Antonio García: ‘A National Agreement Is Required’

In the last week, Antonio García, first comandante of the ELN, gave interviews to journalists from the United Kingdom, France and the United States; Here we present a selection of his responses, about the kidnapping of President Maduro, the resistance to imperialist aggression and the political solution to the conflict.

THE SUNDAY TIMES NEWSPAPER OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

[1] What impact does the arrest of Nicolás Maduro have on the political and military strategy of the National Liberation Army?

AG: The impact is not for the ELN, but for international legislation, since any president of any government, who does not share the policy of the United States, can be attacked and kidnapped by the American military forces. It also sets a precedent for the application of extraterritorial justice, destroying the sovereignty of the judicial systems of other countries, putting an end to the existence of Nation States.

For the ELN it is the reaffirmation of the existence of flesh and blood imperialism and that it does not distance itself from wars, to deal or understand with other States, legitimizing the right to defense and the fight of resistance.

[2] In the case of a direct military intervention by the United States in Venezuela, what would be the position and reaction of the ELN?

AG: The ELN at various times in its history has been linked to international solidarity, the José Antonio Galán National Pro-Liberation Brigade, which would give rise to the ELN, was created to link itself to fighting with the Cuban people, in the October crisis in 1962. We also had comrades supporting the struggle in Nicaragua, El Salvador and other processes.

We are an Organization linked to the struggle of the National Liberation Movements of the world and we listen when they call us, to support the struggle of the people, we are not interventionist, when they call us we support in solidarity and therefore we place ourselves under the orders of those people and processes. We do not direct anything where it does not belong to us.

FRENCH PRESS AGENCY (AFP)

[3] What changes for you as a structure that operates on the border, the fact that Nicolás Maduro is no longer the president of Venezuela? Is it true that you are or were in Venezuelan territory and began your return to Colombia?

AG: The location of the ELN structures is defined by the strategic plan, Colombia’s land borders are 5 and two oceans. Due to its configuration, for each of them there is a definition in the plan, the same with the seas and rivers, no one ‘puts their eggs in one basket’. What happened in Venezuela affects the continent because the American troops kidnapped a President, who even made Petro change his speech.

The ELN is focused with priority on Colombia. The government and the military have always said that I spend my time abroad, that is not new, if I told them now that I was abroad, they would say that I was in Colombia. What I do specify is that there is no exodus in the ELN and it is attentive to threats.

[4] Alias ​​Iván Mordisco proposed a union of guerrillas to fight against the United States, will you accept?

AG: As soon as the demobilization dissident groups began to form, they were told that we agreed to talk when they were unified, so as not to talk to each faction, but they could not join and it became complex. If it is to defend the Homeland against the foreign aggressor, we will find ourselves in the fight.

MAX BEARAK FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES

[5] Has the ELN been increasing its military capabilities in anticipation of offensives by Colombian and US forces?

AG: The generation and creation of capabilities with the application of technology in our weapons is not new, that cannot be improvised, the State military has realized, it is no longer a secret, we have been developing that plan for more than 10 years in our military industry, in various types of weapons.

[6] Are you still open to dialogue with President Petro, or do you feel that he has abandoned the peace process with the ELN?

AG: The ELN speaks to the country, it presents its proposal for a National Agreement to all political and social forces, to all candidates for the next government; Of course, Petro is part of the political game in the composition of forces in the next elections. Now it is about going beyond a dialogue, to build a more in-depth route that allows overcoming both the country’s structural crisis and the social, political and armed conflict.

We have already seen that all governments have fallen short in their peace policies and a national agreement is required that makes this possible, a truly constituent process that has the strength to produce the changes that the regime and the political class block in parliament.

Source: https://eln-voces.net/2026/01/19/antonio-garcia-se-requiere-un-acuerdo-de-pais/

Antonio García: ‘A National Agreement Is Required’

In the last week, Antonio García, first comandante of the ELN, gave interviews to journalists from the United Kingdom, France and the United States; Here we present a selection of his responses, about the kidnapping of President Maduro, the resistance to imperialist aggression and the political solution to the conflict.

THE SUNDAY TIMES NEWSPAPER OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

[1] What impact does the arrest of Nicolás Maduro have on the political and military strategy of the National Liberation Army?

AG: The impact is not for the ELN, but for international legislation, since any president of any government, who does not share the policy of the United States, can be attacked and kidnapped by the American military forces. It also sets a precedent for the application of extraterritorial justice, destroying the sovereignty of the judicial systems of other countries, putting an end to the existence of Nation States.

For the ELN it is the reaffirmation of the existence of flesh and blood imperialism and that it does not distance itself from wars, to deal or understand with other States, legitimizing the right to defense and the fight of resistance.

[2] In the case of a direct military intervention by the United States in Venezuela, what would be the position and reaction of the ELN?

AG: The ELN at various times in its history has been linked to international solidarity, the José Antonio Galán National Pro-Liberation Brigade, which would give rise to the ELN, was created to link itself to fighting with the Cuban people, in the October crisis in 1962. We also had comrades supporting the struggle in Nicaragua, El Salvador and other processes.

We are an Organization linked to the struggle of the National Liberation Movements of the world and we listen when they call us, to support the struggle of the people, we are not interventionist, when they call us we support in solidarity and therefore we place ourselves under the orders of those people and processes. We do not direct anything where it does not belong to us.

FRENCH PRESS AGENCY (AFP)

[3] What changes for you as a structure that operates on the border, the fact that Nicolás Maduro is no longer the president of Venezuela? Is it true that you are or were in Venezuelan territory and began your return to Colombia?

AG: The location of the ELN structures is defined by the strategic plan, Colombia’s land borders are 5 and two oceans. Due to its configuration, for each of them there is a definition in the plan, the same with the seas and rivers, no one ‘puts their eggs in one basket’. What happened in Venezuela affects the continent because the American troops kidnapped a President, who even made Petro change his speech.

The ELN is focused with priority on Colombia. The government and the military have always said that I spend my time abroad, that is not new, if I told them now that I was abroad, they would say that I was in Colombia. What I do specify is that there is no exodus in the ELN and it is attentive to threats.

[4] Alias ​​Iván Mordisco proposed a union of guerrillas to fight against the United States, will you accept?

AG: As soon as the demobilization dissident groups began to form, they were told that we agreed to talk when they were unified, so as not to talk to each faction, but they could not join and it became complex. If it is to defend the Homeland against the foreign aggressor, we will find ourselves in the fight.

MAX BEARAK FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES

[5] Has the ELN been increasing its military capabilities in anticipation of offensives by Colombian and US forces?

AG: The generation and creation of capabilities with the application of technology in our weapons is not new, that cannot be improvised, the State military has realized, it is no longer a secret, we have been developing that plan for more than 10 years in our military industry, in various types of weapons.

[6] Are you still open to dialogue with President Petro, or do you feel that he has abandoned the peace process with the ELN?

AG: The ELN speaks to the country, it presents its proposal for a National Agreement to all political and social forces, to all candidates for the next government; Of course, Petro is part of the political game in the composition of forces in the next elections. Now it is about going beyond a dialogue, to build a more in-depth route that allows overcoming both the country’s structural crisis and the social, political and armed conflict.

We have already seen that all governments have fallen short in their peace policies and a national agreement is required that makes this possible, a truly constituent process that has the strength to produce the changes that the regime and the political class block in parliament.

Source: https://eln-voces.net/2026/01/19/antonio-garcia-se-requiere-un-acuerdo-de-pais/

Mapuche Political Prisoners Sentenced in a Trial Characterized by Frame-Ups

On January 20, the bad Chilean judicial system has sentenced to 7 years in prison the werkén Rafael Pichún, accused of masterminding an alleged fire in a truck, in a new ruling that shows the permanent criminalization of the Mapuche struggle.

Along with this sentence, the rest of the lamien were sentenced to 15 years in prison, disproportionate sentences that not only punish individuals, but also seek to hit entire communities, sow fear and dismantle the processes of resistance and territorial recovery.

This new verdict is part of a long history of frame-ups, political persecution and the use of the judicial apparatus as a tool of control, where the Mapuche word is ignored and collective rights are systematically violated.

The role of the werkén, ancestral messenger and spokesperson, is once again punished, transforming him into an “internal enemy” for the sole fact of raising the voice of his people and we denounce once again the Mapuche political prison, the militarization of the Wallmapu and the structural racism of the Chilean State.

Freedom for Mapuche political prisoners.

Amulepe taiñ weichan.

SOURCE: Radio Primero de Mayo

Resumen Latinoamericano, January 20, 2026

Mapuche Political Prisoners Sentenced in a Trial Characterized by Frame-Ups

On January 20, the bad Chilean judicial system has sentenced to 7 years in prison the werkén Rafael Pichún, accused of masterminding an alleged fire in a truck, in a new ruling that shows the permanent criminalization of the Mapuche struggle.

Along with this sentence, the rest of the lamien were sentenced to 15 years in prison, disproportionate sentences that not only punish individuals, but also seek to hit entire communities, sow fear and dismantle the processes of resistance and territorial recovery.

This new verdict is part of a long history of frame-ups, political persecution and the use of the judicial apparatus as a tool of control, where the Mapuche word is ignored and collective rights are systematically violated.

The role of the werkén, ancestral messenger and spokesperson, is once again punished, transforming him into an “internal enemy” for the sole fact of raising the voice of his people and we denounce once again the Mapuche political prison, the militarization of the Wallmapu and the structural racism of the Chilean State.

Freedom for Mapuche political prisoners.

Amulepe taiñ weichan.

SOURCE: Radio Primero de Mayo

Resumen Latinoamericano, January 20, 2026

The Long Shadow of Interventions

In Latin America, the history of US interventions is a continuous thread that spans two centuries. It is not a catalog of isolated episodes, but rather a persistent policy of power that combines doctrine and the use of force. From the 19th century to the present day, the region has experienced direct incursions, prolonged occupations, remotely supported coups, and “preventive” deployments that have left an indelible mark on our nations and their collective memories.

The first milestone was the war against Mexico (1846–1848). Under the delirium of Manifest Destiny, Washington developed a campaign of occupation that culminated in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the cession of more than a third of Mexican territory. The military victory set a political precedent for the type of hemisphere the United States sought to build.

During the Panama crisis of 1885, the United States demonstrated the hypocrisy of its commitments to “neutrality” by landing marines to secure transit and protect interests. It withdrew quickly, but the message was clear: the canal and its surroundings were a “vital interest” for the United States.

This strategic priority led to support for Panama’s separation from Colombia in 1903. The United States immediately recognized the new government that signed to establish the Canal Zone. It was a supervised independence, essential for the canal project and inseparable from the military and commercial expansion of the early 20th century.

In Nicaragua, the occupations of 1912–1925 and 1926–1933 were part of the so-called Banana Wars. The presence of marines supported friendly governments, and during the second occupation, they fought Sandino’s guerrilla forces until his assassination in 1934. The occupation left behind a military dictatorship that would last for decades.

In 1932, the United States carried out a large naval deployment off the coast of El Salvador during the insurrection led by Farabundo Martí. The repression by the Salvadoran army left tens of thousands dead. The presence of foreign ships affirmed the geopolitical equation of the time: protect investments, contain social protest, and send signals of power.

With the Cold War, the repertoire changed form. In Guatemala, the CIA promoted the overthrow of Árbenz in 1954 and shut down a reformist experiment that was uncomfortable for the United Fruit Company and anti-communist orthodoxy. In 1961, there was the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba, and in 1965, the coup against President Bosch in the Dominican Republic, with the deployment of more than 20,000 soldiers to “prevent another Cuba” and ensure a favorable outcome for Washington.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the logic of hemispheric security deepened. With Operation Condor, Washington promoted coups and military dictatorships in the Southern Cone. In Chile, it facilitated the overthrow of Allende in 1973 and the rise of Augusto Pinochet. The coups in Brazil (1964), Uruguay (1973), and Argentina (1976) had U.S. approval and assistance. In all these cases, coordination with the United States included the criminal persecution of opponents. The consolidation of authoritarian regimes, under the banner of the fight against communism, left a trail of human rights violations and forced disappearances throughout the region.

A new wave of interventions took place in response to the revolutionary struggles in Central America. In Nicaragua (1979-1990), the Reagan administration financed the Contras and opened the Iran-Contra chapter. In El Salvador (1980-1992), it provided advisors and weapons to sustain an anti-insurgency war with a very high human cost. The 1980s ended with the military occupation of Grenada (1983) and the invasion of Panama (1989) with 27,000 Marines and the capture of Noriega.

The inevitable question is what has changed. The rhetoric, yes; the use of force, less so. In addition to the classic justifications—security, stability, protection of nationals—today we have drug trafficking, “orderly transitions,” and the defense of democracy. Trump’s abusive, violent, and warmongering personal style is the focus of much of the analysis and explanations of the current intervention in Venezuela. But it must be understood that this is also part of the US tradition toward Latin America. Words matter, but actions matter more: landings, occupations, military advice, sanctions, and covert operations have defined the political territory where nation-building projects and development models are contested.

Recognizing this history is not an exercise in victimhood; it is a condition of sovereignty. Latin America has resisted, learned, and built alternatives. Memory is not for museums; it is a compass for thinking about foreign relations based on alliances, cooperation, and mutual respect. Peace and sovereignty require legitimate and determined governments, informed citizens, and a regional agenda that is not subordinate to Washington’s political cycles.

The shadow is long but not eternal. If a century and a half of interventions teaches us anything, it is that the hemisphere is not condemned to repeat its past, but to transform it.

Original text by Imanol Ordorika published by La Jornada on January 15, 2026.
Translated by Schools for Chiapas.

The Long Shadow of Interventions

In Latin America, the history of US interventions is a continuous thread that spans two centuries. It is not a catalog of isolated episodes, but rather a persistent policy of power that combines doctrine and the use of force. From the 19th century to the present day, the region has experienced direct incursions, prolonged occupations, remotely supported coups, and “preventive” deployments that have left an indelible mark on our nations and their collective memories.

The first milestone was the war against Mexico (1846–1848). Under the delirium of Manifest Destiny, Washington developed a campaign of occupation that culminated in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the cession of more than a third of Mexican territory. The military victory set a political precedent for the type of hemisphere the United States sought to build.

During the Panama crisis of 1885, the United States demonstrated the hypocrisy of its commitments to “neutrality” by landing marines to secure transit and protect interests. It withdrew quickly, but the message was clear: the canal and its surroundings were a “vital interest” for the United States.

This strategic priority led to support for Panama’s separation from Colombia in 1903. The United States immediately recognized the new government that signed to establish the Canal Zone. It was a supervised independence, essential for the canal project and inseparable from the military and commercial expansion of the early 20th century.

In Nicaragua, the occupations of 1912–1925 and 1926–1933 were part of the so-called Banana Wars. The presence of marines supported friendly governments, and during the second occupation, they fought Sandino’s guerrilla forces until his assassination in 1934. The occupation left behind a military dictatorship that would last for decades.

In 1932, the United States carried out a large naval deployment off the coast of El Salvador during the insurrection led by Farabundo Martí. The repression by the Salvadoran army left tens of thousands dead. The presence of foreign ships affirmed the geopolitical equation of the time: protect investments, contain social protest, and send signals of power.

With the Cold War, the repertoire changed form. In Guatemala, the CIA promoted the overthrow of Árbenz in 1954 and shut down a reformist experiment that was uncomfortable for the United Fruit Company and anti-communist orthodoxy. In 1961, there was the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba, and in 1965, the coup against President Bosch in the Dominican Republic, with the deployment of more than 20,000 soldiers to “prevent another Cuba” and ensure a favorable outcome for Washington.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the logic of hemispheric security deepened. With Operation Condor, Washington promoted coups and military dictatorships in the Southern Cone. In Chile, it facilitated the overthrow of Allende in 1973 and the rise of Augusto Pinochet. The coups in Brazil (1964), Uruguay (1973), and Argentina (1976) had U.S. approval and assistance. In all these cases, coordination with the United States included the criminal persecution of opponents. The consolidation of authoritarian regimes, under the banner of the fight against communism, left a trail of human rights violations and forced disappearances throughout the region.

A new wave of interventions took place in response to the revolutionary struggles in Central America. In Nicaragua (1979-1990), the Reagan administration financed the Contras and opened the Iran-Contra chapter. In El Salvador (1980-1992), it provided advisors and weapons to sustain an anti-insurgency war with a very high human cost. The 1980s ended with the military occupation of Grenada (1983) and the invasion of Panama (1989) with 27,000 Marines and the capture of Noriega.

The inevitable question is what has changed. The rhetoric, yes; the use of force, less so. In addition to the classic justifications—security, stability, protection of nationals—today we have drug trafficking, “orderly transitions,” and the defense of democracy. Trump’s abusive, violent, and warmongering personal style is the focus of much of the analysis and explanations of the current intervention in Venezuela. But it must be understood that this is also part of the US tradition toward Latin America. Words matter, but actions matter more: landings, occupations, military advice, sanctions, and covert operations have defined the political territory where nation-building projects and development models are contested.

Recognizing this history is not an exercise in victimhood; it is a condition of sovereignty. Latin America has resisted, learned, and built alternatives. Memory is not for museums; it is a compass for thinking about foreign relations based on alliances, cooperation, and mutual respect. Peace and sovereignty require legitimate and determined governments, informed citizens, and a regional agenda that is not subordinate to Washington’s political cycles.

The shadow is long but not eternal. If a century and a half of interventions teaches us anything, it is that the hemisphere is not condemned to repeat its past, but to transform it.

Original text by Imanol Ordorika published by La Jornada on January 15, 2026.
Translated by Schools for Chiapas.