The latest report by the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (FFM), presented this week to the Human Rights Council, once again raises alarms regarding structural violence in the country. This new document offers an in-depth study of the “colectivos”—paramilitary structures that remain fully active following the U.S. armed incursion of January 3. Far from disbanding, these groups coexist with the state apparatus, maintaining a dynamic of social and territorial control; consequently, the Mission characterizes them as a “de facto actor within the state repressive apparatus.”
The FFM holds that it “has reasonable grounds to believe there was a strategic delegation of repressive functions and logistical coordination between these groups and security forces, within a context of impunity,” noting that this is a long-standing relationship. It further warns that this relationship persists to the present day, arguing that “effective dismantling of these groups” is required. This entails ending state support for these structures, disarming them, investigating their members and the authorities who coordinated with them, and “guaranteeing truth, justice, and reparation for victims.”
While the FFM report dissects the anatomy of pro-government paramilitarism, the reality on the ground over the past year reveals a form of violence that evolved following U.S. interventions in Caribbean and Pacific waters; it is no longer limited to operations on the high seas or in border zones but is now openly carried out on the mainland. Recent cases involving the individuals known as “Niño Guerrero” in Venezuela and “Bendito Menor” in Colombia are symptomatic of this emerging trend. Although both cases involve U.S. intervention—albeit in very different ways—they share a similar official narrative: in both instances, alleged “resistance to authority” was cited to justify the individuals’ deaths. However, the lack of independent oversight makes it impossible to corroborate the state’s version of events, fueling suspicions of summary executions. The mystery surrounding these operations and the restrictions imposed regarding the bodies of the deceased cast doubt on the true circumstances of the deaths.
Meanwhile, during his visit to Colombia, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the presence of ELN camps and FARC dissidents within Venezuelan territory as untenable. He also acknowledged that options for action and potential interventions had been discussed with the interim government in Caracas to halt these irregular operations, which could signal an escalation in summary executions, justified by the familiar pretext of the “fight against narco-terrorism.” Faced with this pressure, it remains to be seen what role Delcy Rodríguez might agree to play and how viable an alliance appears between Miraflores Palace and a far-right administration that—paradoxically—aligns with Donald Trump, the Rodríguez clan’s new, pragmatic ally.
On September 15, the Trump administration announced that, considering the “positive steps” taken by the *de facto* government, Venezuela “should no longer be designated as having demonstrably failed to meet its drug control obligations.” This announcement came just 48 days before the midterm elections, at a time when the administration’s approval rating was lower than that of its most recent predecessors at the same stage in their terms. Hence the eagerness to portray its efforts to combat drug trafficking and so-called narco-terrorist organizations as “historic progress.”
Curiously, neither Rubio’s announcements during his visit to the region, nor Rodríguez’s public statements, nor Trump’s recent announcements mention the *colectivos* as armed actors undermining the country’s much-touted “stabilization.” This silence raises suspicion: are we witnessing a repressive approach designed exclusively to clear strategic zones and secure mining and oil extraction operations? If so, the repression would not be aimed at establishing order, but rather at clearing the way for big capital—a process that could well be described as “selective stabilization.”
Faced with this scenario, the international community assumes the challenge of activating monitoring mechanisms to ensure that the banner of “counter-terrorism” is not used as a license to selectively eliminate individuals through extrajudicial executions on land and at sea.