Letters to Guaidó

By Luis Manuel Aguana

Versión en español

Faced with the perceived loss of course of the opposition ship and the stagnation-worsening of the situation of Venezuelans, the political leadership that has no way to influence the decisions that are being made in the official opposition heart of the National Assembly that was formed from 23E, has published some suggestions to the President in Charge of the Republic, Juan Guaidó through the oldest known method, public letters.

And I say expressly “perception of loss of direction” because some still believe that this misdirection of the opposition leadership is not deliberate, but is due to a different way of approaching the struggle against the regime, and that alternative ways can still be suggested to accelerate its exit. And that, in my view, is a serious mistake. Those who are running this ship know where they are taking it, and it is not exactly for a place where we all agree.

Because it would be natural for recommendations for a change of course to be made if those who lead are willing to listen to them. If the person in charge (which seems to be in doubt) continues to make mistakes, then the least that can be done from the outside is to suggest options to correct what needs to be corrected.

However, the options are few if we effectively believe that the deviation from the course is of such magnitude that it is difficult to hear suggestions because what is really happening is that there are no errors in the course but a deliberate route to a different destination that does not admit corrections.

It is as if we all believe that we are heading from point A, to an agreed point B, and those of us on board see in the middle that they are taking us to an unknown point C. It is as if we all believe that we are heading from point A, to an agreed point B, and those of us on board see in the middle that they are taking us to an unknown point C. And when we tell the driver that he’s lost and that he’s changing course, we do it in the belief that he’s doing it because he doesn’t know he’s lost it, when he’s actually aware that he’s deliberately taking us to point C, without our authorization, due to a change of strategy that was forged without our consent. I think that’s what’s going on here.

The letters that have been addressed to President Encargado Juan Guaidó make that sense. For example, the letter addressed by the honorable citizen Enrique Aristeguieta Gramcko (see full text in http://venezuelagana.org/2019/06/04/aristeguieta-gramcko-pide-un-cambio-de-rumbo-a-guaido/) requests Guaidó to assume the power conferred on him by Article 233 of the Constitution, with all his constitutional powers, removing himself from party discipline, and to proceed to condemn emphatically and publicly the dialogue and pacts with the regime. But is that what the driver or drivers want? Obviously not because the route to point C leads us precisely to that, to negotiate with the regime -that’s the idea!

The letter addressed by our friends of the so-called radical and hard opposition against the regime, María Corina Machado, Diego Arria and Antonio Ledezma (see full text in the Twitter message of the Soy Venezuela Alliance, in  https://twitter.com/SoyVenezuela/status/1139186136289599493) repeats the same mistake but establishing a logical reasoning: if we support the mantra of the famous trilogy then there is no possible negotiation. We must therefore close the negotiation, leaving only one option: force. And this force is not in a position to emerge from Venezuela, but from our allies, with the firm support of the Venezuelan people, who reject outright a cohabitation government.

This letter reaffirms the strategy that the people initially decided on, that is, the route from A to B that they proposed to us, in a call to the drivers to comply with what was agreed. And this is reasonable, but as we indicated, it is not their intention to “correct” the course, but the definition of a new one behind the backs of the Venezuelan people, and that is where I want to focus this discussion. Whose boat is it? The Captain and his officers, or whose officers are we on it? The answer seems easy.

We all agreed on 23E that the Captain was Guaidó and approved a navigation chart translated into a mantra that everyone believes in. If they threw the mantra overboard (ver The death of a mantra, in http://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/p/the-death-of-mantra.html)  redefining a new destination, with a new route (or the same one changing the order of the factors that alter the product), then the least that should happen is that that destination and its route should be decided by all of us again, because the destination of Venezuela does not belong to them but to all of us on board.

That’s where this discussion with the drivers needs to be centered. If any request has to be made to Guaidó, it is not that he corrects the course to retake the logical route that we had already decided, but that in the light of everything that has happened up to now it is the Venezuelans who decide what to do, counting on the help of those who have helped us up to now from outside.

¿Y porque hacer eso ahora? Precisamente porque perdimos el rumbo y el destino. Algunos me han indicado que eso ya lo hicimos el 16 de julio de 2017. ¡Falso! Lo que hicimos ese día fue darle un mandato expreso a una Asamblea Nacional, que no lo cumplió porque negoció con el régimen a nuestras espaldas engavetar el resultado a cambio de elecciones de Gobernadores al final de ese año. En esta oportunidad el cumplimiento del mandato del pueblo sería previamente concertado fuera del país con quienes si estarían dispuestos a hacerlo cumplir a la fuerza si es preciso.

But people would ask themselves, “How can we get the people to express themselves in the midst of tyranny? That part would be the consequence of an open discussion of exit terms with the regime, not of a negotiation to keep it and share with the official opposition a cohabitation that is what they are doing now. And how is that achieved? That the International Community assumes it and imposes it as an alternative solution to the problem because it would be the definitive expression of the Venezuelan people. If we all want Maduro and his delinquents to leave, then let them help us express it, imposing it as a solution to the regime and to the opposition, in favor of the Venezuelan people, forcing the regime to fulfill the mandate of the Sovereign from outside. The letter to Guaidó then is for a Plebiscite, and we’ve already sent it to him…. (https://ancoficial.blogspot.com/2019/06/comunicado-anco-carta-publica-juan.html).

Caracas, June 15, 2019

Blog: http://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/

Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com

Twitter:@laguana