VENEZUELA AND THE QUESTION OF TERRORISM
Venezuela’s record clearly
shows that it is a country that neither tolerates nor supports terrorism. However, since 2006, the U.S. State
Department has certified Venezuela as “not cooperating fully” with anti-terror
efforts. Annual reports have
re-certified the country as such, but a lack of evidence to support that
designation would indicate that it reflects nothing more than the political
aims of the current U.S. administration.
Additionally, in important
ways, Venezuela’s own efforts to combat terrorism have faced obstacles due to
U.S. policy. Two examples are an
embargo on sales of U.S. military equipment needed for policing and border
patrol, and the failure of the U.S. to comply with extradition treaties that
would allow Venezuela to prosecute known terrorists.
THE CONTEXT OF THE CURRENT CLAIMS
Venezuela shares a
1,500-mile long border with Colombia, a country that has for several decades
been the site an armed conflict that has greatly impacted the Western Hemisphere. Since the late 1990s, the U.S. has played a
role by providing training and funding to the Colombian armed forces in their
increasingly militarized struggle against guerrilla groups. Venezuela has maintained strong relations
with Colombia, and in 2007 was asked by government officials to negotiate a
humanitarian hostage-for-prisoner swap.
Months later, Colombia’s
President Uribe abruptly curtailed that humanitarian process accused Venezuela
of aiding the guerrillas. Laptops
allegedly showing evidence of monetary contributions to the guerrillas was
produced by the Colombian military.
Officials say the laptops were acquired in a controversial attack on a
FARC camp in Ecuador, a deadly invasion on March 1, 2008 that killed two dozen,
including the rebel hostage negotiator.
Many experts and observers have since questioned the veracity and origin
of their contents.[1]
In fact, in an open letter
to the U.S. media,[2] two dozen specialists on Latin American cited
“significant problems of inconsistency” between the documents and the
statements of Colombian officials, and concluded that the Colombian government
“has substantially exaggerated their contents, perhaps for political purposes.”[3] For its
part, the Venezuelan government has reviewed and rejected the alleged
evidence. President Chávez called the
allegations “ridiculous,” lamenting that "the government of Colombia is
capable of provoking a war with Venezuela to justify a US intervention in
Venezuela."[4]
However, in the U.S., the
contents of the laptops have been strategically released to the press to build
a case against Venezuela. INTERPOL’S
forensic examination of the laptops (released May 15th) found no evidence that
they had been altered after March 1st, but was unable to determine their
accuracy or source.[5] Media
accounts have nonetheless taken the Colombian officials at their word, while
assigning guilt to Venezuela despite a lack of proof.
OAS Secretary General José
Miguel Insulza testified before Congress in early April about the findings of a
special mission to investigate the Colombia claims. He stated: “does Venezuela support terrorist groups? I don't
think so. …. There is no evidence, and
no member country, including this one [the U.S.] has offered the OAS such
proof.”[6]
A COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE POLICY FOR THE U.S.
Based on the
allegations by Colombia, Republican representatives in the U.S. Congress have
proposed legislation hostile toward Venezuela, including a “state sponsor of
terrorism” designation. House
Resolution 1049 was put forth
by Connie Mack (R-FL) and the right-wing Cuban-American Congressional Members
of Florida on March 13, 2008.
Despite their campaign to
push the State Department to add Venezuela to its list of state sponsors of
terrorism, the resolution has failed to win favor among lawmakers. A report by the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee calls it “counterproductive,” and “strongly cautions that
policymakers must be wary of the implications of poorly thought-out sanctions
which might isolate the United States.''[7]
Similarly, analysts and
experts on Latin America have pointed out the negative political consequences
that the “state sponsor of terror” label would bring. Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington, DC
commented that sanctioning Venezuela “would be self-defeating” for the
U.S. He added that “it might give
Chávez a boost… and it would risk a further jump in oil prices.”[8] Adam Isacson
of the Center for International Policy said, "There is not even consensus
among the Republicans that it would be helpful. Also, having to get a special license for all Venezuelan oil
sales to the U.S. would throw the fuel market in a bit of turmoil."[9]
Certainly, the economic
repercussions that a “state sponsor of terror” designation for Venezuela would
have are enormous. Venezuela is the
second-largest trading partner of the U.S. in the hemisphere, and the
twelfth-largest in the world. Bilateral
trade between the countries has grown in recent years to exceed $50 billion in
2007. American sales to Venezuela rose
by 40 percent in 2006, and another 13 percent in 2007.[10] Trade
between Venezuela and other Latin American countries could also be threatened
by U.S. sanctions. The economies of
Colombia and Venezuela are particularly intertwined; bilateral trade totaled about
$6 billion in 2007.[11]
The Ambassador of Venezuela
to the U.S., Bernardo Alvarez, has explained: "There will be very grave
economic consequences if a politically driven measure like this is taken. Just
think about the $10.2 billion lost U.S. exports to Venezuela, 230,000
manufacturing jobs tied to exports and 1.58 million barrels of oil a day from
Venezuela …. Any action like this would
have economic and political consequences, not only for the U.S.-Venezuela relationship
as a whole, but also within the region. This would be seen as an effort to
breed instability in the region.”
VENEZUELA’S WORK FOR PEACE
Venezuela has proven itself
to be a worthy ally in the hemispheric search for true security and a strong
voice for peace and international cooperation. Initiatives such as the
humanitarian mediation to free hostages in Colombia have made Venezuela a voice
for positive change in the region.
Not only has Venezuela stood
up for peace and prosperity, it has also maintained a well-defined policy of
opposing terrorism in all its forms.
This fact should not surprise the international community, for Venezuela
has signed ten multilateral agreements and conventions guarding against
terrorism – eight under the United Nations framework, and two under the Organization
of American States. One of them is the
Inter-American Convention Against Terrorism, which the U.S. has hesitated to
sign.[12]
The government of Venezuela
has a no tolerance policy on terrorism, which it has demonstrated under the
administration of President Hugo Chávez by detaining and prosecuting or
extraditing offenders according to law.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has presented obstacles to the country’s
counter-terror efforts by refusing sales of military equipment and failing to
respect extradition requests. A case in
point is that of Luis Posada Carriles, who is wanted in Venezuela for numerous
acts of terrorism including the deadly bombing of an airliner that killed all
73 people aboard.[13] Three years
have passed since Venezuela first requested the extradition of Posada Carriles,
but U.S. officials remain unresponsive, instead allowing the man to live freely
in the state of Florida.[14] This
flagrant violation of international extradition treaties would appear to be
contradictory with the goals of the U.S. war on terror.[15]