Suscribete a TICs & Derechos Humanos

Two types of negotiation

By Luis Manuel Aguana

You always end up finding out about things in Venezuela. Since those meetings began in Oslo, no one has clearly told us that there has been a dialogue there (even if they say they are not doing so) until Father Ugalde informed us (remember his closeness to MUD-FA) in his last delivery: "In the Norwegian predialogue (there has been no dialogue) something very important happened, Guaidó's representatives expressed clearly and firmly that Maduro's departure is an indispensable condition for negotiations to begin, since his usurping permanence means more death and violation of human rights. I imagine that on the regime's side, the permanence of Maduro in power until 2025 was defended as indispensable” (see in Spanish Ni quiere ni puede, in Ugalde's expression "I imagine" is his way of indicating that it was what the regime said without exposing itself directly (beware if he was there when they said it).

It is clear that the use of the semantics that as "they did not see each other" (according to them), then "there has been no dialogue" is nothing more than a foolish euphemism to deceive assholes. What is this about a "predialogue"? That exists as much as a "pre-pregnancy. Either she is pregnant or she is not pregnant. Ask any serious diplomat what are the methods of conducting dialogues, meetings and negotiations between two conflicting parties and you will find that what they did in Norway is one of many methods of dialogue.

The regime told them clearly in Oslo that Maduro stays until 2025. What part of that NO did the official opposition not understand? As a result, Ugalde-MUD-FA now intends to sell us that we should press for "Maduro's negotiated exit" with a "transitional government with clear and defined lines for the immediate change of the suicidal social economic model and the immediate preparation of the conditions for free and fair elections”. And what will be for Father Ugalde "Maduro's negotiated solution"? Maduro said he would not leave, period.

So that way out can in no way be negotiated but forced by factors that are outside the sphere of control of the official opposition. Because "a negotiated solution" implies that Maduro would agree to leave if certain conditions established in a negotiation between the parties, such as, for example, a transitional government with enclaves of the regime, are met. But that did not happen in Oslo. That is a type of negotiation, let's call it Type A negotiation. The other negotiation, let's call it Type B, is when Maduro has no alternative but to leave because the force for his exit is so forceful that what would remain is to ask for his life (like what happened to Chávez in 2002). The Type B negotiation should be the negotiation sought by the official opposition and Venezuelans in general. Which of the two types of negotiation are we talking about here?

By running to Oslo with the regime, the official opposition showed a clear disadvantage. The April 30 attempt had failed, so it was logical to expect from the regime that position of forceful refusal to yield one millimeter to some losers. So what did they go there to do? The obvious answer is that they went to negotiate in Type A, which was not achieved on April 30 with Padrino and Moreno, but with such a disadvantage that the regime told them to fuck off (excuse my bad English but there is no other expression).

For Ugalde to say "a negotiated solution for Maduro" must ignite all the alarms because what the MUD-FA is telling us through one of its most authorized spokespersons is that as the regime won in that first round of negotiations in Oslo, we must generate enough "pressure for Maduro's negotiated solution" in a Type A negotiation with criminals, because there are some "..." politicians” so naive that they believe that Trump is going to send his marines to save us or that the UN is going to send its Human Rights Commissioner to stand up to Maduro, call him a usurper and a criminal and demand his immediate resignation. Unfortunately, there are those who seem to bet on this impossible and label the president in charge Guaidó as sold if he doesn't play that game”. Impossible greater manipulation.

And how will that pressure be? More young people killed on the streets? More calls to the military for an impossible breakdown of the Armed Forces? It seems that the deaths and tortures of the serious military who, unable to do anything for their country because they took an oath they cannot fulfill, are immolating themselves by conspiring against a regime whose system pays to plunder and kill them, are not enough. Look at only the last case, Lieutenant Commander Rafael Acosta Arevalo. After that no one can call cowards those who like him have given their lives to fulfill their oath. There is no way to conspire in Venezuela because there is a potential toad at every level of the Armed Forces who charges hard in dollars for sapping. That's eminently Cuban. The solution then is on top. What part of that don't they understand Ugalde-MUD-FA?

And when a group of Venezuelans insist that the solution is not within the country because the real conditions are not given for it, then the MUD-FA sends us the epithet of "naïve" betting "this impossible" to request the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) to Venezuelans who have the nations of the planet because the regime is massacring us. I would like Venezuelans to evaluate who the "naive ones" really are, whether those who have led the opposition with mistakes that have cost lives, or those of us who have persistently maintained that it is that opposition that, with its mistakes, collaborationism and negotiations, has maintained it to this day.

You have to negotiate, yes, but in a Type B negotiation situation. And for that there is no Norway or Sweden. And the way to do it has already been explained and is called Plebiscite (see Plebiscite versus Elections, in The solution is that it is the people who decide...

Caracas, June 30, 2019


No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario