Chavez accuses Colombia of spy plane incursion

An unmanned spy plane launched from Colombia violated Venezuelan airspace last week, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Sunday.

The army has been ordered to shoot down any further incursions, he said on his weekly television and radio show. Chavez said the aircraft quickly disappeared after flying near a military base in the western state of Zulia, on the border with Colombia.

Tensions between Colombia and Venezuela have been high for months over accusations by both sides of attempts to destabilize each other.

Colombia has accused Chavez's government of aiding leftist guerrilla groups that fight in Colombia. Chavez, meanwhile, has strongly objected to an agreement between Colombia and the United States to allow American troops to train at Colombian bases.

Chavez did not say who is suspected of launching the spy plane, but he said that such planes are "technology of the empire," referring to the United States.

"We will not fall for provocations, but, of course, we are on alert," Chavez said.

Colombian and American authorities did not immediately respond to the allegation.

Colombia must understand that violence is counterproductive

In the late 1940's, when David Bushnell was a student, Colombia was seen in positive light, as a forward looking democracy in a continent where such regimes were not the norm. Yet, these years of tranquility would shortly come to a close and that image would suffer great damage with the Bogotazo, the infamous day in 1948 when the leading presidential candidate for the liberal party, Jorge Eliecer Gaitan, was assassinated. This event unleashed La Violencia, a prolonged period of political warfare that paralyzed and divided the country for more than 20 years. Yet, by that time, Bushnell had already decided to specialize in Colombia and its history. He wanted to identify the origins of Colombia's happiness, one which he hoped would soon return.

The peaceful times didn't return swiftly, but that did not stop Bushnell in his adventure, it only made it better. And after forty years of research and extended stays in the country, he published The making of Modern Colombia: a nation in spite of itself, a book that incorporated adaptations of previous works and lectures. The book is regarded by some as the best general history of the country ever written. Although it may seem odd that a foreigner was responsible for the best account of the nation's triumphs and woes, Bushnell simply states that "sometimes an outsider can identify particular characteristics or take note of things that the natives never talk about because they take for granted."

For him, Colombia's story is worth telling because there are some situations and experiences in which the country stands out and differs from other Latin American nations. He mentions two in particular: the history of elections and the lack of strong dictatorships. One of the most particular traits in Colombian history is the number and frequency of uninterrupted elections, which make it a great case study for anybody interested in elections. Also, Colombia was one of the very few countries in the region who lacked strong dictators. General Gustavo Rojas Pinilla, who ruled in the early 1950's is perhaps the closest example of an authoritarian leader and, as Bushnell states, "in many countries Rojas would not have been a dictator at all." He also highlights that although there have been exceptions, Colombia has held a strong political record that respects the idea of a constitutional republic prescribed by heroes of the independence like Santander and others.

Bushnell also talked about Colombia's present situation. Hesitant to state his position on the issue of re-election, a growing trend in the region, he simply states that "although I am not one of those who is horrified by the possibility of another Uribe term- I do not think Uribe is trying to make himself a bloody tyrant- I think a constitution should not be reformed very often, it is written for the long term.."

The recognized historian also stated that nations must learn from their past to have a more prosperous future. In Colombia's case, the country must liberate itself from the stigma that "Colombia is all about violence." In fact, if one carefully looks at the country's history one sees that the first half of the twentieth century was relatively peaceful and progressive, and he hopes these days will soon return. According to Bushnell, for this to occur, "Colombia must understand that violence is counterproductive, violence leads you nowhere.". He leaves us with an optimistic outlook because he truly believes that if violence is controlled, as he hopes it will be in the next five or ten years, Colombia can expect a peace dividend and may even forget about the political turmoil and violence that have marked its recent years.

Ecuador: Report Says U.S. Aided Attack on Rebels

A report by Ecuador's government said American military personnel stationed at an air base in Manta helped with intelligence to plan the 2008 attack by Colombian forces on an encampment of Colombian rebels in Ecuadorean territory. More details from the 130-page report related to the claim of American military involvement in the attack on the rebels — members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC — were not immediately available on Thursday. A spokeswoman at the United States Embassy in Ecuador could not be reached for comment.

The attack, which killed Raúl Reyes, the FARC’s second-in-command, and two dozen others, soured relations with Colombia and led to a purge of Ecuador’s military command by President Rafael Correa. Although Mr. Correa ended a military deal that had allowed American soldiers to be stationed in Manta because he felt it compromised Ecuador’s sovereignty, Ecuador’s relations with the United States remain better than those between the United States and Venezuela or Bolivia.

Uribe's Constitutional Challenge

The heroic Colombian president is putting his gains at risk by trying for a third term.

The difference between a modern republic of self-governance and the ersatz "democracy" of many underdeveloped countries is that the former is ruled by institutions, the latter by men.
So which does Colombian President Álvaro Uribe want for his country?

In a republic, institutional order is bound by a rule of law designed to protect the rights of individuals against each other and against the power of the state. Property rights, civil liberties and human progress all fare better when state actors, even those who are wildly popular, are constrained by institutional checks and balances.

For most of the past seven years Colombia has seemed to be inching ever closer to this higher ideal. Many aspects of daily life here have improved immensely since Mr. Uribe took office in August 2002. The rebirth of personal security and the professionalism of the military that is largely responsible for it are both products of Mr. Uribe's leadership.

So too is the improved investment climate, and the fact that the state oil company can now make use of private capital. The state telecom company has been partially privatized. Teachers unions have had to accept some limitations on their generous pensions. Colombia has signed and ratified a free-trade agreement with the U.S. (yet to be ratified in Washington) and has begun to look to Asia for new trade, tax and investment treaties.

Having watched their country climb out of what seemed like a bottomless pit of despair in 2002, Colombians have had reason to believe that they were leaving the Latin American world of caudillo government. But now there is concern that Mr. Uribe's efforts to hang onto power by altering the constitution, so that he can run in the May presidential election for a third term, will undermine the gains the nation has made and jeopardize future progress.

On most days Mr. Uribe maintains that he is only a bystander in the project to change the constitution; it is the people who are trying to recruit him. Yet there is at least a grain of truth to claims that he has fomented the amendment drive.

The issue might have died in Congress last December had not his interior minister revived it. "He should have worked to create a government that isn't just about him," one Colombian legal expert from Mr. Uribe's side of the aisle complained to me. Instead, "he allowed the re-election project to go forward" and now election year chaos looms.

The chaos is due to the fact that time is running out. The constitutional court, which must rule on whether a popular referendum on the third term can be held, will recess next week. That could push a decision to mid-January.

Even if the court rules in Mr. Uribe's favor, it is not clear that the referendum could be organized before the March deadline for candidates to declare their intention to run. If the referendum is held and Mr. Uribe loses, which is possible, given the participation-rate hurdle that he has to clear, an uribista candidate is going to have a late start at campaigning.

Because of this time line, supporters of Mr. Uribe's vision for the country say that his re-election bid puts the party's chances to win the May election at risk, while opening the door to a president who is too soft on national security. This is troubling given the current state of affairs.

Organized criminal networks financed by U.S. and European drug consumption remain a threat to the Colombian population. One of those is the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), which has an alliance with Venezuela's Hugo Chávez.

Mr. Chávez's military threats are not taken seriously here because the Venezuelan forces are known to be in shambles. But there is concern about Mr. Chávez's informal destabilization efforts. His militias roam the border area, and he has closed the busy crossing at the city of Cúcuta. Speculation that organized crime may be infiltrating the Colombian judiciary cannot be easily dismissed either.

Many of Mr. Uribe's cohorts say that Colombia would benefit most with a new uribista government to tackle these problems and continue with economic liberalization. Third terms, they point out, are notoriously tired. They also worry that he is setting a precedent that will harm the country later on. If he can stick around endlessly, what's to stop a Chávez-like figure from doing the same some time down the road?

Most importantly, they argue that a modernizing Colombia requires leadership that defends the rule of law, not one that manipulates it when convenient. "We believe that Colombian law should apply," Luis Carlos Villegas, president of the Colombian business group known as the National Association of Industries (and a longtime supporter of Mr. Uribe) said in a media interview earlier this year.

"We don't deny that Uribe has been one of the best presidents in Colombia," he said. But he went on to add that there are "dozens" of Colombians who are qualified for the job.

There can be no doubt that Mr. Uribe loves his country. What better way to show it than to stand for the rule of law by stepping aside as it demands?