“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times
create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
Those Who Remain
If any terrible consequence has been brought about by the decisions of the regime of Nicolás Maduro Moros with all the actions following the December 3 referendum, which include the mobilization of troops towards the border with Guyana, the appointment of a governor for the Zone in Reclamation, including the change of the map of Venezuela, together with the approval in first discussion of a draft Organic Law for the Defense of the Guayana Esequiba, is that the whole narrative that is being generated in the international public opinion is being oriented to establish that this territory is not ours but belongs to Guyana, and that Maduro's tyranny wants to take over what belongs to a small country that has no way to defend itself.
In other words, "the bad guys" in this movie are the Venezuelans who, apart from suffering a tyranny denounced ad nauseam in the International Community, we present ourselves to the world "represented" by those who illegitimately exercise power in the country. And "the good guys" are those governments that in Guyana, taking advantage of that Venezuelan tyranny, since 2004 have developed a territory in claim without having reached any negotiation or definitive decision that was recognized between the parties.
The first step to lose the Essequibo is to lose it in the perception of the International Community, and that is what Maduro's regime has achieved so far. And the worst thing is not that. The worst thing is that without having settled our rights over the Essequibo in an International Court of Justice, the public opinion of the world, with a narrative constructed in an interested manner, has already decided to try to convince the world that the Essequibo belongs to the Cooperative Republic of Guyana. That is the kind of stupidity that has caused those who have historically wielded power in Venezuela to lose our territory.
But if we add to this the fact that even important generators of public opinion in Latin America point in the same direction, with manifest ignorance on a highly complex issue, the picture worsens exponentially. Such is the example of Jaime Bayly, who in his well-known opinion program in the U.S., expresses things like this:
"The argument of the Venezuelans who say that the Essequibo is ours seems to me to be folkloric, picturesque. Because they say, in the middle of the 18th century, that is, in the seventeenth century, when Venezuela was not an independent Republic, it was a colony of the Spanish empire, the Essequibo was part of that colony, the Venezuelan colony of the Spanish empire. But, therefore, it was not part of Venezuela, because Venezuela had not been founded as a Republic. The Essequibo was part of the Spanish empire. Then, in 1899, there is a dispute, right? There is a dispute. And an international tribunal is appointed in Paris that has to decide to whom Esequibo belongs. And that international tribunal ruled that the Essequibo belonged to the British Empire, because Guyana was a British colony. Therefore, the Essequibo was part of that British colony. It was not Venezuelan either. Finally, in 1966, and before the United Nations, delegates from Great Britain, Venezuela and the United States, held a conference and the United Nations tribunal ratified the decision of the Paris tribunal. In other words, the Essequibo belongs to Guyana. That same year Guyana became independent from the British Empire, it became an independent Republic and since then the Essequibo has belonged to Guyana. At what point then has the Essequibo belonged to Venezuela? At what point?..." (see in Spanish Jaime Bayly, La verdad oculta del Esequibo, in https://youtu.be/v-2Y2W7ebw4?t=128).
This long exposition by Bayly in his program contains a set of half-truths for the consumption of the average Hispanic in the U.S. and Latin America, which end up giving the reason to Guyana. Is Bayly saying this because he is an agent of Guyana's interests? I don't think so. Bayly has proven to be a friend of the causes for freedom and democracy in Venezuela and other countries, in his particular way of dealing with the issues. But that is the most worrying thing, because he is a credible journalist.
Many of these journalistic anchors, who reach thousands of people through many media, are falling into this error because of a wrong narrative that is being spread in the world, by an opinion machine that is interested in Venezuela losing its rights over the Essequibo territory. We must therefore clarify to Jaime Bayly and others like him and to the rest of the world what the reality is so that they do not distort the truth in their opinion programs and suggest that they do a more thorough investigation of the Venezuelan controversy with Guyana.
Starting by answering Bayly's question in the program: At what moment then has the Essequibo belonged to Venezuela?, the answer is FROM THE VERY MOMENT WE INDEPENDENT FROM SPAIN. Based on what? On a principle internationally recognized in all nations and historically applied by them for the delimitation of borders: The principle known as Uti possidetis iuris:
"Following the processes of independence since the nineteenth century, the principle has been used to establish the boundaries of the new states, as in the case of Latin American countries which maintained the limits of the old colonial territories from which they emerged. It was also the guiding principle of the decolonization process in Africa. Simón Bolívar, at the end of the Spanish-American Wars of Independence, was the first to propose that the emancipated Spanish-American countries should keep the old borders of the Spanish Empire's possessions in America. That is to say, that the new states that emerged would have provisionally as limits those that would correspond to them in 1810 until the existence of a treaty, claiming the year 1810 as the last year of the Spanish monarchy for the legitimate possession of its American dominions. This principle has been invoked by several Spanish-American countries. In this way the new states inherit what Spain actually possessed, with or without title of rights, not what Spain was entitled to by the discovery, as was accepted until the end of the 19th century." (ver Uti possidetis iuris, en https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uti_possidetis_iuris) (highlighted our).
Unfortunately, Venezuela arrived without an agreement in 1899 with Great Britain, who possessed those lands of former Dutch possession, even though Venezuela had titles that proved that the Essequibo was part of the territory of the Spanish Empire at the time of our independence, so an Arbitration was accepted in France that was effectively granted to Great Britain that year. However, Venezuela was able to demonstrate the following century that the Arbitration was null and void because the judges in Paris colluded to give Great Britain possession of that territory. Whoever wishes to see the details of this territorial dispossession of Venezuela in that Arbitration, can read Guyana-Venezuela border dispute, by Dr. Allan R. Brewer-Carias, in https://tinyurl.com/4wyjd563.
Now, from the above, it was born that the British recognized in 1966, in an Agreement -not a trial nor was the judgment of Paris ratified as Bayly expresses it- celebrated in Geneva within the framework of the United Nations, and precisely before giving independence to their colony, that the Arbitration of 1899 was NULL AND VOID, so that from that very moment a "clean slate" was established so that both the newly independent colony and Venezuela could reach a peaceful settlement between both parties, in the terms specified in that same Agreement, since the countries of the United Nations understood and accepted that the Arbitration trial of 1899 had been settled in favor of one of the parties.
Therefore, from that moment on, the Essequibo territory is in dispute and cannot yet be considered or accepted by the International Community as the property of any of the parties. In the 21st century, the framework to which nations aim to resolve this type of dispute, if no agreement is reached, is the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in The Hague. However, the illegitimate regime that governs Venezuela refuses to go to that instance, in spite of having all the documents that prove our legitimate claim over that territory.
However, understanding that this is so, despite the repudiatory actions of the regime that governs Venezuela vis-à-vis Guyana, a narrative has begun to be built against our rights over the Essequibo territory. But who could be behind this? Clearly, those who find it very convenient that things remain as they are, preferably in favor of Guyana. Even if there is a military conflict between both nations, not only to avoid elections, which would be the least important thing, but also so that world scale interests prevail in the exploitation of that area. Maduro would be nothing more than a pawn in that geopolitical chess game on a global scale, brought into this by those who want his neck within the regime itself.
Memorable are the words of novelist G. Michael Hopf applied to Venezuela: The strong men who founded our democracy created the good times of the 40 years of Puntofijismo. But those good times created weak men who did not know how to defend what had to be defended to prevent the country from this misfortune. And those weak men are now creating difficult times again, which will have to be recovered by strong men that we still do not see on the horizon. Let's hope that in the Venezuela to come, those strong men will now be summarized in a woman...
Caracas, December 10, 2023
Blog:
TIC’s & Derechos Humanos,
Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario