The Enterprise Blog

Author Archive

Earlier this month, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper told Congress that “Iranian officials” at the highest levels “are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States….” The next logical question is, “What is that hostile regime doing with the support of its trusted allies very close to our borders?”

Tomorrow morning, Senator Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey) will initiate an inquiry into Iran’s activities in Latin America at a 10a.m. hearing of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I am honored to have the opportunity to share my views on this troubling phenomenon and to make recommendations on an appropriate response. My observations are based on AEI’s ongoing project to monitor and expose Iran’s dramatic push into our neighborhood during the last seven years.

My testimony will review some startling findings about the clandestine network that Iran is building in Latin America with the support of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez, which represents a clear and present danger to U.S. security and interests. By aiding Iran’s evasion of international sanctions and search for uranium, Chávez and other regional despots are abetting Teheran’s rogue nuclear program. And wherever Iran goes, Hezbollah is not far behind. I will expose the growing presence of two terrorist networks—one a home-grown Venezuelan clan and another cultivated by a notorious agent of Iran’s Qods Force—that proselytize, fund-raise, recruit, and train operatives on behalf of Iran and Hezbollah in many countries in the Americas.

The dangerous activities of Iran and Hezbollah so near our borders demand a whole-of-government strategy, beginning with an inter-agency review to understand and assess the transnational, multifaceted nature of the problem; educate friendly governments; and insist on inspection of suspicious operations and military compounds. Our government must be prepared to implement effective measures—unilaterally and with willing partners—to disrupt and dismantle illicit operations and neutralize unacceptable threats.

Followers of cancer-stricken strongman Hugo Chávez are stunned after nearly 3 million Venezuelans voted Sunday to select a unity candidate to compete in presidential elections scheduled for October. Venezuelan democrats are unified and optimistic today, but Chávez and his henchmen already have made their moves to hold on to power at all costs. If the opposition has any real hope of defeating Chavismo, they will have to be prepared for dirty tricks, provocations, and even a narco-coup in the months ahead.

Miranda Governor Henrique Capriles Radonski won the opposition primary with over 60 percent of the vote, after a spirited competition that included Zulia Governor Pablo Perez (29 percent) and civic leader Maria Corina Machado (3.5 percent). Though not quite 40 years old, Capriles is a seasoned and tough politician who enjoys great popularity even among the Chávista followers in his state of Miranda. Capriles campaigned frequently in the working class neighborhoods that form Chávez’s political base.

In his second-place effort, Perez carried the opposition’s message to the very poor voters that, until now, have literally been ignored by the old thinkers who have led the opposition for the last decade. With all of the candidates expected to close ranks around Capriles, the democratic opposition is united like never before and preparing for an eight-month campaign.

An invigorated opposition is more bad news for Chavismo in this volatile election year. Spiraling crime rates, energy shortages, food insecurity, and a shattered economy give the opposition its best chance ever of out-polling Chávez. If Chávez dies or falters significantly before the October election, his inner circle will have to face the unthinkable prospect of losing power and being held accountable for its abuses of power, corruption, and criminality.

In recent months, Chavista hard-liners have been maneuvering to ensure that they will never relinquish power. In January, Chávez surprised many by sidelining his popular foreign minister, Nicolas Maduro, and promoting former military comrade Diosdado Cabello to be head of the ruling socialist party and the National Assembly. Even more telling, General Henry Rangel Silva was named minister of defense last month, despite his notorious reputation as a drug-trafficking ally of the narco-guerrillas in neighboring Colombia.

Rangel Silva, former intelligence chief Hugo Carvajal, and Army General Cliver Alcala are among the many Chavista officials who have been sanctioned by U.S. authorities for their involvement in drug trafficking. Because they fear the relentless pursuit of U.S. authorities, they are determined to remain in power—even if that means scuttling or ignoring the results of elections this fall.

If the Chavistas were contemplating an electoral scenario once Chávez dies, they would have opted for keeping the more charismatic Maduro as a possible successor. The promotion of the bland but ruthless Cabello demonstrates that appealing to voters is far less important than reassuring the narco-generals who have quietly seized control of Venezuela. Although Cabello has yet to be cited by U.S. authorities as a narcotrafficker, he has amassed a vast fortune through official corruption. So, his corrupt military comrades are confident that he will thwart an opposition takeover by any means necessary.

The timing and tactics will depend on the pace of Chávez’s physical deterioration. The latest details conveyed to me by persons knowledgeable of his condition indicate that Chávez’s cancerous cell count has yet to be reduced after months of treatment, and he has developed another cancerous tumor in his colon that requires urgent surgery. His condition has worsened because he refuses routine care and examinations in order to maintain a public profile. Indeed, the hard-driving leader has turned to the use of cocaine to maintain his energy. As a result, there is a good chance that Chávez will not live long enough to appear on the October ballot.

In other words, the real test for candidate Capriles and the opposition may come sooner than they expect. Chávez and his followers have made clear by the appointment of Cabello and Rangel Silva that they have no intention of surrendering power. If they try to provoke a crisis or to cancel the elections, chaos may ensue. In that hour, the toughness of Capriles, the other opposition leaders, and Venezuelan civilian society will be severely tested.

Although the opposition is determined to keep its distance from Washington, the fact remains that they will require substantial international solidarity—particularly from Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Peru, Spain, the United States, and other countries—to hold Chávez’s cronies accountable. The opposition cannot wait until the chaos descends upon them to begin cultivating such support. And Washington has to wake up to the dangerous plotting of a narco-coup in Venezuela.

U.S. intelligence chief James Clapper on Tuesday publicly contradicted claims by Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez that he is cured of cancer, the first official U.S. statement on Chávez’s failing health.

General Clapper’s declarations, made during testimony before the U.S. Senate, breaks months of silence from the U.S. government on the subject of Chávez’s health and corroborates my assertions that Chávez is deceiving the Venezuelan people about his fatal condition.

I wrote in the Miami Herald on July 19, 2011, that doctors treating Chávez told him then that he had a 50 percent chance of living 18 months. That was seven months ago. I noted that:

With the ailing dictator off the political stage for at least two months, civic leaders can jump start a transition by laying out a constructive plan for addressing the country’s growing crises. This task is even more urgent, because regime insiders have begun to quietly mobilize their campaign team…

Since then, dozens of my sources with access to Chávez’s inner circle have confirmed my original appraisal about Chávez’s condition. Several publications have revealed additional details about his health. For example, Spain’s ABC newspaper reported on January 23:

The Venezuelan leader’s prostate cancer has metastasized into his bones, spinal cord, and colon, according to medical records accessed by ABC. Chávez should only expect between nine and twelve months of life if he insists on refusing adequate treatment for his cancer…

General Clapper revealed the U.S. government’s devastating assessment of Chávez’s health as part of the U.S. intelligence community’s formal annual report to Congress; he is scheduled to testify before the House of Representatives oversight panel on Thursday.

As I explained last November:

Chávez’s sobering prognosis is a dilemma for Caracas, where Chavista leaders are afraid that their fiercest followers will feel betrayed when they learn his claim to be”cancer-free” turns out to be a big lie…. Chávez wants his people to believe that he was “cured” months ago…. In fact, his physical deterioration is advancing faster than doctors had expected.

Chávez’s periodic public appearances—particularly his nine-hour address before the National Assembly earlier this month—are purposely orchestrated to sow doubts about his true condition and buy time for his co-conspirators to hang on to power as he falters and dies. Ironically, these public encounters are grueling physical challenges for Chávez, and doctors have told him that such public commitments complicate his treatment and recovery.

Many Venezuelans—perhaps most of Chávez’s supporters—have clung to the hope that he might be surviving his bout with his aggressive cancer. The formal testimony of retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General James Clapper, the current U.S. director of national intelligence, reveals what intelligence professionals tell President Obama about Chávez’s failing health.

Bipartisan concern over Iran’s creeping shadow in Latin America can be credited for the Obama administration’s decision Saturday to expel a Venezuelan diplomat caught on videotape urging purported hackers to break in to U.S. government websites. Last month, the Spanish-language network Univision aired an hour-long documentary on efforts by Iran and Hezbollah to carry their struggle into the United States’ neighborhood. The program included a videoclip of the Iranian ambassador and Venezuelan diplomat Livia Acosta plotting the cyberattack in 2008, when the two were assigned to their respective embassies in Mexico City. On Saturday, the State Department gave Acosta 72 hours to leave her post at Venezuela’s consulate in Miami.

Immediately after the airing of this expose, Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Western Hemisphere panel, and Republican Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, who presides over the House Foreign Affairs Committee, promised vigorous inquiries into Iran’s activities close to our shores. In December, President Obama said that his administration takes Iran’s activities seriously and is monitoring them closely.

This action demonstrates that the State Department’s complacent posture will no longer sell on Capitol Hill.

Roger Noriega

Burying the Chávez legacy, soon

By Roger Noriega

December 5, 2011, 4:15 pm

Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez told a gathering of regional heads of government in Caracas on Saturday that, “Roger Noriega wants me to die.” That’s not quite true. Even less true is Chávez’s unbelievable assertion that four rounds of chemotherapy left him “without a single carcinogenic cell” in his body. Chávez is forced to make such an absurd claim—insulting the intelligence of 30 or so statesmen and 30 million Venezuelans—in a desperate effort to give his corrupt cronies an advantage as they try to hold things together after his impending death.

For the record, I have published on several occasions that the doctors who have been treating Chávez since June believe that his cancer—beginning in the prostate and spreading to his lymph glands, colon, and bones—is terminal. My initial comment on this subject was intended to alert the Venezuelan opposition of the plotting by regime insiders to hold on to power at all costs. “The opposition must get busy to persuade their nation that they offer a healthier vision than Chavismo’s cynical cronies,” I wrote in the Miami Herald in July.

A succession of reports leaked to the AEI Venezuela project from within Chávez’s medical team has confirmed the initial dire assessment. The most recent projection is that he will die before the October 2012 presidential elections.

Chávez’s decision to deceive his people is risky. Indeed, the people most likely to be fooled by his claims are his most fervent followers. So, when their leader eventually succumbs to his illness, his cronies will be left scrambling to hold on to their political base, which they have been lying to for a year. Ironically, Venezuela’s democratic opposition does not seem to be fooled by Chávez’s story, and they appear to be prepared for any contingency. If Chávez is on the ballot next October, an opposition candidate has a chance to beat him; if he is not, the democratic alternative’s prospects improve considerably.

Indeed, when Chávez falters, all bets are off. Once Chávez fades or dies, the military will wield unparalleled power in managing the ensuing chaos. And the military’s current leaders—several of whom have been branded narco-kingpins by U.S. authorities—cannot and will not run the risk of losing power. So, they can be expected to resort to any option—including scuttling the elections and violent repression—to maintain their safe haven. When that happens, Venezuela’s opposition will hope that military leaders loyal to the constitution (along with the world’s democrats) will stand with them.

If that sort of chaotic succession battle ensues, the reaction of the international community—particularly Washington—could be decisive. As a matter of fact, my primary objective in alerting the public to Chávez’s condition has been to awaken slumbering U.S. diplomats who have been sitting on the sidelines as Cubans, Russians, and Chinese fill the power vacuum in Venezuela and the rest of the region. In the coming year, the United States may have to play a legitimate role in insisting that all sides, particularly the regime and its destructive foreign backers, respect a constitutional transition. That means adhering to the current electoral timetable, holding a fair campaign monitored by independent observers, and respecting the results of the election. Although the current Latin America team in the State Department cannot be counted on to get this right, there is reason to hope that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will exert some leadership in the critical months ahead.

Of course, as Washington slumbers, other regional leaders may be called upon to rally a constructive regional response. Some of the men who heard Chávez lie about his immortality on Saturday may soon play a positive role in ensuring a healthy, peaceful transition after he passes. The rescue and rehabilitation of that South American country is in the interest of the entire region.

Regional leaders will find that Venezuela’s opposition is offering a positive alternative for the future. Five extraordinarily decent democrats—four of them in their thirties or early forties—who are competing for votes in a primary to produce a unity candidate next February. Outside observers should also remember that the opposition slate won a majority of the votes in National Assembly elections in September 2010. Moreover, Chávez has been forced to accept defeat when major constitutional reforms were rejected in 2007 and when opposition candidates won state governorships in 2008.

When Chávez dies, he will leave behind a wrecked economy and a polarized nation. If the United States and the international community wake up before it is too late and side with democracy, Venezuelans may soon begin the hard work of burying Chavez’s destructive legacy.

The urgent threat posed by the growing Iran/Hezbollah network in Latin America finally captured the attention of a national audience Tuesday evening as several GOP presidential candidates acknowledged the problem in an AEI-Heritage Foundation debate that aired on CNN. AEI’s Venezuela-Iran project has documented this growing problem.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney declared that Hezbollah’s efforts throughout the region – abetted by Venezuela’s anti-American dictator Hugo Chávez – “poses a significant and imminent threat to the United States.”

Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator who has studied Hezbollah’s activities in the Hemisphere for years, warned that “militant socialists and radical Islamists are bonding.” In response to a question posed by AEI’s Marc Thiessen at the end of Tuesday’s two-hour debate, Santorum cited this phenomenon in Latin America as a neglected national security threat. He also faulted the Obama administration for coddling Chávez and other U.S. foes and for disrespecting U.S. allies, such as Colombia. “We have sent all the wrong signals to Central and South America,” said Santorum. “They need to know that we are in solidarity with them and want to build strong alliances” in the Americas.

Texas Governor Rick Perry was the first to raise the threat of Iran’s efforts, through its terrorist proxy Hezbollah, to expand its reach into Latin America.

Asked about Mexico’s anti-drug campaign, Perry pledged to do more to support that country. However, the ensuing discussion offered little recognition of the sacrifices being made by Mexico with uneven U.S. support. Instead, the candidates quickly turned to a predictable exchange on immigration, “amnesty,” and border security.

Romney and Santorum appeared to have a greater command of Iran’s aggressive push into the region, but Perry deserves credit for raising the issue. Late last night, a “tweet” by Mexico’s ambassador to the United States, Arturo Sarukahn, took issue with several comments in which candidates suggested a rampant terrorist presence in Mexico. He cited a State Department counterterrorism report – despite the fact that U.S. diplomats routinely admit to knowing little if anything about this problem.

Fidel Castro’s vastly over-rated healthcare system may finally have achieved something noteworthy: killing Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez. According to an investigative report authored by Leonardo Coutinho and Duda Teixeira that appeared in Brazil’s premier newsmagazine Veja on Saturday (November 19), Cuban doctors at that country’s premier medical facility bungled the initial treatment of Chávez’s prostate cancer and may have rushed him to an early grave.

The Brazilian report, which quotes several of that country’s cancer specialists and urologists, delivers a damning assessment of the Cuban care:

[In July 2011] Chavez was hospitalized in Havana [at the Center for Medical and Surgical Research (CIMEQ)] to remove the prostate tumor. Surgery, not recommended for cases of neoplasia in this gland with metastasis, may have been a very serious medical error that accelerated the spread of cancer. A second surgery was carried out…. From that moment on, European physicians with imported equipment directed the therapy. The Cubans were relegated to the role of observers. [Emphasis added]

The Veja report cites Brazilian medical specialists to describe the substandard equipment and treatment at CIMEQ, a facility reserved for the dictatorship’s elite and dollar-paying tourists.

A second fatal decision was self-inflicted. Chávez must have known from the beginning that his cancer was terminal, because he opted to continue receiving treatment in Cuba in order to keep his country in the dark about his true condition. For example, Veja reveals for the first time that foreign minister Nicolas Maduro traveled to Brazil in early July to consult with that country’s leading oncologists at the Sîrio-Lebanese Hospital of São Paulo. Rather than transfer to that renowned Brazilian facility, where the current and previous presidents of Brazil have been treated for cancer, Chávez preferred to risk care in Cuba to keep his people from knowing the truth.

Will Sicko movie-maker Michael Moore return to Cuba to interview the miracle workers who gave Chávez the care he deserved? Now that’s a sequel worth seeing.

This post is part of an ongoing series preparing for the AEI/CNN/Heritage National Security & Foreign Policy GOP presidential debate on November 22. See the rest of the posts here.

Iran is using Venezuela as a platform to project its asymmetrical warfare into the Western Hemisphere and to sustain its illicit nuclear program. According to documents of the regime of anti-American radical Hugo Chávez, Iran has laundered about $30 billion through the Venezuelan economy to evade international sanctions.

Moreover, Iran is seeking to exploit uranium in Venezuela, Ecuador, and elsewhere in the region, with Chávez’s facilitation. It also is working through its terror proxy Hezbollah to cultivate a network of radicalized operatives in a dozen countries in the region, centered in Venezuela but making significant progress in Brazil and Colombia, among others. The recent plot fostered by Iran’s Qods Force to commit a terrorist bombing in the heart of Washington, D.C., is undeniable evidence of Tehran’s determination to strike against U.S. targets in the event of preemptive military action against its illegal nuclear program.

In addition to Iran, other U.S. enemies or rivals have constructed mutually beneficial alliances with the Chávez regime and are co-conspirators with his anti-U.S. project. China is moving quickly to displace Western oil companies from Venezuela’s oil industry. Russia has sold $9 billion in arms (including weapons that have been transshipped to terrorist groups) and is planning to build Chávez a nuclear power plant “for peaceful purposes,” as it did for Iran. Cuba has dispatched 30,000 personnel to Venezuela, with many embedded in Chávez’s internal security apparatus. Narcotraffickers operate with the full complicity of the Chávez regime, converting Venezuela into a hub for smuggling cocaine to North America and Europe and wreaking havoc in Colombia, Central America, and Mexico.

The United States is pursuing a passive policy toward Chávez, choosing not to engage these security challenges for fear of generating a bilateral confrontation with his regime. Unfortunately, the White House has failed to learn the lesson that Chávez has continued on his dangerous path aided by our silence. Our enemies read U.S. indifference as a green light to join Chávez’s conspiracy, and our friends believe that we do not know or do not care what is happening in Latin America.

The next U.S. president will have to deal with the “toxic waste” left behind by the cancer-ridden Chávez, whom doctors expect to succumb prior to the Venezuelan election or early in his next term. Democratic opposition candidates each would represent a more constructive relationship with Venezuela’s traditional U.S. partner, but Chávez’s inner circle is plotting to hold on to power at all costs.

Will the United States continue to sit on the sidelines or, worse yet, signal to Chavistas that we will tolerate unconstitutional maneuvering by their collapsing regime? Will U.S. agencies be prepared to help democratic partners neutralize the Iranian and Hezbollah threat? The next president may have time to use effective diplomacy, effective sanctions, law enforcement, and other means to ensure that Chávez’s anti-Americanism axis does not continue to pose a grave and growing threat to U.S. interests and values.

Startling revelations by Attorney General Eric Holder on Tuesday that Iran’s Quds Force plotted murderous attacks in the heart of Washington, D.C., should shred the conventional wisdom that Tehran and its terrorist proxies would never risk a strike on American soil. Iran is clearly prepared to carry their fight, quite literally, to our doorstep. What are we prepared to do?

An AEI project scrutinizing Iran’s dangerous nexus with Venezuela’s anti-U.S. regime has been sounding the alarm about Iran’s growing operational capabilities in Latin America for many months. Until now, senior U.S. security officials and diplomats have deliberately minimized reports of provocative activities by Iran’s Quds Force and Hezbollah—despite the fact that they are taking place right under our noses with the enthusiastic, open support of the Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez and acolytes in Ecuador and Bolivia. Perhaps now U.S. officials will take steps to assess and respond to this grave and growing threat.

Just last week, my colleague Jose Cardenas and I issued an AEI report entitled, “The Mounting Hezbollah Threat in Latin America,” that made the following key points:

1.         With Iran’s direct support, at least two parallel yet collaborative terrorist networks are growing at an alarming rate in Latin America. One is operated by Hezbollah and aided by its collaborators in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia, and the other is managed by the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

2.         These terrorist networks are sharing their terrorist experiences and techniques with Mexican drug cartels along the U.S. border and have established deep relations with other transnational criminal organizations.

3.         These two networks encompass more than eighty operatives in at least twelve countries throughout the region (with the greatest areas of focus being Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, and Chile).

As the AEI report concluded:

U.S. and other government authorities have identified and sanctioned some of the leaders of these networks, and US law enforcement agencies—led by the Drug Enforcement Administration—have made great efforts to assess and confront this threat by building cases against foreign officials and sanctioning commercial entities that provide support to this criminal terror organization.

However, this dangerous network requires a whole-government strategy, beginning with an inter-agency review to understand and assess the transnational, multifaceted nature of the problem; educate friendly governments; and implement effective measures unilaterally and with willing partners to disrupt and dismantle their operations.

A secret document unveiled this morning by an opposition Venezuelan congressman discloses the extraordinarily risky decision by Venezuela’s ailing dictator Hugo Chávez to transfer all of Venezuela’s $29 billion in gold and cash reserves from Swiss, British, and U.S. banks to accounts in China and Russia. Such an unprecedented move could destroy international confidence in Venezuela, wipe out citizens’ savings, and suffocate an already faltering economy.

That the regime would take such an unusually dangerous move shows that Chávez’s cronies are worried that he may lose his bout with cancer and they may have to cede power. Evidently, they are more concerned with their own fate than for the well-being of the Venezuelan people. It is not too late to halt this plan, if the people can be rallied to oppose the looting of the nation’s savings. This is an opportunity for democratic politicians to show they can lead their nation out of the mess created by 12 years of Chavismo.

Any responsible person would accept that Venezuela’s international reserves should not be moved until the people understand how this decision will impact their lives, jobs, and savings. According to experts I have consulted, every Venezuelan will suffer if these funds are moved to less reliable banks. Venezuela’s currency may be devalued, shortages of imported goods will worsen, and companies that rely on foreign exchange will be strangled. Of course, the very poorest people, who Chávez claims to champion, will perhaps suffer the most. Like the rest of the country, they are being abandoned by cynical individuals who covet wealth and power that happens to belong to someone else.

It is clear that Chávez’s men want access to Venezuela’s $29 billion in gold and cash because they are worried about losing power. The fact that this decision was manufactured in secret during Chávez’s stay in Cuba shows that Castro and Chávez’s cronies want to preserve their access to Venezuela’s riches. Patriotic members of the military should be concerned that they are left without a future and options while Castro and Chávez’s inner circle protect their selfish interests.

This precipitous decision to take Venezuela’s international reserves out of secure accounts in Europe and the United States and to move them to China and Russia will likely lead global capital markets to conclude that Venezuela is not a reliable country. Venezuela will no longer have the “international reserves” that are required to sustain any modern economy. The ability of the state-owned oil company, PDVSA, and the republic to generate capital and attract investment will be seriously affected. And, placing these precious reserves in banks belonging to Venezuela’s biggest creditors in China and Russia may suit Chávez’s friends in those countries, but it is an unacceptable risk for the Venezuelan people.

Why notoriously corrupt leaders would want to get their hands on billions in gold is not a very complicated question. However, it is important to note that one of the reasons cited explicitly by Chávez’s decision document is the possibility that Venezuelan funds or dollar-denominated transactions could be frozen by the United States. Surely, Chávez’s advisors know that U.S. laws allow such sanctions only in the case of narcostates, sponsors of terrorism, or mass murderers. We know that Chávez’s brother has pledged an armed struggle to keep power and his army chief has said he would never accept the election of an opposition president next December 2012. But, are Chávez’s would-be successors planning Qaddafi- or Assad-style massacres? If they would go that far, why would they even run the risk of holding a campaign and elections?

The idea that Chávistas would resort to brutal repression or would cancel next year’s presidential elections is unthinkable to many. But, just yesterday, few would have imagined that Chávez and his cronies would have risked the country’s economy and people for his own political advantage and selfish personal interests. If Chávez succeeds in treating the country’s international reserves as a petty cash box or pension fund for his inner circle, Venezuela’s fate will be forfeited to another generation of dangerous leaders.

 

Last month, chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; chairman of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs, Rep. Connie Mack; and subcommittee member Rep. David Rivera sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling attention to a paper trail suggesting cooperation among Venezuela, Argentina, and Iran, and to their shared interest in obtaining nuclear technology. Former National Security Council official Jose Cardenas reveals the State Department’s dismissive response in a piece this week.

Rather than make the slightest effort to connect the dots on what these hostile regimes might be up to under our noses, the State Department rushed to quash the inquiry, saying in a July 27 reply, “We have no reason to believe that Venezuela serves as an interlocutor with between Iran and Argentina on nuclear issues, nor that Argentina is granting Iran access to its nuclear technology.”

Here is some of the evidence (which was provided to the State Department) that stirred Congress’s interest: A document obtained from the Venezuelan regime bears the signature of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez authorizing a secret payment last year of $250 million to Argentina for suspicious projects carried out alongside Iran. Another secret memorandum recounts a conversation in which Argentine official Julio DeVido offers Venezuelan Vice President Elias Jaua nuclear cooperation, and a third document substantiates Caracas’s close cooperation with Tehran “in the field of nuclear technology.”

The foregoing evidence was met with indifference at the State Department. One would think from its swift and sweeping response that State knows all that there is to know about Venezuela. Unfortunately, that is hardly the case. In congressional testimony last month, senior State Department officials minimized Hezbollah’s activities in the Americas and asserted that a suspicious Caracas-to-Tehran airline route was inactive. By tapping my sources in the region, I have been able to substantiate the activities of dozens of Hezbollah contacts and widespread recruiting, training, and fund-raising activities in the region, abetted by Venezuelan officials and by a notorious Iranian cleric, Mohsen Rabbani. It took me all of two minutes to confirm that the Caracas-to-Tehran flight departs every other Saturday from Chávez’s private hangar, as it has for years; there’s a reason the flight has been dubbed AeroTerror by Brazilian investigators.

Perhaps the State Department’s Latin America team is content to be in the dark when it comes to the threat of Venezuela’s alliance with Iran. But it is very serious, indeed, for the department to withhold facts from an inquisitive U.S. Congress about the breadth and depth of those dangerous liaisons.

• What is the true nature of the Argentina-Iran-Venezuela cooperation, and why have these programs been carried out in secret?
• What, if any, projects have been carried out in Venezuela to justify a $250 million payment to Argentina?
• Have Argentine authorities accounted for the payment of about $250 million? If not, where is this money today?
• Have Argentine nuclear experts had any contact with or provided any information, technology, or material to Venezuela or Iran since 1992?

Congress should be commended for raising these questions, and it must be as determined to get the facts as the State Department is to evade them.

Iran’s offer to cooperate with Argentina in the investigation of the 1994 bombing of the Jewish Community Center (AMIA) in Buenos Aires is shocking, in light of Tehran’s apparent complicity in that attack. Alberto Nisman, the independent prosecutor in the terrorism case, reacted to the offer by challenging Tehran to surrender the Iranian officials who organized the bombing. By contrast, the rather obsequious reaction of Argentina’s foreign minister, Hector Timmerman, raises troubling questions about the true nature of the relationship between the Ahmadinejad and Kirchner governments.

Monday marked the 17th anniversary of the car-bombing, which leveled the AMIA center in the heart of Argentina’s capital, killing 85 people; two years earlier, a few blocks away, the Israeli embassy was destroyed in another attack, which claimed 29 lives. Argentine and U.S. authorities have concluded that both bombings were the work of a Hezbollah cell coordinated and supported by the Iranian embassy. Iranian officials posted in Buenos Aires at the time, including Mohsen Rabbani, and Tehran’s current defense minister Ahmad Vahidi, have Interpol warrants pending against them for the crime. The prosecutor Nisman has theorized that the attacks were related to a decision by then President Carlos Saul Menem to terminate Argentina’s cooperation with Iran’s nuclear program around 1992.

That troubling story will not go away. Just last week, U.S. congressional leaders asked the Department of State to investigate whether Iran and Argentina have renewed nuclear cooperation in a deal brokered and paid for by Venezuela. Their July 15 letter cited “reports that in 2007 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad allegedly asked [Venezuelan leader] Hugo Chávez to intercede with President Nestor Kirchner to change Argentine policy to allow Iran access to Argentine technology” to aid Iran’s “nuclear program.”  The letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sent by the chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; chairman of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs, Rep. Connie Mack; and subcommittee member, Rep. David Rivera, referred to Venezuelan documents that are now in the hands of the State Department.

Continue reading

(UN Photo/Marco Castro)

The U.S. government’s decision to sanction Venezuela’s state-run oil company, PDVSA (Petroleos de Venezuela, SA), is the first formal acknowledgment by Washington of Hugo Chávez’s critical support for the nuclear-terrorist regime in Iran. The significance of today’s announcement reaches well beyond the several targeted measures. It represents a powerful message to the financial markets, the banking community, and legitimate businesses in the United States and elsewhere that transactions with PDVSA or the government of Venezuela are very risky business.

Starting today, the Venezuelan people will begin to see the dire consequences of Chávez’s liaisons with bandit regimes, terrorists, and drug traffickers. And, as the depth and breadth of Chávez’s alliance with Iran is exposed, the world will know that the regime in Caracas has become an indispensable co-conspirator with Iran’s terror network and illegal nuclear program.

Since 2009, AEI’s Venezuela-Iran project has revealed the extent of PDVSA’s involvement in suspicious transactions, particularly the sale of gasoline to Iran in violation of the spirit and the letter of U.S. law and UN resolutions. For far too long, U.S. diplomats and others have claimed ignorance as an excuse for inaction. By today’s action, that provocative policy of willful neglect may have come to an end.

AEI will continue to work with Congress, U.S. law enforcement, and other willing prosecutors to expose and confront this dangerous “caudillo-mullah” axis.

Among the other activities that must be investigated fully and sanctioned urgently are:

—Iran’s mining of uranium and other strategic minerals in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and elsewhere.
—Iran’s use of the Venezuelan banking system to circumvent UN sanctions and to project its network into key neighboring countries, such as Brazil.
—Chávez’s material support for a sprawling Hezbollah terrorist network for drug-trafficking, fund-raising, recruitment, training, and operations in the Americas.
—The presence of Iranian military installations, weapons, and other equipment in Venezuelan territory.

Above all, the decision by the administration to sanction PDVSA’s illicit behavior is a tribute to the tenacity of congressional leaders who have demanded action that the administration hold Chávez’s lawless regime accountable. These measures demonstrate the critical role that law enforcement agencies will play in undermining this growing threat.

The impending departure of Arturo Valenzuela as assistant secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere provides Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with an opportunity to name a more creative “operator” to jumpstart an urgent review of the mounting challenges to U.S. interests in the Americas:

— A policy of trying to ignore the threat of Chavismo in Venezuela and beyond has sent a signal that the United States is indifferent to the glaring fact that his regime is a co-conspirator with Iran, Middle Eastern terrorists, and narcotraffickers.

— China has been emboldened by U.S. passivity, crossing red lines to sell weapons to the Chávez regime (with some apparently bound for Middle Eastern friends) and to underwrite Iranian uranium exploration in Venezuela.

— It has been virtually ignored that China is gradually replacing the United States as a customer for Venezuelan oil, with exports to the United States dipping from well over 2 million barrels per day of Venezuelan crude a decade ago to well under 1 million today. In the meantime, China’s imports have skyrocketed.

— Mexico’s President Felipe Calderón was forced to confront President Obama at a visit to Washington as promised U.S. anti-drug aid had slowed to a trickle and the U.S. ambassador’s meddling undermined Calderón’s strategy to get Mexican security forces to work as a team.

— Haitians are entering a second year since the cataclysmic earthquake, with reconstruction efforts grinding to a halt.

— The Organization of American States is brain-dead, unable to respond to a wave of corrupt, authoritarian Hugo Chávez cronies in Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Argentina.

— Two trade agreements (with Colombia and Panama) have been jumpstarted by congressional Republicans but face an uncertain future unless President Obama is prepared to round up Democratic votes.

The list of challenges has grown under Valenzuela, who will return to Georgetown University after a two-year leave of absence. Although he is widely regarded as a decent, thoughtful expert with exceptional personal relationships with the region’s leaders, many observers sensed that Valenzuela’s heart was not in the job. His nonchalant handling of sharp questions at recent House and Senate oversight hearings (over the administration’s handling of Cuba and Venezuela) left observers from across the political spectrum wondering if he even wanted the post.

According to professional friends, Valenzuela was appalled that he had to wrestle over policy with NSC staffer Dan Restrepo, whom he considered a neophyte with sharp elbows. Valenzuela was consigned to putting out fires, and senior career foreign service officers say that his left-of-center instincts cost him the confidence of his pragmatic boss on the 7th floor.

President Obama does not have a deep bench of “politicals” on Latin America issues, and it is likely that the administration will opt for a career foreign service officer to try to stop the slide in U.S. influence in the region.

One possible candidate favored by old hands on Capitol Hill is William R. Brownfield, who has a reputation among Latin America observers as a clever, fearless, and effective bureaucrat. Brownfield also has earned the favor of Secretary Clinton, who appointed him to State’s senior counterdrug and law enforcement post. Some wonder if he would cede a multi-billion dollar budget to return to a regional bureau, but most conclude that he will go where Clinton needs him most.

Mexican President Felipe Calderón will meet with President Obama today in Washington at a time of tension between the two governments and between the two countries. President Calderón has expressed his frustration with our relations in recent days, using unusually harsh criticism of our ambassador and of our sluggish anti-drug support. To be sure, this is a time for frank discussion—not just between two leaders, but between two societies. And that dialogue should start with a simple recognition that we are both indispensable allies in a war that threatens both of us.

Commentators and journalists on U.S. television frequently refer to violence “spilling over from Mexico,” as if sealing the border would fix the problem, along with the illegal immigration. However, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, the biggest organized threat in this country today is the drug trafficking organizations based in Mexico, which use U.S. gangs to market illegal drugs and terrorize anyone who gets in the way of their deadly trade. The fact is, Mexico is fighting the other end of the same beast that threatens the health and security of every American.

The costs on both sides of the border are staggering. The law enforcement offensive launched by Calderón has touched off violent turf wars that have claimed 30,000 lives in the last several years; the vast majority of the dead were complicit in the drug trade, but the lives of innocent Mexicans, police personnel, and soldiers have been lost, too. And, let’s not forget that 20,000 Americans die every year due to the abuse of illicit drugs.

Mexicans point out that the demand for cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana in the United States is the root of this evil. And Americans expect that law enforcement south of the border should be more effective in stopping the flow of these illegal products. But we can avoid falling into the trap of futile finger-pointing by accepting that this is a shared challenge, and meeting it is a shared responsibility.

The stakes are extraordinarily high, in terms of our shared economic future and our common security. Not even the most skeptical U.S. critic of Mexico would want to see a country with which we share a 2,000-mile border—as well as the closest cultural, familial, and commercial ties—devolve into chaos. And Mexicans who expect more help from the United States surely recognize that they will pay the highest price if they fail to sustain Calderón’s campaign to modernize Mexico by strengthening the rule of law through building professional police and effective courts. Reverting to a “truce” with these violent, diabolical gangs will exact a high price from both countries.

What Mexicans need most of all, apart from specialized technical support and law enforcement cooperation, is solidarity.  They need to know that the superpower on their border stands with them and has “skin in the game.” President Obama and his cabinet officers have repeated this often enough, and he has team of professionals at the Department of Homeland Security who get it. Clearly, material support must be delivered with a greater sense of urgency. However, there is no substitute for solid political support—not just for Calderón, but for his successor (who will be chosen next year) and for the people and institutions of Mexico who are bearing the brunt of the battle.

Republicans need to step up to this responsibility, as well. Conservative leaders who were at the forefront of supporting Colombia a decade ago (which helped convert that country from a problem to an ally in the global drug fight) are virtually silent when it comes to helping Mexico. Some may be more comfortable criticizing, perhaps playing to an anxious base that is comfortable thinking of this as a foreign problem. The least these conservatives in Congress can offer is sufficient, effective funding for our anti-drug aid. What will make a remarkable difference are explicit commitments to sustained political support for Mexico, recognizing that our neighbors have been carrying more than their share of the burden in this drug fight. This is more than an opportunity for bipartisan leadership. It is a problem that demands such a commitment.

Why is such solidarity with an ally in a war so difficult to muster? The answer to that question is deeply rooted in the 19th century. Going back a bit further, we find a genuine solution: “Love thy neighbor.”

Image by Pete Souza.

Roger Noriega

Let Haiti Choose its Future

By Roger Noriega

January 17, 2011, 2:50 pm

reneprevalA year after the devastating 2010 earthquake, Haitians are trying to clear away the rubble of incompetent, corrupt, and failed political leadership by electing a new president. Unfortunately, incumbent President René Préval—abetted by Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez and the unprincipled head of the Organization of American States (OAS)—is trying to deny the Haitian people a president of their own choosing. The dramatic return of former dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier to Port-au-Prince on Sunday has raised the stakes for U.S. diplomats and others, who must act boldly to salvage the democratic process so Haitians can look to their future.

Sources in the American government know that Préval recently sought $25 million from Chávez to bankroll the runoff campaign of his handpicked successor, Jude Célestin. U.S. officials also know that OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza ordered his staff to suppress new findings by a team of electoral experts that reveals that Célestin is not even eligible to advance to the second round, having finished third behind Mirlande Manigat and Michel Martelly in last November’s first-round balloting.

The international community, which has a sorry record of asking Haitians to settle for corrupt governments in the interest of short-term stability, can redeem itself now by thwarting Préval’s plot to impose a puppet successor who will put Haiti at the disposal of Chávez and his growing drug network. Observers have told me that Préval spent at least $20 million on Célestin’s first-round campaign, and he has asked Chávez to double-down on this investment. His hopes will be dashed if Célestin’s third-place finish is documented by the OAS. That’s where Insulza comes in.

During Insulza’s tenure, the OAS has ignored egregious assaults on democracy by leftist regimes in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras, and Nicaragua. The original observer mission he dispatched to Haiti to help organize and observe critical presidential elections fell down on the job. That mission ignored Préval’s scandalous abuse of state resources that he hoped would rally support for Célestin. The OAS stood by as corrupt election officials rigged the process by disqualifying candidates who would have performed well against Préval’s crony. On election day, international media captured images of ballot-stuffing and electoral violence, mostly in favor of Préval’s man.  The OAS mission, however, rushed to declare that the widespread irregularities did not invalidate the balloting.

Insulza’s OAS mission is virtually alone in defending the official results which contend that Célestin edged out Martelly and should advance to the second round.  After the U.S. embassy joined independent observers in challenging these results, Préval asked Insulza to send a new team of election experts that he expected to back up his phony numbers. This independent team promptly examined a sample of tally sheets and prepared a preliminary report concluding that Martelly knocked out Célestin in the first round.

When word of the team’s decisive findings reached OAS headquarters in Washington earlier this month, Insulza dispatched his crony who runs the secretariat’s electoral unit, Pablo Gutierrez, to try to bury these independent findings. That cover-up was thwarted when the team’s preliminary report was leaked to the media. “After a thorough statistical analysis … the Expert Mission has determined that it cannot support the preliminary results of the presidential elections,” the Miami Herald quoted from the draft report. (According to sources within the OAS, Insulza is more interested in finding out who leaked the facts than they are in the electoral fraud that is playing out in Haiti with his tacit support.)

American diplomats in Port-au-Prince agree with the findings of the expert report. For weeks, they have given Préval and Insulza the opportunity to do the right thing and acknowledge Célestin’s defeat. But neither one has the political will, credibility, or clout to save the process and head off Haiti’s spiral toward political violence.

When Insulza arrives in Haiti today, U.S. diplomats should insist that he inform Préval that the OAS will no longer support his bid to steal the elections. The way forward can be found in Article 149 of Haiti’s constitution, under which Préval should leave office as scheduled on February 7, ceding power to an interim government headed by a member of the Supreme Court. Then, a runoff between Manigat and Martelly should be carried out as soon as practicable under an independent electoral authority.

Duvalier’s ill-timed return may prove to be a spark in a tinderbox. It is time to end this clumsy electoral farce before Haiti is thrust toward needless political violence that would be the direct result of corruption in the Préval regime and cynicism in Insulza’s OAS.

Image by Jean Jacques Agustin.

Roger Noriega

Waterloo for Lt. Col. Chavez?

By Roger Noriega

September 27, 2010, 12:52 pm

chavez-dignifiedVenezuela’s democratic opposition leaders say that they have scored a stunning victory in yesterday’s national assembly elections, with their slate of candidates winning a slight majority of the popular votes cast. Because Venezuelan caudillo Hugo Chavez rigged the rules, the opposition’s majority vote would translate into only about 64 of the 165 assembly seats. But that would leave Chavez with no more than 101 seats—less than the super-majority he needs to force through major reforms.

Now comes the crucial test for the opposition, as they mobilize to demand an honest count and “fair” apportionment of the assembly.

Last night’s results left the bombastic Chavez speechless. He skipped his traditional post-election rally from the presidential palace’s “Balcony of the People” because he literally had nothing to say. His handlers gave him draft remarks for four possible scenarios, but none of them anticipated the major defeat in which Chavez failed to win the two-thirds majority.

Chavez is a master of bouncing back from defeat. No doubt, he is huddling with advisors now, deciding whether to risk a showdown by denying the opposition the symbolic majority in the popular vote or by claiming to have won the requisite 110 seats that will allow him to maintain a rubberstamp legislature. The first test will be whether he can bully his cadre of key supporters to back him in such a provocative course. If so, he will have no trouble rallying his supporters to the streets to try to impose phony results. However, they will be met by an ascendant and emboldened opposition that can credibly claim, “We are the majority.”

Chavez may decide that the wiser course of action is to fudge the popular vote count, stealing a narrow majority for his slate of candidates but acknowledging that he has failed to win the two-thirds of the assembly. There is precedent for this sort of response. In the case of recent electoral setbacks, Chavez stole sufficient votes to give himself a “moral victory” and to claim that he is a “democrat.” Then, he recovers by denying his opponents any effective power. For example, in 2008, after conceding the loss of the mayor’s office in Caracas and several key governorships, Chavez proceeded to strip those posts of all resources and power.

What’s an electoral toss-up in Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela? Tails, he wins; heads, you lose.

Moreover, months ago, Chavez laid the legal groundwork for moving more power to “communal councils,” giving him the option of bleeding power from a troublesome national assembly under the guise of empowering the masses.

However, there is no denying that the “Movement for Democratic Unity” has won a significant political victory that only a few enthusiastic backers might have predicted weeks ago. By refusing to boycott the process, the movement’ s leaders put their faith in the Venezuelan people ahead of their fears about Chavez’s electoral shenanigans. And, by proposing a unified national slate of candidates, they denied Chavez the opportunity to split the opposition vote.

Of course, by renewing some confidence in the electoral process, the democratic opposition has raised the stakes for Chavez in the upcoming 2012 presidential votes. One can hope that the opposition will stay unified as he pulls out all the stops to win reelection.

Although U.S. policy makers will take some solace that the opposition has flourished despite being abandoned by Washington, an electoral setback for Chavez does not necessarily spell instant relief for our security interests. Wishful thinking might suggest that Chavez’s trouble at home might clip his wings and force him to retreat from his international adventurism. However, it is just as likely that he will be forced to solidify his ties to the ruthless regimes in Iran, Cuba, China, and Russia that specialize in holding on to power.

At the very least, the U.S. national security establishment must pay greater attention to these growing, troubling relationships and begin to fashion an effective strategy for defending our interests. That is a process that U.S. foreign policy makers can no longer boycott.

Image by Bernardo Londoy.

chavezIt doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know why Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez would want a nuclear bomb. Although most observers would dismiss the notion of Chavez building such a weapon, a man who used to help build them for the United States didn’t think the idea was so crazy.

Last Friday, the FBI revealed the arrest and indictment of two U.S. citizens accused of plotting to help Venezuela obtain a nuclear bomb. Accused nuclear scientist Pedro Leonardo Mascheroni, who was convinced that he was talking to a representative of the Chavez regime (rather than an FBI undercover agent), offers the following rationale for such a dangerous program:

A deterrence against the U.S. based on conventional weapons is highly inadequate … Venezuela cannot develop deterrence against a U.S. invasion using conventional weapons … The only option for Venezuela is to develop nuclear deterrence … Venezuela would show the world that [it] is a mature nuclear power able to deter a superpower … What we do when we are in Venezuela … is our business, not that of the U.S. government.

Chavez could not have said it better himself.

The U.S. federal indictment continues:

Defendant MASCHERONI discussed how in his program Venezuela would build and test nuclear bombs in secret and would have two nuclear reactors—one open, above ground reactor used for producing nuclear energy and the other, a secret underground nuclear reactor used for producing and enriching plutonium. In his program, Venezuela would build an above-ground micro-fusion facility for developing energy, and an underground micro-fission facility where Venezuela would conduct undetectable tests of ‘micro bombs.’

Justice Department officials have stated that there is no evidence that the Venezuelan government obtained any of the sensitive technology offered by Mascheroni and his co-indicted spouse. However, those who are paying attention to the extraordinarily tight and secretive ties between Chavez and troublesome regimes in Iran, Cuba, Russia, and China might wonder if Mascheroni’s vision is being implemented by a band of rogues at work in the Western Hemisphere while Washington sleeps.

One can hope that the FBI is not the only U.S. agency with its guard up when it comes to Chavez and the bomb.

Image by Agência Brasil.

090224-N-2855B-014After winning nearly 70 percent of the 13 million votes cast in Colombia’s Sunday presidential run-off, ex-defense minister Juan Manuel Santos promised to deliver “national unity” and to expand access to “prosperity, health, quality education, and decent housing.” He also vowed to fight “corruption and impunity” and to smooth over the very tense relations between the executive branch and the judiciary. Santos’s election challenges Washington to define a coherent policy by delivering a promised free-trade agreement and continued security aid, both of which face an uncertain future in the Congress.

Santos’s strength matches the approval ratings of his chief backer, outgoing President Alvaro Uribe, whose get-tough strategy has gone a long way toward defeating the narco-guerrilla threat, taming criminality in Colombia’s major cities, imposing the rule of law in untamed rural areas, and restoring economic growth. “Colombians voted overwhelmingly today to support a government program that continues and builds on the progress of the Uribe administration,” Santos acknowledged in his victory speech.

It is significant that the United States has had no closer friend in South America in the last decade than Colombia under Uribe. With Santos’s victory ensuring continued anti-drug cooperation, Colombians will continue to press Washington for approval of a free-trade agreement and crucial security assistance to consolidate the gains of the bipartisan “Plan Colombia” security package, which was authored by a Republican Congress in cooperation with the Clinton administration a decade ago.

Santos soundly whipped Green Party candidate and former Bogota mayor Antanas Mockus, who held a small but apparently illusory lead in many polls in April. Critics of the iron-willed Uribe were delighted to see his favored candidate challenged by the free-spirited Mockus, but Colombians were apparently spooked when the successful mayor failed to show a command of persistent security issues, notably the threat posed by their belligerent neighbor, Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.

Experts commenting in Colombian newspapers, including the daily El Tiempo, opined that Santos should pay particular attention to broad-based economic development to overcome inequality that is caused by a lack of education, training, and healthcare. Another noted the challenge of ending the long war, which has decimated but not eliminated the guerrillas’ ranks. Still others said Santos should make Colombia a leader in regional integration—seeking to overcome the tensions with neighbors Venezuela and Ecuador.

Image by Petty Officer 1st Class Molly A. Burgess, U.S. Navy.

This week’s state visit of Mexican President Felipe Calderón to the United States comes at an extraordinarily complicated time for both nations. Tension over illegal immigration and related crime has set off a polarizing debate within the United States. Calderón’s bold “war on drugs” has sparked bloody reprisals from the narcotraffickers and stirred doubts among the Mexican people. Mexico’s economy is expected to post a modest rebound of 3 to 4 percent this year after suffering a 7 percent contraction in 2009 (the worst in 80 years). However, its strong links to the belabored U.S. economy (compounded by the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, falling oil revenues, and drug violence) have taken a significant toll on exports, employment, and consumer confidence.

As if to punctuate Mexico’s melodrama, last Friday, national political figure Diego Fernández de Cevallos, the 1994 presidential candidate and the “grand old man” of Calderón’s National Action Party, disappeared without a trace, his abandoned Humvee found on a road near his ranch. Early reports of “bloody footprints” and bullet holes in the vehicle have not been confirmed by authorities, but the rumors have led many Mexicans to assume that Fernández is the latest victim of a drug-related kidnapping or worse. As of Tuesday night, his family has not received any communications from abductors.

So, as state visits go, this one promises to be a decidedly somber affair. Indeed, if evidence turns up that Fernández is being held hostage or worse, it is not out of the question that the two leaders might postpone the visit.

Continue reading here.

564px-hugo_chavez_photo_cut_27-06-2008In a private luncheon at a regional summit in Cancún yesterday, Colombian President Álvaro Uribe took his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chávez to task for imposing a de facto embargo on Colombian trade and investment. The Venezuelan dictator—who is known for his own bombastic declarations and wild accusations against Colombia—took offense when Uribe compared Chávez’s hostile treatment of Colombia with the embargo on Cuba. Chávez accused Uribe of dispatching assassins to kill him, and he threatened to storm out of the summit. According to diplomats who witnessed the event, Uribe then shouted at Chávez, “Be a man!  You’re brave at a distance, but a coward face-to-face.” The Venezuelan responded by telling Uribe, “Vete al carajo!” the most polite translation of which is, “Go to hell!”

Chávez is not accustomed to being challenged. Indeed, the so-called “international community” has let him off the hook despite hard evidence that he has been waging a proxy war against Colombia for the better part of a decade; computer hard drives captured from a slain guerrilla leader prove that Chávez is providing these terrorists with money, arms, and other material support. Unchallenged, Chávez has repeatedly whipped up nationalist sentiments at home as a cudgel against his internal opposition, put his military on a war footing, and sought to punish Colombia by cutting back on trade.

Ironically, this confrontation came at a summit of Latin American and Caribbean leaders intended to launch a “regional mechanism” that might serve as an alternative to the Organization of American States (OAS). Apparently, Latin and Caribbean diplomats think that a new forum—minus the United States and Canada—might advance their common interests more effectively. However, it is clear from the showdown in Cancún that Chávez is the problem. His polarizing, bullying style has poisoned the atmosphere at the OAS and will undermine confidence wherever he goes.

Image by Marcello Casal Jr. for Agencia Brasil.

Every SOTU address has a handful of paragraphs that were drafted by a committee—and they usually expose issues where the president just doesn’t care enough to question the words on the page before he speaks them.

A couple of our Latin American neighbors got the brush off in this paragraph that was nuanced to within an inch of meaninglessness.

If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores…. And that’s why … we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea, Panama, and Colombia.

Nice words, I suppose. But the president doesn’t actually come out and ask Congress to ratify trade agreements with these countries, which were negotiated by President Bush and which have been languishing in the Congress for years. (Speaker Nancy Pelosi rewrote the “fast track” rules of the House with the express aim of shelving the trade accord with our best ally in the Americas, Colombia; last night, she choked when the president mentioned Colombia but recovered when she realized that he didn’t actually endorse the accord.)

A very compelling fact is that Colombia is a key ally in the fight against drugs and terrorism and faces almost weekly bellicose threats from President Hugo Chavez in neighboring Venezuela. Panamanians recently elected a new pro-American president, who was the object of a kidnapping plot discovered last week involving foreign-backed narcoterrorists. Ratifying both of these agreements now would send a very clear signal that these are strategic partners that enjoy our unmitigated support, which could back off warmongering by Chavez and other thugs. Instead, the Obama drafting committee opted for words that would pass muster with the anti-trade union bosses but left the president looking less than serious.

As a result, leaders in three friendly countries are left scratching their heads and wondering where they stand with us. Aren’t we supposed to sow doubts with our enemies and embolden our friends?

Roger Noriega

Piñera’s Historic Win

By Roger Noriega

January 19, 2010, 7:06 am

sebastian_pinera_2009On Sunday, Chile’s voters chose conservative entrepreneur Sebastián Piñera as their new president, giving him a 52–48 percent margin of victory and the task of restoring economic dynamism, creating 600,000 new jobs, and pushing their country to a new level of development. Piñera’s win is historic, defeating former president Eduardo Frei and the center-left coalition that has held power since the end of military rule 20 years ago.

In his victory address before a crowd of 4,000 supporters, alluding to the upcoming 200th anniversary of Chile’s bid for independence from Spain, Piñera convoked the “bicentennial generation” to take up the urgent task of “restoring the country’s capacity for growth and improving the quality of life for all.” He promised a “strong and efficient state—with more muscle and less fat—that helps those most in need and simultaneously promotes innovation and entrepreneurship of its citizens.”

Piñera’s narrow victory is hardly a repudiation of the ruling party, whose market-oriented policies and fiscal restraint helped the economy grow consistently while reducing the percentage of Chileans living in poverty from 39 to 13 percent. Current socialist President Michelle Bachelet has secured a 70 percent–plus approval rating by hewing to free market policies while extending coverage of the country’s signature social services to the very poor and women. Nevertheless, Chileans clearly sense that their country needs the talents of Piñera, an able, public-spirited tycoon, to restore their competitive edge.

Piñera has a complicated and delicate task ahead. To implement his agenda, he will have to forge a working majority in the Congress between his rightist alliance and moderate Christian Democrats. And he will have to balance a number of priorities: creating jobs by invigorating the economy, increasing Chile’s global competitiveness, improving the efficiency of a backward educational system, and keeping government spending under control.

Foreign policy is another challenge. Recent governments have managed to showcase Chile’s successes in the international community, but they were very uncomfortable being touted as a “model” for other countries. Part of their strategy has been to pursue a very cautious, diffident foreign policy. Moreover, for ideological and historic reasons, they have refused to criticize Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez, or other leftist leaders. Bachelet has even managed to build fairly positive relations with the prickly leftist Evo Morales, president of Chile’s historic enemy, Bolivia. Although Piñera focused almost exclusively on domestic issues during the campaign, he did not pull his punches in referring to Cuba as a “dictatorship,” and he noted that Venezuela under Chávez is “not a democracy.” Surely the billionaire conservative will draw fire from his leftist counterparts, but Piñera probably knows that his introverted compatriots have little stomach for a confrontational foreign policy. He has little choice but to begin on a pragmatic note by backing the reelection this year of Chilean socialist Jose Miguel Insulza as secretary general of the Organization of American States (OAS), despite the fact that Insulza has squandered the OAS’s credibility along with his own by ignoring the anti-democratic conduct of leftist caudillos (strongmen).

President-elect Sebastián Piñera appears content to focus on building a government of the best and the brightest, with a straightforward agenda of helping Chileans “who are without work, who are fearful of crime, who are trapped by drugs, who are awaiting healthcare, or who want a decent house for their families.” Celebrating his historic victory and looking forward, he renewed the government’s commitment to help “the dispossessed,” but he noted that Chileans will pull themselves out of poverty “by their own achievements and effort.”

Image by Comando de Sebastián Piñera.

Four years after Bolivian President Evo Morales was elected, the poor are poorer and that country’s ethnic, social, and regional divisions are as pronounced and explosive as ever. Nevertheless, Morales has exploited these weaknesses to win a second term yesterday, in elections that may be remembered as the last stand for pluralistic democracy and the rule of law in Bolivia.

Most foreign observers have ignored the fact that Morales recently declared himself a Marxist-Leninist and that a cadre of extremist advisers have brandished fascist tactics to push Bolivia to the brink. The opposition’s only hope was to deny Morales’s movement a congressional majority, but it appears that he will have the two-thirds vote in both houses to authorize his indefinite re-election and to ram through constitutional reforms that will further polarize the country.

Although there may be little for outsiders to do but watch Bolivia disintegrate, chaos in a state where the government is abetting coca production may have serious consequences for countries in the Americas and Europe already impacted by the illegal drug trade.

Unfortunately, as oil revenues drop and as political grievances boil over, Bolivians will not have the institutions to pull together, as Morales would have pulled them apart. An ethnic tinderbox with fierce political, social, and regional differences could produce a failed state in the heart of cocaine country. South American countries that relish seeing the United States expelled from Bolivia will be forced to contend with this crisis on their own.

While leftist authoritarians backed by the budding dictator Hugo Chavez are attacking democracy in Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, two elections in Honduras and Uruguay underscore that free elections are embraced by people throughout the Americas.

In Honduras, nearly two-thirds of the eligible voters turned out to elect Porfirio “Pepe” Lobo as their new president. The historically high turnout (20 percent greater than elections four years ago) and 57–38 percent margin of victory is expected to put an end to a political crisis that was sparked by the illegal bid by former president Manuel Zelaya to hold on to power. The United States and several Central American governments already have pledged to recognize these elections. However, new leadership at the U.S. State Department and the Honduran president-elect will have to convince Brazil and other nations to accept the legitimacy of the new government, which takes power in January.

Lobo is a businessman of the Nationalist Party who narrowly lost to Zelaya in 2005. He defeated Elvin Santos, of Zelaya’s Liberal Party, who conceded last night. The real losers were those who cast doubt on the democratic process with the intent of undermining the transition and sustaining the costly crisis. Several leftist governments—following Chavez’s lead—have sought to delegitimize the process, and the Organization of American States refused to observe the elections. However, Lobo’s convincing margin, Santos’ recognition of the free and fair balloting, and the overwhelming turnout should be sufficient to convince any serious government that the Honduran people have spoken, and it is time to move on.

In Uruguay, a former leftist revolutionary secured power at the ballot box, having failed in the 1970s to win power through violent struggle. Jose Mujica won a 5-point margin over former President Luis Alberto Lacalle, who recognized the results. The Uruguayan people gave Mujica a vote of confidence to succeed another leftist, Tabare Vazquez, who has governed with moderation, pursued responsible economic policies, and maintained a very positive relationship with the United States.

During the campaign, Mujica said that he “repented,” and he condemned the “stupid ideologies that come from the 1970s.” He rejected statist recipes and anti-Americanism. “Down with ’isms!,” he shouted during the campaign. “I am more than completely cured of simplifications, of dividing the world into good and evil, of thinking in black and white. I have repented!”

It remains to be seen whether Mujica will choose to continue moderate, market-oriented policies favored by his predecessor Vazquez and his model, Brazilian President Luis Inacio “Lula” da Silva. Uruguayan institutions are so strong and centrist that he will have little choice but to pursue a middle-of-the-road course in domestic affairs. However, Chavez will spare no effort to see if he can teach the new dog old tricks.

Too many patronizing outsiders are quick to seize on the notion that Latin Americans are not mature enough for traditional democracy, primarily as an excuse for the transgressions of dictators on the Right or, lately, the Left. For example, Venezuela’s Chavez and Bolivia’s Evo Morales explain that they have to tear down old institutions to usher in a more just political and social order. It is more than transparent that what they are up to is destroying constitutional separations of power and the rule of law with the intention of consolidating power and holding on to it indefinitely.

When Hondurans were forced to decide between Chavismo and democracy they made the right choice. After months of wrongheaded decisions, the international community can do the right thing and choose democracy, too.


The American Enterprise Institute takes no institutional positions on policy advocacy or political campaigns. The views expressed on The Enterprise Blog represent those of the individual writers.

AEI