|
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| Thank you Chairman Engel and Ranking Member Burton. I want to commend you both on the decision to hold this timely and important hearing about the recent border dispute between Colombia and Ecuador and what—if anything—the intelligence collected during the raid teaches us about the links between the government of Venezuela and the FARC. Mr. Chairman, Colombia and Venezuela present a study in contrasts. In Colombia, the trend lines are decidedly positive. The government in Bogotá is not perfect. No government is. But we should not allow the few points of disagreement that we might have with the Colombian government to obscure the remarkable progress that nation has made in recent years. When President Uribe took office in 2002, Colombia was on the verge of becoming a failed narco-state. A weak government had allowed the drug trade to prosper. Drug income, in turn, fueled the rise of illegal armies, including the FARC, which has been responsible for the murder of countless innocents, including President Uribe’s father. Killings, kidnappings and other human rights violations made Colombia one of the most dangerous places on earth. Mr. Chairman, it had long been assumed that Colombia’s difficult geography and highly dispersed population made the country impossible to govern. President Uribe’s two terms in office are an emphatic refutation of that argument. With the overwhelming support of the Colombian people, who were tired of living in fear, President Uribe has expanded and professionalized the country’s security forces and pursued a policy of forcefully confronting the guerrillas, whose murderous and plundering ways belie any notion that they are fighting for social justice. As a result, violence has steadily declined and the economy has prospered. Simply stated, because of President Uribe’s brave and steady leadership, Colombia has been brought back from the brink. Therefore, I confess that I do not understand those who question whether the United States should stand strong with President Uribe or who choose to focus on the few inevitable points of disagreement between our two governments rather than the many points of agreement. I, for one, will continue to cast my lot with President Uribe and the increasingly hopeful people of Colombia. Mr. Chairman, on the other, darker end of the spectrum lies Venezuela, where the trend lines are decidedly negative. We are constantly told by experts on the region—both real and self-proclaimed—to resist the temptation to pigeonhole President Chávez or to reduce him to a caricature. I am sensitive to this point. Political leaders are rarely all good or all bad; they usually bring a bit of both elements to the table. I also readily acknowledge that President Chávez was elected in 1998 by a populace that was justifiably unhappy with the existing political and social order in Venezuela. Nonetheless, after ten years in power, it is difficult to identify any positive aspect of President Chávez’s rule. President Chávez has centralized power, militarized politics, restricted legitimate forms of dissent, strengthened relationships with countries like Iran, and—despite record oil profits—adopted economic policies that appear to be driving Venezuela into the ground. In addition, not only has President Chávez long spoken out in defense of the FARC, but the recent intelligence windfall that resulted from the raid by Colombian forces suggests that his support for that terrorist organization may have been financial and operational, not merely rhetorical. If these initial reports are confirmed, this is a dangerous development indeed. As you know, Mr. Chairman, a number of members of this Committee have co-sponsored a resolution urging the U.S. government to designate Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism. I have chosen to await a full review of Raúl Reyes’ computer and the other intelligence obtained from the operation. But I will follow the evidence where it leads, and I commend my colleagues who co-sponsored this resolution for shining a spotlight on a deeply troubling situation that many would prefer to keep in the dark. Finally, there is Ecuador, where the trend lines strike me as somewhat mixed. I hope the panelists devote some time to Ecuador, which is too often relegated to the backburner in discussions about the Andean region. Beyond the question of whether Ecuador has knowingly allowed the FARC to take refuge in its territory, I would ask the panelists to address the broader relationship between Washington and Quito, as well as any points of leverage that the United States might have with President Correa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. (####) |
||||||||||
| |
Press Release List | |