By Luis Manuel Aguana
Sometimes truth does not have the lie as its enemy, but the myth, persistent and persuasive... In this way, some people find comfort in their ready-made opinions and avoid the discomfort of reflecting on them.
John F. Kennedy
“Wanted” at US$ 50 million
Certainly, as Kennedy said, the persistent myth that indicates that removing the main capos of the Venezuelan tragedy will end the country's crisis, fits perfectly with the simplism with which we Venezuelans love to handle problems, avoiding the discomfort of reflecting and thinking about a comprehensive solution that fits the context in which they move.
And it is not that doubling the reward from 25 to 50 million dollars for the capture of Nicolás Maduro Moros (see Trump's government doubles the reward for the president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, to US$ 50 million | CNN, in https://share.google/EG82cb9GJyAFcK5mD) does not result in a hard blow for the Venezuelan regime. We must ask ourselves if this action, if carried out, would put an end to the SYSTEM of the narco-tyranny that keeps it in power, and which has very deep roots in its main pillars of sustenance, such as the Armed Forces converted into the armed wing and guardianship of the system, factors of the Colombian narco-guerrilla, Russia, China and Iran, and proven partners of international terrorism.
We have been told ad nauseam that by removing those who have the “Wanted” posters we will solve the crisis, leaving aside the rest. When Hugo Chávez Frías passed away, many thought it was impossible that what would come after would never be worse. Well, they were wrong. It was much worse, because the system continued to be there and more reinforced than ever, guaranteeing that the worst would become even more entrenched.
If Maduro leaves because he is “extracted” for 50 million dollars, without solving the system that keeps him there, the myth will be proven because another one of equal or worse character will come from the same system that maintains the regime. But we are being sold from inside and outside that this will not be so, without explaining why. Only facts can validate this statement, and we already validated it the first time. Do we need a second one?
Definitely, I do not know why I believe that “extraction” is less than half of the solution, although I must accept that it would be a start that would lead us to another state of the problem -which could well be worse-, where the first question would be: would this incomplete action contribute to peace among Venezuelans? Let each one give his or her own answer....
Justice also has a price
The removal of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Karim Khan, from the Venezuela 1 case is not a success, but a failure of international justice. A corrupt prosecutor in a court of justice does no one any good, and even less so if it is a court of global reach (see ICC orders Prosecutor Karim Khan to step aside from Venezuela case due to possible conflict of interest | CNN, in https://share.google/SK4SuYPJgIFfvjZ6X).
In a recent interview with journalists José Domingo Blanco (Mingo) and Erika Mendoza Tovar, in the program Arrímate al Mingo, attorney Omar Estacio pointed out the following: "...it is inexplicable that this Mr. Karim Khan has encouraged and allowed the incorporation of his sister-in-law. That the same sentence establishes that she was not just his sister-in-law, she is his partner, because they handled cases together, and the sentence now states that it presents the relationship of this Mr. Khan with his sister-in-law and his own wife, already structured from a business point of view, because they are members of the same law firm..." (see Karim Khan out of the Vzla case / ARRÍMATE AL MINGO / Monday, August 4, 2025, min 40:31, in https://youtu.be/uffaGoArkYw?t=2431).
The fact that the ICC Prosecutor is not only the brother-in-law of one of the lawyers defending the Venezuelan regime at the ICC, but that at the same time the defender is a partner in the same law firm of Prosecutor Khan, says very little (or says a lot) about the ethics and transparency that citizens expect to find in the justice of The Hague, and that they look for it precisely because they do not find it in their own countries signatories of the Treaty of Rome. It means that there are reasons to suppose that the regime of Nicolás Maduro Moros indirectly paid Prosecutor Khan to delay the trial against the “alleged culprits” of the crimes against humanity in that trial.
This blow puts one more nail in the coffin of justice for the hundreds of victims of the crimes of the regime in our country and buries -apparently- the hopes that this peaceful path is viable to solve the serious crisis that the regime represents for Venezuelans. And the most important thing is that by closing this path, the confidence in a peaceful mechanism to solve our conflict is irremediably lost. After the disappointment of the previous ICC Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, whose rumors of an alleged corrupt intervention of the regime to delay the trial, we now find this new case. Venezuelans, then, have every reason to distrust whatever comes after Prosecutor Khan.
If the people, and especially the victims and their relatives, have the perception that there is no justice outside because the tentacles of the regime are so long as to annul it through corruption - as we have already seen with this new disappointment - and it is clear to us that all internal paths to achieve justice have been closed, then there would be no reason to think that the only thing left is to seek justice by our own hands. It is not so difficult to reach that conclusion. When a population that demands reparations for injustices through civilized mechanisms is ruthlessly cornered, and no way out of any kind is found, the only thing left is to wait for the explosion. The question, then, is no longer if that explosion will occur, but when it will happen.
But there are those of us who really want there to be a peaceful solution to the Venezuelan political crisis, even though right now it seems very distant, hard and complicated. And not only do we want it, but we also present possible mechanisms to achieve it (see my last article, Constituent as a cause or as a consequence, in https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/2025/08/constituyente-como-causa-o-como.html).
But, as I could see from the comments received from the previous note, many already consider it impossible to find a peaceful solution to the problem. But as I pointed out to a friend from abroad, everybody wants to get out of the regime for free, and any option chosen has its price.
As they say in the US, "there is no free lunch". If the majority wants violence, they must pay a price for it. But peace also has a price. However, the price of violence is higher because first you pay that and then you pay for peace, because it is not possible to live in violence forever. The big question would be which of the two you want to go first. Therein lies the bottom of the whole problem that we do not want to see. We want to see Simón Bolívar again, now transformed into a woman, to save us. Perhaps it is a good message for the epic and the beautiful and brave messages, but very bad in practice to get out of the problem. Time will tell the answer, and the problem is that there is not much time left.
Venezuelans love to talk about serious things without measuring consequences. If the opposition has already decided for us to take the road of violence, then those who made that decision must assume it with the seriousness it implies. It means that they are ready and willing to bomb an oil facility to stop Chevron from operating. Or that they are ready and willing to kidnap and/or assassinate some member of the regime and his family or some important personage. Because that is what the regime will understand after that statement.
That's what the communists did in the 1960s, killing policemen under the leadership of Fidel Castro and others who were once part of the leadership of the Castro-Chavista-Madurista regime. Is that what this is all about? Go ahead then. But I do not believe that Venezuelans want that, just as the generation of the Venezuelan communist guerrilla era did not want it either. And if they dare, they will be mistaken as the communists of that time were mistaken, believing in the path of violence. Look for the writings of Pompeyo Marquez and Teodoro Petkoff regarding the mistake they confessed for assuming the armed struggle.
María Corina Machado (MCM) nor any other opposition leader has told Venezuelans the truth about the scope of what this call to clandestinity implies. And if the matter is not so (because the regime is already interpreting otherwise) they must explain it very well, because it is very different to make opposition from a privileged hiding place, than to do it from shell to shell, as will surely have to do the political leadership with less resources, followers of MCM in the country, who heeded the call, and who may end up as cannon fodder, to be captured or killed. That is what awaits, not only them but the whole country because we all would have a share.
Having said the above, I will now explain in greater depth the peaceful proposal we are making to the country. For those who say that I am forgetting about the votes of the Venezuelan people on July 28, 2024, from the outset I say clearly that it is NOT a question of whether the votes of July 28, 2024 are valid, because in the end they are. That is our opposition position.
Likewise, it is not about whether Nicolás Maduro Moros is or is not the legitimate President. He is not. But that is the regime's position, not ours. And both positions are irreconcilable. Neither in the opposition will we accept Maduro as legitimate nor the regime will accept as valid the votes of July 28, 2024, after having stolen the election. The problem is how we are going to resolve these conflicting positions in favor of Venezuelans, and not in favor of any of the parties in the dispute. THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE OF THE CONFLICT.
We have to explain this situation to Venezuelans in a crude manner. That is the political, correct and responsible thing to do. Because the parties must abandon the irreconcilable opposing positions and find a meeting point in favor of the country, even if that seems impossible. I am very clear that it is by no means easy. And in general, what groups in opposing positions such as those existing in Venezuela usually do is to seek a solution through violence, of whoever manages to get on top of the other. This is what this confrontation is leading us to, where the regime has so far taken the lead by force.
The effort must be precisely to reach a negotiation favorable to the interests of Venezuelans, who are the primary subject, not MCM, nor the regime nor the parties that accompany both of them. We must seek to solve the conflict that is escalating into a situation of political violence. The call for a National Constituent Assembly is nothing more than the proposed means through which to try to build a middle ground, where everyone would have to yield in favor of this country.
The International Community expects WE, the Venezuelans, to solve the problem, not them. And it is a mistake to expect them to do so. If the political leadership is incapable of understanding the historical moment in which we find ourselves, it will get us all into a conflict from which it will be incapable of getting us out of. And in the end it will be all Venezuelans who will suffer the consequences.
The basic issue that I have raised in my notes is that if the opposition leadership headed by MCM has already decided that the conflict with the regime of Nicolás Maduro Moros must be solved violently, let them declare it openly and we will all have to abide by the consequences. In my opinion, this call for a clandestine struggle in Venezuela is irresponsible if it is not accompanied by a clear explanation of its scope. The clandestine struggle against the dictatorship of Marcos Perez Jimenez was violent and military, and the country assumed this from the very first moment when the main opposition party, Accion Democratica, was outlawed on December 7, 1948.
And if the struggle with the regime will be violent, then they should be clear from now on that they will have to have a professional response in accordance with the violence that the regime will unleash and seriously alert the population as to how they will deal with that circumstance. But if they really want a peaceful solution, then they must indicate to Venezuelans what the alternatives will be to address the problem without expecting miracles.
Without prejudice to the peaceful solutions that may be considered by the opposition, we at ANCO have submitted to the consideration of the country to negotiate the terms of the call for a National Constituent Assembly, so that a legitimate representation of the Venezuelan people, arbitrated by the International Community, may decide the conflict between us. This is essentially the strong and clear message that we are sending to the Venezuelan people, and that will surely have a much lower price than that of violence.
Caracas, August 8, 2025
Blog: TIC’s & Derechos Humanos, https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario