Venezuela-Colombia: the issue of independent investigators

So one of the central demands of the Colombian government seems to be allowing some manner of international observation, including journalists, to investigate the alleged FARC sites.  On its face this certainly seems justifiable; rather than jumping to direct action, Colombia wants to have the issue settled impartially in an international body and through international mechanisms.  This would also seemingly give Venezuela a chance to save face, to demonstrate objectively and unequivocally to the world that it has no part in the housing or training of terrorists.

However, from the perspective of the Venezuelan government, there are a few sticking points:

1) The government would not be totally unjustified in claiming that they have not gotten the fairest treatment in the past from supposedly "impartial" or "objective" observers.  One of the most "damning" pieces of evidence used in arguments against the Venezuelan government under Chávez's leadership has been the highly negative report issued by Human Rights Watch, a supposedly apolitical and objective group.  However, many (my favorite being this letter from a group of over 100 Latin American scholars) have noted that HRW's country reports tend to be tremendously skewed towards exaggerating the abuses seen in countries antagonistic to the US, while downplaying abuses in US-aligned nationals (Colombia, actually, being a prime example).  Venezuela hasn't had any more luck dealing with "objective" international media, the record of which is so long and tortured that I really don't want to bother recounting it here, although I'll point people to the long list of examples noted by FAIR over the years, especially in relation to Venezuela's economic record and allegations of terrorism (I'd be happy to post some links from other writers/organizations if there seems to be an interest).

2) The US military bases in Colombia.  This line has already been argued by the government, who claim that they will allow observers into Venezuelan territory as soon as Colombia and the US consent to investigations into the activities being undertaken in the US bases.  I think whether or not you buy this argument comes down to how much you distrust the US military, and for me, obviously, that's quite a bit - I find it rather hard to buy that Colombia, which already receives quite a lot of military aid every year from the US, ostensibly to fight drug trafficking, would need seven US bases to fight the cartels, no matter how well-armed they might be (this is also assuming, of course, that the US isn't seeking to directly involve itself in Colombia's civil war). But in addition to this, one can think of the issue as such: the most generous interpretation of the central issue in the conflict is of the mutual distrust between the two neighbors in relation to bases (alleged or documented) inside the other's borders.  It is not totally illegitimate for Venezuela, if it is to consent to an international group undertaking security observations that are the sovereign duty of the Venezuelan government, to demand a reciprocal action on the part of Colombia for the sakes of good faith and fairness.

3) This sort of leads to another point: why immediately jump to the step of calling for international investigation?  I can see how this would seem somewhat insulting to the Venezuelan government, as if it is some rogue state that by default cannot be trusted to responsibly handle its own investigations of such allegations.  The imbalance in calling for international intervention in these still rather unsubstantiated allegations versus the lack of any such calls for the actions of the Colombian military calls to mind, for instance, the calls for international monitoring of Iranian nuclear programs while no such calls are made for monitoring of Israeli programs.  What does the criteria for trustworthiness seem to be, if not alliance with the United States?  Colombia, like Israel, has taken well-documented actions seen by many or all of its neighbors as extremely threatening, without any requirement to open up those activities to international observation, while Venezuela and Iran are forced to open themselves at the emergence of any allegations, regardless of how tenuous or justified they are.  If anything, the analogy does a disservice to Venezuela, whose government has shown itself to be nowhere near as repressive and unaccountable to its people as Iran (this is true regardless of what your opinion of Venezuela and Chávez might be), with the common thread between the two being mostly a flamboyant and confrontational diplomatic disposition towards the United States and its affiliated international institutions.

4) And, most simply, the current accusations against Venezuela are the same as those that have been levied against it, mainly by Colombia and the US, since Chávez took power, and they are no more concretely substantiated than they were in 2008, or any time before. I want to go into this one in a bit more depth, so I'll hold off on it for its own post.

The reasons I bring these issues up is less to defend the actions of the Venezuelan government - for I personally think they'd be better served by swallowing their pride and showing beyond a doubt that their hands are clean - and more to point out my disgust with this general political tactic that is so widely used by the US and its allied governments.  The tactic totally hinges on playing to the innate credibility (or one that is so heavily drilled into people that it seems this way) of Western governments and organizations, and the "rogue" status of any opposed government, whether they truly are reprehensible repressive regimes like that of Iran or flawed, yet on the whole democratic and responsible governments like in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia.  Such international monitoring is thoroughly political in both its invocation and execution, and I wish better mechanisms of this sort existed because they could serve genuinely good, peaceful purposes.  I think I could die a happy man if the day ever came that the US would consent to international observation of any of its internal actions by a Latin American body, but I certainly won't hold my breath for it.