A Venezuelan Threat to Whom?

Nicolas Maduro: Hapless leader
or threat to Washington?

“I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, find that the situation in Venezuela....constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat." 

Give us a break. Venezuela is near being a failed state. It's economy's going down the tubes, its government's turning increasingly corrupt, authoritarian and repressive, and Venezuelans' lives are becoming tougher and tougher.

Venezuela is a threat...to Venezuelans and probably to Colombians and other neighbors. But an 'extraordinary threat' to the U.S.'s national security and foreign policy?

Venezuela was perhaps once a threat to U.S. foreign policy - back when Chavez was alive and admired, and when high oil prices gave Caracas a full wallet to buy and influence foreign heads of state. But today Venezuela is widely seen as the basket case it is and has been reduced to begging support from its few allies. Caracas is in no position to rally anybody against the U.S. Even Venezuela's long-time ally Cuba has pivoted toward Washington.

Venezuela's worst-case - and increasingly likely - scenario is a larger scale repeat of its its 1989 Caracazo social explosion, when riots led to thousands of deaths. The difference is that today the economy is even more distorted and the country even harder up than back then, so things might be even worse, and Venezuela could emerge from the crisis as a full-fledged dictatorship.

But that dictatorship scenario is a threat to Venezuelans rather than to the U.S. As many will recall, Washington got along just fine with dictators and strongmen in Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Peru - not to mention China and Washington's blooming friendship with communist Cuba. Or maybe I missed Washington's crack-down on Saudi Arabia for being a dictatorship, not permitting free speech or religious practice, and furiously repressing women, dissidents and religious minorities.

And, the Washington officials who denounce Venezuela should keep in mind that they are financing the behavior of Caracas, which still sells most of its oil to the U.S.

The Caracas Chronicles blog speculates that Venezuela could emerge as a base for Islamic terrorism - which is an absurd, wild-eyed scenario for a highly-Catholic nation still dependent on U.S. Or turn into a narco-state. But the U.S. has long co-existed with state-tolerated drug trafficking, and will continue losing the War on Drugs until it abandons failed prohibitionist policies.

On the other hand, Obama's declaration plays right into Venezuelan Pres. Nicolas Maduro's rantings about the U.S. conspiring to invade and overthrow him. After all, declaring a nation an 'extraordinary threat' sounds like a great justification for invasion.

Venezuelan Pres. Maduro didn't hesitate to exploit the new diplomatic crisis, which he called "the most aggressive, unjust and harmful blow against Venezuela." Maduro announced that he would introduce an enabling law into the National Assembly giving himself additional powers to deal with the situation. Those familiar with Venezuelan politics tknow that means more quasi-dictatorial powers for Maduro.

Disturbingly, Venezuela's Ambassador to the Organization of American States said during a television interview that a sharpshooter's bullet makes a different noise when passing thru the skull of a government opponent, because "the sound is much less, like a crack, because the cranium is hollow and the bullet passes thru rapidly."

A comforting comment for opponents in a supposedly democratic nation.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Obama, Romney and Colombia

U.S. Pres. and Democratic Party
candidate Barack Obama.

Which of the candidates to be president of the United States would be better for Colombia?

Historically, Colombians have usually hoped for Republican presidents in the White House, based on the belief that they'd provide more aid. In fact, in 2008 Colombia was one of the few nations where a majority of the people supported John McCain over Barack Obama.

Analysts interviewed by El Tiempo in today's paper generally agree that Obama's better for Colombia this time, mainly because of the government's incipient peace negotiations with the FARC guerrillas. That's in part because of the participation of the socialist states of Cuba and Venezuela in the negotiations. The Republicans have opposed many contacts with those countries' governments (except, of course, for buying lots of Venezuelan oil and selling it anything and everything it wants), so a Romney victory might cool the U.S.'s backing for the peace negotiations, which are to be held in Havana. This would be particularly true if a Romney administration, like Bush II, appointed anti-Castro Cuban emigres to high positions.

Republican Party presidential
candidates Mitt Romney.

On the other hand, Romney has promised to increase U.S. defense spending, which could translate to more military aid to Colombia. If the FARC believe that, it could serve as a stick telling the guerrillas to make concessions - or else. But it's questionable to what degree Romney would follow thru with these military increases, as with so many of his promises, in a time of budget austerity and when U.S. citizens are weary from two less-than-succesful overseas conflicts. And that's particularly true for Colombia, which has gotten almost no attention and is already considered a success story.

Another likely difference in a Romney administration would be its approach to the War on Drugs. While this hasn't been much of an issue during the campaign, it's safe to say that Republicans support prohibitionism, aggressive drug crop erradication and interdiction, while Democrats put more emphasis on treatment and less on imprisonment. Obama, who reportedly tried illegal drugs in his youth, has been disappointingly timid in many of his policies. But I harbor hopes that in a second term, when reelection is no longer an option, he'd be more daring. A recovering economy, too, would give him more manuevering room. So, perhaps, some degree of drug depenalization, as Pres. Santos has suggested, could become an option. As any reader of this blog knows, I believe that depenalization is worth trying, because it would take profits away from the violent groups which have done so much harm to Colombia and much of the rest of Latin America.

Romney has also said he'd open up more trade with Latin America. But it's difficult to see how he'd do this, since the Obama administration has already signed several free trade agreements, including one with Colombia. But Romney, a wealthy businessman who clearly favors big business interests, would likely pay less attention to human rights and environmental concerns.

Finally, there are also general issues which don't directly affect Colombia or Latin America, but for which the U.S. wields great influence. In protection of the environment, action against global warming and policies favoring the middle class, Obama is likely to do much better than Romney, it seems to me, and such policies in the U.S. will spread benefits to Latin America and the world.

And there's one more thing: Obama seems to be much more popular than Romney in Colombia and most of the rest of the world. That means something too, for relations with the world's superpower.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Amercas Summit Winners and Losers

Winner - Colombian Pres. Juan Manuel Santos: Altho he didn't succeed in achieving consensus for his ideas of reconsidering the War on Drugs, he did come off like a statesman, he got a wave of positive publicity for Colombia and reaffirmed relations with the United States, including setting a date for the (unfortunate) U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

Obama and Santos smile about the Free Trade Agreement on the cover of today's El Tiempo.

On the downside, Colombia's relations with Latin America's leftist governments, few of whom attended the summit, became more strained.

Otto Perez Molina.

Winner - Guatemalan Pres. Otto Perez Molina: This ex-military man heading a tiny, poor country put himself onto the global stage for 15 minutes at least by leading the push to reconsider prohibitionist drug policies. Pres. Santos has been the other prominent advocate for a reevaluation of how to deal with drug addiction and violence. Altho the U.S. rejected a change to anti-drug strategies, the issue was discussed for the first time in a major international forum, hopefully opening the gate to further debates. (Surprising, isn't it, that the calls for decriminalization are coming for conservative leaders?)

Broke Even - U.S. Pres. Barack Obama: He generated ill-will by nixing calls to reevaluate the War on Drugs and to allow Cuba to participate in meetings of heads of state. On the other hand, Obama beat the drums for economic growth and reducing poverty, which will play well at home, and buddied up with Pres. Santos. Obama also became a hero just by being the first Afro-American U.S. president in the mostly Afro-Colombian city of Cartagena. But the trip was marred, perhaps even overshadowed, by the Secret Service's drinking-and-prostitution scandal. 

Cristina Fernandez,
no closer to the Falklands.

Loser - Argentine Pres. Cristina Fernandez: She failed to get a consensus behind her drive to pressure England to negotiate the status of the Falkland Islands. Pres. Santos apparently 'forgot' to mention the issue in his closing speech. More likely, Colombia's relationships with the U.S., Canada and ex-British colonies in the Caribbean mattered more to him than Kirchner's futile quest. A miffed Kirchner left the summit early.

Secret Service men
guarding the Pope:
But what did they do
afterwards?

Loser - The U.S. Secret Service: Male members of this supposedly elite security team came off looking more like adolescents who couldn't hold their liquor or keep their pants on. Some of them may lose their jobs because they were caught dallying with prostitutes. Has the Secret Service considered hiring only female agents for its most sensitive positions?

Winner - Cartagena's prostitutes, who got a burst of unexpected publicity thanks to the Secret Service's antics.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Give Obama a Drug Policy Update

Obama in El Tiempo. 

"We're making progress, and we're not going to give up."


"We'll increase cooperation so that the drug cartels and narcotraffickers have no place to hide."


"The United States is not going to legalize or depenalize drugs, because doing so would have grave consequences for all of our nations, in terms of public health and security. What is more, legalizing or depenalizing drugs wouldn't eliminate the danger created by international organized crime." - Barack Obama in today's El Tiempo, but Richard Nixon might have said the same things 40 years of the War on Drugs ago.

In his huge front page interview in today's El Tiempo, U.S. Pres. Barack Obama sounds like he hasn't noticed this millenium - at least as far as the War on Drugs is concerned.

Many Latin Americans whose nations have been wracked by drug violence, including Colombian Pres. Juan Manuel Santos, hope that leaders will debate the U.S.-backed drug war's impacts during this weekend's Summit of the Americas in Cartagena. But Obama makes it clear that the U.S. won't permit any real experimentation on drug policy. Time magazine's Tim Padgett gives a good explanation of drug policy here.

If Obama thinks we've made progress in a global way on drugs, I wish he'd point out where. Sure, violence has dropped in Colombia, but it's soared in parts of Mexico and Central America; Cocaine consumption has declined in the United States - but it's increased in Europe and other regions; and the U.S. has been hit by epidemics of methamphetamines and other synthetic drugs.

Obama's comments supporting excluding Cuba from the summit make more sense. Cuba is a dictatorship which tramples basic human rights such as free speech, and the freedoms to travel and elect one's leaders. Giving it a seat at the table with democratically elected leaders would legitimize dictatorship and repression. On the other hand, trade with the hemisphere's last communist relic can benefit common Cubans and open the country to new ideas, as seems to be happening in China.

Obama is talking not only as U.S. president, but as a presidential candidate who knows he'd get slammed by Republicans if he dared to suggest a retreat in the War on Drugs. But, hopefully Obama will win a second term in November, and then be able to try more flexibility on failed drug policies. That's because, as cautious as Obama has been in this and other areas, Republican Mitt Romney would be far more closed to change. 

The Cartagena summit has generated a series of flattering news stories about Colombia larded with descriptions such as 'miracle' and 'rising' and 'reinvents itself.'

But, while there's truth in that, it's also true that Colombia still has an armed conflict going on, close to half of its population living in poverty and an unjustifiably high homicide rate.

Colombia has come a long way, but has a long way to go.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours