By Luis Manuel Aguana
I remember with affection the discussions I had
with my journalist daughter. Despite her youth, she was a very well-formed
criterion, the product of an excellent university education and the constant
handling she had with her university students - she was a professor of digital
media, a specialization she had despite her young age - which made her a
permanent challenge for her old father's argumentative capacity.
One discussion we often had was the issue of
the objectivity of the journalist and whether it was really possible for
someone - not just a journalist, but anyone - to be truly objective in the face
of controversial issues and present cases to the public without an interest
bias. I am not talking about deliberately, but unconsciously. She indicated
that this was not possible, that a good journalist presented the facts to the
public and did what was necessary for the public to reach its own conclusions.
I insisted that this purity could not exist in any human being and that it
would always come out what he really thought, his real interest, no matter how
much objectivity he tried to apply, taking sides even without wanting to do so,
in an unconscious way. And my argument was that all human beings are the
product of our own history and that 100% objectivity was impossible in anyone. God took her
away leaving the discussion open.
When I read Mingo's invitation on her Twitter
account to Dr. Blanca Rosa Marmol's interview with the headline "Is it
"Naif" to address another letter to the OAS calling for its help in
achieving a "Humanitarian Electoral Solution" I smiled, remembering
the old argument with my daughter Maria Cecilia (see twit in https://twitter.com/laguana/status/1277405690252886017). And as Mingo explained in the interview (see in Spanish Solución
Humanitaria de carácter Electoral: entrevista a la Dra. Blanca Rosa Mármol de
León, en https://youtu.be/ZpmgC8u1uqM) I jumped up and answered
him, instead of inviting people to his show, as if I were in the middle of an
argument with my daughter, because that's what I would have said to her,
arguing: Aha! See? That's what I mean! My sincere apologies to Mingo for a jump
he couldn't have known about...
I would have told my daughter: the journalist
already tagged the proposal before hearing the guest's explanation, that even
if it is a question, the headline predisposed the listener: The proposal is
naive! The score starts 1 to 0 in favor of denying it before the game starts!
And it's not that I'm saying that Mingo did something wrong on purpose, no! On
the contrary, I consider him to be one of the best journalists in Venezuela.
What I'm saying is that, going back to my point of the old argument with my
journalist daughter, there is something that is skewing any debate in Venezuela
regarding the solution to this crisis. And that is that we have reached a point
where we all decide from the inside the solution that has to be applied,
without looking anywhere else. It seems that we are all polarized in favor or
against military intervention, and anything that says "electoral" we
don't even look at it because it is collaborationist. And I am afraid that if a
balanced journalist of Mingo's stature has already taken a side in favour of a
solution, things will be very difficult to explain this issue.
Dr. Mármol made an extraordinary presentation
in the interview, and Mingo played the role my daughter told me good
journalists play. He asked the necessary questions so that people would come to
their own conclusion, and I loved that because from my perspective Mingo agreed
with her... But I still have my point! She must be laughing at me...
Now, there are two things I would like to add -
if there is still something to add to that very complete explanation by Dr.
Mármol - and the first is what Mingo entitled: Is the proposal we made
"naif" (or naive) Some may say that the question was not finally
fully answered to the satisfaction of those who want an immediate solution,
that is, to the supporters of a military intervention. And from the perspective
of Dr. Marmol's answer, indicating that this step must be taken first, to
definitively leave any peaceful and constitutional solution out of the
question, and to proceed to arms, I must indicate that I believe that is part
of the answer.
If the OAS is playing tricks on us, ignoring
us, and not even discussing the issue, it means, as Dr. Mármol indicated, that
the Foreign Ministers - and consequently their governments - would not even be
willing to give us that electoral mediation assistance, which puts us
Venezuelans in a position to solve this problem by ourselves, the hard way. And
that is very dangerous for the region - and for them - significantly increasing
the risk that Venezuela already represents. That should be understood by
diplomats and their governments.
From that moment on, the OAS countries would
have indirectly given the green light for us to try anything, from a solution
to the Nicaraguan contras to an internal rebellion, with the consequent
worsening of the lives of Venezuelans. The proposal in that sense is by no
means "naive", it has rather a very deep political and diplomatic
foundation because it would put an end to the subjective discussion, fixing
where the peaceful and constitutional proposals end. This would be the end
point. Because, as Dr. Mármol indicated, the continent would have no way of
excusing itself to serve as an arbiter of such a proposal. And if it does so,
then we end any peaceful discussion for Venezuela because that would be the
final check of that management. And make no mistake, that formality is required
before taking up arms.
The second is that insisting on military
intervention without someone working with the countries that can make it
possible makes that solution very difficult. As far as we know, nobody outside
the interim government would be able to work on that, and we have seen that the
political factors of the official opposition, with Guaidó at the head, have
consistently refused to manage military aid to solve the problem in Venezuela.
In the event that the OAS denies us that cooperation to arbitrate the problem
in Venezuela, how would we ordinary citizens change the position of the TIAR
signatory countries, if our opposition leadership refuses to provide that aid?
It is not a rhetorical question to be solved here, but I leave you with this:
no one who is not invested with the recognized legitimacy of Guaidó will be
considered belligerent to solve that in any country in the world. And as of
December, the way things are going, I honestly don't think Guaidó exists
politically... And that's very serious.
This leaves us in a situation that predicts a
country with a future of anarchy and violence, unleashed by those who will
desperately try to confront the regime, in a chaos of endless violence. I don't
qualify that, it would simply be our foreseeable future as there is no military
aid from outside, nor sufficient internal force to displace those who govern
us. It is not enough to say that military intervention is needed if we do not
answer how such intervention could be carried out without the support of those
who recognise the Interim Government. If you have that answer, please do not
wait any longer and proceed at once, you do not need to take us into account.
And I would be the first to admit that they were right - how I wish that would
happen tomorrow and be over!
But what is regrettable is that those who are
calling for this military intervention use as an excuse a peaceful proposal of
the kind described to distort it, blaming it from the outset for the possible
paralysis of this intervention, which in itself has not moved since much
earlier, because friendly countries do not wish to do so, and they have made
this known to the Interim Government. I believe that if the proposal brought to
the OAS did not exist, it would still have to be invented because until this
moment no intermediate stages are perceived for Venezuela's situation before
reaching a final armed confrontation, as it happens in every conflict
situation. I hope that this is not naive enough on my part...
Caracas, June 30, 2020
Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario