Category: Quick Analysis

Categories
Quick Analysis

NATO describes global threat

Dire setbacks to international security were the subject of  NATO Deputy Secretary General Ambassador Alexander Vershbow’s keynote address  in  Leangkollen, Oslo. In his statement before the Nobel Institute, Vershbow noted:

“After the watershed events of 2014, we face a new and more dangerous security environment, with threats pressing in on us from the East and from the South.  We did not want this.  We did not choose it.  But it is the reality.  And every successful strategy must be based on facts and realism, not simply on hope. To the East, Russia has torn up the international rule book.  It has returned to a strategy of power politics.  It threatens not just Ukraine, but European and global security more generally.  And it is pursuing this strategy even as the costs to its own prosperity and reputation grow. To the South, violent extremism is spreading across North Africa and the Middle East.  And we are seeing the consequences in the form of mass migration across the Mediterranean, foreign jihadist fighters traveling between Syria and Europe, and other terrorists, many of whom are inspired by a twisted interpretation of Islam, trying to bring bloodshed to our own streets.”

While Vershbow took a global look, his main concern, not surprisingly, was Russia, describing its aggression against Ukraine as a “game changer” in European security.

“Russia has used force to alter legally recognized borders and to actively subvert the government of a neighboring state.  Although it claims to want de-escalation and to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, its actions tell a different story.

“The open, rules-based system that respects international borders, and the right of states to choose their own future, has been undermined.  And yet Russia also signed up to these rules – and even helped write them – many times:  in OSCE documents such as the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris, in the NATO-Russia Founding Act, and in many other international agreements.  In the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, Russia explicitly guaranteed Ukraine’s international frontiers in exchange for the transfer of nuclear weapons from Ukraine to Russia.

“Our first reaction at NATO to Russia’s actions has been one of bitter disappointment.  For over 20 years, we have tried actively and consistently to make Russia a strategic partner.  We made it clear that our vision of a Europe whole, free and at peace included a prominent place for Russia.  In the NATO-Russia Founding Act in 1997 we pledged not to regard each other as adversaries but to work together to create a “lasting and inclusive peace”.

“Yet what we have seen, especially since Putin’s return to the Presidency in 2012, is a Russia determined to go in the opposite direction:  to detach itself from Europe, to assert itself in its own neighborhood, and to seek to build alternative mechanisms – such as the Eurasian Union and the BRICS group – whose raison d’être, at least in Moscow’s view, is defined by opposition to the West.

“Even before the Ukraine crisis, Russia was backing away from the commitment it made at our Lisbon Summit in 2010 to develop a true strategic partnership with NATO and to cooperate in potentially important areas such as missile defense.  Russia became less transparent about its own military activities, especially major exercises.  It based these exercises on absurd scenarios of a direct threat, or even an attack from a NATO country.  It stopped implementing the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, and other transparency initiatives such as the Open Skies Treaty.  It showed no interest in our overtures to re-engage on nuclear and conventional arms control.  Instead of more predictability and trust we now have less, even compared to the Soviet period.

“Indeed, with its frequent “snap exercises,” like the one now underway in the Kaliningrad region, Moscow seems determined to surprise, shock and intimidate rather than to build confidence and predictability as it pledged to do under the Vienna Document of 1999.

“And just a few weeks ago, Russia issued the latest revision of its Military Doctrine.  It explicitly refers to NATO as destabilizing and a “danger” to Russia – without, I might add, giving any convincing rationale as to why or how NATO threatens Russia, or providing any justification for Russia’s aggressive behavior.”

“So what does explain Russia’s reorientation?  I believe it is domestic considerations, more than anything else.  Putin fears his own “color revolution”.  The Maidan demonstrations, the aspiration for more democracy and for less corruption, are a threat to his own system of power in Russia – especially after he saw how the flawed Duma and Presidential elections in 2011 and 2012 triggered popular protests on the streets of Moscow…

“In this new environment, NATO’s security is not an optional extra, or a rain check for some future date.  We must implement the Readiness Action Plan and the Defense Investment Pledge – in full and on time.  Every Ally must assume its share of the collective responsibility.  And I am glad that Norway is responding to the challenge.

With Germany and the Netherlands, Norway is in the lead in establishing the new Interim Very High Readiness Joint Task Force, the so-called ‘Spearhead Force’.  This will allow NATO to respond in a matter of days to any attack on NATO territory, and lay the basis for the permanent Spearhead Force that we expect to declare operational at our Warsaw Summit next year…”

Categories
Quick Analysis

EPA misleads public

The Heartland Institute has obtained a memo  through the Freedom of Information Act revealing that the Environmental Protection Agency intentionally employed misleading tactics to gain public support for its policies. According to the report,

“The March 2009 memo shows the EPA feared it was losing citizen support for its climate efforts because opinion polls consistently showed the public ranked fighting global warming very low on its list of priorities. According to polls, the public felt harms from global warming were exaggerated and had little bearing on people’s lives.

In response, the memo describes the EPA’s decision shift the debate from concerns about melting ice caps and declining caribou and polar bear populations, to promoting the idea global warming poses a direct threat to public health, especially children’s health, and air and water quality.

“Most American’s will never see a polar ice cap, nor will ever have a chance to see a polar bear in its natural habitat. Therefor it is easy to detach from the seriousness of the issue. Unfortunately, climate change in the abstract is an increasingly – and consistently – unpersuasive argument to make. However, if we shift from making this issue about polar caps and about our neighbor with respiratory illness we can potentially bring this issue home to many Americans.”

The problem for the EPA is, there has been no serious research linking global warming or greenhouse gas emissions to human health problems, or air or water pollution.”

The memo can be read here.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Freedom retreats across the globe

Freedom House, the nonpartisan organization that keeps a watchful eye on personal liberty throughout the world, has updated its report on the state of individual rights. The news is not good. About twice as many countries suffered declines of freedom as registered gain, 61 to 33.

According to its latest research, “More aggressive tactics by authoritarian regimes and an upsurge in terrorist attacks contributed to a disturbing decline in global freedom in 2014.”

Freedom House describes what amounts to sea-change in the international perspective on governance.

“Acceptance of democracy as the world’s dominant form of government—and of an international system built on democratic ideals—is under greater threat than at any other point in the last 25 years,’ said Arch Puddington, vice president for research. “Until recently, most authoritarian regimes claimed to respect international agreements and paid lip service to the norms of competitive elections and human rights,” Puddington said. “Today they argue for the superiority of what amounts to one-party rule, and seek to throw off the constraints of fundamental diplomatic principles.”

Among the major world powers, both Russia, for its invasion of Ukraine, and China, for its increased centralization of power and disdain for democratic standards, were cited as key reversals for the cause of freedom.

It is not only nation-states that constituted major threats to personal liberty. Terrorist movements also played a key role. “From West Africa through the Middle East to South Asia, radical jihadist forces plagued local governments and populations. Their impact on countries such as Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, and Nigeria was devastating, as they massacred security forces and civilians alike, took foreigners hostage, and killed or enslaved religious minorities, including Muslims they deemed apostates.”

These were the “key findings” described in the report:

  • Of the 195 countries assessed, 89 (46 percent) were rated Free, 55 (28 percent) Partly Free, and 51 (26 percent) Not Free.
  • All but one region had more countries with declines than with gains. Asia-Pacific had an even split.
  • A troubling number of large, economically powerful, or regionally influential countries moved backward: Azerbaijan, Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria, Russia, Thailand, Turkey, and Venezuela.
  • Continuing a recent trend, the worst reversals affected freedom of expression, civil society, and the rule of law.
  • In a new and disquieting development, a number of countries lost ground due to state surveillance, restrictions on internet communications, and curbs on personal autonomy.
  • Ratings for the Middle East and North Africa region were the worst in the world, followed by Eurasia. Syria, a dictatorship mired in civil war and ethnic division and facing uncontrolled terrorism, received the lowest Freedom in the World score of any country in over a decade.
  • A notable exception to the negative trend was Tunisia, which became the first Arab country to hold the status of Free since Lebanon was gripped by civil war 40 years ago.


 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Incompetence in U.S. foreign policy reflected in recent events

Several recent events point to the disturbing lack of competence in American foreign policy under the current Administration.

Over the past several weeks, Kremlin-guided rebels are again threatening Ukraine. It would be difficult to find a more salient and massive failure of U.S. international relations than the Obama/Clinton “Reset” with Moscow.  Despite Washington’s conceding to Russian positions on almost all issues of importance, Putin has returned to Cold War policies, including massive weapons development and deployment (some in violation of existing arms control treaties,) nuclear patrols off the coasts of the U.S., and violating NATO airspace. While all this has occurred, the U.S. has slashed its military spending.

A similar situation exists with China. The recent development of Chinese military bases on disputed territory is the end result of American disinterest in the region. The U.S. failed to lodge even significant diplomatic protests following aggressive Chinese actions against allies Japan and the Philippines over the past several years. The diminished U.S. Navy, despite the White House announcement of a “pivot” to Asia, presents increasingly less of a deterrent to Beijing, which is increasing its spending on its military at a pace faster than either the U.S.S.R or the U.S.A. at the height of the Cold War.

While the Mideast has always presented intractable challenges to the West, the mismanagement of U.S. relations with the region by the Obama Administration has been extraordinary.  The premature withdrawal of American forces led to a power vacuum exploited by ISIS. U.S. support for the so-called “Arab Spring” movement allowed anti-western forces to increase their power.  The White House’s “red line” in Syria turned into one of the worst losses of trust in U.S. power in generations. Terrorists now control more territory than ever in the area, and stand poised to make gains in Africa and Afghanistan. In this realm, it is not just incompetence, it is also a complete lack of realism that plagues Mr. Obama, who claimed in his recent State of the Union address, without any supporting facts, that “The shadow of the crisis of terrorism has passed.”

Closest to home is the White House policy towards Latin America.  Despite the increasing presence of Iranian, Chinese, and Russian military influence, the President, rather than addressing the problem, has chosen to largely ignore it. Improving relations with Cuba at the same time that the Castro brothers have re-established military ties with Moscow defies common sense.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Nuclear terrorism concerns

Nuclear terrorism remains a serious concern, according to Yukiya Amano, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General. Amano’s warnings appear to contradict President Obama’s State of the Union comments that the “shadow of the crisis of terrorism has passed.”

Iran’s atomic program also was singled out as a problem, as was North Korea’s nuclear efforts in the Director-General’s comments in Jakarta, Indonesia on Monday.

“I remain seriously concerned about North Korea’s nuclear programme. Agency inspectors were required to leave the country in 2009, so our knowledge of developments there is limited. But we are maintaining our readiness to play an essential role in verifying the country’s nuclear programme.

As far as Iran is concerned, the Agency is able to verify the non-diversion of nuclear material declared to us by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement. But we are not in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.

2015 will be a significant year for the Iran nuclear issue. The future will depend very much on the outcome of the negotiations between the so-called E3+3 countries – China, France, Germany, Russia, Britain and the United States – and Iran.”

In addressing the Iran nuclear issue, two things are important. First, with the cooperation of Iran, the Agency needs to clarify issues with possible military dimensions to the satisfaction of Member States. Also, Iran needs to implement the additional protocol so that the Agency can provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.”

 Information about the IAEA data base can be found at: IAEA INCIDENT AND TRAFFICKING DATABASE (ITDB)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Arctic threat ignored

It’s world of strange priorities. The President has proudly announced  that the U.S. is placing the Arctic Wildlife Refuge off limits to energy production.  At the same, the Commander in Chief has proposed nothing effective to dissuade Russia from militarizing much of the Arctic region.

On January 25, the White House disclosed: “Today, the Department of the Interior released a revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan to better sustain and manage the entire Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — and President Obama took it a step further and announced his plans to ask Congress to designate the Coastal Plain and other core areas of the refuge as wilderness.”

The world, however, has started to take note of Moscow’s aggressiveness at the top of the world.

Last month, Russia Direct.org noted:  “By the end of 2014, Russia expects to complete the development of its Arctic military structure. A closed, Soviet-era base on Kotelny Island has reopened to safeguard Arctic shipping, and is intended to be the first in a chain of similar airbases that will open along Russia’s northern coastline. Radar installations at new military camps on Cape Schmidt and Wrangel Island have just begun operation in order to have full radar coverage of the Arctic by the end of this year.It is clear that Russia is prioritizing the replacement of its aging infrastructure in the High North and establishing a strong presence there as quickly as possible. In total, the country is building 10 radar stations, 13 airfields, a new Arctic combat training center in the Far East, and an air-ground firing range in the far north. In 2015, Russia is planning an airdrop operation with paratroopers in the Arctic and is projected to finish construction on five new icebreaking ships.”

Russia’s move comes despite a very clear policy among other nations not to militarize the region. Russia Direct reports: “On more than one occasion, NATO has stated its intention not to militarize the Arctic, despite increasing provocations from Russia. In a speech delivered in May 2013, former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen made it clear that, “The Arctic… rewards cooperation, not confrontation.”

Very real and very imminent strategic threats against the U.S. and its allies continue to be largely ignored.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The evidence is in: American government isn’t racist

The appropriate decision by the U.S. Department of Justice to not bring civil rights charges against the police officer in the Ferguson incident came as a deep disappointment to those who seek to profit by enhancing their careers with inflammatory rhetoric.

From the earliest moment, the objective evidence cast deep doubts against any malfeasance on the part of the police officer in question.  However, both the White House as well as the usual round of racial extremists irresponsibly sought to portray the matter as a case of official misconduct.  The motives were clearly venal.

Despite numerous political, journalistic, academic and other outlets who desperately attempt to portray America as a nation mired in official bias, there is little indication to confirm their hypothesis. Indeed, the very fact of a black President and attorney general, as well as numerous other members of government from minority backgrounds provides prima facie evidence that the U.S. is not a racist nation.

In a recently released study, the Pew Research Center found that the new Congress is the most diverse group ever to inhabit the legislative branch of government, with 17% being from nonwhite backgrounds. The report, however, seeking not to stray from politically correct orthodoxy, nevertheless notes that the figure is below the 38% of nonwhites that make up the U.S. population.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Iran: a growing international danger

Last week, the New York Analysis of Policy & Government reported on its exclusive interview with Reza Khalili on the growing danger from Iran in the western hemisphere, emphasized by this month’s assassination of an Argentinian  prosecutor who was about to present evidence of Iranian involvement in the 1992 bombing of an Israeli embassy.

The Argentinian incident was not isolated. Iran has used its proxy, Hezbollah, to conduct international terrorist activities. The Atlantic publication  in a 2014 report noted that in 2012 “Hezbollah operatives murdered six people—five tourists and their bus driver—and wounded many more in a bus bombing at the airport in Burgas, Bulgaria. The incident brought global attention to the extent of the group’s operations in Europe, far afield of its traditional home base of Lebanon, where it was founded with a mission to fight Israel. But today, despite a European Union ban on the group’s military wing, Hezbollah is just as strong on the continent as it was two years ago.”

The Center for Security Policy’s Menges Hemispheric Report Project reports that the Argentina-Iran issue is a symptom of a wider problem.

“… Iran continues to mislead the entire world with its public willingness to dialogue over its nuclear program. Likewise, the Iranians have refused, so far, to even acknowledge that they are trying to develop a military nuclear capability. Nobody would have seriously thought that the Iranians were going to acknowledge their role in the terrorist attacks in Argentina or agree to extradite those accused by the Argentinean justice ministry of having been complicit in the attack. Entertaining those thoughts is particularly ridiculous when the current Iranian Minister of Defense, Ahmad Vahidi is one of the accused. Furthermore, Mr. Vahidi, by virtue of his own position, has control over Iran’s regular armed forces, and, most importantly, the Revolutionary Guards, who at the same time oversee Iran’s terrorist operations abroad…”

It is clear that Iran’s military threat is not restricted to the Middle East. Several years ago, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta noted that Tehran was actively developing Latin America as a base for anti-U.S. activities.  Before departing to a visit to Colombia, [then] Defense Secretary Panetta noted that “We always have a concern about, in particular, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps and [their] efforts to expand their influence not only throughout the Middle East but also into this region…that relates to expanding terrorism.” In testimony before Congress in 2012, Southern Command Commander USAF General Douglas Fraser stated “Iran is very engaged in Latin America…they are seeing an opportunity with some of the anti-U.S.-focused countries within the region…”

  Rep. Jeff Duncan’s (R-SC) bill  –the “Countering Iran in the Western Hemisphere Act of 2012“– was reported out by Congress’s House Foreign Affairs Committee in 2012. The measure was a successful attempt to force the Obama Administration to note the very real danger now presented by the Islamic Republic’s aggressive and rapidly growing military and diplomatic threat in Latin America. The legislation passed the House and Senate and was signed into law   by the President, but it remains unclear what substantive steps have been since taken.

     The legislation noted that Iran has:

  • Used its terrorist Hezbollah proxy force in the tri-border area of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay, to gain influence and power;
  • Built numerous  “cultural centers” and overstaffed embassies to assist its covert goals; and
  • Supported the activities of the terrorist group Hamas in South America.


The bill specified that Iran is complicit in numerous dangerous unlawful activities in addition to military threats, including drug trafficking, counterfeiting, money laundering, forged travel documents, intellectual property pirating, and providing havens for criminals and other terrorists.

It also noted that sophisticated narco-tunneling techniques used by Hezbollah in Lebanon have been discovered along the U.S.-Mexican border, and Mexican gang members with Iranian-related tattoos have been captured.

    Evidence of Iran’s increasing boldness could be seen in the thwarted assassination of the Saudi Ambassador in Washington, Adel al-Jubeir.

 A Growing Military Threat

   Some disagree with the extent of the threat posed by Iran. Several years ago, Vice President Biden stated that “I guarantee you Iran will not be able to pose a hemispheric threat to the United States.” That, however, appears to be a minority opinion.

  Reports from around the world have noted Tehran’s growing military presence in the Western Hemisphere.  Germany’s Die Welt described the Islamic Republic’s construction of intermediate range missile launch pads on Venezuela’s Paraguana Peninsula.

The Foundry’s Peter Brookes discloses that in return for economic favors, several South American nations, including Venezuela, Brazil, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Ecuador have been supportive of Tehran in diplomatic forums.

The threat is not confined to low-level tactics.  There is mounting concern that both nuclear and ballistic missile threats are emerging from Venezuelan-Iranian cooperation.

  The Tehran/Caracas axis, originally encouraged by Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, is particularly troubling.  Brookes reported that the two nations have a Memorandum of Understanding “pledging full military support and cooperation that likely increases weapons sales. One could easily see Tehran using Caracas as a stepping off point for attacking U.S. or other (e.g. Israeli) interests in this hemisphere or even the American homeland, especially if action is taken against Iran’s nuclear program.”  Brookes goes on to note that “There is concern that Iran and Venezuela are already cooperating on some nuclear issues.  There have been reports that Iran may be prospecting for uranium ore in Venezuela, which could aid both countries’ nuclear programs, should Caracas proceed…  While still prospective, of course, there is the possibility that Tehran, which has an increasingly capable missile program, could sell or help Caracas develop ballistic missiles capable of reaching American shores.”

 Iran’s interest in Latin America entails both its goals of threatening the United States and enhancing its nuclear capability.  In his testimony before the U.S. Senate’s Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Ilan Berman stressed Iran’s need for uranium ore.

 “Iran’s indigenous uranium ore reserves are known to be limited and mostly of poor quality…Cooperation on strategic resources has emerged as a defining feature of the alliance between the Islamic Republic and the Chavez Regime.  Iran is currently known to be mining in the Roraima Basin, adjacent to Venezuela’s border with Guyana.  Significantly, that geologic area is believed to be analogous to Canada’s Athabasca Basin, the world’s largest deposit of uranium.”

He notes that Iran “boasts an increasingly robust paramilitary presence in the region.  The Pentagon, in its 2010 report to Congress on Iran’s military power, noted that the Qods force, the elite paramilitary unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, is now deeply involved in the Americas, stationing ‘operatives in foreign embassies, charities and religious/cultural institutions to foster relationships with people, often building  on socio-economic ties with the well-established Shia Diaspora,’ and even carrying on ‘paramilitary operations to support extremists and destabilize unfriendly regimes.”

 Skirting international sanctions is also a key interest for Tehran. Despite mounting evidence, however, Berman notes that Washington has “done little concrete to respond to it…a comprehensive strategy to contest and dilute Iranian influence in the Americas remains absent.  Unless and until such a strategy does emerge, Iran’s efforts-and the threats posed by them to American interests and the U.S. homeland-will only continue to expand.”

But is Iran truly prepared to attack the United States from Latin America?  The Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper, appears to believe so.  He has testified before the Senate Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere that “Iranian officials…are now more willing to conduct an attack on the United States.”

Roger F. Noriega, the former ambassador to the Organization of American States and former Assistant Secretary of State, notes that “Iranian officials have made no secret of the regime’s intention to carry its asymmetrical struggle to the streets of the United States and Europe.” As a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Noriega continues his review of Latin American issues. Through his ongoing research, he has concluded that:

  •  “Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez and Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are conspiring to wage an asymmetrical struggle against U.S. security and to abet Iran’s illicit nuclear program. Their clandestine activities pose a clear and present danger to regional peace and security.
  • Iran has provided Venezuela conventional weapon systems capable of attacking the United States and our allies in the region.
  • Iran has used $30 billion in economic ventures in Venezuela as means to launder money and evade international financial sanctions.
  • Since 2005, Iran has found uranium in Venezuela, Ecuador and other countries in the region and is conducting suspicious mining operations in some uranium-rich areas.Two terrorist networks – one home-grown Venezuelan clan and another cultivated by Mohsen Rabbani, a notorious agent of the Qods Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps – proselytize, fund-raise, recruit, and train operatives on behalf of Iran and Hezbollah in many countries in the Americas.
  • Hezbollah conspires with drug-trafficking networks in South America as a means of raising resources and sharing tactics.
  • The Venezuelan state-owned airline, Conviasa, operates regular service from Caracas to Damascus and Teheran – providing Iran, Hezbollah, and associated narco-traffickers a surreptitious means to move personnel, weapons, contraband and other materiel.”

During his interview on the Vernuccio/Novak Report, Kahlili warned that Iran’s leadership was more dangerous than the west realized.  An objective review of the facts indicate that he is correct. In addition to its imminent nuclear capability, it has been reported by the Washington Free Beacon  that Iran would test its intercontinental missile prowess this year.

Categories
Quick Analysis

China takes more territory

As the U.S. Navy’s influence across the globe continues to dwindle due to inadequate resources, China is moving aggressively forward. As the New York Analysis of Policy & Government has previously noted, this January, for the first time since the end of World War 2, the U.S. does not have an aircraft carrier available for regular duty in the Eastern Pacific.

The latest example is the development of military facilities built on isolated reefs across the strategically located and intensely disputed Spratly Islands.  Beijing is expanding the reefs through landfill processes. Several other nations have claims to the reefs, and see China’s action as an invasion of their sovereign territory.

The Philippines, according to a report filed by Spacewar.com,  http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Philippines_slams_China_island_building_as_Beijing_hits_back_999.html have protested the move and warned that it is part of a larger Beijing effort to establish domination across the region. The Philippines have been previously victimized by China, which invaded the Philippines offshore Exclusive Economic Zone, taking possession of a resource-rich area. The U.S., despite a long history of alliance with Manila, failed to take either military or even diplomatic measures in response to the invasion, emboldening China to take further action such as this latest move.

A vast percentage of the world’s trade moves through the region, and establishing hegemony over the area would give Beijing a chokehold on the world economy. Establishing air or naval bases on the reefs also provides its armed forces with substantial strategic advantages, providing its naval forces with a dominating advantage. With each failure of the global community to respond to its moves, Beijing’s leadership is encouraged to engage in further aggression, noting that there is no cost to be paid for defying international laws and conventions.

Categories
Quick Analysis

A State of Disgrace

The recent federal indictment of New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver highlighted the mismanagement and corruption in what was once called the “Empire State.”

Once the most powerful state in the Union, New York, despite possessing favorable geographic assets, abundant natural resources, and a well- educated population, has been laid low by elected officials that are increasingly venal and ideologically obsessed.

Speaker Silver represents both vices. His brand of uncompromising left-wing ideology was a deterrent to business development and job creation. Further, according to the charges levied against him, he road-blocked many legislative items until he could gain a personal profit from them.

His example of unethical leadership set a tone that was followed throughout state government, extending even to blocking investigations of sexual harassment of female legislative employees.

Other branches of NY government failed to move effectively against Silver’s rising tide of corruption.  It has been noted that more New York elected officials leave office through death or indictment than through being voted out of office.

Those who rebelled against Silver’s reign faced career-ending punishment.  In an exclusive interview with this publication, former Assembly Member Stephen B. Kaufman, who unsuccessfully attempted to oust the Speaker, noted:

“During my tenure in the New York State Assembly, I actively opposed the reign of Speaker Sheldon Silver. I firmly believed that his lack of ethics and strong-arm tactics were an insult to the integrity of both the government and the people of New York State.

“It was obvious that my principled opposition would lead to dire consequences for my political career, and indeed, I did suffer substantially for my action.  Frankly, despite that, I remain proud of my battle against the Speaker, and would willingly make that sacrifice again.  No one should be more concerned for their career than for the people they were elected to serve.”

New York’s government has become a national embarrassment because of the corruption and self-interest of too many elected officials like Sheldon Silver. The challenges facing this state are extremely serious, and require honest and intelligent leadership that puts the needs of New Yorkers above venal personal gain.

Bringing Speaker Silver to justice is long overdue. I hope that it represents a solid move towards the development of truly representative government for the people of this great state.”

New York, like many other states, has problems that extend beyond corruption. Excessive taxes, burdensome regulations, and a failure to allow the exploitation of its natural resources due to pressure from environmental extremists have left the once wealthy state in a perilous financial condition.