Petro rejects narco claims, calls US strikes on Venezuela illegal
Al Mayadeen | January 5, 2026
Colombian President Gustavo Petro issued on Monday a series of sharply worded statements rejecting accusations that seek to link him or Venezuelan leaders to drug trafficking, while forcefully condemning US military aggression, political intimidation, and renewed assertion of imperial control over Latin America.
In several posts published on X, Petro responded to remarks attributed to US President Donald Trump and to broader narratives circulating in Washington in the aftermath of the US aggression on Venezuela. He argued that Colombia’s judicial archives, after decades spent confronting the world’s largest cocaine cartels, contain no evidence linking Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro or First Lady Cilia Flores to drug trafficking. According to Petro, such allegations originate primarily from figures aligned with the Venezuelan opposition rather than from any verifiable judicial findings.
Defamation rejected
Petro noted that Colombia’s judiciary functions independently of the executive branch and is largely influenced by political forces opposed to his government. Anyone genuinely seeking to understand the cocaine trade, he said, should consult Colombia’s court records rather than rely on politically motivated accusations. He added that his own name has never appeared in narcotics-related cases over more than five decades, affirming that he “deeply rejects” uninformed and defamatory claims.
He also stressed that Colombia’s experience with drug violence has been shaped not by state policy but by transnational demand, financial laundering networks, and decades of militarized counter-narcotics strategies promoted from abroad, strategies that, he implied, have failed to curb trafficking while devastating civilian populations.
Addressing personal attacks, Petro said it is unacceptable to “slander” Latin American leaders who emerged from armed struggle and later pursued peace, framing such rhetoric as political coercion aimed at delegitimizing independent leadership in the region. He referenced his own past in the M-19 movement, noting that it laid down arms and became part of Colombia’s peace process, a transition he described as a historic milestone in contemporary Latin American politics and a rare example of negotiated conflict resolution rather than foreign-imposed regime change.
Caracas under bombardment
Petro described the US aggression on Venezuela as the first time in modern history that a South American capital had been bombed by the United States, warning that such an act would remain etched in the collective memory of the continent. “Friends do not bomb one another,” he said, drawing parallels to some of the darkest episodes of 20th-century warfare.
The operation has raised particular alarm due to Washington’s open acknowledgment that it intends to administer Venezuela during a so-called transition period and to assert control over strategic sectors, including energy. Regional observers note that Venezuela’s oil infrastructure remained largely intact during the assault, a fact Petro did not ignore as he warned against war conducted in the name of justice but structured around resource access.
While explicitly rejecting retaliation, Petro argued that the events underline the urgent need for Latin America to rethink its political and economic alignments. He called for deeper regional unity, warning that without cohesion the region risks being treated as a “servant and slave” rather than as a central actor in global affairs. Petro criticized existing regional mechanisms, including the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), arguing that its absolute consensus rules allow certain leaders to preserve subservient relationships with foreign powers at the expense of collective sovereignty.
Scapegoated Dead
Petro also condemned celebratory reactions in some political circles to the bombing of Caracas, accusing them of erasing Latin America’s shared liberation history led by Simon Bolivar.
He further noted the US’ aggression resulted in civilian deaths, including that of a Colombian woman working informally in Caracas to support her daughter, a reminder, he stressed, that military interventions marketed as “precision operations” routinely exact a human toll on the most vulnerable.
Directly addressing Trump, Petro accused the US president of issuing internationally unlawful orders that led to the deaths of Colombian nationals who were later branded “narco-terrorists.” He rejected those labels as false and dehumanizing, arguing that many of the victims came from impoverished communities with no links to organized crime and were instead casualties of a long-standing policy of militarization, criminal profiling, and collective punishment.
Free speech, sovereignty, resistance
Petro defended his right to speak freely on US soil, noting that his remarks in New York and around the United Nations were protected under US law. He explained he had publicly condemned the genocide in Gaza, suggesting that his positions on Palestine, Venezuela, and US foreign policy more broadly triggered retaliatory narratives portraying him as corrupt or complicit in drug trafficking.
Rejecting those portrayals, Petro said he owns no luxury assets abroad and continues to pay for his home through his official salary. He also framed the controversy as part of a wider struggle against injustice, misinformation, and efforts to silence dissenting voices from the Global South through legal intimidation and reputational warfare.
The statements concluded with a call for respect between the Americas, invoking shared liberation traditions associated with figures such as Simón Bolívar and George Washington.
Petro warned against narratives that portray Latin America as inherently criminal, stressing that the region’s political movements are rooted in long-standing struggles for democracy, sovereignty, and social justice, not in the stereotypes imposed by external powers seeking control rather than partnership.
US Wants to Install ‘Functional Protectorate’ in Venezuela: Here Are Its Four Components
Sputnik – 05.01.2026
With Maduro out, Washington is looking to establish “four kinds of control” in Venezuela. Independent Peru-based geopolitical and economic analyst Nicolas Takayama Constantini outlines the mechanics of these measures for Sputnik.
“Operationally, it means that they will have a de facto tutelary administration,” Constantini explained. This would mean:
- “indirect political control” via a “provisional authority” or “transition council” approved by Washington, not the Venezuelan people
- technical and financial control over the oil sector, including contracts, ports and foreign currency flows
- direct control over oil revenues, either by the US Treasury, “or some entity controlled by the US”
- some form of US military or security presence, not necessarily a large one.
“So, in fact this wouldn’t be classical governance, but rather a form of functional protectorate, similar to Iraq in 2003,” the observer said.
Goal of US Operation: Seizure of Resources or Message to Rivals
“From a rational economic point of view, military intervention is not efficient. The military, political and reputational cost for the US far exceeds any potential energy gains. But it’s not only the resources,” even in Venezuela’s case (oil, gas, rare earths, tech metals, gold), Constantini said.
It’s about sending a message to Washington’s geopolitical rivals, including China, Russia and Iran, about preventing Venezuela’s resources from falling into their hands, and letting regional countries know: “if you don’t submit or make your resources available to me when I need, this will happen to you.”
“Just to have a note here, obviously the US doesn’t care about the Venezuelan interest or even the American citizens’ interest related to drug traffickers because the agencies in the US say that the main flow of drugs doesn’t come from Venezuela,” the expert added.
Venezuela Attack Signals Final Breakup of Post-WWII Order
“It’s an extremely serious precedent for the international order. It means that state sovereignty doesn’t work anymore. The head of state immunity doesn’t work anymore. It normalizes regime change by force without multilateral authorization. It reinforces the idea that power supersedes international law,” Constantini explained.
“It marks the end of what remained of international law and the international order after the Second World War… a greater militarization of foreign policy and acceleration of the global order’s fragmentation into competing blocs. This implies that other powers can do the same if they don’t consider a particular government legitimate,” the observer summed up.
