Suscribete a TICs & Derechos Humanos

The formality for the use of force

By Luis Manuel Aguana

Juan Guaidó's run-over return to the country and the aggression he suffered from the authorities who run the Simon Bolivar International Airport in Maiquetía, and the hordes of criminals especially called in by them to humiliate and beat him, In the eyes of the Police and the National Guard, it is just another clear example that should indicate to all of us, and especially to the victim, Juan Guaidó, the impossibility of peaceful coexistence with the regime of Nicolás Maduro Moros and of solving this problem through the electoral process.

It may sound like a truism, but it is necessary to remind again and again those who insist on a tolerant cohabitation scheme through Henry Ramos Allup's theory of "authoritarian enclaves", a theory according to which this pseudo-"opposition" leader tries to impose the idea of a supposed transitional government that tolerates in a negotiated way the criminal structures and the protagonists of the regime. Something like this was proposed to us on April 30, 2019, but it failed because of the betrayal of the same criminals with whom it was intended to negotiate, which is all the more reason to categorically reject any scheme that involves the protagonists of this tragedy in the solution of the country.

I would like to assume that after the kidnapping of his uncle Juan José Márquez, Juan Guaidó should be thinking in a different way, although after his return we Venezuelans have seen with astonishment the images of the President in charge with the main protagonists of the G4 cohabitation policy. That already looks contradictory to what he has said about not going to elections with the regime in Miraflores. Let us hope to see how the events of the next few days will unfold, but the signs and the movements of the parties are already taking shape throughout the country towards an electoral campaign, as if the country were normal. And that is precisely what the regime wants to happen in the eyes of the world.

We Venezuelans miss that normality so much that we tend to deceive ourselves and forget all that the regime has done by rigging all the elections since 2004 and the official opposition saying the same thing over and over again, only to fall again. What has changed since 2015? The deputies promised us in that last parliamentary campaign that the regime would leave. And even though there is an "opposition" majority in the National Assembly, now there is an illegitimate Constituent, hyperinflation in 5 digits, forced dollarization of the economy, persecuted and exiled deputies, more political prisoners and a legitimate President of the Assembly sitting in the public squares. With what face can they tell us that another parliamentary election will solve the problem of Maduro and his criminals? Is that the solution they propose? They should be ashamed of only proposing this unacceptable solution to us Venezuelans.

But the parties live by elections. It seems that there is a consensus among them that we must continue, continue and continue dancing that toxic tango with the regime until they get tired, with the useless argument of the "spaces", because "being in the Assembly we continue to fight". Has that served us well in these last five years, the worst we Venezuelans have experienced since the War of Independence? Don't you think it is time to stop that?

But "opposition" politicians are fine. The main ones found a way to "live with" the regime and keep it going. They already have a line of survival with the outside. There are resources provided by the international community. There is already a "modus vivendi". Some have permanent stipends in foreign currency. Why change that in the short term? If you can go down the slow lane until the country is resolved, it's perfectly fine with them. But meanwhile the population is languishing and dying, and the country is a living hell. We have a serious problem of ethics and morality in our political leadership. Just look at the photos of the protagonists of the "Cucutazo" accompanying Guaidó on that tour, spending the dollars they have given the interim to get out of the problem. Could anyone believe that anything has changed? Apparently nothing...

But we still have the problem. They want to lead the population to another election with the regime in place, without the famous "ceasing of usurpation". Soon the massive campaign will start with the regime's reals and bought opposition. What to do? That's the question they ask us again and again. Let's see...

There are two extreme positions. On the one hand the parties of the status quo' leading us to an election as if nothing had happened here in 5 brutal years, and on the other those who want this to end immediately to start the process of reconstruction. Those of us who are approaching the latter position are betting on humanitarian intervention in the country by the international community. However, this intervention is unlikely to happen just because some people ask for it. Most countries have reacted negatively to this.

No country will openly support armed intervention for humanitarian purposes in Venezuela even though they know it is necessary because of the crimes against humanity that are being committed on a daily basis. That is not how things are now resolved internationally. At present, the powers do not send their warships to collect debts as happened in Venezuela at the beginning of the last century.

Since we have convinced ourselves that there is no way to resolve the serious problem we are facing by peaceful means because what we have here is the institutional kidnapping of a country by a narco-terrorist mafia, something that has never happened before in the world, we ourselves must find creative solutions to it that do not involve forcing the diplomatic and institutional position of the international community.

It cannot be that because this situation is unprecedented, an entire people suffers as the Venezuelan people is suffering. Therefore, the problem is reduced for us in finding a mechanism that legitimizes that decision that would have to be taken outside the country by those countries that do have enough strength to change the situation. A mechanism that can convince the countries that are members of the UN Security Council that their interference would not be a unilateral decision by the international community that has enough force to end this situation. In other words, a mechanism that would formalise our sovereign decision to change and at the same time authorise the force to intervene.

However, the mechanism must be constitutional, and electoral in the sense of seeking the sovereign mandate of the population on such a change, and therefore profoundly democratic. If we Venezuelans decide that there should be a change at any time in those who exercise power in Venezuela, that mandate should be obeyed only by that fundamental principle: the self-determination of peoples. That is understood outside in the international community. And if those who must abide by the popular mandate in the country do not do so, then the countries that have accompanied us must intervene, not in aid of the legitimate authorities that may request it, but by mandate of the people themselves.

This is the principle that drives ANCO's proposal for a Plebiscitary Popular Consultation, managed by the same civil society, without the intervention of public authorities and with the help of all the countries that have supported the President in charge. It is the ideal mechanism, constitutional, peaceful and electoral, to ask the people, the only one that has not been taken into account in all these years by the politicians, to pronounce on the permanence or not of Nicolas Maduro Moros in power. Hence the plebiscitary surname.

We are not enemies of politicians who call elections. We are enemies of them deceiving the population by indicating that this will be a solution for Venezuela, prolonging the suffering of an entire people. The Referendum is the necessary formality for the use of force to exist. And I emphasize the "can exist" especially. Force would not be applied if the mandate of the sovereign people of Venezuela is fulfilled. If it is not complied with, a UN Security Council can debate its legitimate use against those who refuse to comply with the people's mandate, having in hand the observed results of the International Community, where we Venezuelans authorized its use. There would be no one who can oppose it if that is our mandate. No one wants an intervention, but if what the people decide is not complied with, the whole country, in one voice, would make a clear request in the consultation to those who have the strength to apply it if the result is not complied with. That is not very difficult to understand.

The Plebiscitary Popular Consultation would then be the means to reach that force that many are asking for and that the International Community cannot and does not want to give. And why if it would be given through a Plebiscitary Popular Consultation? Because it would no longer be Juan Guaidó in his capacity as non-elected President in Charge who would ask for it, not even a National Assembly that has forgotten that they are our representatives, but the same citizen, pure and simple, suffering and the main protagonist of a humanitarian crisis, in a direct vote and in self-determination of his destiny. This is what the principle of self-determination that countries defend so much is all about. The political tsunami of this popular decision would make its fulfilment obligatory under penalty of violence, which is the last frontier. No one in the regime or in the opposition is above the will of the people. Let's consult it, it's time...

Caracas, February 14, 2020


2 comentarios:

  1. Hi Luís. I won't comment on the substance 0(since I agree with every single idea expressed here), but on the form of the matter.
    This thing of correcting others is most probably something that's stayed with me since those long-gone days of working as an English teacher back in Venezuela.
    How l relish those times...
    But, back to the point: "cohabitación" in Spanish - especially when used in the sense of a politician cooperating with
    another in disdain of loftier and ethical means to an end - is correctly translated to English as "collaboration", and the persons engaging in such practices are called "collaborationists".
    All the best, Luís.

    1. Dear Milton,
      Thank you for your valuable observation. I usually use several translators on the net to help me with these translations. I write and read English but not at that level, and what I do is use the translators and read the text later to see if the translation made has the correct meaning I wanted to give it in Spanish. That particular word, cohabitation, the translator put it as "cohabitation" which I did not object to. However, it is very important to have lived in an English-speaking country to understand the meaning. I thank you for the correction and I am open to any suggestions you may have that will help me in the future.
      With my best regards,