***The United States is now at a crossroads.
First, the United States must buck what is becoming a trend in the Western Hemisphere; namely, that democratic means are being manipulated by leftist leaders to preclude the United States from affecting or supporting "regime change," lest it appear to subvert the democratic process. To this end, the removal of Fidel Castro from power could provide a benchmark against which all pro-Castro leaders can judge their future behavior.
Moreover, a congressionally approved regime change in Cuba could at this moment accomplish three other important tasks: One, Fidel Castro's absence would have a detumescent effect on those leftists who exhibit a penchant for Castro-ism. Two, a positive regime change would eliminate Fidel Castro's ideational inspiration, which serves as the greatest source of intellectual, ideological, and political anti-Americanism in the region. Three, the United States would destroy one of the most powerful logistical infrastructures for supporting terrorist movements. Cuba's military and intelligence advisors would no longer be able to assist anti-U.S. regimes or terrorist organizations.
Second, The United States must demand that Brazil abandon any material attempt to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Any evidence to the contrary should result in devastating consequences. On the terror front, the United States can test the veracity of Brazil's numerous pledges to fight terrorism by requesting an unequivocal denunciation of the FARC and an exhibition of the appropriate legal measures to support this rhetorical decision.
Third, without Fidel Castro's intellectual, ideological, and political influence, Hugo Chavez would assume the status of an unimpressive despot akin to Saddam Hussein's Yasser Arafat. At that point he might be more easily contained until a future date when the people of Venezuela can be encouraged to elect someone more competent to lead that great country.
Unless the United States government adopts a coherent Western Hemispheric strategy to counter the influence of the Castro- da Silva-Chavez tripartite, one can expect to witness the growth of this "axis" and a concomitant rise in terrorist related activity in the region. As an example of things to come the Washington Times reported on 7 April 2003 that Al Qaeda terrorists had plans to enter the United States illegally through Mexico to carry our attacks against various targets. It is wholly conceivable that these terrorists could one day commence operations from secure locations in the Western Hemisphere and given enough time they may even attain a nuclear weapons capability courtesy of an anti-U.S. regime.
To borrow a phrase from the Bush Doctrine: "…the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather."***
An extensive analysis of government policies in the magazine, Primeira Leitura, linked to important corporate and political circles, says the PT sought to "verticalize the political process from day one." "Translation: the party seeks to 'PT-ify' all society's representative groups and decision makers. This effort is based on political sociology: once securing the state apparatus, the PT wishes to reinvent the state and society itself" (Reinaldo Azevedo and Rui Nogueira "Democracia neles," Primeira Leitura, March 2003).
Commenting on the demagogic aspects of some proposals by the Lula administration, Denis Lerrer Rosenfield, professor of philosophy at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, points out that the government intends to "stage a show of 'direct' or 'participatory' democracy by fostering an increase in the governing party's power to the detriment of democratic and republican institutions" (Denis Lerrer Rosenfield, "O perigo da demagogia," O Estado de S. Paulo, 3/10/2003).
President Lula da Silva makes no secret of the fact that his present policies, including economic policy, are temporary. Facing criticism from PT radicals at a recent meeting of the Party's National Directorate, Lula asked for "patience to wait for a change of direction in the economic area" (Vera Rosa and Mariana Barbosa, "Na área social, o nosso forte, estamos fracos," O Estado de S. Paulo, 3/16/2003).
This uncertainty awakens deep suspicions about the true intentions of the Lula administration and its future policies. "The fear is that the Lula administration will change its economic course as it loses popularity and faces problems with its grassroots political support.
"Despite the government's repeated assertions to the contrary, this fear still lingers among the corporate world and investors. It also remains among some political operatives" (Lu Aiko Otta, "Investidores temem mudança de rumos," O Estado de S. Paulo, 3/17/2003). The same news item quotes economist and consultant Roberto Padovani who believes that "the temptation to abruptly change economic course persists." He says that, facing the Iraq conflict, "analysts fear extreme measures such as currency exchange controls." ***