By Luis Manuel Aguana
To the memory of the founders of Venezuela
On July 3, 2026, Venezuela was left without a constitutional government. Although one could argue that the Maduro administration was illegitimate long before Nicolás Maduro Moros was removed from power by U.S. military forces—and that many Venezuelans were, and still are, fighting for the constitutional restoration of the Republic—the U.S. action precipitated the need for that restoration.
From January 3rd onward, a government led by Delcy Rodríguez—already doubly illegitimate—was imposed. Her administration was doubly illegitimate because, by stepping into the place of the illegitimate Maduro, she incurred a second layer of illegitimacy: her replacement of Maduro as the country's vice president (under the 1999 Constitution) was carried out at the behest of the invading nation, effectively making her the head of a U.S. puppet government.
Consequently, while Delcy Rodríguez’s presidency following July 3, 2026—after the expiration of the two 90-day constitutional terms granted by the 1999 Venezuelan Constitution—might perhaps be explained by that initial inherited illegitimacy, her second layer of illegitimacy can only be sustained by U.S. force. She acts as the representative of a country that invaded Venezuela militarily and maintains her position through force, overriding the nation's legal order.
However, this is not the first time the United States has faced such a situation; in every instance, it has found a way to return the countries involved to constitutional normalcy and compliance with international law.
According to the consultations conducted, the examples of Japan in 1945 and Iraq in 2003 are the two most studied cases of how an occupying power—the United States—dismantles a regime and rebuilds a country's constitutional order (see in Spanish IA Gemini: Derecho Internacional ante Invasión y Ocupación, in https://share.gemini.google/xea8pR2P1qOI).
Let us first look at the case of Japan:
“Japan’s case is unique because, unlike Germany or Iraq, the Japanese state never dissolved, and the ruler (the Emperor) was not deposed—though he was stripped of his actual political power.
The Allied occupation, led by General Douglas MacArthur (SCAP), operated under a fiction of legal continuity to prevent the country’s collapse.
The transition mechanism:
- The Potsdam Declaration and the Surrender: Japan’s *de jure* government formally accepted the Allies' terms in September 1945. This provided a contractual legal basis for the occupation.
- Maintenance of the state apparatus: The Americans did not govern Japan directly. Instead, they issued direct orders to the existing Japanese government, which formally executed them through its own bureaucracy.
- The 1947 Constitution: A formal return to the rule of law was achieved through the drafting of a new Constitution. Although largely drafted by MacArthur’s team, it was approved in strict adherence to the legal amendment procedures required by the old 1889 Meiji Constitution (approval by the Diet and imperial sanction). This lent it an appearance of unbroken domestic legality.
- The Treaty of San Francisco (1951): The international rule of law was fully restored when this treaty entered into force in 1952; through it, the international community and Japan concluded a peace agreement, formally restoring Japan’s full sovereignty”.
This example is interesting for its similarities to the Venezuelan case. Just as in Japan, the Venezuelan state was never dissolved, and a fiction of genuine continuity was maintained. The US won the war against Japan, and the Japanese government accepted the Allied terms signed at Potsdam regarding the surrender of the nations defeated in World War II.
In Venezuela, the government never signed—at least not to the public's knowledge—any formal surrender following Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López's public capitulation to US armed forces; yet, in practice, the regime behaved like a militarily defeated state under US orders, exactly as happened in Japan.
Much like the current situation in Venezuela, the US governed Japan through an intermediary. General Douglas MacArthur did not rule Japan directly but rather through the country's own government—much as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is currently doing with Delcy Rodríguez, acting under the orders of President Trump and alongside Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.
The method used to restore the rule of law in Japan involved drafting a new Constitution that followed the steps of the 1889 Japanese Constitution, "to create the appearance of uninterrupted domestic legality." Finally, the international rule of law was restored through the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco, which returned full sovereignty to the country.
Does the path look familiar? MacArthur did not deviate a single millimeter from that plan and governed through a proxy administration in a country that had been morally and physically destroyed by two atomic bombs. Afterward, they took the necessary steps to restore its Constitution.
The case of Iraq in 2003 was somewhat different. The US invaded the country—acting unilaterally and in defiance of international law—rather than as the result of an ongoing war. They occupied the country, hunted down Saddam Hussein, and captured him—much as they did with Maduro—but along the way, they lent legitimacy to the process through the United Nations. Let’s take a look:
Unlike the case of Japan, the 2003 invasion of Iraq lacked the backing of the UN Security Council and completely destroyed the institutions of Saddam Hussein's regime. This resulted in a total breakdown of the legal order.
To avoid a catastrophic legal vacuum and lend legitimacy to the process, an international legal framework had to be constructed on the fly.
The transition mechanism:
1. Recognition of the Occupation (UN Resolution 1483): Weeks after the fall of Baghdad, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1483. This resolution provided a legal framework for the *de facto* situation, formally recognizing the US and the UK as "Occupying Powers" operating under the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).
2. Transfer of Sovereignty (Resolution 1546): In June 2004, the CPA was dissolved and formally transferred power to an interim Iraqi government. Through Resolution 1546, the UN endorsed this step and officially declared the end of the occupation, restoring legal sovereignty to Iraq, although foreign troops remained at the request of the new government.
3. Constitutional Process (2005): The return to the domestic rule of law was consolidated through three steps carried out by the Iraqis themselves under international supervision:
- Election of a National Constituent
Assembly (January 2005).
- Drafting and approval—via popular
referendum—of a new democratic Constitution (October 2005).
- Election of the first constitutional government under the new charter (December 2005).
Despite lacking the backing of the UN Security Council, the George W. Bush administration technically patched together the initial procedure regarding Iraq. They secured formal recognition of the US and the UK as "Occupying Powers" through a UN Security Council resolution, only to transfer sovereignty the following year to an interim Iraqi Provisional Government. Why wasn't this done in Venezuela? The answer lies with President Trump, who—rightly or wrongly—is dismantling the UN-based system of interstate relations without anything to replace it.
In other words, we are the guinea pigs for a practical return to a system dominated by the militarily strongest nation in international relations—much like the situation in the 19th century and the era preceding World War II.
Once sovereignty was restored within the community of nations, the interim Iraqi Provisional Government proceeded exactly as we at ANCO have advocated countless times: a) Convening a Constituent Assembly; b) Drafting and approving a new Constitution via referendum; and c) Electing a fully constitutional government based on that new Charter. It is not that difficult to understand.
While the situation in Venezuela shares characteristics with the aforementioned examples regarding a potential solution, its history is different. Our country was already suffering from an inherent lack of legitimacy prior to US intervention. We were already a failed state; the US merely exposed and spilled open the rotting mess of the Maduro regime. They cannot possibly expect to replicate the reconstruction processes seen in Japan or Iraq—aiming to establish institutional stability—by using the remnants of the Maduro regime, represented by figures like Delcy Rodríguez, as a proxy government. It is simply impossible.
There is no institutional military. Delcy Rodríguez and her predecessors set out to destroy and corrupt an institution that was already plagued by deep structural flaws. What remains is a Praetorian guard devoid of values, ready to kill and plunder. There are no political parties—neither within the regime nor the opposition—only organized crime gangs vying for power, none of which are trained for the tasks of state administration. The US cannot apply any of the previously described formulas to help the country regain its sovereignty; consequently, they will have to devise a new approach—one that has never been used before.
And the foregoing is greatly exacerbated by the tragedy of the earthquakes of June 24, 2026, in Venezuela.
To place the country on the same track as Japan and Iraq, power must be transferred—via executive action—from the current intermediary to those who truly possess the credibility needed among the population to subsequently carry out the process history has recorded in those aforementioned nations for the restoration of sovereignty. That is, a valid interim government that serves as a legitimate intermediary for the U.S. and is capable of convening a Constituent Assembly and an authentic, free, fair, and verifiable electoral process to establish legitimate authorities. This is the necessary adjustment to the historical process they already know so well.
Proposing a Transitional Governing Junta to the country and the U.S. as soon as possible—replacing the disastrous administration of Delcy Rodríguez and led by Venezuelans most recognized by the public—is the response society demands following the tragedy of two earthquakes that destroyed entire cities with the force of atomic bombs (as happened in La Guaira and Japan). This resulted in the loss of thousands of lives in Venezuela, with the added tragedy that many victims could not be rescued due to the institutional collapse caused by 27 years of a regime incapable of acting as a viable intermediary government.
Today, July 5, 2026—commemorating the 215th anniversary of our first Constitution and the signing of the Venezuelan Declaration of Independence—I feel compelled to urge our "tutor" to update the historically proven plan with us so that Venezuela may regain the sovereignty our founders secured through the sacrifice of Venezuelan lives. We are weary of sacrificing more lives! The U.S. now holds the future of what was achieved in Venezuela 215 years ago in its hands. May the world one day recognize the long-awaited course correction regarding their past actions in similar situations—a move that would benefit the history of the Venezuelan people.
Caracas, July 5, 2026
Blog: TIC’s & Derechos Humanos, https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario