Colombia v. Venezuela: The Background

Most commentators agree that hostilities between Colombia and Venezuela or Colombia and Ecuador are unlikely at present.

Hugo Chavez has a long history of blustering about the graces of socialist principles and of threatening military action against any likely aggressors, be they from arch enemy the United States, or as in this instance their ally, Colombia.

But in the wake of the killing of FARC number two Raul Reyes, Chavez has ordered tank batallions to the border, ostensibly outraged at Colombia's incursion into Ecuador territory to carry out the fatal raid on rebel camps.

Chavez himself has been accused of harbouring FARC rebels in the past, and his latest move has been seen in some circles as an admission of guilt.

While Ecuador have now reopened the possibility of appointing another Colombian embassador to Quito, having ejected the first, the Venezuela line remains hard, leading Colombian newspaper El Pais to label the local crisis "the worse in recent times."

Colombian political parties have moved their support firmly behind their president for now, asking that he be respected by President Chavez.

During his tenure in office President Alvaro Uribe, criticised in some quarters for his hardline policies, has achieved great successes in winning back large tracts of land from guerrilla control. In a country plagued for decades by the threat of kidnap and extortion, vehicle jacking and sabotage, Mr Uribe has managed to reopen major routes to vital movement of trade and people with uncompromising use of his army.

War between Colombia and Venezuela is unthinkable given their closely matched military capabilites on land, sea and air and yet the contentious border zone where any face-off is likely to take place is long, lawless and regularly used by smugglers and rebel groups. Commentators have made the point that any incident could potentially escalate quickly.

It remains doubtful, however, whether the populations at large have any stomach for the fight; far more likely the people of Colombia and Venezuela will as usual moan about their leaders and keep on with the business of life in the sun.

From Joy to Crisis

For Colombia, it’s joy to crisis in the space of a week.

After the release of two high profile FARC hostages in January, four more were released to scenes of joyous reunion on Wednesday. As with the release of Clara Rojas and Consuelo González, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez once again combined forces with Colombian Senator Piedad Cordoba in working for the freedom of the latest four after their enforced captivity in the jungle. Gloria Polanco, Luis Eladio Perez, Orlando Beltran and Jorge Eduardo Gechem, all former Colombian legislators, were reunited with their families in the Simon Bolivar International airport near Caracas on February 27.

Colombian president Alvaro Uribe, who has had a tense relationship with Chavez in the past, thanked the Venezuelan premier for his mediation efforts and called for the FARC to release all of those held in captivity. The newly released hostages soon spoke of the poor health of Ingrid Betancourt, previous Colombian presidential candidate and the highest profile captive currently in the hands of the left wing rebel group. Miss Betancourt, who possesses dual French-Colombian nationality, is said to be in a fragile state of health, suffering advanced Hepatitis B as a result of inhumane treatment delivered at the hands of her captors. French president Nicholas Sarkozy added to the calls for her immediate release, stating he will come to Colombia to pick her up himself.

Scarcely days after the released captives were able to return to their families, news broke of the surprise attack and subsequent death of FARC number two Raul Reyes, killed in his jungle camp close to the Colombian border in Ecuador. One of the longest standing and most influential leaders of the insurgency, real name Luis Edgar Devia Silva, Reyes was killed in a predawn airstrike launched on his camp by the Colombian airforce. Shortly after the strike, Colombian soldiers were sent the approximate two kilometers over the border to secure the camp and recover the bodies.

The demise of Raul Reyes, the FARC’s chief spokesman, was seen as a major coup for hardline president Alvaro Uribe but triggered strong criticism and protest from Ecuador, who prepared a note of formal protest. Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez reacted to news of the Colombian incursion with an angry response of his own:

"President [Alvaro] Uribe, think about it long and hard. You had better not get the idea of doing this on our territory because it would be a 'causus belli', cause for a war."

The latest news from Venezuela confirms that Hugo Chavez has ordered thousands of troops and tanks to the border and the closure of the Venezuelan embassy in Bogota in preparation for what could potentially be a war in South America. Speaking on his weekly television slot, ‘Alo Presidente’, he called the slaying of Raul Reyes “a cowardly murder, all of it coldly calculated”, and has labelled the government in Bogota “a terrorist state” for its violation of Ecuador’s territorial sovereignty.

Despite recent steps forward with hostage releases, the relationship between Colombia and Venezuela remains fractious. Colombia’s Alvaro Uribe has achieved great success in securing large parts of the country from the threat of the left wing FARC and remains suspicious about the motives and involvement of professed Fidel Castro fan Hugo Chavez. Chavez for his part perceives Colombia as a staunch ally of what he sees as a dangerous American imperialist empire. Although the United States and European Union officially list the FARC as a terrorist group, President Chavez has refused to do so, instead calling them a legitimate insurgent force.

The Jamundi Massacre

Fifteen soldiers of the Colombian national army have been declared guilty of the massacre of ten anti-narcotics agents and one citizen in what has become one of the most scandalous episodes in the nation's recent history.

The bloody events of May 22nd 2006 quickly became notorious first in Colombia’s south-western Valle del Cauca province and then around the nation. Near the outskirts of Jamundi, a town to the south of Cali, a group consisting of a Colonel, Lieutenant and 13 soldiers on anti-guerrilla operations came upon and shot dead a group of 10 anti-narcotic agents and one civilian.

Initially reported as a tragic case of ‘friendly fire’ between police and military, in some quarters doubts were expressed. An investigation was begun and a short time later, Colombian attorney general Mario Iguarán sanctioned the arrest of all 15 soldiers in a move which shocked the nation.

Now the commander of the battalion in action that day, Lieutenant Colonel Bayron Carvajal and his men are to be considered intellectual authors of the homicide in a ruling handed down by a judge in Cali.

Attorney General Iguaran has refused to rule out the possibility that the massacre was carried out “under orders from narco-traffickers,” and has repeatedly referred to the actions as an “ambush”, terminology which has lead to inevitable accusations of corruption and collusion on the part of the army.

Although during the investigation the name of cartel boss Diego Montoya has reportedly “come up,” at the current time only the soldiers remain under investigation.

In the murky world of Colombian drugs enforcement it is often difficult to know who is working for whom. The well-financed drugs gangs are able to run multiple agents inside the police and judiciary, and in many cases duplicity in the scams and pay-offs have run to the highest levels.

Calming the waters

Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has sought to calm the waters over an incident on the high seas involving the Colombian navy and Nicaraguan shrimping vessels.

The Nicaraguans claim the incident of February 10 involved a Colombian frigate which “intimidated” flag-bearing fishing and shrimping boats in Nicaraguan waters.

A note of protest delivered to the Colombian ambassador to Nicaragua claimed the latitude and longitude of the standoff confirmed its position in Nicaraguan territorial waters and stated:

“…This can only be considered a violation of Nicaraguan sovereignty.”

The note went on to request that “measures be taken so that events of this nature may not be repeated.”

The diplomatic incident is the latest in a series of confrontations involving the contentious dividing lines between Nicaraguan coastal waters and the island territories of San Andres, Providence and Santa Catalina, ceded to Colombia through the 1928-1930 Esguerra-Bárcenas Treaty.

In mid-December a United Nations court was called upon re-affirm the treaty’s terms in the face of Nicaraguan requests to rule on sovereignty.

Speaking from Bogotá in response to this latest incident, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe sought to ease tensions, striking a conciliatory tone:

“I call upon my compatriots to be completely respectful of the coast and waters of Nicaragua and the status of the 82nd Meridian.”

He added that Colombia was a country characterized by its respect for law and “not bellicose towards its neighbours.”

Daniel Ortega, Nicaragua’s recently re-anointed president, has argued in the past that the treaty was in fact annulled by his Sandinista government in the 1980s. He has also claimed it to be legally invalid as it was signed at a time when Nicaragua suffered US occupation.

Colombia's hostages

After the recent release of two high profile hostages, Colombia’s FARC are reportedly considering the freedom of more kidnapped citizens.

Clara Rojas and Consuelo Gonzalez, formerly high profile politicians, were released by the insurgent guerrilla group in early January. The pair were plucked from a high-mountain location by Venezuelan Red Cross helicopters in a deal brokered by Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and Liberal Party Senator Piedad Cordoba.

Now Senator Cordoba claims more hostages, as yet not identified, will be released “very soon, in the next few days.” Work to release the next hostages is being negotiated through similar channels, claims the senator. She additionally remarked three days ago that she is currently working hard to secure the release of former presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt “very soon.”

During her long senatorial career, Miss Cordoba has herself been kidnapped briefly by paramilitary groups in Medellin and frequently caused a stir in this most conservative of countries for her work with the black community, women's rights, familial violence and gay rights. Recently she has courted much criticism again by working alongside controversial Hugo Chavez in negotiations with the rebels. Senator Cordoba has been perceived by many conservatives as dangerously leftist, but has regularly spoken out against the hardline style of Colombia’s current president Alvaro Uribe despite death threats.

If the senator does manage to secure the freedom of Miss Betancourt, the most famous victim of kidnap in Colombia, the nation’s institutions and the world will surely recognize her efforts and hope her good work may be repeated again and again. But with the number of hostages currently being held by the FARC estimated to be around 750, many families will remain, for now, waiting.

Storm clouds gather

The United Nations Climate Change summit in Bali packed up shop yesterday as news networks announced a positive deal had finally been reached. But with heavy criticism directed at the blocking delegations and some environmentalists labelling the deal a "suicide pact", are we really any closer to solving one of the biggest problems of our time?

It took a last-minute intervention from the United Nations Secretary General to salvage something significant from the two week-long meeting of 189 nations in Indonesia. Despite European Union efforts to secure a textual pledge of 25 to 40% reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 for developed nations, countries such as Japan, Canada and of course the United States ultimately frustrated the wording in the final document. Achieving any consensus at all seemed unlikely at one point, and it took an eleventh-hour intervention from the UN chief to break the impasse. Ban-Ki moon promptly flew in to deliver a surprisingly gentle rebuke given the circumstances:

"I come before you with great reluctance. Frankly I am disappointed. With a spirit of compromise and flexibility I think you have made much progress over the last week."

But it seemed to work. Finally the United States cast aside ruthless brinkmanship and agreed to consensus on the heavily watered down document which finally emerged from the negotiations. Perhaps the US delegation realized at the last just how much enmity their implacability would provoke around the world. Or perhaps they recognized just how much they had got away with, as the agreement itself obliges no nation to cut emissions and is certainly no successor to the Kyoto Protocol. Much similar to the recent meeting of Israeli and Palestinian leaders in Annapolis, the product of Bali 2007 is only a roadmap - these were talks about talks. The next climate change summit of substance will take place two years down the line, in Denmark in 2009.

Upon inspection, the main points of the Bali agreement seem positive. In it, nations acknowledge that planetary warming is "unequivocal" and that "deep cuts in global emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective" of the UN climate convention, namely "avoiding dangerous climate change". There are promises to review forestry policy, support poorer nations suffering from some of the most pronounced impacts of climate change and to remove obstacles to the development of cleaner energies.

But crucially, there are no binding targets on carbon emissions and while UK Environment Secretary Hilary Benn hailed the agreement as "a historic breakthrough", the masses of environmental campaigners camped outside the meetings had evidently hoped for so much more. Bill Hare of Greenpeace remarked, "I've never seen such a flip-flop in an environmental treaty context ever", and Hans Verolme of the WWF commented, "The [ US] administration was out on a wrecking mission." International development agency Christian Aid stated that it welcomed "the last minute agreement... It is dismayed, however, that crucial target figures for cutting carbon emissions in rich countries were removed from the final agreement." Former US Vice President Al Gore, recent recipient of the Nobel Peace prize, accused his own country of putting progress on climate change back by a decade.

Aware of the significance of climate change in the news this week, UK newspapers have run with some interesting accompanying stories. At the beginning of the week the government announced its plan for 7,000 wind turbines to be installed off the British coast by 2020, providing about one third of UK energy needs. But only days later Sir Bob Geldof was quoted in the press describing renewable energy sources as "Mickey Mouse" solutions to climate change, calling instead for a "scramble for more nuclear power." The Guardian ran critical reports on the big oil companies: Shell, who recently sold off most of its solar power, and BP, who has recently started buying into the dirtiest and most polluting form of oil production in the form of Canada's oil sands. This week also saw planned protests over the rising costs of fuel in the UK failing to garner as much support as similar protests in 2000. Prices of petrol in this country now cost upwards of one pound a litre in places, with as much as 65% of the cost going straight to government.

In many ways, climate change and all things green have been the story of the year: from the Live Earth concerts to the summer flooding, from the melting polar regions to the Bangladesh cyclone and from the Bali conference to the debate on renewables. Measuring our carbon footprint has become a whip with which we like to punish ourselves in the UK as we hear constant moralistic reminders to switch off the lights, offset flights and recycle as much as possible.

It is interesting to note that in the US, by contrast, the Bali climate change conference has hardly been covered by news networks, and the green issue as a whole trails in terms of importance in the upcoming presidential elections. It lags behind Iraq, illegal immigration (always a winner) and the economy, stupid. Other developed countries around the world obviously have far bigger fish to fry and those poorer nations for the moment, and quite rightly, would rather focus on survival and somehow improving living standards in a harsh world.

So it is that vast obstacles lie in the way of progress on climate change. The overriding consumerism juggernaut of free market capitalism has become more than a way of running our world, it has become an intoxicating and possibly fatal addiction which drives our policy and trade terms. Given this fact, few sane nations will willingly hobble themselves by being more prudent with resources in a rampantly competitive global economy.

All of which brings us to the crux of the matter. Approaches to global warming and climate change must be run in tandem with co-operative and binding agreements governing world trade and wider national and international cultures of prudence. Consumerism, unfettered spending and production will have to be tempered and nations will have to see the good of the greater whole above their own lofty ambitions. In short, things will have to be slowed down. History, however, shows us that nations have a poor record in acting together effectively when presented with a clear threat, preferring instead procrastination.

Out with the old?

A look at Australia, where despite a strong record in governance, Prime Minister of eleven years John Howard was voted out of office. His replacement is Labour Party leader Kevin Rudd, a former diplomat who has promised policy change on the environment and Iraq while pledging continued stability in the economy.

John Howard, such a familiar face and distinctive character among world leaders, has misjudged the Australian electorate for the final time and must now pack his bags for home. He lost not only the country, but also, rather pitifully, his own seat of Bennelong in Sydney in an election where his Liberal Party garnered only 36% of the votes to Labour’s 44%.

Hoping to seal his fifth consecutive election victory, Mr Howard was in fact trailing in a hard-fought election campaign when, at the last, fatal scandal engulfed his Liberal Party. In the days prior to voting, Liberal Party activists were discovered to have distributed leaflets in the marginal constituency of Lyndsay, Sydney, purportedly from an Islamic terrorist group thanking Mr Rudd’s Labour Party for its sympathy with the Bali bombers. Despite assertions from Mr Howard - “It was not authorised by the Liberal Party, it is no part of our campaign” - the move was perceived by many Australians as sleazy at a critical time in the election.

For the record, Mr Howard will be perceived as a strong Prime Minister who presided popularly over many notable successes. These include sustained economic growth, the phenomenal Sydney 2000 Olympics and the widely applauded intervention force sent to East Timor to stop widespread looting and violence by pro-Indonesian militias.

The former Prime Minister, famous for his love of cricket, endeared himself to many Australians with his common touch and conviction leadership. The man who stopped the Australian cricket team traveling to Zimbabwe, calling President Robert Mugabe “this grubby dictator,” openly weeped on television when speaking about the death of Australian TV personality and Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin earlier this year.

But John Howard’s vision was conservative, sometimes controversial and it is now clear that he outstayed his political welcome. Mr Howard had refused to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, arguing as does the United States, that the economy should not be sacrificed when major polluters such as China and India are not subject to the treaty. Like his political contemporary Tony Blair, John Howard provided staunch allegiance to the Americans when they requested it on the Iraq incursion, now considered so disastrous and morally bankrupt. On aboriginal rights Mr Howard showed little enthusiasm during his years in office, stating that a full apology for past treatment by white settlers would “only reinforce a culture of victimhood and take us backwards.”

His successor, newly sworn-in Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, seems to have wasted no time in breaking from the old. He has promised to withdraw the Australian contingent of 550 combat troops from Iraq by the middle of next year. He has also promised an apology to Aboriginal groups, and within days of his appointment, Australia agreed to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, leaving the Americans as the only developed nation outside of the pact.

Mr Rudd’s new cabinet includes Julia Gillard as first ever female deputy PM, and Penny Wong, Australia’s first Asian-born minister. Peter Garrett, former lead singer for rock group Midnight Oil becomes environment, heritage and arts minister. Mr Rudd has called this a rejuvenated government that will bring fresh ideas to the country.

In the wider world, the political landscape is on the brink of important change at the end of 2007. With conservative stalwarts such as John Howard and US President George W Bush ultimately rejected in the court of public opinion, people are now searching for new ideas on Iraq and climate change in particular. And whereas Tony Blair somehow managed to escape a very public downfall, his heir Gordon Brown may not. In many ways the British PM is seen as the architect of the Blair years, and currently finds himself knee deep in scandal with accusations of mismanagement seeming to stick. It entirely possible that Brown, like Howard and Bush, will be seen as a relic of the past and rejected by an electorate clamouring for a change in direction.