A cross-border war between Colombia and Venezuela is highly unlikely, but brutal drug wars are already being fought in the border region. The latest row has exposed an escalating conflict between illegal armed groups, but the politicization of security stands in the way of effective action.
For months, it has been clear that the border area presents a significant security threat for both Colombia and Venezuela. Many of the drugs that come out of Colombia are taken to Venezuela by land or boat en route to Central America and Europe. The FARC and ELN have a presence on both sides of the border, as do drug gangs and paramilitary groups. Nevertheless, so far, government responses have been ineffective and, crucially, totally uncoordinated. As violence continues to escalate, each country accuses the other of harboring illegal groups.
Since Uribe came to power but especially since the U.S. base deal scandal, people throughout Latin America have come to associate the Colombian government with paramilitarism (just look at pop star Calle 13’s wardrobe choices for the MTV awards). Similarly, at least in Colombia, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has long been suspected of offering a safe haven for FARC guerrillas and even of offering them financial and military support.
The current border row echoes, in part, some of those old accusations. Chavez complains about paramilitary violence along the border with increasing frequency. Uribe, meanwhile, accuses Chavez of tolerating or even supporting the FARC and ELN. The row recently intensified over the massacre of a Colombian soccer team on the Venezuelan side of the border. Colombian officials blamed the ELN of kidnapping the team in Colombia and murdering the players in a safe haven in Venezuela, but their Venezuelan counterparts later stated that the evidence pointed to Colombian paramilitaries. Venezuelan authorities also blamed the shooting of Venezuelan border guards days later on paramilitaries based in Colombia.
Clearly, this politicization of Colombia’s armed conflict is an obstacle to effective regional coordination on security issues. Neveretheless, in a way, both governments are right in their accusations. Hugo Chavez may not be supporting Colombian guerrilla groups directly, but he certainly is not making a serious effort to expel the FARC and ELN from his country. The guerillas treat the Venezuelan jungle as a safe house. Last month, after ELN leader “Pablito” escaped in a worryingly sophisticated guerrilla rescue operation near the border and most likely took refuge in Venezuela.
Similarly, the Uribe government’s pursuit of new paramilitary drug gangs near the border has been less than enthusiastic. Despite denouncing such groups in press conferences, the Colombian military has largely focused its efforts on the FARC. Paramiiltary groups, especially in border areas, continue to grow quickly in terms of number and firepower. Inaction on both sides of the border precludes any success in establishing peace and the rule of law.
The recent border row also has important domestic political ramifications in both Colombia and Venezuela, which constitute the second obstacle to action. Both leaders treat violence and drug-running on the border not as the security threat that it poses, but as another front in the broader Colombia-Venezuela rivalry. The issue is highly personal; Uribe and Chavez are both charismatic populists who clearly do not get along.
In Colombia, Uribe and his supporters continue to maneuver for a second re-election referendum. Most Colombians support it, but the political process has stalled. Just a few months away from the crucial 2010 elections, few things would be better for Uribe, a right-leaning and security-minded President, than escalating tensions with the left-leaning and frighteningly erratic Chavez.
Chavez also has a sizeable political stake in the border row. As in Colombia, there is a political incentive to re-energize the citizenry’s nationalist spirit. Moreover, Chavez has succeeded in exacerbating broad regional apprehension about the presence of U.S. troops in Colombia. He seems to believe that his leadership role in the Latin American left depends, in part, on his ability to remain Uribe’s most vocal and visible challenger. Already, he is taking advantage of the border row to invent coup conspiracies.
So there are political incentives behind the inaction on both sides of the border. Neither country is likely to change its security policy. The dangerous accusations and military escalations will continue for a few days, but how far will this crisis really go?
It is obviously unlikely to lead to armed confrontation. The massacre of the soccer team has temporarily exacerbated regional paranoia and mistrust, but, if the political incentives behind the public tensions are strong, the incentives against armed conflict are even stronger. More interesting than the moot possibility of armed conflict itself is the fact that both governments are increasingly turning to risky militaristic rhetoric in crises like the current one.
On the other hand, the crisis could definitely lead to the permanent closing of the border, which would devastate the economy on both sides of the border. Chavez has used border policy to put economic pressure on Colombia in previous crises. He is threatening similar action now.
In the long run, however, little will change. Bilateral trade, which has risen to almost $7 billion a year, is too important to permanently fall victim to what is little more than political theater. Meanwhile, the border region will continue to experience a drug trafficking boom and high levels of violence, to the detriment of Colombians and Venezuelans alike.
NotAlvaroUribe
said:
 |
... I see a few problems with this article. First, you don't mention Venezuela's new claim that the Massacred Soccer team were Paramilitary. You don't mention Venezuela sending 20,000 soldiers to increase security and combat drug trafficking. You write that Chavez "invent coup conspiracies", so then you must be ignoring the 2 supposed DAS agents that were caught in Venezuela and the DAS classified document on strategies against Venezuela and Ecuador (that were confirmed authentic by DAS), and the Paramilitary hitman confessing on video about a $25million payment for the assassination of Chavez, and you must be ignoring Rafael Garcia's claims and him naming high level Colombian authorities who used AUC to assist the Venezuelan opposition in acts of economic sabotage, assassinations, and plans to overthrow the Chavez government. How convenient to ignore such things. I do not think Venezuela's economy would be "devastated" if pulled out completely from Colombian trade. Venezuela has already openly made plans for this possibility and made trade agreements with other countries like Ecuador, Argentina, and Brazil to specifically replace Colombia's role in their trade. |
Pablo Rojas
said:
 |
... NotAlvaroUribe, True. I also don't mention many of accusations of links between Chavez and Colombian guerrillas because I think that is beside the point. Conspiracy theories abound on both sides, but I personally have yet to be convinced by any of them. I agree that closing down bilateral trade would not immediately destroy either economy, but trade is crucial to the livelihood to the millions of people who live on the border. I truly do believe that the importance of bilateral trade to both countries precludes a real "trade war". |
tomtom33
said:
|
... The U.S. base deal scandal? Exactly how would you describe that as a scandal? That does not fit my definition of the word. Maybe brouhaha would be a better word. |
Laureles191
said:
|
... He also doesn't mention Chavez supplying the FARC with 300 Million dollars, rocket launchers, and intelligence reports. Most of which has been confirmed by Interpol. There is alot he doesn't mention in his article because if he did, it probably wouldn't end. As for trade, Chavez would never pull completely out of trade from Colombia, not because he couldn't, but because he would lose tremendous public support. It would be devastating to Venezuelan citizens who are already feeling the pressure of government price control, and fragile supply as it is. It would definately cause price increases and shortages for goods (especially meat) which some citizens already have trouble affording or finding, which would in return be devastating to thousands of people. Chavez has already began shifting trade away from Colombia, but 7 Billion dollars is a large enough number to make even Chavez think twice about. Logistically, both Venezuela and Colombia have become dependant on each other, and a trade wall between the two would be equally if not more devastating to Colombia. |
Adriaan
said:
 |
... What he doesn't mention is accusations from both sides that have not been proven by anyone. If I accuse you of being a pedophile and then shut up about it, not providing evidence, you will have to deal with accusations that never were proven and your whole life is screwed up and you'll be stigmatized. Both Chavez and Uribe have made baseless accusations and have not even bothered to share to evidence to anyone to verify. You can't just support half the accusations, because they suit your personal wishes. Just because you think Chavez is a jerk, you can't just believe everything said about him is true. The same for those that hate Uribe. Don't be a fool and demand evidence before you start supporting grave accusations. |
Laureles191
said:
|
... Adriaan, if your response was in reference to mine, I'm not sure you understood my comment. My comment was in response to notalvarouribe, meaning that there are many accusations he didn't mention on both sides because the list would never end, and it didn't seem like that was the point of the article to begin with. Although I feel this was a well written article, I agree with tomtom33. How could you reference to the US base deal a scandal? It may be aggravating or "provocative" at best to some other countries, but a scandal I have yet to see. |
Adriaan
said:
|
... Hi Laureles, My response was to you. What I meant to say is that there's climate of making unfounded accusations. I know there's a whole list that isn't mentioned, because the accusations come and go. They are used to discredit the other party. You and me need to be careful to let disinformation not cloud our judgment. Look, I think Chavez is a jerk off just like you do, but I am not going to believe politically motivated accusations, just because they suit me. We are smarter than that. What evidence have you seen to back up the accusations that he set money to the FARC and what evidence have you seen that the weapons found at the FARC were given willingly? I agree with you both that using the word "controversial" would be best than using scandal. But if you look outside Colombia and the responses to the deal, you could use the world scandal. |
gringo michae
said:
 |
... there is one thing not mentioned that I think worth saying, that some of the border States in Venezula have Governors that are ANti-Chavez , so it is in Chavez's interest to damage the economy in those areas undermining the Governor's and thier governments in hopes to put in place his own puppets. over all I found the article well written pointing out niether side wins inthe current war of words along the border. |
