Foreign Minister Explains Nicaragua’s Position on Final Declaration of CELAC Summit

On April 11, 2025, the foreign minister of the Republic of Nicaragua, Valdrack Jaentschke, sat down for an interview with journalists Alberto Mora and Arlen Hernandez on the Canal 4 program Revista En Vivo to discuss Nicaragua’s position on the final declaration of the CELAC summit.

Alberto Mora: We welcome comrade Valdrack Jaentschke, foreign minister of the republic. Foreign minister, thank you for joining us this morning. We want to talk to you about Nicaragua’s position in CELAC, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, where there was a pronouncement by the Government of Reconciliation and National Unity, that there was no consensus, nor would there be.

You have also made some remarks in that regard and we wanted you to give us some comments about this summit.

The government communique also expressed how some states taking part played into the hands of foreign interests, of foreigners with no concern for Latin American unity and all the precepts that constitute this alliance, this organization.

Welcome.

Foreign Minister Valdrack Jaentschke: Thank you, compañero and compañera, it’s always an honor, it’s always a pleasure to come and share with you and your wide audience. Well, what is it that happened in Honduras?

I think we have to understand that this was a meeting of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, a space which, after a lot of effort in the region, we have managed to make into a regional space for the countries of the region, without other countries that are to the north of the hemisphere—the United States, Canada—and also without the intervention of other regions like Europe.

That has cost a lot, it has not been easy, there have always been attempts, efforts to cause disunity; maybe today we can start talking about the “Supreme Dream of Bolivar”—in the words of our General of Free Men and Women—the “Supreme Dream of Bolivar” which is the unity of the Latin American and Caribbean nation; that unity longed for throughout history, since the process of decolonization began.

Alberto, you know that I like to explain things, or put them from the point of view of history, because everything has a historical reality. And we have our peoples, on the one hand, dignified, seeking freedom, seeking independence, seeking self-determination, strengthening our sovereignty.

But throughout history we have sustained attacks from outside against that unity; that is, most of our heroes who have sought that unity, both in the Latin American and Caribbean Region, with Bolívar, and from our own Central America, Francisco Morazán, ended up attacked, murdered, or shot in the case of Morazán, by those forces trying to avoid that union, and trying to weaken our integration process, our unity.

Some people talk about integration, but we talk about unity; so, that process of unity and the construction of unity has this latest stage; we often talk about the congresses that our forebears organized.

But now you have this new process that more or less started in 2010, 2011, in which—and I’ve been saying this a lot—in which leaders, presidents, even from very different points of view, in 2010, 2011, managed to sit down, coming from antagonistic political positions. On the one hand, the revolutionary progressive forces, Comandante Daniel, Comandante Raúl Castro, Comandante Chávez, and a number of other progressive forces, in the Caribbean itself, the Anglophone Caribbean, managed to sit down with sectors of those such as Uribe and Piñera.

In other words, that’s the story, they managed to sit down and managed to agree in Caracas, in 2011, to launch the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States.

It was not easy, and already there, were those positions of dignity, the positions of recognizing fundamental principles such as self-determination, such as sovereignty, and also other political principles, non-interference in the internal affairs of the state, the recognition that each state has the possibility of building its own model, and we all have to respect it.

Because, remember, this happened in the context of other countries outside our region trying to dictate to us and tell us how our country should be, how our political organization should be, and what their principles should be.

They speak a lot of words, they talk about democracy, as if we don’t have one of the purest forms of democracy in our country. That recognition that each state has the model that its people decide they want to have, is, I think, a step forward.

In that process over the years, in the last 15 years, every time we have met, we have climbed up one more step in reaching that unity, or to achieve building it, because they talk about—I’ll put it this way, a doctrine of unity, a doctrine of understanding between countries.

You start from the basics, from the minimum, and we were building every time, we were building every time, at every summit, at every meeting of presidents, at every debate of presidents, we were building what we can call the fundamental principles of CELAC.

On those principles, we—thanks to Comandante Daniel, Compañera Rosario—have been very clear, we are not willing to back down, and there is the center of this discussion, the center of this debate. Those principles that reflect the current situation.

What is the methodology involved? Every meeting of presidents has a rich debate, and that rich debate is expressed in a declaration; so, it can’t be that you have the debate, but you don’t end up expressing that in the declaration, firstly.

Secondly, it cannot be that, on this occasion, despite the rich debate, the declaration then takes steps backwards. Because if as with stepping stones you have been building up that unity over the years. And as I have told you, in difficult conditions for the revolutionary forces, the progressive forces, the forces that we see the need to continue strengthening; always faced with the political forces that want disunity, always faced with the political forces that want to dilute, disrupt and weaken the region.

The question is: Why is it important that we are united? Because there are big issues that we have to face together in the world; big issues, right now, at this moment, the issue of tariff measures, we have to face them together, we cannot face them in pieces. The economic issue.

The issue of migration is a current issue; so, how do you deal with those current issues, of that inhuman kidnapping of brothers and sisters, and degrading treatment, when at the end of the day we know that, it’s the capitalist model that has pushed many people—and politicized actions that have pushed many people—to seek better living conditions, either by the destruction of Mother Earth, or by unfair trade measures.

That is, the capitalist model which you and I, Alberto, compañera, have spoken about a lot, that rapacious model, that model of greed, is the one that has pushed people to seek better living conditions to support their families. Now, they come to treat them in an inhuman way.

That is a topic of today, but that topic needs dealing with, or to be attended to, or addressed, based on the steps that we have already been building. Because if one of the steps is that we do not accept unilateral coercive measures, or that we do not accept interference in internal affairs, or that we do not accept extortion, or that we do not accept those kinds of positions, then it’s with those principles that we must face these new problems.

Because tariffs are a form of unilateral coercive measures, unilateral economic measures expressed in the form of tariffs.

The principle is to be against unilateral coercive measures; everything is linked. We cannot face the great challenges of today, if we are not sustained by the past, and we cannot fail to mention them.

Alberto Mora: Or leave them off the agenda.

Foreign Minister Valdrack Jaentschke: Yes, how can we leave them out? How are our presidents or their delegates going to meet, to discuss the pressing problems of the region without mentioning the issue of migration, or inhuman treatment? In other words, we are going to play deaf, dumb and blind to this economic problem that is creating a storm all over the world, not just in the region.

The position of Comandante Daniel and Compañera Rosario is, first we have to touch on today’s issues; secondly, we have to do so based on how we have already advanced, and by touching on them we have to present a position to the world. Palestine, for example.

How is it possible that you, you and I, might meet at a family reunion, a meeting, or have a political conversation, and we are not going to talk about Palestine, or we are not going to talk about what is happening in Haiti, and we are not going to express our deep solidarity with Haiti, without foreign interference?

These are things that we cannot meet without talking about, and if we talk about them we have to tell the world that we talk about them in this way, and that we have these rejections and these positions. That’s the framework of what happened.

So then, what happened in Honduras? That’s the context. Our Honduran sisters and brothers, with great wisdom, understanding the reality of the world, presented a draft declaration, which is the one that was negotiated, discussed prior to the summit, which had 75 points.

I can offer you opinions about some things, but it was a statement that took into account the big issues, with a lot of common sense: health, education, climate change, and other central issues of politics, and solidarity.

It was a draft declaration that we could understand, and we expressed from that moment with very supportive logic to the pro tempore presidency, exercised by the sisters and brothers of Honduras, we expressed, in writing, that Nicaragua does not have a single amendment on this.

What happened when the draft declaration was presented? They tore into it—if I may put it in that very undiplomatic way. A group of people who call themselves negotiators, multilateralists, technical experts—they started fleecing it, if you’ll allow me to say so, Compañero Alberto—and they started discussing commas, dots, words, more words, fewer words, and that’s where the political aspect was already on display. For us there is no difference between the technical and political, Nicaragua has always stated that we do not differentiate, since everything is political.

There one begins to see the intention of some countries in CELAC, sometimes forced to exercise this position of diluting, reducing as much as possible. For example, no, we can’t use the term right to gender equity because we can’t accept that. And those discussions began at midnight, at two in the morning, that we cannot use the term unilateral measures, that we cannot condemn the blockade against Cuba or offer condemnation of the blockade, despite it being one of the world issues with the greatest consensus.

Alberto Mora: To which only two in the United Nations are opposed.

Foreign Minister Valdrack Jaentschke: Yes, that’s why I mention it, it’s one of the most widely agreed global issues, there are two or three things there, the condemnation of the blockade, which represents financial measures, and unilaterally naming countries as sponsors of terrorism. Three issues, and those three are principles for CELAC, because we are all there. And many countries are subject to unilateral measures, it’s not just us. Especially in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela—especially, but not exclusively.

The issue of extortion of countries affects countries in the Caribbean, the small island states of the Caribbean, in the sense, for example, that they have been threatened that if they have Cuban doctors they will suffer aggression. It especially affects Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela, but not exclusively; that is to say, the aggression is expressed in different ways.

We defended that statement of 75 points from the outset, although we did not necessarily agree with some language there, sometimes contrived and far-fetched. But, well, the principles were there in that position, and a series of concerns were expressed there: agriculture, unity around health care, food production.

The topic of artificial intelligence is another new topic, how we, these states, our 33 states are going to face this new challenge, this new frontier of human intelligence, how are we going to address it?

Venezuela’s Vice President in Beijing Ahead of China-CELAC Summit

The commitment of various states was there. And what happened? These countries, in this case, this time led by Argentina and Paraguay. But I want to tell you that it has not been the first time, because in other cases too, led by others who are part of the same group of countries, Argentina and Paraguay began to dismantle, to diminish, to dismember that declaration which contained the fundamental principles with which we agree.

To such an extent that, at one point, it occurred to someone that in order for there to be a declaration, they would have to present something much reduced. For my part, when I referred to it, I said it was like saying “Hello, how are things? Goodbye,” and failing to express the reality of the discussion.

Because that’s the point we stressed, the discussions of the meeting of foreign ministers and the discussions of the meeting of presidents were very substantial, very worthwhile.

Each delegation, including ours, expressed what we consider to be the big problems, although each one presented it in their own way.

You know that we speak differently in the region, some of us speak English, some of us speak Spanish, some of us speak Kreol, but I’m not saying that just because of how we speak, we have different ways of seeing, but in the end there are a series of things agreed upon and stated very strongly.

How is it possible, then, that this very rich discussion was not expressed in the declaration? That’s the point. So, our leadership, our Comandante Daniel, our Compañera Rosario said, we can’t walk things back. That is a fundamental principle of ours, that has been the position of Nicaragua in all of these types of forums. Not one step back! We have this foundation of our political historiography: Not one step back, only forward!

We expressed that approach, we expressed the concern first that what was proposed there for the declaration… it’s by no means true, it’s not true at all that what was proposed there is what was collated. We explained another option. Well, we were not going to sign that, we were not going to accept that, because if we do sign it, it’s, first of all, to accept that the darkest and most politically backward forces in the region should impose their criteria here. Really, I cannot allow the most backward forces of the region to come and impose their will.

How is a revolutionary country like ours, coming out of much struggle, which has cost us blood and life, so as to have a position of dignity, going to accept that? We are not going to allow two countries to come and impose on the entire region that we have to walk things back.

I prefer to say it clearly: We are not going to accept taking a backward step, we are not going to accept omitting condemnation of the blockade of Cuba, we are not going to accept omitting condemnation of unilateral measures against Venezuela, we are not going to accept the omission of reparations for the Caribbean countries, for the transatlantic slave trade, which is an important issue for them.

We are not going to let them fail to express solidarity with Palestine; we are not going to let them fail to express solidarity with the fraternal people of Haiti; we are not going to let them omit any mention of Puerto Rico.

We’re not going to let them, we’re not going to leave it at that; it’s simple. It’s not that we are against Argentina—no, no, today we face the position expressed today by Argentina and Paraguay, but another group of countries have done the same in the past. And in the past we have stood firm in the same way, because either we defend what we really believe in, or we may as well stop taking part in these things.

And that is where we come to the second part of this; the first part of this is that we made that approach, and we explained to the Honduran sisters and brothers: Look, sisters, brothers, you cannot just make that declaration, we are not going to accept it; but make a precise report of the proceedings—I remember I explained to my brother, the foreign minister of Honduras, we have been comrades for many years.

I have absolute confidence that he would be able to express in a report on the proceedings what was discussed, what the presidents said about each of these issues. Since there wasn’t one who didn’t discuss them. So make a report on the proceedings, and that will be the position of this meeting; so it could say who was for and who was against.

But the reply was there is a declaration, there has to be a declaration. Indeed, but if there are to be just those three components. As I said, those eight points add up to “Hello, how are you? Goodbye,” really that means it would be better not to make any declaration. For now, I’m still waiting for the report on the proceedings, we’re still waiting for it, but that was the context, and it was a discussion up to the very end.

Alberto Mora: Does this split the future of further efforts at integration?

Foreign Minister Valdrack Jaentschke: I don’t think it splits it. It shows who are the ones that want to divide us, but, just like our ancestors, just like our leaders, we will continue. That is why—I don’t know if you saw that in our approach—we are going to continue fighting for Latin American and Caribbean unity. We are going to continue looking for how the great issues of the region can be brought together. We are going to continue.

But we cannot endorse that document, because though we denounce those two countries, really with these two we also denounce the constant action of other countries in weakening Latin American unity. Because why would you want a Latin American and Caribbean unity that can say nothing?

Alberto Mora: What happened to countries like Mexico? Because I saw the Mexican president there talking a lot about current issues.

Foreign Minister Valdrack Jaentschke: The compañera president of the United Mexican States, expressed a series of very advanced positions, which should be in the declaration, all of them, every one of them, that’s what I’d say, every one of them.

Alberto Mora: Was the criterion imposed by the people promoting division, was that it?

Foreign Minister Valdrack Jaentschke: The will of these two was imposed.

Alberto Mora: But it comes from outside, it’s extra-regional, certainly, right? We already know where it’s coming from.

Foreign Minister Valdrack Jaentschke: Alberto, I like the phrase, extra-regional technicians of countries from outside the region. But, well, their will was imposed, because that meddling, that long reach, that puppetry from outside over some countries present—we have always remarked on it.

But even under those conditions, we are going ahead with the best will in the world, we are attached to our positions of principles, dignity, and to see the world from a revolutionary and evolutionary perspective, as we have said, and we argued there, knowing that there are forces which want to weaken this process. And I repeat again, in circumstances where there were really great positions.

Alberto Mora: With people like Uribe.

Foreign Minister Valdrack Jaentschke: I’ve mentioned it, the great divisions, great political differences—and you can make your list of those on the right, and I can make my list of progressive and revolutionary forces. And in such conditions, it was always a pleasure to see Comandante Daniel at other summits, at the Cancun meeting or at the Caracas meeting, firmly setting out our position. It was good to see that exchange of ideas, and it was good to see those declarations.

The declaration of Havana in 2014, I think, was one of the declarations that made a qualitative leap in that regional spirit. There you have the declaration, or proclamation, of Latin America and the Caribbean as a zone of peace and development.

How am I going to come and sit here and accept that this is not taken up, but in some way… When you are able to listen, compañeras and compañeros, to each of the speeches of the presidents, of the chancellors, of the delegates, you will hear all of their positions.

But this idea that it’s better that we have this little piece of paper trying to accommodate things, and with those same people saying no; as much as you want to accommodate them, you cannot accommodate them. So what is the dignified way out? Let’s go back to positions of principle.

I think what we are trying to do is explain the difference; that is, first they break things down, because, if you could have seen, Alberto, those meetings at two in the morning, with our brother Orlando Tardencilla confronting these people, who also use verbiage and linguistic tricks to conceal their obstruction, division and weakening of CELAC.

Which is not only something of today, I repeat, since it’s always been so, but despite that, each earlier declaration has been a stepping stone up; each one has been a step closer to that concept of the Patria Grande as we call it, stronger, principled, before the world.

You may ask, what’s the point of all this? I think that, in the declarations you can find, of the declarations that should express what the heads of state had to offer and the points they raised. In other words, the heads of state and government are proposing to organize communications between countries better, they are proposing better trade. The political leaders propose or offer means of exchanges, means of training, for example, in education.

When one puts that in the declaration, it’s a commitment of the country making that offer; in this case, we in this new year of the CELAC presidency are going to propose that we get together so that our technical people can work together on whatever it may be; in health, in education, in transportation, in whatever the issue may be.

But then, how can I go to seek engagement if all I have is a document saying hello, greetings, and goodbye?

Arlen Hernández: And the dignified, sovereign position of Nicaragua at the historic moment of this meeting—what does it mean for our peoples?

Foreign Minister Valdrack Jaentschke: I think it represents, compañera, it represents the position that we are willing neither to give up, nor to back down. We might have left with these positions that offer nothing new, that have nothing to do with what’s happening now. But we prefer then that there should be no declaration, and we said so, we do not accept it. So, there is no consensus. And there began a discussion about consensus, indeed, but there is no consensus because if these rogues are going to blackmail the region into going backwards, then we are not going to allow that.

Please note compañeras and compañeros, that we got to the point of saying, well, these are the ten basic issues for Nicaragua—of the 75 they were reducing—here they are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and we said so at the foreign ministers’ meeting. If the declaration includes this, this and this, namely these, these and these, unity, recognition, being against unilateral coercive measures, against the blockade on Cuba, against the aggression against Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela, recognition of the heroic struggle of the Palestinian people.

We said there are a number of positions there, so let’s recognize them, and let’s go onward. Then, as you see, the rogues disrupted it and then they said what they wanted as well, and then everyone bent backwards to accommodate the rogues. Then, with everyone else ready to satisfy the rogues, those rogues still said no to the bitter end.

Alberto Mora: We thank you foreign minister, thank you for having been with us, it’s always a pleasure, unfortunately time does not forgive us…

Foreign Minister Valdrack Jaentschke: Time forgives very few things, Alberto.

Alberto Mora: Indeed.

(Tortilla con Sal)