By Luis Manuel Aguana
The owner of the circus spoke: “Castro comes out of his retirement to announce that he will never leave Venezuela,” headlines PanamPost (see in Spanih https://es.panampost.com/sabrina-martin/2019/04/11/castro-venezuela/) in a recent article. And why would he leave the colony they captured without firing a shot, as has been said thousands of times in Venezuela? No one would do it if their survival depended on it. They are like that poisonous ivy that sticks to the trunk of a healthy tree, and they cannot leave it because their life depends on it, even though they are drying it and the tree dies little by little, and that means they will die with it.
But in order to get rid of the parasite we must use methods that will mean that when we pull it out, the tree will be wounded by how deep the roots of the poison ivy have penetrated into its entrails. All the methods have been tried from the outside to make it let go but they have not worked and the tree is getting drier and drier. We are still discussing methods to save the tree and there are no more options. It will be necessary to use more drastic methods, using force, that is to say, to pull out the parasite, in order to damage the tree, which will be in any case a product of the process of extirpation and that after a slow recovery of its wounds, the tree will be able to recover and grow again.
The only approach to live with that poison ivy stuck to the trunk of Venezuela (elections with Maduro or castro-chavismo-madurismo) we discard it from the start, although that is what the European Union’s diplomacy, the Lima Group and a important part of the official opposition, now accompanied by Henrique Capriles.
I would recommend to them to read an extraordinary report entitled “Cubazuela: Chronicle of a cuban intervention” (view full report in English at http://www.fhrcuba.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/CUBAZUELA-CUBAN-INTERVENTION-English.pdf) published this month by the Foundation for Human Rights in Cuba (http://www.fhrcuba.org/), where its authors, Juan Antonio Blanco, Rolando Cartaya, Luis Dominguez and Casto Ocando, make an in-depth analysis of the process of Cuban domination in Venezuela. From there I will extract some paragraphs that I will use to answer the satrap that in bad time the owner of Venezuela is believed, as once the kings of Spain believed it until they met the protagonists of the feat that began on April 19, 1810.
Beginning by understanding that what we face in Venezuela, the report clearly states that “The situation in Venezuela, therefore, is unprecedented. We are not dealing with an independent and sovereign state that controls its national territory, protects the welfare and security of its citizens, and lives in peace with its neighbors. The institutions of the state have been transformed into perpetrators of a criminal enterprise”, making it perfectly clear that “The logic of criminals is not that of politicians. In circumstances like these, there are always voices that advise political prudence and bet honestly to appease the aggressive instincts of the enemy. That is what Chamberlain tried to do, only to discover later that the Nazis were criminals, not statesmen”. They are criminals disguised as politicians, so it is still surprising that international diplomacy drives electoral solutions to a problem that is by no means political but criminal in nature.
The report coincides with the news of Raúl Castro indicating that they will resist until the end without releasing Venezuela: “The Cuban dictator, Raúl Castro, decided to abandon his official withdrawal from politics in order to cling to Nicolás Maduro and make it clear to the world that he will continue to support the Venezuelan regime until the end” the article quotes. Raúl Castro won’t leave for the good of Venezuela and “will sabotage any negotiation that does not somehow ensure the continuation of his power over Venezuela, even if it is behind another face” “…From the perspective of a communist realpolitik, Venezuela is considered by Havana as the outer defense perimeter of the Cuban regime; hence the order to resist to the end” ¿ How else are the stubborn ones told that they still believe that the regime will come out electorally but feet first?
The colonial model imposed by Cuba on Venezuela involves not only the plundering of our natural resources, but also, as the report reveals “…outsource to Venezuela an array of criminal activities which happen to coincide with the geopolitical objectives of Cuba’s most obnoxious international allies (Russia, Iran, the FARC, the ELN, Hezbollah), This can be accomplished by transferring to Caracas the connections with drug trafficking and its logistics, and the training and provisioning connections of terrorist and “rogue” groups”. If those who believe in Venezuela that this is resolved by embracing the regime and going with it to an electoral process, or want to be in business with criminals or are already part of it. Take a good look at whoever proposes elections to you!
We must therefore seriously discuss the use of force to uproot the parasite, confronting the fact that they have already appropriated our country, which at this moment functions as a colonial enclave of the Castro Cuba, regardless of whether those who are in a position to apply that force from outside debate whether or not to do so for whatever reason. If we Venezuelans are to get out of this problem, we must begin by worrying about establishing the appropriate strategy that puts the use of force in the analysis and how we should deal with this fundamental factor. If that is not on the agenda of the President in Charge and the Venezuelan people are not spoken to with due clarity, they are being lied to and doing a disservice to the route that begins with the “cessation of usurpation”.
From the perspective of the report,“The use of force ranges from a large-scale invasion (Normandy, Iraq), to a lightning and surgical maneuver (Panama) to air operations without the use of ground forces (as ordered by President Clinton in Sarajevo), the creation of limited channels of humanitarian aid with protected airspace (no-fly zones), commando operations to capture, remove or eliminate enemies (Bin Laden), and many other actions of a police or covert nature (such as intercepting vessels dedicated to drug trafficking or using drones to eliminate key criminal elements). Equating the use of force only to actions on a large scale, with landings and prolonged occupations can confuse the unwary and neutralize those who want some decisive action to remove from power a gang of goons who will not leave of their own accord”.
And it certainly is. Those who have been handling the issue of the use of international force to resolve what is at heart ending the Cuban colonial enclave in Venezuela have done so in a biased and Manichean manner, being useful instruments of the regime to remain in power:“Those who anticipate that under no circumstances would they support a solution that uses force – for fear of opening the door to a prolonged foreign military occupation- start from a false premise: They are ignoring the multiple options used historically for the use of force when it became essential”
The Cuban regime does not feel really threatened when opposition solutions are considered soft and carried out without determination. The mere fact that public opinion in Venezuela is inclined not to want to talk about solutions that involve the use of transnational force, makes them screw themselves into power. That is a criminal logic, not a political one. A passage from the report of the Foundation for Human Rights in Cuba is revealing:“A few months after the Bay of Pigs disaster, in which President J. F. Kennedy, with the operation already under way, decided to cancel the air support to the 2506 Brigade, Khrushchev began installing nuclear missiles in Cuba. From then on, the Kremlin’s perception that there was an inexperienced and vacillating enemy in the White House made the Cold War more dangerous”. That’s how the minds of these criminals work.
But one statement that stands out in the report because it is something that I think is the key to this whole problem, states that:“The sovereignty of Venezuela – which lies on the people –, has been “expropriated” ever since the alliance between Chavez and Castro and needs to be rescued first; otherwise we would be respecting the sovereignty of a transnational criminal group”. What’s that supposed to mean? That Venezuelans, who are the mourners of all this tragedy, have been completely ignored in this equation. Only the parties and their representatives are the ones who have so far “spoken for us” on the international scene, and they do not represent the true sentiment of the Venezuelan people. In the first place because we did not vote for them on the 6D-2015 but against the regime, and the most serious thing is that they are responding to interests that dangerously coincide with those of Maduro and those of the corruption that has devoured everything in Venezuela. We have to go to the source of Sovereignty! It is the only way to know the truth.
The International Community would do well to accompany what the voice of the Venezuelan people says above any other consideration, so as not to make a mistake in the solution they intend to give to Venezuela. And this can only be achieved by consulting the people, as some of us have already proposed (see in Spanish Citizen Manifesto for the World Consultation, in http://ancoficial.blogspot.com/2019/03/comunicado-anco-manifiesto-ciudadano.html) on whether or not the application of the Responsibility to Protect Principle (R2P) in Venezuela and the cessation of tyranny. And we will continue to propose it, because any solution must pass through those of us who are going to suffer the consequences of the decisions that are taken.
It is not possible to be subject to the fact that “…the Guaidó deputy does not understand the impasse in which he finds himself and, instead of getting rid of those who hold him and hand him over inerme to the lustral fire of the crisis, does not assume the role of command that the circumstances demand of him, does not free himself from the castrating mantle of his political leader and does not open himself to the formation of a great opposition front willing to accompany him with generosity and detachment in the imminent war of liberation that we face” as my dear friend Antonio Sánchez García suggests in his last and extraordinary note (see in Spanish, Crisis and leadership in the face of an announced war, by Antonio Sánchez García, in https://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqs4ve). This is a billion times above that boy and his companions.
The future and independence of 30 million people cannot depend on it alone. If we are going to fight this new gesture of independence to shake off the parasite represented by the colony that is being raised with Cuba, the least I aspire to is being asked if I am willing to go to war with foreign aid against these criminals, as opposed to living subjected to them by an electoral cohabitation arrangement as a colony of a poor island. I have already made my decision, and you?
Caracas, April 16, 2019