Month: July 2011

In a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Counterterrorim and Intelligence yesterday, Robert F. Noriega, former assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs and a former U.S. ambassador to the Organization of American States and now current Visiting Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, testified stern warnings about an operational presence of Islamic terrorist groups, particularly Hezbollah, in Latin America. Noriega claimed that Hezbollah, which “acts as a proxy for Iran” as well as “the Qods Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.” are “determined and deadly enemies of the United States” and “their expanding activities [in Latin America] are the result of a conscious, offensive strategy to carry their fight to our doorstep.”

Hezbollah operatives have provided weapons and explosives training to drug trafficking organizations that operate along the U.S.border with Mexico and have sought to radicalize Muslim populations in several Mexican cities.

[…] Hezbollah has a very clear modus operandi that it is applying in the Americas. By infiltrating or establishing mosques or “Islamic centers” throughout the region, Hezbollah is spreading its influence, legitimizing its cause, and advancing its violent jihad on our doorstep.

[…] As it stands today, I believe the Hezbollah/Iranian presence in Latin America constitutes a clear threat to the security of the U.S. homeland. They have the motivation, and they have been steadily increasing their capacity to act. In addition to operational terrorist activity, Hezbollah also is immersed in criminal activity throughout the region – from trafficking in weapons, drugs, and persons — all of which threaten our security…If our government and responsible partners in Latin America fail to act, I believe there will be an attack on U.S. personnel, installations or interests in the Americas as soon as Hezbollah operatives believe that they are capable of such an operation without implicating their Iranian sponsors in the crime.

The testimony also emphasized state sponsorship for these terrorist networks from “Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and others.” How robust is this terrorist network in Latin America? Noriega testified that they can identify “80 operatives in at least 12 countries throughout the region.” No mention is given of how much money they’ve allegedly raised, no evidence is given as to how connected and coherent are these disparate groups and individuals, and no level-headed, evidence-based assessment is given of what kind of plans they have against the United States.

The paranoid nature of these estimations, and the scant evidence presented for them, are eerily reminiscent of the kind of broad-strokes, hawkish fear-mongering on display in the lead up to the war in Iraq. The testimony comes from a group bent on hyping security threats and, as Noriega admitted in the testimony, is not even in agreement with the State Department or intelligence agencies. The State Department concluded in their Country Reports on Terrorism (issued August 2010) that “the threat of a transnational terrorist attack remained low for most countries in the Western Hemisphere” and that “there were no known operational cells of either al-Qa’ida- or Hizbollah-related groups in the hemisphere” aside from “ideological sympathizers.”

Ideological sympathizers in South America and the Caribbean, however, continued to provide financial and moral support to these and other terrorist groups in the Middle East and South Asia.

The United States remained concerned that Hizballah and HAMAS sympathizers were raising funds in the Tri-Border Area by participating in illicit activities and soliciting donations from sympathizers in the sizable Middle Eastern communities in the region. There was no corroborated information, however, that these or other Islamic extremist groups had an operational presence in the region.

We know that the State Department and criminal investigators in the U.S. consider peaceful anarchists and antiwar activists criminal enemies of the state (despite being unable to charge them with anything), so we should at the least be extremely skeptical about government terminology regarding minority Muslim immigrant groups in Latin America “participating in illicit activities and soliciting donations from [“terrorist”] sympathizers.” While the U.S. government gives billions for state violence perpetrated by Columbia, Israel, Yemen, Bahrain and many many others, as well as non-state groups with apparent ties to international terrorist groups like the rebels in Libya, somehow it is legitimate to war-monger Congress and the American people about a potential 80 operatives (undoubtedly a high estimate) raising pocket change and going to church in a region with over 550 million people.

The State Department report as well as the Noriega testimony also mention the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires and the 1994 bombing of the Argentine-Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) in Buenos Aires, both allegedly committed by Iranians as well as “one member of Hezbollah.” The report says that arrest warrants were issued for these people but they have yet to be tried for anything and claims of their involvement remain alleged. Bringing up these events which are over two decades old is a common tactic in drumming up fear and support for war. We saw this recently with Libya, where war-hawks spout off the list of comparatively minor terrorist attacks relative to the U.S. record that Gaddafi was involved in.

This testimony by Noriega is a perfect example of how paranoia mixed with an eagerness to ramp up violent militarism can lend credibility to fictional threats. Members of Congress can and will now use this testimony which is on the record as data in case of any event which may prompt some winded demagoguery on the terrorist threat to our south. Additionally, Iranian influence in Latin America is almost sure to be non-existent, as a robust infiltration of our dominated hemisphere would require much more than the Iranian state is currently capable of, especially under the crippling U.S. sanctions regime. And again, the State Department itself (not an organization known for its prudent cool-headedness) concluded that “there were no known operational cells of either al-Qa’ida- or Hizbollah-related groups in the hemisphere.”

Let us hope it gains no traction.

After the derailment of the commemorative Flotilla, French activists are taking to the skies in order to shed light on the suffering of Palestinians. Some members of the “Welcome to Palestine” movement are already facing difficulties in obtaining entry to the state of Israel:

In Paris, eight activists were blocked from boarding a Malev Airlines flight on Thursday.

Philippe Arnaud, one of those turned away, has led calls to boycott Israeli products in France.

He said Malev, a Hungarian airline, showed him a list provided by Israeli authorities of some 329 people being barred from Israel, which holds complete control over who can enter and exit the West Bank.

Surprisingly, Germany said that it would not bar any activists from flying who had all of the proper identification and passports. Palestinians living in Germany, however, were not that lucky:

In Europe, German federal police said as long as passengers had valid tickets and passports, they had no grounds to stop any activists at airports there.

But German authorities also said that German citizens of Palestinian descent would not be allowed into Israel. The vast majority of Palestinians are barred from using Israel’s airport.

The Israeli Minister of Public Safety decried some of these activists as “hooligans.” A hooligan is defined as “a person that causes trouble or violence.” The only trouble that these “hooligans” will be causing is the exposure of Israel’s oppressive and atrocious policies towards the Palestinians. Additionally, the only “violence” that these “hooligans” will be causing is defending themselves from Israeli police and security agents who will be watching them very closely, especially as they already have half of the participants names.

 

 

An excellent speech today by Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) opposing US intervention in Libya and on war powers in general:

Via Stephen Walt, Akiva Eldar’s piece in Haaretz on long-time Middle East adviser Dennis Ross lays out pretty forcefully the futility of the “peace process” as directed by U.S.-Israel. Futile for the prospects of a Palestinian state, that is. And now Dennis Ross is attempting to suck the Palestinians back into the self-defeating peace process:

If they give up on the UN vote, Ross argues, then Netanyahu will be so kind as to negotiate a final-status agreement with them. Has anyone heard anything recently about a construction freeze in the settlements?

Ross is trying to peddle the illusion that the most right-wing government Israel has ever seen will abandon the strategy of eradicating the Oslo approach in favor of fulfilling the hated agreement. In an effort to save his latest boss from choosing between recognizing a Palestinian state at the risk of clashing with the Jewish community and voting against recognition at the risk of damaging U.S. standing in the Arab world, Ross is trying to drag the Palestinians back into the “peace process” trap.

The route the Palestinians plan to take for U.N. recognition in September has been belittled by some, but it seems like it may be a real threat to the Israelis, threatening to dissolve much of their political leverage. Indeed, as Eldar points out, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman “had previously threatened that if the United Nations recognizes a Palestinian state, Israel will annul the Oslo Accords.” That means abandoning the longtime basis for negotiations on the 67 borders, it means reoccupying Gaza with the IDF as well as settlements, it means cracking down harshly on the West Bank.

But the notion that the drawn-out peace process is just a cover for slow and gradual Israeli incursions deeper into Palestine coupled with slow and gradual weakening of legitimacy for the Palestinians is well founded. Before the hoopla in May over Obama’s daring reiteration of the long-time basis of negotiations and then Netanyahu’s resentful backlash to it, Obama’s first step was (ostensibly) to request (pretty please with a cherry on top?) a settlement freeze. And the immediate proceedings exemplify Israeli obstinacy and Palestinian marginalization. From the Palestine Papers:

Netanyahu rejected the US president’s request for a complete settlement freeze, agreeing only to suspend new construction in the West Bank (thousands of new tenders were issued in East Jerusalem during the freeze period). But the White House accepted the offer, and Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, would later praise Israel for its “unprecedented” concession”.

Dennis Ross, the State Department’s unabashedly pro-Israel envoy, tried to put a positive spin on Netanyahu’s offer during that September 2009 meeting in Jericho attended by Hale and Erekat.

[…] And in an October 1, 2009 meeting, Mitchell downplayed the importance of Jerusalem, telling Erekat to take comfort in Israel’s offer of “restraint”. “With negotiations, we will have more leverage, and there will be less settlement activity [in East Jerusalem],” Mitchell said, according to an NSU summary of the meeting.

The facts on the ground, however, show that Mitchell’s confidence was misplaced: During the 10-month West Bank freeze, the Jerusalem municipality approved, among other projects, 1,600 housing tenders in Ramat Shlomo; 377 in Neve Yaakov; 230 in Pisgat Ze’ev; 117 in Har Homa; and 20 in Sheikh Jarrah.

(Settlers in the West Bank quickly made up for lost time, too: They started 1,629 new houses in six weeks after the freeze ended, nearly as many as they started in all of 2009, according to the Israeli group Peace Now.)

And soon we will again be in the phase of “restarting talks” in the context of the upcoming U.N. vote. If history’s any guide, that phase will again be met with smiles and handshakes in front of the camera and then further Israeli dereliction, with full U.S. support.

 

The US Congress, in its wisdom, seems to believe that democracy means their power to control the affairs of every other nation.

Take Belarus.

Yesterday the US House debated the renewal of the “Belarus Democracy Act.”

Ron Paul spoke to explain what the act really means:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the “Belarus Democracy Act” reauthorization. This title of this bill would have amused George Orwell, as it is in fact a US regime-change bill. Where does the United States Congress derive the moral or legal authority to determine which political parties or organizations in Belarus — or anywhere else — are to be US-funded and which are to be destabilized? How can anyone argue that US support for regime-change in Belarus is somehow “promoting democracy”? We pick the parties who are to be supported and funded and somehow this is supposed to reflect the will of the Belarusian people? How would Americans feel if the tables were turned and a powerful foreign country demanded that only a political party it selected and funded could legitimately reflect the will of the American people?

I would like to know how many millions of taxpayer dollars the US government has wasted trying to overthrow the government in Belarus. I would like to know how much money has been squandered by US government-funded front organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, Freedom House, and others meddling like the old Soviet Union in the internal politics of a country that has neither threatened nor attacked the United States. It the arrogance of our foreign policy establishment that leads to this kind of schizophrenic legislation, where we demand that the rest of the world bend to the will of US foreign policy and we call it “democracy.” We wonder why we are no longer loved and admired overseas.

Finally, I strongly object to the sanctions that this legislation imposes on Belarus. We must keep in mind that sanctions and blockades of foreign countries are considered acts of war. Do we need to continue war-like actions against yet another country? Can we afford it?

I wish to emphasize that I take this position not because I am in support of the regime in Belarus, or anywhere else. I take this position because it is dangerous folly to be the nation that arrogates to itself the right to determine the leadership of the rest of the world. As we teeter closer to bankruptcy, it should be more obvious that we need to change our foreign policy to one of constructive engagement rather than hostile interventionism. And though it scarcely should need to be said, I must remind my colleagues today that we are the U.S. House of Representatives, and not some sort of world congress. We have no constitutional authority to intervene in the wholly domestic affairs of Belarus or any other sovereign nation.