Bolivia may be latest Castro/Chavez victory

After weeks of often deadly protests led primarily by leftist-organized indigenous Indians, Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada was recently forced to resign as president of Bolivia. He was replaced by his Vice President Carlos Mesa, former television journalist with no political experience. No one knows how long Mesa will be able to remain in office. The country is bordering on chaos.

While some see this as simply another populist revolt against an elected “neo-liberal” reformer in Latin America, some -- more accurately -- see it as one more defeat for the United States as well as for democracy and free markets in the region.

It is also a victory for Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and Venezuela’s dictator-in-waiting, Hugo Chavez.

Land-locked Bolivia is the region’s poorest country with 8.8 million, mostly indigenous Indian, residents. But the Andean nation is symbolically important for Castro who sent Che Guevara there in the mid-1960’s to promote communist revolution. Though “Che” failed and was captured and killed in 1967, the leftist struggle has continued.

The most recent riots in Bolivia began September 15 after Sanchez de Lozada announced he supported a $5 billion pipeline to export liquefied natural gas to the US and Mexico through a port in Chile.

There is still strong popular resentment in Bolivia against Chile dating back to the 19th century war when Chile seized Bolivia’s coastline. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Many also see more nefarious motives behind the protests.

In his resignation letter, the American-educated Sanchez de Lozada said, “Democracy is under siege by cooperative groups, political groups and unions that don’t believe in it [democracy].” He added, “With the pretext of gas exportation…they have looked for my resignation…”

Sanchez de Lozada accused leftist opposition leader Evo Morales and Felipe Quispe, a leader of the country's indigenous Indians, of leading the attempts to oust him. Both have been organizing protests and provoking clashes with the Bolivian government for years.

Morales, a socialist leader of the coca farmers known as cocaleros narrowly lost the 2002 election that brought Sanchez de Lozada to power. Morales has close links with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Morales has also been leading a campaign coordinated with Castro against the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

Both Morales and Quispe denied leading the uprising and Morales also denied government accusations that he received financial aid from Libya’s Muhamar Gadafi and Chavez. But Manfred Reyes of the New Republican Force party, and until recently part of the governing coalition, alluded to Chavez and others when he claimed “there are anarchic groups with foreign backing that are using this as a pretext to bring down the country.”

The United States should be concerned. Morales is part of a growing network of leftist anti-American leadrers and groups in Latin America, apparently aided (and possibly financed) by Castro and Chavez working to undermine pro-American governments throughout the hemisphere.

This “anti-imperialist” effort also aims to elect leftist leaders when possible such as Chavez in Venezuela and Inacio Lula de Silva in Brazil. But when elections fail, these groups will use coups by populist/leftist military officers or populist protests such as those in Argentina and now Bolivia, to achieve their ends of removing elected pro-America leaders.

Many see the decrepit Castro (who still has a huge, loyal following in Latin America developed and cultivated over the past four decades) as the brains behind this effort, with his alter ego Chavez (using Venezuela’s large territory and vast oil revenues) as the logistical and financial support for this new subversion campaign. Some of the coordination may also be conducted through the Sao Paolo Forum, the Castro-inspired anti-American movement founded in Brazil by Lula da Silva in 1990.

The Forum, which meets regularly thgroughout Latin America, can be seen as a successor to Castro’s Tricontinental Congress formed in the 1960s to foment radicalism and revolution globally. It serves as the glue that binds anti-American leftist groups in Latin America with like-minded rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, and international radical groups and terrorists worldwide.

Bolivia is now ripe for take over by these Castro-Chavez sponsored radical groups. but it is just the latest of potential targets. The United States and the democracies of Latin America need to wake up to this growing subversion threat and work together to actively counter the Castro-Chavez axis.

U.S. urges better share in progress for the poor - Will not do business with a tyrant***Reich said the formula for progress in the region was democratic governments, ''sound, pro-growth economic policies,'' and investments in health and education.

He also boosted the Bush administration's trade initiative, the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas. ''The FTAA is the best route toward the goal of lifting people out of poverty,'' he said.

MAIN PROBLEMS

Reich singled out corruption, inefficiency and marginalization -- particularly for indigenous peoples -- as problems impeding progress in the hemisphere.

''Seldom have we faced as many challenges and opportunities in the hemisphere as we do today,'' he said. ``There is far too much corruption.''

In a region marked by periodic social unrest that has forced presidents in Argentina, Ecuador and most recently Bolivia out of office, Reich questioned the leaders of the opposition in Bolivia.

Earlier this month, Bolivian President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada resigned after days of violent protests over the plan to allow a foreign-owned consortium to export natural gas to Mexico and the United States. Bolivians were also unhappy with building a gas pipeline through Chile, which gained territory in a 19th century war that left Bolivia landlocked.

Speaking of the problems in the poorest South American country, Reich railed against political leaders who recommended leaving natural resources in the ground rather than using them to pay for development.

''There are people in Bolivia who don't believe in democracy and we cannot allow them to take power,'' Reich said. Still, he insisted that he was not telling Bolivians what to do.

Reich said he was in Bolivia a week before the protests and then traveled to Paris to attend a conference to discuss international donations to Bolivia. The White House envoy criticized European allies for failing to step forward with money, noting that Spain was the only exception.***

In the meanwhile, useful idiots in the Congress and the Senate undermine President Bush’s war against terrorism by propping up Castro’s terrorist regimen.

While our heroic soldiers are dying and billions of our taxpayer’s monies is being spent in the war against the worse menace against our civilization, it is outrageous that irresponsible politicians are promoting travel of American tourists to Cuba, one of the six countries in the State Department’s list of terrorist nations and one of the oldest training bases for terrorism in the world.

In 2001, Castro made a pilgrimage to his associates in the terror network, Libya, Iraq and Iran. In the University of Tehran Castro promised that their alliance would bring the United States to its knees. Five months later, the ominous threat came to fruition – 9/11 that shook the United States and the world.

With pro-Castro governments in Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina and now Bolivia, Cuba constitutes a growing menace to the security our country. Are we going to allow that American tourists and taxpayers monies finance the Cuban terror network?

Dorgan's Pro-Castro Foreign Policy

By Stephen Johnson

Fox News | October 29, 2003

Members of Congress who want to lift the U.S. ban on travel to Cuba -- and there are many -- aren’t motivated by a desire to help its infamous dictator Fidel Castro. They simply want to stop “imposing limits on the American people’s right to travel,” in the words of Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.

But any changes in U.S. policy toward Castro should be tempered with the realization that there are no easy answers to the Cuban conundrum. Lifting the travel ban could make it easier for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to help Cuban dissidents -- but at the cost of doing business with Cuba’s state enterprises, thus propping up the regime.

Besides, Castro isn’t about to let in hordes of tourists, anyway, especially if he thinks they may provoke a situation that might get out of his control. U.S. officials aren’t the only ones interested in limiting one’s “right to travel.”

On the positive side, sanctions signal continued solidarity with the captive Cuban populace, who continue to suffer under the heel of one of the world’s last remaining communist dictatorships. They serve to protect American security, which is one reason President Bush recently reaffirmed his strong stance against Castro. Restricting credit and potential income can prevent Castro from regenerating his efforts to support insurgents and terrorists abroad.

On the negative side, though, Americans aren’t used to being told they can’t go places or sell services and goods to whomever they like.

A year and a half ago, on Cuban Independence Day, President Bush put the ball in Castro’s court. Announcing his New Cuba Initiative, he challenged Castro to allow free and fair elections, permit citizens to freely assemble and express themselves, and ease restrictions on private enterprise. In exchange, Bush promised to lift sanctions on trade and travel, matching Castro step-for-step.

Castro’s response was to ignore the president’s proposal and jail some 80 independent human rights activists and journalists. These actions drew criticism from the European Union, whose aid Castro renounced, and derision from former supporters worldwide.

To date, Castro hasn’t changed his policies. But that hasn’t stopped the U.S. travel industry and agribusiness from pressuring a growing number of federal lawmakers to lift sanctions against the Cuban regime.

In contrast, President Bush has been putting some teeth into his Cuba policy. He recently announced measures that would:

--Tighten enforcement against unlicensed U.S. travel to the island through the Department of Homeland Security,

--Institute a new lottery system to encourage legal immigration to the United States,

--Initiate more effective public diplomacy to reach the Cuban people, and

--Establish a new commission, headed by Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Mel Martinez, to develop a post-Castro engagement policy.

Such measures may not hasten Castro’s downfall any more than other strategies attempted throughout the 44 years Castro’s been in power, but they serve a critical purpose. They will cut off some cash flow to the regime and send a signal of solidarity to European and Latin American allies, who are now beginning to take stands against Castro’s continued captivity of the Cuban people.

But for that hard-line approach to work, the Bush administration must be honest. While couched in terms of helping Cubans gain freedom, the only legal basis for travel restrictions is to keep the regime from regenerating its ability to become a security threat.

That capacity withered with the end of the Soviet Union and its $5 billion annual subsidies to the island. Nonetheless, cheap oil flowing from Venezuela and rhetorical support from neo-populist leaders in Brazil, Bolivia and Argentina have given top Cuban officials hope that the time is ripe for a return to Marxist revolution.

Congressional backers of lifting restrictions on Cuba also hold out hope. They believe that American tourist dollars and loans will soften the regime and coax it into America’s sphere of influence.

That’s unlikely, since past trade and aid from Canada and Europe have not made Castro any more tractable. Only sustained pressure on a broad scale can safeguard space for Cuba’s democrats and contain the potential security threat that Castro’s regime continues to pose for the hemisphere.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice recently noted that the United States must “hold the flame for those who are not yet free.” But even more is at stake. Cuba still supports terrorists and revolutionaries, and Castro’s underlings still think their dictatorship can be exported elsewhere. It’s time to prove them wrong.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Bolivia may be latest Castro/Chavez/CARTER victory