The “president-elect” of the Caribbean country, as Aznar defined it, requested political asylum in Spain 48 hours after arriving at our country’s embassy in Caracas, after five long weeks of harassment, threats and extortion while he took refuge in the diplomatic legation of the Netherlands.
After the presidential elections of July 28, the opposition leader remained 38 days at the residence of the Dutch ambassador, who did not let the Chavista envoys enter. At the Spanish embassy, after the mediation of another former Spanish president, José Luis Rodriguez Zapateroreceived twice Delcy Rodriguezvice-president, and her brother Jorge Rodriguezpresident of the so-called National Assembly, and “gave up”.
Aznar participated in a conference of the FAES Campus, the foundation he himself chairs, with the former presidents Felipe Calderonfrom Mexico, and Guillermo Lassofrom Ecuador.
The former PP leader considered that the whole episode of coercion and the departure of González Urrutia is “a huge political and strategic mistake”. Because, according to him, things are made easier for the “dictator”, as he did not hesitate to define Maduro, and “above all, it makes Spain a less reliable country.”
Aznar compared Spain’s current “neglect” of Latin America with his efforts to connect the European Union to the subcontinent when he was president.
“When I arrived,” in 1996, “the common position of the EU with Cuba was as follows: “Everything was possible with the Castros, regardless of human rights”and when I managed to change this design, the definition was as follows “Nothing was possible with Cuba without human rights”which is very different.”
Aznar insisted on calling things “by their name.” And so, he insisted that “Venezuela is a dictatorship”and the role of the Sánchez government, “a regrettable shame”compared to what the European Parliament did, which “rose to the occasion” by recognising Edmundo González as the winner of the presidential elections and “president-elect”.
For the former popular president, “the question is very simple: if you are capable of doing what you did and not recognizing what happened, Why in other circumstances should I trust you?“.
Hence his comparison with the years in which he managed to impose on Cuba a “common position that made us more reliable, stronger and more credible” at the international concert.
Aznar was referring not only to the European Union, but also to Spain, which defended this position in international relations. If the Spanish government has ceased “to be reliable”, this ends up “affecting all of us, because This puts us in a very bad position.” he added.
Finally, Aznar indicated that “a good policy for Spain” towards Latin America is to strengthen “the presence” of our country there. And that this also involves “strengthening institutions and “Spanish democracy”, which he believes is weakening. So much so, “that The longer it takes to get them back, the more difficult it will be.“.
Sanchez and populism
And Aznar warned against the “Poison of populism” which, according to him, is taking control of Spanish political life with the Sánchez government, since, as he said, a line has been crossed with steps like “questioning the authority of judges” or the role of Parliament. According to him, this is “reversible”, but “the more time passes, the more difficult the reversal will be”.
Aznar warned that institutions are the first factor of competitiveness, stability, security and prosperity of a country. “The weaker the institutions, the weaker the countries,” he warned.
He then spoke of the “poison of populism”, which “is the path from law to arbitrariness“As he added, “populism does not attack institutions” and does not “organize revolutions,” but seizes them. “Populism takes institutions, empties them, mutates them, changes them and takes them over”he added.
Thus, he said that the Spanish cannot think that “the populist problem is someone else’s problem” when It is a “problem that is there”citing measures such as “questioning the rule of law”, “talking about ‘lawfare'”“questioning Parliament”, “questioning the authority of judges” or even “the independence of the prosecution”.
