Statement of Michael Shifter

Vice President for Policy, Inter-American Dialogue

Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University

Committee on Foreign Affairs

Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere

“Crisis in the Andes: The Border Dispute Between Colombia and Ecuador, and Implications for the Region”

April 10, 2008

Last month’s ominous episode involving three Andean countries offers a much-needed opportunity to examine what is happening more widely in the region and to assess its implications for U.S. policy. The Colombian government’s military incursion against a Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) camp in northern Ecuador and the international reaction reveal a great deal about the changing realities in the hemisphere and the capacity for effective diplomatic responses. Tensions have mercifully subsided, but the underlying problems that provoked the flare-up have not disappeared, leaving the region uneasy and combustible. It is essential not to ignore what has been learned from the recent crisis, but instead to address the challenges, acutely mindful of the consequences for regional peace and stability.

What accounts for actions and reactions by Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela?

Colombia is going through a collective catharsis. The closest analogy to what is happening may not be elsewhere in Latin America, but rather South Africa. The country has endured a dreadful drug-fueled armed conflict and a severe humanitarian crisis for decades and is now palpably struggling to confront and overcome the trauma. After experiencing such an ordeal, any serious attempt at cleansing and reconciliation will take place at best by fits and starts, running into enormous resistance by those wedded to the status quo. But the catharsis is underway, and that is salutary.

Perhaps the most dramatic sign of such a catharsis is the unprecedented series of recent street marches. Last Sunday thousands mobilized demanding that the FARC release the hundreds of hostages it holds – some for over a decade – including former presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt and three Americans kidnapped in Colombia over five years ago. The March 6^th protest against violence in Colombia, particularly paramilitary brutality, was also significant. Most impressive were the massive marches on February 4^th in Colombia and many other cities throughout the world (including Washington, DC), expressing outrage at atrocities committed by the FARC.

Most Colombians believe that in the past several years the country has made notable progress towards greater security and peace. That widespread confidence largely accounts for the overwhelming public support – 84% in the most recent poll – enjoyed by President Alvaro Uribe. His “democratic security” strategy has helped the government assert its authority and expand state presence throughout the national territory. The demobilization of paramilitary forces, initiated in late 2003, has been accompanied by significant and sustained military pressure against the FARC. Last August, President Uribe undertook an initiative to free hostages held by the FARC, enlisting the support of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. That effort ended just three months later, but Chavez has since facilitated the unilateral release of six FARC hostages.

Against that backdrop, it is hardly surprising that the March 1 raid on the FARC camp was applauded by a large majority of Colombians. The killing of Raul Reyes, regarded as the second most important FARC official, was seen as a significant blow against a hugely unpopular insurgency that has wreaked much havoc for decades. Any diplomatic costs incurred were outweighed by the belief that the strike moved the country a step closer to ending the conflict. Armed with sound intelligence on Reyes’s whereabouts, the Colombians acted quickly and decisively. From their perspective, they had previously solicited the Ecuadoran government’s cooperation, but to no avail.

The Ecuadoran government deems Colombia’s targeted attack unacceptable, arguing that it has in fact pursued the FARC and destroyed camps in its territory. Ecuador’s strong reaction to the military strike on its territory and to the subsequent discovery that one of its citizens was among those killed was predictable. Most Ecuadorans do not want to get caught up in the Colombian conflict. They believe the Colombian government should do a better job confining the conflict to its country and containing any spill-over effects. Ecuador has managed to prevent coca production in its territory and does not want to jeopardize that achievement. Among the least politically stable countries in Latin America, Ecuador has profound governance and poverty challenges that would only be exacerbated by involvement in the conflict.

Of course, the outrage expressed by Ecuadorans also stemmed from the fact that Colombia violated its sovereignty and territorial integrity. These are sacred, inviolable principles in a region that has suffered from foreign intervention in the past. The anger was compounded since it is well known that Colombia has received ample security aid from the United States over the last decade. Further, in stark contrast to Colombian public opinion, most Ecuadorans side with the government in its skepticism of the authenticity of files in Reyes’s laptop computers found after the raid. President Rafael Correa, in office since January 2006, has expressed the popular outrage in Ecuador and benefited politically. He is in the midst of leading an effort to rewrite his country’s constitution, and Colombia’s incursion helped him consolidate political support and reverse a slide in popularity.

The crisis clearly reveals the vast differences in national priorities as well as the high levels of mistrust on this sensitive matter. Unfortunately, the Ecuador-Colombia diplomatic relationship has been ruptured as a result. Commerce between the two countries has been largely unaffected, but cooperation along the border in attacking the drug problem has suffered. This marks a serious setback. Prior to the March 1 attack, both governments were working together more productively on the drug issue. The Correa administration has filed a suit against Colombia at the International Court of Justice to stop aerial coca fumigation along the border, citing the negative human and environmental impacts. The move makes prospects for a rapprochement in the near term remote.

It is striking that, given that Venezuelan territory was untouched, President Chavez initially reacted to Colombia’s raid even more angrily and vigorously than President Correa did. Chavez saw Colombia’s military action as a unilateral intervention instigated by the United States. His decision to move tanks to the border and his defiant posture were aimed chiefly to Washington, as a warning against future US military involvement.

The response was also partly designed to shore up domestic political support. According to several reliable polls, Chavez’s popularity has been dropping steadily since December 2, when he was narrowly defeated in a national referendum on constitutional reforms. Nonetheless, unlike Uribe and Correa, who have benefited politically from their handling of the Andean situation, Chavez has alienated voters with his bellicosity and nationalism. Most Venezuelans wonder why their president was compelled to assume center stage in response to an episode unrelated to their country. For many this seemed like yet another example of misplaced priorities – regional adventurism while Venezuelans face growing problems at home.

Like Correa, Chavez has categorically rejected the claim that the computer files found in the FARC camp are authentic. Still, it is worth pointing out that Chavez has recently been uncharacteristically restrained regarding Reyes’s laptop information. The information in those files, if verified, would raise serious questions about the relationship the FARC had with Chavez and, to a lesser extent, Correa.

Why did things calm down? What is the significance of the flare up?

The potentially explosive situation in the Andes last month was defused chiefly because Uribe and Chavez checkmated one another. Whereas Uribe was concerned about international criticism of the violation of sovereignty, Chavez was perceptibly uncomfortable with the information found in the computer files. It was in neither president’s interest to press on with a confrontational strategy that would keep delicate issues in the limelight. In the end, they both decided to back down, embracing at the Rio Group meeting in the Dominican Republic, which was fortuitously timed on March 9. That Chavez quickly resumed diplomatic relations and trade with Colombia reflects his desire to move on and the importance of bilateral commerce. Last year, trade between the two countries was up sharply, totaling $5.5 billion.

Indeed, one of the principal lessons from the border incident and its aftermath is that these Andean nations – particularly Colombia and Venezuela – have profound connections with one another that serve as shock absorbers and help prevent volatile situations from spiraling out of control. The links are not only economic, but also involve energy cooperation, cultural ties and fluid migratory patterns. They simply have too much at stake to proceed down such a perilous course.

Another key lesson is that despite the indisputable mistrust and bitterness between Colombia and these two neighbors, there is a fortunate propensity to turn to regional bodies to help resolve disputes. From the outset, the three relevant governments were eager to engage the international community. No one in Latin America – especially the larger nations like Brazil and Mexico – wanted to see a crisis develop.

As an instrument for nations to work together, the Organization of American States proved to be the logical place to deal with the dispute and help facilitate dialogue and ventilate differences. Under the leadership of Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza, the meeting of the OAS Permanent Council on March 4 and the convening of the hemisphere’s foreign ministers on March 17 were helpful in alleviating the tension.

The OAS mission to both countries also served a useful purpose in strengthening the organization’s credibility. Perhaps the most important task facing the OAS in this crisis will take place in the coming period, as it sets up a binational commission to monitor the Colombia-Ecuador border and prevent another flare up. This case will test the OAS’s capacity to establish an institutional mechanism and deal with comparable situations effectively.

The governments of Latin America, both through the OAS and separately, reaffirmed the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention on the one hand and legitimate self-defense on the other. They were rightly concerned with the competing priorities, and dangers, the situation exposed. Happily, there was no move to break up into competing camps or allow ideological differences balloon into geopolitical crises. On balance, the region exhibited remarkable pragmatism.

Looking ahead: Some scenarios

The fundamental dilemma is how to alleviate tensions while examining credible information on the alleged connections between governments in the region and the FARC. The guerrillas are working to overthrow a democratically elected government of Colombia, which makes it critical that this question be treated with utmost care and responsibility. The possibilities raised by the files are serious, but need to be pursued in a professional fashion, with due consideration to possible consequences for peaceful, democratic order. Although the region’s increasingly polarized geopolitical configuration could result in heightened criminality and chaos, it also offers an opportunity to achieve more stable governance and social cohesion.

Whether Colombia is on the verge of ending its armed conflict is unclear, but the signs that the FARC are weakening are unmistakable. This progress is to be celebrated, but some caution is warranted. Just as the Medellin and Cali drug cartels fragmented into smaller cartels in the 1990s and the paramilitaries have morphed into drug gangs more recently, so too might the FARC become fractured, breaking down from a single army into independent units. Though preferable to the current situation, violence would certainly continue in that scenario, especially since the drug problem remains formidable in Colombia and throughout the region.

A second concern would be the weakening of Colombia’s strong, democratic institutions. Though Uribe deserves credit for the impressive strides in security, the economy and other areas, there is a real risk in continued reliance on a single leader to tackle all problems. Another reelection would likely tarnish Uribe’s legacy, weaken democratic governance, and damage Colombia’s international image.

Ecuador has embarked on a path of seeking to overhaul its political order. The outcome of the constituent assembly process is uncertain. Given the country’s high level of political volatility – there have been nine presidents in the past dozen years – it is important that Correa successfully translate his substantial legitimacy and support into forging more effective governance structures. Any confirmation of an association between the government and the FARC would not contribute to the viability of Correa’s stated project or to restoring political stability in Ecuador.

In Venezuela, despite record oil prices, Chavez is facing his most significant vulnerabilities in nearly a decade of rule. The country’s politics remain polarized and a more coherent opposition has yet to emerge. Inflation, crime, corruption and scarcity of basic foods are mounting and are proving difficult to remedy. The governance model Chavez has forged simply is not working. In advance of presidential elections in December 2012, local elections in November of this year will give other political forces a chance to present alternative policy prescriptions for the country’s future.

Though it manifests itself in different ways, the drug problem is serious in all three countries – as it is in the United States and much of the hemisphere. As the recent crisis illustrates, the drug issue intersects with ideological divisions in the Andean region. Chavez in particular is pursuing an agenda that explicitly defies U.S. interests in Latin America and elsewhere. The drug trade alone has a decidedly corrupting impact on any political system. But for the United States, and the region’s governments and societies, the challenge becomes especially daunting when ideology and the illicit drug problem converge.

What is the challenge for U.S. policy?

The U.S. has a considerable interest in fostering a peaceful, democratic, and prosperous Andean region. The key question is how the U.S. can orient its decisions and actions with that goal in mind. The U.S. cannot and should not succumb to either of two common temptations: intervening with a heavy hand to dictate a preordained solution or remaining disengaged from the central questions that most concern our neighbors.

For the most part, and largely to its credit, the Bush administration played a marginal role at best in the Andean crisis. In the end, a formula to calm things down was worked out by the relevant parties and other regional governments determined to avoid any escalation. Washington rightly yielded to the Latin American desire for mutual settlement. Latin America is often said to be the “backyard” of the U.S., but Washington certainly did not behave that way in this case. It is still unclear, however, whether the U.S. consciously decided to play the role it did, whether it simply did not know how to react or, worse, did not care.

President Bush’s expression of support for the Uribe government on March 12 was ill-advised. The President took advantage of the situation to promote the free trade agreement with Colombia, citing the security risks in the region. Yet, while defending a close ally like Colombia in such circumstances was understandable, it would have also been appropriate, as a demonstration of evenhandedness, to express concern about the violation of Ecuadoran sovereignty. Siding so strongly with Colombia undermined any chance the U.S. could be an honest broker in a regional dispute. It also further isolated Colombia, whose peace and security ultimately depends on trust and cooperation with its neighbors.

Moving forward, the United States would be wise to maintain a low profile and avoid the kind of protagonism that would only be counterproductive in light of the anti-Americanism prevalent in the region. At the same time, it would be a mistake for the U.S. to retreat from the region at this critical moment. Some guidelines for possible U.S. actions:

1) Pursue a discreet and measured approach when managing the information that emerges from the computer files. It would be a mistake to sound the alarms, but equally unwise to turn a blind eye. At the right opportunity, the U.S. might consult with close friends in the region like Mexico, Chile and Brazil to ask how they view any credible information produced and what they consider to be appropriate responses.

2) Support Colombia, which has been a close friend and ally. Assistance should be provided not in a way that sets Colombia apart from its neighbors, but rather in a way that encourages it to diversify political and economic ties, both within the region and globally. Apart from its economic merits, the Congress should approve the free trade agreement with Colombia for sound foreign policy reasons. Rejecting the deal would send a signal to the rest of the region that the U.S. is not a reliable ally and that domestic political considerations continue to drive U.S. policy toward Latin America. Continued support for programs that strengthen security, the rule of law and democracy are also vital.

3) Enhance partnerships with friendly governments in the region. On Venezuela, the Bush administration deserves credit for recently carrying out a wiser and more moderate approach. The main focus should continue to be collaboration with Latin American allies. While it is understandable that the U.S. will want to review any information regarding the FARC’s connections to other governments, it is critical to keep in mind the possible consequences – for US interests and the region’s general well-being – of putting Venezuela on the list of states that support terrorism. Political prudence would recommend a diligent examination of the information, but restraint in making decisions that may be self-defeating for the United States.

4) Encourage and support reasonable efforts to secure the release of the FARC hostages. Humanitarian concerns are paramount and do not necessarily conflict with policies aimed at ending the armed conflict. Pragmatic approaches should be pursued, including the possible role of Chavez, who has already shown that he can deliver results. The release of further hostages would be in the interest of all parties, including the Colombian government. Such an approach would not reverse the recent troubles of the FARC or Chavez.

5) Stay engaged with the Correa government and explore ways of cooperating more productively. Trade preferences and counter-narcotics assistance ought to be extended and continued. The U.S. should not let decisions by the Correa government – such as not renewing the lease of the forward operating location in Manta – affect the overall bilateral relationship. Disagreements on some issues should be expected, and the U.S. can and should explore other options to replace the Manta facility.

6) Back the OAS and other multilateral fora committed to peace and democratic progress. Although the region is politically fragmented – hemispheric relations are marked by considerable mistrust – it is crucial to find ways to reenergize cooperative efforts, including on the drug question, among the region’s governments and civil societies. Such an approach does not necessarily require additional financial resources, but rather a change in style and mindset. The U.S. must recognize that respect in the region must be earned through a genuine give and take. Early in 2009, the next U.S. president will be meeting with other hemispheric heads of state at the Summit of the Americas meeting in Trinidad and Tobago. That is an excellent opportunity to recover some of the ground that has been lost over the last decade in hemispheric cooperation.