Karina Brocks
eluniversal.com

Félix Arellano, professor at the School for International Studies, Central University of Venezuela (UCV), said that after the mediation and subsequent facilitation of President Hugo Chávez in the case of the hostages held by the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC), the way he behaves and governs has been exposed to the world, as well as his "disrespectful media practices". Professor Arellano also referred to the next steps regarding the hostages' case and the international impact of the recent acts of the governments of Venezuela and Colombia concerning this matter.

In your opinion, which party has resulted more discredited after it was known that FARC did not have Emmanuel?

All the parties involved have had a serious decay. Who are the most affected? I believe that FARC and the President of Venezuela, but I do not doubt that President Uribe has had also a significant decay since he authorized or requested the mediation of the Venezuelan ruler.

Chávez's image had resulted significantly deteriorated in this process, not only because the deceit of  FARC but also because of the way he handled this matter, since it became  evident that he does not have the required judgment, deliberation and balance. Otherwise, he could have been considered a good negotiator who was deceived by FARC. I think that the world is judging Chávez's irresponsibility when handling this matter rather than the failure itself. Failure was evident; it is obvious that FARC did not want to negotiate. Chávez put on a sort of grotesque show, with even a film director involved, which is absolutely irrational in terms of a human, political effort of such a sensitive nature.

Naturally, FARC have made clear to the world that they lie systematically, which is no big news, given that it is an organization that makes a living from kidnapping, drug trafficking and that lacks a political model.

How do you evaluate Uribe's decision of appointing Chávez as mediator?

I think that in the administration of Álvaro Uribe, the appointment of the Venezuelan President as a mediator might be considered one of the most unfortunate decisions, considering that Hugo Chávez was already known, i.e. he was not someone to be identified or discovered. And especially by a neighboring country as Colombia that has had so many ups and downs with Venezuela due to the microphone diplomacy of the Venezuelan President. His designation as mediator was a major imprudence. 

There is no doubt that this has represented a weakening for President Uribe and an unnecessary erosion in the relations with Venezuela, which is very important for both parties, but particularly important for Colombian producers and exporters and now the Colombian President has to handle this issue, this hot potato that he created with the appointment.

In your opinion, why did the Colombian Government decide, after three months, to request the end of Chávez's mediation? Which were the political costs for Colombia of the Venezuelan President's efforts?

I think that the facts have clarified the President's over-the top behavior. Senator Piedad Córdoba's talks with former guerilla members and Colombian military authorities on a supposed transition government gave the mediator a role that did not suit him. Mediators do not pursue power; mediators pursue conciliation between the parties. In this case, there was a constant isolation of one of the parties and unbalance in favor of the other party. This was far from being considered a mediation.

Translated by Patricia Días