Diplomatic crisis between Brazil and Argentina today: The embassy in Caracas without security

The tension between Brazil and Argentina reaches a critical level with Brazil’s withdrawal of diplomatic custody from the Argentine embassy in Caracas. What began as a procedural decision has become an international issue exposing the contradictions in Argentine foreign policy and its geopolitical alignments during a time of global transformation.

Brazil formalizes its withdrawal: The end of a historic custody

On January 15th, what seemed unthinkable just weeks ago was realized. Brazil officially notified its decision to abandon its role as protector of Argentine interests in Venezuela, a function it had been performing since Argentina severed relations with Nicolás Maduro’s government over a year ago.

This diplomatic custody was not a mere bureaucratic formality. It involved maintaining an active presence in the embassy building, safeguarding its assets, acting as the official interlocutor with Venezuelan authorities, and, most importantly, ensuring that Argentine territory maintained its internationally recognized diplomatic immunity.

The Brazilian government announced it would have one week to execute the withdrawal. Today, as that deadline passes, Argentina finds itself in an unprecedented scenario: without formal diplomatic representation in Caracas and without a third country designated to assume this critical role. Up to the time of this report, the Argentine Foreign Ministry had not announced who would assume these responsibilities.

Why did Brazil abandon its role? Milei’s position as a turning point

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s decision to withdraw was not spontaneous. Behind it lies a deep conflict over how to address the Venezuelan political crisis and, more importantly, how to position itself vis-à-vis Washington amid the reconfiguration of regional power.

Brazil, along with Mexico, Colombia, and Uruguay, publicly condemned the military operation that resulted in Nicolás Maduro’s capture and transfer to the United States. They considered it a violation of international law and national sovereignty. Argentina, on the other hand, aligned completely with the U.S. position.

This divergence deepened when Colombia attempted to convene the CELAC foreign ministers to issue a unified regional condemnation. Argentina, along with countries like Ecuador and Peru, which follow the orbit of Donald Trump, blocked that joint statement. The same stance was later reflected in the UN Security Council and the OAS Permanent Council.

The Argentine government admitted that this “diplomatic distortion” was decisive in Brazil’s decision. What Brazil sees as an Argentine ideological stance serving U.S. interests, the Milei administration considers a pragmatic alignment with the regional power of the moment.

Argentina faces a void today: The implications of this rupture

Brazil’s withdrawal creates a vacuum that Argentina had not fully anticipated. Without diplomatic custody, the embassy is technically in a complex legal limbo. While it retains its status as Argentine territory in Venezuelan soil, it loses the institutional backing that guarantees protection for its personnel and assets.

This situation is particularly delicate because the Argentine embassy housed several Venezuelan opposition members in exile facing harassment from local security forces. The 1954 Diplomatic Asylum Convention states that asylum seekers must leave with diplomatic personnel or be handed over to the representation of a third state that provides similar guarantees.

The Argentine government had relied on Brazil to meet these requirements. Now, without a clear alternative, it faces humanitarian and legal dilemmas simultaneously. What happens to the asylum seekers if Brazil withdraws and no other country is able to assume that role? How is the protection of diplomatic personnel who may remain ensured? These questions remain without official answers.

Italy on the horizon: Seeking a diplomatic solution

It is no coincidence that the Casa Rosada has turned its attention to Italy as a potential successor to Brazil in diplomatic custody. Rome emerges as a strategic actor in negotiations for the release of Argentines detained in Venezuela.

Among the cases gaining visibility is that of border guard Nahuel Gallo, detained since December 2024 at El Rodeo prison. Also notable is lawyer Germán Giuliani, who recently regained his freedom. And just days ago, Yaacob Harari, a 72-year-old Israeli-Argentine citizen who had been detained in the same prison, was released.

The Italian ambassador in Caracas has been particularly active, demanding the release of Italian citizens and succeeding in two cases this week. The Argentine government sees Italy not only as a country capable of safeguarding the embassy but also as a potential channel for delicate humanitarian negotiations.

The symbolism was clear when President Javier Milei and Foreign Minister Pablo Quirno received the new Italian ambassador in Buenos Aires, Fabrizio Nicoletti, who presented his credentials in the White Hall. Although the Casa Rosada described the situation as “delicate” and avoided explicit confirmations, the diplomatic gesture was unmistakable.

However, as of yesterday afternoon, there were no formal updates. The Foreign Ministry chose strategic silence. “For now, there’s not much to say. We are going through a very delicate and sensitive period,” was the official response to inquiries. The government does not rule out the emergence of new cases of Argentine detainees in the coming days, which would increase the urgency to formalize an alternative custody.

Detainees in limbo: The humanitarian urgency after Brazil’s withdrawal

The lack of active diplomatic custody significantly complicates humanitarian efforts. Without a formal channel of representation before the Venezuelan government, Argentina loses the capacity to exert institutional pressure, negotiate releases, or monitor the conditions of its citizens’ detention.

The Foreign Ministry has not officially confirmed the total number of Argentines in detention conditions similar to Gallo’s. This lack of transparency suggests there may be additional cases not yet publicly known.

The loss of Brazil’s custody worsens this situation considerably. Without a recognized diplomatic intermediary in Caracas, detainees are left without effective institutional backing. Future efforts would need to be channeled through Italy or another country, but that requires first formalizing that representation—an additional negotiation process.

A dangerous precedent: What re-establishing relations with Venezuela would mean

There is a profound paradox on the horizon. While Argentina experiences the collapse of its diplomatic custody in Caracas, Donald Trump has executed an unexpected shift: recognizing Delcy Rodríguez, Nicolás Maduro’s successor, as the legitimate head of state and valid interlocutor in political negotiations.

Since 2024, the Argentine government had explicitly recognized Edmundo González Urrutia as Venezuela’s legitimately elected president. After the military operation that captured Maduro, it reaffirmed him as “the true president.” But Washington changed its strategy, and Argentina, aligned as it is, had to follow suit.

The Argentine government resorted to conveniently adjusted arguments: it claims that elections under current conditions are unviable and that Washington remains the only valid arbiter of Venezuelan politics. This logic justified accepting the change in position.

Here lies the fundamental contradiction. Reopening the Argentine embassy in Caracas and attempting to restore formal diplomatic relations would, in effect, mean recognizing Delcy Rodríguez’s government as the legitimate authority, even if political rhetoric states otherwise. Argentina is already on this path: without formal representation but seeking diplomatic custody and humanitarian efforts with a government that publicly states it does not recognize.

Historical context: How Argentina reached this crossroads

To understand the gravity of the present, it’s necessary to look back. The rupture of relations between Argentina and Venezuela under Javier Milei was more radical than any previous step taken by conservative administrations.

During Mauricio Macri’s government, there was clear confrontation with Chavismo and explicit recognition of Juan Guaidó as interim president. But Macri, despite that political stance, never formally broke diplomatic relations. The pragmatic reason was to maintain an embassy with a reduced staff (a second-tier chargé d’affaires), allowing communication channels to stay open, protect Argentine economic interests, and ensure consular representation for Argentine citizens in Venezuela.

Milei took a further step. He formalized the complete rupture to fully align with the U.S. stance at that time. When he did so, there were still groups of Venezuelan opposition members in exile at the embassy facing harassment from local security forces.

This created an urgent need to find a country willing to sustain political ties with Miraflores, guarantee protection for asylum seekers, and process safe conduct passes. Options were limited: mainly Brazil and Mexico, countries with existing political tensions.

Along with Argentina, diplomatic missions from Chile, Costa Rica, Peru, Panama, the Dominican Republic, and Uruguay also left Caracas. However, the other countries maintained a larger presence or more active channels. Argentina was the most radical.

Over time, the asylum-seeking opposition members managed to leave the embassy through discreet operations reportedly involving the United States. But the diplomatic custody remained, held by Brazil, as a guarantee that the Argentine embassy maintained its legal status.

The end of a cycle: Where is Argentina headed

Today’s situation marks the lowest point of Argentine diplomatic presence in Venezuela in decades. Without custody, without active representation, and without formal negotiation channels, Argentina finds itself isolated in a landscape where dynamics are being reshaped by Washington and regional allies.

The search for Italy as an alternative is a smart move but also indicative of Argentina’s weakened position. Italy is a European country without Brazil’s regional influence or the capacity to exert the pressure that Brazilian custody once provided.

What emerges is a model of Argentine diplomacy subordinate to the swings of U.S. geopolitics, where coherence gives way to immediate convenience. The cost of this subordination is today reflected in the loss of diplomatic custody and the inability to effectively protect its detained citizens in Venezuela.

Next week will determine whether Italy assumes custody or if Argentina faces weeks in complete diplomatic vacuum. Whatever the outcome, the current crisis clearly teaches that geopolitical alliances have costs that go beyond political statements.