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

Venezuelan prosecutors charge anti-Chavez TV chief

By FABIOLA SANCHEZ –

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Venezuelan prosecutors charged the head of an anti-government television station with usury on Thursday, ending a weeks-long investigation into his business activities that he called politically motivated.

Globovision president Guillermo Zuloaga was charged with usury after a police raid uncovered 24 Toyota vehicles outside his Caracas office last month, prompting an investigation into two car dealerships he owns, prosecutors said in a statement.

Trade Minister Eduardo Saman accused Zuloaga of keeping the cars off the market while waiting for their price to rise — involving a possible violation of foreign exchange rules that give importers access to dollars only if they aren't used to gain a "disproportionate advantage" over rivals.

It was not clear if Zuloaga received dollars that way from the government, but importers who violate those terms can be prosecuted under Venezuelan usury law. A spokesperson for the prosecutor's office did not immediately answer calls seeking comment.

Zuloaga, 67, dismissed the investigation as political intimidation, saying he has no reason leave the country or be afraid. He said he'd stored the vehicles outside his office for safekeeping because one of his dealerships had been robbed.

"This is something to try to somehow frighten Globovision, shut up Globovision," he told reporters. "The government knows very well that shutting or closing down news media is no way to hide the reality of what is happening in Venezuela."

If convicted, Zuloaga could face up to 3 years in prison.

Venezuelan officials have been investigating Globovision and its president on various charges since last month.

President Hugo Chavez denies the inquiry into Zuloaga is linked to Globovision. But he last week urged the nation's attorney general, Supreme Court and telecommunications chief to take action against "poisonous" private media or resign.

He gave no specific details and named no specific news organizations, but he has often criticized Globovision and certain newspapers in the past.

Broadcast regulators last month accused Globovision of inciting "panic and anxiety" by criticizing the government for its slow response to a moderate earthquake, and prosecutors this week opened a second inquiry into Zuloaga for a suspected "environmental crime" related to wild animals he'd hunted and had mounted in his Caracas residence.

State television broadcast footage of prosecutors accompanied by dozens of National Guard troops arriving at Zuloaga's house on Thursday evening to gather evidence in that case. Perla Jaimes, Globovision's legal represenative, said they entered the residence in the city's upscale Los Chorros neighborhood and took the hunting trophies.

Free press groups including the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists condemned the investigation of Globovision.

Since Chavez refused to renew the broadcast license of Radio Caracas Television in 2007, Globovision has been the only anti-government network on public airwaves in Venezuela.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Cuban Realities

By Nicholas Hanlon

Any discussion of engagement with Cuba needs to take into account that Cuba is the last country in the hemisphere that represses nearly every form of political dissent. Those who lament Cuba's absence from the summit should remember that the Cuban government systematically denies its people even the most basic freedoms.

José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch.

The dawn of the new administration has promised to bring change. To many Cuba watchers the hope is that it will come in the form of a new policy towards the Castro regime.  Opponents and supporters of the embargo agree that it has not fulfilled its primary function of regime change.  The question remains what to do.  Some argue that restrictions on trade and travel only serve to hurt and isolate the public while strengthening and legitimizing the regime.  Yet, relaxing restrictions without reform could have the same effect.  What ever form the new policy takes, it should be based on increased freedoms for the Cuban people.  Ideally, any new policy would bring about the release of all political prisoners and lead the Cuban government to observe the human rights treaties to which it is a signatory.  

American policy toward Cuba should put a spotlight on the regime and hold it accountable.  In fact, Human Rights Watch has the same criticism for both the U.S. policy of isolation and South American states policies of engagement.  Not only do they counter act each other, they are equally “uncritical.”  Leaders of the pro-democracy movement agree that if the international community did nothing else, they should at least bring scrutiny to the Castro’s and take account of one of the world’s most oppressive dictators.  This is the one thing that no state or international organization has done effectively.

There are distinct differences in the proposed policies.  Some on the American left want to normalize relations with little or no cost to Cuba.  Considering the gross human rights abuses, torture, and the unlawful imprisonment of hundreds of political dissidents, there is much the U.S. can ask in return for opening relations.  Barring a counter-revolution, the Castro’s will continue to defy human dignity and human rights in the face of the world.  They have created the fulfillment of a totalitarian dream state.  Before selling a new policy to the American electorate, the administration should take a look at what living conditions are really like for the vast majority of the Cuban population.

Oppression in Society

There are several mechanisms for the surveillance and control of the citizenry.  According to research from Human Rights Watch[i], the Interior Ministry oversees the bodies that monitor the population for possible dissent.  These are the General Directorate of Counter-Intelligence and the General Directorate of Internal Order.  The General Directorate of Counter-Intelligence supervises The Department of State Security.  Also referred to as the Political Police, they divide counter-intelligence operations into specialized units.   

One of these units is designated to monitor religious groups, writers, and artists.  The other main body under the Interior Ministry that deters dissidents is called the Directorate of Internal Order.  This office administers two police units.  These are the National Revolutionary Police and the Technical Department of Investigation who are responsible for internal surveillance.  These powerful institutions enable the government to reach deep into Cuban life and discourage people from daring to think or speak differently from the regime.  Cuban citizens know that they are constantly being observed for signs of non-conformity.  This creates a palpable fear for most Cubans that Americans can scarcely imagine.

Beyond official government enforcement bodies, government sponsored community organizations known as Committees for the Defense of the Revolution reach into every Cuban neighborhood encouraging citizens to monitor each other.  According to Castro, the intention was to create a, "system of collective revolutionary vigilance so that everyone will know who everyone else is ... what they devote themselves to, who they meet with, what activities they take part in."[ii]  Community organizers known as block captains run patriotic group activities.  The role of the captains is to report and spy on those who do not participate. 

The Communist Party has created similar groups called the Singular Systems of Vigilance and Protection and Rapid Action Brigades to intimidate activists and control dissidents.  The government keeps academic and labor files on every citizen.  Loyalty to the regime is measured before any advancement in work or school takes place.  The Cuban government’s housing authority even exercises its power by fining party opponents and taking away their homes.   

In 2003, in what is now known as the Cuban Spring, Fidel Castro arrested seventy-five opposition members, journalists, human rights activists, and librarians.  These dissidents were hastily tried and were convicted to an average of twenty years in prison.  In addition to the notoriously inhumane Cuban prison conditions of physical neglect and torture, the prisoner’s families continue to be harassed and threatened by the government as a part of their psychological torture.   

U.S. Policy

Mauricio Claver–Carone of the U.S. Cuba PAC offers three reasons why the current U.S. policy is correct.  First, there is a political basis because the U.S. does not financially support dictatorships.  Second, there is a geo-political interest.  The Obama administration has made statements that the promotion of democracy and human rights in Cuba is in our national interest.  Third, the idea of trade with Cuba is an illusion.  There is only one company in Cuba and the Castro brothers own it.  That is not trade.  It is mercantilism.   

The pro-democracy movement here in the U.S. was encouraged when the Obama administration suggested in April that Cuba release all political prisoners to reciprocate their end of U.S. travel restrictions.  The hope is that while acting like he is making friends, President Obama will create tangible pressure on the regime to change.  Like Obama, the freedom fighters of Cuba have based their campaign on “Change.”  For some of them the cost of simply wearing the word “cambio” on their sleeve was imprisonment.  It may also cost President Obama politically here in the United States to take a serious stance on Cuban political repression.  Several members of his party are open about their ideological sympathies with Fidel Castro.  Others in the Democrat party have at least pandered to the extreme left by having their picture taken with the dictator. 

Congresswoman Barbara Lee recently led a delegation of Democrats to Cuba.  Composed of Representatives Mel Watt of North Carolina, Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, Marcia Fudge of Ohio, Mike Honda of California, Bobby Rush of Illinois, and Laura Richardson of California, their message was that the current U.S. policy was not working.  They essentially propose more openness with the regime despite the fact that the point of U.S. policy is to isolate the regime.  In response to the trip, Republican Mel Martinez suggested that it would be preferable to support the pro-democracy activists and not “the Castro Regime.”

U.S. National Security perspective

From a U.S. national security perspective, a hard look at the Castro regime is also imperative.  It is a common foreign policy strategy among U.S. foes such as Iran, North Korea, Syria, China, and Russia to pay lip service to diplomatic pleasantries and simultaneously act against our interests.  The U.S. cannot take Fidel or Raul at their words while they plot against us.  A staff report from the Institute for Cuba and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami characterizes, to a great extent, the national security threat posed by Cuba.  They reported the following in reference to Cuba’s support of Iran:

“During the widespread protests by reform-minded Iranian university students against repressive clerical rule in the summer of 2003, authorities in Tehran turned to Havana for assistance in interfering with the satellite transmission of broadcasts by U.S.-based Farsi-language TV stations. Cuba, with decades of experience in jamming U.S. broadcasts directed at the island, used its Chinese-equipped high-power antennae to effectively jam the U.S. satellite signals. The jamming was ultimately tracked by a U.S. company to a point of origin some 20 miles outside the city of Havana, in the vicinity of Bejucal, where a joint Sino-Cuban military signals intelligence and electronic warfare facility operates since 1999.”[iii]

Acting accordingly as a self-defined enemy of the United States, Castro’s alliance with Iran is unsurprising.  It does not only translate into Cuba enhancing the Iranian regime at home.  It has real time consequences in North America.  The University of Miami report also offered the following analysis:

“The type of espionage carried out by Ana Belén Montes, the senior U.S. defense intelligence analyst who spied for Cuba during some 16 years until her arrest in 2001, has enabled the Castro regime to amass a wealth of intelligence on U.S. vulnerabilities as well as a keen understanding of the inner-workings of the U.S. national security system. Such information and analysis was provided to Saddam Hussein and would undoubtedly be provided to a strategic ally like Iran. While one may argue that factors such as Iran’s limited military capabilities and sheer distance diminish any conventional concerns, one should expect that Tehran, in case of preemptive strikes by American forces, would launch an asymmetrical offensive against the U.S. and its European allies through surrogate terrorist and paramilitary organizations.  In such a scenario, Cuban intelligence would be invaluable to Iran and its proxies and Cuban territory could be used by terrorist groups to launch operations against the U.S.

There is a level of frankness missing from the dialogue about U.S. - Cuban relations.  For the past fifty years, Cuba has acted against American interests. In fact, the Cuban government is not shy about trying to indoctrinate its citizens to believe that the United States is their enemy.  In reference to Cuba’s Dirección General de Inteligencia (DGI), or General Intelligence Directorate the Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence, and Security states:

“Today DGI collects a wide variety of data through its operatives in Europe, the Third World, and North America—especially the last of these, because the United States is Cuba's self-declared number-one foe. The Cuban delegation to the United Nations in New York City is the third-largest in the world, and it has been estimated that nearly half of its personnel are DGI officers.”[iv]

The common misconception about diplomacy is that talking has disproportionately good implications when results should be the real test.  U.S. foreign policy makers have been misguided in counter terrorism strategies in the past by failing to calculate ideology and the internal rhetoric of transnational organizations.  The principal holds true with hostile states that what they say to their own people about us reveals their true intentions.  The Cuban government defines the United States as the enemy and will act accordingly in their own interest.  Hence, human rights and national security concerns should be the primary context for formulating our foreign policy. 

---

[i] Román Orozco, Cuba Roja (Buenos Aires: Información y Revista S.A. Cambio 16 - Javier Vergara Editor S.A., 1993), p. 158.

[ii]Sarah A. DeCosse,  CUBA'S REPRESSIVE MACHINERY Human Rights Forty Years After the Revolution, Copyright © June 1999 by Human Rights Watch

[iii] Staff Report, The Growing Iran-Cuba Strategic Alliance Focus on Cuba; Cuba Transition Project, Issue 76 May 16, 2006

[iv] "Cuba, Intelligence and Security." Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence, and Security. The Gale Group Inc. 2004. Encyclopedia.com. 27 May. 2009 <http://www.encyclopedia.com>.

 Nicholas Hanlon is a foreign affairs writer and researcher at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C.

 Click HERE for original posting