Transcription
President Petro, why did President Trump want to speak with you last night and what did he tell you?
Well, basically because since the beginning of the Trump administration and throughout his entire life, we have never spoken. It is the first time I have heard his voice and, undoubtedly, that lack of communication, being both presidents, has been one of the main problems.
Misunderstandings. Yes. Consciously provoked, right? Yes, because the vacuum is filled by someone who no longer belongs to either government, and that someone, in my opinion, was the right-wing Colombian opposition, which I exposed by name as allies precisely of drug trafficking. At that time, the largest cartel was called paramilitary, 35% of the Senate. Well, but Uribe's brother, the president, already spoke; they are today condemned for that type of relationship with drug trafficking, and obviously, there is an interest from all those sectors in not allowing a project like mine to continue, because I was the one who denounced them.
Let's go back to this moment. What did you tell President Trump? What did he tell you? Were there any promises made last night in the conversation?
He let me explain two points he wanted to make. What were the points? What did they say? The results of drug trafficking in Colombia, which are contrary to the atmosphere created in the United States by, I call them, political spokesmen for Colombian drug trafficking. They, the United States government, do not know about that.
What else did he communicate to you?
Well, and besides those results, which have been very good, historical, I would say, in figures, we talked about Venezuela, at my initiative. He did not refer to Venezuela; he did not refer to the content of the information, but to a procedure to recover communication. Venezuela, Venezuela. He did not refer specifically to Venezuela.
What does that mean and what was discussed about Venezuela?
That means that perhaps these points will be discussed exclusively in personal conversation, which I think is fine. Communication has existed throughout the entire period of government. Undoubtedly, rebuilding it is not easy, and the first thing to do is to be able to controvert the data, but for the data to be official and to see who is lying, for example, or what political intention the one who wants to destroy relations between Colombia and the United States has. There is only one intention to destroy diplomatic relations, and that has to do with drug trafficking. It is the drug traffickers who would win.
So you trust that the conversation between you and President Trump will be positive.
And he told me, I want to translate this quickly. You said, "You talk about Venezuela over the conversation. Latin America. Why are you going to the White House? What is your goal? And that visit is about stopping a war between the United States and some part of Latin America. To stop a war in the world, of which Latin America is like one of its first steps. But let's say, in relation to the drug trafficking point, I don't think there will be any problem. We have the best results, the data is there.
In terms of drug trafficking, will there be no problem cooperating with the United States?
We have always operated, and during my government, we continue to operate with their intelligence agencies, with their information, with our physical action. And if you will, that is one of the data points: 63% of drug trafficking operations outside of Colombia, of cocaine, have the participation of national intelligence. We have achieved not only internally in Colombia but also everything that can be done outside, in seas, in other ports. 63% of that has Colombian intelligence, Colombian collaboration.
Let's talk about drug trafficking for a moment, but precisely today the story is... President Trump had been intrepid, he threatened you with capturing you like he captured Maduro, perhaps indirectly. Would you be going to the White House if the United States Navy were not positioned off South America?
I went four times during the Biden administration, a good flow, let's say, of communication in this case, and regarding Venezuela, my conversations with Biden were a mediation because I was also talking with Maduro, seeking free elections. Here, near here, a meeting was held with European governments, Latin American governments, the United States government, the Venezuelan government, the Venezuelan opposition, basically to finalize, because it was the last stretch, the agreement for free elections. I must say, it was based on the United States unblocking and Maduro guaranteeing no repression of opposition groups. None of that happened. My mediation failed, and we ended up with the result of non-free elections in April, which I did not recognize. That suspended dialogue.
I want, forgive me for interrupting you, President, but we have, I really want the message to get through of what you are going to say. At this moment, there has been a lot of concern in Colombia. Degree of worry in Colombia about sovereignty. President Trump threatened you personally, you have insulted him many times, that all seems to have changed very quickly, and now you are going to the White House. Were you scared? Were you intimidated by Trump?
Was I scared? Was I intimidated by President Trump? After... Look, my whole life I have lived with the risk of dying, I have been imprisoned, tortured, walked through the mountains... all my legal life. I spent 10 years of my parliamentary life denouncing senators, congressmen, and politicians who were related to narco-paramilitarism. The worst part is, they have killed 200,000 people, and they didn't kill me; they tried four times. So, let's say, that kind of thing doesn't scare me. Of course, I could die at any moment. A drug trafficking boss was recently murdered in Ecuador. So, tell me yes or no, are you telling me, "Tell me or." Are you afraid of President Trump? Were you ever afraid of President Trump coming after you?
At some point, were you afraid that President Trump would capture you?
Look, what I fear most, I won't say I'm not afraid of threats when helicopters and things like that are coming. Missiles, and we don't even have an anti-aircraft system. Venezuela's was that they didn't let it operate, but ours doesn't exist. So, of course, but what scares me is the reaction in Colombia, which would be different from Venezuela. Everything, if you study the history of Colombia, we have been in internal wars for 75 years. Drug trafficking is the last driver of violence, but before that, it was political sectarianism. Decades of violence and 700,000 assassinated since April 9, 1948. And if something happens here against the President of Colombia with strong popular support, as we demonstrated yesterday, then Colombia enters into war.
Venezuela and... or could you say that they have no option but to perhaps before Trump. You are saying that the difference between Colombia and Venezuela is that if what happened to Maduro had happened to you, Colombia would enter into war, and Venezuela had no option but to kneel before Trump.
Eh, no. Venezuela created a military system to defend itself, or worsened it, etc., to defend itself from a more powerful army. In Colombia, that is not done. Colombia, as Bolívar demonstrated here, who created an army of the poor here and defeated the main army in the world at that time, the Spanish. It's that people go to the mountains, they go to the jungles, the peasantry goes to the mountains, they have known about this for three generations. Missiles and all these modern technologies do not manage to defeat a resistance that is popular and that does what it has always done, which is to defend itself in the mountains and jungles and attack. And that would undoubtedly cause a civil war and also hostility against the United States, which the United States also does not deserve. It would be a very foolish policy to do so. I believe that the Republican senator from Trump's own party who managed to establish, re-establish communication with the United States, knew it and acted accordingly, which is nothing more than re-establishing communication, and it has been the experience of my life, even since I was young.
Who was the senator who re-established? Ending violence is dialoguing first.
Trump was Senator Rand Paul. It was resolved, even overnight, it was achieved.
That Rand Paul was the person who achieved this communication, direct communication. Tell me more about what President Trump told you. You already told me a little bit about him. What did President Trump tell you?
He told me, first, he let me speak for 40 minutes out of 55. Very Latin, very American, and he was more pragmatic. I had the opportunity to show him the other vision on the two topics I mentioned, drug trafficking and Venezuela. And in the 15 minutes, he saw it, he told me. You have told so many lies about me.
Do you consider that you and President Trump are more alike than different?
Not so much, but what he said there means that he recognizes that many lies have been told about me. It's that when they say, for example, "drug trafficking boss," and I have been almost assassinated four times by drug trafficking, and I don't have a car, I don't have a farm, no, my house is in debt, I don't have accounts, except the one with which I receive my salary, and I showed my statements so that public accounts could be made of whether I have earned more or spent more than I earn, etc. And they have conducted an investigation with their own resources, which I imagine they have tried to trace my assets or those of straw men or things like that, which is what drug traffickers do, well, they found nothing. But I am still on the FAC, right? And the FAC even represents a problem for going to Washington. The, pardon, what thing? The FAC is a list. Ah, yes, the list, the visa.
Did President Trump tell you he would remove you from the list?
We didn't talk about that, and it wasn't the point either. First, it's about solving undeniable social issues. If there is a military crisis with Colombia, then what follows is violence. Even if I don't want it, I couldn't want it. Besides, if he takes me or if it's against me, I was going to sleep here with Bolívar's sword, which is in my care. We obtained that sword as the M19 in clandestinity. Sword of Bolívar, liberator of Colombia, Venezuela.
That indicates how scared you were that they were really coming for you.
Not scared, because if not, I would go to the mountains as a guerrilla. I don't have to, because there is no longer any guerrilla here. There are narcos. Well, we are not going to get into it, because if we do, the whole afternoon will be gone. President Rodríguez. Did President Trump ask you to speak with Delcy? Because Trump... I spoke with Delcy Rodríguez the day before. We are friends, and she wanted to invite me to Colombia. I told her, I invited her. She told me something quickly about the problems there. Undoubtedly, because today there is a struggle within society for power. Maduro's departure leaves a part of society against these types of departures. I think it has grown a lot. No society likes to be violated, and every society must resolve its political problems among themselves. That is what we have done in Colombia. Delcy's... election.
You say you are friends with Delcy. Do you trust that she could have the power and really continue stability in Venezuela, or would you call for elections in the short term?
In the mediation I carried out between Maduro and Biden before the elections, the proposal was that, I told you about it now, and it failed, and that's why I did not recognize the legitimacy of the April elections. No, I would not suggest repeating the same mistake.
So, you're not going to be a mediator. You are not going to be mediating between the United States and Venezuela.
I don't know, but de facto yes, because they want me there. There, where I have spoken with the Venezuelan opposition within Venezuela, and I have spoken with the governments, Maduro's, precisely to mediate with Biden, a solution that did not materialize. Now, recently, I also spoke with the opposition in the city of Cúcuta. The opposition within Venezuela is different, and I had communication with Delcy just now. I suggest that the way out is no longer to impose free elections immediately, but that a process of time must be undertaken, which is called shared government. This was a Colombian experience that ended a violence of 300,000 deaths due to political sectarianism between Liberals and Conservatives before I was born. A shared government, what does it produce? Trust between the parties.
You are suggesting a shared government between the regime and the figures who remain from the regime and the opposition. In Colombia, after 300,000 assassinated, including the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the Colombian situation, the Conservative Party in government, the Liberal Party massacred, 300,000 dead, and they managed in 1957 a transitional solution that was military, and after the military government, a shared government for 16 years, against which we rebelled in Colombia. Of course. But let's talk about that experience in Venezuela, where no one has really died, and that is one of the great advantages; it has not gone beyond the narrative and verbal discussion and repression too, but the number of deaths from the political conflict is not as high as Colombia's. This allows for a shared government, agreed upon by all political forces in Venezuela, not imposed, which provides confidence over a period of months, a year, so that free elections, this time, unlike in April, are free and the Venezuelan people can decide.
Diosdado Cabello, that somebody controls collectives. Do you believe that figures like, for example, Diosdado Cabello, Padrino López, who also have charges against the United States government and US justice, who control the armed forces and informal forces, would really allow a shared government?
Let's look at the facts. He has insulted me two or three times in public, but regardless of that, and you say that Padrino, they control the army, well, as Minister of Defense, why do you think, if it is institutional, but why do you think what happened with Chávez happened without the army's action? There was action from his escort, etc., and surely many soldiers whom we still don't know, but in reality, what one notices is a paralysis of the Venezuelan armed forces.
You think they would they would be okay with this. You think the armed forces would be okay with this transition.
Well, I think that an armed force that belongs to an entire society and expresses it is always in agreement that there should be no war. Let's talk about avoiding it. Let's talk about President Trump. President Trump says that he runs, President Trump said that he will run, or the United States will run Venezuela for years to come. The State Department has called this "our hemisphere." With Trump is running Venezuela. President Trump said that the United States will control Venezuela for years. Does that sit well with you? Do you agree with that?
I believe that if that is imposed, Venezuelan society will erupt. Its historical origin, being sovereign, is Bolívar, all of this you have seen here, even. So, you cannot go against the history of peoples. I said it and I will repeat it. This is the crucial point, and it has nothing to do with Venezuela; it has to do precisely with the vision that has existed in the history of the United States, sometimes it governs, sometimes it doesn't, about the belief that there is a right of the United States over resources that are not only of Latin America but of the world. For example, where does the idea of Greenland come from?
But wait, President, I don't want us to go into history. Let me speak because I know, but let's talk about you are going to meet with Trump. Meeting President Trump and President Trump. You are going to meet with President Trump. You are going to tell President Trump, "No, you do not have the right to the natural resources of Latin American countries, and if you try to control Venezuela, Venezuela will explode," as you said. And any Latin American country. Why? Because there are two opposing visions, and that is the main problem. The rest are already circumstantial facts. What are they? A vision that sometimes governs or not, I told you in the United States, that thinks there is a right over the world's resources at a time when China competes with the United States, and there are fears, fears in the United States.
Trump will tell him that. Yes, of course. And that reinforces the idea that then all of America will react in common against Chinese competition and the United States. And indeed, China, not in Colombia, but it has gained a lot of economic influence, investments, etc. First problem, the one who abandoned Latin America was the United States decades ago. China entered the vacuum. It supplied the needs of many nations in terms of infrastructure. Latin America views it favorably that the United States is now finally paying attention to Latin America. It's just that it saw it happen a long time ago, well, but your idea cannot be "I have the right to all of this," but rather "I compete for all of this" when there are tenders. Generally, in many countries, certain infrastructure works. I told you the exact numbers. South America has a potential to generate 100 GW of clean energy, water, sun, and wind. The United States demands 10,000, and 70%, that is, 840 GW, it uses, it does it with oil and coal. If it insists on maintaining oil and coal, it generates wars in the world, including South America. If it accepts our proposal to invest in generating that energy that South America can produce, then it cleans up its entire matrix. It is a decarbonized continent, and that is the first big step to saving humanity from possible extinction due to the climate crisis. Trump does not believe that, based on what he has said, but it is my proposal.
And that called illegal war crimes. Jaguar sends which might be cute signal that Latin American leaders have no choice but to keep Trumpy. Eh, do you see the image of what I want to tell you? You and President Trump insulted each other, threatened each other, they took away your visa, they put sanctions on you, and at one point you show this image, obviously in a humorous way, but I'm curious if this doesn't send the message that Latin American leaders, including yourself, who could not be further apart in terms of political ideals, the best or only option they have is to keep Trump happy and calm.
Eh, I don't know if happy and calm, because his own society is unsettled, right? What we want to maintain is zero violence, but not to be subservient. So, if you analyze that a bit, an old legend arises that I repeated somewhere, "If the condor attacks, if the eagle attacks the condor, the jaguar awakens." So, what does that mean? The jaguar is awake there. It awoke because before it was the jaguar and the... the jaguar, right? The eagle and the condor, and they didn't attack each other. Now there was an attack, and indeed the jaguar is awake. Now, do we want the jaguar to attack the eagle? Well, the photo says no. But if the eagle attacks the jaguar, now awake, then you know what could happen. So, the jaguar is not weapons. The jaguar, in ancestral American reminiscence, is an American animal. The indigenous people here have been here for 60,000 years, our ancestors in North and South America. And this animal has been treated as a wise animal. It doesn't attack without thinking. It takes care of itself, it's stealthy, it can take its time, it leaps into the void, it's another legend, right? It leaps, it leaps into the void out of passion, and today it is awake. That the jaguar is awake, but that it has not lost after this attack. The awake jaguar is the conscious and ready people. Ready not in terms of weapons, ready in their hearts to defend their territory. So, so popular consciousness, undoubtedly, if you see yesterday, yesterday, and it doesn't say it has to be Colombian, but Colombia took to the streets, Venezuela took to the streets for other reasons, the United States in some cities took to the streets for other reasons that have to do precisely with the AIS, but you are seeing the beginning of a great citizen mobilization on the continent that can grow depending on whether the policy, which I call the right over resources, is maintained. Therefore, migration will move more towards North America. The climate crisis will multiply that by two zeros. I don't know the political situation that would arise, but everything can be, let's say, postponed or solved if the United States thinks more about a global democracy as it was coming, because the United States is part of the construction of those norms and of decarbonization, as science proposes.
Let's talk about the position of the United States before Latin America. Let's talk about the position of the United States before Latin America. You have talked about sovereignty. There have been a great deal of concerns over the messaging that Latin American leaders should be afraid because the United States is still positioned there. Um, what's your message to other leaders in the world or Latin America when you are willing to go and meet with President Trump and lower your rhetoric? Trump in Venezuela. Two separate questions. First, do you trust Trump's intentions in Venezuela? And the other question is, how do you think President Trump or the United States positions itself with respect to the rest of the leaders of Latin America who may perhaps be intimidated by the presence of the United States? But first, answer the first one. Do you do you trust President Trump's intentions in Venezuela? Do you trust President Trump's intentions in Venezuela?
I believe that he believes in shared government, not separate from the idea of keeping the oil. The negotiation they made, which came out in the press, I cannot say it is so, is that he would buy at market prices. That is a first way out because we all thought he was going to take it. Second way out: compete. It is that China has gained due to the absence of the United States in the tenders throughout Latin America. They forgot. Moreover, China has that capacity today because the United States decided to invest not in Latin America, but in China. Of course. And you know what happened. We are not responsible for that. They are telling me to close a word. What do you think of the opposition from outside, María Corina Machado?
Look, she has pronounced, I have never spoken with her, she has pronounced phrases like the most radical politicians here, the right, here one said, "I will gut the left." So, she has said similar things in Venezuela when she was there, and obviously, she has created immense distrust in the part of society that wants progressive solutions.
Would you not trust her or support her as a leader of your neighboring country?
I, once invited her, she didn't want to. It surprised me, obviously Trump thinking the same as me. Because if you put a radical, violent person in relation to your other opponents, they call you the same. No, but here no one has died. Look, the Uribe government, 6,402 young people shot, proven criminal proceedings. His brother, 700 deaths in a massacre, proven. In Duque's government, he put 3,000 young people in jail, during the social outburst that occurred. 3,000. We'll talk about that next time. For now, the regime is over, and I don't have a single person here, there are no political prisoners here. I have not persecuted anyone here. It is true, it is a democracy. I have tried to build a better democracy. We are seeing the end of Maduro's regime. It's over. I never believed there was really a Maduro regime. I believe there is a population that loved, loved, and loves Chávez, who represents a vision that they see as obscured in these last years, and that is why there are no Maduristas; that is why he could not do what I could do, a real distrust of him, we will know. But the issue, the force that oil used for social justice, that is the central theme of Chavismo. But the human rights violations, violations of a regime that violated rights. I couldn't tell you because all of that can explode. Everything depends on the management, of course, that there may be in relation to the current process in Venezuela, which is already different. If the society becomes polarized, it can lead to a civil war. If we manage more the approach of opening dialogue between all forces, achieving it, making a process of theirs, not ours or anyone outside Venezuela. I think they will achieve peace and regain much more democracy.
President, they are going to throw something at my head to shut me up and stop asking you questions. I thank you for your time. Thank you so much for your time and best of luck on your meeting with President Trump. I think it's going to go a little bit like with Mamdani, I think it's going to be like Trump's with Mamdani, where they ended up like like brothers, do you think so?
The last time I was in New York, which was before they kicked me out of the United States, on the day of the United Nations Assembly, I spoke with him as a candidate, I spoke with the mayor of Paris, those were my two appointments on the last day with Mamdani, yes, and his advisors. They already knew about my work as mayor of Bogotá, and we talked about concrete experiences that we implemented in Bogotá, and well, New York has also had some very avant-garde experiences from an urbanistic point of view, and so we have empathy, and therefore, my friend, maybe Trump will be your friend too.
Well, I hope to see him again in New York. Thank you very much, President.
Thank you, you are very kind.