Freedom for Leopoldo: The U.S. and Political Prisoners in the Americas

Por Alejandro A. Chafuén. Publicado el 12/11/14 en: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/freedom-for-leopoldo-the-u-s-and-political-prisoners-in-the-americas/

 

The case of Venezuelan political leader Leopoldo López, in jail without a sentence since February 18, 2014, seems so clear, that the inability to secure his release, is a testimony of the sad state of democracy in several countries in the Americas. The neglect and the silent complicity of many is troublesome. It is time to make a big push for the release of Leopoldo López and other political prisoners in Venezuela.

International organizations from left, right and center have called for López’s immediate release. Even in the United Nations, an unlikely actor given that it recently accepted Venezuela as a member of its Security Council, chimed in: its “Working Group on Arbitrary Detention” determined that López’s detention was arbitrary and he should be let go. Amnesty International also called for Venezuela to comply with the U.N. recommendation.
How are the Venezuelan courts reacting? Carlos Vecchio, National Political Coordinator of Voluntad Popular (“Popular Will”) the social and political movement led by López, tells me: “as a way of delaying her response to the UN resolution, judge Susana Barreiros has indefinitely suspended proceedings in the Court under her direction. Leopoldo will not go to any other court hearing until the judge decides about the UN resolution which demands his immediate release. The international community must support the UN resolution and raise its voice in order to stop the violation of Leopoldo’s human rights.”

I had a chance to speak with several members of Leopoldo López’s family. His sister Adriana, described the many abuses his brother is suffering beyond the arbitrary legal measures. The latest was to shower him and other prisoners with human excrements in order to weaken their spirit. She tells me “As a family we all stand behind Leopoldo’s decisions and commitment to the betterment of Venezuela. These have been difficult times for all of us, but we hope that his sacrifice will help change the course of our country.”
Leopoldo is the most noted victim of arbitrary injustice, but he is not alone. Another political leader and champion of the civil society, Maria Corina Machado, was prevented last month to travel to the United States to receive the 2014 Charles T. Manatt Democracy award from the International Foundation for Electoral Systems. This week she was scheduled to be one of the stars during the events to celebrate freedom and the 25th anniversary of the “Fall” of the Berlin Wall organized by the Atlas Network. The judge again curtailed her right to travel. Pedro Burelli, a US based Venezuelan businessman, accused in the same case as Machado states: “the Venezuelan Judicial System is part of the oppressive scaffolding of the dictatorship.”

The above are the most famous, and as they all received part of their education in the United States, their cases are better known. Vecchio and Machado attended Yale, López graduated from Harvard, and Rodrigo Diamanti Vidaurre, had received a scholarship to Harvard and is still waiting. Rodrigo leads an NGO focusing on freedom of expression “Un Mundo sin Mordaza” (Un-muzzled World). Other noted prisoners include Daniel Ceballos and Enzo Scarano, but many more innocents, in jail or with arbitrary indictments, have few vouching for them. The pattern is easy to see: if you work for freedom, the Venezuelan government will find a way to curtail your liberties.

What if you work against freedom? Then the Venezuelan government acts as a facilitator. O’Globo, a leading Brazilian newspaper, reported about the investigations on Hezbollah operations in Brazil. Since 2007, with the help of the Cuban government, Hezbollah members, and other unsavory characters, can get identity cards which allow them to roam freely from Mexico to Argentina. A new book, Iran’s Strategic Penetration of Latin America, edited by Joseph Humire, of the Center for a Secure Free Society, shows the seriousness of the problem. Continued impunity in Venezuela and US porous borders, can bring the problem closer to home.

Fortunately Latin American and world leaders are beginning to react. At the recent XVth Iberoamerican summit, former presidents Felipe González (Spain), Fernando Henrique Cardoso (Brazil), Ricardo Lagos (Chile), Julio María Sanguinetti (Uruguay) and Belisario Betancourt (Colombia), were the most prominent signers of a declaration calling for the release of the prisoners. Just a few days ago, the Federation of Latin American Associations, Cities and Municipalities, gathering in Santa Marta, Colombia, also called for the liberation.

The López family including his wife Lilian Tintori and sister Adriana plead the free world to maintain the pressure, putting sanctions on those who have been engaged and have been partnering with violators of human rights in Venezuela; they want us to go beyond the U.S. “conservative” world and ask President Obama, who called for Leopoldo López’s liberation during the Clinton Global Initiative, to follow up his words with actions; and to ask U.S. legislators to increase the awareness among their constituents of Venezuelan violations and abuses.

 

Alejandro A. Chafuén es Dr. En Economía por el International College de California. Licenciado en Economía, (UCA), es miembro del comité de consejeros para The Center for Vision & Values, fideicomisario del Grove City College, y presidente de la Atlas Economic Research Foundation. Se ha desempeñado como fideicomisario del Fraser Institute desde 1991. Fue profesor de ESEADE.

Fiscal acusa a Kirchner de encubrir a Irán en caso AMIA

Por Belén Marty: Publicado el 15/1/15 en: http://es.panampost.com/belen-marty/2015/01/15/fiscal-acusa-a-kirchner-de-encubrir-a-iran-en-caso-de-la-amia/

 

El fiscal argentino Alberto Nisman, quien lleva la causa del atentado terrorista contra la Asociación Mutual Israelí Argentina (AMIA) ocurrido en 1994, denunció el martes 13 a la presidenta argentina, Cristina Kirchner, y al canciller Héctor Timerman, de “negociar un plan de impunidad y encubrir a los prófugos iraníes acusados de la voladura a la mutual judía”. Desde el Gobierno descartaron el pedido de indagatoria del fiscal.

En el documento acusatorio, de unas 300 páginas, Nisman acusa a la presidenta de realizar una “maniobra delictiva” y encausar el expediente con una pista falsa para lograr “fabricar la inocencia de Irán”, Estado acusado por la Justicia argentina de ser responsable del atentado.

El fiscal pidió la declaración indagatoria de la mandataria y embargar sus bienes por un total de AR$200 millones (US$14.800.000).

Será Agustín Lijo, el mismo funcionario judicial que investiga por cohecho al vicepresidente argentino, Amado Boudou, quien tome las riendas de la causa.

El 27 de enero de 2012, los cancilleres de Argentina e Irán firmaron en Addis Abeba, Etiopía, el polémico memorándum —luego avalado por el Congreso argentino— que creó la “Comisión de la Verdad” con el objeto de seguir investigando el caso e interrogar a los iraníes sospechosos.

Aparentemente, denuncia el fiscal Nisman, el Gobierno argentino habría entabladoconversaciones telefónicas con sus pares iraníes, previas al acuerdo oficial. De acuerdo con la investigación del fiscal, la primera mandataria argentina ordenó secretamente que uno de sus ministros, Julio De Vido, se reuniera con un intermediario argentino, Luis D’Elía, para que le transmitiera a Irán el interés del Gobierno argentino de intercambiar granos por petróleo barato.

“(…) Tengo un mensaje urgente del Gobierno argentino, para pasar allá urgente [en referencia a Irán], antes de mañana.Estoy en la casa de Gobierno ahora. No hay asunto más importante que este, créemelo”, le habría dicho el activista kirchnerista Luis D’Elía a Mohsen Rabbani, exagregado cultural de la embajada iraní, y uno de los principales sospechosos de la autoría del atentado.

(…) Luis D’Elía es una persona clave en la relación entre ambos países, y viaja con frecuencia a Irán

Nisman describió el proceso en el documento que entregó a la Justicia: “La Presidencia de la Nación quería comunicarse con Teherán con suma urgencia, un día antes del encuentro de cancilleres y a través de los canales no oficiales. El mensaje no fue transmitido por el Palacio de San Martín a la cancillería iraní. No se comunicó Héctor Timerman con Mohammad Javad Zarif Khonsari [canciller de Irán], a pesar de que ambos se encontraban en Nueva York. No podía hacerse de esa manera. Sino que el mensaje salió del despacho presidencial de la Dra. Fernández, llegó a Luis D´Elía, a Jorge «Yussuf» Khalil, al Encargado de Negocios iraní en Buenos Aires, y de allí a Teherán. Secreto. Oculto. Completamente inaudito. Propio del plan criminal llevado adelante”.

Para Nisan, Kirchner fue quien creó lo que el fiscal denomina el “plan criminal de impunidad” porque habría impartido ordenes directas a sus allegados o “encabezando la necesaria campana discursiva para camuflar la perpetracino de delito”.

El Gobierno y la desmentida oficial

Jorge Capitanich, actual jefe del Gabinete, afirmó que el pedido de indagatoria proviene de una alianza entre la Justicia, “agentes desplazados” del servicio de Inteligencia y “actores con intereses internacionales contra Argentina”.

“La presidenta ha sido históricamente una férrea defensora del esclarecimiento de este doloroso hecho”, precisó el funcionario kirchnerista.

Por su parte, el ministro del Interior, Florencio Randazzo, dijo que “ni en la cabeza del más malpensado podía estar la idea de que la presidenta tiene un pacto de impunidad para ocultar qué pasó en una cosa tan trágica como la AMIA”.

Nestor Kirchner, el fallecido expresidente y marido de Cristina Kirchner, fue quien designó al fiscal Nisman en su cargo, y quien asumió la responsabilidad del Estado por no haber prevenido el atentado y resuelto el caso en su momento.

AMIA, un atentado difícil de olvidar

Desde el sitio web de la mutual judía en Buenos Aires, guardan memoria por las victimas de aquel atentado terrorista, que dejo 85 muertos y más de 300 heridos.

“85 víctimas fatales. Más de 300 heridos. Un edificio con la historia judía de la Argentina destruido. Una herida abierta que hasta el día de hoy no cierra. El más horrendo acto antijudío después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial sucedió en la Argentina; en Pasteur 633. Era un 18 de Julio de 1994. 9:53 hs.”.

Joseph Humire, escritor del libro La Estratégica penetración en América Latina de Irán, y director del Centro para una Sociedad Segura y Libre explicó a PanAm Post que el atentado a la AMIA es un claro ejemplo de la infiltración iraní en la región.

“Irán guía todas sus acciones en un doble sentido. Cualquier cosa comercial que hace Irán, agricultura, transporte, medios, entre otros, siempre lo usan para ver cómo pueden insertar a sus agentes de Inteligencia, y lo han hecho históricamente en la región, y en algunos casos, a sus agentes de terrorismo, como Hezbollá y otros”, aseguró. Para Humire el atentado a la AMIA es la mayor evidencia de ello.

En coincidencia con el fiscal Nisman, el investigador ha asegurado en sus publicaciones que la debilidad energética de Argentina, especialmente en el campo petrolero, es un gran estímulo para su acercamiento diplomático y comercial con Irán. Y conversación con el PanAm Post añadió que Luis D’Elía es una persona clave en la relación entre ambos países, y viaja con frecuencia a Irán.

Humire advirtió que desde 2004 Irán se mantiene en una campaña sostenida de mejoramiento de imagen,  con la intención de ganar voluntades para su programa nuclear, y América Latina ha sido uno de sus principales destinos de penetración, especialmente los países de la Alianza Bolivariana para las Américas (ALBA), de los que Argentina forma parte.

El fiscal Nisman presentará su denuncia en el Congreso nacional este lunes 19, convocado por la Comisión de Legislación Penal de la Cámara de Diputados.

 

Belén Marty es Lic. en Comunicación por la Universidad Austral. Actualmente cursa el Master en Economía y Ciencias Políticas en ESEADE. Conduce el programa radial “Los Violinistas del Titanic”, por Radio Palermo, 94,7 FM.

Counterterrorism Experts On Charlie Hebdo: Paris Is Waking Up To The Terrorist Threat?

Por Alejandro A. Chafuén. Publicado el 9/1/15 en: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alejandrochafuen/2015/01/09/counterterrorism-experts-on-charlie-hebdo-paris-is-waking-up-to-the-terrorist-threat/2/

 

Understanding a culture and its conflicts is usually an academic task for anthropologists. But it is also relevant for efforts to protect life and property from attack. The purpose of government, according to great Frenchman Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850), is “to secure to everyone his own, and to cause justice and security to reign.” Life and property are necessary for liberty; protecting them, as we saw in this week, is not easy.

The January 7 terrorist attack in Paris has impacted not only France (with its large immigrant Muslim population and difficult economic times) but the world. In the U.S., debates are continuing about surveillance, immigration and gun control—even police weaponry and equipment.

But, counterterrorism experts and “think tankers” alike agree that the main goal—the direct goal—of the terrorists was to affect freedom of speech and freedom of expression. I canvassed French, U.S. and European counterterrorism experts (some chose to remain unnamed) about the facts, causes and implications of the massacre.

One French expert reflected, “It happened before in Holland with the moviemaker who was killed, and it happened also in Denmark. So we are here to defend the fundamental freedom of civilization which is the right to free expression. This new act of terrorism is going to make us reflect on this important right.”

Were these terrorists acting as part of a larger network?

This terrorist attack “is the consequence, or the result of one rationale of a particular group of radicals to mobilize, recruit and focus their operations. They use the prohibitions that exist in some Islamic traditions—that you cannot depict the Prophet in cartoon—to show that through offensive drawings, the West is insulting Islam. [It is] the same with prohibiting women to wear headscarves. Then, they add the problem of the stateless Palestinians. It all fits with the narrative of the recruiters. Since you also have people who are illiterate, or are easy to manipulate, you can always use them. Some of these people act by themselves as lone wolves; others are trained, equipped, and follow orders of criminal organizations.”
Joseph Humire, of the Center for a Secure Free Society, states that the evidence so far suggests that these terrorists may be directly connected or at least trained by professional terrorist, military or paramilitary groups:

In the video, you can clearly see some of their tactics, which are militaresque and efficient. Some examples: The gear that the terrorists used was military-grade; they had AK’s but were shooting on semi, single shot mode, making kill shots with very little ammunition expended (on quick hits you never want to leave many ballistics behind); their close-in and approach, showed a method called ‘stack and spread’—common in close-quarters battle for military/law enforcement forces.

Despite indications of professional training, it seems that there is no particular government ordering these attacks. Different credible sources have reported that Saïd Kouachi, the oldest of the killers, trained with Al-Qaeda when the terrorist organization was fighting against the government in Yemen. A French professor of geopolitics, who also prefers to be unnamed, defined what is happening more as “a civil war, rather than an external terrorist act.”

In France, do the police and those responsible for counterterrorism collaborate with the people?

In the U.S. terrorist cells are wiped out fast. Common citizens are one main reason. Except for few cities with pockets of corruption, the overwhelming majority of people still trust the police. If they see something wrong or suspicious, they report it. What about in France?

Muslims are the main victims of Muslim extremists. Emmanuel Martin, director of the Institute for Economic Studies Europe in France, laments: “One of the policemen was Ahmed. He was ‘finished’ whilst lying wounded on the ground. In a country with tensions between ‘communities,’ today…Ahmed is—was—an example of successful ‘integration.’ The symbolic significance of his execution by people who are examples of failure of integration is huge.”

Another source tells me that there are cases of Imams calling the police. One said, “You know, I have two young guys who come and insult me, telling me that I’m not a good Imam. I have to leave because they want to take control of the mosque to spread some lectures and theories which are essentially from the Salafist movement.” Another tells me that “most Muslims want to live in peace. I just received an e-mail from a friend of mine, an Imam, who was totally destroyed by what happened. We are talking about terrorists who want to highjack a religion—people who want to control communities and create clashes between [them.]”

Why aren’t peaceful Muslims more outspoken?
A French counterterrorism expert working in the international arena expressed frustration: “We are stuck, stuck in a debate that will go nowhere. We need a dialogue but people refuse to speak.” All agree that for any chance of improvement, peaceful Muslims have to take over. They have to fight against the extremes. The same security expert tells me, “I’m not speaking only of religious leaders becoming more outspoken, but also about actors, comedians, musicians and writers. We have to recognize, however, that they fear fighting in the current politicized environment. They live between two cultures. In Christianity, we have freedom of expression. But, in Muslim culture, they feel the need to follow the mullahs.”

Should we create spaces for the Muslim “silent majority”?

Most to whom I spoke believe that there is enough space in France for Muslims to prosper and speak with more freedom. They point to the many successful Muslims in our cultures—but they do not talk about religion; they prefer to speak about society, life. It is these Muslims who need to speak and provide a better example than the jihadists.

Emmanuelle Gave, of the Institut des Libertésa pro-liberty group, reflected about the problem of silent majorities. She equated what is happening with violent Islamic groups to what happened in Nazi Germany, Communist China and Russia. “Where was the pacifist majority then?” she asks. “The problem is not and has never been the pacifist majority but what this pacifist majority is capable of doing against the evildoers. There are no laws, programs or formulas capable of reversing radicalization of the extremists. People are going to start asking, especially to the Muslim religious communities: Do you love French democracy enough to protect its values over other political loyalties? Do you love France enough to reject from your circles those who jeopardize the balance of all?”

How should freedom-loving people react to these attacks?

Actions speak louder than words. While security forces continue with their efforts to prevent terrorism by attacking resources, finances and networks, others need to lead by example and promote the ideas of liberty. On the day of the attack, a Frenchman told me, “You know what I did this morning? Frankly I never read Charlie Hebdo but, I went through some of the cartoons they made, and I found some of them very funny and sent them to others. And this is one way to react, to produce and defend this right of expression because I consider it part of my civilization and my future. We should support this right of expression as much as possible and speak about all topics, including religion and the tyranny of religion. It is not a question of religion; it is a question of tyranny—people who want to turn religion into tyranny.”

There are cultural, political, religious and criminal aspects in terrorism. Europe has suffered terrorist acts from both the extreme left and the extreme right and, on many occasions we forget about the ideological aspects. We do this at our peril. Dr. Sebastian Gorka, a leading expert on European counterterrorism, focuses on the growth of extremist factions that follow a “fatalist global jihad ideology.” Gorka argues that one cannot negotiate with those who follow globalist Islamist ideology because “they want to destroy Western Civilization.” He also says that “France has a track record all through the Cold War of deciding behind closed doors to basically negotiate with the bad guys.” They’ve done so with terrorist affiliates and organizations from Algeria, and also with Palestinian and Iranian groups. Gorka argues that French counterterrorism and civilian efforts reacting to the massacre might be “undermined by this track record.”

Joseph Humire, who with his Center tracks radical Islam operations in Latin America, focuses on the long term: “Winning the ideological and cultural ‘war’ is essential. The way to win the ‘war on terror’ is to attack the ideology that is being sponsored by radical regimes in the Middle East, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon and others. This is a ‘war of ideas’ and as you know, you fight ideas with other ideas.”

Emmanuel Martin, who devotes his life to promoting liberty in the political and economic arenas, realizes that because of the deaths and attack on free expression, “one can now expect that [it] will give government a pretext to increase state surveillance.” A pro-free society website, Contrepoints, vows that it “will fight against the freedom-destroying calls of security measures that will come up for sure after today’s events.”

Finding the right balance between security and freedom is not easy and in France, it is more needed than ever.

 

Alejandro A. Chafuén es Dr. En Economía por el International College de California. Licenciado en Economía, (UCA), es miembro del comité de consejeros para The Center for Vision & Values, fideicomisario del Grove City College, y presidente de la Atlas Economic Research Foundation. Se ha desempeñado como fideicomisario del Fraser Institute desde 1991. Fue profesor de ESEADE.