By Luis Manuel Aguana
It is difficult to understand what is happening in post-Maduro Venezuela without looking at what has happened in similar situations in the past. When examining a retrospective requested from an AI, clear examples emerged of other states that have been subjugated as Venezuela has been since January 3. Consider the following approach:
“If we use ‘client state’ in the broad sense of a political entity that is formally autonomous but in practice subordinate to another state through military coercion, occupation, permanent threat, or institutional imposition, there are plenty of examples throughout history”. The response also included a long history from antiquity and the classical world to the 21st century of states subrogated to others by force, including the tutelage of the former Soviet Union (USSR) over the former East Germany (GDR) (see in Spanish AI ChatGPT, Examples of Protectorate States, in https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6988bb05899081919c8c071378ab68e0).
The most interesting aspect of the response was the common features in all cases and throughout history since ancient times, since the concept of guardianship by force has existed, and especially one of them that stands out as fundamental: formal sovereignty is different from real sovereignty. And this is what political leaders still seem not to have understood when they try to convince the population that elections “will exist” for them in the supposedly short term. Let's see.
“Formal sovereignty is what exists on paper and in legal discourse. Real sovereignty is the effective capacity of a state to decide and execute without another actor being able to veto, impose, or reverse those decisions. In states ruled by coercion, the two are deliberately separated” (see in Spanish, AI ChatGPT, Sovereignty is the core of guardianship, in https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6988bd982dd4819187027aa6539d5418).
Let us analyze the “Practical indicator (rule of thumb)”: “A state is not truly sovereign if: It cannot change its political, military, or geopolitical course without immediate risk of intervention, decisive sanctions, or induced collapse. It does not matter how many elections it holds or how many embassies it has”.
The answer concludes: “In summary: Tutelage does not eliminate sovereignty: it empties it where it matters and preserves it where it legitimizes. That is why it is so stable: it reduces resistance, externalizes costs, and preserves the appearance of international order”.
And that is exactly what the US is doing in Venezuela. It has emptied our sovereignty, preserving it according to its interests. The 1999 Constitution, and therefore the country's sovereignty, is suspended until further notice. None of the local political actors has any say in what is happening or will happen in the country until the guardianship situation ends. And that is another story that will have to be analyzed at some point, as there is no guarantee that the guardianship will end after the Castro-Chavista-Madurista tyranny has completely ceased, because that will depend on the political interests of the guardian at that time. And this has nothing to do with whether we like what is happening or not. These are simply the facts.
So, with what authority or backing can any politician speak of elections of any kind taking place in Venezuela at some point, if not because the guardian has so decided?
At ANCO, we respectfully and publicly suggest to the leader, President Donald J. Trump, and his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, that in the face of a completely unprecedented situation of a regime without any legitimate basis, the 3-phase plan devised by his Administration could “benefit substantially by including this constitutional process, following the denominated Stabilization phase. This would allow the Venezuelan people to peacefully elect their representatives throughout the country, such that the elected National Constituent Assembly can then appoint a truly legitimate Transitional National Government and Representative Democratic Reinstitutionalization, in accordance and compliance with Articles 5, 62, 70, 326, 333, 347, 348, and 350 of the Constitution. This government would be composed of Venezuelans with impeccable track records and public expertise, with representation from the Armed Forces, and the participation of the country's political and social forces that desire a democratic and electoral solution for Venezuela.” (ver Carta Pública al Presidente Donald, J. Trump, en https://ancoficial.blogspot.com/2026/01/comunicado-anco-carta-publica-al.html)
We believe, in publishing this suggestion, that this course of action is highly advantageous for both parties, and that holding elections in a context of extreme illegitimacy of the country and its institutions would only worsen the situation for Venezuelans, if the interim government truly wishes to restore full sovereignty to the country.
A state of suspended sovereignty could be beneficial for the execution of the plan up to its stabilization phase, but operating the two remaining phases—Recovery and Transition—with the five branches of government completely illegitimate for more than 27 years, in an attempt to restore institutional legitimacy by electing new authorities, would not legitimize what follows, but quite the opposite. Currently, the laws emanating from an illegitimate National Assembly are tainted from their inception and can be challenged by anyone in a country with a rule of law. In other words, these laws would be null and void once Venezuela regains its full sovereignty. No investor would risk placing their money long-term in a country in such a situation.
However, if the US intention is to extend its tutelage in the long term, the situation would be different. The guardian—the US—would prioritize any investment made as a demonstration of its control or tutelage over the country's formal sovereignty, thus exercising de facto sovereignty.
The approach we have proposed, which involves returning sovereignty to its rightful owner, the people of Venezuela, would not only provide formal popular support to the US for its actions, but would also give legitimate political and legal backing to any future actions, provided they are taken in an agreed-upon and collaborative manner that respects the freedom and progress of both free and autonomous nations, without the need for any tutelage. This would provide the necessary time and security for stable, long-term investment and mutual benefit, which is ultimately what we all desire.
Caracas, February 8, 2026
Blog: TIC’s & Derechos Humanos, https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email:
luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario