By Luis Manuel Aguana
I find what's happening in Venezuela incredible. Some may not have noticed because of the very particular way Venezuelans conduct politics, which has obscured the magnitude of what happened on January 3, 2026.
That day changed the country's political paradigm. From a state controlled by a narco-militarized tyranny, it became a state under US tutelage. Some will tell me that this tutelage already existed and that the Nicolás Maduro Moros regime was already answering to Cuba, Russia, China, and Iran. That's possible. But it was still a coordinated control for the benefit of all parties, and especially those in power, who had announced they would never relinquish it. And they made that very clear on July 28, 2024, with the diligent assistance of their partners.
We already mentioned this in the previous article (see State of suspended sovereignty, in https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/p/state-of-suspended-sovereignty.html). A tutelary state, according to the definition provided, is “a formally autonomous political entity but subordinated in practice to another state through military coercion, occupation, permanent threat, or institutional imposition”. The other state to which it is forcibly subordinated is called the tutelary state.
The tutelary state, the United States, imposed on Venezuelans that Ms. Delcy Eloína Rodríguez Gómez should be at the helm, without recognition as head of state, and the precise orders for remaining in office (under threat of death) were to administer the country according to the tutelary state's instructions, with the aim of dismantling the narco-terrorist state imposed on Venezuela by Hugo Chávez Frías and Nicolás Maduro Moros.
But even knowing this, ALL opposition groups in Venezuela, including María Corina Machado (MCM), have continued their opposition narrative AS IF NONE OF THIS HAD HAPPENED. They continue to direct and act now against the “Delsy Rodríguez regime” in the same way they previously did against the Nicolás Maduro Moros regime, without realizing that they are not acting against her, but against what the guardian decided, since she is a puppet of the former, and that her stability is now precisely what the Trump and Rubio plan requires to get rid of what remains of the tyranny.
If Delcy Rodríguez's regime collapses, because it's in a highly unstable equilibrium, there will surely be someone else to replace her, but that would clearly set back the plan that's already underway. And that plan is known only to President Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and the Chargé d'Affaires in Venezuela, Laura Dogu. And no one else.
The Americans finally understood, after the betrayals, corruption, and treachery of the Venezuelan opposition in their constant power struggle—like drunks over an empty bottle—that it was preferable to first resolve the problems of the country and its people, WITHOUT VENEZUELAN POLITICIANS, in order to address the regional destabilization that the Maduro regime represented, leaving the country for our politicians to deal with last.
And as I see it, they were absolutely right. Hence, the first results of that plan are now being seen, such as the beginning of the release of political prisoners, the Hydrocarbons Law, and the allocation of oil resources to finance reconstruction.
However, faced with the politicians' unhealthy insistence on demanding "elections now" in a country lacking any kind of institutional viability, especially electoral viability (something that would be addressed in the third phase of the Trump-Rubio plan), the Americans have simply told them to be patient, without further explanation. And they have instructed Delcy Rodríguez to deliver the same message.
To say “We believe that a real transition process with manual voting… the whole process could be completed in nine or ten months”, as MCM has indicated, without having control over what is happening in a country under the tutelage of another, is unrealistic and creates false expectations among Venezuelans (see in Spanish, María Corina Machado believes there could be elections in Venezuela in less than a year, in https://www.telemundo.com/noticias/noticias-telemundo/internacional/maria-corina-machado-cree-que-podria-haber-elecciones-en-venezuela-en-rcna257551)
In other words, the politicians reverted to the same opposition script they used against Maduro, even though the current paradigm is not the same as it was before January 3rd. Do they need the tutor to also administer the infamous "Ubicatex" pills to them so they understand the new situation in Venezuela? Shouldn't they instead be asking the tutor what role they should play if they are nowhere to be seen in the initial phases of this plan?
It is clear that what remains of the regime must be pressured to comply, like a puppet under tutelage, with what it has been ordered to do, such as the release of ALL political prisoners. But they have deliberately slowed down the process. That should be one of the main tasks of political leaders during the execution of the plan, but instead, their primary interest lies in calling for elections. It is because of actions like these that Venezuela has reached the point of falling into the outrageous situation of a tutelary state.
Dr. Blanca Rosa Marmol de León, Emeritus Magistrate of the Supreme Court of Justice, stated: “Amnesty is not applicable. The regime was defeated; it cannot grant it. Political prisoners must be released, all with full freedom, as the regime committed to in the agreement with the victor, the United States. Nothing to review, nothing to consult, only an agreement to fulfill” (see in Spanish, X, @Bmarmoldeleon, in https://x.com/BMarmoldeLeon/status/2022328287826157687).
The US didn't specify how political prisoners should be released, only that the prison gates should be opened upon Maduro's departure, as happened after the flight of dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez. That's how it should have happened here. But no, the puppets complicated things, hence the demonstration of mothers and relatives waiting for their children at the prison gates. Was an amnesty what was needed? Was a mass pardon appropriate? While it's true that this is a matter for specialists, the very least that should have happened was that this issue should have been the main role the opposition assumed when that order was given by the guardian of the ruins of the Maduro regime. Without any public debate, what remained of the Maduro regime was left to decide on an Amnesty Law.
Did it not occur to anyone that many of those for whom these mothers are waiting outside the prisons will never reappear because the Chávez and Maduro regime "disappeared" them over more than 27 years, and that the judicial chain of those directly responsible, who still comfortably hold their positions in all the rotten branches of government that remain of the tyranny, would be revealed? This is why the manipulation of an Amnesty Law is so prevalent, and why the role of the political opposition is not to demand elections now, but to demand compliance with the mandate of the guardian without conspiring to its failure.
Dr. Mármol de León, a leading expert in criminal law, was very precise in the above, stating: “The regime intends to grant itself amnesty… The regime has been defeated. Amnesty is not in its hands. What part of this is not understood? The prison doors must be opened to ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS. IT IS IN THE AGREEMENT WITH THE US” (see in Spanish, X, @Bmarmoldeleon, in https://x.com/BMarmoldeLeon/status/2022132504698953754).
Then it was Dr. Mármol de León, as a prominent member of civil society, who assumed this courageous role, above political parties, exposing this problem to public opinion in an extraordinary intervention on the well-known YouTube interview channel, Mingo TeVe (see Interview with the Emeritus Magistrate, Dr. Blanca Rosa Mármol de León – Amnesty Law – 09-02-2026), in https://youtu.be/RKrpHHVbFMo?si=yy5p8dla-Gi35ZpW). I suggest my readers watch the full interview.
So, how can any political sector expect to govern a country if they have been unable to offer a qualified opinion on one of the main problems plaguing Venezuelan families, namely the grave situation of political prisoners?
This forces us to ask: what is the role of opposition parties and political leaders in states under tutelage? In today's Venezuela, it clearly should not be to oppose what the tutelary state has established or to conspire for its downfall, until the situation that led, first and foremost, to the tutelage of the state in question and the evident inability of ANY political sector to govern the country is resolved. This, of course, would apply to states under tutelage where the entire institutional framework has been destroyed without the presence of a war, as in the Venezuelan case, and the role of the tutelary state is not to "invade" us, but rather to restore the rule of law.
Of the sources consulted, the only strategic function that could fit into the plan explained by the main US spokespeople for Venezuela—a plan that involves eradicating a cancer embedded in the country's institutional core—is that of “Building Post-Tutelage Viability.” Let's see what this means:
“…opposition parties face a complex dilemma: participating without legitimizing tutelage, resisting without disappearing. One of the biggest failures of oppositions in tutelary states is not preparing for the “day after.” When tutelage collapses (due to external withdrawal or internal breakdown), the resulting vacuum can generate chaos. The transition in the Czech Republic was relatively stable because there were technical teams, constitutional proposals, and pre-existing organizational networks. That is: a) Forming technical teams; b) Designing alternative institutional frameworks; c) Maintaining strategic international ties” (see Role of the Opposition, in https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69910024a5348191a4bf63a4ae811a42).
The Venezuelan political opposition faces a long and arduous challenge to heal itself. It must rebuild its own institutional fabric, ceasing to be empty shells and becoming true representatives of the majority, with proposals and projects for Venezuela's reconstruction. Without this, they will merely be spontaneous organizations dependent on the charisma of a leader, without whose presence they would be inconsequential, but with whose presence they would not exist beyond him. We have a unique opportunity to build these political organizations right now, prepared to take on the challenges of the post-tutelage era. Venezuelan civil society has proven to be better prepared than the political parties for this task. But, unfortunately, the duration of US tutelage will depend on it…
Caracas, February 15, 2026
Blog: TIC’s & Derechos Humanos, https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email:
luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario