Wednesday July 29, 2009
Rising Tensions With Chávez in South America
Recent revelations that the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas in Colombia have received sophisticated Swedish anti-tank weapons purchased by the military in Venezuela has added to the regional strain in South America, which are already running high. The FARC is a designated terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union.
The AT-4 rockets and their launchers were found, according to Semana Magazine (in Spanish) in a camp abandoned by the FARC's chief military commander Jorge Briceño. While found in June, the information was just made public by the Colombian government due to Venezuela's lack of responsiveness on the issue.
The Swedish government has confirmed it sold the equipment to the Venezuelan government.
Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez reacted as he has in the past: he withdrew Venezuela's diplomatic presence from Colombia and denounced the information as part of giant, fabricated conspiracy against his country.
This reaction is due in large part because Colombian president Alvaro Uribe has decided to let the United States open up to four anti-drug bases in existing Colombian military installations. The move comes after Rafael Correa of Ecuador, a staunch ally of Chávez, decided not to renew the 10-year lease for U.S. use of the Manta base to track Pacific Coast drug trafficking operations.
Unfortunately for Chávez, his denials ring hollow and ability to really sever ties with Colombia extremely limited. This is because, under the Bolivarian Revolution and Socialism of the 21st Century Venezuela has the lowest percentage of arable land under cultivation in Latin America.
As a result of a decade of driving down food production, Venezuela now imports almost 60 percent of its food--most of that from Colombia.
At the same time, Chávez has lost his footing a bit on the Honduran crisis, as calmer heads prevailed and the ongoing dispute ended up again at the feet of mediator Oscar Arias, president of Costa Rica and veteran of negotiating Central American conflicts. This marginalized the flame-throwing calls for military invasion that Chávez was issuing, alienating even some of his allies.
The information on the AT-4 rockets tracks closely with information already made public in the computer found when Colombian troops killed Raul Reyes, the FARC's deputy commander, on March 1, 2008.
The documents, the communications archive of the FARC, showed clearly that the FARC was searching for such weapons and was in contact with two senior Venezuelan officials very close to Chávez, about acquiring them. The two are Gen. Cliver Alcalá of the army and Hugo Carvajal, one of Chávez's most trusted intelligence officials.
In a Jan. 4, 2007 e-mail FARC leader Iván Márquez wrote to the FARC leadership that he had met with Alcalá and Carvajal, and said that "next week they will send us 20 bazookas of great potency, of which 10 will be for (FARC commander) Timochenko and 10 will be for us."
On Jan. 20 Márquez wrote again to say the rockets had been delivered, and described them as "anti-tank rockets, 85 mm.,two launchers and 21 rounds. Our friend says he has 1,000 rounds and will get us more soon, along with more launchers."
So, there we have (again) a head of state sponsoring and arming a non-state terrorist/criminal actor intent on overthrowing a democratically-elected government. The hypocrisy of Chávez leading the charge for democracy in Honduras is extraordinary, even by Chávez's standards.
The AT-4 rockets and their launchers were found, according to Semana Magazine (in Spanish) in a camp abandoned by the FARC's chief military commander Jorge Briceño. While found in June, the information was just made public by the Colombian government due to Venezuela's lack of responsiveness on the issue.
The Swedish government has confirmed it sold the equipment to the Venezuelan government.
Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez reacted as he has in the past: he withdrew Venezuela's diplomatic presence from Colombia and denounced the information as part of giant, fabricated conspiracy against his country.
This reaction is due in large part because Colombian president Alvaro Uribe has decided to let the United States open up to four anti-drug bases in existing Colombian military installations. The move comes after Rafael Correa of Ecuador, a staunch ally of Chávez, decided not to renew the 10-year lease for U.S. use of the Manta base to track Pacific Coast drug trafficking operations.
Unfortunately for Chávez, his denials ring hollow and ability to really sever ties with Colombia extremely limited. This is because, under the Bolivarian Revolution and Socialism of the 21st Century Venezuela has the lowest percentage of arable land under cultivation in Latin America.
As a result of a decade of driving down food production, Venezuela now imports almost 60 percent of its food--most of that from Colombia.
At the same time, Chávez has lost his footing a bit on the Honduran crisis, as calmer heads prevailed and the ongoing dispute ended up again at the feet of mediator Oscar Arias, president of Costa Rica and veteran of negotiating Central American conflicts. This marginalized the flame-throwing calls for military invasion that Chávez was issuing, alienating even some of his allies.
The information on the AT-4 rockets tracks closely with information already made public in the computer found when Colombian troops killed Raul Reyes, the FARC's deputy commander, on March 1, 2008.
The documents, the communications archive of the FARC, showed clearly that the FARC was searching for such weapons and was in contact with two senior Venezuelan officials very close to Chávez, about acquiring them. The two are Gen. Cliver Alcalá of the army and Hugo Carvajal, one of Chávez's most trusted intelligence officials.
In a Jan. 4, 2007 e-mail FARC leader Iván Márquez wrote to the FARC leadership that he had met with Alcalá and Carvajal, and said that "next week they will send us 20 bazookas of great potency, of which 10 will be for (FARC commander) Timochenko and 10 will be for us."
On Jan. 20 Márquez wrote again to say the rockets had been delivered, and described them as "anti-tank rockets, 85 mm.,two launchers and 21 rounds. Our friend says he has 1,000 rounds and will get us more soon, along with more launchers."
So, there we have (again) a head of state sponsoring and arming a non-state terrorist/criminal actor intent on overthrowing a democratically-elected government. The hypocrisy of Chávez leading the charge for democracy in Honduras is extraordinary, even by Chávez's standards.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Monday September 7, 2009
Nigeria and al Qaeda
A new wave of radical Islamist attacks in Nigeria point to the spread of wahhabist theology in the region and the significant difficulties facing West Africa's perennial hot spot.
As I have noted earlier, in 2003 Osama bin Laden specifically mentioned Nigeria as a target for the spread of al Qaeda, and shortly thereafter there were a series of smaller scale attacks. But the actions of the "Nigeria Taliban" were widely dismissed as simply jihadist "wannabes" that posed no threat.
The truth is that there is a large and radicalized Muslim population in northern Nigeria, where 12 of the states (out of 36 in all) have imposed Sharia law. The radicalization is mixed with a deep sense of historic grievance against the south and the central government, as well as antagonism toward the sizable Christian minority. Not all Muslim in the north are radicalized, nor are all seeking a violent change in the state system.
But those in the lead of the new, self-proclaimed Taliban, are, and want to push sharia law to a more extreme form. As one of the leaders of the current violence states:
"Democracy and the current system of education must be changed otherwise this war that is yet to start would continue for long."
The Islamist fighters are thought to belong to a group known as Boko Haram, which means "western education is sin".
The group wants Western-based education banned and wants to establish sharia law across Nigeria, a country of 150 million people that is evenly split between Muslims and Christians.
They appear to be the direct descendants of the previously-active Nigerian Taliban that emerged in 2003. For a more comprehensive look at that movement, see Dr. J Peter Pham's piece from that time. There he described the role of Sudan in allegedly financing the radicals, and other interesting details.
On January 16, Media Trust Ltd., was arraigned before the High Court in the capital of Abuja, accused of three counts of terrorism. The director, a Muslim cleric (or mallam) by the name of Mohammed Bello Ilyas Damagun, who was described by prosecutors as belonging to a group dubbed the "Nigerian Taliban," was charged with receiving funds from al-Qaeda, sending recruits abroad for training, and aiding terrorist activities within Nigeria.
According to prosecutor Abdullahi Mikailu, Mallam Damagun, whose business interests publish the Daily Trust, Weekly Trust, Sunday Trust, and Aminiya newspapers, received $300,000 from al-Qaeda accounts in Sudan which were transferred to his account (number 2106795, to be specific) at Habibsons Bank on St. James Street in London "with the intent that said money shall be used in the execution of acts of terrorism."
The new outbreak of violence is notable for the strength of the jihadists and the number of them killed on a series of attacks on police and military outposts. The outbreak of violence comes just as the central government is striving to bring some peace to the better known (and so far unrelated conflict) in the southern, oil producing region Nigeria. Nigeria supplies more than 12 percent of th
There, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) as agreed, after months of fighting and hostage taking that has driven down Nigeria's oil production by more than 500,000 barrels a day, to a ceasefire. It looked like the violence besieging the weak and corrupt central government could be easing.
But given bin Laden's express interest in Nigeria, the growth of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Magrheb and ethnic tensions that play into the tensions, it is unlikely the Nigerian Taliban is finished. The Nigerians security forces are unlikely to not massively overreact against the civilian population, leading to more recruits for the radicals. The radicals, if they have money, will likely be able to buy weapons from the corrupt and weak military.
All this bodes ill for a nation that is not only the economic engine of West Africa, but constantly teetering on the edge of chaos and violence that would take the entire region down with it. A radical Islamist movement that can feed off of the historic economic and ethnic grievances will complicate an already complicated and hostile situation.
As I have noted earlier, in 2003 Osama bin Laden specifically mentioned Nigeria as a target for the spread of al Qaeda, and shortly thereafter there were a series of smaller scale attacks. But the actions of the "Nigeria Taliban" were widely dismissed as simply jihadist "wannabes" that posed no threat.
The truth is that there is a large and radicalized Muslim population in northern Nigeria, where 12 of the states (out of 36 in all) have imposed Sharia law. The radicalization is mixed with a deep sense of historic grievance against the south and the central government, as well as antagonism toward the sizable Christian minority. Not all Muslim in the north are radicalized, nor are all seeking a violent change in the state system.
But those in the lead of the new, self-proclaimed Taliban, are, and want to push sharia law to a more extreme form. As one of the leaders of the current violence states:
"Democracy and the current system of education must be changed otherwise this war that is yet to start would continue for long."
The Islamist fighters are thought to belong to a group known as Boko Haram, which means "western education is sin".
The group wants Western-based education banned and wants to establish sharia law across Nigeria, a country of 150 million people that is evenly split between Muslims and Christians.
They appear to be the direct descendants of the previously-active Nigerian Taliban that emerged in 2003. For a more comprehensive look at that movement, see Dr. J Peter Pham's piece from that time. There he described the role of Sudan in allegedly financing the radicals, and other interesting details.
On January 16, Media Trust Ltd., was arraigned before the High Court in the capital of Abuja, accused of three counts of terrorism. The director, a Muslim cleric (or mallam) by the name of Mohammed Bello Ilyas Damagun, who was described by prosecutors as belonging to a group dubbed the "Nigerian Taliban," was charged with receiving funds from al-Qaeda, sending recruits abroad for training, and aiding terrorist activities within Nigeria.
According to prosecutor Abdullahi Mikailu, Mallam Damagun, whose business interests publish the Daily Trust, Weekly Trust, Sunday Trust, and Aminiya newspapers, received $300,000 from al-Qaeda accounts in Sudan which were transferred to his account (number 2106795, to be specific) at Habibsons Bank on St. James Street in London "with the intent that said money shall be used in the execution of acts of terrorism."
The new outbreak of violence is notable for the strength of the jihadists and the number of them killed on a series of attacks on police and military outposts. The outbreak of violence comes just as the central government is striving to bring some peace to the better known (and so far unrelated conflict) in the southern, oil producing region Nigeria. Nigeria supplies more than 12 percent of th
There, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) as agreed, after months of fighting and hostage taking that has driven down Nigeria's oil production by more than 500,000 barrels a day, to a ceasefire. It looked like the violence besieging the weak and corrupt central government could be easing.
But given bin Laden's express interest in Nigeria, the growth of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Magrheb and ethnic tensions that play into the tensions, it is unlikely the Nigerian Taliban is finished. The Nigerians security forces are unlikely to not massively overreact against the civilian population, leading to more recruits for the radicals. The radicals, if they have money, will likely be able to buy weapons from the corrupt and weak military.
All this bodes ill for a nation that is not only the economic engine of West Africa, but constantly teetering on the edge of chaos and violence that would take the entire region down with it. A radical Islamist movement that can feed off of the historic economic and ethnic grievances will complicate an already complicated and hostile situation.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Monday September 7, 2009
The Bolivarian Revolution's Fight Against Democracy
There are several new factors that point to how the Bolivarian Revolution is working to undermine Latin America's fragile institutions. The first is the stunning video of senior FARC commander Jorge Briseño, AKA Mono Jojoy, acknowleging that the guerrilla group gave money to the campaign of Ecuador's Rafael Correa.
The Correa government's high-level complicity in aiding and abetting the FARC were further clarified in this special program by Colombia's RCN radio in Colombia (in Spanish), which details, from the Reyes documents, the multiple high level meetings the FARC held with the Ecuadoran government. From these previously unpublished documents, it is clear the amount of money the FARC gave the Correa campaign is at least $300,00.
The Briceño video surfaced in two different raids on the FARC operatives and shows Mono Jojoy reading a statement to his troops from long-time FARC leader Manuel Marulanda, who had just died. Marulanda's statement confirms the authenticity of the documents found by Colombian officials in the camp of Raul Reyes, the FARC's deputy commander, when Reyes was killed on March 1, 2008 in Ecuador.
Reyes had been living in a hard camp in Ecuador for several months and felt safe enough to keep 600 gigabytes of FARC records with him, a sign that his friendship with Correa likely paid off.
Marulanda laments that Colombia seized a trove of electronic documents that badly compromised the rebels and their foreign friends - namely, Correa and President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
"The secrets of the FARC have been lost completely," Briceno reads.
It is not clear if Correa knew of the FARC money, although the documents show that senior members of his campaign were personally involved in receiving the money. What is clear from the document is that Mono Jojoy (perhaps the senior FARC leader most involved in drug trafficking, kidnappings and other criminal activity and the group's senior military commander) and other FARC leaders are placing a great deal of importance on cultivating its friends around the region. This is clear in the FARC documents that deal with Bolivia as well, where the person in charge of the relationship with Bolivian sympathizers is repeatedly urged to maintain friendly relations with president Evo Morales and other government and non-government leaders.
The second element is the new GAO report on the rise of drug trafficking through Venezuela. The report found that:
According to U.S. and Colombian officials, Venezuela has extended a lifeline to Colombian illegal armed groups by providing significant support and safe haven along the border. As a result, these groups, which traffic in illicit drugs, remain viable threats to Colombian security. A high level of corruption within the Venezuelan government, military, and other law enforcement and security forces contributes to the permissive environment, according to U.S. officials.
This is the symbiosis of state and nonstate actors that is the new paradigm of the criminal/terrorist nexus. Perhaps no group has mastered this form of quasi-state terrorism as well as Hezbollah, with its sponsors in Iran and Syria. It is the type of relationship that allows states some form of plausible deniability while spreading a violent revolution against their enemies and democratic governments.
The danger now is the Iran-Hezbollah presence in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador. The "illegal armed groups" of Colombia will be seeking, if they have not already found, ways to ally themselves with Hezbollah for training, exchanging lessons learned and the experiences. That can only help the FARC survive, something that would not be possible without help from their regional friends.
The Correa government's high-level complicity in aiding and abetting the FARC were further clarified in this special program by Colombia's RCN radio in Colombia (in Spanish), which details, from the Reyes documents, the multiple high level meetings the FARC held with the Ecuadoran government. From these previously unpublished documents, it is clear the amount of money the FARC gave the Correa campaign is at least $300,00.
The Briceño video surfaced in two different raids on the FARC operatives and shows Mono Jojoy reading a statement to his troops from long-time FARC leader Manuel Marulanda, who had just died. Marulanda's statement confirms the authenticity of the documents found by Colombian officials in the camp of Raul Reyes, the FARC's deputy commander, when Reyes was killed on March 1, 2008 in Ecuador.
Reyes had been living in a hard camp in Ecuador for several months and felt safe enough to keep 600 gigabytes of FARC records with him, a sign that his friendship with Correa likely paid off.
Marulanda laments that Colombia seized a trove of electronic documents that badly compromised the rebels and their foreign friends - namely, Correa and President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
"The secrets of the FARC have been lost completely," Briceno reads.
It is not clear if Correa knew of the FARC money, although the documents show that senior members of his campaign were personally involved in receiving the money. What is clear from the document is that Mono Jojoy (perhaps the senior FARC leader most involved in drug trafficking, kidnappings and other criminal activity and the group's senior military commander) and other FARC leaders are placing a great deal of importance on cultivating its friends around the region. This is clear in the FARC documents that deal with Bolivia as well, where the person in charge of the relationship with Bolivian sympathizers is repeatedly urged to maintain friendly relations with president Evo Morales and other government and non-government leaders.
The second element is the new GAO report on the rise of drug trafficking through Venezuela. The report found that:
According to U.S. and Colombian officials, Venezuela has extended a lifeline to Colombian illegal armed groups by providing significant support and safe haven along the border. As a result, these groups, which traffic in illicit drugs, remain viable threats to Colombian security. A high level of corruption within the Venezuelan government, military, and other law enforcement and security forces contributes to the permissive environment, according to U.S. officials.
This is the symbiosis of state and nonstate actors that is the new paradigm of the criminal/terrorist nexus. Perhaps no group has mastered this form of quasi-state terrorism as well as Hezbollah, with its sponsors in Iran and Syria. It is the type of relationship that allows states some form of plausible deniability while spreading a violent revolution against their enemies and democratic governments.
The danger now is the Iran-Hezbollah presence in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador. The "illegal armed groups" of Colombia will be seeking, if they have not already found, ways to ally themselves with Hezbollah for training, exchanging lessons learned and the experiences. That can only help the FARC survive, something that would not be possible without help from their regional friends.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Tuesday July 7, 2009
How Gangs Threaten Us All
For those interested in exploring one of the greatest internal and transnational threats to the United States, there is a new book out today by Samuel Logan, This is For the Mara Salvatrucha: Inside the MS-13, America's Most Violent Gang.
The book traces the history of Brenda Paz, a young Honduran who joins MS-13 and eventually becomes the most effective police witness against the organization, before she was killed. But besides the individual story, the book shows just how powerful and ruthless the MS-13 has become. Given that it now has chapters in thousands of cities across the United States, and maintains its transnational structure through the clan structure in Central America, the gang (or mara in Spanish) presents a significant challenge.
But it is not just a local law enforcement issue. It is truly a transnational threat that can destroy countries. Yesterday I heard Carlos Castresana Fernandez, head of the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (Comision Internacional Contra la Impunidad en Guatemala-CICIG) discuss the serious problems of the organized criminal networks operating out of Guatemala.
He noted how the already-disturbing situation in Guatemala had gotten dramatically worse in the past three years and Mexican and Colombian cartel operatives, particularly Los Zetas, moved in and took control of local criminal operations.
The cartels were aided and abetted in their takeover efforts by the local gangs, primarily MS-13. On Guatemala's northern border with Mexico, Castresana Fernandez said, the organized criminal groups and gangs are the only authority, in the face of the complete absence of the state. "Maras plus organized crime has proven deadly," he said.
That is the reality on the ground in much of Central America. The gangs are increasingly moving from local criminal operations, coordinated with their partner gangs in the United States, to move illicit products like stolen cars, methamphetamine and weapons, into the muscle for the drug cartels.
The consequences, as Castresana Fernandez noted, is that already weak and corrupt police forces and militaries are simply overwhelmed or bought, allowing the gangs to grow in power both in their home countries and in this country. The richer they become the bigger threat they become, both here and south of our border.
The book offers an inside look at how the gangs operate at granular level. For those of us who spent time with the gangs (I did for a Washington Post series in 1998), it is a harrowing and accurate description of the amazing and disturbing world that gang members inhabit. It also places the development of the gangs and the recruitment of gang members in its proper context of displacement, social dislocation and family separation that has helped define the Central American immigrant narrative.
I am not one who worries a great deal about the use of Hezbollah or other terrorist groups of gang-controlled pipelines to enter the United States. With embassies in Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua etc. all willing to issue valid travel documents to them, it is hard to see why they would bother with the riskier and more vulnerable method of moving over the land border clandestinely.
But it is clear that these gangs and cartels are, in their own right, becoming increasingly strong transnational threats, and that they offer other services to Hezbollah and other groups that would be useful-drug trafficking routes, protection of the pipelines they use etc. To understand why the gangs are a threat, this book is a good place to start.
The book traces the history of Brenda Paz, a young Honduran who joins MS-13 and eventually becomes the most effective police witness against the organization, before she was killed. But besides the individual story, the book shows just how powerful and ruthless the MS-13 has become. Given that it now has chapters in thousands of cities across the United States, and maintains its transnational structure through the clan structure in Central America, the gang (or mara in Spanish) presents a significant challenge.
But it is not just a local law enforcement issue. It is truly a transnational threat that can destroy countries. Yesterday I heard Carlos Castresana Fernandez, head of the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (Comision Internacional Contra la Impunidad en Guatemala-CICIG) discuss the serious problems of the organized criminal networks operating out of Guatemala.
He noted how the already-disturbing situation in Guatemala had gotten dramatically worse in the past three years and Mexican and Colombian cartel operatives, particularly Los Zetas, moved in and took control of local criminal operations.
The cartels were aided and abetted in their takeover efforts by the local gangs, primarily MS-13. On Guatemala's northern border with Mexico, Castresana Fernandez said, the organized criminal groups and gangs are the only authority, in the face of the complete absence of the state. "Maras plus organized crime has proven deadly," he said.
That is the reality on the ground in much of Central America. The gangs are increasingly moving from local criminal operations, coordinated with their partner gangs in the United States, to move illicit products like stolen cars, methamphetamine and weapons, into the muscle for the drug cartels.
The consequences, as Castresana Fernandez noted, is that already weak and corrupt police forces and militaries are simply overwhelmed or bought, allowing the gangs to grow in power both in their home countries and in this country. The richer they become the bigger threat they become, both here and south of our border.
The book offers an inside look at how the gangs operate at granular level. For those of us who spent time with the gangs (I did for a Washington Post series in 1998), it is a harrowing and accurate description of the amazing and disturbing world that gang members inhabit. It also places the development of the gangs and the recruitment of gang members in its proper context of displacement, social dislocation and family separation that has helped define the Central American immigrant narrative.
I am not one who worries a great deal about the use of Hezbollah or other terrorist groups of gang-controlled pipelines to enter the United States. With embassies in Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua etc. all willing to issue valid travel documents to them, it is hard to see why they would bother with the riskier and more vulnerable method of moving over the land border clandestinely.
But it is clear that these gangs and cartels are, in their own right, becoming increasingly strong transnational threats, and that they offer other services to Hezbollah and other groups that would be useful-drug trafficking routes, protection of the pipelines they use etc. To understand why the gangs are a threat, this book is a good place to start.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Friday July 3, 2009
Honduras and the Bolivarian Revolution
Once again an outside power is meddling in the internal affairs of a small, poor Central American country and threatening military action if its preferred candidate is not restored to office. The irony is that it is not Uncle Sam interfering in Honduras-which has happened often enough-but Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, who has made a career of railing against foreign intervention. Chávez's belligerent threats of military action to restore his ally, ousted president Manuel Zelaya, to power are supported by Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega, Bolivia's Evo Morales and the Castro brothers in Cuba.
The leaders, as part of Chávez's oil-fueled regional "Bolivarian revolution," have twisted their constitutions like pretzels, run roughshod over due process, worked to silence the press, concentrated power in their own hands, and fomented violence against the legal political opposition. In addition to their current autocratic and anti-democratic governing styles, Ortega led a violent, successful revolution and Chávez led an unsuccessful military coup attempt, making their outrage over a constitutional maneuver, no matter how questionable, ring hollow.
What is more disturbing is the growing ties between the Bolivarian revolutionary states and armed groups in Latin America and across the world, their open embrace of Iran, and the teaching of terrorist methodologies pioneered by radical Islamists as official military doctrine. The sole point of convergence between the Iranian theocracy and the secular Bolivarian populists is a deep hatred for the United States and liberal democracy. Zelaya, hooked on subsidized Venezuelan oil, was following the same autocratic and anti-democratic path pioneered by Chávez and joining an alliance that has strangled democratic development wherever the Bolivarian revolution has taken root.
Zelaya's ouster is the first clear sign that there will be a reaction against the abuses and excesses of the Bolivarian model of radical populism, megalomania and violence, often called "popular democracy" and described as 21st Century socialism. The concern of Chávez and his allies have for Zelaya has much more to do with a fear that the reaction against them will grow than it does with any commitment to democracy. A successful removal of Zelaya could be a model for their own demise.
Make no mistake. Giving the military a leading role in a political drama in Honduras may be akin to giving a pyromaniac matches and can of kerosene. It can end badly. I covered Honduras for 20 years and reported extensively both on the military's egregious human rights abuses and voracious economic appetite that sucked the national coffers dry, although the troops have stayed in the barracks for more than two decades.
But look at the alternatives. Zelaya was attempting the same political move successfully executed by Chávez and Morales-a constitutional change that would allow him to stay in power indefinitely-always among the first actions of the Bolivarian leaders.
The nation's supreme court ruled that his attempted referendum was unconstitutional. His party broke with him, his attorney general said it was illegal and the army refused to cooperate in light of the court ruling. Yet Zelaya proceeded, after leading a crowd to burn an army installation in protest of the institution's failure to defy the supreme court decision. He was flown into exile at gunpoint and replaced by Roberto Micheletti, of his own party and head of the National Assembly. Micheletti promises to hold scheduled presidential elections this year and not be a candidate. Time will tell.
The Honduras situation leaves the United States with difficult options. How the Obama administration handles this challenge against a government that was in the process of breaching the constitutional order will have powerful repercussions across Latin America. Similar challenges could appear in Bolivia, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Ecuador as the Bolivarian governments move to consolidate their hold on power and meet resistance.
It is tempting to see the restoration of Zelaya as the democratic imperative, and most of the international community is pressing for this outcome, while not endorsing Chávez's threats of violence. The Organization of American States is set to impose a series of crippling economic sanctions if Zelaya is not allowed to return in some form. But it is worth looking further at the implications of the Boliviarian revolution writ large.
It has been almost two decades since the democratic processes began in Central America, and a few years more since South America moved from military dictatorships and coups to liberal democracies with imperfect but improving institutional processes, transparency and freedoms. I lived in Latin America during civil wars and the difficult transition from decades of brutal authoritarian regimes to the fragile democratic structures, built through sweat and blood.
These still-fragile democracies are now in danger of being choked by the new radical populism, fueled by oil money, deep disillusionment with the corruption and mismanagement of the traditional political classes and exclusion based on race and class. The need for deep reform certainly exists. But Chávez's model is not the solution.
Reasons for deep concern about the spread of the Bolivarian revolution are far deeper than simple ideological disputes, and Zelaya's actions are only one piece of a wider pattern. The threat of Chávez and his allies goes to the heart of the region's democratic processes and institutionality. While the moves against civil society and institutions have been amply documented, the contours of the broader threat of the Bolivarian alliance and its ties to radical Islamist regimes, particularly Iran, are now clearer.
Venezuela has adopted an official military doctrine that is based on strategies Hezbollah and other radical Islamist groups are already practicing, and one embraced to a significant degree by Iran, the primary state sponsor of those groups. The embrace of this doctrine provides an important link in understanding the ties of Venezuela and its allies to Iran.
Since 2005 Chávez has rewritten Venezuela's security doctrine, replacing "imperialist" influences with a doctrine centered on asymmetrical warfare, in the belief that the primary threat to Venezuelan and Latin American security is a U.S. invasion. This doctrine is being taught by Venezuelan instructors to the militaries of Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Honduras.
One of the main books Chávez has adopted is Peripheral Warfare and Revolutionary Islam: Origins, Rules and Ethics of Asymmetrical Warfare by the Spanish politician Jorge Verstrynge. Although he is not a Muslim Verstrynge's book lauds radical Islam (as well as past terrorists like Ilich RamÃrez Sánchez, better known as Carlos the Jackal) for expanding the parameters of what irregular warfare can encompass, including the use of biological and nuclear weapons. He is particularly taken with suicide bombers, whom he praises for their willingness to die for the cause. Verstrynge has lauded Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda for creating a new type of warfare that is "de-territorialized, de-stateized and de-nationalized," a war where suicide bombers act as "atomic bombs for the poor."
Chávez invited Verstrynge to give keynote address to military leaders in a 2005 conference and ordered a special pocket size edition of the book to be printed up and distributed throughout the officer corps, to be studied cover to cover.
The fascination with asymmetrical warfare may explain why Chávez and other members of the Bolivarian axis maintain close ties to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a designated terrorist and drug trafficking organization by both the United States and the European Union. Chávez personally requested that the FARC train Venezuelan military and militias in guerrilla warfare in case of a U.S. invasion.
These actions are part of why many who viewed the Bolivarian revolutions in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Honduras with hope are now turning away in disillusionment. With more and more avenues of legitimate protest, dissent and political change cut off, there few options to return to the values so many fought for in decades past-freedom of speech, the rule of law, unfettered media, a separation of powers and chance to replace poor governments with better ones in regularly scheduled elections.
Zelaya's removal was evokes old school methods and appears to be ill-considered. But the Obama administration needs to weigh the bigger picture before handing Chávez and his allies an easy victory by backing Zelaya under the illusion that such a move will bring advance democracy in Honduras or Latin America.
The leaders, as part of Chávez's oil-fueled regional "Bolivarian revolution," have twisted their constitutions like pretzels, run roughshod over due process, worked to silence the press, concentrated power in their own hands, and fomented violence against the legal political opposition. In addition to their current autocratic and anti-democratic governing styles, Ortega led a violent, successful revolution and Chávez led an unsuccessful military coup attempt, making their outrage over a constitutional maneuver, no matter how questionable, ring hollow.
What is more disturbing is the growing ties between the Bolivarian revolutionary states and armed groups in Latin America and across the world, their open embrace of Iran, and the teaching of terrorist methodologies pioneered by radical Islamists as official military doctrine. The sole point of convergence between the Iranian theocracy and the secular Bolivarian populists is a deep hatred for the United States and liberal democracy. Zelaya, hooked on subsidized Venezuelan oil, was following the same autocratic and anti-democratic path pioneered by Chávez and joining an alliance that has strangled democratic development wherever the Bolivarian revolution has taken root.
Zelaya's ouster is the first clear sign that there will be a reaction against the abuses and excesses of the Bolivarian model of radical populism, megalomania and violence, often called "popular democracy" and described as 21st Century socialism. The concern of Chávez and his allies have for Zelaya has much more to do with a fear that the reaction against them will grow than it does with any commitment to democracy. A successful removal of Zelaya could be a model for their own demise.
Make no mistake. Giving the military a leading role in a political drama in Honduras may be akin to giving a pyromaniac matches and can of kerosene. It can end badly. I covered Honduras for 20 years and reported extensively both on the military's egregious human rights abuses and voracious economic appetite that sucked the national coffers dry, although the troops have stayed in the barracks for more than two decades.
But look at the alternatives. Zelaya was attempting the same political move successfully executed by Chávez and Morales-a constitutional change that would allow him to stay in power indefinitely-always among the first actions of the Bolivarian leaders.
The nation's supreme court ruled that his attempted referendum was unconstitutional. His party broke with him, his attorney general said it was illegal and the army refused to cooperate in light of the court ruling. Yet Zelaya proceeded, after leading a crowd to burn an army installation in protest of the institution's failure to defy the supreme court decision. He was flown into exile at gunpoint and replaced by Roberto Micheletti, of his own party and head of the National Assembly. Micheletti promises to hold scheduled presidential elections this year and not be a candidate. Time will tell.
The Honduras situation leaves the United States with difficult options. How the Obama administration handles this challenge against a government that was in the process of breaching the constitutional order will have powerful repercussions across Latin America. Similar challenges could appear in Bolivia, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Ecuador as the Bolivarian governments move to consolidate their hold on power and meet resistance.
It is tempting to see the restoration of Zelaya as the democratic imperative, and most of the international community is pressing for this outcome, while not endorsing Chávez's threats of violence. The Organization of American States is set to impose a series of crippling economic sanctions if Zelaya is not allowed to return in some form. But it is worth looking further at the implications of the Boliviarian revolution writ large.
It has been almost two decades since the democratic processes began in Central America, and a few years more since South America moved from military dictatorships and coups to liberal democracies with imperfect but improving institutional processes, transparency and freedoms. I lived in Latin America during civil wars and the difficult transition from decades of brutal authoritarian regimes to the fragile democratic structures, built through sweat and blood.
These still-fragile democracies are now in danger of being choked by the new radical populism, fueled by oil money, deep disillusionment with the corruption and mismanagement of the traditional political classes and exclusion based on race and class. The need for deep reform certainly exists. But Chávez's model is not the solution.
Reasons for deep concern about the spread of the Bolivarian revolution are far deeper than simple ideological disputes, and Zelaya's actions are only one piece of a wider pattern. The threat of Chávez and his allies goes to the heart of the region's democratic processes and institutionality. While the moves against civil society and institutions have been amply documented, the contours of the broader threat of the Bolivarian alliance and its ties to radical Islamist regimes, particularly Iran, are now clearer.
Venezuela has adopted an official military doctrine that is based on strategies Hezbollah and other radical Islamist groups are already practicing, and one embraced to a significant degree by Iran, the primary state sponsor of those groups. The embrace of this doctrine provides an important link in understanding the ties of Venezuela and its allies to Iran.
Since 2005 Chávez has rewritten Venezuela's security doctrine, replacing "imperialist" influences with a doctrine centered on asymmetrical warfare, in the belief that the primary threat to Venezuelan and Latin American security is a U.S. invasion. This doctrine is being taught by Venezuelan instructors to the militaries of Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Honduras.
One of the main books Chávez has adopted is Peripheral Warfare and Revolutionary Islam: Origins, Rules and Ethics of Asymmetrical Warfare by the Spanish politician Jorge Verstrynge. Although he is not a Muslim Verstrynge's book lauds radical Islam (as well as past terrorists like Ilich RamÃrez Sánchez, better known as Carlos the Jackal) for expanding the parameters of what irregular warfare can encompass, including the use of biological and nuclear weapons. He is particularly taken with suicide bombers, whom he praises for their willingness to die for the cause. Verstrynge has lauded Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda for creating a new type of warfare that is "de-territorialized, de-stateized and de-nationalized," a war where suicide bombers act as "atomic bombs for the poor."
Chávez invited Verstrynge to give keynote address to military leaders in a 2005 conference and ordered a special pocket size edition of the book to be printed up and distributed throughout the officer corps, to be studied cover to cover.
The fascination with asymmetrical warfare may explain why Chávez and other members of the Bolivarian axis maintain close ties to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a designated terrorist and drug trafficking organization by both the United States and the European Union. Chávez personally requested that the FARC train Venezuelan military and militias in guerrilla warfare in case of a U.S. invasion.
These actions are part of why many who viewed the Bolivarian revolutions in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Honduras with hope are now turning away in disillusionment. With more and more avenues of legitimate protest, dissent and political change cut off, there few options to return to the values so many fought for in decades past-freedom of speech, the rule of law, unfettered media, a separation of powers and chance to replace poor governments with better ones in regularly scheduled elections.
Zelaya's removal was evokes old school methods and appears to be ill-considered. But the Obama administration needs to weigh the bigger picture before handing Chávez and his allies an easy victory by backing Zelaya under the illusion that such a move will bring advance democracy in Honduras or Latin America.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH