There is an underlying issue in the case of the referendum on the Essequibo that has made me very much noise since the regime pulled out that patriotic card up its sleeve to, according to them, measure who is or is not with the "robolution", and at the same time to put in circulation different figures that will overcome in the face of the world that they still have enough strength in the streets to question an electoral result that they clearly do not have, as demonstrated by the October 22 primaries, but that justify a minimum fraudulent difference in favor of the regime in the 2024 elections.
And that basic issue is none other than the answer to the following question: can a regime that is proven to be illegitimate, not recognized by its own and foreigners, make decisions that affect the future of Venezuelans? Can someone who forced his way into our house and appropriated it as his own, sell it and have the whole world recognize that operation as valid?
What is happening with this referendum reminds me of a note I wrote almost 10 years ago where I describe how a stranger broke into our house and has been forcibly staying there for more than 20 years. (see in Spanish, País secuestrado, in https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/2014/04/pais-secuestrado.html). And now the neighbor, to top it all off, also enters our backyard, and this usurper who illegitimately claims a property that is not his, now pretends to ask us, the legitimate owners, if the yard is ours or not, or if we have rights over that land for him to make decisions. What kind of crap is that?
The main fundamental question here is whether that usurper has the right to face that problem with the neighbor, because this house is not his from the beginning, and after recovering the rights over our house, then demonstrate to the authorities, with the property documents in hand, that the backyard is ours. But first things first!
But we have gotten ourselves into a discussion as completely sterile as it is misplaced, that we seem to be collective victims of the Stockholm Syndrome, playing along with those who as kidnappers, in principle, have no right to dispute absolutely nothing about our property. Until we Venezuelans resolve the primary issue of a legitimate representation of government to present to the world, it is not possible to resolve with any country a situation of limits, and even less one of the transcendence that the Essequibo territory has in the life of the country.
So far, the regime has succeeded in dividing the positions of the political opposition between voting or not in this referendum, when what we should all be doing is to reject the qualification of an illegitimate regime to decide on this issue, which is what all Venezuelans agree on, sending a message to the government of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, and to the International Community in general, that any arrangement that is determined during the course of the administration of the regime of Nicolás Maduro Moros, or any other, that does not come from the legitimate representation of the Venezuelan people, will be completely unknown.
Since October 22, Venezuelans finally achieved a worthy representation of the opposition. The fundamental condition that united us on that October day was to decide in favor of someone who was not subordinated to the regime and worked only to displace it, and not to coexist with it. From that moment on, Venezuelans have a different opposition leadership and we expect from it a clear and firm political leadership. It is not just anything we expect after years of opposition surrender to the regime.
Those of us who have, in one way or another, openly criticized what the pseudo-opposition parties have done for years, whose decisions, by action or omission, have screwed the regime even more, will not fail to make the respective observations in the best good faith, to this new opposition in the matters we consider key, as a contribution to the common objective that, after all, a true opposition has, which is none other than to get rid of the criminals that rule Venezuela as soon as possible.
On November 23, María Corina Machado (MCM) made a statement, as political leader of a new opposition, regarding the Esequibo referendum, requesting the suspension of the consultation in the following terms: "...the referendum on the Essequibo is a mistake that not only does not contribute our best arguments to the defense of our territory, but may even harm us before our defense at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Faced with this imminent reality, I would like to appeal to the common sense of all Venezuelans, civilians and military, and raise the following consideration: firstly, the referendum on the Essequibo must be suspended. Secondly, let us form the best team, with the best experts, Venezuelan and from all over the world, historians, jurists, diplomats, military, regardless of their political preferences, and create a team that strengthens our arguments and aligns all the inputs for the defense of Venezuela and our territory. And thirdly, let us present to the International Court of Justice an unobjectionable counter-memorial, which demonstrates the rights of Venezuela to the west of the Esequibo River..." (see in Spanish, María Corina Machado on X (formerly Twitter), "Si el régimen no sabe o no quiere defender el #Esequibo, nosotros sí", in https://twitter.com/MariaCorinaYA/status/1727665517597446283) (emphasis added).
In view of this position, it is obligatory to express an opinion, because this is part, as I have already commented in previous lines, of leaving aside the basic issue of this whole discussion, which is none other than the competence of these criminals to settle the property of all Venezuelans over the Essequibo territory, following the narrative of the regime.
MCM is completely right in requesting the suspension of this move of the Maduro regime which is not aimed at resolving the border problem with Guyana. However, if we are to accept, as implicit in that statement, the advice of the best jurists of the country, the jurisdiction of the ICJ, "forming the best team with the best experts", it is clear that this cannot come out of a decision taken by the current regime, and even less when it has decided to disregard such jurisdiction as a State policy.
This position supposes, in the first place, a regime open to go to the ICJ, and secondly, to think that it is possible to "appeal to the common sense of all Venezuelans, civilians and military", as in a sort of truce between the regime and the political opposition, where multidisciplinary teams will decide together, "regardless of their political preferences". Knowing, as we do, this criminal regime, we are talking about an unrealistic situation, far from what should be now the forcefulness of a political opposition against a regime that promotes a criminal stratagem that puts the Venezuelan territory at risk.
The Venezuelan opposition should not only demand the suspension of the referendum as proposed by MCM, but also to disavow any measure and its consequences that this authoritarian and illegitimate regime may take in relation to our claim to the Essequibo, until there is a legitimate government in Venezuela, and true representative of the Venezuelan people. This statement must be forceful and made known in all international instances and institutions, and especially to the government of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana.
It is political positioning, it would send a clear message to the whole world that the majority of Venezuelans are willing to submit to the decision of the ICJ, but only when there is a democratic government in Miraflores as a result of free, fair and verifiable elections. This is in line with the pressures of the International Community to the regime of Nicolás Maduro Moros for the lifting of sanctions, and would be an additional element to freeze this trial that cannot have, on the part of Venezuela, a gang of criminals in power.
The hard work imposed by the legitimate political opposition is the complete disqualification of the regime to settle this serious matter before Guyana on behalf of Venezuelans, ignoring its decisions at national and international level on the matter, which includes its absence before the ICJ to defend our cause, and to achieve that this trial is paralyzed until Venezuela recovers its legitimate representation. Otherwise we are on the way to lose again "rope and goat", as Alejo Fortique rightly predicted in 1845.
Caracas, November 27, 2023
Blog:
TIC’s & Derechos Humanos,
Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario