From 1825 to 2026: Defending Peace, Bolívar's Strategy to Preserve Existence

Published at: 08/05/2026 05:00 PM

Once again, we bring for analysis the letter that Bolívar sent to Santander from Cuzco, in June 1825, in which he explained one of the strategies to achieve our independence and defined actions against the French aggressor.

In that letter, Bolívar presented his reading of the geopolitical moment that the Republic was experiencing. After the victory in Ayacucho, based on information received from Páez, it was decided to return with troops to the north (Bogotá, Caracas, Cartagena) to strengthen the nascent Gran Colombia.

This was very well identified in the letter from March that we have already analyzed in this space, and in the letter from June that we will study this time, it can be seen that the situation changed a little; the French seemed to have postponed their ambitions, but it was not a certainty.

Faced with this , Bolívar identified that an agreement with a power can preserve peace, avoid war and the destruction that this entailed. I also recognized that this would bring inconvenience, because it could lead to temporary subordination or to a limitation of action. However, the Liberator used 3 primary conditions and required:

The first was existence, that is, to be and continue to be a Republic . The second, the mode of existence ; existing in peace to promote social life and in parallel. And, implicitly, the third was: to consolidate, to strengthen so that when it is strong (or appropriate) to also get rid of the guardianship of the British.

These letters from Bolívar are useful in studying and understanding the current moment. Reading it provides us with elements to strengthen our unity and understand that sometimes it is necessary to learn to retreat first, to move forward with greater force later, as a strategy of extended war action.

Simon Bolivar's letter to Francisco de Paula Santander, in June 1825, reflected a Liberator at the height of his military glory but deeply distressed by the political fragility of the nascent Republic. In this period, Bolívar expressed themes that resonate strongly in Venezuelan political theory and history:

· Fear of anarchy and turbulence: The Liberator confesses or feels “more afraid of my beloved homeland, Venezuela, than of all of America”, describing the people of Caracas as “the most turbulent”.

· International protectionism: Prop custom to place the Confederation , under the protection of England, to safeguard it from the Holy Alliance and other European powers.

· Centralism vs. Federalism: He criticized Santander in its fascination with the American model, warning that institutions must adapt to the nature of peoples and not be mere foreign copies.

· Unity as salvation: I insist on the importance of the Congress of Panama as the only means to guarantee collective security in the face of external threats.

By taking a look at the current Venezuelan context, these texts can draw parallels that invite reflection from Bolivarian thinking:

1. Sovereignty and External Threats: The country remains under a threat similar to Bolívar's warning about the Holy Alliance, and presents itself in international sanctions and the economic blockade as the modern version of imperial powers that Bolivar feared in 1825.

2. The dilemma of Order vs. Freedom: The Bolivarian tension between a strong executive, necessary to maintain unity and respect for laws, is reflected in advances in reconciliation between Venezuelans and the application of amnesties to maintain national peace.

3. Regionalism and Fragmentation: Bolívar's fear that Venezuela would separate from Gran Colombia, which took shape years later in La Cosiata, is today associated with the challenges of regional integration and the recovery of the Essequibo territory .

4. Rejection of Foreign Models: The Liberator's skepticism towards the American model is a pillar of the current discourse that rejects Washington's political and economic influence, instead promoting a plural bipolarism similar to the alliance that Bolivar was looking to counterbalance other powers.

In the current context, the revision of this letter acquires a vital urgency, especially since the country is under siege or by mechanisms of financial and diplomatic control, which revives the dilemma of 1825. Under an anti-imperialist perspective, resistance is not just a military act, but the defense of a model of life that does not ask for permission to be.

Defending the Homeland today, under Bolívar's legacy , means rejecting the narrative that imposes catalog democracies designed in centers of foreign power. Dignity is the right to make one's own mistake in the face of the proposal imposed by the colonizer. The Homeland, as a space of resistance, is manifested in the struggle of a people who understand that their dignity is priceless, nor is it traded on foreign stock exchanges.

https://archivodellibertador.gob.ve/archlib/web/index.php/site/documento?id=11633

AMELYREN BASABE/Mazo News Team