I have been asked for a better explanation in relation to my last note about what is this about incorporating the regime in a dialogue to achieve a Constituent Assembly. I must say here that although this blog is not a tribune of the organization to which I belong, but a site where I express my personal point of view, ANCO explained in detail that route to the country in a communiqué dated August 8, 2021 entitled "ANCO reaffirms and proposes to the country and to the International Community a route to Refound the Nation" (see in Spanish ANCO Communiqué at "ANCO reaffirms and proposes to the country and to the International Community a route to Refound the Nation", in https://ancoficial.blogspot.com/2021/08/anco-reafirma-y-propone-al-pais-y-la.html). This implies that what I am doing is to support and explain a position expressed by ANCO many months ago.
But it is certainly necessary to explain in greater detail this proposal, which may seem shocking to many people, even within our own organization. The first thing to specify here is that the framework imposed by the International Community to solve the Venezuelan crisis is the peaceful way of dialogue. If we do not believe in that, that is another discussion, which I will not discuss here because it implies actions that are not the subject of this note.
If we start from the certain premise of agreeing to a dialogue, it cannot be on the regime's terms, as was established at the beginning of the talks in Mexico. And even less so the manner in which the opposition agreed to enter into this dialogue. The mere fact of signing the Memorandum of Understanding for the dialogue in Mexico, disqualified the official opposition as representative of the Venezuelan opposition in those talks (see in Spanish Memorandum of Understanding, in https://dqtjif.bitlydns.net/2021/08/13/memorando-del-acuerdo-de-entendimiento-entre-la-oposicion-y-el-chavismo-documento/).
The official opposition placed itself in a position of disqualification and initial contradiction by recognizing the regime in that document as the "Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela" and accepting to call itself the "Unitary Platform of Venezuela", when it had already taken the fundamental step of appointing an In-Charge Government headed by Juan Guaidó Márquez, internationally recognized by the US and more than 60 countries, and declaring the government of Nicolás Maduro Moros illegitimate.
This sealed the defeat of the Venezuelans in those talks in Mexico to achieve something positive to get out of this misfortune. If it is already accepted that they are the government, then why negotiate with them when what is under discussion is precisely their condition as legitimate rulers of the country? If that will not be so, then there is nothing to discuss there; and if it is accepted, it implies an unconditional surrender to whatever the regime imposes there.
If there is a dialogue with the regime, it is clear that its recognition cannot go beyond admitting that they exercise de facto power in Venezuela, because that is a reality that no one can deny. It is not something that pleases many Venezuelans, but it is a necessary condition to move to a better stage in this situation of world isolation caused by the condition of generalized and international non-recognition in which the regime has placed us, having consistently violated the Constitution and establishing itself as a de facto government with the support of the Armed Forces outside the rule of law.
This is the fundamental principle of this problem, the conceptual definition of who the dialogue participants are. This is the starting point for any future dialogue with the international community. Without this, no dialogue is possible and the situation in Venezuela will have to be resolved in another way. If the regime insists on setting itself up as the Legitimate Government, there is no dialogue possible, which means that the sanctions imposed on them will have to be insisted upon and deepened. They are the ones who exercise de facto power and if they do not admit that role in possible talks, then a dialogue with them makes no sense.
On the other hand, there is the definition of the political opposition. Who are "La Plataforma Unitaria de Venezuela"? Do they really represent the interests of the Venezuelan opposition? Definitely NO. Apart from the fact that Venezuelans can no longer accept an opposition that has admitted the regime as the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, there is the issue of who is behind this supposed representation. Political parties have not participated in any legitimate election in Venezuela since 1998.
However, giving them the benefit of the doubt and admitting that the International Community accepts as valid the election of the National Assembly of 2015, the political representation of the opposition has not been counted with the Venezuelan people since that year. The latter leaves us that since January 2021, NO ONE can claim to be the political representative of Venezuelans before any instance. And until that happens, Venezuelans are orphaned of political representation and this dialogue must wait either for Venezuelans to count themselves to appoint a new opposition representation or for a qualified representation of the Venezuelan civil society to be accepted as an active part of the dialogue. The 2015 National Assembly could be added to that as an opposition party, representing the political parties that once formed it, but definitely not as representatives of the Venezuelan opposition.
This primary definition of those engaged in dialogue is essential to reach an agreement on what should happen in Venezuela, if a dialogue is to be considered as a vehicle to resolve the critical and urgent situation of Venezuelans.
But still all the above does not answer the question of why include the regime in this constituent discussion. And the answer is given by the substance of what ANCO proposes to be discussed in that dialogue, as indicated in the ANCO communiqué of August 8, 2021. ANCO's proposal is TO DISCUSS THE CONVENING OF A CONSTITUTING ASSEMBLY, as the way out of this problem. Without Maduro renouncing whatever his status as de facto ruler of Venezuela, let the legitimate representation of the sovereign people of Venezuela decide their destiny, elected through a Constituent election process administered by the International Community, establishing an ad-hoc Electoral Tribunal not controlled by any public power of Venezuela.
That and the rules to be followed for such election (in the constituent language this is called Bases Comiciales), would be the object of discussion of such negotiation. This is the essence of the proposal made by ANCO to Venezuelans. That is why we include the regime. If they are so sure that their "revolution" is what Venezuelans want, they will have no problem to count themselves in the light of rules that are not imposed by them. From that same negotiating table would come the guarantees of the International Community, which insists that dialogue is the solution, to enforce, by force if necessary, the opinion of the people in that election and the decisions to be taken in a Constituent Assembly.
Many will tell me that this is an impossible dream. That the regime will not give up its supposed condition of "Legitimate Government" for a political negotiation; and likewise, that the official opposition will never give up its condition of representing the Venezuelan opposition without representing anyone. Both things remain to be seen. Everything will depend on how events will unfold and the pressures exerted on both sides. The important thing is that both extremes are neither monolithic nor homogeneous, and work must continue. As long as this does not crystallize, the dialogue, seen in the simple way it is being proposed, will never succeed because neither the true representatives of the Venezuelan people nor the correct initial conditions will be there.
Venezuelans must understand that this very serious situation involves all of us, not only the opponents but also those who still believe in the promises of the regime. A Constituent Assembly is an integrating solution that would allow both sides of the equation to express themselves. That is why there can be neither an "opposition solution" nor a "regime solution". The only thing that can constitutionally integrate both extremes is a Constituent Assembly free of suspicions and manipulations of one of the parties to unify the aspirations of all Venezuelans. This is much more than a simple election of positions for a "take you off to put me on". We will continue working for this to be fully understood...
Caracas, May 2, 2022
Blog: https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
Instagram: @laguana01
Telegram: https://t.me/TICsDDHH
Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/luis-manuel-aguana-bb9231
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TICs-Derechos-Humanos-102169239041065
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario