In a much-commented column in Sunday’s edition of El Tiempo, Colombia’s most-circulated newspaper, Enrique Santos, the paper’s editor, argues that the United States is “abandoning” Colombia amid worsening tensions with Venezuela.
If the mute behavior of a bloc [UNASUR] to which Colombia belongs is surprising in the face of President Chávez’s wild insults, warlike threats and provocative acts, the attitude of our great ally to the north is nothing less than outrageous. Washington not only seeks to distance itself, but has sought to place both governments’ conduct on a sort of equal footing.
Citing a recent column by far-right U.S. commentator Patrick Buchanan, the normally measured Santos calls the Obama administration’s attitude an example of “the American way of abandonment.”
This petulant argument reveals a remarkable degree of insecurity among Colombia’s “political class.” It also ignores the following:
- An official U.S. government declaration taking Colombia’s side in its dispute with Venezuela would be nothing short of a major political gift to Hugo Chávez. It would become the main theme of the Venezuelan president’s speeches for the next week, and it would make the situation even more volatile. The U.S. government would do well to remain silent on the subject and work – preferably with neighbors like Brazil – to ease tensions.
- The United States has already cast its lot with Colombia in a way that speaks louder than dozens of official statements from Washington. Only 3 1/2 weeks ago, the U.S. and Colombian governments signed a “defense cooperation agreement” that, in its vaguely worded language, can easily be interpreted as a commitment to help Colombia defend itself against “common threats.” (Santos does have a point, however, when he reminds readers that this agreement, and both governments’ poor handling of it, are what triggered the current tensions in the first place.)
- If the U.S. government’s embrace of Álvaro Uribe’s administration has loosened since George W. Bush left office, perhaps the explanation lies more clearly with para-politics, “false positives,” DAS wiretaps, “Agro Ingreso Seguro,” Uribe’s re-election drive, and other troubling and often unaddressed scandals and trends.
Let’s hope elite Colombian opinion recalls all three of these points before jumping to wild conclusions about the nature of the bilateral friendship. This isn’t high school, it is foreign policy toward an increasingly unstable region. The United States is still sitting at Colombia’s lunch table, but it is right not to take part in this particular food fight.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Also, as difficult as the US may find it, the government does have to maintain some positive relationship with Venezuela. Not only would open support for Colombia gift Chavez a lot of political points, also it would in general worsen US-Venezuelan relations on levels where the US wants it to be stable – mainly on the economic front. It would also go against the Obama doctrine of looking to be diplomatic where possible, instead of picking sides in a possible war.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:08 am
Waddyaknow? Even the measured (and rather center-left Daniel Samper) thought that this was a nice argument. Sure, I can see that, if you want, you can make hay of this to criticize Uribe’s diplomacy. But I don’t think people like Daniel Samper should go there. In fact, I’ll say it through gritted teeth, and at the risk of setting off a freeze in hell: I think Uribe’s silence here has been a good thing and I also think that Adam is correct in evaluating the US policy (plus Kyle’s point is also correct).
It takes ten seconds to read my previous sentence which makes it one of the most lavish praises I have ever typed about Uribe. So, since I can’t let that stand, I’ll go in another direction. The bases will become an assembly line of border incidents and mutual provocations. Certainly, Chavez’s handling of the issue has been distasteful, but the substance remains: those bases are a major irritant for the entire region and until the Colombian government recognizes that it was wrong to shut everybody off from the process, contra Lula’s eminently sensible suggestion, it will be endangering the international situation of the country.
I’d say that the obvious next step out of the current impasse would be to bring Lula as a broker. Earlier he said all the right things and in the right tone (unlike Chavez). Brazil’s diplomacy has earned over the years, well before Lula, a reputation for being one of the most professional in the region. His proposal of a dialogue between the US and Unasur should be dusted off. Unless and until this deeper layer of the conflict is addressed, instead of just the verbal excesses, the causes of the cross-border crisis will remain.
Can anybody in the know tell me why Lula’s proposal had an unceremonious burial? Did Colombia veto it? Was the US ever formally invited? What happened? I really don’t know the facts.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Chavez vetoed Brazil’s proposal about a week ago. He said that Brazil should worry about monitoring its own borders and not the Colombia-Venezuela border. It was a particularly harsh comment from Venezuela’s president, who is usually publicly kind to Brazil.
Chavez’s response may have been backlash against the delayed Mercosur vote by Lula’s allies in the Brazilian legislature. More likely, Chavez wants this situation to escalate and Brazil’s proposal was reasonable and had the potential to help reduce the tensions. That’s something Chavez does not want at the moment.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Sorry, I thought you were referring to Brazil’s proposal for a border monitoring commission, not the proposal for the US to dialogue with UNASUR.
On the US-UNASUR front, as far as I know, the US hasn’t responded. Ecuador is the most vocal in pushing for it at the moment.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:31 am
In his editorial, Enrique Santos includes an interesting sentence as he describes U.S. policy vis-à-vis the Uribe Government: “De dejar plantados sin pudor ni vergüenza a quienes pusieron a pelear por ellos”—“Leaving high and dry, and showing neither modesty nor shame, those who put up to support them.” Por favor, Señor, seamos honestos: Don’t try to make the U.S. and others believe that the U.S. is betraying Colombia’s benevolence toward an ally. This ploy, often used by many in your country’s media, is well within the Uribe tradition of portraying those who advocate for peace, and for much-needed changes in your country’s scandalous socioeconomic status quo, as guerrillas or terrorists. If, as is often argued, country’s only have interests, I would also remind you that you and your political class likewise have only interests—to the detriment of most of your country’s citizens. You, Uribe, and others of your class aim to support those interests, which include many of the historically egregious policies that you have long stood for. Maybe some sort of poetic justice, which often arrives late, is at play. And in Colombia, as you surely know, justice typically arrives late when it arrives at all.
Sr. Santos goes on to discuss the American way of “abandonment” by using the examples of Chiang Kai-Shek, Lon Nol, a string of South Vietnamese leaders (surely including Diem), and finally, Hamid Karzai. An illustrious array of U.S. allies, which by implication might come to include Álvaro Uribe. (Y como diríamos algunos en el Sur, ¡Que Dios procure que sea así!).
Let me remind Sr. Santos of another world leader, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who once said that the Americans always do the right thing—after they have tried everything else. Maybe current regional volatility—which promises to get worse—is finally leading the Obama Administration to reflect more deeply on the consequences of its policy in the broader region. I certainly hope so.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Nice posting, Adam. Uribe’s been pretty cool in the face of Chavez’s threats, but the article is an interesting insight into the nervousness of the guys around him.
Putting aside the U.S. and Obama for the moment, what is it about Chavez and Venezuela that makes Santos nervous (assuming he really is nervous and the whole thing isn’t political theatre)? Does he think that Chavez really means to start a shooting war? Does he really think that Venezuela poses a true threat to Colombia? (I’d say the answers are no, and no, resepctively.) If it’s neither of these points, then what’s Santos’ problem?