Our ambassador to Venezuela limited himself to offering the participants a bottle of whiskey as a courtesy. The story ends here. The scenario does not go much further. The coins do not match the PP
Edmundo González leaves the PP without arguments: “I was not forced by the Spanish government or the ambassador”
The title of this article could be used by some screenwriters, I think of Woody Allen, with the help of a clever producer, to shoot a film based on the events we have experienced these days at the residence of the Spanish ambassador in Caracas. I would advise them to forget about choosing professional actors and, if you manage to convince them, to use real protagonists.
On July 28, Venezuelan elections were held to elect a president for a six-year term. According to most observers, the day passed in a somewhat normal manner with isolated incidents. As soon as the polls closed, the declarations of victory from both the ruling party and the opposition began. Allow me to doubt the figures put forward by both parties. It does not seem plausible to me that the opposition won 70% of the vote or that Maduro, until proven otherwise, obtained the majority necessary to declare himself the winner.
From that moment on, events began that were followed with attention and concern by the international community. The United States, several American countries (Brazil, Chile and Mexico), the European Union and, of course, the Spanish government demanded the presentation of the minutes to accept the result. With the sole aim of provoking a conflict by throwing oil on the fire, the extreme right and the far right managed to convene a plenary session of the Congress of Deputies, held on September 11, in which, with the surprising alliance of the PNV, it was decided to recognize Edmundo González Urrutia as the elected president of Venezuela.
The Venezuelan government reacts with several classic measures. Withdrawal of ambassadors and call for consultation. Since the reaction could be excessive, on the 14th it arrested two Spaniards whom it accused of having entered Venezuela with the aim of committing terrorist acts. In one of his regular appearances on television, he makes delirious statements that can only be explained by the loss of control of his intellectual faculties. He accuses the Spanish CNI, which depends on the Ministry of Defense and, ultimately, on the Presidency of the Government, of having organized a plan to assassinate him. Please, sir, Madura comes to her senses and admits that she said this in a moment of explosion.
But it is time to return to the real protagonist of the story, Edmundo González Urrutia, and the successive steps he took until he took refuge in the Dutch embassy. Nicolas Maduro returned to the fray to attack his electoral opponent. I do not know if the tone is to his advantage in Venezuela, but he gives a bad impression to those of us who are listening to him. He called him a coward and challenged him to come out of his hole. Of course, he knew that he had taken refuge in the Dutch embassy because, according to diplomatic custom, he had informed the government of his placement. He remained in his quarters, according to the information, for almost a month.
It does not take Sherlock Holmes to deduce that, since his asylum, he had time to meditate and even consult what decision he should make. I imagine the emotional tension he must have felt, in the midst of the storm that surrounded him. To surrender, knowing what awaited him, or to seek asylum in Spain, a country where some of his predecessors already live. That Hamletian doubt must have tormented him for days and perhaps sleepless nights. I do not believe that anyone can believe themselves to be endowed with an ethical superiority that allows them to judge their decision, without prejudice to their political assessments. However, Mr. González Pons has jumped like a spring with high-caliber statements. In his first message, he makes a veiled reproach to Edmundo González for having accepted exile and accusations against the government, but without mentioning the existence of coercion. When the photographs of the signing of the document at the residence of the Spanish ambassador are known, the leaders of the PP, who seem to have seen a hologram instead of the images that television has offered us, construct the absurd theory of the necessary cooperation of the Spanish Government. They know that they have the support of many media outlets that echo the same version, certain that a large part of the population will end up accepting it as a revealed truth.
The pieces do not fit and are difficult to digest. With their crude reasoning, they maintain that the Spanish government carried out a coup against the opposition without taking into account that its visible leader is taking refuge in the country that cooperated in the plot. All this is very logical and rational. Edmundo González denied any coercion upon his arrival in Spain. I would like to inform you that you have arrived in a country where the motto of many media is: do not let reality spoil a good headline and do not construct a news story knowing that it is false.
The coercion undoubtedly existed and can only be attributed to the government of Venezuela. Given the pressure exerted on him, Edmundo González chose Spain as a place of asylum. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs accepted the request and decided to place the ambassador’s residence as the place where the signing of a decision already taken by its protagonist would take place. From there, he left safely to the airport, where a Spanish Air Force plane had to pick him up as agreed.
In the final scene that we saw and heard, our ambassador did not use any coercive instrument, he simply offered the participants a bottle of whiskey as a courtesy. The story ends here. The screenplay does not go much further. After the word “End”, one can only add: This film is inspired by true events. I invite the kind readers to put, at their discretion, what is called in cinematographic usage: credit titles.
