By now, the exchange of prisoners for Alex Saab, agreed between the regime of Nicolás Maduro Moros and the US, is public, notorious and communicative. Indeed, Reuters and AP news agencies reported that "The U.S. government released Alex Saab, a close ally of President Nicolás Maduro, as part of a prisoner exchange that includes at least 10 U.S. citizens imprisoned in Venezuela" (see in Spanish La Voz de América, EEUU liberar a Alex Saab a cambio de todos los estadounidenses detenidos en Venezuela, in https://www.vozdeamerica.com/a/eeuu-libera-a-alex-saab-a-cambio-de-todos-los-estadounidenses-detenidos-en-venezuela-agencias/7405549.html).
But the scandalous part of the news is not so much the release of a criminal prosecuted by the U.S. justice system, but that the kidnapping in Venezuela of U.S. citizens, held hostage in order to obtain their release, would actually work. Seen in this light, there is no reason for any authoritarian government in the world that wants something from the U.S. government to achieve it by kidnapping its citizens in its territory. What would happen to that famous U.S. slogan that there is no negotiating with terrorists? Apparently, it does not apply to the Maduro regime.
And it is not that I do not understand why the Americans proceed in this way for the humanitarian reasons of the hostages held captive by the regime in its dungeons. What is worrying here is that this weakness demonstrated by the Americans with the Maduro regime could be affecting the legitimate struggle we have in Venezuela to get rid of this plague represented by the Castro-Chavist-Madurist regime, calling into question any advice, support or suggestion they make to get out of the regime, because we could not know if they are doing it out of a desire to help us rescue the country or for reasons of coercion, which may later prove harmful to the interests of Venezuelans, as the Americans are clearly committed to the regime. But we can never know that, can we?
On the other hand, there is the fact that, on the one hand, the Americans talk to the opposition command in the morning, but in the afternoon they negotiate with the Maduro regime on a completely different agenda. How do we know if what they say to the opposition is going in the right direction to get out of them, if they are truly interested in the return of democracy and freedom to Venezuela? In spite of this doubt, I still believe, naive me, that, in general, the US policy has always been oriented towards the recovery of those sacred entities for which dozens of Venezuelans have been dying in the streets for more than 20 years. But reality shows that episodes such as Alex Saab's show the opposite.
The most recent example is the case of the presence of María Corina Machado (MCM) in the TSJ, a den of justice of the regime, at the request of the US, who were the first to announce the news. No matter how much justification the candidate gave to the public opinion after leaving the TSJ, the bitter disappointment that invaded more than a few Venezuelans was not only that she broke her word not to attend any instance of this illegitimate regime, but also that beyond accepting a legitimacy that beyond any doubt they do not have to administer justice, she recognized something very important in any struggle: belligerence. According to the Real Academia Española de la Lengua, "to grant or give belligerence to someone" means: "1. locs. verbs. To attribute enough importance to him to contend with him. U. m. with neg." (see in Spanish DRAE, Beligerancia, in https://dle.rae.es/beligerancia?m=form).
The justice system of the regime is not up to the task for any Venezuelan to give it enough importance to submit any matter, especially of a legal nature, for its consideration. If it were so, we would not be in the situation Venezuela is in. It would have been enough to request justice before its TSJ. Venezuela would not have political prisoners in the first place. In order to go to the TSJ, the Judiciary would have to be thoroughly cleaned first. It was precisely for agreeing with MCM on issues such as these that Venezuelans voted for her on October 22. Otherwise, what would be the sense of her victory by more than 90%? This is the true meaning of this principled claim.
Now, it is understandable that the main international ally of the opposition in the struggle against the regime of Nicolás Maduro Moros, the US, has negotiated with the Maduro regime an exchange of US prisoners, which apparently also includes some recent ones such as the President of SUMATE, Roberto Abdul (see in Spanish La Patilla, Confirman liberación del Presidente de Súmate, Roberto Abdul, en https://tyht.cgixix.com/2023/12/20/confirman-liberacion-del-presidente-de-sumate-roberto-abdul/).
But what cannot be understood is an opposition strategy that seeks to reach elections to win against a regime that takes hostages to get its way. Simply in that way elections will never be won. There will always be the possibility that Maduro's regime will kidnap whoever it wants in the country -especially Americans- to achieve anything, including "winning" the elections with the approval of our main international ally, which, as we have seen, may give in to this situation.
So, what to do? I believe that the first thing to do is not to lose the course and even less the values that sustained it. The Venezuelan people believed in a transparent leadership based on truth and honesty represented by MCM. I believe that if the US is severely compromised, either by its international energy agenda or by any other cause that compromises our future of democracy and freedom, we must continue our path alone, even if the short term result is much harder, and at least until the internal political situation in that country changes substantially and aligns more clearly with our firm objectives of getting out of the regime.
This proposal may imply more political prisoners, and perhaps more suffering for the Venezuelan family. But there will be more honesty in this struggle that we are all fighting, especially among those who have committed themselves to represent us in front of it. Only those who truly want us to be free would be with us, not those who say they do, but who look after their interests with our enemies from behind. This is not a help, but the opposite. With mediatized friends we will never achieve freedom in the long run. They will prefer that Maduro and his criminals stay in government if that serves their interests, and the worst thing is that they will convince you of that, as happened with the interim.
The opposition leadership headed by MCM must become aware that the opposition force only exists because Venezuelans, not any foreign government or anyone in the international arena, did anything to make it happen. Only the people gave MCM its representation. If she makes a mistake, we will all pay for it. So, let those mistakes be worth it because we made them, because we elected her and not because of someone else, and let them serve as a learning experience to move forward, keeping the values that originated the people's trust in the first place. I am sure that in this way, however long and difficult the road may be, alone or with little help, sooner rather than later we will be condemned to succeed, arriving unfailingly where we intend to go.
Caracas, December 20, 2023
Blog:
TIC’s & Derechos Humanos,
Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario