José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero was hit by a storm of reproaches and even insults when, after the last presidential election in Venezuela, on July 28, he did not rush to speak publicly about its very controversial result. I was not one of those who threw themselves at him for that reason. First of all, I do not understand very well why everyone has to talk all the time about everything divine and human. This desire to give diarrheal opinions has become hegemonic with the rise of social networks, and especially with the addition of Twitter, now in a train wreck in India, is that he lacks sensitivity and empathy, and can even be accused of complicity in the drama. . In the end…
In the specific case of Zapatero and the presidential election in Venezuela, I imagined him more trying to promote dialogue between the parties, to reconcile what is difficult to reconcile, to try to prevent the blood from reaching the river. That is his personal disposition and that is the mission of mediators in international conflicts. Look, I don’t know everything, there are things I have no idea about, so you won’t read me comments on the latest news from the James Webb telescope. But I do know something – a little, just a little – about international politics after several decades as a newspaper correspondent. The country on four continents and two years as director general of international communications at La Moncloa (under Zapatero, by the way). And one of those things I know is that discretion can be very useful in certain circumstances.
