Latest Roger Noriega News | Fox News

Venezuela needs a new government after rigged election keeps socialist criminal Maduro in power

Wed, 23 May 2018 10:22:00 -0400

U.S.-Venezuela relations – already at a low point – worsened Tuesday when President Nicolas Maduro ordered the top two U.S. diplomats to leave Venezuela following his fraudulent re-election Sunday.

Maduro expelled U.S. Charge D’affaires Todd Robinson and his deputy, Brian Naranjo, after accusing them of trying to sabotage the presidential election and conspiring against his government. The U.S. officials were given 48 hours to leave Venezuela.

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert called the charges against the two American diplomats “false allegations.”

Maduro’s socialist regime forfeited any remaining shred of legitimacy by staging the farcical election in open defiance of an opposition boycott and international censure.

Ironically, the Venezuelan people managed to have their say: about 70 percent of eligible voters refused to cast ballots in this phony election, signaling to the country’s security forces and to the international community that Venezuela must be rescued from Maduro’s illegal regime.

Venezuela’s National Electoral Council, which is comprised of Maduro loyalists, claimed that 46 percent of eligible voters cast ballots, giving Maduro a two-thirds landslide victory. However, a Council source told Reuters that the actual turnout was 32 percent as polls were closing on Sunday.

This woefully low participation came despite organized efforts by the regime to entice supporters to vote by promising food and basic goods and threatening government employees with the loss of employment or benefits for failing to participate.

Leading up to the election, the “Lima Group” of 14 Western Hemisphere governments condemned Maduro’s authoritarian government and called for the suspension of Sunday’s vote, which it said lacked the guarantees of “a free, fair, transparent, and democratic process.”

Early this month, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly to demand that Venezuela suspend the election, citing insufficient guarantees for the integrity of the election.

The Trump administration is standing with the Venezuelan people in pressing for an end to Maduro’s illegitimate rule.

Just before the fraudulent election, the Trump administration ratcheted up pressure on the regime. On Friday, the Treasury Department imposed financial sanctions against a key regime henchman and accused narco-kingpin, Diosdado Cabello.

Immediately after the discredited balloting and Maduro’s pyrrhic victory, President Trump signed a sweeping executive order intended to choke off financing to the regime. These strong measures build on a year-long campaign of Treasury Department sanctions targeting dozens of regime leaders for corruption, criminality and repression.

Moving against Cabello suggests that the Trump administration has ruled out a soft landing for Maduro and his cronies. Apparently, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo rejected arguments by career diplomats that sanctioning Cabello would undermine hopes for a negotiated solution.

The fake election is further proof that the criminal regime in Caracas – which is micromanaged by Cuba – will never bargain away its hold on political power. Maduro has illegally looted billions of dollars from his own people, giving him no standing to negotiate Venezuela’s future.

The Maduro regime is not content to hunker down in Venezuela. Its leaders are deeply engaged in drug trafficking that fuels mayhem in Central America and are providing financing and safe haven to Colombian guerrilla forces deep in Venezuelan territory.

Moreover, criminal associates with access to billions of dollars are financing destabilizing political movements and the Hezbollah terrorist network in the region.

Recognizing that negotiating with or tolerating a narco-state is not a realistic option, the Trump administration must crack down on the Venezuelan regime by persuading other countries – particularly in Europe – to join in sanctioning Maduro and his backers.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions should consider consolidating the dozens of cases against Venezuelan officials and publishing indictments to prove to the international community that Maduro is the head of a criminal syndicate, not a government.

U.S. officials should make very clear that Washington will hold the principals of this conspiracy accountable and consider leniency for those who abandon the regime.

The Trump administration also should break diplomatic relations with Maduro and, instead, recognize members of the democratically elected National Assembly as the legitimate representatives of the Venezuelan people.

The Assembly should declare the presidency vacant and instruct security forces to restore democratic order. The Assembly should also ask the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and nations around the world to withdraw diplomatic recognition of Maduro and work with democratic leaders to restore constitutional rule and launch a humanitarian relief effort.

With the support of the international community, the National Assembly’s members also should prepare transparent plans for designating an interim leader, organizing new elections and rebuilding Venezuela.

The United States and key Latin American countries should convene an international conference to promote sanctions and the recovery of stolen assets that would be made available to finance post-Maduro relief and reconstruction.

Venezuela’s desperate masses and members of the security forces have witnessed firsthand the criminality, illegitimacy and unpopularity of Maduro and his cronies. The international community should be prepared to react constructively if a popular uprising ensues in the coming weeks and security forces support a return to democracy.

Clearly, if the Venezuelan people stand up, the United States and the international community should stand with them.

Opinion: What Really Happened to Cuban Dissident Oswaldo Payá?

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 12:22:27 -0400

What kind of regime could be suspected of engineering a car accident to kill an opponent? The kind that made a “criminal” out of a man like Oswaldo Payá.

This weekend, the widow of Cuban dissident Oswaldo Payá rejected the Castro regime’s assertion that the July 22nd automobile crash that claimed her husband’s life was the result of reckless driving.

After hearing of Payá’s untimely death, his family members explained that he received persistent threats during two decades of political opposition.

Their suspicions were raised in the week after the incident because Cuban authorities had detained two European pro-democracy activists who were in the car during the crash that killed Paya and a Cuban colleague, Harold Cepero Escalante.

On Monday, in a session with reporters organized by the internal security agency, the Spanish citizen who was driving the car took responsibility for the accident; he faces charges in Cuba’s Orwellian justice system. His Swedish colleague issued an obligatory confession for supporting Payá’s “illicit” activities.

The two men looked more like hostages than witnesses, and both pleaded with the international community to get them out of Cuba.

I had the privilege of meeting Oswaldo Payá, a soft-spoken, courageous man of faith, during a rare visit to Washington, DC. A devout Roman Catholic, he reminded me of the many church laymen I met during my earlier visit to Cuba. Like them, he seemed liberated by his faith – exuding a self-confidence and decency that the regime considers dangerous.

Payá was the tireless advocate of the “Varela Project” – a remarkable initiative that invoked Article 88 of Castro’s Soviet-era constitution to require the Cuba national assembly to debate a host of political freedoms. Of course, the Castro regime regarded Payá’s activism as a challenge to its legitimacy. It is less well-known that some anti-communist foes criticized the petition drive precisely because they thought it might legitimize the government and its constitution.

The Varela Project drew new energy and inspiration from Pope John Paul II’s 1998 pilgrimage to Cuba. For years, Payá and his network of supporters worked to gather more than the requisite 10,000 signatures and, in 2002, he presented the petition to authorities.

The regime rejected the Varela petition and, instead, amended the constitution to reaffirm Cuba’s “socialist” system. It also launched one of its infamous crackdowns on dissidents, with dozens of Varela activists, other dissidents, human rights activists and independent journalists arrested, tried and sentenced to dozens of years in prison. Payá was never imprisoned, perhaps because he earned international prominence – and the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought in 2002 – for his peaceful activism.

In the long four years since Raul Castro took over for his older brother, his ruthlessness has suffocated any wishful thinking about a Cuban glasnost. He has preserved the police state apparatus that treats 11 million Cubans as traitorous criminals. More than twice as many opposition figures were detained per month in 2011 as in the year before. Keeping up a brutal pace, several dozen of mourners at Paya’s funeral were detained by Cuban security agents. And, the regime has imprisoned American democracy worker Alan Gross since 2009 on trumped-up espionage charges.

So what does Raul Castro have to say in the wake of the untimely death of Oswaldo Payá? This weekend he offered a dialogue with the United States – “a conversation between equals.” Setting aside the staggering delusion that Castro considers his regime equal to any decent democracy, such a dialogue must be among the Cuban people about the future they deserve.

Payá knew this.

Until that process is begun in earnest, the United States should reverse recent unilateral concessions and reserve robust economic and political relations for a government in Havana that is accountable to its people.

Was Payá a victim of a ham-handed plan to silence him?

Even if he was, the thugs of the regime must know that there is no hope of quelling the wellspring of decency that Payá, his movement and his faith represented. The fact that they know that is Payá’s remarkable legacy.

Obama's Latin American Policy Is Dangerously Out of Touch

Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:31:48 -0500

As Congress, Republican presidential candidates, and much of the U.S., South American, and European media are sounding the alarm on suspicious activities by Iran and Hezbollah in Latin America, the State Department is hitting the snooze button.

State also has turned a blind eye to abuses of the administration’s liberalized rules for traveling to Cuba, causing Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to hold up the nominations of two members of President Obama’s Latin America team.

Congress is right to scrutinize policies and policy makers that fail to advance our values or protect our security.

Here’s fresh evidence of the problem at Foggy Bottom. A December 8 Univision documentary on “The Iranian Threat in Latin America” caught Venezuelan “diplomat” Livia Acosta on hidden camera instructing purported Mexican hackers to crack U.S. national security websites on behalf of anti-U.S. dictator Hugo Chávez. Accusers also have released a document that appears to identify Acosta, now posted in Chávez’s consulate in Miami, as an undeclared (read illegal) agent of Venezuela’s intelligence service.

Bipartisan congressional leaders immediately called for an investigation into the Acosta scandal and the broader threat of Iran’s network in the Americas. Rather than echoing these concerns, last week, two senior U.S. diplomats held a cordial meeting with Venezuela’s senior representative in Washington, Angelo Rivero, to reassure him that the State Department hopes to improve bilateral cooperation despite the Acosta affair.

Far from expelling Acosta or even raising the serious accusations against her, a senior American diplomat advised Rivero to increase security to protect Acosta from U.S. protestors in Miami and warned that the U.S. Congress or other U.S. agencies might continue to investigate the case.

This recent episode, revealed to me by sources within the Chávez regime, is one of many examples of a U.S. Latin America policy that is dangerously out of touch with the grave and growing threats in our own neighborhood. Here are a few others.

Despite documentary evidence that Iran has been exploring for uranium in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia for many years and is conducting mining in these countries today, U.S. officials are unable to confirm whether Teheran is illegally obtaining this critical ingredient to fuel its rogue nuclear program right here in this hemisphere.

On two occasions in recent months, U.S. diplomats have testified before Congress that a Caracas-Damascus-Teheran flight is no longer flying, in spite of recent eyewitness accounts to the contrary. Billions of Iranian funds being laundered through Venezuelan banks have escaped U.S. scrutiny. U.S. law enforcement authorities – particularly the Drug Enforcement Agency – seeking to sanction Venezuelan state-run enterprises that abet Iran, Hezbollah, and narcotraffickers must overcome State Department resistance at every turn.

Rather than ask the intelligence community to increase its capabilities, these diplomats would rather not know what Chávez is up to sothey do not have to confront the problem. When it comes to Chávez’s dangerous conspiracy with Iran, Cuba, Russia, and China, ignorance is indefensible.

This disorientation is not limited to Venezuela. Soon after taking power, the Obama administration joined a stampede orchestrated by Chávez to condemn the June 2009 ouster of his acolyte in Honduras, who had forfeited his office by plotting to violate a constitutional ban on re-election.

In contrast, U.S. diplomats have effectively ignored the illegal maneuvers and outright electoral fraud that Nicaraguan dictator Daniel Ortega has used to secure another term in office just last month. SenatorRobert Menendez (D-N.J.), who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee’s panel on Latin America, said this month, “It is time for the United States … to pay attention to what is occurring in Nicaragua and take action to ensure that the democratic values in the region aren’t further eroded.” Instead, U.S. diplomats in Managua have been instructed by Washington not to confront Ortega.

Coddling hostile regimes may be the lone organizing principle of U.S. Latin America policy today. Ecuador’s mercurial president, Rafael Correa, expelled U.S. envoy Heather Hodges in April after a Wikileaked telegram from the U.S. embassy in Quito referred in passing to official corruption. In September, for no particular reason, the White House announced the appointment of Adam Namm to replace Hodges; Namm’s is one of the nominations frozen by Rubio.

In November, when Bolivia’s anti-U.S. leader Evo Morales was grappling with an internal uprising, the State Department threw him a political lifeline by signing a compact to restore bilateral ties. Never mind that Morales expelled the U.S. ambassador and the DEA for no reason, refuses U.S. anti-drug aid, forbids U.S. democracy support, and levels unfounded accusations against the United States on a weekly basis.

The foregoing examples send an unmistakable signal that there is no cost for being an avowed enemy of the United States and little benefit for being a friend. Congress is right in thinking we can do better than this and in insisting that we do.

Roger F. Noriega was Ambassador to the Organization of American States from 2001-03 and Assistant Secretary of State from 2003-05. He is a visiting fellow at the American EnterpriseInstitute and managing director of Vision Americas LLC, which represents U.S. and foreign clients, and he contributes to www.interamericansecuritywatch.com.

Crisis in Venezuela: Will Obama do the right thing and back a regional rescue?

Tue, 31 May 2016 16:19:00 -0400

Today, thirty million Venezuelans are forced to cope with a grave scarcity of food, medicine, electricity, and political freedom. As the humanitarian crisis worsens, many fear that seething social tension may explode into a bloody confrontation. President Nicolás Maduro seeks to hold on to power by defying the National Assembly and distributing weapons to militants who will use violence to defend the regime. Instead of bolstering urgent regional efforts to confront the crisis, the Obama administration inexplicably backed the regime’s bid to buy time—so the meltdown in Venezuela is the next U.S. president’s problem.

Since Maduro was elected by the narrowest of margins to succeed Hugo Chávez three years ago, Venezuela’s sputtering and debt-ridden economy has been in steep decline. Plunging oil prices and production compounded the government’s woes. The regime’s international credibility has been devastated by authoritative reports in U.S. and European dailies implicating then National Assembly president Diosdado Cabello and other regime leaders in drug trafficking and money laundering. Last November, the arrest of Maduro’s stepson on cocaine smuggling charges in the United States scandalized Venezuelans. That December, Maduro’s destructive economic policies, political repression, and insecurity touched off a political avalanche, garnering the opposition two-thirds of the seats in national legislative elections.

Maduro’s response was to pack the supreme court with cronies who nullified every act of the assembly—including an amnesty of political prisoners. Electoral authorities are doing Maduro’s bidding by stalling a “revocatory referendum” that, if held this year, would allow voters to oust the president and elect a replacement.

Were it not for the dramatic humanitarian crisis, Maduro might be able to escape responsibility for this power grab. However, the imminent economic collapse and fear of widespread political violence has led the region’s chief diplomat, Luis Almagro, Secretary General of the Organization of American States, to call an urgent meeting to press regional governments to respond to the crisis.

President Obama has confronted Maduro’s abuses only when pressured by the U.S. Congress, because he believes that U.S. actions will raise nationalist ire. However, one would think he would support Almagro’s multilateral efforts to rally the region to address Venezuela’s unrest before it grows more dangerous. Instead, over the weekend, Secretary of State John Kerry risked prolonging the crisis by endorsing an ill-fated “political dialogue” mediated by Spain’s leftist ex-president José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. The opposition already has rejected such a dialogue, and the National Assembly has declared that Maduro’s unconstitutional actions and efforts to evade a referendum on his presidency justify a formal invocation of the OAS Inter-American Democratic Charter.

U.S. diplomats must have known that Kerry’s endorsement of a dialogue hosted by Maduro’s friends would blindside the opposition and undermine Almagro’s plea for action. Now that the opposition has ruled out such mediation, it remains to be seen whether U.S. diplomats will continue to duck the Venezuela issue or urge countries to confront Maduro’s anti-democratic measures and launch a diplomatic rescue mission.

Even those in the chavista base and in the military who oppose Maduro’s irresponsible leadership and Cuban interference might welcome a clear signal that Venezuela’s neighbors will not stand by as Maduro and his narcogenerals take the country into an abyss.

An OAS resolution might also call on the executive branch to respect the constitutional rights of the National Assembly to grant an amnesty to political prisoners and to authorize a revocatory referendum; permit independent election monitors; cease the distribution of weapons to irregular forces; and allow the private sector to mitigate the shortage of food, medicine, and electricity. The OAS also could pledge to organize international humanitarian relief efforts.

Meanwhile, a U.S. indictment of Cabello and other officials for drug-trafficking as well as executive sanctions on those who are violating constitutional norms and human rights would dispel justified doubts about where Washington stands on democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela. It’s never the wrong time to do the right thing.

Cuba’s coup de grâce in Venezuela

Wed, 06 Mar 2013 11:41:21 -0500

For two long years, Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez’s Cuban medical team perpetrated a colossal deception of the Venezuelan people and the world about his bout with terminal cancer. According to knowledgeable sources, Cuban doctors botched the initial treatment that doomed Chavez, manipulated his anxiety and paranoia so he would settle for substandard medical care in Havana, and pushed him back on to the campaign trail despite the impact on his health.

Quite plainly, the Cuban regime traded Chávez’s life for its own survival – knowing that its bankrupt economy depends on Venezuelan generosity. Unfortunately, the Cubans are not done administering to Venezuela – putting that country’s constitution under the knife.

Article 233 of that charter says, in part, “When an elected president becomes permanently unavailable to serve prior to his inauguration, a new election by universal suffrage and direct ballot shall be held within 30 consecutive days. Pending election and inauguration of the new president, the president of the National Assembly shall take charge of the presidency of the Republic.” [Emphasis added]

[pullquote]

Today, Chávez is as “permanently unavailable to serve” as president of Venezuela as anyone can be. He was out of the country and unable to take the oath of office on Jan. 10, when his new term should have commenced; the cronies on his supreme court pushed back his inauguration to a time convenient to the president. So, he was never inaugurated and never will be. A plain reading of Article 233 makes National Assembly chief Diosdado Cabello the custodian of the presidency until new elections can be held. But Havana does not like Cabello, and the feeling is mutual.

Havana favors Nicolas Maduro, whom Chávez named late last year as vice president. If Chávez had taken the oath of office and initiated his new term, Maduro might have some claim to succession. However, Chávez’s term was never inaugurated, so there is no mandate for Maduro to claim. Indeed, the moment Chávez died, Maduro became no one’s vice president.

The Cubans have no choice but to run the risk of awakening Venezuelan nationalism. Not only did they essentially sequester another country’s president for the last 90 days, they even summoned Venezuelan ministers to Havana to hold imaginary cabinet meetings. In recent weeks, university students have protested Cuban interference in Venezuela’s internal affairs. Nationalistic military officers – most of whom favor the veteran Cabello and were trained to oppose Cuban communism – have grumbled about Havana’s heavy-handed stage-managing of a succession that favors Havana’s selfish interests.

According to sources in Venezuela, the country’s security forces are divided – with most of the military muscle lining up behind Cabello. However, with 30,000 Cubans – including disciplined mobile hit squads – roaming the streets and monitoring the movements of every Venezuelan military officer, Havana will put up a fight. If that sparks a civil war in which thousands of Venezuelans might die, so be it.

After years of ignoring Chávez’s authoritarianism, the international community might finally muster the courage to speak up to prevent bloodshed. The solution appears to be fairly straightforward: a constitutional succession and new elections to choose a president.

If Maduro wants to be president and defender of the Venezuelan Constitution, he can play by the rules and compete for the job. Of course, before the democratic opposition hits the campaign trail yet again, they are insisting on simple but profound reforms to ensure a level playing field and a fair process in which all the votes are counted. These concepts might be alien to a bunch of thugs from Cuba, but Venezuelans have gotten fairly used to elections of one sort or another.

If Havana gets its way on interpreting the Venezuelan Constitution in a manner that hands power to its puppet, who can object when Cuba vetoes new elections? And if new elections are held, does anyone expect the Castro brothers to risk holding a freer or fairer process?

In recent months, the U.S. State Department has found itself in the awkward position of favoring Havana’s hand-picked candidate, holding secret talks with Maduro beginning last November aimed at normalizing bilateral relations. Yesterday, Maduro rewarded the naïveté of U.S. diplomats by expelling two military officers assigned to the U.S. Embassy for allegedly destabilizing Venezuela; he also suggested that Chávez might have been poisoned.

As of this morning, it is not too late for Washington to be as effective as Havana when it comes to defending our values and interests. By this afternoon, the Cubans’ coup de grâce against Venezuela’s constitution may be irreversible.

Honduran Leader's Secret Pact with Hugo Chávez

Tue, 31 May 2011 11:46:06 -0400

Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez is moving to consolidate his hold on Honduras, after orchestrating the return last Saturday of his puppet, Manuel Zelaya. Officials in Chávez’s inner circle are wondering how their cash-strapped government can finance yet another “revolutionary” government in Central America. What they fail to realize is that Chávez’s backup plan is to sow chaos in Honduras so it is hospitable territory for his partners in the illegal drug trade and a headache for the United States and Mexico.

Sources within the Venezuelan foreign ministry are delighted that Honduran President Porfirio “Pepe” Lobo was so quick to pledge his loyalty to Chávez and the same radical reforms that got Zelaya deposed in 2009.

Lobo’s surrender came at a secret meeting in mid-May with Venezuelan envoy Ariel Vargas, held far from the presidential palace at Lobo’s suburban home northeast of the capital. According to sources inside the Venezuelan government, Lobo posed as a fervent revolutionary and begged for Chávez’s patience as he maneuvered around domestic opposition to fundamental constitutional reforms that will allow the people to sweep aside the old order. Lobo suggested to Vargas that he needed help in neutralizing opposition within his own Nationalist Party and the Catholic Church.

Lobo explained a delicate political balance in the country where he could only count on the military for support; officials in Caracas interpreted this as an invitation for Chávez to buy the military’s loyalty to bolster Lobo’s ability to challenge the entrenched power structure. Lobo cautioned that he would lose the military’s backing if he were to label Zelaya’s ouster a coup d'état or call for the punishment of those involved. Indeed, Lobo emphasized this point by joking that if he were to take these particular steps Chávez should be prepared to offer him political exile.

Venezuelan diplomats familiar with Lobo’s offer agreed that the most appealing part of his proposed pact is that they would no longer have to rely on the mercurial Zelaya, whom they have come to regard as a clown and a pest. Chávez will let Lobo believe that they are partners, but the Venezuelan will never accept the rightist Nationalist Party president as an instrument of radical change. Instead, Caracas already has begun to pour millions in support to the National Front of Popular Resistance (FNRP), which will soon be accredited as a political party as part of the “national reconciliation” deal imposed by Chávez. By fabricating a well-financed rival to Honduras’ two traditional political parties, Chávez is convinced that he can rout the opposition and install minority governments to push through drastic economic and social changes.

Hondurans know that Chávez’s real interest in their country is its ideal location for trafficking drugs from South America to markets in the north. For example, the Chávez regime provides indispensable logistical support to the Mexican Sinaloa cartel. By abetting this poisonous trade, Chávez is waging asymmetrical warfare against two political enemies: Mexico (whose president, Felipe Calderón, was elected on an anti-Chávez campaign) and the United States.

Those drug trafficking routes are also attractive to terrorist groups; according to published reports the same Hezbollah operatives who are offered refuge and training in Venezuela have sought advice from Mexican drug cartels on how to cross the U.S. border undetected.

For Chávez, Honduras is a win-win-win proposition. If he manages to install a friendly government, he will have a malleable partner who will join the conspiracy against the United States. If his machinations merely sow political chaos and social mayhem, his allies in the illegal drug trade will prosper. And, in either case, saving Honduras will require heavy lifting and substantial support by the United States.

Not very long ago, Hondurans were united in the pride at having used their constitution to thwart Zelaya from imposing a Chavista agenda on their small nation. In the intervening months, Chávez has imposed his will, using petrodollars to stir up violent strikes and wear down his opponents. As in other countries that find themselves pulled into Chávez’s orbit, his work is made easier by cynical politicians who think they can out maneuver him by making secret, self-serving bargains.

Lobo would be wise to remember the admonition of President John F. Kennedy, who said in a less remembered portion of his famous inaugural address 50 years ago, “those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.” Then again, in light of his alliances with drug traffickers and terrorists, Hugo Chávez is on his way to learning a similar lesson.

Roger F. Noriega was Ambassador to the Organization of American States from 2001-2003 and Assistant Secretary of State from 2003-2005. He is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and managing director of Vision Americas LLC, which represents U.S. and foreign clients.

Brazil is in a Class By Itself

Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:11:52 -0400

As President Obama travels to Brazil, many profiles on that South American nation will lump it in with the so-called “BRIC” countries – “Brazil, Russia, India, and China”. That moniker was conceived as compliment, associating Brazil with dynamic and booming economies.

Today, Brazil deserves to be considered on its own terms, as a much more secure destination for capital, a healthy multi-ethnic democracy, and a neighbor whose leaders may be prepared to set aside the zero-sum formulas of the past and seek a genuine partnership with the United States. On that basis, deft and sustained engagement by President Obama can push our political and economic relations into a higher orbit.

Why does Brazil compare favorably to its BRIC brothers? India is a democracy that is a high-tech powerhouse. China is a giant with a voracious appetite for raw materials, fossil fuels, and consumer goods but it makes no pretense of political openness. Russia is counting too heavily on petroleum exports, is hardly democratic, and is a risky destination for foreign investment. On the other hand, Brazil has strong democratic institutions and has elected a third president committed to responsible macroeconomic policies. Indeed, Brazil’s programs to give the poorest of its people the tools to share in economic growth has provided a stout defense of democratic populism at a time when populist winds are blowing elsewhere in the region.

As a result, Brazil is proving to be much more attractive to foreign capital than the others. It is a substantially lower-risk, while being at least as interesting from a growth and development perspective. We predict that international capital markets will begin to differentiate Brazil from the other BRIC markets and allocate much more investment to ripe opportunities in that South American economy. In short, they will begin to see that Brazil deserves to be its own “vertical,” in a category of its own.

Risk and growth perceptions across nations can be quite dramatically different depending on where the observer is located. In the 1980’s and 1990’s, Brazil and Argentina were often considered the same from the perspective of an outside investor. Situations arising in one of them affected the other and vice-versa. It took Argentina’s debt default in 2001 for the world finally to realize the magnitude of the difference in risk between Brazil and Argentina. Today, Brazil is one of the leading global emerging markets and Argentina is in a lesser category, a so-called frontier market. It is merely a matter of time before that similar separation will happen to Brazil vis-à-vis China, India, and Russia.

Brazil’s democracy is flourishing and stable. Voting is mandatory for persons 16 years of age or older. There are multiple political parties, from across the political spectrum. Presidents (and officials on the federal and state level) are elected by direct popular vote, after vigorous, open campaigns.

Recently Brazil elected its first woman president – Dilma Roussef, a 62-year old economist, twice divorced and a cancer survivor. Each vote – registered on state-of-the-art touch-screen ballot – counts the same, regardless of whether it is cast in cosmopolitan São Paulo or the Amazon region. The election results were available in real-time and finalized in a few hours. That’s not something you will see in most countries, least of all China or Russia.

Moreover, Brazil has freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of Internet access and usage. According to the International Budget Partnership, Brazil scores a 74 in transparency of public finances (close to the United States at 82). China is one of the lowest-scoring countries at 14. The difference could not be any clearer.

Unlike India, Brazil has few internal divisions or infighting among ethnic groups. By comparison, Brazil is “boring” in all the right ways: one language, one culture, spread across an immense territory sharing borders with 10 friendly neighbors. India has more than 14 different official languages. Brazil does not have nuclear weapons and cannot develop them according to its constitution. Brazil does not have aggressive neighbors. Brazil has one unified law system; India has three, one for Christians, another for Hindus, a third for Muslims. When it comes to markets, India has 22 stock or futures exchanges; Brazil does fine with just one.

Brazil has a much more diversified economy than Russia. Less-informed popular commentators still perceive Brazil as a “natural resources play”; however, oil and mining are only five percent of the economy. Brazil’s internal consumer market comprises 60 percent of its economy, similar to that of the United States. Unlike Russia, Brazil has an independent, albeit slow, legal system, with a strong respect for property rights. Last, Russia’s population is declining, while Brazil’s is growing at a pace expected to continue at least until 2045.

As the United States recognizes the advantages of enhancing its trade and economic relationships with Brazil, that new partnership linking our economy with a booming neighbor will become another factor that sets Brazil apart from China, India, and Russia. Investors who move quickly to capitalize on that opportunity will share in the substantial benefits. And so will partners in the United States.

Noriega was Ambassador to the Organization of American States from 2001-2003 and Assistant Secretary of State from 2003-2005; he is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and managing director of Vision Americas LLC, which represents U.S. and foreign clients, rnoriega@aei.org. Fogassa is the managing partner of Hedgefort Capital Management, a registered investment adviser, mf@hedgefort.com.

What Obama Must Do On His First Official Trip to Latin America

Fri, 18 Mar 2011 08:54:34 -0400

“Eighty percent of success is showing up,” said Woody Allen. President Obama’s upcoming trip to Latin America, which outside of a trip to Mexico will be the first visit of his life, could jumpstart a policy that has left observers here and in the region wondering where he’s been.

After pledging a policy of dialogue and partnership, our friends are still waiting for either – as the administration has failed to offer any novel initiative to advance our common interests. Our foes are watching, too. A passive policy toward Venezuela has left strongman Hugo Chávez pressing forward on an audacious anti-U.S. agenda, including offering Iran and narcotraffickers a safe haven for their dangerous criminal activities.

When the president was first elected, nations in the region welcomed the fresh approach favored by Obama – that Washington should forge a policy with the region, not for the region. He would not impose an agenda but shape a common vision with our neighbors.

Unfortunately, the president’s Latin America team has failed to follow through with any purposeful dialogue. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has gamely traveled, more than any of her predecessors, to Latin America but her regional advisors have failed to formulate a single concrete initiative with any one of the 34 countries or with the region as a whole.

Instead, Venezuela has used its petrodollars to undermine the Organization of American States and has created several rival bodies that consciously exclude the United States. Most regional leaders are not interested in Chávez’s populist agenda, but they are unwilling to propose a rival vision when the United States seems so disinterested.

On the bilateral front, relations with key countries like Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia have taken a decided turn for the worse in the last two years. President Bush – not a universally beloved figure in Latin America – managed to personally forge historically productive ties with leaders of those three countries.

Without the ballast of presidential engagement, Brazilian diplomats nearly derailed the U.S. push for Iran sanctions last year. Mexican President Felipe Calderón arrived in Washington excoriating U.S. diplomacy and anti-drug cooperation. Political appointees in the State Department have down-graded relations with Colombia, a key anti-drug ally and democratic bulwark in South America; and, thus far Obama has been unwilling to spend political capital to advance a trade agreement with that country (and another with Panama). Our friends are left thinking that they are on their own.

The perceived lack of interest by the United States also sends a message to Chávez and like-minded leaders that they can abet corruption, illicit drug trafficking, Iranian adventurism and terrorism with impunity. Several countries have blatantly refused to cooperate with U.S. anti-drug efforts, and Chávez has become a pivotal partner with narcotraffickers from Mexico and the Caribbean Basin to West Africa and Europe.

Today, Iran uses its alliance with Venezuela to work around U.N. and U.S. financial sanctions, mine uranium, tap nuclear technology and sow its terrorist network. In the absence of any recognition of the problem, let alone an effective response from Washington, Iran has expanded its influence and activities in Ecuador, Argentina, Bolivia, and Central America.

The engagement vacuum has had global consequences. China and Russia used to tread lightly as they foraged for raw materials or customers for their arms in the Americas. Today, due to provocative U.S. complacency, Beijing is moving slowly but surely to displace the United States as a customer for South American oil. And both nations are using Venezuela as platform to funnel weapons to Iran and terrorist groups and to offer surreptitious support to Iran’s rogue nuclear program.

President Obama can get in the game by renewing his commitment to constructive relations with democratic leaders from across the political spectrum. Brazil, Chile and El Salvador (where the president’s tour will take him) are very different countries. However, each of these countries are governed by elected leaders who know that a mix of free markets, democracy, and the rule of law is the only sustainable solution to poverty.

In addition, the president should not be shy about saying to responsible leaders that genuine partnership means confronting common threats as a community. To do that, he must use his trip to issue a wake-up call to his team that the Americas are important and that growing threats on our doorstep can no longer be ignored.

U.S. Must Prepare for a World Without Hugo Chavez

Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:09:08 -0400

It is natural that rumors are swirling about the health of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, because he refuses to admit the truth about his grave and deteriorating condition.

Even if the cancer-ridden Chavez lives long enough to be reelected in October 2012, it is unlikely that he will complete a six-year term, giving the unified democratic opposition a better than ever chance to win power. In any case, U.S. policymakers must kick-start a Latin America policy to be prepared to clean up the toxic waste left by 14 years of Chavez’s anti-American activism.

Perhaps it is Chavez’s wish to leave behind a country that will be difficult to govern. Aggrieved and angry loyalists have been told that they must fight their neighbors to preserve the invisible achievements of the revolution. Democratic institutions and the military have been placed at the service of a political party, not the country.

The private economy has been systematically dismantled, with the economic disaster papered over by petro-dollars and quickie loans from China. The state-owned oil company is a wounded giant, with foreign companies making enormous profits at its expense. Millions of poor Venezuelans remain reliant on corrupted government programs. The people of Caracas have been forced to plan their lives around rampant crime.

In spite of everything, leaders of Venezuela’s democratic opposition are lining up to challenge Chavez and the host of problems his misrule has generated. People forget that the opposition won a majority of the vote in 2010 congressional elections. They appear to be unified now, and a primary next February should consolidate that unity. A candidate who can appeal to Venezuela’s vast working class majority in a credible way has a good chance of winning in the presidency very soon.

These democrats do not want or need foreign support. But they deserve international solidarity. Friends of the Venezuelan people must recognize this courageous democratic movement, reject any attempt at repression, and insist that the results of elections be respected. There should be no soft-landing for Chavez and his corrupt cronies.

It is good news that President Obama has chosen an experienced diplomat, Roberta Jacobson, to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs. Because Ms. Jacobson already holds that post on an interim basis today, she is in a position even before the Senate considers her nomination to take effective steps to respond to a long list of serious challenges.

Any effort to reboot U.S. policy must begin with the acknowledgement that the passive posture of ignoring Chavez has failed miserably – suggesting indifference or ignorance that has demoralized our friends and emboldened the rest. With Chavez fading, we need to defuse the threats he will leave behind and take advantage of the opportunities created as he leaves the stage.

We should start by reassuring our friends in the region that we want to build strong partnerships to advance our mutual prosperity and security. The White House can start by presenting for Congressional approval the free trade agreement with Colombia – once our best friend and ally in the region that has been neglected in recent years.

We must send a signal to China that we do care if they supplant us as a customer for Venezuelan oil, particularly as U.S. companies are swindled out of their investments there. We should tell the Russians that we do care that they are selling $9 billion of arms and manufacturing small arms in our neighborhood – particularly as Russian weapons are transshipped to Colombian guerrillas, Mexican narcotraffickers, and Middle Eastern terrorists.

We must use vigorous law enforcement measures to dismantle the narco-state that Chavez has built to shovel cocaine to our shores. Chavez’s narco-generals, who are desperate to hold on to power in Venezuela, should soon face justice here or in a new Venezuela.

The alternative to neglect is not confrontation. We can start by sharing information with our neighbors showing the Chavez regime’s dangerous complicity with narco-traffickers, illegal support for Iran's nuclear program (and mining of uranium and other strategic minerals), and support for a Hezbollah network in Venezuela and beyond. We can work with our regional allies to clean up this mess, but we can no longer evade these threats.

Although we should never seek to create enemies, we should have the good sense to recognize them where they exist. President Obama’s first Latin America chief adopted a conscious policy of placating our enemies and ignoring our friends. Like Chavez, that backwards policy is a thing of the past. It’s a simple proposition: Let’s work attentively with our friends and deal effectively with our foes.

Roger F. Noriega was Ambassador to the Organization of American States from 2001-2003 and Assistant Secretary of State from 2003-2005. He is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and managing director of Vision Americas LLC, which represents U.S. and foreign clients, and contributes to www.interamericansecuritywatch.com.

Hugo Chavez's Big Lie

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 12:04:20 -0500

The international medical team treating Venezuela’s cancer-ridden leader Hugo Chávez believe that, absent a radical change in his condition, he is not likely to survive more than six months. According to sources that have provided me privileged information and documents from within the Venezuelan regime for many months, recent tests show that Chávez’s cancer is accelerating and his chances of surviving until the October 2012 presidential elections are worsening.

This 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. Meanwhile, Washington policy makers appear unprepared to deal with the chaos that will ensue as the most corrupt members of the Chávez regime plot to retain power at all costs and as the state-run economy collapses.

Chávez wants his people to believe that he was “cured” months ago and that recent visits to Cuba have been to confirm his miraculous recovery. In fact, his physical deterioration is advancing faster than doctors had expected.

Despite this grave situation, Chávez has insisted on receiving only light doses of chemotherapy to avoid long absences from the political stage during this precarious period. Under his desperate plan, Chávez’s team will announce “short vacations” and “rest breaks,” during which he really will be receiving treatment at a specialized medical facility that has been installed recently at the presidential retreat on the island of La Orchila.

These latest revelations are consistent with months of reporting from inside sources. What began as an aggressive prostate cancer more than a year ago had spread to his lymphatic system, colon and bones even before Chávez agreed to seek treatment.

His body’s reaction to the first two rounds of chemo was so debilitating that he only received the third round during his most recent visit to Cuba. (On the two prior occasions when he was to undergo treatment, his medical team decided that his red cell count was too low and his condition so weak that chemotherapy would do more harm than good.)

Doctors believe that Chávez’s fateful decision to demand weaker doses of chemo so he can try to continue his public duties to be suicidal, but they have no choice but to go along with this desperate scheme. To make matters worse, the very painful radiological treatment of cancerous cells in his bones has yet to begin.

Chávez’s second dangerous decision has been to continue to deceive the Venezuelan people about his grave condition. His political advisors are worried that, in addition to hastening his own death, he will be leaving his successor with the impossible task of explaining why Chavista leaders deliberately deceived party loyalists. They believe that Chávez’s willful dishonesty will shatter the bond with his base and undermine their desperate bid to hold on to power just as they face an invigorated, unified opposition.

Chávez and his insiders, who have had months of advance-notice of the impending crisis, have concluded that foreign minister Nicolas Maduro has the best chance of appealing to their base as a substitute presidential candidate. Meanwhile, notorious Venezuelan narco-generals are determined to preserve their safe-haven even if it means scuttling elections.

U.S. diplomats have consciously averted attention from Venezuela for years to avoid having to confront the growing threat posed by a decade of Chávez’s conspiring with our enemies and rivals. According to sources, U.S. officials knew of Chávez’s cancer six months before his public admission, and they now know that he is not expected to stand for election next October.

A U.S. inter-agency task force is required to plan for the chaos that might ensue as Chavez loyalists and democratic leaders jockey for power. Diplomats must move quietly but quickly to coordinate a regional response to Chávez’s death that will press for a genuine democratic transition, and not the succession Chavistas have in mind.

After Chávez exits the stage, regional leaders should be mobilized to insist that the regime and its foreign backers respect the results free, fair, and internationally monitored elections in October. The inter-American community should pledge to assist the rehabilitation of the economy and the restoration of the rule of law.

There are some crucial issues where only leadership from Washington will suffice. For example, Venezuelan narco-generals must be isolated so they cannot thwart a peaceful transition, and those military officers loyal to the constitution must be bolstered. Havana, Beijing, Moscow, and Teheran must be put on notice to step aside as Venezuelans reclaim their future. And, U.S. planners must be prepared to deal with the short-term impact of unrest in a country where we import about 10 percent of our oil.

Washington also must develop a long-term plan to help Venezuelans clean up the toxic waste of terrorists, narcotraffickers, corruption, and Cuban agents that Chávez will leave behind.

Roger F. Noriega was Ambassador to the Organization of American States from 2001-03 and Assistant Secretary of State from 2003-05. He is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and managing director of Vision Americas LLC, which represents U.S. and foreign clients, and he contributes to www.interamericansecuritywatch.com.

Hugo Chávez’s Scary Anti-American Campaign Takes to the Skies and Stops Off In Teheran

Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:34:02 -0400

The Obama administration’s recent announcement of targeted sanctions against Venezuela’s state-owned oil company for illicit dealings with Iran is a hopeful sign that the executive branch is heeding warnings about Hugo Chávez’s reckless support for Iran’s strategy to sustain its illegal nuclear program and to sow terrorism on the U.S. doorstep. If U.S. authorities are really getting serious about confronting this threat they should focus attention on Conviasa, Chávez’s government-run airline that ferries terrorists and weapons to our own neighborhood.

There is much to investigate. It is widely-known that Conviasa operates regular flights between Caracas, Teheran, and Damascus. The flight to Iran was inaugurated in 2004, and a stop in Beirut will be added soon.

That a South American airline would choose such destinations for routine service may seem peculiar, but it is a logical part of Chávez’s anti-American campaign and provocative alliances with Iran, Syria, Libya, and a host of Middle Eastern terrorist groups.

We can only guess who and what are aboard these flights, because passengers and cargo remain in the shadows. Upon arrival in Caracas, according to eye-witnesses, passengers are not subject to immigration controls, and many pass through VIP facilities used by Chavez and visiting dignitaries. Cargo is routinely handled by employees of the Iranian embassy and is not subject to customs inspection.

Citing Western intelligence reports, La Stampa of Italy reports that the bulk of the passengers are made up of intelligence officials and military officers. It also said the flights are designed to move sensitive military matériel between Venezuela, Iran, and Syria, such as components for missile systems and spare parts for U.S.-made aircraft.

What we do know about several Conviasa passengers is very troubling, indeed. Abdul Kadir is one of four extremists arrested in June 2007 for plotting to detonate fuel tanks and pipelines at John F. Kennedy International Airport. Kadir was arrested in Trinidad on his way to Venezuela, where he was planning to depart for Iran on the infamous Conviasa flight. These conspirators vowed to “fight it out, kill who you could kill, and go back to Allah,” hoping that a massacre and inferno at JFK would traumatize the United States and devastate its economy. Instead, thanks to the FBI and the U.S. Attorney of the Eastern District of New York, these terrorists are facing U.S. justice.

Another Conviasa “frequent flier” is Mohsen Rabbani, an Iranian “diplomat” wanted for his role in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires. According to U.S. investigators, before his arrest the JFK plotter Kadir met with Rabbani in Iran. Brazilian intelligence officials quoted in a cover story in the prestigious Brazilian publication, Veja, say that Rabbani was in Brazil as recently as last September, where he recruited at least 20 young people in Sao Paulo and nearby states to undergo “religious training” in Iran. Brazilian investigators claim that Rabbani flew from Teheran to Caracas aboard Conviasa – which they have dubbed “Aero-Terror” – and entered Brazil illegally from Venezuela using false identification.

The Conviasa service is not profitable – a secret budget obtained from Venezuela’s Ministry of Industry and Mines put the losses at $30 million from 2007-09 – but the flights serve other purposes. For example, according to documents obtained from sources within the Venezuelan government, Hezbollah recruits from throughout South America travel to Iran on Conviasa.

Last September, several persons of Lebanese background, carrying Venezuelan passports, and claiming to be associated with Hezbollah, were detained in Beirut with 50 kilos of cocaine; authorities report that these smugglers flew Conviasa from Caracas to Damascus and were arrested when they arrived in Lebanon.

Also, according to sources, Conviasa flights carry materials from Teheran to support several clandestine Iranian construction projects in Venezuela.

It is clear that the Conviasa flight is a critical tool for Iran and Venezuela and their allies among terrorists and drug traffickers. And the administration has the authority to act now to pre-empt this growing menace. Under Executive Order 13324, either the Departments of State or Treasury can designate Conviasa as an entity supporting terrorism through its services to suspect individuals. Preventing Conviasa from using dollar-denominated transactions would effectively ground “Aero-Terror;” most international transactions are conducted in U.S. dollars, and most responsible foreign banks would never risk their broader access to the U.S. financial system over a small company like Conviasa.

The success of U.S. counter-terrorism policy rests in knocking down threats and foiling plots before they are hatched. Iran has demonstrated that it has the will to bring its brand of terror to the Western Hemisphere, and Hugo Chavez is offering the way. There is no excuse for inaction.

Without Chavez, Venezuelans May Have a Future

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 08:09:21 -0400

The struggle for the future of Venezuela after Hugo Chávez may already have begun. But, millions of Venezuelans have been holding their next breath wondering whether Chávez is drawing his last. Silent video and still photos released from Cuba late Tuesday are not terribly convincing.

Whatever happens to the ailing leader, the fact remains that Chávez’s regime has outlived its viability, and no Venezuelan should waste a moment pretending that they will mourn its passing.

Leaks from nervous aides who have been at Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez’s bedside in Cuba since June 10 reveal doubts about whether he will return to the helm in time to head-off a violent power struggle within his regime. Vying for power in Caracas are Cuban-trained ideologues that hold key posts today, corrupt cronies desperate to keep their stolen fortunes, and narco-generals worried that their crimes will be exposed once the regime disintegrates.

If these groups clash, Venezuela will likely descend into chaos. If they form an unholy alliance, they would probably agree to scuttle the presidential elections that are scheduled for next year.

Making matters worse, the opposition has left the Venezuelan people guessing whether democratic politicians are capable of competing for the country’s future if the regime begins to unravel.

The opposition’s reticence may be due to the fear that Chávez is lying low to draw rivals out in to the open. However, Chávez’s confidants in Cuba have been genuinely worried about Venezuela’s governability and they are anxious to reassure ardent followers and the military that their leader will recover fully. It is telling that the loquacious Chávez is unable to place a simple phone call or to offer a reassuring word in the recent video.

Like most dictators, Chávez couldn’t care less about a transition plan or the fate of his followers. His refusal to relinquish management of the government to a successor has left some of the normal functions of government paralyzed. There are reports that some corrupt military officers are scurrying out of the country on unscheduled vacations. Chavistas are disheartened, and millions of Venezuelans who have been abused by the regime are ready to settle scores.

If Chávez does not return to his duties soon, or ever, the ideologues, cronies, and criminals on his team may begin a shoving match. In the last several years, Chávez has replaced notoriously corrupt aides who were once his top echelon (Diosdado Cabello, Jessie Chacon, Jose Vicente Rangel, et al) with dull, Cuban-trained ideologues like Vice President Elias Jaua. Jaua and his team are distrusted by the narco-generals, who may throw in with Cabello and company (who have looted tens-of-billions from the treasury) to try to arrange a soft landing for their criminal regime. One thing these groups will agree on is that they cannot risk the accountability that would come with elections. Even if Chávez were to return, his absence has done significant damage that would leave him limping toward presidential elections next year.

Insecurity may explain the silence of most Chavista leaders. But the lack of any thoughtful message from the opposition setting the stage for a “transition moment” is difficult to understand. Now is the time when an attentive public is open to messages about recovering the Venezuela’s democratic republic; competing for the future through free and fair elections; recovering trust between the people and their leaders; rebuilding an inclusive, healthy economy; defending national sovereignty; dismantling the repressive apparatus and restoring the rule of law; and bringing the Venezuelan nation back together.

Opposition leaders should be carrying this sort of agenda to every town, website, and Twitter account in the country and beyond. And they should be dispatching teams to communicate with the international community about their vision for the future. Some nervous Chavistas may snarl at their rivals offering a hopeful alternative, but the vast majority of Venezuelans will surely welcome a bit of clarity about what the future holds for them. Indeed, the only people who should fear such message are the many criminals, terrorists, and client states that have feasted at the expense of the Venezuelan people for the last decade of Chavismo.

If Chávez recovers, he can join the debate. If he does not, everyone will know that the same democrats who won a majority of the votes in the National Assembly elections last September are ready to stand up to claim their country’s future.

Every decent government – including the democracies of the Americas and particularly the United States – should make it clear that they will stand with them.

Is Mexico Our Ally or Our Enemy?

Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:48:08 -0400

Former Mexican president Vicente Fox’s dramatic declaration last Friday that his nation should seek a truce with vicious narco-trafficking gangs draws attention to a critical issue as Mexicans consider what kind of country they want to leave their children.

Fox’s suggestion also should serve as a wake-up call to our country that we should not take for granted the extraordinary sacrifice of Mexicans who are fighting the same transnational crime syndicates that threaten U.S. security and well-being.

His provocative words may also ensure that Mexico’s 2012 presidential campaign will include a healthy debate on whether its citizens are committed to building a modern, law-abiding society or prefer to tolerate drug corruption that stunts its economic and political growth.

Vicente Fox is no radical. He is the charismatic democrat who led his center-right National Action Party (PAN) to a historic victory in 2000, ousting the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) that had held power for over 70 years. Indeed, at the outset of his mandate, Fox battled the powerful narcotrafficking syndicates that control the transit of cocaine and other illegal drugs through Mexican territory to insatiable consumers in the United States. However, he backed off quickly as he realized that his security forces could not go toe-to-toe with the bloodthirsty criminals.

Before Fox, a succession of PRI governments tolerated or sanctioned truces between local narcotraffickers and local political bosses. In some cases, otherwise respectable state governors chose to prevent rampant violence by striking unsavory deals with criminals. In other jurisdictions, notorious politicians were silent partners with the cartels. Political leaders, police or judges who refused such arrangements risked violence against themselves or their communities – and they could not rely on federal authorities for any help. Fox ended his term insisting that his government would make no deals with narcos, he had to accept the fact that de facto truces kept some measure of peace on the streets even as it corrupted Mexico’s institutions.

Fox’s successor, Felipe Calderón would have none of that. He came into office declaring narcotrafficking a national security threat. And he insists that Mexico cannot thrive as a modern nation unless its laws are applied without fear or favor. The effect of his anti-narco campaign – in which he has deployed military units and federal social agencies to back-up local authorities in drug-ridden communities – has been a blood-letting of staggering proportions.

Although the 35,000 persons killed since he launched his offensive are mostly criminals caught up in gang violence, hundreds of security officials have given their lives and too many innocent civilians have been caught in the cross-fire. Moreover, bloody reprisals and turf wars have spread into Mexico City and affluent communities, and splintered gangs have taken up new violent criminal enterprises that menace millions of Mexicans. Fox’s desperate suggestion of an open truce comes on the heels of a casino bombing last week that claimed 52 lives in the well-off northern city of Monterrey.

It is fair to say that Calderón’s offensive should have been preceded by greater preparation by security forces and more robust social development programs to fortify communities against lawlessness. Indeed, launching a frontal assault has provoked a vicious backlash whose toll could not have been predicted. And, only now is Mexico beginning to build the professional police forces and effective courts that can gradually reduce drug criminality to manageable proportions.

Calderón’s critics tend to ignore altogether the corrosive effects of the past policy of tolerance and truces on Mexico’s institutions and social fabric. It is healthy for Mexicans to decide whether or how they want Calderón’s successor to continue his policy of imposing the rule of law, because such a battle requires the commitment of a nation, not only its president.

American politicians are too quick to criticize Mexico, neglecting the fact that it is our most important ally in the drug war and that its government and people are carrying more than their fair share of the burden piled high by U.S. drug abuse.

Although we have provided $1 billion in material support and training in the last five years, it is not enough. Additional funding and political solidarity – from Republicans and Democrats alike – are essential to reassuring beleaguered Mexicans that we will accept our shared responsibility.

If Mexicans elect a leader who sees narcotrafficking as the United States’ problem, that nation, in the long run, will pay a very dear price. But, so will ours. If we consider that possibility we might then demand that our leaders do more – alongside Mexico – to confront a common threat.

Ecuador's decision to grant Assange asylum is a bold act of hypocrisy

Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:32:15 -0400

Ecuadorean president Rafael Correa granted Wikileaker Julian Assange political asylum Thursday in a bid to whitewash his own image as an oppressor of free speech. The theatrical Correa called for a gathering of Latin America’s leftist cadre to confront any backlash, declaring, “No one is going to terrorize us!”

In June, Assange jumped bail in London after exhausting all appeals in British courts in his effort to evade extradition to Sweden, where he faces several separate rape and molestation accusations. He has been holed up in Ecuador’s embassy in London, where, according to published reports, he continues to direct his Wikileaks enterprise.

The British government reacted to Ecuador’s decision today by repeating its obligation to extradite Assange, who has exhausted his appeals in the local courts and is now a fugitive. Britain’s Foreign Office said it would continue to seek a “negotiated solution,” but it alluded to the laws governing diplomatic property. Ecuadorean authorities feigned outrage at the suggestion that British authorities might violate the immunity of their embassy in London.

Here’s were the hypocrisy kicks in. Ecuador – a country with one of region’s most politicized and corrupt judicial systems – claims that Assange can not find justice in the British, Swedish or US courts.

Ecuador wraps itself in the rule of law in defending Assange, while the Correa regime has mounted a relentless assault on the country’s democratic institutions and independent courts since he took power in 2007. Ecuador is clearly using the Assange case as a cudgel against the United States, although the man has never been charged in U.S. courts. And Ecuador pretends to be a promoter of global free speech by protecting the Wikileaks founder, while Correa has used his own country’s courts, regulators and police to harass what’s left of Ecuador’s independent media.

By the time Assange entered the Ecuadorean embassy, Correa had already come under intense international criticism for his attacks on free. One of his first assaults came in 2008, when he sent armed police to occupy two popular television stations (as well as 200 other companies) belonging to the Grupo Isaias, which he considers a political foe.

Another case involved a personal lawsuit brought by Correa last year against the owners and editor of the Guayaquil newspaper, El Universo, over a critical column. Correa’s kangaroo courts faithfully delivered a $40 million judgment in his favor, in an opinion that many suspect was drafted by the president’s own legal counsel. [ http://www.cpj.org/2012/02/el-universo-sentence-a-dark-precedent-for-free-pre.php ]

Even since the Assange circus brought Correa’s sorry record under scrutiny, on July 28, his government announced that it would no longer issue lucrative publishing contracts to “mercantilist” newspapers and television stations. Milton Coleman, president of the Inter-American Press Association (IAPA) and senior editor of The Washington Post, observed that such policies “to benefit some media and punish others” violate of regional norms protecting independent journalism. The IAPA also has expressed great concern that the Correa regime has threatened to shut down the Andean Foundation for the Observation and Study of Media (Fundamedios), which has lodged formal complaints before the regional authorities regarding abuses of press freedom.

In an even more brazen attack launched late last month, government labor regulators raided the Quito offices of the venerable Vanguardia magazine – seizing computers and other property. The magazine’s owner characterized the action as a “political reprisal.” Reporters Without Borders noted that the raid effectively silenced the weekly publication known for its investigative reporting, noting in a statement, “The list of closed or embargoed media has been growing….”

To his immense credit, a stalwart liberal in the U.S. Senate, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, has been a vocal critic of Correa’s campaign to “silence his critics” in the media and to hamper the work of the region’s watchdog on freedom of expression. “Personal attacks and inflammatory charges by top officials weaken democratic discourse and have no place in a country with a long commitment to civil liberties,” Leahy said in a statement to the Senate earlier this month.

By strutting on the world stage as an advocate for Assange, Correa hopes to launder his image as a repressive autocrat. By manufacturing a confrontation with Britain and the United States, he is preening to replace the cancer-stricken leader of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, as the leader of Latin America’s incorrigible left.

The sad fact is that behind this whole affair are two misfit hypocrites hiding their sordid and self-serving agendas. Justice will be done if they are made to answer for their abuses.

Roger Noriega held senior positions in the State Department in the administration of President George W. Bush (2001-05) and is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. His firm, Vision Americas LLC represents U.S. and foreign clients.

Ecuadorean president’s empathy for a dictator

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:02:13 -0400

The characteristically pompous announcement last week by Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa that he would boycott the upcoming Summit of the Americas to protest the continued exclusion of the Cuban dictatorship reveals his vain hope of inheriting the mantle of the dying Venezuelan caudillo Hugo Chávez.

Since assuming office in 2007, Correa has followed Chávez’s playbook, which was inspired by the master tyrant, Fidel Castro. Former Washington Post reporter Douglas Farah has documented Correa’s corrupt roots, including the facts that his campaign took funds from the leftist Colombian narcoguerrillas and his closest advisors and crony judges have abetted drug trafficking. Such narco-corruption is a risky but lucrative tactic to raise hundreds of millions in cash, but it also requires a systematic attack on the rule of law.

In Ecuador, Correa is the law. He has gradually suffocated independent branches of government – notably the Congress and the courts – and concentrated power in his hands. His critics contend that he has resorted to blatant bribery to maintain control of the Congress. And a new supreme court has been packed with judges who are loyal to him and ready to do his bidding.

Like Chávez, Correa claims that a majority of the Ecuadorean voters have ratified his agenda – including a series of radical constitutional reforms. Just last May, two measures granting the president extraordinary powers to regulate the media and appoint judges were declared approved by Correa’s electoral authorities under very suspicious circumstances.

Unfortunately, much of this corruption and abuse of power has been masked by Ecuador’s oil wealth, with many of the nation’s poor satisfied by economic conditions buoyed by international oil prices.

Indeed, Correa’s many excesses had been neglected by the international community – until he took his war on the independent media to absurd heights. And, of course, his attack on the press has proven to be much more provocative to the world’s editorial boards than his systematic mugging of Ecuador’s rule of law and separation of powers.

At issue is Correa’s outlandish personal lawsuit against the venerable newspaper El Universo for publishing an opinion piece in which Emilio Palacio referred to Correa as a “dictator” and accused him of putting innocent lives at risk in suppressing a September 2010 police rebellion.

One of Correa’s crony judges made quick work of the 5,000-page case file, taking just two days to render a 60-page ruling that awarded Correa $40 million in damages against Palacio and the paper’s directors and sentencing them each to three years in jail. As expected, the sentence was upheld in February by Correa’s own National Court of Justice, after which Palacio and one of the directors sought political asylum outside their country.

After weeks of criticism, Correa pardoned the four men. Before the defenders of the free press congratulate themselves, they should remember that the legal precedent and chilling effect prevail.

The publishers of El Universo said they will “continue to fight for the freedom of expression and equal access to justice in Ecuador by appealing to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.” Moreover, Correa continues the relentless judicial assault on the Isaias family, whose three television stations and 200 other companies were expropriated – some at gunpoint – in 2008.

Some have tried to explain Correa’s attack on the media by citing his personal pique. However, as with the caudillos in Venezuela, Bolivia and Argentina, attacks on the media are not tantrums, they are tactics. As they move to put the country’s institutions in a political chokehold, they have to muzzle the independent media. Venezuela’s government has levied exorbitant fines and canceled broadcast licenses. Bolivia’s regime has purchased oficialista newspapers. Argentina’s party has attacked media conglomerates and taken control of newsprint.

It might be argued that Chavismo as an international movement will fade away with Chávez. Correa, who fancies himself an intellectual giant, appears to be rehearsing to be the new leader of the region’s radicals.

It remains to be seen whether he has the guts to play that role.

For example, when word leaked out that Iran was looking to mine uranium in Ecuador, Correa cowered, making the pusillanimous claim that, “This is the first time in my life that I’ve heard that Ecuador has uranium.”

Fortunately for Correa, in Latin America today it does not take courage to defend the Castro dictatorship and to argue that it should be embraced at the regional Summit in Cartagena. For Correa, there is nothing wrong with the Castro regime. That speaks volumes about him and what he has in mind for Ecuador and the rest of Latin America.

Why 2012 is a critical year for the US and Venezuela, the narco-state on our doorstep

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:45:30 -0500

Venezuela’s dictator Hugo Chávez was informed five years ago that his close ally Gen. Henry Rangel Silva – the man whom he recently named Defense Minister – is involved in cocaine smuggling.

Rangel Silva’s appointment to that key security post – coming on the heels of the return of Chávez henchman Diosdado Cabello to senior political posts – indicates that narco-generals are positioning themselves to hold on to power in spite of elections scheduled for October.

Any hope for a democratic transition this year will depend on extraordinary courage of the opposition and increased solidarity from the international community.

An official document from the archives of the Ministry of Defense, disclosed by the Miami newspaper El Nuevo Herald, shows that Chávez was notified on January 10, 2007, of “sufficient evidence linking” Rangel Silva to a November 2005 shipment of 2.2 tons of cocaine.

Rangel Silva’s involvement might have gone undetected, except for the fact that the driver of the truck carrying the contraband was his cousin, Edgar Alfonso Rincón Rangel. Efforts to prosecute Rincón and several senior military officers were apparently derailed suspiciously, suggesting a high-level cover-up.

Rangel Silva’s association with narco-trafficking is well-known. For example, the U.S. government designated him a drug kingpin in 2008, and his cordial ties to Colombian narco-guerrilla leaders were discovered in captured computer files.

The revelation in the El Nuevo Herald article is a document proving that Chávez has played a personal role in hiding the crime for years and promoting the criminal to several senior military posts.

It is no surprise that such official complicity has made Venezuela a critical hub for smuggling cocaine to Central America, Mexico, the United States, Caribbean, West Africa and Europe. This evidence confirms that Chávez has made Venezuela a narco-state.

As expected, military leaders are taking the reins of power as they learn the truth about Chávez's mortal illness. Although civilian Chavistas or most military officers may be able to ride out a transition after their leader’s death, those involved in narco-trafficking have no “Plan B.” They either retain power at all costs or risk ending up in an orange jumpsuit a la Manuel Antonio Noriega.

Cabello’s new role as head of Chávez’s party and the National Assembly is the narcos’ insurance policy. He is a military man who commands the trust of Rangel Silva and the other kingpin soldiers.

A power struggle within the military is inevitable.

Chávez’s 13-year revolution has corrupted all of the country’s civilian institutions. He has promoted military officers based on loyalty and cemented that loyalty by cutting them in on massive corruption.

Nevertheless, on two occasions in recent years, senior officers have insisted that Chávez respect the constitution and independence of the military.

It remains to be seen whether these “institutionalists” will stand by if the narco-generals try to scuttle the election process, especially if Venezuelans take to the streets to prevent such a power grab.

The democratic opposition is unified like never before. And they think they can win power – particularly if Chávez dies or falters.

They are expected to close ranks behind a presidential nominee chosen in a February 12 primary. As the opposition gains momentum – especially if Chávez dies before the October election – Chavista hardliners and the narco-generals may make their move through stepped-up oppression or overt aggression against the democratic process.

Although the opposition is content to fight its own battle, some international solidarity should be expected – particularly if criminal gangsters attempt to deny Venezuelans the right to choose their own leader.

They will have to look for their Latin American brothers to defend the democratic process by rejecting a narco-golpe.

Although Washington appears remarkably passive now in the face of these threatening events, there is some hope that the United States will fall in behind Latin solidarity. Of course, only the United States has the muscle to demand that Chávez’s allies in Moscow, Beijing, Teheran, and Havana let Venezuelans resolve their own affairs.

If Chávez succumbs to cancer as many expect, in the next seven to nine months, a certain degree of chaos will likely ensue.

What remains to be seen is whether Venezuela’s democrats and their shy friends in neighboring countries will rise to the challenge and seek to save their country. If that does not happen, a narco-state will dig in and pose an even greater threat to all concerned.

U.S. law enforcement agencies have led the way in dealing with Chávez’s criminality, which is only part of his asymmetrical threat to our interests and security. However, unless we want to see a bad situation get worse in Venezuela, our entire national security apparatus must step up this challenge.

The breathtaking hypocrisy of Julian Assange, free speech crusader

Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:27:48 -0400

What does it say about the sanctimonious Wikileaks founder Julian Assange that he would seek the protection of an autocratic regime in Ecuador -- a country that is one of world’s worst crusaders against free speech? And, what does Ecuador’s irascible President Rafael Correa have to gain by granting asylum to a man who, in addition to waging a reckless campaign to publish thousands of stolen documents, is wanted on separate rape and molestation charges in Sweden? The two men are such archetypal pariahs that one of the few ways either one of them could damage his reputation is by associating with the other. They were made for each other.

Assange is hiding in Ecuador’s embassy in London as a criminal, not as a Wikileaks activist; by seeking political asylum there he has jumped bail in a bid to evade a Swedish extradition request that already has been upheld by the British supreme court.

Still, there are many who buy into Assange’s self-image as a free speech crusader and journalist. “It is the role of good journalism to take on powerful abusers, and when powerful abusers are taken on there’s always a bad reaction. So we see that controversy, and we believe that is a good thing to engage in,” Assange said in describing his vision for Wikileaks.

Assange’s hypocrisy is breathtaking. He flirted with the option of political asylum in Ecuador about 18 months ago, and he interviewed Correa on Moscow-run "Russia Today" just last month.

Although he once criticized the Obama administration as “a regime that doesn’t believe in the freedom of the press,” Assange failed to challenge Correa on his own notorious campaign against independent journalism, opinion and dissent. Perhaps Assange was sizing up Correa not as a journalist but as an international fugitive.

Assange must know that, since taking office in 2006, Correa has treated the independent media as a political foe that must be vanquished. His modus operandi of using government regulators and corrupt judges to persecute the media can be traced back to 2008, when he sent armed police to take over two television stations and nearly 200 other companies belonging to Grupo Isaias.

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, the two stations – which account for about 40 percent of the nation’s audience – were put under the management of state television and ordered publicly to adopt “a new editorial line…”

Correa and his cronies continue the judicial persecution of the Isaias family, some of whom have sought refuge in the United States and are hopeful that US authorities will not return them to face trumped up charges in Ecuador’s kangaroo courts. (Ironically, even one of the US State Department cables published by Wikileaks criticized Correa’s mistreatment of the Isaias-owned television station as an assault on freedom of the press.)

Correa’s aggression against free expression is relentless. Last spring he sued the publishers and editor of the venerable Guayaquil newspaper El Universo for $40 million over a February 2011 opinion piece criticizing his infamous mishandling of a police protest the year before. A succession of questionable judicial rulings favored Correa, including one lengthy opinion that appears to have been written by the president’s own attorney.

Last February, the country’s high court ratified the judgment against the newspaper and its editor – even after one judge fled the country and denounced the judicial corruption in the case. Correa subsequently pardoned the publisher and journalists, but they continue their independent reporting under the cloud of politically motivated prosecution.

Last month, 17 nations at the UN Human Rights Council singled out Ecuador for its poor human rights record – with many nations expressing concern about a Correa initiative that criminalizes free speech. Undaunted, Correa’s delegation led the charge at a recent regional assembly to neuter a well-regarded and independent human rights organization that has criticized attacks on freedom of expression in Ecuador and other countries under leftist authoritarian rule.

It remains to be seen whether Correa will grant Assange asylum in Ecuador. If he does, it will put his country on a collision course with Britain, Sweden, and the United States, which has spoken publicly of charging Assange with crimes for publishing classified government documents. That is just the sort of confrontation that will help Correa burnish his image as the successor of the dying Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez.

Correa is infamous for impulsive, self-serving decisions, so whether he has the courage to take up Assange’s controversial cause is anybody’s guess.

As for Assange, if he does take up residence in Correa’s Ecuador, he might want to do what bona fide free-speech advocates are forced to do: hold his tongue or suffer the consequences.