I contributed a chapter, entitled "A New Addition: The Intelligence Director's Value Added" to The Faces of Intelligence Reform: Perspectives on Direction and Form published by the Council for Emerging National Security Affairs (CENSA).

The chapter is not available online, but I questioned the efficacy of establishing a National Intelligence Director.

NRO just ran an article I wrote on how Canada could take a lead role in isolating Hugo Chavez.

March 31, 2006, 10:26 a.m.
Look to Canada
The answer to our problems south of the border can be found in the north.

By Aaron Mannes

The agenda at the Cancun summit between President Bush, President Fox, and Canada's new premier Stephen Harper is already filled with discussions of trade and immigration. Nevertheless, there is an important security issue that should be added -— building a coherent, unified policy for countering the increasing radicalism in Latin America and for isolating Venezuela's trouble-making President Hugo Chavez. For Bush this is a necessity; for Harper it is an opportunity.

Chavez is no mere gadfly -— he is becoming a major strategic problem for the hemisphere. Having established an alliance with the Islamic Republic of Iran, Chavez has become the most vocal supporter of Iran's nuclear program. During a March 2005 visit to Caracas by Iran's then President Khatami, the two countries signed 20 agreements to cooperate on economic development projects. Iran's election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has explicitly called for Israelís destruction, has done nothing to dampen Iranian-Venezuelan relations.

Within Venezuela, Chavez has eroded civil liberties. Since he took power in 1998, Venezuela's ranking in the Freedom House Freedom in the World report has dropped from "Free" to "Partly Free." The report states that in 2004, "Chavez devoted considerable attention during the year to advancing his influence over the judicial system, media, and other institutions of civil society." Chavez's government has enacted media laws that could allow the government to imprison reporters for insulting public authorities and institutions and has packed the Supreme Court by expanding its membership from 20 to 32 justices.

However, Chavez's growing influence throughout Latin America is the most serious concern. Flush with petro-dollars, Chavez has been purchasing influence, spreading his radical populism, and spearheading a regional left-turn away from free markets and free civil society. He has funded like-minded candidates in elections in Bolivia and Uruguay and is now reportedly funding radical candidates in Mexico and Peru. In Argentina, Chavez took on billions of dollars in Argentine state debt, easing Argentina's fiscal crisis and helping his ally President Kirchner. Free or subsidized oil has been used to win friends in the Caribbean, Central America, and even in the United States. The most important recipient of Chavez's largesse is Castro. Subsidized oil from Venezuela props up the Cuban regime, and Castro in turn sends operatives to Venezuela to support Chavez's endeavors. Chavez is acquiring other means of spreading his influence. He funds Telesur -— Latin America's al Jazeera -— to broadcast his vision, and he provides safe havens for Latin America's largest terrorist organization, FARC.

Over the last few decades, Latin America has made important strides towards building free societies, but much remains to be done. Unchecked, Chavez is undoing this progress. Many within Latin America have become concerned with his growing influence. His rhetoric and interference in other nations' internal affairs have sparked several high-profile spats with other Latin American countries, including Columbia, Mexico, and Peru. Even Brazil's president, who had been a radical labor leader, has been careful to distance himself from Chavez.

Despite these concerns, U.S. efforts to isolate Chavez have been hampered, largely due to the historically complex and often overbearing U.S. approach to the region. Latin American leaders and populations understandably bristle when the U.S. comments on their internal political situations. A year ago, when the United States proposed that the Organization of American States take an active role in fostering democracy, the other member states rejected it.

Canada is not burdened with this legacy; Canadian efforts to push democracy in the region will not be viewed with the same skepticism as those of the U.S., and they may even fall on receptive ears. Also, U.S. requirements for immunity from possible International Criminal Court prosecution have hampered military-to-military relations between the U.S. and many Latin American countries. This lack of engagement is bad both for the U.S. image in the region and for hemispheric security. Canada does not operate under these restrictions, and the Canadian military (which is generally regarded as highly professional) could fill the gap. Besides being the right thing to do, taking the lead on isolating Chavez would also provide Harper with important leverage in Canada's contentious trade talks with the Unites States. U.S. concessions on the soft lumber tariffs, in turn, would put Harper in a better position to tack closer to the U.S. on other important security issues.

Canada is ready for a greater role on the world stage. When he visited Afghanistan, Harper praised the Canadian troops serving there for, "demonstrating an international leadership role for our country. Not carping from the sidelines, but taking a stand on the big issues that matter. You can't lead from the bleachers. I want Canada to be a leader... A country that really leads, not a country that just follows." The Western hemisphere needs Canadian leadership. The issue at stake is freedom and progress for a continent, which is bigger than any tariff dispute.

- Aaron Mannes, author of the TerrorBlog and Profiles in Terror: The Guide to Middle East Terrorist Organizations, and he researches terrorism at the Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Laboratory at the University of Maryland. Opinions expressed here are his own.

For the past several years as I scanned al-Ahram Weekly (an English language publication controlled by the Egyptian government) this smug visage glared on, haughtily as he served up various Non-Aligned Movement Pap.



Ibrahim Nafie, former Editor-in-Chief of Egypt's leading newspaper al-Ahram and Chairman of the al-Ahram Foundation, was Mubarak's primary mouthpiece. In 2002 journalists were jailed for defaming him. A fine testament to freedom of the press in Egypt.

His weekly columns were sycophantic junk. Egyptian Person writes:

As for Ibrahim Nafie, in 2000, I remember him calling those who demanded recalling the Egyptian ambassador in Israel as short-visioned individuals who know nothing about politics and the importance of having representation in Israel to keep an open line of communication. Of course, when Mubarak recalled the ambassador shortly after, suddenly everything changed, and recalling the ambassador became a wise political act that came exactly in the right time.

Nafie himself engages occasionally in the absurd conspiracy theories and incitement that prevail in the Arab media. But under his stewardship, al-Ahram has been one of the worst offenders. Nafie is being sued in France for an article published in al-Ahram titled, "Jewish Matzah is Made of Arab Blood." Nafie's response to the lawsuit and accusations of anti-Semitism exemplifies the best in the tradition of evasive Arab rhetoric when he claims the lawsuit is, "an attempt to terrorize and silence Egyptian journalists and intellectuals so they desist from criticizing Israel. As you know, Egyptian writers and intellectuals are the most involved in exposing Israel's terrorism against the Palestinians."

In fairness, al-Ahram Weekly is a wonderful read that often provides a useful window into Egyptian affairs and is carefully, but surprisingly critical at points. (This is in stark contrast to the Arabic publications where the reporting "often is vague and poorly sourced") I do not think this is due to Nafie's diligence - I think the opposite - al-Ahram Weekly was free to push the envelope because Nafie is too busy stealing!

In July 2005, after over 20 years as Editor-in-Chief, Nafie abruptly resigned. Since then the opposition paper al-Usbu' reported on an astounding level of embezzlement by Nafie. Besides a hefty salary of L.E. 3 million a month (approximately $500,000) he received a percentage on advertising and income from the al-Ahram Foundation's various publications and companies. His sons had a monopoly on selling supplies to the company and the top 30 al-Ahram employees (Nafie's cronies) earned half as much as the organization's other 10,000 employees combined.

There is of course another story here. Nafie was moved out of his position as part of a shake-up - probably to make Gamal Mubarak look like a reformer and prepare him for the Presidency. Corruption like this is prevalent in Egypt and information only comes out if someone at the top wants it to. Still - I am glad to see this media mandarin get some sort of comeuppance.