At this point, a month and days before June 28, there is no definitive outcome, neither for nor against the regime of Nicolás Maduro Moros. Venezuelans are in the middle of a dark limbo where everyone is a suspect just for having gone to vote on July 28. Much of that outcome has to do with what each of the competing factors imposes as “their” truth. And as we all know, there is only one truth…
At this point some of you may be telling me: what do you mean, their truth?!!! The regime lost the elections 70% to 30%! All of Venezuela witnessed that! Very well, that is our truth, which is verifiable as you all know. But the regime wants to impose theirs on the world, supported by a judiciary subrogated to their control, without showing the evidence requested by the International Community, in order to recognize that the results they announced in the early morning of July 29th are the correct ones. And that is why we are still at a standstill.
Based on that narrative line, the regime tries to impose its “truth”, highlighting that the results shown by the opposition are the false ones, and consequently all those who sustain the contrary to that “truth” put in a sentence of the TSJ, are subject to persecution because only that is the “truth” valid in the country since 29J by those in power. And being congruent with that narrative, Edmundo González Urrutia (EGU), who heads, together with María Corina Machado (MCM) what we consider the true “truth”, has been issued an arrest warrant by the Prosecutor's Office for the crimes of “usurpation of functions, forgery of public document, instigation to disobey the laws, conspiracy and sabotage to damage systems” (see in Spanish PROVEA's post on X, in https://x.com/_Provea/status/1830766432650506481).
But based on this narrative of the “truth” of the regime, will it be possible that the opposition, on which they have unleashed a horrible persecution, can negotiate with them a political solution to the situation that we Venezuelans have, where suddenly the regime accepts that it is not true in what they have so far insisted as their “truth”, releasing, according to the latest reports, the more than 1,780 people detained as of August 26, 2024 (see in Spanish balance of the Penal Forum as of August 26, 2024 in https://x.com/ForoPenal/status/1828901230657319247) and prosecuting those responsible for the at least 24 deaths that have occurred so far since the 28J elections? (see in Spanish Provea, Informe Crisis postelectoral y de DDHH 2024 en Venezuela, p. 54, in https://provea.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Libro-Negro-Informe-DDHH-Vzla.pdf). I would really like to believe it, but it is impossible.
On the basis of this uncertain negotiation narrative, the opposition led by EGU and MCM have decided, according to what we have all perceived in the country, to remain in Venezuela to confront that “truth” of the regime. This course of action of direct confrontation assumes that the opposition is fully confident that the regime's crisis will somehow be solved, regaining the rule of law and freedom before both leaders are arrested.
But is that possible? If there is something the regime has developed exceptionally well in 25 years of massive destruction, it has been its intelligence and counter-intelligence systems, to the point that there is hardly any organization or institution of interest in the country that is not infiltrated and/or penetrated by them at the most unimaginable levels. That was precisely the contribution of external intelligence agencies such as the Cuban G2, being the pseudo-opposition parties one of their most outstanding targets, together with the Armed Forces. It is not in vain that no liberation initiative has worked in the country, even when the majority of the National Assembly has been in power at some point.
Consequently, if EGU or MCM have not been arrested, it will not be because the necessary means and information do not exist. We are not in the era of the 50s of Perez Jimenez and National Security. Now the authoritarianism has allies such as Russia and its Cuban satellite, Iran and China, the most efficient in the world in intelligence systems for repression, not to mention all its associated technology.
But in view of the opposition leadership's decision to remain in the country, knowing that the probability of a negotiation with the regime for the return of democracy is almost nil, it puts its game in zero sum. That is, either the opposition imposes itself or the regime imposes itself. And in most of the cases where this dynamic is raised, the final result is not achieved without violence for any of the parties. In fact, right now, according to what has been observed, the regime's policy is to crush the opposition violently, and now it is actively seeking to arrest the main leadership.
Given this prospect of direct confrontation, it is not surprising that it has fallen, without originally considering it, into the first steps of a political leadership in clandestinity. And that is not bad “per se”. However, although this would be necessary in the face of a regime of the characteristics of the one we have in Venezuela, it is by no means enough, because international experience shows us that an organization of such characteristics is not born overnight.
If we intend to manage the crisis in a political and peaceful manner, the strategy of the zero-sum game has to change, understanding that in a course of direct confrontation, the regime has a competitive advantage of 20 years of violence, without taking into account that our struggle has always been nonviolent and unarmed. They have always made it clear that theirs is armed, and consequently violent. On that terrain the regime has always won.
I think it is a mistake to think that if opposition leaders, faced with the persecution unleashed by the regime, choose to leave the country, we would retreat in our convictions or it would be a sign of weakness or cowardice. Was it cowardly for Rómulo Betancourt or Andrés Eloy Blanco to choose to fight from exile in the face of the persecution of the Marcos Pérez Jiménez regime? Was it cowardly for Charles De Gaulle to go to England to lead the resistance in Vichy France? Was their struggle lesser if they decided to prevent a violent regime from humiliating them and subjecting them to torture? I even believe that their struggle was more intelligent and they were able to solve many problems that otherwise they would not have been able to solve, coordinating aid actions to return triumphant to their countries, even if the long arm of tyranny had reached them, as was the case of our Poet of the People.
Understanding that what the regime is desperately looking for is a “normality” so that we forget about the 28J, knowing that the result was that the popular sovereignty decided its replacement, keeping the country indefinitely in a sort of “they are leaving tomorrow” without any concrete result in the short term cannot be considered as a solution either. Likewise, issuing an arrest warrant against the person we consider the President Elect is not a solution either. So much so, that the reactions of the regime's close friends and neighbors were not long in coming: the Colombian Foreign Ministry announced in a press release yesterday in its X account that the Governments of Brazil and Colombia “express deep concern for the arrest warrant against Edmundo González Urrutia” stating that “This measure seriously affects the commitments assumed by the Venezuelan Government under the Barbados Agreements, in which the government and the opposition reaffirmed their commitment to strengthen democracy and promote a culture of tolerance and coexistence” (see in Spanish Press Release of the Colombian Foreign Ministry, in https://x.com/CancilleriaCol/status/1831106083521277971).
At this point it is impossible to define what is the best course of action, whether to go inside in a field of direct confrontation armed only with reason, facing criminals where no one will put their hand in for us, or to move to a political field where in these circumstances we can do more outside than inside, without conceding that the regime wants the opposition leadership to leave the country.
In this sense, we could place ourselves in an intermediate point where MCM remains in the country and Ambassador Gonzalez Urrutia goes outside leading an international diplomatic offensive, especially if the International Community of importance, starting with the US and the EU, have recognized his condition as President Elect.
The US is in the middle of an election, for which agreements must be reached with the parties in dispute there, and then with the President to be elected in November. EGU in its new condition could achieve important agreements to our benefit for a transition. With appropriate diplomatic action, as EGU could well conduct with the US, it could begin to negotiate that the regime's partners (Russia-Cuba, China, Iran) reorder their influence in Venezuela, with the consequent change in the balance of forces within the regime's supporters. Considered in this way, a peaceful solution from above to this whole situation would be possible.
No one possesses the truth in a political conjuncture such as this. I am only pointing out what is visible to all, because perhaps what is not, will probably continue to be so in the immediate future for obvious reasons, which are beyond the reach of ordinary Venezuelans like us, generating anguish among the population. Let us not let the impotence and the uneasiness unleashed by the events of June 29 and the following ones, make us leave our traditional nonviolent and democratic position because our truths clash, something that was also foreseeable before July 28. Only in this way will we recover Venezuela...
Caracas, September 4, 2024
Blog:
TIC’s & Derechos Humanos, https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario