Petro’s Venezuela Intelligence Proposal Sparks Controversy and US Provocation Concerns
Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro is facing mounting criticism over a proposal to share intelligence with Venezuela’s military forces to combat armed groups operating in the Catatumbo region. Experts warn the plan, unveiled during a Council of Ministers meeting on Monday, lacks crucial details and risks escalating tensions with the United States, particularly following the recent revocation of Petro’s visa after he allegedly urged US troops in New York to disobey orders.
The core of the proposal, as articulated by President Petro, centers on a joint intelligence operation between the Colombian and Venezuelan militaries to target groups like the FARC and its dissident factions. “Minister of Defense, without fear, we must articulate intelligence and action of the Venezuelan military forces and ours. Complicated, but it is basic for this to become much better,” Petro insisted, according to reports.
However, analysts are raising serious concerns about the feasibility and potential ramifications of such an agreement. One analyst pointed out the “substantive vacuum” of the proposal, characterizing it as “double-edged.” The need for cross-border information sharing is acknowledged – understanding the movements of illegal groups requires perspectives from both sides of the border – but the lack of transparency and existing distrust raise significant red flags.
“Unfortunately, if you want to achieve operational advances, it is necessary to share information with people on the other side of the border, who can observe the movements of illegal groups from another perspective,” one expert explained. “Only in this way is it possible to build a joint vision on what are the distribution routes, in which cities they have greater impact, which smaller organizations support major criminal structures and, in addition, detect which agents or state authorities could be acting in collusion with these illegal groups.”
Defense Minister Pedro Sánchez has publicly denied any current communication with his Venezuelan counterpart, Vladimir Godfather, a claim challenged by events on August 11th. On that date, Sánchez confirmed the death of José Aldinever Sierra Sabogal, also known as Zarco Aldinever, a leader of the Second Marquetalia, in a confrontation near the Colombia-Venezuela border, while simultaneously endorsing a statement issued by the ELN guerrilla group.
Further complicating matters, experts highlight the lack of clarity regarding the specific threats to be addressed and the potential for unintended consequences. Luis Fernando Trejos, a professor at the University of the North, warned that the proposal, like previous statements from Petro, lacks essential legal and territorial details. He cautioned that the initiative could inadvertently serve to advance interests outside the stated goal of combating violence. “Nor are the threats that are intended to combat, in particular those of a binational nature identified,” Trejos stated. “And it is problematic, considering that there is clear evidence that Venezuelan military sectors maintain coordination with the ELN on the Venezuelan side of the border.”
A key concern is the risk of sensitive intelligence being leaked to armed groups. The possibility that information shared with the Venezuelan army could fall into the hands of the ELN or other criminal organizations operating in Venezuela – such as the Second Marquetalia – is a significant vulnerability. “Security Intelligence Agreements would be viciated” by a lack of transparency and democratic support, one analyst warned, adding that agreements would be “contaminated by the interests of a regime that, from Chávez, has allowed the presence of armed groups outside the Colombian law that freely travel between the Colombian and Venezuelan border, especially in the northern departments of Santander, Arauca and Meta.”
Beyond security concerns, the proposal has also drawn criticism regarding the unresolved issue of Colombians arbitrarily detained by the Venezuelan regime. “The situation of the Colombians arbitrarily detained by the Venezuelan regime. That issue has not been put on the table by either of the two governments,” noted Professor Socorro Ramírez, a political scientist and expert in international relations.
Some observers believe the move is primarily a calculated provocation towards the United States. Laura Bonilla, a researcher at the Peace and Reconciliation Foundation, suggested the proposal “seems more like a provocation to the United States than a true strategic directive to the Armed Forces. It does not seem a structured presidential order, with a clear monitoring plan.”
However, another political scientist cautioned against overreaction, emphasizing the importance of avoiding actions that could destabilize the region. While Colombia should not support aggressive US policies in the Caribbean, a direct exchange of sensitive information with Caracas is ill-advised given the current circumstances.
The situation remains fluid, and the ultimate impact of Petro’s proposal remains to be seen. The lack of detail, coupled with existing geopolitical tensions and concerns about the Venezuelan government’s commitment to combating illegal armed groups, casts a long shadow over the initiative.
