By Luis Manuel Aguana
The message of the Secretary General
of the OAS was very clear: "I said
very clearly that we must always exhaust the path of diplomatic actions and
that we must leave all options open, that no option should be discarded. From
there, some manichaeist interpretations sought to change the axis of the
discussion. The development was that we spoke of a military attack of violence,
that we were in favor of armed aggression. That is not true..." (see in Spanish Mensaje de Luis Almagro sobre visita
a Zona de Frontera Colombia-Venezuela, en https://twitter.com/Almagro_OEA2015/status/1041421553513058304).
However, Almagro's statements in Colombia were
interpreted as meaning that the OAS Secretary General was in favor of a
military attack, and the Foreign Ministers of the Lima Group immediately jumped
out, rejecting a military intervention in Venezuela (see in Spanish El Grupo de
Lima rechaza cualquier intervención militar en Venezuela
But what caught my attention the
most was the strong reaction of all public opinion against the Declaration of
the Lima Group, which certainly reflects the course of the prevailing public
opinion in relation to the way in which the Venezuelan crisis should be
resolved. And this merits a little closer examination, given that the need to
explore the expression "all options" is taking on more and more body,
given that the Foreign Ministers of the Lima Group have already expressed the
position of their countries in relation to not intervening militarily in
Venezuela.
And "all options" do not
necessarily imply only the military option, although that option can also be
studied by those countries. The people in Venezuela are very, very desperate.
Without being able to buy a minimum of food because of a scandalous
hyperinflation, without medicines, without medical attention, without water,
without electricity, without basic public services because everyone has
collapsed, any human being living in Venezuela that cannot sustain it, or
leaves or dies. That's how simple things are. And more and more people are
unable to sustain it. Hence the mass exodus to neighboring countries.
And how does that stop? Going to the
causes: overthrowing Maduro's communist dictatorship. But is it that simple? Do
we just bring in the multinational military from the outside? Even if the
current of opinion points to a military intervention for humanitarian purposes,
the result of that decision may be even worse. And perhaps that is not being
visualized here because of the desperation we have in Venezuela.
We have already indicated many times
that we are in a hostage situation. And the criminals have planted the site
with explosives. If someone walks through the door they make them explode, they
die and we die and of course those who get in. They prefer to do so because
they are fanatics and want to prove an ideological point difficult to
understand by those of us who did not understand that this was part of a plan
that has been in execution for years.
The regime permanently trains armed
paramilitary militiamen throughout the country, not precisely to attack anyone
who invades us, but the Venezuelans themselves who oppose them. It is possible
that they will be criminally activated against the same unarmed opposition
population - whom they have already identified - when a violent confrontation
begins. We are not talking about rational people but about ideologized
fanatical Taliban. So, before taking a step that begins an armed confrontation,
which would be a bloodbath impossible to quantify, I think the most responsible
thing would be to continue exploring options, even if time is already exhausted
or about to run out. There is
always time to avoid violence.
As if it were not enough to deal with the armed paramilitary groups, and
the threat that this represents for the civilian population, we still have to
resolve the possible period of instability and subsequent anarchy in the
country if there is no serious plan to return to institutionality. An
uncontrolled fall of the regime that does not imply the participation of
popular sovereignty, that endorses the actions of those who have insurrected to
dismantle the criminals from power will be highly unstable, simply because many
other groups will conspire to claim protagonism and privileges.
This type of groups generally ask themselves: Why them and not us? And
that only ceases when the people decides who should govern. That's why it's
essential to move public opinion to convince it that it's sovereignty that
decides on a consciously elaborated plan to be executed in order to fill the
power vacuum before the regime falls. But for many power-hungry people that is
not convenient. They prefer it to fall like a piñata: the one with the most
strength, the one that picks up more candy from the ground, even if that is not
convenient for Venezuelans.
More than a
year ago I had stated that I was not against an intervention (see in Spanish Intervenciones
humanitarias, en http://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/2017/08/intervenciones-humanitarias.html) if the "owner of the
house" decides to call international 911 because the dictatorship is
denying him the right to receive humanitarian aid. As Luis Almagro says, there
is a responsibility to protect. And the "owner of the house" here is
the people of Venezuela.
If the
constitutional representation of that people is designated without further
delay, the terms of that assistance can be defined immediately between our
constitutional representation, that is, a National Emergency Government
appointed for that purpose, and the international community.
If the
latter, after an in-depth but extremely urgent assessment of the situation,
decides that an intervention is required based on the principle pointed out by
the late UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, according to which "The government of no country has the
right to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate human rights or
the fundamental freedoms of the inhabitants of that country", then the
international community would not be acting unilaterally, but at the request of
a legitimate Emergency Government, which will respond for what happens next.
But if, on
the other hand, a group of countries decides to intervene on their own in
Venezuela because they can no longer wait because of the damage caused by the
Venezuelan situation in the region, the vultures that capture the decomposed
smell of the remains of the Maduro regime will be competing to manage the
country, with the consequent and certain future instability.
Which one
do you prefer?
Now, if the
legitimate TSJ and the National Assembly decide (as the National Assembly has
apparently already decided) that they will not fill the power vacuum left by
Nicolás Maduro Moros's condemning sentence, the vacuum will be filled in the
same way, by the imposition of the facts and without the control of anyone
designated by the Venezuelan people or by their legitimate powers. A
military-humanitarian intervention promoted by some international coalition
will appear out of nowhere, with its corresponding Junta of Government that
will decide the destiny of the Venezuelans, with the consequent risk of
repeating the tale of the frogs asking for a King (see in Spanish Fabulas de
Esopo http://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/2012/03/fabulas-de-esopo.html). The remedy can be worse than the
disease. It happened to us once with Hugo Chávez...
But if
there is an Emergency Government, it could perfectly decide that before calling
international 911, we would "dissuade" the criminals who govern the
country from submitting the fate of the nation to popular sovereignty, with all
the relevant international guarantees, on pain of taking the last decision that
represents a violent solution that would not be won by the regime or by chance.
The people would be given a chance to pronounce on their present and future, in
particular on how the transition process would be carried out, and the
"owner of the house" would decide with the support of the entire
international community to dismantle the system that has ruined us, as well as
the regime's discourse of an "imperialist invasion".
Would the
kidnappers who hold us hostage be willing to negotiate their way out with no
dead to count through that mechanism? Because in an intervention there will be
deaths from all sides, but if there is one thing I am sure it is that they
would be the first ones. Will they really be willing to detonate the
explosives, blowing us all up with them inside without first negotiating a way
out? I think that the Lima Group and the Secretary General of the OAS could
agree on this dissuasive version of the intervention.
According to the former Ambassador to the United Nations, Diego Arria,
"the dissuasive capacity of a power, such as the United States, has not
yet been used to the extent that it is possible and that it is more
efficient... I believe that the best intervention for Venezuela is that of
dissuasion... I repeat to you: the moment is one of strong dissuasion. The
mafia used it: "I'll make you an
offer you can't refuse" (see in Spanish Diego Arria: “Ni China ni
Rusia intervendrán por Venezuela”
https://es.panampost.com/orlando-avendano/2018/09/07/diego-arria-ni-china-ni-rusia-intervendran-por-venezuela/).
It would be interesting to start working on "what
would be the offer they could not refuse" that we would propose to them,
but I am sure we would find one for the sake of rescuing our freedom and with
the least possible cost in lives....
Caracas, September 18, 2018
Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario