In a globalized world, in which goods and services can circulate more or less freely, as citizens, we do not have the freedom or the right to enter the territory of a State of which we are not nationals, without the consent of the authorities of that State. State. While the drug enters and leaves our borders, with the complicity of those in charge, and while the guerrilla groups sneak across the borders of the States, with the indifference (or complacency) of the authorities of the State that receives them, we have to ask for permission to enter another country. But that rule has exceptions. In the first place, beyond elementary considerations of humanity, no State has the absolute right to expel a foreigner found in its territory. International treaties on human rights, or on extradition, impose restrictions on this matter. Democracy, too.
One of the institutions of American International Law, of which we Latin Americans can legitimately feel proud, is the right of asylum. It is colloquially known as political asylum, because its purpose is to protect those who are victims of political persecution. Latin American countries have signed numerous treaties on this matter. In the first half of the 20th century, in countries as convulsed as ours, it was common for a political leader to have to run, fleeing from the police who were hot on his heels, and jump over the walls of a foreign diplomatic mission to request asylum. The other option was for that person, persecuted by the minions of a tyranny, to manage to leave the territory of the State and request asylum in the country in which he now found himself. The first is what, technically, has been called diplomatic asylum; the second is territorial asylum.
Colombia had been one of the countries that most vigorously defended the right to asylum. In 1949, after a military coup in Peru, Colombia granted asylum to Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, founding leader of the American Popular Revolutionary Alliance (APRA) party, who had sought refuge in the headquarters of its embassy in Lima. While Peru demanded that he be handed over, arguing that he was not politically persecuted, Colombia asserted its right to classify the crime for which he was being persecuted and refused to hand him over. The case reached the International Court of Justice and its solution took years. But Colombia was faithful to the right of asylum and did not hand over Haya de la Torre.
Although institutions do not have to be immutable, they are never expected to go backwards, but rather to advance, in search of more democracy and more freedom. However, in September 2014, during the government of President Juan Manuel Santos, Colombia expelled two Venezuelan students, activists opposed to the Nicolás Maduro regime, handing them over to the Venezuelan intelligence services, a country where they were tortured. In this case, there was clearly a violation of the principle of non-refoulement (“non-refoulement”) to a State in which there were well-founded reasons to believe that the victims could be imprisoned -and tortured- for political reasons, as indeed they were.
Now, under the government of Gustavo Petro, Colombia has taken another step in the wrong direction. This time he has expelled Juan Guaidó, a Venezuelan opposition leader, who had entered Colombian territory on foot, through steps where there are no migration controls. He, too, is not the first Venezuelan to do the same, and he probably won’t be the last either. It is recalled that, between both countries, there is a common border of more than 2,000 kilometers, and that Venezuelans do not need a visa to enter Colombia, in the same way that Colombians do not need one to enter Venezuela. Therefore, it is a bit strange that the Colombian Foreign Minister, Álvaro Leyva, pointed out that Guaidó entered Colombia “inappropriately”, or that, in a statement from the Colombian Foreign Ministry, it was stated that Guaidó was in Bogotá “irregularly”. ”. If “irregular” is having arrived in Colombia on foot, without identifying yourself at a border post, how many hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans must be escorted to the door of the plane to verify that they are leaving the country?
Foreign Minister Leyva, who was once a FARC delegate during the peace talks with the Colombian guerrillas, today insists on respect for the law, but without mentioning precisely what law Juan Guaidó would have broken upon entering Colombia.
What is certain is that, unlike hundreds of thousands of other Venezuelans who have also entered Colombia “irregularly”, Guaidó was shown the exit door. They had the delicacy of not returning him to Venezuela, allowing him to travel to the United States. And that may not technically qualify as expulsion. Call it what you want; but, in the everyday language in which we human beings communicate, that was an expulsion, with an escort included to the door of the plane.
Whether or not Guaidó asked to have his passport stamped at a border post, and whether or not he applied for asylum, is irrelevant. He is a political leader, with whom you may or may not agree, but whose freedom and physical integrity were in danger in Venezuela. He had already been attacked by violent mobs. From the regime, different voices had already announced that Guaidó would be arrested, and we already know what happens with the Venezuelan political prisoners. Why choose him precisely to expel him hastily, for having entered Colombia “irregularly”?
Like any other country, Colombia has the right to expel an undesirable person, who may constitute a risk to its national security, or a threat to public order. But it is hard to believe that Guaidó was in any of those categories. In addition, as an important figure of the Venezuelan opposition – until recently president of an interim government recognized by more than fifty countries – he had announced that he was going to Colombia to meet with the Venezuelan diaspora and with those who would attend the International Conference on the crisis in Venezuela, called by President Petro. Why silence his voice? And, if he was not invited to the International Conference, why prevent him from going to dialogue with those who were? Why use this expulsion to blow up that International Conference before it started? Why should a disgruntled tyrant have to be appeased because his prey escaped?
What happened to Guaidó serves to better understand that International Conference on Venezuela, which ended without pain or glory, and without making any reference to the serious human rights violations denounced by different instances of the United Nations system. In his eagerness to lift some international sanctions that weigh on very specific figures of the Maduro regime, it can be understood that the final communiqué of the International Conference on Venezuela tiptoes about the crimes against humanity that are investigated by the Criminal Court International. Even taking into account that what it is about is finding a way out of the political and social crisis that afflicts Venezuelans, it can be accepted that the Final Declaration of the Conference did not mention the dismantling of democratic institutions in Venezuela, and that he has not called things by their name. But it is incomprehensible that, in said document, the release of any political prisoner has not been demanded.
Of course, the news that Juan Guaidó had arrived in Colombia filled Nicolás Maduro with anger. He could not accept that one of his main political adversaries, who “had a ban on leaving the country,” had disobeyed his instructions. Curiously, this argument was taken up by the Colombian foreign minister, as if the restrictions that a tyranny imposes on public figures were relevant when it comes to providing protection to a politically persecuted person. Now, we know who the Petro government is with. Certainly not with democratic values, and not with the defense of freedom either.