The march “in defense of national sovereignty” and in support of Colombia’s president, Gustavo Petro, took an unexpected political turn after a phone conversation between the Colombian president and his U.S. counterpart, Donald Trump. Before thousands of people gathered at the rally, Petro transformed an act of domestic mobilization into a proposal with regional reach: the opening of tripartite talks among Colombia, Venezuela, and the United States.
The announcement came just hours after a phone call with U.S. President Donald Trump, in a context marked by diplomatic tension following Washington’s recent operation in Venezuela and Trump’s subsequent threats toward Colombia.
The mobilization had been framed by the government as a response to what Petro considers external pressure and threats to the country’s autonomy. However, rather than limiting himself to a denunciatory speech, the president chose to send a political message beyond Colombia’s borders. In his remarks, he insisted that the defense of sovereignty does not lie in isolation or direct confrontation, but in the pursuit of channels of understanding that can prevent a regional escalation with unpredictable consequences.
Colombia’s Petro proposes tripartite talks with US, Venezuela
What had been expected to be a rally filled with nationalist rhetoric and confrontation with the United States took an unexpected turn when President Petro arrived at the gathering in Bogotá’s Plaza Bolívar. In a noticeably more moderate tone, the Colombian president’s central proposal was the creation of a dialogue forum that directly involves the governments of Colombia, Venezuela, and the United States.
According to Petro, the Venezuelan crisis and U.S. intervention cannot be addressed unilaterally without generating new sources of instability. Colombia, because of its geographic position and its historical relationship with both countries, presents itself in his view as an indispensable actor in any attempt at a political solution.
The Colombian president underscored that the situation in Venezuela has immediate effects on Colombia, especially along the shared border, where migratory flows, smuggling, and the presence of illegal armed groups intensify during periods of crisis. For that reason, he argued that stabilizing the neighboring country is not only an internal Venezuelan matter nor an issue exclusive to U.S. foreign policy, but a regional problem that requires coordination and shared responsibility.
Esto es Histórico.
Hablaremos con Trump, de la Paz del Continente, de la soberanía , de un Pacto por la Vida basado en las energías limpias. Se puede descarbonizar la matriz de EEUU si se vuelve real el potencial de energías limpias de Suramérica pic.twitter.com/0bqPP2lAYe
— Gustavo Petro (@petrogustavo) January 8, 2026
From the call with Trump to the public podium
The announcement of the tripartite dialogue was directly linked to the phone conversation held with Donald Trump. Petro explained that during that call, they addressed sensitive issues such as the situation in Venezuela, drug trafficking, and the state of bilateral relations. Although he avoided giving precise details of the exchange, he made it clear that he raised the need to open formal diplomatic channels and to reduce the tone of public confrontation.
The call marked a shift from the previous days, when Petro himself had used harsh language to criticize U.S. intervention in Venezuela and warn about its implications for regional sovereignty. In the Plaza de Bolívar, the president maintained his criticism, but combined it with a more pragmatic message aimed at preventing the tension from escalating into a broader conflict.
The announcement of a possible future meeting with Trump reinforced the idea that both governments are seeking, at least for the time being, to contain the crisis through political means.
The core of Petro’s initiative is Venezuela. The Colombian president argued that any lasting solution to the Venezuelan crisis must include the actors directly involved and avoid solutions imposed from outside. In that context, he mentioned recent contacts with Venezuelan leaders and Colombia’s willingness to serve as a bridge to facilitate talks that could reduce violence and rebuild a minimum level of institutional stability.
Petro insisted that the goal is not to legitimize any particular actor, but to create conditions for Venezuelan society to regain stability. In his speech, he linked this process to the need for a broader perspective that includes the international community and, eventually, multilateral organizations. Hence his reference to a dialogue that is “hopefully global,” going beyond specific agreements and addressing the structural causes of the crisis.
Reactions and limits of the initiative in an open scenario
The proposal was met with applause among those attending the rally, but it generated mixed reactions in the political sphere. Sectors aligned with the government viewed the announcement as a gesture of regional leadership and a bet on diplomacy at a time of high tension. For them, the initiative reinforces the idea of Colombia as an actor seeking negotiated solutions and avoiding automatic alignments.
From the opposition, by contrast, criticism emerged regarding the viability of the tripartite dialogue and the risk that Colombia could become trapped between opposing interests. Some leaders questioned the idea of proposing a dialogue table with the United States and Venezuela without clear conditions and warned that the country could lose room to maneuver in defending its own interests.
Beyond the immediate reactions, the proposal faces evident obstacles. There is still no roadmap, nor are the conditions that Washington and Caracas would accept to sit at the same table known. It is also unclear what role other regional or international actors would play or how the dialogue would translate into concrete measures on the ground.
With his announcement in the Plaza de Bolívar, Gustavo Petro placed Colombia at the center of the regional debate on Venezuela and relations with the United States. The initiative for a tripartite dialogue seeks to defuse tensions and project an image of diplomatic autonomy, but its success will depend on factors that largely lie beyond the control of the Colombian government.
In a context marked by political volatility in Washington, institutional fragility in Venezuela, and the internal pressures Petro faces just months ahead of elections, the proposal is, for now, an open wager. What became clear yesterday is that the Colombian president chose to turn a protest mobilization into a political message directed abroad, with the intention of repositioning Colombia as an actor that, in the midst of crisis, proposes dialogue rather than confrontation.