Chávez’s Covert War

Obama needs to call Venezuela’s president what he is: a terrorist and a drug-trafficker.

BY OTTO REICH | AUGUST 28, 2009

Venezuela's strongman Hugo Chávez recently warned that the "winds of war" were blowing in South America, and called on his military to "prepare for combat" against neighboring Colombia, a U.S. ally. Should we take his prediction seriously, or is this another cry of "wolf" by the loud lieutenant colonel? And how worried should be the American government be in either case?

An overt Venezuela-Colombia war is unlikely. To be sure, saber-rattling by someone who wears battle fatigues in public cannot be ignored. But Chávez's generals are in no mood to face the Colombians or anyone else. Corruption and politicization have weakened Venezuela's military, despite its acquisition of billions of dollars of Russian and other foreign weaponry. Plus, in his 10 years in power, Chávez has only ever pointed his guns at defenseless Venezuelan civilians. Bullies like him do not forewarn their intended victims. He does not fight openly, preferring to intervene covertly -- either directly or through his regional "anti-imperialist" alliance, the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), a collection of the highest-decibel, lowest performing leaders in the region, from countries including Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and, until June, Honduras.

Honduras has been the most recent target of Chávez's subversion. There, he convinced a gullible follower, Manuel Zelaya, to retain his office through ALBA's so-far successful modus operandi: After reaching power democratically, change the rules, neutralizing the legislative and judicial systems so that no opposition leader can ever rise democratically again. Chávez has guided this strategy in Bolivia and Ecuador, and ALBA member Daniel Ortega is attempting the same in Nicaragua. Thankfully, however, Honduras's institutions of democracy -- the justice system and legislature -- proved too strong. The Supreme Court unanimously found Zelaya guilty of high crimes and ordered the military to remove him from office.

Losing Zelaya -- the first reversal in the drive to spread "21st Century Socialism" in the region -- has driven Chávez to near hysteria. He has repeatedly promised to "overthrow" the new Honduran president, Roberto Micheletti, who was constitutionally appointed to office by an overwhelming congressional vote. (All but three members of Zelaya's own party voted for Micheletti.) No Chávez soldiers have been spotted in Honduras, but there are reports that Venezuelan and Cuban intelligence operatives are fomenting violence in order to damage the government's image, a common tactic in Latin America.

In Colombia, Chávez cries wolf to disguise his concealed aggression, such as his support for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), internationally condemned as a "narco-terrorist organization." The discovery of Venezuelan support for terrorists has routinely triggered Chávez's public tantrums. In March 2008, for example, Colombian Special Forces raided a FARC command and training camp situated more than a mile inside Ecuador. They captured laptops belonging to the FARC's second-in-command, Raul Reyes, who was killed in the assault. The computers revealed Chavez's long-standing financial, political, diplomatic, and military aid to the FARC. They documented Chávez's offer of $300 million for the FARC in Colombia and for other Marxist groups in Latin America, as well as collaboration with and political contributions to Ecuadorian President (and ALBA cheerleader) Rafael Correa, one of Chávez's most vocal allies. Correa and other leftist leaders condemned Colombia for its "violation of Ecuador's sovereignty" -- rather than denouncing the presence of a transnational terrorist camp, which must have existed with government acquiescence.

At that time, Chávez's hysteria reached a fever pitch. Chávez called Colombian President Álvaro Uribe "a criminal" and Colombia a "terrorist state," equating its aggressiveness with Israel's. On television, Chávez histrionically ordered his generals to "send 10 battalions of tanks" to the border, which he closed, stopping all trade. The measures soon had to be repealed lest they damage Venezuela's economy more than Colombia's.

Thus, the winds of war announced by Chávez last year did little lasting damage. Is this year any different?

The latest cause of Chávez's bellicosity is the announcement that Colombia will host U.S. advisors at some of its army, navy, and air bases. Chávez and his leftist chorus, including Argentina and Brazil, immediately accused Uribe of providing "military bases" for "an aggression by the empire against our region" (in the words of Bolivian President Evo Morales).

The United States has repeatedly stated that there are no military bases being established in Colombia. Nor are there plans for any. No additional U.S. forces are being sent. In fact, the number of American military and civilian advisors in Colombia has steadily declined over the past few years, and today totals less than a thousand. At the same time, the number of Cuban and other rogue-state advisors in Venezuela is reported to be many times that number.

The U.S. presence on Colombian soil is not a threat to regional peace -- quite the contrary. U.S. advisors have helped Colombia's security forces crush narcotics traffic and terrorism. Under Uribe, the number of Marxist guerrillas has been halved, from about 18,000 to 9,000. Right-wing paramilitaries have lost so many men (over 30,000 have surrendered) that they no longer exist as organized forces. And an official U.N. report credits Colombia's anti-narcotics programs for cutting coca cultivation and production by double digits in one year.

So why the cries of war? Because, once again, Chávez's ties to the illicit weapons and drugs pipelines have been exposed.

On August 3, the New York Times reported: "Venezuelan officials have continued to assist commanders of Colombia's largest rebel group, helping them arrange weapons deals in Venezuela and even obtain identity cards to move with ease on Venezuelan soil." The article adds that captured materials "point to detailed collaboration between the guerrillas and high-ranking military and intelligence officials in Mr. Chávez 's government as recently as several weeks ago."

A recent example illustrates Venezuela's brazen arms trafficking. When Colombia found Swedish-made anti-tank rocket launchers in FARC hands, the Swedish government asked Venezuela for an explanation. In the original sales agreement, Venezuela promised Stockholm that the weapons would not end up in the hands of terrorists -- but there they were. Chávez has refused to issue an official reply, saying in public only that the arms had been "stolen" from a Venezuelan military base.

Chávez's government is also deeply involved in drug trafficking. Last September, the U.S. Treasury Department designated three senior Venezuelan government officials as "Significant Foreign Narcotics Traffickers" under the Drug Kingpin Act. They charged Henry Rangel Silva, Ramon Rodriguez Chacin, and Hugo Armando Carvajal with "materially assisting the narcotics trafficking activities of the FARC."

In equivalent positions in the United States, these individuals would be director of the FBI and CIA, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and U.S. attorney general and secretary of homeland security. Does anyone really think these men act without Chávez's knowledge and protection? Not surprisingly, in July, the non-partisan U.S. General Accountability Office reported that "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."

But Colombia is far from the only target. The United States is the principal market for Colombia's illicit drug industry, of which Chávez's allies in FARC control 60 percent of production. Clearly, an undeclared war is already underway between Hugo Chávez's government and the United States and Colombia.

Faced with this and much more damning evidence, some still classified, of Chávez's covert war, what should the U.S. response be? First, call Chávez what he is: a supporter of drug trafficking and terrorism. Second, designate Venezuela as an official state sponsor of terrorism. The National Security Council has made this recommendation since 2003. Some U.S. officials, well-meaning but misguided, feel that diplomacy alone will convince Chávez to change his ways. It has not and will not. Third, end the self-defeating U.S. dependence on the Venezuelan oil that finances Chavez's anti-democratic and anti-American aggression. The United States can find new sources for 8 percent of its imports much more quickly than Venezuela can find an alternate market for 72 percent of its exports.

Some may say this last response is "disproportionate" or "confrontational." They should try saying that to the mother of the American child who died of a drug overdose, the wife of the U.S. policeman murdered by traffickers, or the orphan of the Colombian soldier killed by weapons provided by Hugo Chávez. Such a non-belligerent reaction by the United States, whose national security is under attack, is fully justified.

Otto Reich has served three U.S. presidents in the White House and State Department, including as U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela and assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs.

For original story, click HERE

Foundations of democracy being dismantled

Posted on Mon, Jul. 13, 2009 BY MEL MARTINEZ www.martinez.senate.gov For Latin America, events in Honduras are the tragic yet logical culmination of the silence of the United States and the inter-American community to the sustained assault on democratic institutions in that region. While there may be the possibility of reconciliation in one country, it does not address the larger dismantling of democracy in the region. It is hard for many Hondurans, and other pro-democracy activists in the region, to fully appreciate the outrage and clamor over the ouster of Mel Zelaya in Honduras when there has not been any significant action in opposition to the dismantling of democratic institutions and free societies in Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua, to name the most visible cases. Further, it is hard to explain why there was silence in the face of Zelaya's earlier unconstitutional actions, especially the event that precipitated his ousting: the storming of a military base to seize and distribute ballots for a referendum that had been declared unconstitutional by the Honduran Supreme Court. This situation was compounded by the United States, which was working behind the scenes to keep the Honduran congress and supreme court from using the clearly legal means of presidential impeachment. Having acquiesced in Zelaya's overstepping of the constitution, the United States and the inter-American community only speak now. The conclusion one reaches is that it is unacceptable for other, separate governmental institutions to protect their country's constitution. It appears U.S. policy protects a sitting president regardless of a leader's illegal acts, rather than seeking to protect the larger constitutional order or democratic institutions. The crisis in Honduras stems from the failure of its leaders to live within constitutional boundaries and from the earlier silence of the United States and international community regarding the abuse of power by the Honduran executive. Tragically, the United States and the OAS have put Honduras in a position where democracy is again the loser: If Zelaya returns, this essentially signals approval of his unconstitutional acts; if he is not allowed to return, then the unacceptable behavior of forcibly exiling a leader is given approval. This happens when principles are sacrificed for a policy that can only be described as the appeasement of authoritarians. Neither the United States nor other countries in the region or the international community should be taking sides in this constitutional dispute, but rather encouraging a resolution through dialogue among Hondurans. To this end, efforts could be focused on helping Honduras form a reconciliation government that would include representatives not associated with either the Zelaya administration or current government. The good offices of Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodríguez could be one avenue for this. The objective should be to keep Honduras on track to hold currently scheduled presidential elections in November with the inauguration of a new president in January as mandated in the Honduran constitution. The newly elected president, with an electoral mandate, then can decide whether and how to deal with Zelaya and those involved in his ouster. As the U.S. Senate takes up President Obama's nominees for key State Department positions in Latin America, it is time to question the acceptance by the United States and the inter-American community of the sustained dismantling of democratic institutions and free societies by presidents seeking to consolidate personal power at any cost. This is the larger challenge in Latin America of which Honduras is the latest symptom.

---

© 2009 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.miamiherald.com

Comments on the Situation in Honduras U.S. Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL)

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the events in Honduras. The events that are taking place in Honduras right now are the unfortunate result of a silence from both the United States and the Inter-America community to the assault on Honduras’ democratic Institutions. It is difficult for Hondurans and other democrats within the region to understand the full significance of President Zelaya’s expulsion from Honduras. Up until this point, there has not been any significant voice or action in opposition to the dismantling of free societies in Venezuela, Bolivia, and as Honduras was going down the same path, you might also add Nicaragua to that, to name only a few of the most visible cases.

It is also hard to explain why there was silence in the face of President Zelaya’s earlier unconstitutional actions, especially the events that have appeared to precipitate his ousting: the storming of a military base to seize and distribute ballots for a referendum that previously had been declared unconstitutional by the Honduran Supreme Court. A fundamental tenet of democracy is the separation of powers. You’ve got a president in the Executive branch and then you have a judicial branch of government as a coequal branch. And that branch of government told the president that the referendum he was seeking to have to extend his rule beyond the constitutional term was illegal, should not be done. He was undeterred and he was completely unrepentant as he sought to continue with his plan to have a referendum, even though the Congress, even though the judiciary, had already told him that that was in contravention of the constitution of their country.

Where was the region's outrage of Hugo Chavez’s support for Mr. Zelaya’s unconstitutional actions in Honduras? Mr. Chavez supported Mr. Zelaya because they are kindred spirits. Because Mr. Chavez already had been able to usurp every institution of democracy within Venezuela and now rules as an autocrat, he wanted to have that same playbook applied to Honduras, as he has coached and shepherded the doings of the same thing in Bolivia and to some degree in Ecuador as well. And with Nicaragua now coming along. So the Honduran people decided this was not going to happen in their country and the people in the Honduran Congress and the Honduran Supreme Court decided that it was not going to happen on their watch.

The region’s silence toward the assault on democracy in Honduras followed a pattern of acquiescence to Chavez’s dismantling of democratic institutions and civil liberties in Venezuela. For instance, the O.A.S. has said absolutely nothing about Chavez’s closing of independent media, his manipulation of elections, his erosion of independent branches of government, and his usurping of the authority of local elected officials. Leaders like Chavez, Ortega, and Zelaya have cloaked themselves in the language of democracy when it's convenient for them. Yet, their actions ignore it when it doesn't further their personal ambitions. This situation was compounded by the United States’ actions, including work behind the scenes to keep the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court from using the clearly legal means of presidential impeachment. Some of us have wondered why wasn't he impeached? Why didn't the Congress go ahead and impeach President Zelaya? The fact of the matter is that our embassy in Tegucigalpa counseled that they should not do that – that they should not do that, that the Hondurans should not use the tools of impeachment.

Having stood on the sidelines while Mr. Zelaya overstepped the nation's constitution, the United States and the international community only speak now. Protecting a sitting president regardless of their illegal act sets a dangerous precedent. Instead, U.S. policy should be focused on supporting efforts that uphold the integrity of constitutional order and democratic institutions.

In fairness to the Obama Administration, this distorted policy is not new. Through advice from the State Department, former President George W. Bush was talked out of having the United States stand visibly with democratic advocates in Latin America. The advice was based on the belief by not making the United States an issue, this would allow the region to stand up for democratic activists. Unfortunately, no country or leader did so. And most significant of all, the Secretary General of the Organization of American States has sat idly by year after year, as democracy after democracy is being dismantled one piece at a time, one election at a time, one institution at a time, saying absolutely nothing.

The O.A.S. has a responsibility to condemn and sanction presidential abuses, not just abuses against presidents. Because of the O.A.S.’s failure to uphold the checks and balances within democracies, it has become an enabler of authoritarian leaders throughout the region. The result of this has been a signal of acceptance to anti-democratic actions and abandonment of those fighting for democracy in Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and elsewhere.

This silence was compounded by recent repudiation of the application of the Inter-American Democratic Charter to the Cuban Dictatorship. Ironically, it was in Honduras with Mr. Zelaya taking the leading role where the O.A.S. General Assembly decided against any clear democratic standards for Cuba retaking its seat in that organization. So here’s what occurred: The Organization of American States - filled with the desire to reincorporate Cuba into the family of nations - completely ignoring that for 50 years Cuba has been a military dictatorship without even the vestiges of a free and fair election, and they invited Cuba to be readmitted without setting up a standard by which they would have to live. President Zelaya, with his partner Hugo Chavez, was leading the charge in saying, “Cuba should be welcome back and there should be no conditions.” Those conditions of democratic rule are the very ones that he is now relying upon to try to get his presidency back. It is Mr. Zelaya now seeking the very protection of the democratic charter of the O.A.S. which he thinks is important to apply to him, but which he felt was unimportant to apply to the rights and opportunities of the Cuban people to try to claim a democratic future for themselves.

The crisis in Honduras stems from the failure of its leaders to live within constitutional boundaries and the earlier silence of the United States and the international community regarding the abuse of power by the Honduran executive. Tragically, the United States and the O.A.S. have put Honduras and the region in a position where democracy is the loser once again. The return of Mr. Zelaya will signal the approval of his unconstitutional act. If he is not allowed to return, then the unacceptable behavior of forcibly exiling a leader would be given tacit approval. This is what happens when principles are sacrificed for a policy only described as appeasement of authoritarians.

In the current crisis neither the United States nor other countries in the region or the international community should be taking sides in a constitutional dispute, but rather encouraging a resolution through dialogue among Hondurans. To this end, efforts should be focused on helping Hondurans form a reconciliation government that would include representatives not associated with either Zelaya’s administration or the current interim government. The objective would be to keep Honduras on track to hold currently scheduled Presidential elections in November with the inauguration of a new president in January as mandated by the Honduran Constitution. The newly elected president with an electoral mandate then can decide how to deal with Mr. Zelaya and those involved in his ouster.

As the U.S. Senate takes up President Obama’s nominees to key State Department positions in Latin America, it is time to question the acceptance by the United States and the Inter-American community of the sustained dismantling of democratic institutions and free societies by presidents seeking to consolidate personal power at any cost. This is the larger challenge in Latin America and Honduras is the latest symptom. The United States must no longer remain silent when democratic institutions are undermined. Any disruption of the constitutional order is unacceptable regardless of who commits it.

It would be well for us to remember that as we look forward to what may come next, the Presidential succession ought to be honored, however institutions of democracy also ought to be equally honored. Secretary of State Clinton met today at 1:00 with deposed President Zelaya and it appears that she is seeking to align the United States with the mediation that is about to be undertaken by President Óscar Arias – a Nobel Prize winning, well regarded man from Costa Rica. And that President Arias might take the opportunity to see how we can bring this process back together again. It seems to me the elections in Honduras ought to take place as scheduled and a new, democratically elected government ought to go forward. The real question is, will Mr. Zelaya be allowed to return to the Office of President? It seems to be fairly unanimous that all Honduran institutions oppose such an outcome. They do not want Mr. Zelaya back. They have seen the dark movie of what life can be like in a Cuba-type situation. They have seen the erosion of democracy with the complete erosion of freedoms so much made a dear part of what we in this country believe in that has taken place in Venezuela. They have seen the continued erosion of democratic values in Nicaragua and they don’t want to see it happen in their country. And one can't blame them. It would only be fitting that they should find comfort by those of us in this country who not only value democracy for us but believe it should be shared by others around the world no matter their circumstances.

It isn’t good enough to be elected democratically but then rule as a dictator and in the process of being an elected president, then move to erode all the institutions of democracy – the courts, the congresses, even the military as an institution; they ought to be respected. Their independence ought to be valued. The playbook of Mr. Chavez, which is to dismantle the military leadership and bring in cronies of his, the efforts to then discredit the courts and bring in judges that he would also approve of – this has been the playbook by which Chavez has operated and the one that Mr. Zelaya was attempting to put into play.

So let's hope that President Arias from Costa Rica will be able to lead a mediation effort, that will bring together all the disparate groups. That there can be a free and fair election. And that there can be a resolution to this crisis of democracy. But let it also be a wake-up call to the rest of us who have sat silently by as this erosion of democracy takes place one country at a time in Latin America. We ought to say, “enough is enough.” Let's stand for the rule of law. Let’s stand for democracy not only on Election Day, but each and every day thereafter as we seek leaders that are elected democratically but govern democratically.

For more information about Sen. Mel Martinez, click HERE to visit his senate web site

Honduras' Manuel Zelaya plots new strategy to get home

BY FRANCES ROBLES frobles@MiamiHerald.com In the nine days since he was booted from the Honduran presidency by force, Manuel Zelaya as been to six cities in five countries. He flew over a sixth. Zelaya's country-hopping campaign to reclaim his post started at the airport in Costa Rica last Sunday over gallo pinto and crackers and is expected to continue Tuesday with high-level meetings in Washington to hatch a plan of action. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was expected to meet Zelaya late Monday or early Tuesday, a Latin American president told The Miami Herald. And he may not like what he hears: The Obama administration is irked by the fact that Zelaya sought much of his advice from Cuba's Fidel Castro and Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. But Washington has joined leaders from across the Americas in trying to bring end to the crisis and seek Zelaya's return to Tegucigalpa. The Organization of American States, which has stated that Zelaya's return is not negotiable, is seeking a compromise with Honduran legislators and judges. The stakes are high: as early as Tuesday, Washington may cut off hundreds of millions of dollars in aid Honduras gets. Zelaya is one of two men currently claiming to be president of Honduras. The Central American nation of 7.5 million people currently has two presidents and two foreign ministers, several Cabinet members are in hiding, and it's unclear who represents the nation in Washington: the ambassador who served under Zelaya has pledged allegiance to his successor, Roberto Micheletti. Zelaya's zeal to reclaim the seat he won with a slim majority four years ago has taken him to Costa Rica, Panama, Nicaragua three times, El Salvador twice, New York and Washington. He has met with at least a dozen presidents, as well as the head of the United Nations General Assembly and the secretary general of the OAS. Venezuela has spoken out on his behalf and provided aircraft for his travel. But as heads of state throughout the hemisphere huddle and offer assistance -- both material and diplomatic -- the deposed leftist former rancher appears no closer to winning back his post in the short term. ''He's got very little on his side except for these demonstrators, which number in the single thousands,'' said former Assistant Secretary of State Otto Reich, who has been accused by Venezuela of orchestrating Zelaya's ouster. ``You can't govern with just rioters in the streets. He needs the institutions of government -- all of which have turned against him.'' The Honduran powers of state turned against Zelaya because he was so determined to hold a nonbinding referendum last month, calling for a constituent assembly to change the constitution, that he defied court orders declaring the vote illegal. His brazen confiscation of ballot materials from an air force hangar led Honduras' Supreme Court, attorney general, congress and the military to gang up against him. He was ordered captured and shuttled off to Costa Rica in a predawn raid at his residence. Costa Rica inadvertently became the first of a series of nations dragged into one of the hemisphere's worst political crises in years. 'When Zelaya stepped off the plane, he said, `Good morning, there has been a coup,' '' Javier Sancho, the head of protocol for Costa Rica's ministry of foreign affairs, told The Miami Herald Monday in a phone interview from San José. Zelaya did not say he had been kidnapped. Sancho said Zelaya first used that word at the press conference two hours later. Had Zelaya uttered it earlier, then Costa Rica's Public Ministry might have gotten involved, Sancho said. He added that Costa Rica's civil aviation received the requested flight plan before the plane left Honduras. He said the plane was civil registered, not a military plane, which would have required the permission of the Legislative Assembly to fly into Costa Rica. The Honduran pilots who submitted the flight plan did not say they were flying the presidential airplane, nor did they say that Zelaya was aboard. That information got to Costa Rica through a 6 a.m. phone call to Costa Rican President Oscar Arias from Costa Rican ambassador to Guatemala Lidiette Brenes. She received an early morning call from appointed Honduran foreign minister Enrique Ortez Colindres saying Zelaya was being exiled and on his way to Costa Rica. Zelaya spent the first hours of his arrival in his pajamas on the phone at the airport administrative office, Sancho said. He called his wife and mother, among others. Those calls may have included chats with Castro and Chávez, according to Latin American sources familiar the happenings. ''He received a lot of phone calls,'' Sancho said. Zelaya was also given a medical checkup and had his blood pressure taken. Everything was normal as he sipped coffee and ate gallo pinto and crackers. From there, Zelaya went on to a presidential inauguration in Panama, a meeting with fellow heads of state in Nicaragua, spent two nights in El Salvador, gave a speech at the United Nations, and went to Washington, D.C., twice. ''I want to go back to my country, because it's important we have peace,'' he told those assembled at the Organization of American States on Sunday. ``I'm simply fighting to restore democracy to my country not just for myself. I'm fighting for all of us.'' Efraín Díaz, a member of Honduras' Christian Democratic party and a one-time presidential candidate, said he is not sure if all the world leaders Zelaya has reached out to will be able to broker an accord, because there are too many ideologies in the mix. ''Not everyone who he reaches out to will be able to help him or the country find a solution,'' Díaz said. ``I think Costa Rica, which is viewed as a more neutral country, could help mediate an agreement.'' A delegation of Zelaya's political enemies went to Washington as well Monday in an effort to tell their side of the story. ''The State Department wouldn't meet with them,'' said U.S. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly. ``I mean, if this is a regime that we don't recognize.'' Kelly said he was certain that if Zelaya comes to Washington as anticipated he would meet with someone at a ''senior level,'' but there are no definitive plans. Assistant Secretary of State Tom Shannon and Obama special advisor Dan Restrepo met with Zelaya early Sunday morning. ''Of course, we're very focused on the need for a dialogue to restore him back and restore the democratic order,'' Kelly said. But even while the U.S. lobbies on Zelaya's behalf -- and offers refuge to Zelaya's wife, who is staying at the home of the U.S. ambassador here -- Venezuela has accused elements in Washington of backing the coup. Citing no evidence, Venezuela pointed a finger at Reich, the former State Department official who once served as the U.S. ambassador to Caracas. In a speech to the emergency session of OAS diplomats, Venezuelan Ambassador to the OAS Roy Chaderton said Reich was among those who had been in touch with ''top officials'' from the de facto regime. ''I am not the architect of the coup -- I am not even a mason,'' Reich, president of his own Washington-based consulting firm, said Monday by telephone. ``I didn't even carry any water. ``It's typical of the Cubans and Venezuelans. They're trying to find a scapegoat.'' This story was reported by Miami Herald staff writers Frances Robles and Laura Figueroa in Honduras; Lesley Clark in Washington; Trenton Daniel in Miami; and special correspondents Tim Rogers in Nicaragua, and Phil Gunson in Caracas. It was written by Robles. Click HERE for original posting

---

© 2009 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.miamiherald.com

A Coup In Honduras

Roger Noriega, 06.29.09, 8:53 AM ET

Meeting in urgent session in Washington, D.C., on Sunday, the Organization of American States (OAS) issued a demand that Honduran President Manuel Zelaya be restored to power, calling his ouster earlier that day "an unconstitutional alteration of the democratic order." The OAS Permanent Council proclaimed that it would not recognize any government resulting from that "coup d'état." Pretty strong stuff--but too little, too late.

Manuel Zelaya began his four-year term as president of the Central American Republic of Honduras in January 2006. The harsh fact is that most of his countrymen regarded Zelaya as a capricious blowhard who was too incompetent to do any permanent damage. Not surprisingly, when it came to shredding the Honduran constitution to allow him to seek a second term, they declined to go along with his clumsy power grab.

Most Latin American countries limit their presidents to single terms, mindful that too much power held for too long might produce a dangerous strongman. This phenomenon is common enough that Latins found it necessary to coin a word: caudillo. Caudillos had fallen out of fashion until Venezuela's dictator, Hugo Chavez, burst on to the scene in 1998.

Once he was elected in 1998, Chavez rammed through constitutional amendments that concentrated most of the powers of the state in his hands. In the coup de grace against Venezuelan democracy, last year he engineered a "reform" that permits him to seek the presidency indefinitely.

Chavez has urged his acolytes in Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras and Nicaragua--upon whom he has lavished vast sums of foreign aid--to shove aside constitutional norms to impose their will. That is precisely what Zelaya was attempting to do when he came up against the country's other democratic institutions, which declared unconstitutional a popular referendum that he hoped would bless his second term.

Specifically, Honduras Electoral Tribunal, Congress, Supreme Court, attorney general and human rights ombudsman each declared Zelaya's plan unlawful. Undaunted, Zelaya stepped up his populist rhetoric in a bid to whip up the mob against the legal obstacles in his way. It speaks volumes that Zelaya was never able to mobilize large demonstrations. The idea that "Mel" Zelaya thought he deserved a second term left most Hondurans merely mystified.

Zelaya dismissed General Romeo Vásquez after he refused to ignore the Court order and instruct his troops to distribute the referendum ballots. When Zelaya sacked Vásquez, all of the military chiefs and the civilian minister of defense resigned in protest. After the Supreme Court ordered Vásquez reinstated, Zelaya led a mob of his supporters to confiscate the ballots.

In short, Zelaya brushed aside every other institution of the state in insisting on a referendum that would benefit his selfish interests.

On Sunday morning, Zelaya was arrested by military forces and sent in to exile in Costa Rica. The Supreme Court has ruled that the military had acted lawfully in detaining Zelaya and preventing the illegal referendum. The Congress quickly accepted Zelaya's purported "resignation" and, in accordance with the constitution, appointed the president of Congress, Roberto Micheletti, as Zelaya's successor. Micheletti immediately promised to convene a national dialogue and, unlike Zelaya, vowed to respect the results of presidential elections scheduled for November.

Ironically, a few short weeks ago, President Zelaya led a fight in the OAS general assembly to recognize the dictatorship of Cuba, allowing it to take a seat at the OAS. Doing so would have rendered the Inter-American Democratic Charter inoperable. That is the same Democratic Charter that regional diplomats are now citing to demand that Zelaya be returned to power--despite his willful abuses of the "separation of powers" enshrined in that document. That is the very Democratic Charter, which Zelaya was willing to violate to recognize an unelected dictator in Havana, that his supporters now use to deny recognition of his constitutional successor in Tegucigalpa.

Zelaya's self-serving lawlessness was ignored completely by OAS leadership and, as far as one can tell, by every government in the region that now dares to pass judgment on Honduras' constitutional order. The feckless regional diplomats who have failed to confront undemocratic caudillos in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Honduras are complicit in their abuses. Today, they have neither the credibility nor moral authority to pass judgment on those desperate patriots who act to defend their freedom, in Honduras or anywhere else.

The author was a senior official in the administration of President George W. Bush from 2001-2005. He is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and founder of Vision Americas LLC, which advocates for U.S. and foreign clients.

Click HERE for original story

Honduras heads toward crisis over referendum

By FREDDY CUEVAS – AP

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras (AP) — Honduras' leftist president hurled insults Friday at congressional leaders who are considering whether to oust him from power in a standoff over his push to revamp the constitution.

President Manuel Zelaya is promoting a Sunday referendum on constitutional changes that has plunged the country into crisis by setting the president at odds with the military, the courts and the legislature that have branded the vote illegal.

Many shops and gasoline stations were closed Friday in the capital, Tegucigalpa, after the city's leading business chamber advised its members to stay shut for fear of disturbances. Some schools closed and supermarkets were filled with panic buyers.

The president led thousands of supporters to the country's main airport, where they seized referendum ballots to keep them from being destroyed at court order.

Then he returned to the presidential palace and lashed out at Congress early Friday for plans to investigate his mental stability and possibly declare him unfit to govern. Lawmakers are also investigating whether Zelaya undermined the rule of law by refusing to abide by a Supreme Court order reinstating the military chief he fired.

He referred to Congressional President Roberto Micheletti — a member of his own Liberal Party — as "a pathetic, second-class congressman who got that job because of me, because I gave you space within my political current."

Zelaya, who counts Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Cuba's Castro brothers as friends, says the current constitution favors the elite in a country where 70 percent of the population is poor. His backers warn an attempted coup d'etat is under way.

The president has not specified what changes he seeks, but opponents say he wants to rewrite the charter to allow re-election so he can stay in power, as other Latin American leaders, including Chavez, have done.

Zelaya, a wealthy landowner grappling with rising food prices and a sharp spike in drug violence, is currently barred from seeking re-election when his four-year term ends in January.

Sunday's referendum has no legal effect: it merely asks people if they want to have a later vote on whether to convoke an assembly to rewrite the constitution. Opponents fear Zelaya and his backers would use that assembly to take drastic steps, from dissolving Congress to invalidating the results of the Nov. 29 presidential elections.

The showdown over Sunday's referendum has all but overshadowed the election campaign, which pits Porfirio Lobo of the opposition National Party against Liberal Party candidate Elvin Santos, who resigned as vice president last year complaining that Zelaya had been trying to sideline him in the government.

Honduras' top court, Congress and the attorney general have all said the referendum he is sponsoring is illegal because the constitution says some of its clauses cannot be changed.

Zelaya told thousands supporters outside the presidential offices Thursday that he would stand by his decision to oust Gen. Romeo Vasquez as head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The general had refused to support the referendum, arguing he could not aid a process the courts said was illegal.

The defense minister and the chiefs of the army, navy and air force have all resigned in protest of the referendum and the Supreme Court ordered Zelaya to reinstate Vasquez.

"Congress cannot investigate me, much less remove me or stage a technical coup against me because I am honest, I'm a free president and nobody scares me," Zelaya said in his two-hour speech Friday, at one point bursting — Chavez-like — into song.

"But we have to forgive them. Glory to God! We have to forgive, and I know who to forgive because the people are my support and my best ally in this political process," he said.

He warned legislators, "You have declared war against me. Now face the consequences."

Micheletti, who by law would take over the presidency if Zelaya were ousted, retorted, "We should not have to suffer the aspirations of a disturbed man who wants to hold onto to power."

Zelaya has won the support of labor leaders, farmers and civic organizations who hope constitutional reforms will give them a greater voice. His leftist allies have also cheered him on.

"There is a coup d'etat under way and it must be stopped," Chavez said during his television and radio program "Alo, Presidente!"

Former Cuban President Fidel Castro published an essay in Cuban state media late Thursday praising Zelaya: "He forcefully denounced the crude, reactionary attempt to block an important popular referendum. That is the 'democracy' that imperialism defends."

Bolivian President Evo Morales expressed his "absolute rejection of any coup attempt or threat to the democratic process in the sister republic of Honduras."

U.S., Venezuela to restore full diplomatic ties

The nations' envoys soon will take up their former posts. The move, analysts say, reflects Obama's desire for better Latin American relations and President Hugo Chavez's need to improve his image.

By Chris Kraul and Paul Richter

June 26, 2009

Reporting from Bogota, Colombia, and Washington — In a potentially significant step toward repairing their tattered relationship, the United States and Venezuela have formally agreed to resume full diplomatic relations, the State Department announced Thursday.

Department spokesman Ian Kelly said the two nations exchanged notes that in effect formalized pledges that President Obama and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez made at the Summit of the Americas in April to reinstall ambassadors who were expelled in September.

U.S. Ambassador Patrick Duddy and his Venezuelan counterpart, Bernardo Alvarez, soon will resume their former posts in Caracas and Washington, respectively, Kelly said. Each country's embassy had remained open and formal relations were never fully cut.

Kelly said the move would "help advance U.S. interests" by improving communication with the Venezuelan government and citizens.

The restoration of full ties came a day after the State Department said it was sending an ambassador back to Syria. The Bush administration recalled Ambassador Margaret Scobey in 2005 after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who was killed by a car bomb in Beirut. There were widespread suspicions of Syrian involvement in the attack.

Analysts said the resumption of full diplomatic relations with Venezuela reflects the important commercial ties between the nations, the Obama administration's desire for better Latin American relations and Chavez's need to improve his image.

The two countries expelled each other's ambassadors in a diplomatic spat. Chavez moved first, saying he was acting in solidarity with Bolivian President Evo Morales, who had expelled the U.S. ambassador there. Morales said the U.S. was plotting his downfall.

The U.S. soon followed suit, expelling Alvarez and shortly thereafter freezing the assets of three close aides of Chavez, saying they had "armed, abetted and funded" Colombia's largest leftist rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.

The charges, coupled with the State Department's "decertification" of Venezuela's efforts in combating drugs, have stung Chavez, Caracas-based political analyst Ricardo Sucre said.

"These kinds of allegations have far-reaching effects on Chavez's image abroad and his ability to carry out foreign policy," Sucre said. "He hopes that with this resumption of full diplomatic relations, which is really a minimal gesture on his part, he can avoid the larger problems."

During the Bush administration, relations between the two nations were abysmal, with leaders on both sides routinely exchanging insults. But relations seemed to improve at the April summit, where Obama and Chavez exchanged friendly greetings and Chavez presented Obama with a book.

Since taking office, Obama has said he wants "a new beginning" with Latin countries and has pledged to alleviate suspicions and work cooperatively with nations in the region.

Besides taking a friendlier attitude toward Chavez, Obama has eased travel and remittance restrictions on Cuba and promised Brazil that the U.S. would reduce or eliminate tariffs on imports of biofuels. He has also backed away from his strong rhetoric against free trade during last year's presidential campaign, saying he now favors bilateral deals with Panama and Colombia.

Venezuela is the third-largest supplier of crude oil to the United States after Canada and Mexico. U.S.-Venezuelan trade totaled $5 billion last year, most of it Venezuelan oil exports.

paul.richter@latimes.com

Kraul is a special correspondent.

Click HERE for original story

Cuban Hopes

The people find their voice — but will the world help the Castros silence it?

OTTO J. REICH & ORLANDO GUTIERREZ
(as appeared on National Review Magazine)

In the 1980s, most American foreign-policy experts and intelligence analysts failed to see the internal changes taking place in the Soviet bloc as serious challenges to the regimes. Could history be repeating itself closer to home, this time in Cuba?

After 50 years of living under the most repressive dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere, the Cuban people are losing their fear and beginning to push off the Communist boot from their collective neck. Paradoxically, this is happening as a dark cloud of authoritarian populism spreads throughout Latin America, financed by Hugo Chávez’s petrodollars, undergirded by Castro’s intelligence and security infrastructure, and propelled by years of incompetence and selfishness on the part of political elites. Democratic change in Cuba, long deemed an impossibility, could turn the tide and usher forth a rebirth of freedom in the region.

An uncommon sound was heard throughout three Cuban cities in early May of this year: pots and pans being banged in protest over political and economic conditions on the island. The protest was as unusual as the way in which it was organized: An incipient movement of young bloggers used their limited access to the Internet — the Cuban government severely restricts access to computers and the Web — to call on the population to carry out the protest.

A few weeks earlier, on March 29, at the annual Havana Arts Festival, some of these same bloggers, together with young artists, had taken the stand during a presentation and proclaimed an “open podium” — calling on the hundreds of onlookers and participants to express themselves freely. Many did, openly and courageously mocking government censorship.

These reports are unusual because any anti-government protests in Cuba have traditionally been met with furious physical attacks by police and government-organized “rapid-response brigades” of local goons armed with iron bars and other blunt instruments. In these recent cases, however, the rapid-response brigades have not been effective: The citizens have responded with passive, but consistent, resistance.

At a government-sponsored concert a few weeks before the Havana Arts Festival, many youths had openly protested the arrest of Gorki Aguila, leader of a punk-rock band known for its obscene lyrics and no-holds-barred critique of the Castro regime. The Castros’ gerontocratic ruling clique is attempting to maintain total control over a nation whose population averages less than half its age.

In the town of Placetas, in the central part of Cuba, lives 44-year-old Jorge Luis García Pérez, also known as “Antúnez,” a black Cuban who served 17 years in prison for calling for glasnost and perestroika on the island. Antúnez has been called “the Black Diamond” by his fellow prisoners, for his tough resistance to the dictatorship and in reference to the color of his skin. He has organized meetings, marches, fasts, and vigils in a crusade to mobilize a nonviolent civic movement for change, and he recently went on a hunger strike to draw international attention to the plight of Cubans.

Antúnez has reasons to be hopeful. The Castro regime itself has recognized that it cannot extinguish what it calls “indisciplina laboral,” or rampant worker non-cooperation with the regime’s command-and-control apparatus. What’s more, after a grassroots campaign by activists throughout the island, more than 1.5 million Cubans of voting age refused to cooperate with the sham one-party, one-candidate “elections” organized by the government in January 2008 in order to “legitimize” the passing of presidential power from Fidel Castro to his younger (by almost five years) brother, Raúl. Never before had Cubans in such large numbers dared to defy the rigidly enforced order to vote. For the first time in half a century — because of this innovative campaign, carried out with fasts, public protests, workshops, Internet postings, leafleting, and programs on short-wave radio — citizens were galvanized into rejecting sham elections.

Since the March 18, 2003, crackdown that landed 75 civic activists and leaders in prison, the resistance movement has developed innovative ways of expanding the struggle for freedom, including the founding of groups such as the Rosa Parks Women’s Movement for Civil Rights, underground independent newsletters, and even citizen committees against police abuse. The movement grows, fueled by increasingly open popular discontent.

A number of U.S. congressmen and foreign governments are pressuring the Obama administration to accelerate U.S. diplomatic approaches to Cuba regardless of the action — or inaction — of the dictatorship. The result of following this misguided suggestion would be to undermine the growing dissident movement on the island and delay the day when democracy and freedom can return. The resilient civic resistance movement that has flowered in Cuba presents a constant challenge to a once all-powerful totalitarian regime. Unarmed but persistent, these nonviolent resisters represent a positive alternative future for Cuba.

Nor is frustration with the current government limited to the young and anonymous. In March, some of the most powerful people in the government — including Carlos Lage, a key economic official, and Felipe Pérez Roque, the foreign minister — were summarily removed from their posts. Their future is being debated at the highest levels, including within the Politburo, the Communist party’s policy-making body, from which they were also expelled. Their crime: having been secretly tape-recorded mocking Raúl and Fidel Castro’s incompetence (and, in the case of Fidel, incontinence), as well as the advanced age of the ruling clique. Furthermore, they could be heard hoping for the day when a younger generation could rule. The political significance of the demotion of formerly trusted, high-ranking leaders of the next generation of the island’s rulers must not be underestimated.

A dialogue with the Castro government that ignored the growing dissidence and despair at all levels of Cuba would be as counterproductive as would have been ignoring Lech Walesa in 1980s Poland and addressing only General Jaruzelski. The U.S. should instead draw attention to the courageous Cuban resistance and insist that nations that engage Castro not turn their backs on these freedom fighters. In this decade, too many European embassies in Havana (most of them from “Old Europe”) have, under pressure from the Castro regime, stopped even inviting dissidents to diplomatic functions. Fortunately, the Eastern European states have not followed suit, since they remember what it is like to live under a Communist dictatorship, and how important it is for dissidents to know they have friends on the outside.

It is said that “generals are always ready to fight the last war,” because they fail to recognize the changes that follow it. The same may be said about diplomats and politicians who are calling for commercial and diplomatic engagement with Castro’s Cuba. They are ready to talk to a government that does not represent the future of Cuba — or even its present.

But perhaps they cannot be blamed. After all, when was the last time that the U.S. or international mainstream media reported the events described above?

Mr. Reich served three U.S. presidents in the State Department and White House. He heads Otto Reich Associates, an international consulting firm in Washington, D.C. Mr. Gutierrez is national secretary of the Directorio Democratico Cubano, which supports efforts of the Cuban civil resistance.

Click HERE to learn more about the Directorio Democratico Cuba and their activities.

click HERE for original story on NR's web site

An Independence Claim in Nicaragua

June 10, 2009

By BLAKE SCHMIDT and MARC LACEY

PUERTO CABEZAS, Nicaragua — After declaring independence from the rest of Nicaragua in April, a group of indigenous activists from the Mosquito Coast readied a grand celebration to commemorate the occasion. Their feast would be ruined, however, when the regional government sent in the police to seize the main course.

Commercial sales of turtle meat, which has long been a delicacy here, is restricted in Nicaragua because of declining populations of endangered green sea turtles — one of many cultural clashes that the people in this remote corner of Nicaragua, who have eaten turtle for generations, say have propelled them to create their own country, which they have dubbed the Communitarian Nation of Mosquitia.

The Council of Elders of the Miskito people has an extensive list of grievances. For as long local residents can remember, the federal government has allowed outside companies to exploit the raw materials in their jungle territory — everything from lobster to lumber to gold. Little benefit has come to the people who eke out a living here, they say.

Fed up, the separatists seized the region’s ruling party headquarters on April 19 and appointed Héctor Williams as their wihta tara, or great judge. Mr. Williams, a local religious leader whose thin black mustache stretches out toward his deep dimples, said the region suffered from a variety of woes — devastating hurricanes and rat plagues to a mysterious disease known as grisi siknis, which is marked by collective bouts of hysteria.

“We have the right to autonomy and self-government,” declared Wycleff Diego, the breakaway movement’s ambassador abroad, as he held up the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Over the weekend, the ruling party, Yatama, literally “Sons of Mother Earth,” retook the headquarters in what it said was a peaceful operation. The separatists denied that, saying weapons were used, and vowed to continue to fight for independence.

Despite the setback, the budding independence movement is giving the Nicaraguan government headaches and rekindling some of the ire from the contra war that tore through this country in the 1980s. Mr. Diego was a soldier in that war, a fighter for the American-backed contras.

Many Miskito people, who make up one of several ethnic groups on Nicaragua’s diverse Atlantic coast, joined with the contras. They were inspired by their historic animosity toward the rulers in Managua, Nicaragua’s capital, which is 15 hours distant over bumpy dirt roads.

As in the rest of Nicaragua, the contra war would leave lasting pain along the coast. The Sandinista government’s armed forces led a fierce campaign to remove Miskitos from their native lands along the Coco River.

President Daniel Ortega, who led the Sandinistas in the 1980s and then returned to power in January 2007, is widely distrusted by local residents, even more so after his government’s lackluster response to Hurricane Felix, which leveled many coastal communities in September 2007.

The breakaway movement, some say, has also been fueled by the Ortega government’s failure to support thousands of impoverished contra war veterans, who had been promised land, housing and other assistance during his presidential campaign.

Even the government’s allies, while condemning the independence movement, concede that Managua could have responded better to the Miskitos’ needs. “We haven’t been the best administrators of public things, but that doesn’t mean we should spill blood,” said Steadman Fagoth, a former Miskito independence leader and contra commander who has since allied himself with Mr. Ortega.

A top Sandinista leader, Gustavo Porras, has accused Robert Callahan, the American ambassador to Nicaragua, of conspiring with the separatist movement in cold war-era fashion. Mr. Callahan, who worked in the American Embassy in Honduras when it was the command center for the Reagan administration’s contra campaign, denies involvement.

“The question regarding any contentious issues that may exist between parts of the Miskito community and the government of Nicaragua is a matter for the Nicaraguans, and one that they themselves must resolve,” he said in a statement.

Two major drilling concessions have been granted off Nicaragua’s Caribbean coast, but officials involved in those efforts said that the separatist movement might scare away future investors. “It’s going to send the signal that you can’t do business in Nicaragua,” said Stan Ross, chief executive at Infinity Energy, a Denver-based company.

Concerned about provoking further instability, regional authorities had refrained from forcibly removing the independence leaders from the party offices. Puerto Cabezas has twice been racked by violent protests in recent years: in 2007, when residents complained that the government was not helping them enough to recover from the hurricane, and in 2008, when Mr. Ortega’s government postponed mayoral elections.

“We’re not going to fight between Miskito and Miskito,” Reynaldo Francis, the regional governor, said before this weekend’s action. “It’s not that we’re afraid of that movement.”

Mr. Williams, the separatist leader, who has enlisted the support of hundreds of Miskito lobster divers who are protesting a drop in pay as lobster prices plunge, said he had to discourage the divers this weekend from attacking the party offices.

The only weapons visible during a recent visit — before the weekend eviction — were slingshots, although the separatists said they were seeking financing to train and equip an army of 1,500.

“We’ll defend our natural resources,” vowed Guillermo Espinoza, the movement’s defense minister, who was known as Comandante Black Cat during the contra war. If no guns can be found, he said, the separatists will make weapons themselves.

Blake Schmidt reported from Puerto Cabezas, Nicaragua, and Marc Lacey from Mexico City.

Click HERE for original story

Latin America's Brave New World

Cuba gets a vote of confidence from the OAS.

• By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY

In a post-bubble world that vilifies the private sector and elevates government as humanity's best hope, two events in Latin America last week deserve attention.

The first was a meeting of the Organization of American States in Honduras. The OAS voted to lift the 1962 ban on Cuba's membership. The second was the 25th anniversary celebration of the Venezuelan, pro-liberty think-tank Cedice Libertad in Caracas.

The former, state-sponsored event, sided with tyranny. The latter, held by private citizens in the most repressive country in South America, took a stand for liberty. This dichotomy may well be the region's future.

The OAS expelled Cuba in 1962, in part, because the regime's Marxist-Leninist ideology was considered "incompatible with the inter-American system." In 2001 all OAS members strengthened that position by signing "the democratic charter" and pledging to respect limits to state power. But under Secretary General José Miguel Insulza the organization's principled stand has withered. Led by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Argentina now tell Mr. Insulza what to do. Brazil goes along as part of its eternal quest to reduce U.S. power in the region. Chilean President Michelle Bachelet has been very public about her admiration for Fidel Castro.

So when the group met to discuss Mr. Insulza's proposal that the 1962 ban be lifted, there wasn't much suspense. Ecuador's foreign minister captured the spirit of the regime's apologists when he told the gathering that Marxist-Leninist ideology is compatible with democracy. That jibes with the views of the Honduran president, who has argued that Cuba is a democracy.

It is true that the agreement ties the renewal of Cuban membership to democratic reform. Yet by lifting the ban, Latin America's axis of evil made important strides toward its end game to redefine democracy at the OAS. The rights to property, transparent elections and free speech are not part of the new definition. The fact that Venezuela is still an OAS member despite the military government's assault on organized labor, religious expression and the press signals where OAS standards are headed.

Don't count on the U.S. to help much, either. Though Washington opposed lifting the ban, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is not herself a big proponent of freedom. Asked in an interview in El Salvador about Cuba's membership vis-à-vis the political prisoners, she chose to speak instead about "our shared values," of "lifting people out of poverty in our hemisphere, narrowing the intolerable income gap that exists between the rich and the poor in our hemisphere, working for greater social inclusion, improved education and health care." Millions of Latins living under repressive states were no doubt disappointed that Mrs. Clinton's list did not include "making the trains run on time."

"Some might say President Obama is left-of-center," Mrs. Clinton opined. "And of course, that means that we are going to work well with countries that share our commitment to improving and enhancing the human potential." Sounds like a brave new world.

It is also worth considering the business interests of Mrs. Clinton's party, which have often trumped its concern for the poor. During the Clinton presidency, key Democrats had a secret and lucrative telephone contract with Haitian President Jean Bertrand Aristide. Any wonder Aristide was never brought to heel as he trampled Haitian rights? This is why the Obama administration's offer to open Cuba to U.S. telecom investors has raised eyebrows.

Meanwhile it's no secret that Mr. Chávez and the rest of the Latin revolution is getting rich off the power grab ignored by Mr. Insulza. This government greed contrasts sharply with the altruism of the more than 150 private citizens who traveled to Caracas last week to speak against the Chávez tyranny and support Venezuelans.

Peruvian novelist Mario Vargas Llosa and his son Alvaro, a journalist, were both detained at the airport and warned not to criticize the government; neither cooperated with the gag diktat. Before more than 600 conferees, Mario spoke for millions of locals when he told them, "We don't want Venezuela to become a totalitarian communist state." Mr. Chávez was so mad about the event that he used his television show to try to stir up public hatred for the participants.

What did Cedice solidarity mean to Venezuelans? Bonny Simonovis, the wife of political prisoner Ivan Simonovis, told me this on Saturday: "The relatives of the political prisoners, specifically the nine policemen condemned on April 3 to 30 years in prison, felt enormous support during the Cedice Libertad event. Liberty is a right in itself, non-negotiable. The freedom of our husbands is the freedom of all Venezuelans, because freedom is a whole. You either have it complete or you do not have it at all. We are fighting for freedom for all Venezuelans."

Too bad Mr. Insulza and the democracies of the OAS don't have Mrs. Simonovis's wisdom or courage.

Write to O'Grady@wsj.com

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal Forum.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A15

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreementand by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit

www.djreprints.com