By Luis Manuel Aguana
There are those who think that Venezuela's intervention began some time
ago. It was not a matter of waiting for the Marines, nor for some hidden
formula of economic strangulation of Maduro's regime. No. It began with the
direct embargo of the regime's accounts and personal assets in the United
States, through their inclusion in the lists reviewed by international banks to
avoid movements of funds that go against U.S. security, to a very well-designed
embargo to protect Venezuela's assets within the United States.
Trump's government is playing seriously for the exit of the regime, but
unfortunately our opposition counterpart who, even having heard the decision of
the American government through its official spokesman, John Bolton (see John
Bolton in Spanish, “El tiempo del dialogo se acabó, es tiempo de la acción”, in
https://runrun.es/noticias/386119/john-bolton-el-tiempo-del-dialogo-se-acabo-es-tiempo-de-la-accion/) insists on
continuing a dialogue that has already died but which they refuse to bury (Guaidó:
Bolton nunca dijo que el dialogo había terminado, in http://www.noticierodigital.com/2019/08/guaido-bolton-nunca-dijo-que-el-dialogo-habia-terminado/).
Immediately after the announcement of the embargo against Venezuela,
those in the opposition and the regime who are effectively mourners of that
measure jumped on the grounds that it would aggravate the situation of
Venezuelans. They do not speak of their interests. They talk about what will
affect us, not what will happen to them because of one of the main side effects
of that embargo: companies doing business with Maduro's regime will put doing
business in the United States at risk because they will also be subject to
sanctions (see in Spanis “Bolton habla sobre el congelamiento de activos del
régimen de Venezuela en EEUU”, in https://youtu.be/lxfPr70G8fE). In other words,
companies will have to decide whether they prefer to do business with the
regime or run the risk of no longer doing business with their customers in the
United States. What a problem
for the regime and opposing bolichicos!
No one could say that this will not affect the immediate goods and
services that in one way or another we Venezuelans receive. Of course it will
affect us! And it will affect us very soon. And the regime will try to
victimize itself by saying that "it is because of the Americans" that
we find ourselves in this situation, when we all know that it is they who have
robbed and robbed the country. But there is one question we should ask
ourselves first, as the former Venezuelan Ambassador to the United Nations,
Diego Arria, did well in a recent interview: "What price are we willing to
pay for our freedom? (see in Spanish Aló Buenas Noches – EVTV 08-07-2019 https://youtu.be/jav85j2gQQk).
The exit from the regime will not be free and this decision announces
that we will all receive in our homes very soon the first draft for the payment
of that freedom that unfortunately most believe to be a gracious concession of
the Universe. Although we Venezuelans have certainly been paying for the increasing
gravity of this crisis with the blood of our youth on the streets and the
massive exodus of our children abroad, it is no less true that opposition
behavior has a lot to do with that spilled blood and that justified exodus.
Clumsiness, together with the inexperience and ambition of political leaders,
has criminally prolonged this tragedy.
And that does not escape those who observe us from the outside, who are
now making increasingly harsh BUT INDEPENDENT decisions as a result of the
behavior of an opposition leadership that does not sympathize with the
suffering of the majority of the population. That is why some of us are calling
for better political leadership in the face of the regime, and more in keeping
with the urgency of our situation as a people.
But it would be one thing for us to get a draft from abroad - and all
those that are necessary - because we have agreed on those payments, and
another very different thing is for it to come to us as a result of the
clumsiness or a management product of the interests of others who do not want
to get out of this situation, with the consequent permanence of the regime.
That is unacceptable.
I would be willing to pay to affect my quality of life as a Venezuelan
who lives (or lives badly) in Venezuela if I am fully convinced that with those
payments I obtain liberation, or at least I am in the right and safe direction
to obtain it. I believe that Venezuelans would be willing to make such a
sacrifice if our leadership were to seriously commit that action is agreed upon
and reaches what we are demanding as a people that is nothing more than the
exit of this regime and its criminals.
And that brings me to what's happening now. At present, it is completely
clear that there are two exclusive proposals on the political table: a) the one
promoted by the White House to gradually but consistently increase sanctions
against Maduro's regime and its corrupt environment; and b) the one promoted by
the official opposition headed by Juan Guaidó to dialogue and try to reach
electoral agreements with Nicolás Maduro Moros. Either it's one thing or the
other, that's why they are exclusive. If the U.S. rejected the path of
dialogue, why does the official opposition insist on a dialogue rejected by our
main ally?
If the United States is carrying out those measures, it is doing so in
the certainty that Maduro will end up breaking. But one thing is a break
provoked outside Venezuela without the participation or consent of the official
opposition, which is heading in a different direction (the dialogue of the
European left), and another very different thing is if the Americans do it with
the authorization of the Venezuelan people. In other words, if the people
decide in a Plebiscite Consultation to be willing to pay or not the
consequences of those actions of the International Community, by virtue of the
fact that their own representation goes in another direction.
The terms of the exit and transfer of power of Nicolás Maduro Moros
could be defined in this Consultation. But the consultation would also decide
whether we Venezuelans agree that countries should raise the cost to the regime
of remaining in power, whatever that cost may be. In other words, that
Venezuelans decide directly to assume the price of freedom in exchange for
those countries committing themselves to help us make the exit from the regime
effective if the people so decide, as a guarantee that this suffering will make
sense. As has been proposed by the clumsiness of the opposition, we will now
begin to assume it without any retribution.
From this moment on, Venezuelans will begin to feel the consequences of
the embargo. But we will be doing it without having decided anything, and even
worse, as a consequence of the clumsiness of others. We will be passive
subjects of a decision that occurred outside our borders, without our
participation. That is why we insist that this escalation of sanctions and
measures, which can perfectly reach a humanitarian intervention with foreign
military accompaniment, not be a decision of anyone other than the people of
Venezuela, consulted in Plebiscite. Otherwise we will not be managing what will
happen in our own country because we will be subrogating it to people who will
come out of where we least expect it once the regime falls. That's why I would
long prefer that the people of Venezuela, to be the ones who decide, not only
the price of our freedom but also what will happen next. What do you prefer?
Caracas, August 9, 2019
Email:
luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario