Humberto Gonzalez Briceno He is one of the few Venezuelan intellectuals who have managed, for the moment, to survive the illegal, despotic and criminal regime of Wall. He is a columnist for one of the smallest media outlets that has not yet chained the murderer: I am talking about The Nationala newspaper that would have to be scrutinized daily to really know where the opposition to the Caribbean despot is going. Well: González Briceño has written a column these days in which he asks directly: “Why did Edmundo González choose Spain and not Argentina or the United States?”
The presentation of the lawyer of Maracaibospecialist in the analysis of political, social and economic trends in Ibero-America, especially of course in Venezuela, because he provides arguments to question, or even discredit, the idea that is already being formed in our country, that our reception of Edmundo González is “only” an operation of a humanitarian nature (Sánchez Dixit), a lie propagated by the usual spokesmen of the Moncloa tenant.
The species turns out to be a hoax, even more so after Sanchez and his entire group of fanatical gangs will vote in Congress against the recognition of the victory and the corresponding presidency of Edmundo González. If this man had enough courage, he would do two things now: first, refuse to maintain any relations with Sánchez; second, fly as soon as possible to one of the aforementioned countries: Argentina or the United States.
But he won’t. Let’s see why by reproducing the main paragraphs of González Briceño’s collaboration in The National.
The lawyer first states: “We ask him (referring to Edmundo) that he has lent himself to validating the electoral farce of the Chavista regime.” The sentence being truly severe, he then qualifies it thus: “… but, of course, if he had stayed here, it is very likely that he would have been arrested or killed.” Briceño does not enter into the debate on the personal and intimate reasons of the candidate for accepting the trip to Spain and he writes it thus: “We do not see the use of discussing whether he did it out of cowardice or not“, that is to say a more or less elegant way of noting that in the departure from Caracas the reasons of individual memory could have weighed heavily.
The writer is also surprised – and this is a very pertinent criticism – that “in the negotiation (Maduro-Sánchez with Shoemaker double agent like his grandfather, Captain Lush) the Venezuelans in the Argentine embassy and the more than two thousand political prisoners were not included. They are – and perhaps we are not up to par – those that Maduro keeps locked up in his dungeons, a list expanded after the persistent opposition protests.
Maduro is – why does this name seem to be ignored in Spain – at the head of the government? United Socialist Party of Venezuelathat is, socialist, and has articulated a “concrete action,” says the editorialist, “in which the Chavista regime reaffirms that it maintains real power.” This statement is shared by almost all European leaders not registered with Sánchez’s totalitarian left, a multitude of independent journalists and the majority of exiles in our country who cry – as they recognized in their last popular gathering – that there is now very little possibility, if not none, that on January 10 the madman will resign from the presidency of the Republic and leave it in the hands of the legitimate winner of the July elections, Edmundo González. The fugitives are devastated by the certainty that there is nothing to be done against the murderer.
Furthermore, after all this exordium, the “other” González discovers the authentic role and sentiment of the states that apparently seem to support González: “Spain, Brazil and Colombia say they do not recognize the electoral results, but that does not mean ‘They do not know the Maduro regime, which is really important.'”
Of course, if there were any doubt about the policy of the Sánchez government, the vote of his group against the recognition of González would be clarified. The lawyer describes the situation of his namesake in Spain as “exile” and not “exile” and, without further ado, he registers the question with which this column is titled: “Why Spain and not Argentina or the United States, where the asylum seeker would have enjoyed a best status to act politically?”.
And it is precisely here that Sánchez and his squire were caught in so many solemn absurdities, Jose Manuel Albares, because the first thing that the Communist Executive dictated (socialist is no longer appropriate) was to prohibit the poor exiles from formulating any act of political scope. That is to say, they keep him alive, yes, in Spain, as long as he limits himself to walking around Rosales with his granddaughter.
Question from this columnist: How did the real president of Venezuela accept such humiliation? Briceño is clear: “It was not a generous act on the part of Sánchez, but a way to keep González under control and supervision like other opposition politicians in the country” and, at the end, this very descriptive statement: “That Edmundo González was imposed (I emphasize the verb) on the country to which he had to request asylum shows the seriousness of what is happening in Venezuela.
Many Venezuelans think the same, especially those who have been expatriates in Spain for years. This is an unworthy operation that favors, like no other, an outlaw thief: Maduro. The agreement, supposedly humanitarian, has clipped the wings of all opposition whose life is played out in the streets of Caracas. It will be very difficult for Maria Corina Machado to keep the flame of protest alive with an elected president exiled here in Spain, whom Sánchez has strictly forbidden, presumably under threat of expulsion, from speaking publicly about what is happening in his nation.
For Sánchez, Edmundo González Urrutia is a plague victim who must be offered refuge in Spain so as not to harm his friend and neighbor. Nicolas Maduro Moros.
