TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
SUB-COMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Submitted by: Nancy
Menges, Luis Fleischman, Nicole Ferrand.
The Americas Report, Center for Security
Policy
March
5, 2008
I would like to thank the Chairman, Eliot
Engel and members of the Subcommittee for inviting me to testify at this
hearing. The subjects of my presentation include the recent change in
leadership in Cuba, why it
is important to retain the embargo as well as issues in Latin America that have
a direct bearing on the national security of the United States.
Prior to beginning, I would like to thank Congressman Ron Klein and
Congressman Connie Mack for their Resolution to Combat Terrorism in Latin
America and their recognition of the growing influence of Iran in the Hemisphere. I would
also like to thank my colleagues, Nicole Ferrand and Luis Fleischman who
traveled from New York and Florida respectively and who made valuable
contributions to this written testimony.
Implications of the Recent Change in Cuban
Leadership
Due
to his illness, Fidel Castro appointed his brother, Raul Castro acting
president of Cuba
in July, 2006. On February 24, 2008, Cuba’s
highest governing body, The Council of State, made this appointment permanent.
Though characterized as a better and more pragmatic manager, Raul, who has been
Defense Minister for the past forty nine years, has been a life long communist
and remains ideologically close to his brother. Therefore, many believe that
though there may be some minor changes he will not deviate significantly from
the last almost half century of Castro rule. From his hospital bed, Fidel
remains an important presence and continues in his post as the head of the
Cuban Communist Party.
Since becoming president, Raul has promised “structural changes” and
said “we have to make our government’s management more efficient”. According to
recent news reports, he has acknowledged that the average Cuban salary of
twelve to seventeen dollars a month is too little to live on. While Raul talks
of increasing salaries and lessening government control over the economy, his
actions have only been reflected in minor changes in policy. For example, the
Cuban government has decentralized the production and distribution of milk and
has ordered new buses from China
to ease major transportation problems. However, in terms of how the majority of
the Cuban population still lives, very little has changed. Food continues to be
rationed by neighborhood block committees, goods such as eggs and chicken are
in short supply, the monthly ration reportedly only lasts for one or two weeks,
housing is limited and overcrowded, and in spite of people’s efforts to get
ahead, the government taxes income earned from private initiatives or refuses
to grant licenses to “businesses on the side”.
What is interesting is that after the fall
of the Soviet Union and the halt in their economic support, Cuba’s economy
(according to a February 23, 2008 report in the Economist) shrank by 35
percent. As a result, Castro declared a “special period” and opened the economy
to tourism, foreign investment in certain sectors, farmers markets, small
privately owned businesses, and legalized the use of the dollar which opened
the way to hard currency via remittances from one million plus Cuban Americans. This
special period lasted from 1989 to 1996 and was reversed even though the
economy was beginning to stabilize. Perhaps, the reasons why it was reversed have
implications for how the current leadership may react. Apparently, the reforms
were stopped because Castro believed that some people in society were
benefiting more than others and that “it was a threat to the regime as it
undermined party control”. In
terms of current financial support, Cuba now relies on Chinese credit and three
to four billion dollars worth of free oil from Hugo Chavez as well as an
additional one and a half billion dollars of additional aid from the Venezuelan
president.
While
there has been a change in leadership in Cuba, there has not been a
transition to any significant change in ideology, in governance, in the abysmal
living conditions of most Cubans, nor in the area of human freedoms. As
reported by various human rights organizations, there are approximately two
hundred political prisoners incarcerated in Cuban jails. It is also important
to keep in mind that the Castro brothers remain hostile to American values and
principles, especially democratic governance, capitalism and free markets and
that they have spent their entire adult lives fighting against “yankee
imperialism”. In addition, it was not that long ago that Castro met with Ahmadinejad
of Iran and proclaimed, “together, we will bring the U.S. to its knees”.
The Embargo
The United States embargo against Cuba is an economic, commercial and financial
instrument enacted on February 7, 1962 after Cuba
expropriated the properties of U.S.
citizens and corporations. The embargo was tightened in 1963 after the Cuban
Missile Crisis and was reinforced in October 1992 by the Cuban Democracy Act
and in 1996 by the Cuban Liberty and Democracy Solidarity Act (known as the
Helms-Burton Act). This latter measure
applies to foreign companies trading with Cuba
and is meant to penalize those companies that allegedly traffic in property
formerly owned by US citizens but expropriated by Cuba after the revolution. In October 2000, the embargo was further
altered by the Trade Sanctions, Reform and Export Enhancement Act that relaxed
the sale of agricultural goods and medicines to Cuba for humanitarian reasons.
Contrary to critics’ claims, lifting of the
embargo and the travel ban without meaningful changes in Cuba will have several negative
repercussions. First, it will send a
poor message about U.S.
toleration both of Cuba’s
patterns of unsavory behavior and its totalitarian system. Second, a cessation of the embargo will strengthen
state enterprises since most Cuban businesses are run by the state and since the
Cuban government retains a partnership interest in all foreign investment. Third, it will lead to greater domestic
repression and control because the leadership fears the “subversive” effects of
U.S.
influence upon the Cuban people. Thus, a
transition to democracy on the island will be delayed. Finally, the regime in Havana will gain access to financial benefits
from international organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank that could
help it resolve its debt and solvency concerns.
The embargo should only be lifted when Cuba
changes its current system and develops a democratic society. U.S.
policy towards Cuba is not anachronistic
but is rather aimed at the legitimate goal of a free Cuba;
the lifting of the embargo now will be an important psychological victory for
Castro and would be interpreted as a defeat for U.S. policy. There is also no indication that negotiation
and incentives can influence Cuba,
which has ignored such “carrot and stick” approaches in the past. Without major internal reforms in Cuba, the
Castro government – not the Cuban people – will be the main beneficiary of the
lifting of the embargo, since it will use this newly acquired wealth to
strengthen its hold on the Cuban people, to rebuild its military apparatus, and
to engage again in supporting anti-American terrorist and violent groups in
Latin America and elsewhere.
The U.S. has followed a regional policy
that fosters human rights, liberal economic policies, and democratically
elected civilian governments. U.S.-Cuba policy should be no different. To lift the embargo now is to provide Castro
with a gift he does not deserve.
Hugo
Chavez, Castro and the Region
Hugo Chavez plays a crucial role in providing
life-oxygen to the Cuban regime. In this time of history it is Hugo Chavez who
represents the main threat to regional stability and geo-political security in
the western hemisphere and perhaps beyond. We cannot talk about events in Latin
America without referring to Venezuela’s
President, Hugo Chavez and the rise of Chavism.
Indeed Hugo Chavez has increasingly transformed a
democratic country into a de-facto authoritarian socialist regime. Chavez has
increased his role in regional affairs by reaching out to other countries in
the area in search of allies under the slogan of Bolivarianism or Latin
American unity. As part of this, Chavez
has attempted to influence political processes in neighboring countries as well
as reaching out to new revolutionary movements emerging in Latin American
society. Chavez has defied the United States in the midst of the war against
radical Islamic terrorism by strengthening relations at many levels with Iran and by allegedly associating and protecting
elements associated with Middle East terrorist
organizations. These actions could have major geo-political implications for
our country and the hemisphere as a whole.
Since losing the December 2, 2007 referendum,
Chavez’s popularity within Venezuela
has significantly declined. According to recent poll data (as reported by Juan
Forero in the Washington Post) a Caracas
pollster Alfredo Keller and Partners said that Chavez’s popularity has dropped
to 38 percent from 65 percent in 2006. This is mostly due to Chavez’s poor
handling of the economy which has led to a 22 percent rate of inflation, and
the absence or shortages of basic foodstuffs. There has been a dramatic rise in
crime and many Venezuelans are now wondering why Chavez is giving away free oil
and financing projects in other Latin American countries while their standard
of living has precipitously declined. Since Chavez has nationalized many
companies, halted foreign exchange sales and imposed import and price controls,
many companies and factories were forced to close down and thousands of
businessmen and professionals have left the country.
The Iranian Connection
In practical terms Chavez has been the leader in forging an alliance
with Middle Eastern rogue states and with Iran, in particular, and is now
trying to draw new populist leaders into such an alliance. The visit of Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Venezuela, Nicaragua and Ecuador as well as his meeting with Evo Morales
reflects
not just a
mere Iranian initiative to break its international isolation. It is very
much encouraged by Hugo Chavez’s affinity with the Islamic Republic’s tyranny.
In March 2005, Venezuela
and Iran signed an agreement
of commercial and technological cooperation during the visit of Iranian
President Mohammed Khatami to Caracas. On that occasion, Chavez defended Iran’s
right to produce atomic energy and continue research
in the area of nuclear development. Chavez spoke about his aspirations to develop nuclear weapons “for peaceful purposes” and his
intention to
seek cooperation with Latin American countries and Iran in this
regard.
An additional deal was signed between Venezuela and Iran in March 2006. The two countries established a $200 million development fund and signed
bilateral
deals to build homes and exploit petroleum. The
Venezuelan opposition raised the possibility that
the deal could involve the transfer of Venezuelan uranium to Iran.
This seems to be corroborated by a report published by a Venezuelan
paper in which the Israeli Mossad provided exact locations of sources of
uranium production in Venezuela.
A Venezuelan nuclear expert confirmed that the Israeli report is credible and
that in Venezuela
there are important quantities of nuclear fuel. It has also been reported that
Iranian and Cuban geologists are working with a team of Chavez loyalists in the
exploration for uranium deposits. Moreover, Venezuela voted in the United
Nations against reporting Teheran to the U.N. Security Council for its uranium
enrichment program confirming the complicity and mutual sympathy of both
regimes.
All this takes place amid reports on Chavez’s alleged relation with
radical Islamic groups including the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, and allegations
of government anti-Semitism in Venezuela,
following a typical Iranian pattern. Since 2003, there have been reports on the
presence of Islamic terrorist groups in Margarita Island.
The US Southern Command stated that Isla Margarita
is one of the most important centers of terrorist gathering and money
laundering activities for Hamas and Hezbollah. The Chavez regime is giving out Venezuelan
passports to foreigners from countries such as Iran,
Syria, Pakistan, Egypt
and Lebanon. The Miami Herald reported in November
2004 that the agency in charge of issuing these passports is called “Onidex” and the people in charge of the agency include an
ardent supporter of former Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein and the son of the
representative of the Iraqi Baath party in Venezuela.
Venezuelan state radio accused Venezuelan Jews of trying to influence
the US Administration in opposing Hugo Chavez. Jewish
schools and institutions were victims of a raid after a Chavista prosecutor was
found murdered. The reason for such a raid follows the logic of the elders of Zion in Czarist Russia and
now its Islamist followers: The Israeli Mossad was supposedly one of the
crime’s suspects, not based on any evidence, but on an unfounded anti-Semitic
conspiracy theory. These charges were mostly made by Venezuelan state radio and
TV. Of course, the raid did not advance the investigation. However, it unmasked
a regime, which like Iran,
is hostile to the Jewish minority. Most recently an
Argentinean federal prosecutor found the Iranian Embassy in Buenos Aires and Hezbollah operatives
in Latin America mainly responsible for the attacks against the Jewish community headquarters in 1994.
Chavez has spoken
publicly about adoption of methods such as suicide bombers in case a war is
forced upon Venezuela by the
US.
This is what he calls an “asymmetric war”, the kind of war Iran has promoted via its terrorist proxies and
protégées in the Middle East. This doctrine
calls for a long-term “asymmetric war” in which Chavez loyalists and foreign
individuals (such as from the Middle East) would wage a “war of the people” on
all fronts against invading U.S.
military forces. This doctrine, whose intellectual
author is
Jorge Verstrynge, a Spanish radical, is a technical
treatise on terrorism, and praises Islamic terrorism
as a most effective warfare method since it involves fighters willing to sacrifice their lives to kill the enemy. This was Iran’s basic philosophy in its eight year old war with Iraq.
Now that Ahmadinejad has visited these Latin American countries, reports talk
about expanding economic relations between Venezuela
and Iran,
and a common fund to help developing countries. They also talked
about energy issues and their goal to devalue the American dollar.
Iran’s
presence can be felt in Nicaragua
as well. Iran recently
established a huge embassy in Managua.
Diplomats have immunity coming and going and the building is protected from
espionage. There is no control over the movements of Iranian diplomats. In mid 2007 it was discovered that Ortega
permitted 21 Iranians to enter the country without visas. This clearly shows
that the Ortega regime, like Chavez, is not monitoring who is entering their
respective countries. This could have serious implications for the security of
our region. Iran
has signed numerous agreements with Ortega on matters related to energy,
technology, and commerce. Most troubling is the $350 million dollar deep water
port Iran is planning on
building on Nicaragua’s Caribbean coast to be connected to the Pacific coast via
a dry canal.
In Bolivia, President Evo Morales has also welcomed
the Iranians who are planning on opening a radio station there to broadcast
their programming to the rest of South America.
This is a serious matter since such a station will help Iran spread its ideology in the
western hemisphere.
There are many things that make Iran
a threat: Iran could encourage
terrorism in the region via a Hezbollah-FARC partnership, which could
destabilize Colombia
and beyond. Correa and Chavez are friendly to the FARC and ideologically close.
Iran’s
presence could also spread Radical Islam in the area
that could have the same threatening effects it has today in Europe. Like Venezuela
these countries may provide citizenship to potential terrorists willing to
perpetrate attacks in the US.
Iran Air has weekly direct flights
between Caracas, Damascus
and Tehran.
There are no large numbers of passengers that justify weekly travels between
theses countries. Therefore, it is reasonable to speculate that these flights
transport material which could be highly problematic. Nothing is evident but
everything is possible. Even while
the crisis in the Middle East continues it is
crucial for American decision makers to think about strategies to contain the
Iranian influence in our hemisphere as well as Hugo Chavez, himself.
CHAVEZ AND HIS CONNECTIONS TO THE GRASSROOTS
Beginning in the mid 1990’s, new grassroots
movements began to appear on the Latin American scene. These movements have
different characteristics and claims depending on the country they emerge from.
They mostly arise as a natural result of an expanded democracy and openness of
an increasing wave of democratization in Latin America.
Formerly excluded groups that had no representative voice in the system or were
living at the margins of society became more and more self-conscious and
achieved a new degree of mobilization. This includes nationalist indigenous,
unemployed, masses of unorganized poor, peasants and others. These are groups
that have felt deceived by the system throughout the years.
These movements are not necessarily uniform. Even
though most of them tend to seek radical change they differ in their
characteristics, intensity, modus operandi and success. There is a strong
element of revolutionary socialism and fierce opposition to capitalism and free
market policies and strong feelings of Anti-Americanism that characterizes all
of these groups. Their revolutionary potential is seen as an important factor
in Chavez’s trans-national ambitions.
In order to connect to the grassroots in the
region, Hugo Chavez founded the People’s Bolivarian Congress (CBP) in 2003.
According to this organization, the peoples or grassroots are oxygen-like
elements in this struggle to achieve unity. The CBP would be a means to fight
common problems and at the same time build a new thought and identity in Latin
America, “which will build a Bolivarian doctrine of liberation and a great
movement of emancipation for the Americas.” Thus, Chavez has
developed a strong and active relation with a number of grassroots
organizations.
Among those organizations Chavez has developed a
stronger affinity with violent groups. The FARC (the Revolutionary Armed Forces
of Colombia) is the most important of all of them. The FARC is a left-wing,
narco-terrorist, guerilla group operating in Colombia. Chavez sees Colombia and particularly it’s President, Alvaro
Uribe as a US
ally and an enemy of Chavez’ revolution. Recent reports indicate that Chavez
provided Venezuelan territory and airports to transport drugs produced in Colombia to other countries including North America.
Another group is the Argentinean “Picketers” and
particularly one called “Quebracho.” The group advocates the use of
revolutionary violence and it is convinced that violence is more effective than
any other form of struggle, especially voting, to achieve its ends. The “picketers”
organized the violence that toppled President Fernando De La Rua in 2001.
Another group is the Peruvian
etno-cacerist movement, an ultra-nationalist movement that supports Indian
separatism and embraces racist views. The leader of this group is Ollanta
Humalla, who unsuccessfully ran for President in 2006 with financial support
from Chavez . Last July Humalla organized violent, massive protests that took
place in different regions in Peru.
Soon the demonstration spread, the number of strikers increased and violence
intensified. In
the Southern region of Puno airports and train stations were stormed, eggs and
tomatoes were thrown on President Alan Garcia’s supporters, and angry
demonstrators held several police officers hostage. Humala suddenly appeared on
the public scene calling for the resignation of President Garcia. It was also
reported that Humalla receives $600,000 monthly from Hugo Chavez to promote
social unrest in the country.
Hugo Chavez maintains connections to
the grassroots via ideology and via supporting violent action on the ground. In
countries such as Bolivia
and Ecuador
where the regimes are clearly pro-Chavez, he maintains strong connections aimed
at perpetuating his ideology of Latin American unity and integration, promoting
anti-democratic measures, socialism and anti-imperialism. In those countries
such as Peru and Colombia that are clearly anti-Chavista or Argentina where
the President is pro-Chavez but the Chavez social and political blueprint has
not been implemented, Chavez has preference for violent groups such as
“Quebracho”, the FARC, and Humala’s etnocaceristas. Violence has historically
played an important role in the emergence of fascist and totalitarian
movements. Violence provides the perpetrators and those surrounding them with a
sense that victory is right around the corner.
Hence, we can explain Chavez’s
affinity with Iran
and Hezbollah, groups that he allegedly protects and embraces. Moreover, there
has been interpenetration between Chavismo and Hezbollah among the Wayuu
Guajira Indians, which is the largest indigenous group in Colombia and Venezuela. The so called Hezbollah
Latin America is composed not only by people from the Middle East who have
entered the country, but by home grown Wayuu Indians based in Venezuela who
support Hugo Chavez. This group believes that salvation will come only through
a theocratic political, Islamic force. With Chavez’s help, Hezbollah succeeded
in penetrating a socially marginal group and indoctrinating it with Islamic
ideology.
Conclusion and Policy Suggestions
For the last century Latin
America has enjoyed a situation of relative peace and harmony.
However, the state-system in Latin America now seems to be radically challenged
by Hugo Chavez not only through interference in other states internal affairs
but also by an escalation of tensions that will not only lead to regional
competition but perhaps also to an arms race.
The continent is definitely moving from a situation of 100 years of
international peace to a destiny whose prospects are uncertain. Last weekend’s
Colombian operation in Ecuador that targeted FARC leaders was an action of
self-defense, carried out by Colombia in response to a situation created and
promoted by Hugo Chavez. The result of this action is that the Colombian army
retrieved evidence from “Raul Reyes,” the FARC second in command, linking
Ecuadorian President, Rafael Correa and Hugo Chavez with the terrorist
organization. Venezuela and Ecuador have moved troops to their border with Colombia
and many fear an armed conflict might occur. The United
States’ firm support of Colombia will send an important
message to our Latin American allies that we can be relied on in times of
crisis.
In
terms of an arms race, during the last three
years, Russia
has sold Venezuela 100,000 AK-103 assault rifles, 53 helicopters, including 12
Mi-17 military helicopters, and 14 Su-30MK fighter aircrafts. That has
represented for Russia
earnings of over 5 billion U.S. dollars. Russia
has also offered to sell Venezuela
50 of its most advanced warplanes, the MIG 29 Fulcrums. Last year, Chavez
stated that Russia would
deliver 5 Kilo class 636 diesel submarines to Venezuela, 10 more Su-30MK fighter
aircrafts and 5,000 Dragunov sniper rifles. Currently, plans are being made to
acquire from Russia
an additional 36 helicopters and Su-35 fighters, a yet undetermined number of
Antonov transport aircrafts. Talks about setting up a factory of Russian
weapons in Venezuela
are currently underway.
This rearmament
causes concerns among Venezuela’s
neighbors and the US,
since Chavez is building alliances with subversive groups everywhere in the
region. This includes its recent petition for removing the Colombian FARC and
ELN from the list of “terrorist organizations,” despite the fact that they have
kidnapped over 700 people, are involved in arms and drug trafficking, have
employed car and gas cylinder bombs, landmines, extortion, hijacking, and
enrolled, by force, poor children in their army.
Venezuela will face municipal and regional elections in November,
2008. A victory for the opposition is possible but we believe Chavez will try
to do everything possible to make sure the results favor his candidates. The US and its allies must work with opposition
leaders and activists in countries such as Venezuela,
Ecuador, and Bolivia who are
committed to true democracy and the rule of law.
In March 2007, Brazilian President, Lula Da Silva,
signed an agreement with the US
whereby both nations made a commitment to cooperate in deepening research on
bio-fuels and alternative sources of energy and the development of a global
market (particularly Latin America) for these
products. This is an important step in
reduction of regional dependency on oil which is Chavez’s most precious tool in
obtaining his imperial ambitions. It would also be tremendously helpful in
weakening Chavez’s grip on power, if the United
States were able to decrease the amount of oil it buys
from Venezuela.
Venezuela has limited
markets for the type of heavy crude it produces, so a reduction in sales from
the US
would definitely be a blow to Chavez.
It is important to strengthen existing alliances
in the region, re-authorize “Plan Colombia”
and ratify free trade agreements with Panama
and Colombia.
Otherwise, a feeling of US
abandonment by these countries can have negative consequences. Most recently,
with the hostage crisis in Colombia,
we witness the threat this ally is facing at the hands of Chavez.
Penetration of Iran
in the region should not be tolerated by the United States. The US must do its best to educate
Latin American countries about the dangers of the Islamic Republic to them,
particularly in their support for terrorism and their alliance with potentially
subversive elements. One way of countering Iranian radio programming and
propaganda is to rebuild our own public diplomacy efforts and our own
broadcasting. Iran could be
a problem not only for the US
but for other Latin American countries because, as we pointed out, Iran is likely
to serve the Chavez agenda and actively support and train violent groups that
are enemies of democracy.
We cannot afford to be optimistic about events in
Latin America in the era of terrorism in an area where Chavez and Iran
are cooperating so closely. Our foreign policy should be comprehensive and
creative and needs a most serious cooperation between the Administration and
Congress. It needs to be taken seriously and not pushed to the backburner
because of the emergence of other conflicts in the world.