Realism + Liberalism + Constructivism = ?

Raul Reyes is dead; the Colombian Army killed him in Ecuadorian territory. Unbelievable. He was the second most important guerrilla leader in Colombia. Many argued his death proved the success of President Alvaro Uribe’s “Seguridad Democrática” (democratic security) policy, which aims at attacking and weakening guerrilla groups through military action. The Colombian Ministry of Defense was proud of its “achievement.” Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa congratulated the Colombian government. Next day it was the other way around. Critics in Colombia argued the operation had been a complete failure, the Ecuadorian government said Colombia had disrespected their national sovereignty, and Chavez threatened to send ten military units to the border, which he eventually did.

It was an intense week. All I heard during those days were IR terms. “Client states,” “complex interdependence,” “balancing,” “counterbalancing,” “terrorism,” “transnational actors,” “international organizations,” words related to realism, liberalism and constructivism.
I think these ideologies are frameworks in whose light one attempts to explain certain events and phenomena. Perhaps, the best analyses are made when combining elements of these three theories. The Colombia-Ecuador-Venezuela-Nicaragua complex demonstrates this.

Many argue that the impasse, which originally involved Ecuador and Colombia, escalated due to Chavez’s involvement in an attempt to balance US’s power in the region. Being Colombia a client state of the United States and its only strong ally in a leftist Latin America, Venezuela tried to undermine US influence in the region by attacking Colombia. This would be part of a strategy approved by the Venezuelan Congress under “Plan de la Nación 2007-20013.” The second chapter in this plan expresses Venezuela’s intentions of “strengthening national sovereignty through the creation of a regional geopolitical block and a multipolar world.” This plan aims at creating “alternate movements” in the region and counter balancing the US. However, this realist explanation leaves aside one of the most important elements of the crisis: terrorism. The crisis started because of Colombia’s bombing of a FARC camp in Ecuador. The FARC guerrillas, which used to be a domestic problem, became a transnational one beginning in the 80’s when, due to drug trafficking, they began to extend their influence to the neighboring countries. The Colombian government claims that FARC know has political support from the Ecuadorean and Venezuelan governments. President Uribe argues these countries shelter FARC guerrillas and local political figures have forged alliances with FARC. It seems Chavez is using guerrilla groups to weaken the Colombian government and thus counter balance the US. This is an interesting combination of realist strategies and constructivist elements, such as non-state actors and terrorism. However, this does not help us understand how and why the crisis was “solved.”

Liberal institutionalism and interdependence are useful in explaining this crisis’ solution. It was the Organization of American States which released tensions after Colombia’s violation of Ecuadorean sovereignty, and it is currently investigating it. Moreover, the crisis was “officially solved” in the Dominican Republic during the Rio Group meeting thanks to the mediation of several countries in the region. However, I believe international institutions only demonstrate how the conflict was solved, not why. I think the reason why all countries gave in is that Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela have strong commercial ties and a rupture of diplomatic and commercial relations would bring catastrophic economic consequences. Colombia is Venezuela’s largest trading partner and (the first being the US) and during the crisis, at least six billion dollars were at stake. Moreover, Colombia trades two billion dollars with Ecuador, which depends on Colombia for electricity.

Due to its complex nature, the crisis between Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Nicaragua cannot be effectively viewed from the standpoint of only one of these theories. Realism + Liberalism + Constructivism = compelling explanations.