For Colombia and Venezuela, a New Kind of Face-Off

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez loves a good rant, and in early November he directed his ire once again toward Colombia, warning of an imminent war between the two nations. "Prepare yourselves for war," Chavez instructed military commanders in a televised address on Nov. 8.

Days later, Chavez backed off his comments, claiming his words had been manipulated. But on Nov. 21 he announced the pending arrival of 300 tanks from Russia and again told his supporters they were obligated to prepare for combat.

Certainly it is hard to take Chavez seriously. Years of his saber rattling have taught Colombians to shrug off the bluster and patch up damaged relations well enough for day-to-day business to continue. But these days Colombia is more on edge than ever.

Chavez has made good on his July threat to cut bilateral trade, a move that has been disastrous for Colombia. Venezuela is its second-largest trading partner, and in October, exports from Colombia fell 76 percent compared to the same month last year. Carolina Barco, Colombia’s ambassador to the United States, said in an interview that the resulting loss of employment is of "grave concern."

Chavez puts the blame squarely on the U.S. He is upset over an agreement between the U.S. and Colombia that went into effect on Oct. 30, increasing U.S. forces’ access to seven Colombian military bases. To resolve this impasse, Chavez has said that the United States need only "withdraw the Yankee bases."

But so far, the U.S.'s response to Chavez has been muted and vague. Obama administration officials have called for an open dialogue and offered to mediate between Venezuela and Colombia to help them overcome their differences.

This offer leaves much to be desired, as far as Colombia is concerned. Where is the U.S.'s outrage? Where is the unequivocal support for its greatest ally in the region? How can the U.S. play mediator when it caused the problem in the first place? Is the U.S. unclear on where it stands?

Former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria, speaking recently on behalf of his fellow former presidents and other former high-ranking officials, expressed "surprise" at the seemingly indifferent response from a friendly nation. Writing in El Tiempo, Colombian columnist Enrique Santos Calderon questioned the value of the U.S.'s friendship, recalling Henry Kissinger’s warning: "It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal."

Now it may be for good reason that the U.S.'s response to the conflict has been low-key. By appearing neutral, the U.S. avoids playing into Chavez’s hands. Colombians know all too well that tensions tend to escalate when U.S. officials respond in kind to Chavez’s fiery rhetoric – as often happened during George W. Bush’s presidency.

But because the current fray could have dire economic consequences, Colombia feels that the United States could do more to reward Colombia’s cooperation – in other words, finally ratify the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement.

The two countries began free trade negotiations more than five years ago. In 2006 they signed a deal that was amended and re-signed the following year to reflect congressional Democrats’ concerns over labor rights and environmental standards in Colombia.

In 2008, election-year politicking only complicated matters further, as then-presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton vied to appear tougher on "job-killing" trade deals. Finally, about a year and half ago, the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives shelved the U.S.-Colombia deal indefinitely.

Today, trade officials in Washington candidly acknowledge that because 2010 is a congressional election year, all trade deals will likely be postponed until 2011. Barco acknowledges those domestic political considerations and says she fully respects them. But she insists that under the current circumstances it is "urgent for Colombia to be able to count on the free trade agreement with the United States."

Still, there may be more than domestic considerations at stake. The United States continues to be a big supporter of Colombia. The U.S. aid program Plan Colombia was implemented 10 years ago and, $6 billion later, it is still going strong. And surely the U.S. does not want to squander what may be its most fruitful relationship in the region. But the Obama administration also has serious misgivings about doing anything that could bolster Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. The popular Colombian leader still has not declared whether he will run for a third term next year, which, according to the Colombian constitution as it stands today, would be illegal.

Colombians are right to imagine a day in the not-too-distant future when they will be able to enjoy the fruits of a free trade agreement with the United States. But they also need to know that their leader’s quiet pursuit of a third term could jeopardize such a deal and, indeed, Colombia’s relations with its closest ally.