Pierre Leblanc and Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

The Guatemalan justice system sentenced Efrain Rios Montt of crimes against humanity and genocide against the Mayan Indians. His 80 year prison sentence effectively means that he will die in prison for his role in past crimes against Mayan Indians and other individuals in Guatemala. However, is Rios Montt being treated fairly given the longevity and brutal reality of what happened in Guatemala in the past?

Equally important, it is abundantly clear that America under many presidents supported the violation of human rights for many decades in countries which include El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua. This list can easily be extended to other nations like Chile. However, the point is that America and various paramilitaries on the right were involved in many brutal realities whereby the CIA played a powerful role.

Very few people will shed a tear for Rios Montt given the massacres that took place while he led this country briefly. Yet, massacres in Guatemala and other regional nations happened well before Rioss Montt came to power and likewise other brutal massacres took place after he was forced from power. Therefore, how can Rios Montt be separated and singled out to such a great extent given the role of so many individuals? Likewise, it is clear that many American administrations and CIA leaders were involved in arming, assisting and manipulating the United Nations (UN) in order to cover-up so many crimes.

Robert Parry covered many unfolding stories about Nicaragua and other important areas for AP and Newsweek. He comments that “Though many Latin American governments have practiced the dark arts of “disappearances” and “death squads,” the history of Guatemala’s security operations is perhaps the best documented because the Clinton administration declassified scores of the secret U.S. documents in the late 1990s.”

“The original Guatemalan death squads took shape in the mid-1960s under anti-terrorist training provided by a U.S. public safety adviser named John Longon, according to the documents. In January 1966, Longon reported to his superiors about both overt and covert components of his anti-terrorist strategies.”

The Guardian media group in 1999 stated that “Bill Clinton has made a dramatic break with the policy of previous presidents by expressing regret for the role the United States played in backing a brutal counter-terrorism campaign that caused the deaths of thousands of civilians in Guatemala’s civil war.”

“Mr Clinton made the apology in Guatemala City during his current four-nation visit to central America. It followed the publication last month of the findings of the independent Historical Clarification Commission which concluded that the US was responsible for most of the human rights abuses committed during the 36-year war in which 200,000 people died.”

This is the problem because Rios Montt was in power between March 1982 and August 1983. However, given the countless massacres that took place before this time period and that massacres continued after Rios Montt was forced from power; then how can he be held accountable if other powerful players within the America government and CIA escape similar judgments? Similarly, the same applies to past Guatemalan political and military individuals who were behind untold massacres for many decades – therefore, why is Rios Montt being singled out to such an extreme?

Bill Clinton stated “It is important that I state clearly that support for military forces or intelligence units which engaged in violent and widespread repression of the kind described in the report was wrong…And the United States must not repeat that mistake. We must and we will instead continue to support the peace and reconciliation process in Guatemala.”

Therefore, it means that while many commissions have firmly pinned the involvement of America and the CIA in countless massacres throughout many nations in South America in the past; that somehow one apology stating that the US “must not repeat that mistake” again is apparently good enough to escape prosecution.Ironically, Bill Clinton during his political office was also involved in murky dealings in Bosnia and Croatia whereby Islamic jihadists and Croatian paramilitaries were given covert support – and whereby the CIA held central links in the chain – during the Bill Clinton administration.

The US State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research way back in 1967 noted the “accumulating evidence that the [Guatemalan] counterinsurgency machine is out of control…counter-terror units were carrying out abductions, bombings, torture and summary executions of real and alleged communists.”

Robert Parry reports that “In April 1981, a secret CIA cable described a massacre at Cocob, near Nebaj in the Ixil Indian territory. On April 17, 1981, government troops attacked the area believed to support leftist guerrillas, the cable said. According to a CIA source, “the social population appeared to fully support the guerrillas” and “the soldiers were forced to fire at anything that moved.” The CIA cable added that “the Guatemalan authorities admitted that ‘many civilians’ were killed in Cocob, many of whom undoubtedly were non-combatants.”

“Despite the CIA account and other similar reports, Reagan permitted Guatemala’s army to buy $3.2 million in military trucks and jeeps in June 1981. To permit the sale, Reagan removed the vehicles from a list of military equipment that was covered by the human rights embargo.”

If Rios Montt is guilty of crimes against humanity and genocide then what about the role of other powerful people in Guatemala; within the corridors of power in America over many decades; individuals within the CIA involved in murky dealings; and other ratlines which equally applies to private companies which benefitted from economic sales to the forces of torture in Guatemala? The issue isn’t the innocence or guilt of Rios Montt because very few people will doubt his role within the chains of command; it is about other more powerful individuals which assisted in these crimes against humanity.

Turning back to The Guardian article published in 1999 it states that “I have never seen anything like it,’ said Kate Doyle, the Guatemala project director at the National Security Archive, a private research body which has obtained the US documents. Ms Doyle said the documents tell the fullest story so far of our intimacy with the Guatemalan security forces.”

“A 1966 document reveals that US security forces set up a safe house inside the presidential palace in Guatemala City for use by Guatemalan security agents and their US contacts. It became the headquarters for the so-called dirty war.”

In this sense, if so many other people escape the net of justice then Rios Montt is “a collective scapegoat” for all the other powerful individuals in America and Guatemala who have escaped similar indictments. Therefore, it is essential that “the book isn’t closed” because many individuals were involved in the chain of events in America and Guatemala.

Sadly, many powerful modern nation states are still involved in supporting terrorist networks, mercenaries from a distance and supporting nations which don’t even provide the barest forms of human rights. The reason they can do this is because judgments are too limited towards individuals like Rios Montt. Given this reality, the same power mechanisms of covert and overt support towards forces of evil are still happening in the modern world. Likewise, destabilizing nations under the disguise of humanitarian ideals is the modern modus operandi whereby human rights organization, the mass media, special advisors and PR personnel collectively work together in order to overthrow governments. Rios Montt was just a cog in the machinery therefore until the entire machinery is brought to justice then nothing will prevent powerful governments from doing what they please.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/mar/12/jeremylennard.martinkettle

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/011005.html

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

Joachim de Villiers and James Jomo

Modern Tokyo Times

The late charismatic leader of Venezuela could easily brush aside self-doubts irrespective if this applied to the election process, internal discontent and a host of other important factors. In this sense, the late Hugo Chavez was unique irrespective if people supported his policies or were opposed to him. After all, he could openly defy internal opposition within Venezuela and major international condemnation because in the world of Chavez he was independent to the core. Therefore, his many attacks against the policies of America and other nations came “from the heart.”

However, the death of Chavez and the close presidential election points increasingly to a divided society whereby both major forces are at loggerheads. According to the election result the socialist candidate Nicolas Maduro emerged victorious with 50.7% of the vote against Henrique Capriles who obtained 49.1%. Immediately after the election result was announced Capriles rejected the outcome based on manipulating the final result.

It could well be that Maduro develops into a powerful new figure in Venezuela providing political upheaval doesn’t occur. Yet, with powerful forces opposed to the legacy of Chavez and with forces in Washington seeing new openings, then clearly the next few months will be watched closely by the international community.

In the short-term, Maduro and Capriles need to overcome their respective political rhetoric in order to accommodate the people of Venezuela; therefore, it is essential that confrontation doesn’t become the tool of either side. The next few days will witness many accusations from the Capriles camp in relation to underhanded political shenanigans. Likewise, Maduro will pull no punches in the other direction but this will not help the people of Venezuela because this nation needs to provide greater equality based on the rich resources of this nation.

Currently the Capriles camp is demanding a recount based on alleged irregularities of the election alongside other issues related to dominating the mass media. The National Electoral Council however made it clear that the results were “irreversible.” Therefore, either Capriles must accept the internal political electoral system – despite any possible flaws; or, he must think deeply before taking the issue further because it is very easy to open up a can-of-worms. Also, given the loathing of many powerful political forces in America towards the late Chavez; then Capriles is fully aware that outside meddling could create a very difficult situation for Venezuela if he decided to take his stance too strongly.

Maduro stated the electoral result was “just, legal and constitutional.” He further commented that the late Chavez “continues to be invincible, that he continues to win battles.” This may be the case currently but the margin of victory for Maduro highlights that this nation is deeply divided when it comes to politics. Of course, many nations are deeply divided but in Venezuela the political divide is based on two extremes. Also, America’s past meddling within the political corridors of many nations throughout the region highlights genuine internal fears within the body politic of Venezuela.

Capriles remains deviant because he states that “It is the government that has been defeated…The biggest loser today is you (Maduro). The people don’t love you.”

In the meantime, the people of Venezuela are caught between two extremes but for many people the real problems in this country relate to “bread and butter” issues. Overtly political postures irrespective if from the “left” or “right,” need to find political accommodation because this country is blessed with natural resources but many people still suffer from poverty and lack of opportunities.

Lee Jay Walker provided support to both main writers

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 8 Issue: 89 

By Stephen Blank

Pantsyr-S1 missile and artillery air defense system

Fortunately for Moscow coinciding news of arms sales to Brazil and Venezuela have helped to ease the pain. These are important states for Russia. Venezuela is now a long-standing client with energy revenues coming in and the Chavez government has lost none of its anti-Americanism even if its rhetoric had lessened for a while. Not only does the Russian defense sector twist Uncle Sam’s tail by selling it weapons, it gains hard cash and lasting influence there, while making trouble for Washington’s ally, Colombia. Brazil, the continent’s leader and fellow BRICS member (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), is a growing power that is expanding its overall capabilities even into space, and had partnership relations with Russia even before BRICS became a going concern. Consequently, there are opportunities there for Russian arms sellers to exploit. Russia premiered its new Pantsyr-S1 missile and artillery air defense system at the LAAD 2011 arms show in Rio de Janeiro and hopes to intensify the sale of air defense weapons in general to Latin American customers, Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and Chile (Interfax, April 18).

Russia intends to supply a second air defense system, the S-300V surface-to-air missile to Venezuela over the next few years, apparently because the customer has ordered it. Why Venezuela thinks it is threatened with aerial attack is an interesting question but it fits well with Chavez’s consistent invocation of such threats from the US (Interfax-AVN Online, April 15).  Indeed, at the LAAD arms show, Moscow announced that Venezuela has already bought almost $11 billion in arms from Russia in the last few years. Allegedly this is an “objective process not related to anything else” (Interfax, April 14). But the course of Chavez’s harangues about US attacks and his support for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and “Bolivarian Revolution” across the continent, including assistance to radical governments in Bolivia, suggest a rather more “subjective” policy underlying these acquisitions (Interfax, April 14). As part of this process Moscow has not only sold weapons to Venezuela but is building a full-cycle service and maintenance center (perhaps as a future hub for Russian sales throughout Latin America) and a training center equipped with state of the art simulators and classrooms (Interfax, April 14).

Russian arms sales to Brazil also suggest that Moscow is aiming not just to sell weapons, but also to enter into long-term co-production agreements with important clients like Brazil. This is part of a global trend, most strongly manifested in the rise of key arms buyers like Brazil, India, and China. Moscow is selling 150 MiG-34S-1 helicopters to Brazil through 2023 (Interfax, April 15). Russia is also ready to open production for the Su-35 fighter as part of Rosoboroneksport’s bid for the Brazilian tender for a multi-role fighter, a common tactic among competing arms sellers. Indeed, Moscow highlights its experience selling Su-30MK2 fighters to Venezuela as proof not only of its competitiveness but also of the fact that it actually has fighters in the air already (Interfax-AVN Online, April 15). Finally, Moscow also has stated that the Tiger armored vehicle could be assembled in Brazil, something that Brazil clearly wants to do. Venezuela too as well as other unnamed Latin American countries is interested in this vehicle so Brazil could become a regional hub for it (Interfax-AVN Online, April 14).

Russia’s approach is quite similar to that of other arms sellers in what is now a buyers’ market. Moscow, like its rivals must offer co-production, technology transfer, and other agreements to buyers in order to establish a lasting and productive commercial relationship and the enduring influence over military policy that goes with it. Brazil is obviously the biggest and most critical player in Latin America and its future defense trends will have reverberations throughout the continent and possibly beyond. But it is no less important for Moscow that it regains the ground it has lost elsewhere through Latin American purchases. The question is, can this market support Russian needs, and what are the security consequences for its governments if the defense situation deteriorates to the point where both the demand and supply of Russian weapons reaches Moscow’s aspirations

http://www.jamestown.org

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor – The Jamestown Foundation 

Please visit The Jamestown Foundation at www.jamestown.org for highly specialist information.

IPT News 

Steven Emerson and the Investigative Project on Terrorism

South America and terrorism linked history

Chavez Embraces Gaddafi and Tehran

IPT News

Steven Emerson and the Investigative Project on Terrorism

Hugo Chevez

 

 

The Libyan war has nothing to do to with humanitarian concerns, a senior member of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s ruling party said this week. According to Carlos Escarra Malave, vice president of Venezuela’s standing committee on foreign policy, the United States and its European allies “invaded” Libya so they could confiscate $200 billion in frozen assets belonging to the family of Muammar Gaddafi.

They “could save their own economies by confiscating those assets,” he said. “That’s the true reason for the invasion.”Malave’s bizarre comments serve to highlight the Venezuelan regime’s reflexive support for rogue states and its hostility towards the West. But Chavez’s burgeoning relationships with Iran and terrorist proxy Hizballah have been a much greater concern for American policymakers and law enforcement officials for years.

In April 2010, the Defense Department reported to Congress that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the IRGC-Qods (Jerusalem) Force (IRGC-QF is an elite unit within the IRGC) have been increasing their presence in Latin America – especially Venezuela.

The two “have been involved in or behind some of the deadliest terrorist attacks of the past 2 decades, including the 1983 and 1984 bombings of the U.S. Embassy and annex in Beirut, the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, the 1994 attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, and many of the insurgent attacks on Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces in Iraq since 2003,” the Pentagon report said. The IRGC and IRGC-QF generally direct and support “the groups that actually execute the attacks, thereby maintaining plausible deniability within the international community.”

In 2008, the Treasury Department announced sanctions against “two Venezuela-based supporters of Hizballah.” One of them, Ghazi Nasr al Din, who served in senior positions at the Venezuelan embassies in Syria and Lebanon, had “counseled Hizballah donors on fundraising efforts” and “provided donors with specific information on bank accounts where the donors’ deposits would go directly to Hizballah,” a Treasury statement said.

The other, Fawzi Kan’an, “met with senior Hizballah officials in Lebanon to discuss operational issues, including possible kidnappings and terrorist attacks. Further, Kan’an has also traveled with other Hizballah members to Iran for training.”

“It is extremely troubling to see the Government of Venezuela employing and providing safe harbor to Hizballah facilitators and fundraisers,” said Adam J. Szubin, director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).

For Iran, Venezuela’s established financial system “can help it end run UN Security Council sanctions, and its geographic location is ideal for building and storing weapons of mass destruction far away from the prying eyes of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the international community generally,” said former Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, who conducted several investigations into illicit banking and financial links between the two nations before his retirement in 2009. “For Venezuela, Iran provides political leverage against the United States by burnishing Caracas’s pretensions to leadership of Latin American’s anti-U.S. regimes and terrorist organizations.”

Morgenthau is deeply concerned about Iranian-Venezuelan collaboration in circumventing sanctions against Iranian nuclear weapons programs. In June 2008, Iran opened a bank in Caracas under the Spanish name Banco Internacional de Desarrollo C.A. (BID). It was an independent subsidiary of the Export Development Bank of Iran (EDBI). Four months later, OFAC imposed economic sanctions against these Iranian banks for attempting to provide services to the Iranian Ministry of Defense and its Armed Forces Logistics agency – two military agencies responsible for advancing Iran’s weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.

Iran and Venezuela claim the BID opened in Venezuela for the purpose of expanding bilateral economic ties. Morgenthau suspects there is a darker motive: Iran hopes to use Venezuela to circumvent U.S. sanctions and gain access to the American banking financial system.

OFAC sanctions alone cannot stop this outcome, Morgenthau argued, because Venezuelan banks are not subject to sweeping U.S. or international sanctions that seriously restrict their ability to do business with the United States. That means, in effect, that U.S. banks are forced to rely on the Venezuelan banks that are under Chavez’s control to ensure that money is being transferred for legitimate purposes.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office found that Iranian-Venezuelan financial “cooperation constitutes the basic infrastructure for dealings in nuclear technology as well as the narco-terrorist activities in which the Venezuelan government is clearly implicated,” Morgenthau wrote. “Our efforts uncovered a pervasive system of deceitful and fraudulent practices employed by Iranian entities to move money all over the world without detection….The Iranian government is going to such lengths for a purpose as simple as it is obvious: to pay for materials necessary to develop nuclear weapons, long-range missiles and sophisticated roadside bombs without being detected.”

Two years ago, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that there had been a marked decline in Venezuelan cooperation with U.S. anti-narcotics efforts since 2005. Washington made repeated efforts to resume cooperation, but none of those were reciprocated by the Chavez government. According to the GAO:”

According to U.S. and Colombian officials, Venezuela has extended a lifeline to Colombian illegal armed groups by providing significant support and safe haven along the border. As a result, these groups, which traffic in illicit drugs, remain viable threats to Colombian security. A high level of corruption within the Venezuelan government, military and other law enforcement and security forces contributes to the permissive environment, according to U.S. officials.”

According to the State Department, Chavez has repeatedly referred to the United States as a “terrorist nation” and described America as “the first state sponsor of terrorism.” During 2009, Venezuela’s “cooperation with the United States on counterterrorism has been reduced to an absolute minimum,” the State Department reported. Chavez “continued to strengthen Venezuela’s relationship with state sponsor of terrorism Iran,” while “Iran and Venezuela continued weekly Iran Airlines flights connecting Tehran and Damascus with Caracas.”

In May 2010, the U.S. government re-certified Venezuela as one of six countries worldwide that are “not cooperating fully with U.S. counterterrorism efforts” (the others were Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Eritrea).

At that time, according to former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roger Noriega, the Iranian and Venezuelan ambassadors to Syria held a meeting in Damascus where they came up with a plan for a secret summit in Caracas. It took place in August, when Chavez hosted senior jihadist operatives, including Khaled Meshaal, supreme leader of Hamas; Ramadan Abdullah Shallah, secretary-general of Palestinian Islamic Jihad; and the chief of operations for Hizballah, whose name is kept secret.

Last year, Spanish journalist Antonio Salas published a book, El Palestino, in which he said there are six terrorist training camps around Caracas. Groups training there include Hizballah and the Colombian FARC organization.

There had been reports for years about the existence of the camps, but Salas was apparently the first person to provide firsthand documentation. In the book, Salas said he posed as a Venezuelan Palestinian interested in jihad. He joined a Venezuelan “faction” of Hizballah, meeting members of terrorist organizations like Hamas and the FARC.”

This is in keeping with Chavez’s broader goals of creating an alliance of state and non-state actors to wage asymmetrical warfare against the United States,” journalist Douglas Farah wrote.

Steven Emerson is an author of many books related to terrorism and he is highly recognized in the international community for being an expert in this field.

Please visit http://www.investigativeproject.org and read more about terrorism, counterterrorism, global issues related to national security and other major information.

Read more at: http://www.investigativeproject.org/2730/chavez-embraces-gaddafi-and-tehran - original link