|
The
Big Guns by Holly Bailey May 09, 2002 | In recent years, some of the Defense Department's biggest wars haven't been fought on the battlefield, but rather inside secluded conference rooms at the Pentagon or on Capitol Hill, where the nation's annual defense budget is crafted. It's an annual rite of passage that has often prompted military brass to butt heads with members of Congress and the administration and, in some cases, with each other, as different branches of the nation's defense fight to preserve budget dollars that in turn pay for big-ticket weapons. Even in the aftermath of Sept. 11, this year has been no exception. After weeks of speculation, the Pentagon on Wednesday formally notified Congress of its plans to cancel the Crusader, an $11.1 billion, 70-ton artillery gun system that has been in development for the Army since 1994. Almost since its inception, the Crusader has been in trouble at the Pentagon. Some critics say the massive high-tech cannon is too heavy and cannot be easily deployed, while others balk at its price tag. The Army, in response, has argued the Crusader is essential to its future. That doesn't seem to have changed the mind of one of its major critics: President Bush, who spoke on the campaign trail in 2000 of a military noted "not by mass or size, but by mobility and swiftness." But as the battle over the Crusader shifts to Congress, the lobbying dynamic is certain to change. Lawmakers with a vested interest in keeping the program alive have vowed to preserve the Crusader program, but even those efforts could pale in comparison to the potential lobbying prowess of the Carlyle Group, the Washington-based investment firm that owns United Defense-the defense contractor building the Crusader. After all, the firm has been working to save its prized program for years. Who's on the payroll at Carlyle? President Bush's father, for starters. Secretary of State James Baker, who represented Bush during the Florida recount, is a managing director. William Kennard, who recently headed the Federal Communications Commission, recently joined Carlyle, as did Arthur Levitt, a former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. And that's just a few of the dozens of former Cabinet secretaries and other administration officials that are listed as employees of the firm. Their boss is Frank Carlucci, the former Secretary of Defense whose best friend and former college roommate, Donald Rumsfeld, now runs the Pentagon. While it is not unusual in Washington to see former public officials take their connections and insight to the private sector, the Carlyle Group appears to have unprecedented access to the current administration. According to the New York Times, Carlucci met with Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney last year to talk about military matters-at the same time Carlyle was in contention for several billion dollars worth of defense projects, including the Crusader. Carlyle officials have been particularly sensitive to reports about potential conflicts of interest, insisting that none of their employees lobby the federal government. "I have never mentioned the word 'Crusader' in (Rumsfeld's) presence," Carlucci told Fortune magazine last month. Indeed, the Carlyle Group is not registered as a lobbying agent in Washington, though according to records filed with the U.S. Senate, many of its subsidiaries, including United Defense, boast lobbyist payrolls of more than $1 million annually. At the same time, Carlyle has been a prolific contributor to federal campaigns during the last two election cycles. During the 1999-2000 campaign, Carlyle and its employees contributed roughly $800,000 in soft money, PAC and individual contributions to federal parties and candidates, 62 percent to Republicans. (Of that total, more than $20,000 went to the Bush-Cheney ticket, not including the several thousand dollars Carlucci and others contributed to the Bush's Florida recount expenses.) So far in 2001-02, the group has contributed $265,000, more than two-thirds to Republicans. Of course, that money is peanuts compared to the dollars Carlyle stands to lose if the Crusader program is ultimately nixed. Prior to this week's announcement, the administration had requested $475 million for the program during the 2003 budget year. Source: http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=18 Bush's Bay Of Piglets If the US was the villain in the Venezuelan coup, Latin America's much-derided leaders were the heroes by Duncan Campbell, The Guardian Viva democracia! said the slogan scrawled on the bus offloading passengers near the presidential palace in Miraflores in Caracas this week. And so far democracy seems to be surviving in Venezuela, if only barely. The overthrow of the radical Hugo Chavez in a military coup on April 11 followed by Chavez's return to power within 48 hours was spectacular even by Latin American standards. President Bush said after Chavez's return that he hoped he had "learned the lesson", but the main lessons need to be learned further north in Washington itself. The precise part played by the US in the coup remains unclear. What is known is that in January Mr Bush appointed, against the advice of the senate foreign relations committee, a man with a shabby record of covert meddling in Latin American politics: Otto Reich. Reich, a Cuban-American who was once the US ambassador to Venezuela, is now the assistant secretary at the state department for the western hemisphere and as such calls the shots for the US - almost literally - in Latin America. In the Pentagon, the man with responsibility for Latin America is Rogelio Pardo-Maurer, who was the aide to the head of the Contras when they were waging their US-backed war against the elected leftwing Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Two of the Venezuelan military who supported the coup, General Efrain Vasquez and General Eddie Ramirez Poveda, are graduates of the US Army School of the Americas in Georgia, where many members of the Latin Ameri can military have been trained in how to deal with troublesome lefties. The tycoon who led the media onslaught that preceded the coup and whose television station announced it, Cuban-American Gustavo Cisneros, is an old fishing pal of Bush senior. While the US may not have been involved in the final timetable for the coup, it knew that one was imminent and clearly gave it a green light. While the world's attention was on the Middle East, the coup was greeted with speedy acceptance by the White House. One wonders if a Zapatista force had overthrown the elected Mexican President Fox whether Mr Bush would have responded by saying that he hoped Mr Fox had "learned his lesson". It was President Fox and the often derided Latin American heads of state who behaved like statesmen. They have little love for Chavez or his policies, but they recognise a military takeover when they see one. Fox swiftly condemned it and said he would not recognise an unelected government. The secretary general of the Organisation of American States, the Colombian Cesar Gaviria, did the same. This prompt action, combined with the angry pro-Chavez crowds on the street and the ill-advised dissolution of the national assembly and the supreme court by the newly installed president-for-a-day Pedro Carmona, changed wavering minds in the military. Chavez was returned to the palace. Only then, having realised their diplomatic gaffe, did the White House alter its stance. The lessons are plain. The leaders in Latin America know only too well what can happen if coups in democracies are allowed to succeed. Bush was warned that by allowing this old discredited crew back into power he would be undermining the delicate relations between the US and her southern neighbours. He ignored that advice under heavy pressure from the powerful Cuban lobby in Florida, where his brother, Jeb, is running for re-election this year. By doing so, he created an atmosphere whereby plotters must think they have carte blanche from the White House. As Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd said drily this week, those responsible for Latin America within the administration need more "adult supervision". Even the deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, who wrote to the Guardian in defence of Reich last year, admitted that the "formulation of the US statement wasn't what it should have been". This has been President Bush's Bay of Piglets. It would be wrong to suggest that the coup was all got up by the United States. Chavez, who himself tried to seize power in a coup in 1992, has made many mistakes and many enemies. But he still enjoys a hard core of support of at least a third of the country, in particular the dispossessed who voted for him. He appears now to be trying, maybe too late, to repair some broken bridges. On May Day, Chavez faces another test when a rally organised by the country's largest confederation of workers will be held in the capital. The good news is that the Latin American nations upheld the democratic position and recognised that it is still a chilling sight to see on television a bunch of burly men in uniform talking a little too closely into the microphones and announcing to the people that their president has "resigned". Viva democracia! has to be more than a slogan on a bus. Perhaps a translation should be sent to the Latin American section of the US state department for them to stick above their desks: "It's the democracy, stupid!" Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4400202,00.html
|
