civilian

July 5, 1811, is rightly remembered as one of the key dates in our republican history. It commemorates nothing less than the Declaration of Independence from the Spanish Monarchy, and is the central act of the political and legal process of independence that began on April 19, 1810, and led to the promulgation of Venezuela’s first Constitution on December 21, 1811.

On March 2, 1811, the General Congress of Venezuela was convened, becoming the first Parliament in our republican history. That General Congress, meeting in what was then the chapel of the Santa Rosa de Lima Seminary in Caracas, had as its fundamental mission the drafting of the 1811 Constitution. However, two months after beginning its sessions, the nascent Republic felt the need to issue a formal declaration of independence from the Spanish Crown, thus clarifying the political separation of the previous three hundred years. Once the Congress had decided to move towards a republican government—after refusing on April 1810 to obey the French regime that had invaded Spain—it was incompatible with that decision not to make an unrestricted declaration of independence from the Crown.

In the sessions of July 3, 4, and 5, the problem, which was certainly not insignificant, was openly addressed, among other reasons because it was necessary to convince those who were not entirely convinced of the legitimacy or timeliness of the process. Ultimately, the declaration of independence required to substantiate the reasons for declaring independence.

Therefore, the Act of Independence will be a very well-founded argument for the reasons why independence is being declared. The first paragraph will establish the context in which the declaration of independence will be justified:

“In the name of Almighty God, we, the representatives of the United Provinces of Caracas, Cumaná, Barinas, Margarita, Barcelona, ​​Mérida, and Trujillo, which form the American Confederation of Venezuela on the southern continent, assembled in Congress, and considering the full and absolute possession of our rights, which we justly and legitimately recovered on April 19, 1810, as a consequence of the events in Bayonne and the occupation of the Spanish throne by the conquest and succession of another new dynasty established without our consent, wish, before exercising the rights of which force had deprived us for more than three centuries, and which the political order of human events has restored to us, to make known to the world the reasons that have arisen from these same events and authorize the free exercise that we are about to make of our sovereignty.”

On July 5th, as the culmination of debates that had begun on July 3rd, independence was declared within the Congress. Later, in another session, the drafting of an Act to record the decision was decided. Therefore, although independence was declared by Congress on July 5th, the Act that justified it politically and legally was only read, approved, and signed on July 7th, having been drafted by Juan Germán Roscio and Francisco Isnardi.

The declaration of independence is a central element in our independence process, as it reflected the motivation behind the decision to sever political ties with the Monarchy under which these territories had lived for three centuries.

Indeed, the declaration of independence, from the perspective of the political and legal process that independence entailed, lies at the very heart, even temporally, of the first part of that process, which, at least in this initial and fundamental stage, was essentially civil. This stage begins with the events of April 19, 1810, and continues, among other events, with the establishment of the General Congress of Venezuela, and then proceeds, also among other events, with the Declaration of the Rights of the People of 1811 and the Constitution of 1811, of December 21.

Also from this perspective, it is worth noting that the Declaration of Independence occurred within the context of the first constituent process in our republican history. In fact, it can be pointed out that this constituent process, which began on April 19, 1810, and whose first stage culminated on December 21, 1811, is not only our first constituent process, but the only genuine constituent process that has existed in Venezuela. 

In the institutional history of Venezuela, only one truly constituent process can be identified, the constituent process of 1811. During this process, the most important political transformation of our history took place.

This paragraph from the Declaration of Independence summarizes the truly constituent decision:

“In consideration of all these solid, public, and irrefutable political reasons, which so strongly persuade us of the need to recover the natural dignity that the course of events has restored to us, and in the exercise of the imprescriptible rights that peoples possess to dissolve any pact, agreement, or association that does not fulfill the purposes for which governments were instituted, we believe that we cannot and should not maintain the ties that bound us to the government of Spain, and that, like all the peoples of the world, we are free and authorized to be independent of any authority other than our own, and to assume among the powers of the earth the equal place that the Supreme Being and nature assign to us and to which the succession of human events and our own good and utility call us.”

The Declaration of Independence is particularly clear in the final paragraph of the Act:

“We, therefore, in the name and with the will and authority vested in us by the virtuous people of Venezuela, solemnly declare to the world that its United Provinces are, and from this day forward, in fact and in law, free, sovereign, and independent States, and that they are absolved from all submission and dependence on the Crown of Spain or on those who claim or may claim to be its agents or representatives, and that as such a free and independent State, it has full power to adopt the form of government that is in accordance with the general will of its people, to declare war, to make peace, to form alliances, to arrange treaties of commerce, boundaries, and navigation, and to perform all other acts that free and independent nations perform.”

Thus, July 5th is a date to commemorate an essentially civil event, one of the few that has occurred since in our republican history: faced with the political situation resulting from the Napoleonic invasion of Spain, Venezuelans questioned the legitimacy of their submission to that Crown. The independence process was, therefore, in its origins, a question based on ideas and on the concern for the legitimate and correct path to follow as a nation.

For this reason, a military celebration on July 5th is actually a historical anachronism. The main celebration of July 5th should take place in the National Assembly, the successor to the General Congress of Venezuela, where independence was declared and the Act of Independence was signed.

May 22 (UPI) — One civilian has died and 36 others — many of whom were first responders — were injured on Friday after a series of explosions in a New York City shipyard.

Two explosions occurred on a barge Friday afternoon along the North Shore of Staten Island, roughly an hour apart, with firefighters and another civilian also injured.

That area of the North Shore is mostly populated with industrial businesses, including various boating and barge companies, The New York Times and WPIX reported.

“What unfolded was a fast-moving emergency that claimed one life and left more than 30 civilians and first responders injured,” New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani said in a statement on X.

“The fire is now under control,” he said. “We mourn the life that was lost today, and we hold their family in our hearts.”

The first explosion was heard just before 3:30 p.m. EDT, which saw more than 200 firefighters and medical personnel respond to the dry-docked barge.

The New York Post reported that people were trapped in confined spaces aboard the barge and, minutes before the second explosion, fire officials called for assistance for those already trapped.

In addition to the civilian who died and the injured civilian, CBS News reported that at least 34 Fire Department of New York firefighters had been injured, two of whom were significantly injured.

In his statement, Mamdani asked New Yorkers to keep the injured and their families in their thoughts and noted the sacrifices of firefighters who responded to the emergency.

“To the first responders who rushed toward danger without hesitation: thank you,” Mamdani said.

“As you do every day, you put yourselves in harm’s way so others could escape,” he said. “Our city owes you a debt of gratitude.”

BEIRUT — A dozen U.S. Democratic Senators have called for the U.S. Central Command to answer questions about American coordination with Israel in declaring broad “ evacuation zones ” in Lebanon and Iran, alleging that the practice may violate international law.

The letter underlines how the Democratic Party — both its leaders and the base — has grown increasingly critical of Israel.

Since the beginning of the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran and the latest Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon, the Israeli military has regularly issued maps covering large areas of territory along with warnings telling all residents of the zones to flee. Israel had previously used a similar approach in Gaza.

The senators said the sweeping warnings have “been used to permanently displace people and destroy homes and towns” and that some civilians who refused to leave their homes in the areas have been killed by subsequent strikes.

The 12 senators led by Vermont Sen. Peter Welch, in a letter dated May. 4 to CENTCOM chief Adm. Brad Cooper that was provided to The Associated Press, state that Israel’s practice of unilaterally declaring mass evacuation warnings in Lebanon and Iran “likely contravene international laws the United States has helped develop around humane warfare.”

The other signatories include senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin.

The letter asked the CENTCOM chief whether U.S. forces have coordinated military targets with Israeli forces during the recent war with Iran, whether they provided assistance or intelligence helping Israel’s military to impose the evacuation zones in Lebanon and Iran, and whether CENTCOM signed off on U.S. military support for the targeting of people or infrastructure in the evacuation zones. It also asked whether the U.S. military has reviewed the legality of the practice.

The Israeli military declined to comment when asked about the letter. CENTCOM did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In the past, Israel has said the evacuation maps aim to keep civilians out of harm’s way. It says Hezbollah has positioned fighters, tunnels and weapons in civilian areas across southern Lebanon, from which it has launched hundreds of drones and missiles — without warning — into northern Israel.

A shift in the party stance

Observers said the move is part of a larger shift in the stance of Democratic Party leaders on U.S. military assistance to Israel. Democrats have also been critical of the Trump administration’s entry into the war on Iran alongside Israel.

The letter came nearly three weeks after more than three dozen Democrats supported an effort by Sanders to block arms sales to Israel, signaling a growing discontent in the party with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the wars in Gaza and Iran.

The two resolutions to block U.S. sales of bulldozers and bombs to Israel were opposed by all Republicans and rejected 40-59 and 36-63.

Jon Finer, former deputy national security adviser under President Joe Biden, said the recent steps by Democratic senators reflect a “growing concern about Israeli conduct of various wars that cause civilian harm and U.S. complicity in that” across the spectrum within the Democratic Party.

Asked why the Democratic Party is taking these steps now and not at the time when the war in Gaza and the Israel-Hezbollah war broke out — when the Democratic Biden administration was in power — Finer said: “our operational integration with Israel appears to be growing, which is part of it, but the truth is the Democratic base has been moving in this direction for some time and Washington has been catching up.”

Andrew Miller, a former senior official on Israel and Palestinian Affairs at the State Department, said the letter “represents a shift among congressional Democrats moving from questions of the legality of Israeli military operations to concerns about the complicity of the U.S. military.”

“It demonstrates that Democrats are taking international law very seriously and that is a welcome development,” Miller said.

The evacuation zones

Israel has issued dozens of evacuation warnings in Lebanon since the latest Israel-Hezbollah war began on March 2. Over 1 million people in Lebanon have fled their homes during the war.

Israel has also issued similar warnings for Iranians, both during the 12-day Israel-Iran war last year and during the U.S.-Israeli war launched on Iran on Feb. 28. In one case last year they warned 300,000 people in Tehran, Iran’s capital, to evacuate.

On Wednesday, the Israel military’s Arabic-language spokesperson Avichay Adraee issued an evacuation warning to residents of 12 villages in southern Lebanon saying Hezbollah is using them to launch attacks. The warnings came despite a ceasefire that has been nominally in place since April 17, although Israel and Hezbollah have been carrying daily attacks since then.

The senators said the declaration of evacuation zones does not absolve Israeli and U.S. forces “from the absolute legal responsibility to determine that each individual person or civilian facility targeted by drones, jets, and gunfire is, in fact, a military target.” It said the use of the zones has been linked to “the deaths of thousands of civilians,” describing them as “kill zones.”

In response to questions by the AP last month, the Israeli military said it issues warnings by phone, text, radio broadcast, social media and leaflets dropped from the air, in accordance with the “principles of distinction, proportionality and feasible precautions” under international law.

Mroue writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Julia Frankel contributed to this report from Jerusalem.