Obama and Uribe, the Odd Couple

By Michael Shifter
El Tiempo (Colombia), November 14, 2008

Barack Obama and Álvaro Uribe will overlap as presidents for at least 19 months. Their temperaments and outlooks on the world differ sharply, making it unlikely they will replicate the chemistry between George Bush and Uribe or between Bill Clinton and Andrés Pastrana. The depths of Colombia’s crisis in the late 1990s and the attacks on US soil on September 11, 2001 helped bring those leaders together, but such defining moments are lacking today. Nevertheless, Obama and Uribe could well get along better than many observers expect.

Both are quintessentially pragmatic politicians inclined to find common ground and reach deals on the US-Colombia bilateral agenda. They learned politics in the roughest training grounds the US and Colombia can offer – Obama in the Chicago political machine and Uribe on the streets of Medellín. Anyone who doubts Obama’s toughness should read up on how he managed to rise to the top of the legendarily competitive Chicago political scene. Aside from the poor US economy, this willingness to deal firmly with those who stand in his way is the principal reason he won the presidency. In the primary and general election, Obama responded quickly and forcefully to any doubt raised about him, showing voters he had, in the words of his running mate Joe Biden, “steel in his spine.”

Obama is far from a dove on national security questions, as revealed by his strong expression of support for the Colombian raid against the FARC camp in Ecuadoran territory on March 1. Though a sharp critic of the current Iraq strategy, Obama has advocated relocating US forces to Afghanistan and pursuing Al Qaeda in Pakistani territory, if necessary. He has also repeatedly said that it is “unacceptable” for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. While Obama offered to sit down with Hugo Chávez, his sharp criticism of the Venezuelan president and insistence that the US overcome its dependence on Venezuelan oil may make friendly relations difficult.

Obama’s toughness on national security augurs well for continued support for Colombia to deal with violence and drug trafficking. Of course, as it has been over eight years since Plan Colombia began, assistance is bound to wind down. That trend could be accelerated in light of the grave economic situation and growing budget pressures. But these reductions in levels of aid were probably inevitable, regardless of who won the election.

Trade and human rights are likely to put the greatest strain in the relationship between Obama and Uribe. Colombians rightly argue that the security situation has notably improved during the Uribe administration and that the US should recognize such progress in a key ally. Without backing down on his stand opposing the current free trade deal between the US and Colombia, Obama has shown he will listen sympathetically to Uribe’s arguments. After all, Obama did support the agreement with Peru. To make the agreement palatable on the US side in this difficult economic climate, Obama will need to uphold his pledge to provide universal heath care and a stronger safety net for American workers.

Human rights are of course a critical sticking point. Violence against union members has fallen in Colombia, but Democrats in Congress have demanded further progress. Though previously a constitutional law professor, Obama will hopefully resist lecturing Colombians on the importance of human rights. Instead, he will likely seek a compromise with Uribe that would make his support for the trade agreement contingent on Colombia reducing the deaths of labor union members and prosecuting those responsible for past crimes. Obama’s eagerness to close the US facility in Guantanamo signals his administration will not take such human rights abuses lightly.

Uribe came to office with his country confronting a security crisis.  Obama, too, faces unprecedented crises, not only two foreign wars but a financial meltdown and economic downturn at home. While responding to these challenges, the United States must also recognize its many responsibilities on the global stage. Turning inward is not an option.  And neither is turning away from longstanding friends.