I believe it's time I weigh in on the dispute between Colombia and Venezuela regarding the kidnapping of FARC political representative Rodrigo Granda in Venezuela by bounty hunter hired by the Colombian government. James Petras gives a good summation of the crisis.
A major diplomatic and political conflict has exploded between Colombia and Venezuela after the revelation of a Colombian government covert operation in Venezuela, involving the recruitment of Venezuelan military and security officers in the kidnapping of a Colombian leftist leader.
Following an investigation by the Venezuelan Ministry of Interior and reports and testimony from journalists and other knowledgeable political observers it was determined that the highest echelons of the Colombian government, including President Uribe, planned and executed this onslaught on Venezuelan sovereignty.
Once direct Colombian involvement was established, the Venezuelan government demanded a public apology from the Colombian government while seeking a diplomatic solution by blaming Colombian Presidential advisers. The Colombian regime took the offensive, launching an aggressive defense of its involvement in the violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and, beyond that, seeking to establish in advance, under the rationale of "national security" the legitimacy of future acts of aggression. As a result President Chavez has recalled the Venezuelan Ambassador from Bogota, suspended all state-to-state commercial and political agreements pending an official state apology. In response the US Government gave unconditional support to Colombian violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and urged the Uribe regime to push the conflict further. What began as a diplomatic conflict over a specific incident has turned into a major, defining crises in US and Latin American political relations with potentially explosive military, economic and political consequences for the entire region.
Meanwhile this is how the Washington Post's reporter Marcela Sanchez saw the crisis on the 20th of January.
Granda was arrested by Colombian police in the border town of Cucuta, Colombia, after Venezuelan authorities seized him in Caracas and handed him over. What might have been celebrated at the time as a victory for international law enforcement cooperation took a nasty turn when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez claimed that Colombia had "bribed'' Venezuelan officials to kidnap Granda. Decrying this violation of Venezuela's sovereignty, Chavez withdrew his ambassador from Bogota, ordered the suspension of trade deals with Colombia and demanded an apology from Uribe.
Of course, being from the Post she got it wrong. Uribe has already admitted the "bribe" and it does appear there was involvement by members of paid off members of the Venezuelan army. Moreover, calling the incident a "victory for international law enforcement is bizarre. Hiring members of the Venezuelan army to act as bounty hunters without any consultation with the Venezuelan authorities nor any international legal body can only be termed a victory for international law by those truly clueless. Sanchez also typically blames Chavez for the turning the incident into a crisis.
But it was Chavez who -- a month later-- heightened the situation into a crisis . Perhaps it was an attempt to please his political base and garner some kind of solidarity from an international community more and more sensitive about issues of sovereignty. But his belated reaction did more to highlight his unpredictability than to convince anyone he suddenly had become an advocate for international law.
Calling the reaction belated is reprehensible. For weeks after the December 15th capture, the Colombian government constantly peddled the lie that “The Police acted fully within their rights in capturing a Colombian citizen in Colombian territory.” The Venezuela authorities continued to investigate the case and the Colombian government's claims that they did not violate Venezuela were vividly exposed for the lies that they were. Of course in Sanchez's deluded perspective it was Chavez who instigated the crisis. I suppose she prefers reckless unsubstantiated allegations and bald faced lies to proper investigation. (Hit the link for a good accounting of the events of the crisis)
That said I don't see this as a black and white issue, especially as the Bushies produce more terrorists everyday with their reckless and incompetent policies. Those who are supporting Chavez on this issue point to the clear violation of sovereignty by Colombia and how Uribe is following in Bush's path by proclaiming "the right of unilateral intervention in any country in which the Colombian government perceives or claims is harboring or providing refuge to political adversaries (which the regime labels as "terrorists") which might threaten the security of the state."
Chavez has even claimed that the U.S. was involved, though the evidence of a direct involvement is sketchy.
Thousands of demonstrators backed President Hugo Chavez, who on Sunday accused US and Colombian officials of provoking a diplomatic crisis between the Caribbean neighbours.
"I know where this provocation comes from: from Washington, not from Bogota!" Chavez said before a crowd of cheering supporters.
However, before discussing the legalities of the action it is important to establish who Granda is and what are his 'terrorist' connections. Today there is an AP article out on Granda. Among the things we learn about him:
- "he has hobnobbed for years at conferences with prominent Latin American leftists, including at least one former president..."
- "Days before bounty hunters - purported to be moonlighting Venezuelan soldiers - snatched him off a Caracas street, bundled him into the trunk of a car and handed him over to Colombian authorities at the border for a reward, Granda attended a conference of Latin American leftists in Venezuela. There, he even met with a member of Venezuela's Congress. [who did not know whom Granda was representing]"
- "Tomas Borge, who was Nicaragua's interior minister during the 1979-1990 rule of the leftist Sandinista government, said he and former Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega both know Granda. Borge stressed in an interview with AP that they knew Granda as a political representative, not as a combatant, of the FARC."
- "Miguel Gonzalez, Granda's attorney, said Granda was an organizer for the leftist Patriot Union party in Colombia in the 1980s before fleeing the country amid death threats. The party's leaders, including two presidential candidates, were assassinated by right-wing death squads during that period."
- "Granda lived in several countries and spent the last couple of years in Venezuela, Gonzalez said. His job was to foster "diplomatic-political relations with friendly governments and political organizations," the FARC said."
The Colombian government obviously points to a more sinister side of Granda. A report from five years ago by the Colombian police claims:
"Granda and another rebel arranged in Mexico for other FARC representatives to meet with the Tijuana cartel, headed by the Arellano Felix brothers. The FARC wound up selling cocaine to the cartel in exchange for guns and money, according to Mexican authorities."
But the Mexican government today denies this and there is certainly no reason to suspect they would lie to protect Chavez on this issue
"Mexican Deputy Attorney General Jose Luis Santiago Vasconcelos, who investigates organized crime, told AP he has no information that Granda played such a role."
Colombia also claims Granda was involved in a deal "allegedly brokered by former Peruvian spymaster Vladimiro Montesinos for the sale of 10,000 assault rifles to the FARC in 1999" though no evidence was offered. In that it involves an egregious violation of sovereignty, Colombia's case looks weak.
Any issue involving the Chavez government inevitably produces polar responses which often fail to consider the merits of the other side's argument. And invariably we get incoherent rants like that of Carlos Alberto Montaner who sees the whole situation as an indication - if you can believe it - of Chavez's desire to go to war with Colombia AND Chile. In this case, I haven't seen nearly enough evidence that Granda was anything more than a political representative (not a combatant) of FARC to justify Uribe's clearly illegal and unscrupulous action. But if we would assume that Granda was, in fact, directly implicated in illegal activities such as drug and arms trafficking with cartels in Mexico, then would Colombia be right in offering money for his capture regardless of which country he was in? This is not a simple question to answer.
If it is difficult to contemplate such a situation for those who are avid Chavez supporters, then try to imagine the following scenario. An opponent of the Chavez regime who is wanted for terrorist attacks within Venezuela that resulted in many deaths is apprehended in Mexico by bounty hunters hired by Chavez's government and brought to Venezuela for a trial (without, of course, the knowledge of the Mexican government). Would the Venezuelan authorities be justified in doing so? And could we carry this further and conclude then if the proof of the Colombian government were more extensive and the legal system in Colombia could be counted upon to give Granda a fair hearing, one would be forced to accept Uribe's actions as legitimate?
No. And here's why.
Although Granda was not wanted by Interpol, the U.S. State Department demanded an explanation from Venezuelan President Chavez as to why he permitted a high-level official of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) to move freely within Venezuelan territory and to obtain a passport. According to Venezuelan officials, a request for criminal records to Interpol prior to issuing him Venezuelan citizenship turned out negative. Colombia had never requested Granda's detention. The guerrilla activist had entered Venezuela in several opportunities before Hugo Chavez came to power, traveled more than 200 times outside of Colombia -according to Colombian authorities-, and had lived in several Latin American countries.
After Bush's disastrous, bloody and illegal escapades in Iraq and with the potential for more and more terrorists running amuck it has never been more necessary for states to respect international law and sovereignty. In an age when weapons of incredible destructive power exist throughout the world and the terrorism problem only seems to get worse with every Bush misstep, we can not risk nations going to war over such issues nor inflaming more embittered victims to join the terrorist ranks. There is a procedure that Colombia could have undertaken if it were serious about respecting international law while dealing with it internal security problems
Present your case first and get him on the Interpol list if you believe your evidence is so strong. Request assistance from the nation that is supposedly harbouring the alleged criminal even if a negative response is anticipated. And be consistent. If it a figure who has freely traveled for many years throughout the region including in the country of question under previous governments then you had better damn well follow proper legal procedures and explain how this clear violation of sovereignty is necessary now.
The world needs no more cowboys.
Comments