What they did to harm the dialogue, simply undo it.
Venezuela links dialogue resumption to reversing Álex Saab's extradition to the U.S., framing it as a simple condition for restarting negotiations. Rodríguez accuses the U.S. and European countries of sabotaging talks while claiming to support dialogue, citing military exercises and support for criminal bands.
- Dialogue suspended in October 2021 after Álex Saab's extradition to the U.S.
- Saab was detained in Cape Verde on money laundering suspicion before extradition
- Rodríguez alleges torture and inhumane prison conditions in Saab's U.S. custody
- Venezuela links dialogue resumption to reversing the extradition
Venezuelan Parliament chief Jorge Rodríguez says resuming dialogue with opposition is 'very easy' if the U.S. reverses the extradition of diplomat Álex Saab, suspended since October 2021.
Jorge Rodríguez, who leads Venezuela's National Assembly, stood before reporters on a Thursday afternoon with a simple message: restarting peace talks with the opposition would be effortless, if only one thing changed. The condition, he said, was straightforward—reverse the extradition of Álex Saab, the businessman and diplomat whose removal to the United States had derailed negotiations in Mexico the previous October.
The dialogue process had been running for months when Saab's case upended it. In October 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice extradited Saab after he was detained in Cape Verde on suspicion of money laundering. Rodríguez, who had led Venezuela's delegation during those talks, framed the extradition as a deliberate act of sabotage—a blow struck by Washington against a genuine effort at reconciliation. Now, he was laying down what he presented as an uncomplicated path forward: those who had attacked the dialogue, he said, need only correct what they had broken.
"It's very easy," Rodríguez told the press. "What they did to harm the dialogue, simply undo it." He directed his words at the United States, European countries, and opposition factions he accused of speaking out of both sides of their mouths—claiming to want dialogue while simultaneously backing military exercises and criminal organizations operating from Colombian territory. The hypocrisy, in his telling, was transparent. They wanted to talk, yet they had orchestrated the very action that made talking impossible.
When pressed about Saab's case specifically, Rodríguez grew more pointed. He rejected allegations that Saab had cooperated with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, comparing such claims to what he called the fabricated narrative around a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Instead, he focused on what he described as Saab's treatment in custody. Two teeth knocked out by guards in Cape Verde. Torture of an indescribable kind. Conditions in a prison cell that no human being should endure. Psychological terror applied systematically. If Saab were truly a cooperating informant, Rodríguez asked, why would the Americans treat him this way?
He pointed to other Venezuelans he said were living comfortably abroad—some in the United States itself—despite being fugitives from Venezuelan justice. Alcalá Cordones, a former military officer. Christopher Figuera, once head of Venezuela's intelligence service. Rafael Ramírez, a former oil minister now living in Europe. The United States, Rodríguez suggested, knew exactly how to treat its assets. The treatment of Saab told a different story entirely.
The standoff crystallized a deeper impasse. Venezuela was saying that dialogue could resume immediately if Washington reversed course on Saab. The U.S. position—that Saab faced legitimate criminal charges and that his extradition was lawful—remained unchanged. Neither side showed signs of movement. For the opposition and the international mediators hoping to broker peace, the message was clear: one man's case had become the hinge upon which the entire negotiation turned. Without resolution on Saab, there would be no return to the table in Mexico. With it, Rodríguez insisted, everything else would fall into place.
Citações Notáveis
It's very easy. What they did to harm the dialogue, simply undo it.— Jorge Rodríguez, Venezuelan Parliament chief
The U.S., European countries, and opposition sectors know very well it is simple and easy to resume these dialogue processes.— Jorge Rodríguez
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does Saab's extradition matter so much that it can stop an entire dialogue process?
Because both sides see it as a test of good faith. For Venezuela, it's proof that the U.S. was never serious about negotiations—they sabotaged talks by removing a key figure. For the U.S., it's a criminal case that stands on its own merits, separate from politics.
But Rodríguez is saying it's simple to fix. Is it really?
Not at all. The U.S. would have to reverse an extradition decision, which means either dropping charges or commuting a sentence. That's not a small diplomatic gesture—it's admitting the whole process was wrong.
What about the torture allegations? Are those credible?
Saab's legal team has made those claims, and they're serious. But the U.S. disputes them. The real question is whether either side will ever investigate independently or if it's just become part of the blame game.
So who's actually blocking dialogue here?
Both are, depending on your angle. Venezuela says the U.S. sabotaged it. The U.S. says Venezuela is using Saab as an excuse not to negotiate. The opposition is caught in the middle, wanting talks but unable to move either side.
What happens if neither budges on Saab?
The dialogue stays frozen. And the longer it stays frozen, the harder it becomes to restart, because both sides dig in deeper and the opposition loses leverage.