving back to democracy or lessen brutality and repression because he would quickly lose power.  Obama’s friendly embrace with Chavez and accepting his "gift" discourages democratic forces fighting to reverse Chavez’s brutal seizure of power.
  • Regional aggression: Obama seems to be unaware of official U.S. government public documentation of Chavez’ aid and trafficking with the narco-terrorists in Colombia. There is circumstantial evidence that his regime either collaborates or ignores the encroachment of the Mexican drug cartels working through Venezuela with the Colombian narco-terrorists.
  • Iran: Chavez and Iran have a close working relationship to overthrow democratic regimes in the region, to train terrorists, and find ways to work against the U.S. Chavez gets training from the Republican Guard, has set up a bank with Iran, and supports Hamas and Hezbollah.  Chavez reportedly provides Venezuelan passports to Iranian operatives so the can enter countries like Mexico secretly and link to Mexican cartels.  Obama’s "soft" tone with Chavez will only tighten the relationship with Iran since they have less to fear from the U.S.
  • China:  China is working with Venezuela on oil development and seeking Caribbean bases for the Chinese navy.  Obama can do little or nothing to reverse this relationship, but overly friendly gestures to Chavez will only encourage more aggressive PLA movement into the Hemisphere.
  • Russia: Russia is seeking military air basing agreements with Venezuela for planes that can carry nuclear weapons.  Russia will take the same view as China – that Obama is no threat to their ambitions in the Hemisphere to offset U.S./NATO power in Europe.

Cuba

  • Cuba is still a highly repressive, totalitarian regime, which shows little or no sign of change in the near future.  Obama made a number of concessions and got nothing in return (even China releases a few political prisoners as a sign of "good will.").  Fidel Castro made sure, after the summit, to reconfirm that Obama’s actions did nothing more than re-confirm the legitimacy of the "Revolution."

 

 

Colombia

  • Colombia’s Uribe is the other Latin American leader who has aggressively taken on the drug gangs and the terrorist, Venezuelan-supported FALN.  While Obama was courting the tyrants, he gave little attention to an important ally.  In addition, by refusing to throw his weight against the Congressional Democrats blocking a new free-trade agreement with Bogota, he under-cuts the political position of Uribe, and suggests what it means to be a partisan of the U.S. in Latin America.

Chile and Peru

  • Obama failed to recognize the tremendous success of these democracies and free-market economies as models, along with Brazil, for the rest of Latin America.

 

Nicaragua

 

  • Obama sat passively through a one hour, anti-American harangue without comment.  Then gave one of his First-Fist bumps to Ortega in spite of his efforts to renew Sandinista repression in Nicaragua and develop alliances with anti-American dictators throughout the world. The kind of menace even a relatively small anti-democratic regime in Central America poses is the news that Daniel Ortega is working with Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister of Thailand, trying to bring down the present government in Bangkok from exile with his billions.

What did the President do?

Obama tried to make friends among the Latin American leaders – notably the most repressive.  Although there was an obvious agenda based on earlier programs, he did little to advance U.S. interests or to even suggest what Obama Administration policy will be other than to suggest that it will be "different than his predecessor’s."  To a large degree, Obama seemed to have his eye on U.S. audiences and politics. (He was proud that the former sworn enemies appeared to like him and applaud him – especially our traditional enemies in the region).  He failed to see that they whether they like him is largely irrelevant but that they just see him as more malleable than his "predecessors".
 
Did the U.S. gain or lose? he U.S. lost serious ground at the summit:

Our enemies in Latin America got the strong impression that we will be tolerant not only of their suppression of democracy at home but accept their links to terrorist groups and nations.

  • Democratic forces in Latin America got the impression that the U.S. is no longer interested in actively supporting democracy, market economies, or free trade – very discouraging to those who have followed the U.S. lead and struggled to advance the region over the last 20 years. If they had any doubts, in the post-summit press conference Obama – whether he actually understands the concept or not – accept the left’s critique of "the Washington consensus" which in fact only sloganizes what have been U.S. aims historically for the region.
  • China, Russia, and Iran got the strong impression that this President will not defend American strategic interests in the region long considered "America’s backyard". Russia will see a green light for [its rather feeble attempts to make trouble for the U.S. in the region] and China will see a green light for aggressive commercial efforts and perhaps new naval bases – all of which could create a strategic military nightmare for the U.S.
  • Drug leaders saw a President who appears sympathetic toward further legalizing drug use and who will not "walk the walk" on supporting Mexico in fighting the cartels. Attorney General Holder has already announced a relaxation of prosecution of violations of the sale of "medical marijuana".
  • Absolutely no adversary will interpret the friendly smile and the "apologies" as an "opening" to negotiate strategic interests or to change their policies. As was evident from the insults from Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, conversations constructive to U.S. interests will be even more difficult after this summit.

Bottom Line:

  • Unprepared
  • Uninformed
  • Ineffective
  • Weak
  • Naïve
  • D-

Sol Sanders and Grady Means, the managing editor and the publisher of http://worldbuzz.com/. Mr. Sanders has been an international journalist for over 50 years and served as the International Outlook Editor for Business Week and is the author of the book "Mexico: Chaos on Our Doorstep."  Mr. Means served in the White House with Vice President Rockefeller and as a management consultant led many privatization initiatives throughout Latin America.

 

‘The enemy is us’

Perhaps the most famous line the history of cartoons was one Walt Kelly gave his much-beloved character, Pogo: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”  Increasingly, it appears Barack Obama feels the same way about America.  Call it the PogObama worldview. 

The President’s first hundred days have been a blur of legislative initiatives, policy pronouncements and symbolic gestures that, taken together, constitute the most sweeping and fundamental make-over of U.S domestic and foreign policies since at least World War II.  Animating them all is a hostility towards this country’s traditional values, institutions and conduct that is best described by Jeane Kirkpatrick’s phrase “Blame America First.”

To be sure, Mr. Obama has plenty of company in this camp, both at home and abroad.  “San Francisco Democrats” (another Kirkpatrickism) like Nancy Pelosi and tyrants like Hugo Chavez (with whom the President did “high fives” over the weekend) and Saudi King Abdullah (to whom the President bowed two weeks ago) are of a mind: The United States owes the world myriad apologies for its arrogance, unilateralism, aggression and other sins.  And it needs to make amends in various, substantial and ominously portentous ways, including the following:

Releasing the so-called “torture memos”: The President pandered to the Left last week by ignoring the advice of five past and present CIA Directors and declassifying several Top Secret legal memoranda.  They lay out in excruciating detail what “enhanced interrogation techniques” could be used in extreme circumstances to secure information being withheld by al Qaeda and other high value enemy operatives.

While Mr. Obama says that those who followed these guidelines will not be prosecuted, he has, as a practical matter, invited their prosecution by others.  Certainly, he left the door open, both here and overseas, to inquisitions of the memo-drafters and their superiors by Spanish judges, witch-hunters in the U.S. Congress, prosecutors with the International Criminal Court, etc.

By effectively declaring “open season” on those in the Bush administration who helped secure this country in its time of need post-9/11, Mr. Obama is not only wronging dedicated public servants who acted in good faith and who prescribed techniques well short of torture. [(As David Rivkin and Lee Casey point out in Monday’s Wall Street Journal, thousands of American servicemen have been subjected to such methods for decades as part of their survival training).]  He is also opening his own team to similar jeopardy, perhaps for killing innocent civilians with their Predator strikes in Pakistan or attacks now said to be under discussion on putative Somali “terrorist camps.”

Undermining U.S. sovereignty: Mr. Obama is embracing sovereignty-sapping treaties, theories of “universal jurisprudence” and individuals like State Department Legal Advisor-designate Harold Koh who espouse them.  The desired result evidently is a world governed by international norms and bureaucrats, rather than one dominated – or even forcefully led – by bad old America.

Cutting America’s power-projection capabilities:  The defense budget reductions recently unveiled by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates seem to have one thing in common:  They will diminish the United States’ ability to extend its global reach for the protection of this country and its interests around the world.

For example, Messrs. Obama and Gates propose to cancel: the C-17, America’s indispensable airlifter; the F-22, the world’s best fighter/attack aircraft; and the Army’s Future Combat System, a comprehensive and long-overdue modernization program for that service’s armored forces.  They would also truncate the purchase of F-18 E/Fs, the backbone of naval aviation, evidently as a precursor to reducing the number of operational aircraft carriers.  Missile defense programs will be ravaged.  There will be no modernization, ever, of the nation’s nuclear deterrent.  And the industrial base needed to support all of the above will be allowed to atrophy and/or be sold off to foreign powers keen to manufacture the superior weapon systems we no longer will.

Trying to appease America’s adversaries: Mr. Obama’s is determined to normalize relations with literally every one of the world’s bad actors – notably, Vladimir Putin’s Russian kleptocracy, Iran’s incipient nuclear mullahocracy, the Castro brothers’ island gulag, the megalomaniacal Kim dynasty in North Korea, the spreading and virulently anti-American axis in our own hemisphere led by Venezuela’s Chavez and the Muslim Brotherhood and other Shariah-adherent entities – without regard to their continuing, dangerous behavior or ambitions.

By associating himself with these hostile powers’ critiques of the United States and by acquiescing to many, if not all, of their demands, Mr. Obama may temporarily cultivate the illusion of having improved bilateral relations and America’s “image” internationally.  Unfortunately, it is absolutely predictable that – in the absence of systemic changes in these and other despotic regimes the President is romancing – any “improvements” will come at the Free World’s expense. And the image America will ultimately project is that of an emasculated, formerly great power, easy prey for those who seek not just to displace, but destroy, it.

Under these circumstances, those of us who reject the PogObama view of the United States have our work cut out for us.  Fortunately, most Americans do not see their country as “the enemy.”  It is time for legislators and other leaders who prize our sovereignty, who recognize the importance of preserving and wisely using our power and who understand that our true foes are numerous, elsewhere and being emboldened to enlist the public in challenging Team Obama’s agenda, before it brings us to grief.

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for the Washington Times.

 

Honduras’ Faustian Bargain

The United States has enjoyed a long and influential relationship with Honduras, more so than most other nations.  U.S. interest and military involvement in Honduras dates back to the turn of the century. During World War II, the United States signed a lend lease agreement with Honduras and also established a military presence operating a small naval base at Trujillo on the Caribbean Sea.  Over the next thirty years over 300 million in U.S. foreign assistance would flow into Honduras, and by the end of the 1980’s that figure would jump to 1.9 billion.[1]  It was during the 1980’s that Honduras became the "linchpin for United States policy toward Central America."[2]  The U.S. remains Honduras’s most important trading partner and a primary source of foreign investment. Considering the long history and the traditionally close ties it was an unfortunate break with the rubric of U.S.-Honduran relations when the President of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, moved-some argue pushed-Honduras into a devilish deal with the anti-democratic Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez.

Honduras’s leftward slide

On August 25, 2008, President Manuel Zelaya agreed to have Honduras become a member of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), the anti-American trade alliance led by President Chavez. Other members of ALBA include Nicaragua led by Daniel Ortega, Bolivia by Evo Morales, and Cuba, then represented by Vice President Lage.  The five dignitaries each spoke of the benefits of regional cooperation and the need to resist northern imperialism.  Chavez was the most polemical calling anyone who questioned the agreement a "sellout" and a "pitiyanquis," a Puerto Rican term used to denote those who abase themselves for American interests.  Zelaya, who has drawn furious criticism from those who fear that ALBA membership will impair Honduras’s participation in the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) which only came into effect in 2006, addressed his critics by saying: "the Honduran people do not have to ask permission of any imperialist to join the ALBA."[3]  Chavez told the crowd of approximately 30,000 Honduran spectators-many of whom had been offered 300 lempiras (US$15) by Zelaya’s Liberal Party in order to show up-"I did not come here to meddle in internal affairs, but I am just reflecting, and I cannot explain [trans. understand] how a Honduran could be against Honduras joining ALBA," which Chavez claims is the "path of development," and "the path of integration."[4]

The accord, whose details have not been widely publicized, provides Honduras with access to credit lines, cheap energy and food and healthcare benefits.  In exchange for joining ALBA, Venezuela will purchase $100 million in Honduran issued bonds, the proceeds of which will provide housing assistance to the poor.  Venezuelan aid also includes access to a $30 million line of credit through the Venezuelan Economic and Social Development Bank for micro-loans to small-scale farmers.  In addition, Venezuela will supply 100 tractors-which Zelaya will be renting to the peasants of San Pedro Sula at symbolic prices[5]-, technical assistance for a government operated television station, and 4 million low energy light bulbs.  There are also multiple broad based initiatives to support healthcare and educational efforts, and preferential payment options for oil through Petrocaribe, a program Venezuela uses to subsidize oil shipments to 18 countries in the Caribbean, which Honduras joined earlier last year.  In one of the more nebulous clauses within the agreement Honduras abdicates its right to look for oil to an ALBA-operated company.

Honduras’s membership is something of a coup for ALBA as well as for Chavez.  Honduras has long been a staunch ally and strategic partner of the United States.  Zelaya’s decision to join with ALBA is therefore something of a radical paradigm shift in Honduras’ foreign policy.  Chavez started ALBA as a regional trade group initially formed to counteract the U.S. led Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). It has since morphed into an alliance of leftist leaders dedicated to building an opposition to U.S. interests in the region. 

Ideologue or Pragmatist

Zelaya descends from a wealthy landowning family and established himself as a logging magnate before going into politics.  He was long seen as a moderate liberal but his politics and rhetoric have become increasingly leftist.  Since taking power he has clashed with the traditional elites over his decisions to move the government toward the left under a "liberal socialist" model.[6]

Zelaya’s motives for joining ALBA appear to be the self-expressed financial desperation of the impoverished Central American country.  Zelaya claims that a lack of international assistance has forced him to accept Venezuelan aid.  In an interview with Reuters news service Zelaya said: "I have been looking for projects from the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, Europe and I have received very moderate offers … that forces us to find other forms of financing like ALBA."[7]  Honduras is one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere with an extraordinarily unequal distribution of income and high unemployment.  Starting last year its economic growth has significantly decreased, mainly due to the slowdown in the U.S. economy. The Honduran economy relies heavily on a narrow range of exports, notably bananas and coffee.  The shifts in American commodity prices have decreased export demand leaving many Honduran farmers with a severely diminished market.  The downturn also means a decrease in remittances, a financial lifeline for Honduras, accounting for nearly a quarter of the country’s GDP.[8]  These developments along with an ever widening trade deficit and higher global food prices, which has severely pushed up inflation, have-according to Zelaya-forced Honduras into the arms of Chavez.

Zelaya found himself in the midst of accusations of corruption and suspicion of irregularities in public finance, while simultaneously being pressured by the U.S. and multilateral lending agencies to adopt transparency and accountability measures.  The Honduran president then began to forge closer ties with Chávez as a way of solving his countries financial difficulties without the troubling reforms.  According to the Inter Press Service "Presidential advisors reported on condition of anonymity that Zelaya had admitted in private that the lending institutions had left him no choice but to join ALBA, because he ‘had to satisfy the country’s demands, and Chávez was willing to supply funds with no conditions or audits.’"[9]

Zelaya’s finger pointing

Zelaya has habitually accused the United States of being indifferent to the problems facing Honduras and apathetic in finding solutions, he said: "The United States isn’t responding to Latin America’s needs in the area."[10]  Zelaya declared that the Merida Initiative, which among other things allocates funds to combat drug trafficking in Honduras, was "weak and ill-considered."[11]  Zelaya claims that U.S. involvement is ineffectual and hegemonic and only directed at a select few, he told Reuters: "Our decades-long relationship of dominance by the United States has not benefited all Hondurans." 

Zelaya has taken great pains to blame the United States for a lack of international support thereby forcing him to seek aid from Venezuela, as he told Reuters: "if what we have now is not giving results, we have to turn to alternatives like ALBA,"[12] Zelaya’s finger pointing accomplishes two political goals: first, it is a means of leveraging for increased assistance from the U.S.  This is true, particularly in terms of continued disbursement of funds through the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), a bilateral U.S. development assistance program created in March 2002.  Continued funding through the MCA is dubious due to the lack of reforms.  Second, Zelaya’s claim of being forced into joining ALBA preempts any U.S. response and helps alleviate fears in Honduras-particularly in the business class-of a U.S. economic or diplomatic backlash.

Zelaya is wagering that the U.S. will not take action against Honduras for a couple of reasons: first, Zelaya and members of his government have taken great pains to convince everyone that joining ALBA was a last ditch effort, and effectively the fault of the United States.  Second, Latin America is not particularly high on the Obama administration’s list of priorities in light of the current U.S. economic crisis and the challenges in the Middle East and Asia.  Finally, Zelaya and members of his government have been clambering ever since Honduras joined ALBA that they still want to maintain good relations with the United States.  Elvin Santos, the vice-president, states that ALBA will have "no influence on internal politics."[13]  The much-touted fact that Honduras is the first "non-aligned" member of ALBA has served to further emphasize Santos’s argument.  What is truly illustrative, however, is Zelaya’s willingness and tendency to play both sides of the fence.

Zelaya’s Sacrifices

President Zelaya spearheaded the initiative to join ALBA, but it may have cost him more than he bargained for.  What it will cost Honduras as a nation remains to be seen.  Zelaya exhausted a great deal of political capitol-and even financial resources-assuring that it would be ratified by Congress and even sacrificed his already marginal approval rating.

There was initial resistance from most of the legislators in Congress to the ratification of ALBA, including members of Zelaya’s own party, the Partido Liberal (PL), who were concerned about increasing the political influence of Chavez in Latin America.  When the bill was first introduced on September 9th 2008 the President of the national Congress, Robert Micheletti, a member of the PL and-at the time-the favorite to be the PL’s candidate in the 2009 presidential elections raised several objections to ALBA membership "on the basis of its political, ideological and military implications."[14]  He then reversed his opinion, as did many of his supporters in Congress, prior to the actual vote on October 9th 2008.  His change of heart has been interpreted as part of political arrangement, in which support for ALBA was exchanged for Zelaya’s endorsement of Mr. Micheletti.  Zelaya’s declaration of support for Micheletti for the PL primaries in November would appear to confirm these suspicions.  Unfortunately for Micheletti, Zelaya’s endorsement was not enough.  In addition to the changed opinions of most of the PL legislators, Zelaya somehow convinced the opposition party, the Partido Nacional (PN), to not show up for the vote.

Zelaya was willing to spend not only political capitol, but also hard cash to ensure the ratification of ALBA.  The local newspaper El Heraldo published an investigative report, which revealed that receipts for $284,000 had allegedly been "distributed by the government to thirty-eight social and political leaders in exchange for support for ALBA."[15]

To some extent this has become a personal battle for Zelaya; he has received ferocious criticism from the business class in his continued struggle "with the country’s traditional political and economic power structures."[16]  It is not only the upper class of Honduras, however, that is disappointed with his leadership; he has also sacrificed his approval rating in the eyes of the general public for the sake of ALBA.  In November of 2005, Zelaya won the presidential election with 49.9 percent of all ballots cast.  In July of 2008, a poll by CID-Gallup published in La Prensa revealed, "fewer people in Honduras are expressing satisfaction with the performance of Manuel Zelaya."[17]  His approval rating was at 34 percent, which was a four-point drop since February of that year.  Since the ratification of ALBA, Zelaya has dropped even further, as the Economist reveals: "Many ordinary Hondurans seem uncertain as to the benefits of ALBA.  A recent poll found a sharp fall in Mr. Zelaya’s approval rating, to just 25%."[18]

The Chavez Effect

Because Zelaya so often plays both sides, it is difficult to infer what his true intentions and motives are.  He has complained about American dominance and publicly railed against the dangers of northern imperialism, and almost in the same breath blamed his nation’s problems on American indifference.  Zelaya claims that he wants to have a "frank, open, comprehensive dialogue [with the U.S.], about the problems facing us mutually."[19]  His actions, however, represent a clear willingness to follow the model of his new mentor, Hugo Chavez.  When Bolivia and Venezuela expelled the American ambassadors from their borders in September 2008, he quickly followed suit by obsequiously refusing to allow the arrival of a new ambassador; he quickly changed his mind, however, and allowed the ambassador to arrive.  Additionally, his rhetoric has grown increasingly socialist in nature. At the 11th International Encounter of Economists on Globalization and Development Problems held in Havana, Zelaya discussed the collapse of world capitalism and argued that the global economic downturn represented the resounding failure of the neo-liberal model.[20] 

There has also been a noticeable breakdown in the freedom of the press in Honduras.  Zelaya has often blamed the media for his low approval ratings and accused them of having a bias against him.  In 2007 he ordered the country’s private broadcast media to devote ten two-hour long segments to airing government programs in order to "counteract the misinformation of the news media about our 17 months in office."[21]  After a reporter at a radio station known to have been critical of the government was killed, the UN Special Reporter for Freedom of Expression visited the country and issued a statement of concern.  "The murder of Carlos Salgado confirms the deterioration in press freedom in Honduras (87th in RSF world press freedom rankings). The worsening and terrible climate between the government of Manuel Zelaya and the media, unfortunately, contributes to this situation," the worldwide press freedom organization reported.[22]  Zelaya informed that same radio station correspondent that he would no longer grant her interviews. "You spend your time criticizing me," he said. "If I was Hugo Chávez, I would have had this radio station shut down a long time ago."[23]

Perhaps the most disturbing element of Chavez’s influence is the spread of Iranian power in Central America.  Since coming to power Chavez has worked hard to establish close ties with Iran.  He has developed a close working relationship with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and together they have launched a number of initiatives.  The main commonality between the two men and in their foreign relations is an opposition to the United States.  In the spirit of Chavez, Honduras has taken the first steps in developing ties with Iran.  The Vice Minister of Iranian Foreign Relations, Alireza Salari Sharifabad, traveled to Honduras where he met with Patricia Rodas the Honduran Minister of Foreign Relations.  Rodas who is well known for leftist affiliations said that the goal of meeting with Sharifabad was to establish closer relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran.[24]  The spread of Iranian influence in Central and South America is a genuine security threat to the United States. 

Zelaya’s actions have already cost him; he will be leaving power with dismal approval ratings, very few political successes, and lots of political enemies.  The conservative national party (Zelaya’s opponents who he barely beat in 2005) is in a very strong position heading into the general election campaign which will be held on November 29, 2009 but has already began in earnest (Honduras has one of the longest election seasons in Latin America).  Many political analysts doubt that Honduras will remain a member of ALBA.  What Honduras’s membership in ALBA reveals is the power and persistence of Chavez to entice, seduce, and ultimately win over a longtime American ally in order to expand his sphere of influence in Central and South America.  It also shows that the United States needs to be much more proactive in shoring up its Central and South American allies.

Chris Tuggle is a foreign affairs writer and research analyst at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. He is a senior at Patrick Henry College, VA where he is finishing a degree in government, with a concentration in intelligence and Middle Eastern affairs.

 

 

NOTES

[1] Tim Merrill, ed. Honduras: A Country Study. Washington: Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, 1995 (accessed online on March 6, 2009 <http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/hntoc.html>).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Venezuelan Analysis, "Honduras Joins Venezuela in Bolivarian Alternative Trade Group ALBA, August 27th 2008.

[4] Ibid.

[5] El Universal, "Honduras’ President rents Venezuelan tractors," February 18th, 2009 (accessed online on March 6, 2009 <http://english.eluniversal.com/2009/02/18/en_pol_art_honduras-president_18A2231425.shtml>)

[6] Inter Press Service, "Honduras: President Clashes with Traditional Elite," October 23, 2008

[7] Reuters, "Left behind by the U.S., Honduras turns to Chavez," August 26, 2008 (accessed online on March 6, 2009 < http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSN2634659620080826>)

[8] Economist, "Remittances heading downward," January 15, 2009

[9] Inter Press Service, "Honduras: President Clashes with Traditional Elite," October 23, 2008

[10] Hondudiario, U.S. support to combat drug trafficking "insignificant," Zelaya says August 20, 2008 (accessed online on March 6, 2009  <http://www.mayispeakfreely.org/index.php?gSec=doc&doc_id=305>)

[11] Ibid.

[12] Reuters, "Left behind by the U.S., Honduras turns to Chavez," August 26, 2008 (accessed online on March 6, 2009 < http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSN2634659620080826>)

[13] Economist, "Zelaya plays the Chavez card," October 30, 2008

[14] Economist, "Leaning Left," October 20, 2008

[15] Inter Press Service, "Honduras: President Clashes with Traditional Elite," October 23, 2008

[16] Ibid.

[17] Angus Reid Global Monitor, "Lower Rating for Honduran President Zelaya," July 1, 2008

[18] Economist, "Zelaya plays the Chavez card," October 30, 2008

[19] Hondudiario, U.S. support to combat drug trafficking "insignificant," Zelaya says August 20, 2008 (accessed online on March 6, 2009  <http://www.mayispeakfreely.org/index.php?gSec=doc&doc_id=305>)

[20] Cuban News Agency, "Honduran President Harshly Criticized Current Globalization," March 4, 2009 (accessed online on March 6, 2009  <http://www.cubanews.ain.cu/2009/0303criticapdtehondure%C3%B1o.htm>)

[21] Central American & Caribbean Affairs, "Honduras’ President Takes on Media Moguls for Access to the People," June 28, 2007.

[22] Reporters Without Borders, "Journalist murdered following threats, government harassment of critical radio station," October 19, 2007

[23] Ibid

[24] El Heraldo, Rodas se reunirá con vicecanciller iraní, February 27 2009, (accessed online on March 18, 2009 http://www.elheraldo.hn/Pa%C3%ADs/Ediciones/2009/02/27/Noticias/Rodas-se-reunira-con-vicecanciller-irani)

La Desobediencia Civil como opcin para Venezuela

En el referéndum que se llevó a cabo en Venezuela el 15 de Febrero del 2009, Hugo Chávez logró revertir los resultados de  Diciembre del 2007 al ganar el derecho constitucional de ser re-elegido en forma indefinida. Chávez ganó luego de llevar a cabo una campaña caracterizada por la intimidación y el chantaje.

Chávez no gobierna democraticamente. Al contrario, abusa el poder estatal y los recursos públicos. Ha usado el aparato estatal para acosar asociaciones, sindicatos, defensores de derechos humanos públicos y profesionales de los medios de comunicación.  La compañía petrolera estatal PDVSA así como otras compañías públicas han intimidado empleados para que voten en favor de la reelección indefinida de Chávez.

En las elecciones locales y municipales de Noviembre pasado, la oposición logró victorias importantes que incluyeron la gobernación del estado de Miranda y la ciudad de Caracas. Chávez respondió a estos avances centralizando la provisión de servicios sociales que con el objeto de concentrar más recursos y poder político en manos de Chávez a expensas de gobiernos locales en manos de la oposición. Del mismo modo ha enviado pandillas Bolivaianas al municipio de Caracas con el propósito de obstaculizar el trabajo del recién electo alcalde no Chavista de Caracas Antonio Ledezma.

Irregularidades y otros actos de fraude electoral fueron denunciados durante el día de las elecciones. Hubo denuncias de que gente ya fallecida fue registrada para votar como también hubo una extensión ilegal del tiempo de votación.

Chávez controla todos los poderes del estado incluyendo el Consejo Nacional Electoral que está a cargo de la supervisión de elecciones. Miembros de esta institución nunca se han molestado en leer las reglas según las cuales se deberían regir sino que se han limitado pura y exclusivamente a obedecer al ahora Presidente.

Más desmoralizante aun es el hecho de que le tomó a la oposición no más de algunos minutos en reconocer el triunfo de Chávez el 15 de Febrero. Basta recordar que en el estado de Minnesota, sin sospechas de fraude, una elección para Senador ha sido contestada debido solamente a que hay una diferencia de votos muy reducida y meses después de las elecciones ninguno de los candidatos para esta posición ha reconocido la victoria del otro. ¿Como es que la oposición Venezolana se apresuró a reconocer la victoria de Chávez sobre quien recaen serias sospechas de violaciones del proceso electoral y la ley en general?  La oposición obviamente actuó siguiendo la filosofía del "no hagan olas", temerosos de una represalia Chavista.  Si algo han logrado es precisamente estimular a Chávez a acosar a la oposición aún mas, ya que el se comporta como una bestia salvaje: cuanto mas su presa demuestra temor, mas las chances de que sea devorada. Pero este no es el momento de reproches. Al contrario, este es el momento de sopesar alternativas.

Una alternativa a seguir es continuar con la opción electoral. Esto significa esperar a las próximas elecciones para derrotar a Chávez.  Esta vía es apoyada por importantes líderes dentro del establishement partidario que piensan que el cambio se llevará a cabo de forma pacifica. Efectivamente habrá elecciones municipales en la segunda mitad de este año y en el 2010 habrán elecciones parlamentarias para las cuales los candidatos opositores ya han comenzado a prepararse.  Pero, ¿cuál es la evidencia de que las próximas elecciones serán legitimas cuando Chávez ha manipulado de forma sistemática todas las elecciones?

Pero, ¿se ha olvidado esta oposición legalista que Chávez descalificó candidatos semanas antes de las elecciones locales? ¿Se han olvidado de que el déspota Venezolano controla el consejo nacional electoral y todas piezas claves de la maquina electoral? ¿Que hace pensar a la oposición que tal victoria es posible?

La situación en Venezuela sólo se pondrá peor. Hasta que llegue el momento de las próximas elecciones, no habrá ningún partido en Venezuela con poder suficiente para confrontar la todopoderosa maquinaria Chavista.  Chávez aprovechará este tiempo para asestar un golpe final a la frágil y débil democracia Venezolana.

Otra opción para sacar a Chavez del poder fue propuesta por el ex-Secretario de Defensa Raúl Baduel en su libro "Mi Solución". El General Baduel habla de usar el espíritu de la constitución de 1999 para convocar una nueva asamblea constitucional que podría dejar sin efecto muchas de las decisiones y leyes adoptadas durante la época de Chávez y restaurar un nuevo orden constitucional basado en principios democráticos reales. Para lograr la convocación de una nueva asamblea constitucional se requeriría una petición con 3 millones de firmas. Se sabe por  experiencia que durante el 2003 y el 2004, Chávez puso todos sus esfuerzos y usó la maquiaria estatal para descalificar las firmas conseguidas para la convocación de un referendo revocatorio que hubiese revocado el mandato presidencial de Chávez. Este proceso fue saboteado por Chávez y sus secuaces en forma sistemática.

De este modo pienso que este voto de convocatoria para una nueva asamblea constitucional nunca ocurrirá. Si no hay salida electoral del infierno Chavista, es menos probable que haya una salida constitucional. Sin embargo, el acto de organizar la petición podría revitalizar la lucha de la sociedad civil contra el despotismo del régimen Bolivariano. No sería la mejor opción pero no habría que desecharla porque podría comenzar un proceso para algo más grande como una huelga general o un acto masivo de desobediencia civil.

Una opción importante y más realista es la apelación al artículo 350 de la constitución Venezolana. Este artículo dice lo siguiente:

El pueblo de Venezuela, fiel a su tradición republicana, a su lucha por la independencia, la paz y la libertad, desconocerá cualquier régimen, legislación o autoridad que contrarié los valores, principios y garantías democráticas o menoscabe los derechos humanos.

Como Chávez ha violado todos los principios mencionados sin excepción, no reconocer el gobierno actual sería legítimo. Los Venezolanos deberían entender que el hecho de que Chávez haya ganado estas elecciones aunado al hecho de que ha gobernado el país con métodos ilegales convierte al gobierno de Chávez en un régimen ilegitimo por definición. Citando el pensamiento del filosofo Americano John Rawls, diríamos que actos de protesta no violenta apelan a un "sentimiento de justicia por parte de la mayoría de la comunidad".  Desobediencia civil puede ser un acto ilegal bajo determinadas circunstancias; pero en este caso es desobediencia contra un gobierno ilegitimo.

El argumento que sostiene que la vía electoral es el mejor camino para derrotar a Chávez es enceguecedor y por lo tanto iluso. Nadie hoy en países como Egipto pretendería que un referéndum podría derrotar a la persona que esta en el poder. En Venezuela tal expectativa es igualmente vana porque la elección está manipulada por el miedo y el control de recursos nacionales igual que en una dictadura.  Siguiendo el pensamiento de los académicos Jean Cohen y Andrew Arato, diríamos que "el objetivo de la desobediencia civil es persuadir a la opinión publica que una ley en especial o una política (y yo agregaría "régimen") es ilegitima y que un cambio es necesario".  Como la desobediencia civil apela a un sentido común social, a una realidad que la gran mayoría intuye, no hay razón para que tal acto sea violento para conseguir sus propósitos.

El mejor modelo empírico que se adecúa a la realidad Venezolana es le modelo Ucraniano de la revolución anaranjada que ocurrió en el año 2004. El estado Ucraniano, al igual que el Venezolano, era un estado de democracia formal pero autoritario en sus prácticas. En la Ucrania post-Soviética, el uso de violencia política, especialmente bajo el gobierno de Leonid Kuchma se caracterizó por le uso de prácticas electorales fraudulentas y manipulación. Estos abusos generaron una fuerte reacción y protestas que se propagaron a través del país entero. Estas protestas si bien no tuvieron éxito al principio, iniciaron un verdadero movimiento. Este movimiento fue creciendo  cuando el régimen cometió fraude en las elecciones parlamentarias del 2002 y se volvió efectivo luego de las elecciones presidenciales del 2004 a raíz de la escala de fraudes del gobierno de Kuchma. En aquel entonces los Ucranianos fueron concientes de que una elección libre era imposible. El gobierno de Kuchma abusó de los recursos estatales, usó la televisión y los medios de comunicación públicos en la campaña contra el candidato de la oposición Victor Yushchenko además de otras medidas dirigidas a perpetuarse en el poder. Así cuando el gobierno cometió fraude en la segunda vuelta de elecciones presidenciales, las rebeliones estallaron indefectiblemente.

Tal rebelión fue liderada por el grupo estudiantil "Pora" que fue columna vertebral de la revolución anaranjada. Este grupo se mantuvo independiente de los partidos políticos si bien el movimiento estudiantil contenía elementos con lazos a los partidos políticos. Estos elementos fueron cruciales en lograr la cooperación entre el movimiento estudiantil y los partidos políticos cuyo objetivo era el remover el régimen de Kuchma. Los socios de la coalición cooperaron extremadamente bien en la coordinación y organización de las actividades y en la movilización general. El movimiento anti-Kuchma apeló a elementos domésticos y foráneos y particularmente a la opinión publica. La unidad y coordinación de la coalición fue un factor determinante en el triunfo de la revolución anaranjada pese a las diferencias ideológicas entre sus miembros.

En forma similar, en Venezuela los sucesivos referéndums y votaciones generaron oposición de estudiantes, intelectuales y otros elementos no-políticos de la sociedad. Movimientos se han generado en Venezuela por lo menos desde el año 2003 con la huelga petrolera, luego con el referendo revocatorio (2003-2004) y en los referendos constitucionales de Diciembre del 2007 y Febrero del 2009.

El movimiento esta ahí. No hay necesidad de inventarlo. Las condiciones están dadas en Venezuela como lo estuvieron en Ucrania en el 2004. Los líderes políticos Venezolanos que todavía creen en la solución electoral, deberían reconsiderar sus posiciones dada la situación específica de Venezuela. Chávez, como Kuchma, no saldrá por la vía electoral.  En su actitud violenta, inescrupulosa, fraudulenta y autoritaria, el régimen de Hugo Chávez no es diferente al de Kuchma. Cabe recordar que el intento de golpe de estado de Chávez en el año 1992 cobró cientos de victimas. A Chávez este hecho no le hizo remorder la conciencia. Chávez convertirá a Venezuela en un estado totalitario en cuestión de meses. Un gran movimiento debe tomar lugar inmediatamente en Venezuela para abortar desde ya este proyecto despótico.

 

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

 

Version in English.

Civil disobedience as an option for Venezuela

Versión en Español

In a referendum this past February 15th, Hugo Chavez managed to reverse the results of the previous December 2, 2007 vote by winning the constitutional right to be re-elected indefinitely. Chavez won after running a campaign of intimidation and blackmail. 

Chavez does not govern democratically. To the contrary, he has abused state power and resources. He has used the instruments of government to harass unions, human rights advocates and has violated free speech.   The state-owned oil-company, PDVSA and other state companies have been encourage to intimidate employees so they would vote in favor of the referendum.

In last November’s municipal and local elections the opposition made some important gains including in the state of Miranda and the City of Caracas. Chavez reacted by removing some key social services such as health care from the jurisdiction of Miranda to the federal government and placed mobs in Caracas city hall that undermined the work of the newly elected mayor of Caracas. Irregularities and other acts of electoral fraud were reported throughout Election Day. There were reports of people who were deceased being registered to vote as well as an illegal extension of voting time. Chavez also controls all the powers of the state including the electoral national council in charge of election supervision. This institution never bothers to read the rules and the regulations but only obeys the man who placed them in their jobs.

Even more de-moralizing is the fact that it only took minutes for the opposition to recognize the illegitimate victory of Chavez. If we only think that in Minnesota a certainly non fraudulent Senate seat election remains highly contentious months after the election, how is that the Venezuelan opposition rushed to recognize the victory of a thug like Chavez who behaved in a most illegal manor prior to the vote? The opposition obviously acted following the "do not rock the boat" philosophy, afraid of further punishment by Chavez. If anything, Chavez will be encouraged to punish the opposition even more because he is like a wild beast:  the more he perceives fear, the more he rushes to devour his prey. But, this is not the time for reprimands. To the contrary, it is time to consider other possible options.

One option discussed is to continue the electoral option, namely try to defeat Chavez in the next elections. This option is suggested by important leaders within the mainstream of the opposition parties. The fact that these opposition leaders Chavez’ victory makes them believe that Chavez will return the gesture and thus a peaceful way to change can be obtained in the next round of elections.

Indeed, there will be municipal elections in the second half of this year. Next year there will be parliamentary elections and candidates have already begun to prepare for that. However, what is the evidence that elections can take place in an orderly fashion when previously Chavez has systematically manipulated the results in all the forms mentioned above?

Did these opposition leaders forget that Chavez disqualified candidates before the last local elections? Moreover, did they forget that Chavez controls the national electoral council and all the corners of the electoral machine? What makes this opposition dream that a victory is possible?

The electoral option will be further undermined by the fact that Chavez will use the victory in the recent referendum, with the help of the Enabling Act of 2007 (that confers powers to Chavez to rule by decree in a number of areas including in those related to regulations for popular participation, and rules for governing state institutions) to deepen his revolution and strengthen his personal power.  The situation in Venezuela will get worse before it gets better. By the time of the next election, there will not be power from below capable of confronting the overwhelming Chavista machine. Chavez will move quickly using all the means already in his hands to strike a final blow on Venezuelan democracy.

Another option to bring about the end of Chavez’ regime was raised by former Secretary of Defense Raul Baduel in his book "Mi Solucion" (My Solution). There, General Baduel talks about using the spirit of the Constitution of 1999 to call for a new constituent assembly. A new constituent assembly may leave without effect many of Chavez’ decisions and laws and restore a new constitutional order based on democratic principles. To call for a new constitutional assembly a petition of more than 3 million signatures will be required. We know from the years 2003-2004 that Chavez made every effort to disqualify the signatures required to oppose the recall referendum, that would have allowed revoking the president’s mandate and calling for new elections. The recall referendum was systematically undermined until the President found mysterious ways to win the referendum in 2004.

My view is that a vote for a new constituent assembly will never take place. If there is no electoral exit from the Chavez inferno, the chances for a constitutional solution are even less likely. However, the very act of collecting petitions may well revitalize the struggle of civil society against the despotism of the Bolivarian regime. It might not be the best option but it should not be ruled out since it may start rolling the wheels for something bigger such as a general act of civil disobedience.

An important option, which I see as being more realistic, is the appeal to article 350 of the 1999 Venezuelan constitution. That article reads as follows:

The Venezuelan people, consistent with the country’s republican tradition, its struggle for independence, peace and freedom, shall not recognize any regime, legislation or authority that stands in contradiction to the country’s values, principles, and democratic guarantees. By the same token, the people shall not recognize any authority that undermines human rights.

Since Chavez has violated all the principles above without exception, non-recognition of the current government is definitely legitimate. In other words, Venezuelans need to understand that the fact that Chavez won these highly problematic elections plus the fact that he has ruled Venezuela by illegal methods makes the Chavez regime illegitimate.  Thus, invoking the thoughts of American philosopher John Rawls, we will say that acts of non-violent protests appeal to "the sense of justice of the majority of the community". [1] Civil disobedience is indeed an illegal act. However, it is disobedience against an illegitimate government.

The argument that holds that the electoral path is the one to defeat Chavez is delusional. As nobody today in countries such as Egypt would pretend that a referendum could defeat the person who holds power, in Venezuela, such expectation is as futile as in Egypt since it is clearly manipulated by a dictatorship.

Following the words of scholars Jean Cohen and Andrew Arato, we will say that the "aim of civil disobedience is to persuade public opinion that a particular law, or policy (and I would add "a regime") is illegitimate and a change is warranted". [2] Therefore, I would say that since civil disobedience is appealing to social common sense, namely, a reality that everyone understands, there is no reason for such acts to be violent in order to achieve its goals.

The model that best fits the Venezuelan case is probably the Ukrainian model of the Orange Revolution. The Ukrainian state, like the Venezuelan state was strong and authoritarian in its practices. In Post-Soviet Ukraine, the use of political violence, especially during the Leonid Kuchma regime, was characterized by electoral fraud and manipulation. Political violence also included the murder of a dissident and intimidation of journalists.  Such abuses generated a strong reaction and nation-wide protests that although unsuccessful in the beginning, it initiated a movement. This movement increased when the regime stole the parliamentary elections in 2002.  It became effective when in the aftermath of the 2004 presidential elections, amid the scale of fraud conducted by the Kuchma regime; Ukrainians realized that a free election was impossible in the country after having experienced several fraudulent elections. The Kuchma regime had abused state administrative resources; it used television and media campaigns against the candidate of the opposition, Victor Yushchenko; it used a transit server located in the presidential administration to massage the vote, and other measures aimed at perpetuating the regime in power. Thus, when the authorities committed fraud in the second round of the elections, it unleashed unrest. [3]

Such unrest was led by the group Pora, a student organization that became the pillar of the Orange revolution. The group remained independent of any political party. However, there were elements in the movement that had ties to political parties of the opposition. These elements were crucial in moderating the younger students and in avoiding the radicalization of the movement and most importantly they were able to achieve cooperation between the different groups who agreed that the Kuchma regime had to go.  In the case of the Ukraine, the coalition partners worked extremely well in coordinating and organizing the activities as well as in mobilizing people. The movement appealed to domestic and foreign elements and particularly to world public opinion. The unity and coordination displayed by the coalition was definitely crucial, despite important ideological differences between coalition members.4]

Similarly, in Venezuela the successive referendums and votes generated opposition from students, intellectuals and other non-political elements in society. A movement has been mobilized in Venezuela at least since early 2003 with the "oil strike", later with the recall referendum (2003-2004) and in the constitutional referendums of December 2007 and February 2009.

The movement is there, there is no need to invent it.

The conditions are ripe to move in the direction of the Ukraine. Venezuelan political leaders who still believe in the electoral solution should reconsider their stand in view of the specific situation in Venezuela. Chavez, like the Ukrainian Kuchma, will not leave office via elections.  In its violent, ruthless, fraudulent and authoritarian ways, the Chavez regime is no different than that of Kuchma.  It is important to remember that Hugo Chavez’s attempt at a coup d’etat in 1992 claimed hundred of victims. It did not bother Chavez’ conscience at all. Chavez will turn Venezuela into a full totalitarian regime in a matter of a few months.  There must be a huge movement in Venezuela coordinated with the political elements within the opposition to abort Chavez’ despotic project. The time is now.

 

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

 

[1] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971, p. 364

[2] J.L Cohen and A. Arato, Civil Society and Political Theory, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1992, pp 587

[3] Laverty, Nicklaus, "Problem of Lasting Change: Civil Society and the Colored Revolutions in Georgia and the Ukraine", Spring 2008, Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, Volume 16, Number 4, Fall 2008, 398-400

[4] Laverty, Ibid

Islamic terrorism in Latin America

Over the years, there has been disturbing information about the presence of radical Islamic terrorist groups in Latin America.  The Americas Report has published several articles regarding this subject including a recent article on how terrorists have and could use fake or doctored passports to enter the United States to carry out attacks.[1] In light of this information, it is important to know which Islamic terror groups are present in the region and the threat they could pose to regional security.

Active Islamic Terror groups in Latin America and the Caribbean:

 

The "Jamaat al Muslimeen" (JAM)

The "Jamaat al Muslimeen" is a Sunni terrorist organization that operates in Trinidad and Tobago. So far, it has been the only subversive group in the region to attempt a coup d’ Etat to install a sharia-based government. In 1990, over a six-day period, JAM’s leader Yasin Abu Bakr held members of the government including then-Prime Minister Arthur Napoleon Raymond Robinson, hostage while chaos and looting broke out in the streets of the capital city, Port of Spain.

The coup failed and subsequently, the JAM aligned itself with the United National Congress (before the 1995 general elections) and later with the People’s National Movement (PNM); the party which forms the current government. Bakr continues to lead the Jamaat al Muslimeen and authorities have re-arrested him on several occasions over the years. Bakr is currently being prosecuted with conspiracy to murder several of the group’s former members who had spoken out publicly against the Jamaat al Muslimeen and its practices.[2]

In March 2007, three members of the Jamaat al Muslimeen confessed to kidnapping, raping, and murdering of an Indo-Trinidadian businesswoman, Vindra Naipaul – Coolman. According to a U.S. undercover agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Bakr’s group shipped heroin from Afghanistan to the U.S. via Trinidad. In June of that same year, a joint Guyanese/Trinidadian/FBI investigation culminated in the arrest of four men who plotted to blow up gas lines leading to the John F. Kennedy Airport in New York. The individuals were American, Guyanese, and Trinidadian. One of the plot leader’s, Abdul Kadir, is an acquaintance of Abu Bakr in Trinidad. Members of the group allegedly met with JAM members to obtain support for their plot. Kadir is a former Guyanese parliament member. The JAM is currently under surveillance by the local National Security Agency as well as by the CIA for suspected terrorist relations with the Middle East.[3]

 

Hezbollah

Hezbollah has had a presence in Latin America since the late 1980’s, particularly in the Tri-Border Region, where Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina meet. Approximately 50,000 individuals of Arab descent live in three key cities in the 40 square kilometer triangle that forms this area. Most tri-border Arabs are of Lebanese origin and are heavily represented in commerce. Many of them moved to the area in the wake of the turmoil of the Lebanese civil war that raged from 1975 to 1990. Of those that adhere to Islam, approximately two-thirds are Sunni, while the remaining are Shia. The area hosts several Islamic schools or "madrassas" and various Arab – language television channels.[4]

It is common to find young men on the streets of Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil, one of the two major cities that make up the TBA, with Hezbollah tee shirts. From this area, cells of Hezbollah with the help of the Iranian government planned the 1992 and 1994 bombings of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires and the Argentine-Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA). The infamous Imad Mugniyah, who was in charge of the group’s foreign operations, coordinated the first bombing. In March 2003, after a nine-year old investigation plagued by irregularities, an Argentinean judge indicted four Iranian officials in connection with the bombing. The suspects included the former head of the Ministry of Intelligence and Security and the former cultural attaché at the Iranian embassy in Buenos Aires. In another incident that many attribute also to Hezbollah, that occurred on July 19, 1992, a Lebanese suicide bomber boarded a commuter flight in Colón, Panama, and detonated a bomb, killing all 21 people aboard, including 12 Jewish and Israeli businessmen, and three U.S. citizens. The bomber carried a fake U.S. passport.[5] 

Hezbollah activities are financed mainly by drug trafficking, money laundering and terrorism. The group also engages in fund-raising, recruitment and receives logistical support from Iranian intelligence officials assigned to Iranian embassies in the region. Local businessman, Assad Ahmad Barakat, was the leader and chief financier of Hezbollah in the TBA until 2002 when he was arrested. He is now in jail in Paraguay for tax evasion. He lived and worked in the area with his brother Hattem. He also has businesses in Iquique, Chile. His brother took over until he too was arrested in Paraguay for document fraud. Assad Barakat has another brother who is a sheikh at a Hezbollah mosque in Lebanon. Paraguayan authorities found numerous documents when they arrested him including a letter from Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, thanking Assad for the money he sent (U$3,535,149) to the "martyrs program."  Meanwhile, authorities have also linked Barakat to al Qaeda by claiming he owned the "Mondial Engineering and Construction Company" suspected of having made contributions to bin Laden’s group. The tri-border remittances to Hezbollah totaled $60 million since 1995.[6]

In 2004, authorities in Paraguay arrested Lebanese businessman, Ali Khalil Mehri, for selling millions of dollars worth of pirated software and illegally sending the profits to Hezbollah. Mehri fled Paraguay before he could be prosecuted.[7]

Paraguayan authorities have accused Mohamed Tarabain Chamas, a Hezbollah member and manager of a five-story commercial building in Ciudad del Este, Paraguay (part of the TBA), of being responsible for counter-intelligence operations for Hezbollah in the TBA.[8]

 

Hezbollah Latin America

Hezbollah Latin America has two cells: one in Venezuela and the other in Argentina. Its connection with Hezbollah is unclear but the group claims solidarity with Hezbollah, Iran, and the Islamist revolution. In Venezuela, the majority of its members are from the Wayuu tribe, a small indigenous group that converted to Islam a few years ago under their leader, Teodoro Darnott. In 2006, Venezuelan officials found explosive devises in Caracas near the U.S. Embassy, which did not detonate, but contained pro-Hezbollah pamphlets. Venezuela Hezbollah took responsibility for the bombs and threatened further attacks. Authorities subsequently arrested and convicted Darnott. It is not known who took over.[9]

In Argentina, the group has direct ties to Iran through the Arab Argentine Home and the Argentine-Islamic Association-ASAI of La Plata, which cooperate and are financed by the Iranian Representation in Buenos Aires.

 

Al Qaeda

Osama bin Laden operative and 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, spent nearly 20 days in Brazil in 1995 to visit members of the Muslim community there. While there, authorities claim that Mohammed founded a charity to help finance Osama bin Laden and reportedly was hosted by Khalid Rezk El Sayed Take El Din, the mentor of the "Holy Land Foundation" in the Tri-border area. He remains in the region. U.S. Treasury officials have designated "The Holy Land Foundation" as a terrorist supporter, frozen its assets, stating that the Foundation was sending funds to Hamas.[10]

In 1996, the Brazilian police reportedly discovered that Marwan al Safadi, an explosives expert accused of having participated in the first attack on the U.S. World Trade Center in 1993, was living in the Tri-border area. In January 1997, Paraguayan authorities learned that Islamic groups in the Tri-border region were planning to blow up the American Embassy in Paraguay to coincide with the first anniversary of the bombing of the Saudi National Guard headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Police raided Safadi’s apartment in Ciudad Del Este and found it filled with explosives, pistols equipped with silencers, double-barreled rifles, false Canadian and American passports, and a large amount of cash. Brazilian authorities captured Safadi and extradited him to the United States. Although sentenced to 18 months in prison, U.S. authorities extradited him to Canada, where he received a nine-year jail sentence for drug trafficking. Safadi escaped from prison three times, finally fleeing back to South America with a false passport.[11]

Adnan el Shukrijumah, currently on the U.S. FBI’s BOLO (Be on the Look Out For) is an al Qaeda operative. He was in Panama in April 2001 surveying the Panama Canal for a possible attack. When Khalid Sheik Mohammed was captured by U.S. forces in March 2003, he confirmed Shukrijuma was an Al Qaeda member. Shukrijuma has American, Guyanese, and Trinidadian passports. On June 30 2004, the Honduran Security Ministry said that el Shukrijumah had been in Honduras just in May meeting with members of the Mara Salvatrucha street gang.  His whereabouts remain unknown.[12]

In 2002, Ali Nizar Darhough was arrested in Paraguay. He is the nephew of Mohammad Dahrough, a well-known Sunni leader in the Tri-border area. The Paraguayan police said that Ali Nizar and his uncle were the al Qaeda point men for the TBA. Mohammad Dahrough’s name was found in an address book belonging to Abu Zubaydah, a high-ranking al-Qaeda official captured by the U.S. Mohammad escaped the TBA in September 1998 and has since joined al Qaeda. A report claims that Ali Nizar sent $10 million in 2000-2001 from the TBA to U.S. dummy corporations that al-Qaeda and HAMAS used as fronts. Ali Nizar was convicted in Paraguay in 2003 of tax evasion and he received a five-year sentence. There is no information on whether he was released.

Al Qaeda follower and Islamic cleric, Jamaican Sheikh Abdullah el Faisal, was convicted in Britain in 2003. He was found guilty of encouraging murder and fueling racial hatred. During his trial, tapes of his sermons were played where he ordered his listeners to "kill Hindus and Jews and other non Muslims, like cockroaches." During his four-week trial, followers watched as the court heard el-Faisal’s voice exhorting young Muslims to accept the deaths of women and children as "collateral damage" and to "learn to fly planes, drive tanks… load your guns and to use missiles."

On July 19, 2004, Farida Goolam Mohamed Ahmed was arrested at McAllen Miller International Airport. She was headed to New York. Ahmed had a South African passport with no U.S. entry stamps. Ahmed later confessed to investigators that she entered the country illegally by crossing the Rio Grande River from Mexico. Ahmed was carrying travel itineraries showing a July 8 flight from Johannesburg, South Africa, to London. Six days later, Ahmed traveled from London to Mexico City before attempting to travel from McAllen to New York. It was revealed in court that she was on a watch list and had entered the U.S. possibly as many as 250 times.

 

Al-Gama’ at Islamiyya

Al-Gama’ at Islamiyya is an Egyptian Islamic movement linked to Al-Qaeda that has been operating in Brazil since 1995. Mohammed Ali Hassan Mokhles, a group member, left Egypt in 1993 and established residency in Foz do Iguacu, Brazil. Authorities claim that Mokhles was sent to the TBA to collect funds for the Middle East and to conduct logistic support activities such as forging passports or other documents for Islamic jihadists. Mokhles reportedly attended a training camp in Khost, Afghanistan. An investigative expose claims that Mokhles was involved in the first World Trade Center explosion in New York. Uruguayan officials arrested Mokhles in 1999 while he was trying to cross the border from Brazil with false documents. In 2003 Mokhles was extradited from Uruguay to Egypt. Authorities claim he was involved in planning a terrorist attack that killed 58 tourists in Luxor, Egypt in 1997.

Mohamed Abed Abdel Aal, another leader of Gama’ at Islamiyya, was arrested in Colombia after arriving from Ecuador by bus in October 1998. He had been in Italy under "surveillance." Abdel Aal was wanted by Egyptian authorities for his involvement in two terrorist massacres: the attack in Luxor, Egypt; and an incident in which terrorists killed 20 Greek tourists outside their Cairo hotel on April 18th 1996. He was subsequently deported to Ecuador. It is believed that Aal may have been trying to contact the leftist Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia (FARC). He was later turned over to Egyptian authorities.

In 2002, Brazilian authorities broke up an al-Gama’ at al Islamiyya cell and detained Sunni extremist, Mohammed Ali Soliman, also wanted by Egypt for his involvement in the Luxor attacks. According to Brazilian press reports, he too was trained in camps in Afghanistan and is associated with Mokhles. Brazilian officials released Soliman in September 2002 claiming that Egyptian officials failed to provide sufficient evidence of Soliman’s involvement in the Luxor attacks. He lives in Brazil.

 

Jammat al Fuqra

Two Trinidad and Tobago citizens, Barry Adams, a.k.a. ‘Tyrone Cole’ and Wali Muhammad, a.k.a. ‘Robert Johnson,’ members of the Jammat al Fuqra, a militant Pakistan-based terrorist group, were arrested in Canada in 1994 for conspiring to set off bombs in a Hindu temple and a cinema in Toronto. Prosecutors claim that the men had lived in Texas using aliases for several years before attempting to carry out their plan. They served their full sentences without parole and Canada deported them to Pakistan upon their release.

This information shows that it is imperative for nations in the hemisphere to be vigilant against Islamic terror activities and their possible association with local subversive groups such as the FARC, the criminal cartels in Mexico and the Mara Salvatrucha gangs in Central America. There is also the possibility that these different groups could collaborate with each other since the Shia – Sunni divisions are less pronounced in the Tri-border area. What is extremely dangerous are the routes for drug and human smuggling from Mexico that many of these groups could take advantage of to enter the U.S. to carry out attacks. Another major problem is the availability of stolen forged passports used to bypass authorities. It is imperative for the region’s leaders to understand the terrorist threat that seems to be growing and to act accordingly. There is a question, however, how vigilant certain countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua will be since they have a strong connection to the Iranian government.

 

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] The Americas Reports": "Latin American Radical Grassroots Part I and Part II from March 29, 2007 and April 18, 2007; Terrorists using Latin American passports to enter the United States from January 29, 2009.

[2] Spotlight on Trinidad and Tobago’s Jamaat al-Muslimeen. June 21, 2007. The Jamestown Foundation.

[3] Ibid.

[4]Hezbollah’s External Support Network in West Africa and Latin America. August 4, 2006. International Assessment and Strategy Center.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Islamic Terrorist Activities in Latin America: Why the Region and the US Should be concerned. July 1, 2008. US Southern Command.

[10] Moving Beyond the 9/11 Staff report on Terrorist Travel. September 2005. Center for Immigration Studies.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

Sudan, terror & jihad

Though it has received a great deal of attention in the media and from Hollywood celebrities, the issue of Sudan is not entirely clear to many Americans. Many do not realize how Sudan is ruled and the nation’s role in Jihadist terrorism. 

Over the past few years, the Islamic Republic of Sudan has been justifiably targeted by a grassroots divestment movement for the genocide that it has committed against its own people.

Unlike famine and drought, genocide does not simply happen due to forces of nature. Genocide is committed.

And it is no accident that the regime which has committed this genocide is also on the US government’s list of terrorist-sponsoring nations and is thus under US economic and political sanctions.

Sudan has committed genocide over a period of many years in an effort by the Islamist government in Khartoum to impose Shariah (a brutal theo-legal-political system practiced in the Islamic world) on its entire population.

Genocide first occurred in southern Sudan over a period of years in which the Arab Islamist government systematically killed hundreds of thousands of innocent black Christian and animist civilians. There are documented cases in which hundreds of defenseless civilians lined up at aid stations operated by international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were gunned down by Sudanese Air Force helicopter gunships.

More recently, the genocidal Arab Islamist regime has turned its sights on fellow Muslims-non-Arab blacks-in the Darfur region. These black Muslims do not subscribe to the same brand of militant Islam that the Muslim Brotherhood-inspired Arab Islamist regime subscribes to, thus they are being attacked in a manner similar to that which occurred in the south of Sudan.

Many Americans are asking, "There are brutal regimes in many areas of the world. Why should I care particularly about Sudan?"

The answer is that Sudan is a terrorist-sponsoring nation that has been involved with terrorist groups that have killed Americans.

Sudan is ruled by a Jihadist regime that has hosted Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas and allowed those terrorist groups to train and recruit within Sudan’s borders. Sudan has been on the US government’s list of terrorist-sponsoring nations since 1993 and the United Nations imposed sanctions on Sudan in 1996 due to it allowing terrorist groups to operate from its territory.

 

Sudan and Al Qaeda

Sudan hosted Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda from 1991 to 1996. It is now known that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were involved in attacks on US peacekeeping troops in Somalia in 1993 and that these attacks were coordinated from Bin Laden’s base of operations in nearby Sudan.

Though Bin Laden was deposed from Sudan in 1996 under US and Saudi pressure, there is evidence that Al Qaeda was still at work in Sudan after Bin Laden’s departure. In March 2006, United Nations envoy to Sudan, Jan Pronk, reported that Al Qaeda was "entrenched" in Sudan.

But the most stark indication of Sudanese sponsorship of Al Qaeda involves the murder of Americans.

On October 12, 2000, Al Qaeda attacked the US Navy destroyer USS Cole in a suicide bomb attack in Aden harbor in Yemen.   Seventeen American sailors were killed in the attack and 39 others wounded.

On March 14, 2007, US Federal Judge Robert Doumar ruled in a lawsuit filed by the families of the dead sailors that the Sudanese government was liable for the bombing as the attack was planned in Sudan and the plotters trained and transited from there. On July 25, 2007, Judge Doumar ordered the Sudanese government to pay the families the sum of $8 million.

 

Sudan and Hezbollah

Hezbollah, or Party of God, is the Iranian-backed Jihadist terrorist organization that bombed the US embassy annex and the US Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983. 241 American servicemen were killed in the Marine Barracks attack alone.

Sudan has harbored Hezbollah terrorists and allowed the organization to operate training camps inside of its territory.

Sudan hosted a meeting of Al Qaeda and Hezbollah leaders in 1994 which resulted in a cooperative training agreement between these two deadly Jihadist terrorist groups in which Hezbollah trained Al Qaeda operatives in explosives.

 

Sudan and Hamas

Hamas is the violent Jihadist Palestinian terrorist organization that seeks to push Israeli Jews into the sea and replace Israel with an Islamist theocracy along the lines of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

The Sudanese regime has openly declared its support for Hamas and has harbored Hamas terrorists within its borders. In fact, Hamas has a business infrastructure in Sudan to support its operations and has nearly the equivalent of diplomatic facilities there.

 

Sudan and Iran

Sudan’s partner in terror is Iran, though Iran is Shiite and Sudan’s regime is Sunni, with its roots in the Muslim Brotherhood. Sudan is one of the few nations on earth, besides Syria and Venezuela, that has openly aligned itself with Iran.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have operated terrorist training camps in Sudan for years and Sudan and Iran have entered into significant agreements that indicate cooperation on Jihadist terrorism.

In January 2007, Iran and Sudan exchanged military delegations in which it was formally announced that Iran had offered to help train the Sudanese military to quell violence in Darfur. At the outset of the exchange, both delegations indicated that Iran and Sudan would expand military cooperation and Sudan expressed interest in Iranian-made weaponry, including missiles. At the end of the exchange, both sides agreed to "exchange expert delegations" on a regular basis to promote "mutual technical and educational cooperation" on military matters.

 

Conclusion

Sudan’s genocide in Darfur is a humanitarian atrocity that is deserving of condemnation in as many ways as possible. Moreover, it must be recognized that this genocide is born from the militant Jihadist doctrine that underpins the regime in Khartoum and compels it to sponsor the terrorist groups who are America’s enemies in the war on terror.

 

Daniel Ortega’s Role in the Bolivarian Revolution

"A new political, economic and geopolitical map can be perceived in Latin America and the Caribbean." (Hugo Chavez, February 3, 2009)

As a consequence of Chavez’s win in the recent February 15th referendum the Venezuelan constitution now allows elected officials to run for unlimited terms in office.  It is the final step in the process of making himself dictator for life. This move is but one of many in a grand strategy to create a Marxist Bolivarian super-state in South America which Chavez hopes will counter the U.S. and market capitalism.  So, as Daniel Ortega maneuvers to consolidate power in Nicaragua, he does so in the context of making Nicaragua a part of the Bolivarian revolution.  He is following the Chavez model by using "democracy" to subvert democracy.  Daniel Ortega, like his counterparts in the leftist parties of other South and Central American countries, has used Chavez’s oil revenue to finance his election.  Ortega is also providing Iran with strategic advantages on Nicaraguan soil in exchange for energy and infrastructure which will further entrench his domestic power and influence.  As Washington continues to take Latin American democracy for granted, proxies of Hugo Chavez march forward as they capitalize on anti-U.S. alliances.

Since Ortega took the presidency in 2007, he has forged a new alliance with Iran and has provided diplomatic cover for men who are likely Iranian Revolutionary Guard operatives.  Ortega has also entered anti-free trade arrangements and intimidated the press with police raids under imagined pretenses all the while retaining financial aid and maintaining relations with the U.S.; Nicaragua’s largest trading partner.  All of this is symptomatic of a game of trade-offs and compromises made in hopes of tightening a loose grip on power.  Ortega does not completely resemble his Bolivarian counterparts in terms of popularity.  Skillful strategy and a world champion poker face have allowed Ortega to take power with a minority of domestic support and even dissent in his own party.  "Ortega, who had lost the last three presidential elections, won only 37.9% of the vote in the November 2006 elections, but Nicaraguan law allowed him to avoid a run-off vote since he was more than 5% ahead of the next closest candidate, Eduardo Montealegre, then head of the Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance (ALN)."[i]  The Sandinista National Liberation Front (SFLN) was instrumental in passing the law earlier.  

Across Central and South America, presidential candidates have found that electorates respond to a message that puts the practical above the ideological.  For some leaders, this was actually the case.  For others, "pragmatism" became a winning message to facilitate the re-establishment of old dogmas.  In late 2006, Daniel Ortega won the presidency of Nicaragua by moderating his campaign strategy to adopt a message of pragmatism while assuaging concerns of extremism.  It is difficult to reconcile the Daniel Ortega we see today with the man whose campaign catch phrase was "reconciliation." In his pre-election speeches, Ortega promised not to resurrect the ideologically based conflicts that dominated his first presidency.  He pledged not to do battle with the United States, the church, and that he would no longer seize land.  Ortega’s key move was to form alliances with many former enemies.  These included a former Contra leader, Jaime Morales Carazo as his vice president, and Cardinal Miguel Obando y Bravo, the highest Vatican official in Nicaragua.  His most impressive feat was convincing the electorate and the Bush administration that he would not threaten U.S. relations or in any way inspire capital flight.  Max Blumenthal of The Nation had this to say on the subject; "With an eye on the $175 million Millennium Challenge grant for Nicaragua, approved before the election by the Bush Administration, Ortega has toned down his anti-American rhetoric. The day before his inauguration, he held court with Bush Administration Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt and U.S. Ambassador Paul Trivelli, a hated figure in Nicaragua who has openly demonized Ortega. The new Daniel Ortega is a uniter, not a divider."[ii]  Blumenthal’s comment was in contrast to a telling description he gave of Ortega’s inauguration ceremony which was attended by Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales who delivered the standard Bolivarian fare in the traditional theatrics.  For example, "Morales pledged that he, Chávez and Ortega would nationalize their countries’ industries and bring death to American imperialism."2

There are signs that Daniel Ortega is moving quickly towards dictatorship.  His strategic foreign policy is too grandiose to be sustained by a temporary presidency.  He is making long term moves, internationally.  Opposition across the political spectrum in Nicaragua characterizes his behavior as being dictatorial, including former members of his own party.  Members of the Sandinista Renewal Party, a dissident faction of Ortega’s Sandinista National Liberation Front, have "denounced Ortega as a man leading Nicaragua into a dictatorship."[iii]  This was after their plan to join other opposition parties to protest FSLN mayoral election fraud this past November which was violently prevented by Sandinista supporters.  Though pro-Sandinista mobs have proven effective thus far, it fits the Chavez model to place ones party in power at the municipal level in order to control police forces for the coming dictatorship. The Sandinista party has won a decisive number of victories in stark contrast to what public opinion polls have indicated.  In response, the U.S. and some European governments have withheld $200 million in aid until an electoral review can take place.

Last October, prior to the November municipal elections, Nicaraguan police raided the offices of the Center of Media Investigations.  Carlos Fernando Chamorro is one of the journalists whose computer was seized as part of an investigation of "misused foreign funds."  Many can appreciate the irony considering how much Venezuelan cash flooded Ortega’s own campaign.  Chamorro is the son of former president, Violetta Chamorro, and an outspoken critic of the government.[iv]  Besides police raids, Ortega has used investigations, arrests of opposition leaders, and expulsion of international election monitors in order to intimidate the opposition.  Ortega has also investigated journalists and NGOs for money laundering but then ceased after the U.S. and some European governments withheld over $100 million in aid.[v]  This was prior to the aid withheld in response to last year’s election fraud.

As part of the Chavista block of countries (that include Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua) and led by Hugo Chavez, a meeting of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) summit was held on February 2,2009 and was attended by Ortega.  According to VOA, "Venezuela and communist-led Cuba created the ALBA alliance in 2004 to counter U.S. influence in the region.  ALBA also aims to advance regional integration to confront the U.S.-backed free trade deal." [vi]  More than a burgeoning trade bloc, ALBA is a sort of Bolivarian version of the EU which includes the goal of a common currency and is based on the idea of a "great nation."  Even more, it is the grand vision of this group of caudillos, whom have an affinity for the nationalization of industry, to create a "supranational company."   Daniel Ortega had this to say, "Long live the peoples’ unity, ALBA, the Bolivarian Revolution…that will never be defeated and will never surrender".[vii]

What is Iran doing in Nicaragua?

The Americas report has well chronicled the Iranian embassy compound in the Managua suburb, Las Colinas (The Hills).  The mansion, which is surrounded by 12 foot high walls topped with razor wire, is home to Iranian envoy to Nicaragua, Akbar Esmaeil-Pour.  For those in the intelligence community, the number of diplomats (over 100 individuals) and the shear size of the compound is disproportionately large and suggests extra-diplomatic activity.  Iran is known for having staged terrorist attacks from it’s embassy in Argentina. It is also well known that at least 21 Iranian men have been able to enter Nicaragua without visas.   Esmail-Pour seems to be a bit stressed out by the media attention that followed the leaking of documents which revealed to the press that Nicaragua’s chief immigration minister had authorized the 21 Iranians entry into the country.  His response to some press inquiries has been agitated and hostile. U.S. intelligence is certainly attentive to the compound.  Former FBI associate deputy director of intelligence and international affairs has said of Iran in South America that; "They use their embassies to smuggle in weapons. They used them to develop and execute plans," and that "Diplomats have immunity coming and going.  It is a protected center for both espionage and, on occasion, for specific operations.  So an embassy in Managua is definitely an area that will be of concern to our national security apparatus."[viii]

In exchange for hosting the Iranians, Daniel Ortega will receive key investments from Iran which will help him with domestic issues while simultaneously increasing Iran’s ability to establish a front.  Todd Bensman from the San Antonio Express News has traveled to Nicaragua to investigate Iran’s activities.  One of the places he visited was a remote and quiet place on the Caribbean coast called Monkey Point.

"But perspectives broadened suddenly in March, 2007 when Iranians and Venezuelans showed up aboard Nicaraguan military helicopters. They had come to scope out Monkey Point’s bay for transformation to a $350 million deep-water shipping port. The port idea is part of a new diplomatic relationship between Iran and the Sandinista revolutionary president, Daniel Ortega that has flown largely under American press and broadcast radar since its announcement. Iran has issued fantastic promises that would include financing a rail, road, and pipeline "dry canal" from Monkey Point to an upgraded Port of Corinto on the Pacific, hydroelectric projects, and 10,000 houses in between".[ix]

 

The money and engineering expertise from Iran will help Ortega address Nicaragua’s current energy crisis.  Iran will greatly increase its presence in Central America if it has an excuse to regularly traffic engineers, workers, cargo, and ships on the Caribbean coast of Nicaragua.  For over a decade Nicaragua has been planning to construct a dry canal which will alleviate the overflow of trade when the Panama Canal reaches capacity.  If such a profound source of national revenue is realized under Ortega with the help of Iran both entities will be greatly strengthened in the region.  It is often noted that Iran has no common ground for relations in Latin America except where it can find enemies of America.  Iran’s primary gain from a relationship with Nicaragua is the base of operations at its embassy.  The energy and infrastructure projects could also provide cover for Iran to increase it’s capability in equipment, manpower, and illicit trade.  According to the CIA World Fact Book, Nicaragua is already a "transshipment point for cocaine destined for the U.S. and …for arms-for-drugs dealing."  Hezbollah, a terrorist proxy of Iran, is well known for its ability to raise incredible amounts of money from organized crime and illicit trade in the Americas.  

The U.S. intelligence community is aware of Iran’s activities and intentions in Nicaragua.  Yet, the United States Congress could also play an important role in how we deal with the Ortega government.  Last years Congressional Research Service report lists many ways in which Nicaragua benefits from its relationship with the United States.  It includes bi-lateral aid, counter narcotics aid money, Millennium Challenge Account money, huge trade benefits, remittances and even assistance in fighting gangs.  In turn, Daniel Ortega oppresses human rights and the press, forms alliances with our enemies, and is generally hostile towards democracy. To continue to fund such a regime only puts a stamp of approval on their policies, emboldens them while weakening the opposition and makes the U.S. appear as a country that does not understand the difference between its adversaries and its friends.

 

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.

 

[i] Clare Ribando Seelke (Analyst in Latin American Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division) Nicaragua: Political Situation and U.S. Relations CRS Report for Congress March 17, 2008

[ii] Max Blumenthal The Kinder, Gentler Daniel Ortega The Nation January 19, 2007

[iii] Luis Fleischman Nicaraguan elections, Venezuelan fraud The Americas Report | Nov 20, 2008

[iv] Nicaraguan press freedom threatened Associated Press/ The Gleaner: Jamaica January 28, 2009

[v] Blake Schmidt President Ortega spurs worries about the future: Critics say the former rebel has installed a dictatorship  THE WASHINGTON TIMES February 17, 2009

[vi] Venezuela Hosts ALBA Summit  VOA News 03 February 2009

[vii] Venezuela’s Chavez Marks 10 Years in Power with Big Rally Latin American Herald Tribune February 18,2009

[viii] Todd Bensman Iran making push into Nicaragua www.mysanantonio.com 12/18/2007

[ix] Todd Bensman Iranian Plant Their Flag in Nicaragua The New York Sun February 7, 2008