By Luis Manuel Aguana
From the official information from President Juan Guaidó’s press conference on March 27, I extract the following paragraph:
“Don’t believe that story that we can’t do on our own. We can be united and mobilized, of course we can! And neither are we alone, in the face of the international community. I ask for your trust, we cannot place it in a third party. If we approved it yesterday in the assembly (187-11), today nothing would happen. We are being responsible with the expectations and with the protection of the citizens. We have to evaluate this line of protection, *international cooperation*, we have Cuban and Russian intervention and we don’t want it”.
These words summarize the problem in which we Venezuelans are involved: the official opposition, headed by Juan Guaidó, insists a) that this is a Venezuelan problem; b) that with street, street and more street, and of course more dead and more time, we will solve it; and c) that we can do it alone. At this moment I don’t know if they are doing it for political interest because they want an election with the regime, or for an ideological problem because “I don’t want the United States to free me,” Gilber Caro dixit, or for simple and pure stupidity, with which it is impossible to reason.
a) Unfortunately, the problem we have in Venezuela escaped to other borders, it is no longer a “Venezuelan problem”. The magnitude and implications of the mega crisis in Venezuela have long exceeded our capacity to resolve it. And this was not said by me but by the OAS, the countries of the Lima Group, the United States, the European Union and the rest of the world. If that is not clear to the official opposition, we will have Maduro for a while and that “cessation of usurpation” will only be an unattainable dream;
b) The street, street and more street may be necessary but in no way is it sufficient. And if it is persistently offered as the “solution” we will not only have more deaths, but more frustration. It is clear that without an attitude of struggle we will not come out either, and it must be sustained, regardless of the seriousness of the situation. But that cannot come alone, there has to be a complement of certain hope to continue, like the credible promise of a help in the very short term. If someone falls into a deep well or remains locked in a mine miles underground, if he does not have the will to live but with the real hope of being rescued at some point, he dies;
c) If we do not speak clearly and truthfully to the population, acting with the arrogance and self-sufficiency permanently shown to us by the official opposition, we will not obtain the necessary collaboration and unified attitude of the people to move forward. This was amply demonstrated by Sir Winston Churchill in his famous phrase before the British Parliament, “I have nothing to offer but blood, effort, tears and sweat”. I would love that attitude on the part of these leaders, but they lie to people by pointing out a situation that they know does not correspond to reality. How unhappy was that picture of Guaidó on the platform of Operation Liberty with all that bunch of broken and corrupt bats. It made me very sad and made me ask myself, were all the dead so that these people would remain? That’s what undermines the credibility of the President in Charge, not me writing this note. Think about it…
But what really leaves me indignant of these statements is the second part: “… I ask for your trust, we can not deposit it in a third party. If we approved it yesterday in the assembly (187-11) today nothing was going to happen” Oh my God! What twisted manipulation is that? I will try to explain it with a simple example.
You have a situation where heavily armed criminals have broken into your house. You are unarmed and have no way of dealing with this problem (does it sound familiar?), but you have the possibility of calling 911 for emergencies, and at that very moment you stop to think that the moment the police burst into your home with gunshots, you or a member of your family could get hurt or killed. Minutes are crucial because you already have them on you and have to make a decision to face them unarmed.
Note here that both options are by no means mutually exclusive, but are complementary. Only if you try to do it alone you have the highest probability of getting yourself killed with your family. What would you do? Any person with two front fingers would make the call and depending on the attitude of whoever is the protagonist would face or not with the criminals waiting for the police, but that is another thing because the certain possibility of help is on the way.
Article 187, numeral 11 functions as if you authorized the police after making the 911 call (approval of the National Assembly) to enter your house as if to help you. But the police may not arrive on time or for some reason. But it will NEVER arrive if you do not call, that is, if you do not manifest an open willingness to be helped.
But suppose you don’t make that call and decide to face them alone. Besides being stupid, it’s your prerogative as a homeowner. But the neighbors realize that there are criminals inside your house and that affects them. So they decide to call 911. The police can, as in the previous case, decide not to come and help. But there is a neighborhood regulation that obliges them morally and politically to intervene (R2P), even if the homeowner does not call 911 (Art. 187#11). And here the thing changes radically and the problem scales to another level.
Neighbors (and also you internally) know that if the police do not come, the offenders will not be evicted from your home. But you are telling your family that you will get yourself a “hero” and evict heavily armed criminals by “your own means”. What would your family say? That you went mad.
Guaidó is telling us “I ask for your trust (to get the armed criminals out), we cannot deposit it in a third party (the police)”. What kind of message is that? What difference is there in this discourse with the reality of the example? And also adding “If we approved (call 911) yesterday in the assembly (187-11) today nothing was going to happen (the police would not come). And why wouldn’t anything happen? On the contrary, nothing will happen if you don’t call 911.
But the finale is the best (or worst): “We are being responsible with the expectations and with the protection of the citizens. We have to evaluate this line of protection, *international cooperation*, we have Cuban and Russian intervention and we don’t want it”. Well, they are not being responsible for the protection of citizens. The Venezuelan family that is stuck in the house of the example is being massacred every day by the heavily armed criminals who broke in, and are carrying out crimes against the human rights of the population.
If they don’t want to call 911 (authorize 187#11 in the National Assembly) that doesn’t mean there isn’t the neighborhood’s Responsibility to Protect (R2P) for the police to get in without the 911 call they irresponsibly aren’t doing. They are not the ones who should “evaluate international cooperation” to determine whether or not police enter. IT IS NO LONGER A PROBLEM OF SOVEREIGNTY BUT A PROBLEM OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
The sovereignty of States is subrogated when crimes are committed against the human rights of a population. It is left aside when in fact it is known that a deliberate extermination is taking place against people anywhere on the planet. And in Venezuela it is fully proven. The attitude of the politicians when refusing to give the authorization what it does is to hide the responsibility of the nations to help Venezuela because it sends to the world a message of a non-existent self-sufficiency. Because then the neighborhood would say “if their political representatives say they can, why should we risk it?” How many more deaths do they need to understand it? Impossible more irresponsibility!
Venezuelans must understand that the application of Article 187, numeral 11 is merely accessory and that the international community has a moral and political obligation to intervene, even if it has not been called upon to do so, in response to the Principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), to stop the crimes fully defined in the Rome Statute from continuing to be committed, that Nicolás Maduro Moros and his gang of criminals are committing against Venezuelans, so Juan Guaidó and the National Assembly have not yet fully understood this problem, subrogating it to the nationalist stupidity of Gilber Caro or the condescending populism of the official opposition that insists on hiding the seriousness of the problem in order to go to an election.
When we insist that Venezuelans decide, it’s not on a simple whim. Given the seriousness of what has happened in Venezuela, we believe that the restitution of a minimum order in the country not only involves receiving humanitarian aid from abroad in the form of medicines and food, but also in order to rebuild Venezuela, as happened in Europe after the Second World War. Everything will be needed here, from light bulbs to spare parts for agricultural and industrial machinery. Everything was destroyed. And special help will be needed in the reconstruction of new Armed Forces institutionally destroyed by Castro’s communism.
And those new Armed Forces will have to take charge of bringing order to the chaos that will come after the fall of Maduro. And that decision is not Guaidó’s or anyone else’s from that National Assembly, among other reasons because they don’t represent us, because we didn’t vote for them, we voted against the regime on 6D-2015. Therefore, and given the gravity of the situation, that decision is up to each Venezuelan. That is why we request that Popular Consultation to authorize the International Community, directly exercising our sovereignty, to enter our house because it is their obligation based on a responsibility assumed by them in 2005, and authorize 187#11 as a constitutional requirement (see Manifiesto para la Consulta Mundial, en http://ancoficial.blogspot.com/2019/03/comunicado-anco-manifiesto-ciudadano.html).
Therefore, this Consultation IS NOT TO AUTHORIZE 187#11 but to authorize the liberation of Venezuela by force, in order to immediately prevent further crimes against human rights by demanding that countries comply with R2P. 187#11 comes as a later consequence of that decision. Note the difference very well. So it is NOT 187#11, it is R2P.
If the official opposition and its fanatical followers insist on continuing to prescribe aspirin for cancer, distorting the clamor of Venezuelans, we will continue to pay for it with more blood than they claim they do not want to spill. We Venezuelans are already in a bloodshed problem, only it remains in the hands of those who are responsible if more is spilled than should be for ambitions of power, inexperience or simply stupidity.
Caracas, March 29, 2019