Why the Venezuelan Opposition Expects February 23 to be "D-Day"

February 23 is the date indicated by the president of the National Assembly of this country, the deputy Juan Guaidó, who himself proclaimed agent responsible for the entry of aids given by the States States and other countries to alleviate the crisis. humanitarian worker living in Venezuela.

Inputs, mainly food and medicine, were stored for several weeks at three border posts: in the Colombian town of Cucuta, to the west; in the Brazilian state of Roraima, southeast; and on the Caribbean island of Curaçao, to the north.

However, your registration is not guaranteed and could even trigger an unpredictable situation.

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro rejected the request, saying that it was "an opposition show" whose real purpose is to force him to withdraw from the power.

"The help is a rotten gift, a package of deception," Maduro said at a press conference during which he denied the existence of a humanitarian crisis and said criticized Washington for "manufacturing" serious economic problems Venezuela lives to have an excuse to intervene militarily and to appropriate its resources.

Reaffirming his refusal of this aid, the president this week ordered the indefinite closure of the maritime border with the islands of Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao – the autonomous territories of the Netherlands in the Caribbean Sea – as well as the land border with Brazil.

In addition, Delcy Rodríguez, vice president of Maduro, announced Friday night the closure of all crossing points between Venezuela and Colombia.

These measures add to the blockade of the Tienditas international bridge, which connects the Colombian city of Cucuta to the Venezuelan city of San Antonio, and through which it was thought that the cargo would be transported.

This infrastructure, whose construction was completed in 2016, has never been inaugurated because of the poor relations that have existed since then between Caracas and Bogotá.

In early February, containers were placed prohibiting access to the Venezuelan side of the road. This Friday, the Colombian Immigration Bureau has accused the Maduro government of having welded these obstacles to the bridge.

An unpublished crisis

Under normal circumstances, the measures taken by the Venezuelan president would have been enough to put an end to the question of the entry of humanitarian aid into any country. But the situation in Venezuela is particularly atypical.

The country of South America is experiencing an intense power struggle since January 10, Maduro began a second presidential term for which he was elected at the end of a vote considered fraudulent by the US. # 39; opposition.

Less than two weeks later, arguing that the executive power was usurped, Guaidó was sworn in as "president in charge" of the Republic for the stated purpose of leading a transitional government calling for free elections.

The head of the Venezuelan Parliament has gained recognition from the United States, Canada and most of Latin America and the European Union.

For its part, Maduro described Guaidó's performance as a "coup attempt" and won support from China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Nicaragua and Japan. Bolivia, among others.

Thus, the confrontation in Venezuela pbaded to the international council, even becoming the subject of debate at a public meeting at the end of January last year at the United Nations Security Council.

But in reality, the situation had long since crossed the borders of this country, especially thanks to the exodus of 3.4 million Venezuelans, according to calculations of the UNHCR, the UN agency for refugees , considered the biggest wave of migration that Latin America has experienced lately.

This mbadive emigration of citizens is one of the proofs used by the experts to show that, despite the Maduro government's refusal to recognize it, there is a humanitarian crisis.

Other arguments put forward the problems of poverty and food shortage experienced by Venezuela.

Lives in danger

Announcing the humanitarian aid plan, Guaidó said the supplies would serve some 300,000 people whose lives are at risk.

According to Dr. Julio Castro, a member of the technical team advising the Venezuelan Parliament on this, the calculation is based mainly on the Encovi report on living conditions conducted by several Venezuelan universities, in monitoring the situation. the NGO Cáritas and in the National Hospital Survey.

This last study allows us to know which medicines are missing in the health centers and what are the consequences of their lack.

From the badysis of these data, they concluded that some 200,000 children were moderately severe malnourished or at high risk of food shortages, which could cause neurological damage for life; while another 100,000 people could die due to lack of drugs in hospitals, especially those needed to treat conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure and infectious diseases that need to be treated with help d & # 39; antibiotics.

The Maduro government rejects this information and baderts that the problems Venezuela is facing do not constitute a humanitarian crisis and that in any case they stem from the economic sanctions imposed by the United States.

Although this position contrasts with the daily difficulties faced by thousands of Venezuelans to ensure their access to food and medicine – a reality confirmed on the ground by many NGOs, as well as by BBC reporters and reporters. other international media – some experts point out that Maduro is strongly urged to deny what is happening because, in different parts of the world, the argument of the humanitarian crisis has been used to justify a foreign military intervention.

Political strategy

In the case of Venezuela, the current initiative on income from aid was presented as part of an opposition strategy aimed at a change of government in the country and with the full support of the President of the United States. United, Donald Trump. who has repeatedly said that "all options are on the table" when it comes to solving the situation in this country of South America.

It should be remembered, however, that the request to open an access channel to humanitarian aid is a proposal presented by the opposition and many NGOs to the Maduro government since several years long before Guaidó's appearance. and its proposal for a transitional government and the fact that the ruling party repeatedly refused to accept it.

This rejection left in the hands of the opposition a valuable political initiative, perceived as legitimate and necessary not only by a large part of the Venezuelan population, but also by the international community.

The opposition's strategy to achieve a transition in Venezuela is seen as a necessary step to end the Maduro government's support within the institutions and, above all, the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (FANB).

To this end, Guaidó and the National Assembly have promoted an amnesty law for the benefit of all civilian and military officials who change sides and actively collaborate in the "restoration of democracy" in Venezuela.

This initiative is supported by the United States, which has sanctioned dozens of senior officials and members of the Venezuelan government's military, to whom they have sent numerous messages to support political change in the country.

In this context, the entry of humanitarian aid will be a first test to determine the strength of Maduro's military support.

Shipments with inputs are expected to enter Venezuela under the protection of a mbadive mobilization of volunteers called humanitarian avalanches.

This situation would create a crossroads, in the first place, for the Maduro government, which should decide whether to order that these efforts be repressed and, secondly, for the officers and soldiers deployed at the border points, who should evaluate whether they obey or not. orders.

To gain support from the FANB, Guaidó made many calls to the military in which he stressed that with this help, thousands of Venezuelans, including members of their families, could be saved.

"The 23F must choose between serving Maduro or the country," he warned in his Twitter messages.

But this Saturday, the pressure on the military will not be limited to the border. The opposition has called mbad demonstrations around military facilities across the country under the slogan "It's time for freedom, it's time of Venezuela ".

Containment limits

Possessing control of most institutions and armed forces, the Maduro government has been relatively restrained in responding to the opposition's challenge since the beginning of this recent crisis.

One indication of this is the fact that, although Guaidó was accused of having directed an attempted coup, the security forces neither arrested nor prosecuted the president of the state. ;YEAR.

Similarly, although the Forum Penal NGO has recorded a record number of detentions for political reasons in recent weeks, the government has managed to avoid the image that Venezuela is undergoing particularly bloody repression.

Two of the elements that explain this claim are the government's bet that the charade launched by the opposition will lose strength over time and the red lines marked by the US government, which threaten serious consequences if Maduro acts against Guaidó or the National Assembly.

This "let it go" strategy, however, raises an important dilemma for Maduro in the face of the influx of humanitarian aid, since allowing entry after having rejected it so many times could be considered a triumph for the opposition.

Attempting to repress, on the other hand, involves the risk of being repudiated by citizens and the international community. In addition, excessive action may justify an American response involving, to a certain extent, the use of military force.

To give the impression that he is not interested in any form of outside badistance to help Venezuelans cope with the crisis, Maduro announced this week that he would receive 300 tons of humanitarian aid from Russia.

Closing borders

Until now, the Venezuelan government seems to want to minimize the risks of confrontation, closing the borders with Colombia, Brazil and the Caribbean islands and putting up physical barriers to block the Tienditas bridge, which could reduce the use of security forces. to prevent cargo entry.

On Friday, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza said about the opposition 's humanitarian operation that the FANB would not attack unarmed people, but guaranteed that the army would not attack them. army would defend the territory from "any armed aggression".

An optimal result for Maduro would be to avoid the entry of the cargo without resorting to force, because not only would she get her goal, but she would embarrbad Guaidó, who also plays her political capital after promising that humanitarian aid would enter the country. Venezuela "yes or yes".

In this way, the government would also avoid other risks badociated with attempted crackdowns, such as the possibility that its orders would be disobeyed, which would imply a break in the chain of command and open the door to possible defections within the FANB.

"Loyalists, always, traitors, never," is the slogan that the government has used in the many acts Maduro has committed with members of the FANB since the beginning of this crisis.

The fact that the army decided in this context to disobey orders to suppress and authorize the entry of humanitarian aid would be a turning point in the conflict, a favorable victory for the country. 39; opposition.

However, predicting the breakdown or continuity of military support for the government is a difficult task because of the conditions that characterize Venezuelan military life.

Rocío San Miguel, president of the NGO Control Ciudadano and one of the leading experts in the Venezuelan military world, told BBC Mundo that 97% of men in uniform faced the same difficulties as civilians.

Similarly, last week, two junior officers interviewed by a BBC correspondent in Caracas on condition of anonymity stated that there was strong dissatisfaction in the barracks, but that the army feared to protest because it was subject to great vigilance. .

Until now, retired or exiled officers have expressed their discomfort.

This does not necessarily mean that there is no discontent in the barracks, but rather than there exists, it will only be expressed if there is no back again.