On November 19, Bloomberg News released an interview with Colombian Foreign Minister Rosa Villavicencio.
The interview contains not a single sentence that is tenable from a human rights perspective. The interview’s claims are so untenable from an international law and human rights standpoint that the Foreign Ministry felt compelled to issue a statement asserting that the published material “does not correspond to what the Foreign Minister expressed” and that it was “information taken out of context.” Bloomberg responded by publishing the full audio of the interview, leaving no room for doubt, as there was no manipulation or editing of the Foreign Minister’s statements. The following analysis is based not on the published English text but on the original Spanish audio subsequently released by Bloomberg. Let’s examine it…
The reporter asked: “If there were a plan that would guarantee Maduro a transition without him in power, do you think President Maduro should consider it?” To which the Foreign Minister responded, “Yes, I believe he has indeed considered it, that there could be a way out, a transition where he can leave without having to go to jail, and that someone else can come in to carry out that transition and that there can be legitimate elections, with a transparent process. That would be the healthiest thing. That’s what we’re saying and what’s being proposed to him. I think Maduro would be inclined to accept.” At this point, the journalist interrupted her to confirm what she said (it’s impossible that it was taken out of context when the intention was to reaffirm what was said). “Would he be inclined to accept it?” the reporter asked, and Villavicencio reiterated, “I think he would accept that proposal.”
The first thing that stands out is the Foreign Minister’s reaction to a scenario of “transition without him [Maduro] in power.” The problem isn’t whether Maduro has considered it or not, but that a country like Colombia is considering this scenario in the way the Foreign Minister did, suggesting “that someone else come in to carry out that transition.” Who would this “someone” be in the abstract? A Maduro supporter? A pseudo-opposition figure who enjoys the approval of the de facto government? Venezuela doesn’t need an abstract “someone” when the population already expressed itself massively and decisively in the presidential election of July 28, 2024.
A second alarming element is Colombia’s insistence, now through its foreign minister, on proposing “elections that are legitimate, with a transparent process.” It’s impossible to imagine that the adjectives used by the foreign minister were taken out of context by Bloomberg. Her words are on record. One must ask: what part of the July 2024 presidential election was illegitimate? The only lack of transparency in that electoral process came from the National Electoral Council, which proclaimed a candidate the winner without having made the election results public to this day. The lack of transparency was compounded by the systematic persecution of election observers and volunteers in Edmundo González’s campaign, many of whom remain imprisoned, in hiding, in exile, disappeared, or murdered with impunity. According to Villavicencio, a new election “would be the healthiest option.” Healthiest option for whom? It is anything but healthy to repeat an election under conditions of absolute disadvantage for a population that staked everything on a democratic solution and now finds its entire electoral verification structure destroyed and persecuted.
Thirdly, it is worrying that the foreign minister is suggesting the possibility of an agreement with Maduro “where he can leave without having to go to jail.” No authority of any other country has the right or the power to offer impunity to a person accused of massive human rights violations, participation in crimes against humanity, and the theft of a presidential election. It is unacceptable that a country that boasts of having the most complete transitional justice system on the planet should suggest the path of impunity to its neighbor.
Finally, Villavicencio stated that a foreign intervention “could trigger a humanitarian crisis that would be very difficult to manage.” In this way, the intention is to continue attributing responsibility for the Venezuelan migration crisis to external factors, such as sanctions and now a possible intervention. The first thing to clarify in this regard is that Venezuela has been under the control of foreign agents for decades. Chávez opened the doors to the intelligence agencies of Cuba and Iran, which remain in the country to this day. Chávez first, and now Maduro, fought against Yankee imperialism, but only to replace it with Chinese and Russian imperialism, to whom significant portions of the country’s wealth have been handed over. The nearly eight million Venezuelans abroad seek international protection due to political persecution and a humanitarian emergency that stems from deliberate policies, not from a catastrophic situation beyond the control of those in power.
In a statement seeking to clarify Villavicencio’s remarks, the Foreign Ministry affirms that “The Colombian government respects international law and does not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries and respects the sovereignty of our sister nation of Venezuela.” Mediation is not interference. It is a valuable diplomatic practice for facilitating the peaceful resolution of conflicts and should be welcomed, especially when other international actors promote solutions through the threat of force. However, when mediation attempts to disregard international principles of respect for human rights and the will of a sovereign people, it becomes interference. No mediation can be conducted behind the backs of the aspirations for justice of a persecuted and oppressed people. The entire democratic international community must understand this.