latin america's new cold war?

8/9/2019 Latin America's New Cold War?

1/4

Bernardo Alvarez Herrera

Axis of LogicFinding Clarity in the 21st Century Mediaplex

Latin America

Latin America's New Cold War?By Ambassadors Bernardo Alvarez Herrera and Carolina BarcoForeign Policy Journal

Monday, Dec 14, 2009

Venezuela's and Colombia's ambassadors to the United States tell their sides of anincreasingly tense story.

Nearly two decades after the global arms race of the Cold War ended, many Latin America watcherstoday are worried about a new military standoff: between Colombia and Venezuela. As before,Washington is integral to the debate.

Tensions on both sides of the border have run high for several years, but a joint U.S.-Colombiamilitary cooperation agreement signed on Oct. 30 seems to have escalated them to new heights.Critics of the agreement, including Venezuelan officials, accuse the United States of imperialambitions, while Colombia defends its decision as a means to combat drug trafficking and terrorism.

With accusations of bad faith multiplying, Foreign Policy decided to hear both sides of the story.

A Bad Deal

By Bernardo Alvarez Herrera,Venezuela's Ambassador to the United States

After Venezuelan President Hugo Chvez's November deployment of15,000 troops to the porous border with Colombia, some analystshave worried about the prospect of conflict between the twoneighbors. It's not the first time our countries have haddisagreements. And, as usual, Venezuela is being blamed inWashington for this dispute. Some go as far as to claim that Chvezhas used the conflict with Colombia as a means to whip upnationalist fervor.

But this isn't about nationalism or petty disputes. As much as somein Washington want to think so, this is no mere spat betweenColombian President lvaro Uribe and our President Chvez. Thosethat say so just don't understand the context underlying the tensionsbetween Colombia and Venezuela and the central role that


2/4

Washington has played in them.

A case in point is the October military agreement signed between Bogot and Washington thatwould give U.S. military personnel, intelligence officials, and defense contractors access to militarybases on Colombian soil. This agreement's vague provisions and questionable motivations threatenregional stability and territorial sovereignty, alter the region's military balance, and threaten topush more of the violence and drug trafficking that is endemic to Colombia's conflict across itsborders.

The current tensions between our countries are just one expression of the broader regional concernover this pact. When the agreement first came to light in July 2009, many countries in South

America worried about the impact it would have on regional stability. In two summits of the Unionof South American Nations (UNASUR), 11 of 12 member states united in their opposition to themilitary agreement and expressed concern that it would further externalize Colombia's internalconflict. They also demanded guarantees that joint U.S.-Colombian operations would not violate thesovereignty of neighboring countries. More recently, the presidents of Argentina and Brazil releaseda joint statement of concern over the deployment of foreign troops in the region and the threattheir presence could pose to regional countries' territorial sovereignty.

South America has good reason to be particularly worried. In its fiscal 2010 budget requestpresented to Congress in May, the U.S. Air Force justified an air base development project inColombia by explaining that "Development of this CSL [cooperative security location] provides aunique opportunity for full spectrum operations in a critical sub region of our hemisphere wheresecurity and stability is under constant threat from narcotics funded terrorist insurgencies, anti-U.S.governments, endemic poverty and recurring natural disaster." This document, which was not partof the agreement itself but still refers to an air base where U.S. troops will be stationed under the

agreement's provisions, gave an honest insight into how U.S. military officials envisioned futuredeployments in the region.

The U.S. Air Force subsequently removed any mention of "anti-U.S. governments" from thedocument, but did so only after the U.S.-Colombia cooperation agreement was signed and variouscountries expressed their strong reservations. Although the words disappeared, the languageoutlining the strategic value of the Colombian bases to broader U.S. military global strategicdeployment did not. This agreement is a geopolitical foray into the region on the part ofWashington.

Indeed, it has become clear that a U.S. presence in Colombia will have far larger implications for theregion than just helping eradicate coca -- as the failed Plan Colombia originally claimed to -- orsupport the Colombian government in fighting insurgents. And it isn't just Venezuela that sees thispossibility. In July, Rafael Pardo, Colombia's former defense minister, called the agreement

analogous to "lending the balcony of your apartment to someone from outside so that he can keepwatch of the neighbors." In a statement on the agreement, the well-respected Washington Office onLatin America noted: "This appears to be an agreement without borders, potentially allowing theU.S. military to conduct virtually any mission against virtually any perceived threat."

The concerns expressed by the region and by Venezuela's recent defensive moves also have morepractical foundations. In March 2008, Colombia launched an attack on Ecuadorean territory,bombing what the Colombian government claimed to be a FARC encampment. The attack was anunprecedented violation of territorial sovereignty and an endorsement of the George W. Bushdoctrine of pre-emptive war. Suddenly, Venezuela faced not only a neighbor engaged in fighting aninternal enemy but also a neighbor that was willing to take that fight across international borderson the thinnest of pretexts.

The new U.S.-Colombia agreement doesn't do anything to assuage regional concerns that moreviolations of sovereignty won't occur. While it does not contemplate operations in third countries, it

does not explicitly prohibit them. Just as it would be for any country, this is an unacceptable threatto Venezuela.

You don't have to like President Chvez to understand the hostile reality Venezuela and the regionface. For decades, Venezuela has had to contend with an internal conflict in Colombia that hasspilled across the 1,400-mile border. Now, the region also has to face a U.S. military presence thathas been officially justified on the need to develop "full spectrum operations" throughout the regionand act against the "threat" posed by alleged "anti-U.S. governments," as stated in the Air Forcebudget request.

The countries of the region will continue working together as they have in past months to addressthe crisis that the U.S.-Colombia agreement has provoked. Another UNASUR summit was held onNov. 27 to discuss the agreement, but at the last minute Colombia's foreign and defense ministersdecided not to attend. The organization agreed to request a meeting with U.S. Secretary of StateHillary Clinton to discuss the bases and additionally restated its opposition to any threats to regionalstability or the sovereignty of UNASUR member states.

We hope that Barack Obama's administration and members of the U.S. Congress who havesupported the bases come to understand the grave implications their decision has had on regionalstability -- and choose to reverse it.

Next, Colombia's ambassador responds:


3/4

Carolina Barco & George Bush inthe Oval Office

Nothing to Fear

By Carolina Barco,Colombia's Ambassador to the United States

Colombia is a country that has suffered from a lethal combination ofdrug trafficking and terrorism and is fully committed to counteringthese plights. The agreement signed by Colombia and the UnitedStates on Oct. 30 builds on a long-standing bilateral partnershipagainst the trade of illegal drugs and terrorism and reflects a realitythat U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated candidly this week:"Trafficking is evolving into an ever graver threat that is affecting allregions of the world." He went on to call on member states to "workwith each other" to counter it.

Our country has fought drug trafficking for decades. We havededicated an important part of our resources to this effort. Most ofthe operations of the Colombian Navy, for example, are interdiction

operations -- all paid for by Colombian taxpayers. This year, the Navy will set a new record forcocaine seizures, around 110 tons. Similarly, the Air Force has managed to reduce illegal flights outof Colombia by 97 percent, thanks to the joint U.S.-Colombia Air Bridge Denial program, which isintended to target drug traffickers by intercepting suspicious planes.

Many brave soldiers and policemen have sacrificed their lives in operations against drug traffickingorganizations. Their sacrifice prevents illegal drugs from reaching the United States and Europe and

curtails the violence, corruption, and intimidation that narcotics bring to transit countries in CentralAmerica, the Caribbean, and increasingly, the African continent.

This fight has been successful in Colombia as well. After years of persistent action, results are moreevident.

In their 2009 reports, the United Nations and the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy(ONDCP) have identified clear and substantial progress in reducing drug cultivation and productionin Colombia. Comparing 2007 with 2008, the United Nations reports an 18 percent reduction in thearea cultivated with coca crops and a 28 percent decrease in overall cocaine production. For thesame period, the ONDCP reports a 29 percent reduction in the area cultivated with coca crops and a39 percent decrease in overall cocaine production.

We have been even more effective against the drug trafficking networks. To date, 14 out of 15 ofthe top drug kingpins we identified in 2007 have been captured.

These results are the product of our increasingly capable and professional public forces, and theyhave dramatically changed the lives of ordinary Colombians. Thanks to these efforts, which have ledto a massive improvement in security conditions, Colombians now feel they live in a country that ismuch safer -- and where greater security is constantly being pursued. Bogot has lower crime ratesthan many other capitals of the continent and, for most Colombians, fear is a thing of the past. Thisimproved security has allowed social investment and institutions to enter areas where there hadpreviously been no government presence. The education, health, and justice sectors are nowaccessible in all of Colombia, which is an immense change from just under a decade ago.

Although President lvaro Uribe's Democratic Security Policy has been central to theseachievements, Colombia's transformation would not have been possible without the help of theUnited States. We take on this fight with our own soldiers, we capture drug kingpins with our ownpolicemen, and our taxpayers finance 96 percent of the budget, but the support of the United Statesin critical areas has been instrumental in achieving these results. U.S. cooperation through the

bipartisan program known as Plan Colombia is an unquestionable success. Plan Colombia began in2000 and has proven an ideal framework through which to accomplish common goals in the fightagainst drug trafficking and terrorism.

Our relationship with the United States has matured over the years, and the new cooperationagreement builds on and better organizes that relationship. The fight is not over yet. Theextraordinary results we have achieved in drug interdiction, for example, owe a lot to ongoingcooperation between our two governments. Our partnership is not just important for our ownefforts; it benefits Central America, Mexico, and the United States as well, because drugs arewreaking havoc up to the Rio Grande and beyond.

The agreement gives a clearer framework for what we have already been doing in a transparent andopen manner; the full text has been posted on the Colombian and U.S. governments' websites.

This agreement does not set up U.S. bases in Colombia. It does provide the United States access toColombian bases, but command and control, administration, and security remains in Colombia'shands. Combined U.S.-Colombia activities are mutually agreed upon in advance. The agreementdoes not result in any significant increase in the U.S. military presence in Colombia; the number ofAmerican service members and contractors has been and will remain under the U.S. congressionallymandated cap.

The agreement builds upon decades of cooperation in fighting terrorists and criminal and drug


4/4

cartels, a common objective of all countries in the hemisphere and also one in which Colombia andthe United States have a long history of cooperation. Colombia is eager to work with every countryin fighting the criminal activity that has cost it so dearly.

The agreement explicitly recognizes the principle of sovereign equality of states as well as those ofnonintervention and territorial integrity. These are very important elements for any agreement, not

just with the United States; they are elements that Colombia has shared with its friends andneighbors in the hemisphere.

There are countries in this region and others that are now going through what we ourselvesexperienced a decade or two ago. U.S. cooperation in Colombia has allowed us to build our expertise

and know-how to a level that we can now share with others. We are already providing training andadvice to police services from Trinidad to Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Costa Rica, andGuatemala, as well as Mexico. Drug cartels are transnational in their reach and the fight againstthem must be so too.

The Colombian people know the stakes. According to a November 2009 Gallup poll, 67 percent ofColombians support the agreement between their country and the United States. It is time for othercountries to join in and help solve these problems.

Foreign Policy Journal

latin america's new cold war?

Documents