Chavez-Iran Axis Revives Monroe Doctrine

Summer 2007 appears to have ushered in a new season of revivals; Liberal Democrats, not satisfied with control of all broadcast TV networks, CNN, MSNBC, and most major daily newspapers in America, attempted to revive the “Fairness Doctrine” in order to destroy conservative talk radio; In Britain, the specter of summertime Islamic terror attacks was revived over the weekend with attempted bombings of nightclubs in London and the Glasgow Airport in Scotland; Scooter Libby’s freedom was revived after President Bush provided him with clemency after an agenda-driven prosecutor and a biased DC jury convicted him for having a poor memory in a case in which no underlying crime actually occurred; The level of political activity and discussion in America was revived by fierce debate and Internet blogging about illegal immigration, proving that the voices of constituents really can make a difference to our elected officials; The threat of socialism and the extension of radical Islamic ideologies in the western hemisphere was revived through the formation of an alliance between Iran and Venezuela, creating direct threats to America’s national security and economic interests throughout South America.

This last revival deserves significant consideration as it relates to America’s foreign policy and national security. An anti-American “Axis” has been formally created between Venezuela and Iran, two members of the OPEC oil cartel. This alliance, dubbed the “Axis of Unity,” is a wedding of oil-rich nations who share only one stated purpose: "The two countries will united defeat the imperialism of North America." Those words by Venezuela’s socialist president Hugo Chavez, when placed in the context of recent actions by Iran and Venezuela, constitute a direct threat to the stability and security of the western hemisphere. Chavez has issued orders to Venezuela’s rapidly growing military to prepare for war against the U.S. He has entered into several arms purchase agreements with Russia, including Russian submarines to bolster Venezuela’s expanding naval capabilities, and although the Russian subs are not the most tactically advanced or newest models, they still pose grave potential security threats to U.S. shipping in South America as well as a completely unmonitored method for smuggling terrorists and weapons (possibly WMD) from Iran to Venezuela through the quiet deep. Chavez further seized the operations of two American oil companies in Venezuela (Exxon Mobil and Conoco-Phillips) and nationalized them, forcing the companies out and adding to Venezuela’s despotic control of its oil production.

Iran, as has been reported extensively by Capital Cloak, continues its rapid march toward nuclear weapons capability, and continues to train, fund, equip, and transport Islamic terrorists throughout the world, in particular Iraq. American generals have determined that Iran is actually attempting to organize an Iraqi version of terror group Hezbollah and is responsible for most of the IEDs and VBIEDs that have killed or wounded coalition forces in Iraq. Iran, like Venezuela, is a major oil producer, and that status gives concerned nations considerable pause when contemplating use of force to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions and terror sponsorship. Nothing would please Iran and its radical president Ahmadinejad more than establishing a secure foothold in the Americas, sheltered by a sworn enemy of the U.S., where terror operations and smuggling could bring operatives and weapons into much closer proximity to the “Great Satan” than is currently possible on any large scale. The two nations have formed an economic, ideological, and potential military partnership in America’s backyard.

I would ask our government to consider a simple question: what has happened to the Monroe Doctrine? In this summer of revivals, the return of the Monroe Doctrine would be a revival worthy of swift implementation. President Bush frequently tells us that “we are fighting terrorists over there so we won’t have to fight them here.” If that is the logical basis for the administration’s War on Terror strategy, then it would seem critical to define what is meant by “fight them here.” Under the Monroe Doctrine, “here” would include anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. The Doctrine, set forth by President James Monroe in 1823, declared to European powers that North and South America were no longer open for colonization and that any attempt by a foreign power to extend its influence into the “New World” would be viewed as dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States. Prior to the official pronouncement of the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. had recognized Argentina, Chile, Columbia, and Mexico as republics, and the doctrine was an affirmation that the sovereignty of free governments in the western hemisphere, as well as the prevention of foreign interference, were critical to America’s national security and would be enforced through American military force as needed.

Since that time, to briefly summarize a long history of development, the Monroe Doctrine has been invoked to justify anti-Soviet operations in Guatemala in the 1950s after the Soviet Union intervened in Guatemala’s internal politics, as well as President Kennedy’s Cuban missile crisis confrontation with the Soviets. While it is true that Venezuela sought its current alliance with Iran and is not technically being interfered with by a foreign power, Latin and South American security considerations in the age of Islamic terrorism would certainly be as justified under the Monroe Doctrine today as it was in Monroe’s, Grant’s, Teddy Roosevelt’s, or John F. Kennedy’s time. In 1962, Kennedy made the following statement about the Monroe Doctrine’s role in confronting the Soviet Union over Cuba:

The Monroe Doctrine means what it has meant since President Monroe and John Quincy Adams enunciated it, and that is that we would oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere, and that is why we oppose what is happening in Cuba today. That is why we have cut off our trade. That is why we worked in the Organization of American States and in other ways to isolate the Communist menace in Cuba. That is why we will continue to give a good deal of our effort and attention to it.

The Bush administration and future presidents should consider carefully Kennedy’s wording. He did not state that a foreign power must be interfering in the Western Hemisphere before America should act. He used the phrase “we would oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere.” In its new “Axis of Unity” based on hatred of America, Iran is certainly making overt efforts to extend its power into the America’s, or as Chavez bragged, "This is the unity of the Persian Gulf and the Caribbean Sea."

If President Bush is serious about “fighting terrorists over there so we won’t have to fight them here,” he should study and reassert the Monroe Doctrine as previous presidents have done to prevent dangerous ideologies and avowed enemies of America from establishing a beachhead in the Western Hemisphere from which to launch attacks on our interests or foment terror on our doorstep.

It is not in the interest of our national security, or the security of other Latin and South American nations, to allow an “Axis of Unity” to join hands with the “Axis of Evil.”

Technorati Tags:
Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Axis of Unity, Venezuela, Russian Arms Sales, Monroe Doctrine, War on Terror, National Security