Despite recently signing a base agreement with the U.S., Colombia stands isolated and defenseless in the latest row with Venezuela. One of the most compelling arguments in favor of the agreement signed in October to allow the American military to operate out of some Colombian bases was that solidifying bilateral military relations would help ward off the increasingly erratic and aggressive Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez. The deal, according to its Colombian proponents, would make Chavez think twice before attacking Colombia.
In the weeks since the base deal was signed, however, it seems only to have had fuelled the Chavez fire. Tensions were high even before violence along the Colombia-Venezuela border triggered a rhetorical war between the two countries’ leaders last week. Fortunately for Chavez, the base deal also distanced Colombia from other South American leaders. Many throughout Latin America have begun to believe the Venezuelan president’s claims that Colombia and its North American ally are not to be trusted. Therefore, despite the fact that Chavez continues to wage a dangerous and mostly one-sided campaign of insults and threats against Colombia, South American leaders have remained largely passive and impartial. In short, the agreement has strengthened Chavez’s position in his ongoing squabble with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.
Meanwhile, as the political crisis with Venezuela has escalated, the U.S. has been strangely quiet. Rather than defend Colombia, the American leadership has offered to act as a mediator, seeming to ignore its central role in the recent quarrel.
Why has the American government been so reluctant stand by its most loyal ally in Latin America? One reason is that, from the start, its position on the base agreement was unclear. As the Defense Department began to work on the details of the agreement with Colombia, the State Department – America’s version of a Foreign Ministry – struggled to justify or explain the deal to South American leaders who were understandably apprehensive about the presence of U.S. soldiers in Colombia. In fact, the regional anxiety about the base deal seemed almost to catch America’s top diplomats by surprise.
The roots of this incoherence lie in an underlying tension in U.S. policy toward Colombia between the American military establishment on the one hand, and the more progressive State Department and Democratic Congress on the other. Just this week, as the base deal once again threatens to bring Colombia and Venezuela to the brink of war, Democrats in Congress circulated a letter to President Obama asking to reduce military aid to Colombia due to the country’s poor human rights record.
Indeed, American policy toward Colombia may be in a period of transition. For the time being, at least, the country that was once Uribe’s strongest ally now seems schizophrenic. Some in the U.S. government, particularly in the security and anti-drug establishment, want to strengthen America’s commitment to the so-called war on drugs. In contrast, liberal politicians want the U.S. to distance itself from the controversial Colombian president and play a less polarizing role in hemispheric politics.
In response to the most recent crisis, which has seen Hugo Chavez ask his country to prepare for war, American diplomats seem to have missed the fact that an American base deal is at the heart of the growing tensions. Its offer to “mediate” between Colombia and Venezuela seems either absurdly ignorant or blatantly duplicitous. Either way, this bizarre and unexpected American position has allowed Chavez to prolong his recklessness.
Just two weeks after it was signed, the base deal has already failed in two ways. Not only has it emboldened and strengthened Chavez, but, worse yet, has failed to secure American political support for Colombia. In this latest regional crisis, perhaps more than in any other, Colombia is weak and isolated. The country risked alienating its neighbors in order to deepen military ties with America, but those sacrifices have not paid off. The more that Colombia invests in its partnership with the U.S., at the expense of relations with other Latin American countries, the more it risks further isolation.
tomtom33
said:
 |
... Do you suppose that a US naval task force stationed off the coast of Venezuela would have been a better response? I don't. Schizophrenic? Any democratic nation always appears schizophrenic because of the competing interests that freely have their say. Labor unions will continue to decry the murder of an organizer while ignoring the murder of 10 or more in other circumstances. In my view the US continues to back Colombia with a strong hand. And none of us will ever know what was said to whom in private diplomacy. |
Adriaan
said:
 |
... @ Tomtom33, But don't you think the U.S. should diplomatically have supported Colombia or have sought contact with Chavez over the pact? They are leaving dealing with Venezuela completely over to Colombia now. Pablo makes a good point that the U.S. are noticeably quiet while they are part of the reason of the current crisis. On the other hand, if the US would have taken control of dealing with Chavez, it would make Colombia look like a complete puppet. |
NotAlvaroUribe
said:
 |
... I disagree that other Latin American countries are "Impartial", they are still voicing against the pact and are still requesting guaranties which they are yet to receive. It was only 2 days ago that both presidents of Argentina (Christina Fernandez) and Brazil (Luiz da Silva) publicly asked yet again for guaranties that the military operations are only limited inside Colombian territory and expressed concerns about the military pact allowing US to use the bases in Colombia. What has emboldened the stance against this military agreement was the US and Colombia's non response to the scandal of the U.S.A.F. official document stating the Palanquero base will provide “…opportunity for conducting full spectrum operations throughout South America…”. If the US wants to offer to mediate between Colombia and Venezuela, then perhaps Venezuela should step in to mediate between the U.S. and Cuba. |
Charles P
said:
|
... Your article is poor. Colombia being isolated? From what? her neighbors? Which neighbors? Colombia has always been more or less alone in its internal conflicts. Colombia has said that it fears drugs trafficking will affect other regions. Have other countries listened? Yes and no. But for the most part, it is has been a poor reaction. So, what Colombia has to do? To accept the military help of another country? Maybe. What would you do? You don't question Chavez. You don't mention why he has so much fear and his lack of leadership and ability to actually administer his own issues in Venezuela. |
Jim2
said:
|
... Obama himself is quiet about his sympathies, but his administration is staffed with the sort of people who are pro-Chavez. Latin Americans can only blame themselves that this kind of idiotic, faux-populist strongman politics is so strong there, decades after everybody else in the world dumped it. |
Adriaan
said:
|
... @ Jim2, It's obvious you were one of the minority that didn't vote for Obama and I'm sorry you now have to spend another 3,5 years with a Democrat in White House, but accusing his administration to be pro-Chavez after making a deal with Colombia about military cooperation is a bit absurd. Try reading a bit more about the subject before making it a domestic issue. |
tomtom33
said:
|
... Adriaan, I don't think that either of us will ever know the extent to which the US supported Colombia diplomatically in this matter. Nor do I think that we should know. I do believe that it would have been a huge mistake for the US to have come running with guns ablaze, figuratively speaking. The US was publicly quiet. That, in my opinion, was the right stance Are you serious in suggesting that the US contact Hugo about anything? The US has no time to waste with the village idiot. To expect that the US must publicly react to Hugo's snits every time he throws one is expecting a bit much. Frankly in the general scheme of things Venezuela matters little. And Hugo matters less. |
Adriaan
said:
|
... @ Tomtom33, I am not sure if the U.S. should contact Hugo. I do think that the current tense situation (Chavez' order to freeze trade more than his blablabla about war threats) are very bad for Colombia and I would consider it a diplomatic failure if Colombia will lose billions in income from Venezuela. The thing is, most of us here think Chavez is a complete jerk and the world would be a better place if he left, but for the time being he is a reality. If Colombian diplomats were smart, they would have anticipated Chavez rages while making the pact with the U.S. and would've come up with a strategy to get the pact approved without losing billions in income the U.S. is not going to replace. Look at how things with Ecuador are going, for example. While that country also opposes the pact you see that both governments are working out very complicated things and Ecuador will not try to disrupt Colombia's plan with the U.S. and is more likely to be helpful battling guerrillas and drug trafficking in the south. At the same time you see that violence on the eastern border is getting worse, there are acts of agression, militarization, etc. This is bad diplomacy, obviously by Chavez (but he's a moron), but also by Uribe (who, although I dislike the guy, is not a moron). |
tomtom33
said:
|
... You have to break eggs to make an omelette. Hugo is not going away soon although it is my hope that his generals finally decide that enough is enough. Hell, my suegra and cuñada live in Venezuela. I care deeply about the Venezuelans. I don't want to see either country hurt. But that does not seem to be in the cards. Maybe Hugo's snits were anticipated. Sometimes things take time to play out. |
Adriaan
said:
|
... @ Tomtom33, You're absolutely right. We'll have to see about that. I just hope the collateral damage of this political game is kept at a minimum |
gringomedeliin
said:
|
... One the USA relations with Venezuela have been ice cold for a long time now so other then offer to mediate is about all they can do, so they have not been absent as claimed, as for other latin leaders not likey the recent deal, two things the biigest is to bad, they other is where were they when the USA had a base in Eucador, they didn't have an issue until Chavez started his latest temper tantrum, and why are they now silent with Chavez's threat of war, they cower in a corner out of fear of Chavez knowing him to act erractic that to cross Chavez will bring the rath of Chavez upon them and their country. |
gringomedeliin
said:
|
... schizophrenic. is the wrong word to use here, unless of course you refering to Chavez who may very well be, but the USA has a new president with is not quick with the war of words or the trigger of it's last president, Also Congress has been pushing for a change in Plan Colombia for a number of years now, now with the Democratic with large majoritiy and controled by the far left of the party who quiver at the feet of Unions that push will intensive, it is not a change from what Congress has pushed in the past but now they might just be able to pull it off, they failed in the last round of Plan Colombia funding. But make no mistake if Chavez invades the USA will respond |
Jim2
said:
|
... Adriaan- you are speculating about the behavior of the United States, which does make it a domestic issue. Just because the Obama administration makes a deal for a few hundred military personnel to use bases for drug interdiction- which is *all* they will be used for, despite what Chavez says- does not mean that many Obama staffers, and even Obama himself, are not at heart sympathetic to Chavez. No, I didn't vote for him, but you take the common position of Obama supporters that anything about him you don't like to be said is resentment and sour grapes, rather than a justifiable observation. I mean, is the statement that many of Obama's aides, and even Obama himself, are sympathetic to Chavez even criticism? I don't think the left-wing Americans who travel to Venezuela to support Chavez would think that, they would think of it as praise. Obama supporters would prefer his viewpoint on the world not be expressed too clearly as it interferes with the prefered image of him as a center-left reformer. |
Elishia Windfohr
said:
 |
... Wasn't there an agreement allowing the United States to use 7 military bases in his country? elishia windfohr wants to know anyone know? |
Adriaan
said:
|
... @ Jim2, I am not an American, so whatever beef you have with Obama is not my problem or business. We are talking about U.S. foreign policy in Latin America here. So far, the policy of Obama in Colombia is not very different than that of Bush (just like that wasn't very different from that of Clinton). Over the decades, U.S. foreign policy has been quite consistent and has shown very little actual change with the change of presidency. What has changed is U.S. congress and its behavior now Democrats again have the majority. If you want to call Democrats Chavez supporters, go right ahead, it's neither constructive nor relevant to what is really going on and it doesn't change the actual manifestations of U.S. foreign policy in the region. |
koz
said:
|
... Giving Chavez any attention or response would be acting as poorly as he does. The US ignores him as should Colombia. God save him if he tries to cross the border with his foolish childish nonsense. The wrath of the Colombia's big brother as well as others will come down on him. The US protects its allies. He blew up a couple of bridges. How's is going to get the toilet paper Colombia exports to his country? When Venezuelans get tired of wiping their asses with banana leaves and watching their assets squandered, then they will take care the fool themselves. |
Elishia Windfohr
said:
|
... In Colombia you can’t drink the water, it smells, there’s illnesses lingering, rashes and skin disease are forming to all the coal in the air, were talking major respiratory problems. The beautiful rivers that once had clean drinking water are beyond toxic. And here we have Chiquita banana making payments to the paramilitaries? And still so many people murdered by the paramilitaries. For what? There is no need for the people suffer? Elishia Windfohr |
NotAlvaroUribe
said:
|
... Mrs. Windfohr, it is in my opinion that the people who control Colombia and it's industries do not really care about those issues, they mostly care about war (Colombian Democratic Security). The military industrial complex has a lot of money to be made. Also not enough attention being made at the growing rate of displaced Colombians. Now we have foreign armies that can promote foreign invasions beyond it's borders. |
gringomedeliin
said:
|
... Elishia Windfohr, while one may not be able to drink the water every where in Colombia, I have in Bogota, Cali, Barranquilla, Pasto, Medellin without issue, along with a few small towns along the way. Chiquita banana is old news way old now and has nothing to do with this article. I There is no need for the people suffer? In case you didn't notice Colombia has had a 45 years internal conflict going on thanks to a terrorsist group called the FARC, it has has a drug war , Sadly the terrorist don;t care who they hurt. And still so many people murdered by the paramilitaries. For what -most of the para killings of the past are gone , today it is for control of the drug trade in which many ex-paramilitary are involed in. not to protect corpations or large landowners |
Iain George Salisbury
said:
|
... Since "Plan Colombia" is one of the few worthwhile things to come out of the Clinton administration, it should be safe under the present Secretary of State. Things in South America are complex, as is inevitable in democracies. There are the ALBA lunatics, for whom nothing but a monolithic, Cuban-style tyranny over the whole continent will suffice, but even sane leaders, such as Lula, must tread carefully so as not to drive their more extreme supporters into more extreme parties. Kirchner's enthusiasm is more puzzling as Chavez is even less popular than Castro in Argentina (both around 2%), but maybe she can be bought for the notorious suitcase of cash. In this context, the US has to tread carefully and it is in no body's interest to have the situation more polarised than is inevitable. |
Elton
said:
|
... There is nothing to be gained by anyone contacting Chavez. The current policy of letting him sprout off is inanities and bluster his way around the OAS is a wonderful one. Every time he says something these days, more and more people look at him askew, wink and nod. |
