sovereignty

Venezuelan popular artist Luis Mariano Rivera was born on August 19, 1906. His music is a tribute to life and a commitment to his community’s identity and cultural sovereignty. Rivera’s works remind us that when a people sow their land and tell their stories, they become resistant to oppression and invincible against foreign domination.

A brief and affectionate profile

In the fertile and sunny lands of eastern Venezuela, specifically in the lush village of Canchunchú in Bermúdez Municipality, Sucre State, Luis Mariano Rivera was born on August 19, 1906, 120 years ago. His life was shaped by the rural realities of this area, which combined the abundance of nature with the profound inequalities of a latifundista-dominated agrarian economy.

His childhood was marked by early orphanhood and farm labor. Far from leading to resentment or resignation, this experience shaped in Rivera a loving and vital sensibility that allowed him to dismantle traditional notions of property and patriarchal-landowner hierarchy, enabling him to identify with the land, plants, and animals that surrounded him. This connection to the land enriched his imagination, and his extended family ultimately came to encompass the entire territory.

Rivera’s creative work blossomed after he turned 48. A self-taught musician, poet, and playwright, he composed his first verses using the Venezuelan four-stringed cuatro guitar as his primary instrument. His artistic output became an act of defiance that placed elements dismissed by the dominant culture at the center of Venezuelan poetry: local biodiversity, manual labor, trees, fruits, and wildlife.

Through his popular theater plays and musical compositions, Rivera portrayed a cosmogony in which nature is not merely a resource to be exploited, but a subject with rights to be loved and respected.

Although he never joined any political party nor sought public office, his approach to life and art constitutes a profound political statement. In a Caribbean and Venezuelan context where the neocolonial oil rentier model displaced agricultural production and fueled the exodus from the countryside to the city, Rivera’s insistence on staying in Canchunchú and singing about rural life was a clear act of resistance.

His politics were rooted in pacifism, fraternity, and love for the land. In the face of the metastasizing commodification of life, he prioritized the ethics of care, respect for natural cycles, and community solidarity. Various artists of national and international renown, including Alí Primera, Lilia Vera, Cecilia Todd, Soledad Bravo, Gualberto Ibarreto, and Morella Muñoz, performed his songs, transforming his local message into a banner of continental identity. Alí Primera, in particular, saw Rivera as a beacon of popular dignity, celebrating his ability to transform everyday rural life into revolutionary and loving poetry.

Luis Mariano Rivera passed away on March 15, 2002, in Carúpano, Sucre State, at the age of 95, after nearly a century devoted to cultivating the poetry of life, simplicity, and affection. His legacy is recognized as a symbol of the musical identity that flows directly from the harmonious relationship with the land and the wisdom of the people.

Sound, memory, and collective identity

In many of the ancestral cultures of Abya Yala, sound is part of the creation myth of the women and men who originally inhabited these territories. For all of humanity, sounds have played an important role in the formation of identities. Languages and music stem from this very relationship and our need to connect, to name ourselves, and to determine our own destinies.

Every landscape has its own sonority. In other words, a set of sounds that form its geohistory. This includes our ways of speaking and our music, but also the sounds of the wind, the rain, the sea, the river, birds, insects. In short, all the sounds of life expressing itself, as well as the sounds of human inventions that are now part of our daily lives.

Within this spectrum, there are human beings who manage to connect the sounds of past, present, and future memories to bequeath a sonic identity that transcends the purely artistic realm, becoming the very landscape narrated in their poetry. Luis Mariano Rivera is an example of this transcendental audacity to place oneself beyond time with a unique music.

At the age of 48, driven by the desire to express himself without relying on others to write his letters and thoughts, he taught himself to read and write. Already in his mature years, he began composing verses, parrandas, merengues, and eastern joropos through which he paid tribute to the flora, fauna, and everyday life of his village.

Rivera’s remarkable sensitivity stems from his direct observation of the countryside. His lyrics preserve idioms, sayings, and oral expressions from eastern Venezuela that would otherwise have been lost. Long before the rise of globalized environmental movements, his songs already championed the balance between humans, wildlife, and flora from a local, community-based, and decolonizing perspective. Rivera’s legacy transcends mere musical composition; he represents a defense of communal life and a living example of how it is possible to reclaim one’s own history to create sounds that cement collective identity.

For him, Canchunchú was not merely a geographical reference point, but the center of the world. By singing about his village and embracing rural daily life as a symbol of belonging with a claim to universality, he created an affective geohistory that recognized the dignity of life as equivalent to that of the cherry, the guácara [snail], and the mango. He showed to his community that their own reality is worthy of being celebrated and sung about. As such, his work did not stem from ego. It was born out of the village’s celebrations and gatherings, and like collective knowledge, it has no other purpose than enjoyment and the strengthening of collective unity.

Singing honestly about one’s own village, honoring the vernacular of one’s community without resorting to artificial language, taught us a sense of pride in our ways of feeling, understanding, and reasoning. 

Rivera’s music, paraphrasing Alí Primera, grounds us in our own land, with the profound simplicity of one who surrenders to the magnitude of the surrounding beauty. His deep connection to his native Canchunchú never served as chauvinistic isolation or picturesque folklorism. Rather, it was a gateway to the human condition prior to the violent irruption of Western capitalist modernity, with its imposition of individuality, the commodification of nature, and linear progress, at the expense of communal memory. Rivera’s work operates in the opposite direction: it reconnects with an organic body of knowledge that does not require academia to be legitimate, because it is engraved in the lived collective experience.

It is no secret to anyone that traditional community music, as well as rural poetry, serves as a means of transmitting memory. It is not mere entertainment. Rhythmic patterns, melodic turns, and poetic meter interact with the biological, agricultural, and communal cycles that humankind has cultivated for millennia.

Rivera did not theorize about nature: he embodied it. His philosophy sprang from working the land, from sweat, and from the sounds of the countryside. It is the knowledge transmitted through the body and emotion, that “communal way of life” that predates modernity and remains a reservoir from which to conceive alternatives to capitalism, fascism, imperialism, and Zionism.

True universality does not consist in erasing differences under a single mold with domineering hegemonic pretensions, but rather in reaching our very roots. When we reaffirm the dignity of our communities, we validate the “peripheries” as the center of our own worldviews without the need for external recognition.

Rivera demonstrates that the periphery is a center in and of itself by stripping away the pretensions of colonial modernity. His music taps into the common core of humanity: the wonder of being alive, communal solidarity, and respect for the sacred meaning of life. And this is not a nostalgic gaze toward the past, but rather a reservoir of meaning and hope for the present. It reminds us that beneath the veneer of modernity, the human species remains hardwired to come together, celebrate, and sustain communities.

Finally, Rivera’s production is above all an expression of love. Love toward the full life experience. But when a poet sings about love, it is usually limited to romantic love, or heartbreak in the absence of corresponding feelings. Nevertheless, Rivera did count on a “spiritual companion,” to use his own words: Maximina Marsella, known as La Negra Marsella and whom he affectionately called “la negra,” in what is a very common expression in Venezuela. She was presented as the only woman capable of understanding his silences and his late passion for words. He dedicated many love verses to her, expressing how they shared feelings and devotion for the small things in life and the land.

Writing our own history and cultural sovereignty

The act by which a dispossessed individual reclaims control over the written word is, in essence, an act of sociopolitical liberation. For Luis Mariano Rivera, the decision to learn to read and write on his own as an adult was not merely a matter of functional education or an attempt to conform to bourgeois standards. It represented taking control of his own narrative and a fundamental reaffirmation of his personal and communal sovereignty. In a system dominated by the colonialism of knowledge, where official writing has historically functioned as a mechanism of subordination and administrative control, mastering the alphabet from the campesino perspective means dismantling the monopoly on truth. Rivera lucidly understood that mastering the written code granted him the historical ability to cease being a passive subject, an object of study in folklorism, and become the chronicler and philosopher of his own time. He ceased to be narrated by others and assumed authorship of his territorial memory.

This literacy and poetic endeavor took place against a profoundly adverse historical backdrop. Throughout the twentieth century, Venezuela underwent a traumatic transformation driven by the emergence of the neocolonial oil enclave. Urban modernization advanced aggressively through its ideological and economic strategy of marginalizing the countryside, dismantling traditional community structures, and promoting rural depopulation in favor of slums in the major cities.

The extraction of hydrocarbons by transnational corporations tied to the geopolitical interests of US and European imperialism came alongside an overwhelming wave of cultural propaganda. This ideological penetration sought to impose the American consumerist lifestyle, eroding peasant identity and dismissing local agriculture as synonymous with backwardness and savagery. Venezuela, which was barely emerging from the devastating aftermath of the war of independence and successive nineteenth-century insurrections, revolutions, and civil wars stoked by local elites and foreign capital, saw its food sovereignty and historical memory shaken.

Amid this landscape of alienation, where the country was rapidly transforming into a consumerist, import-dependent enclave, Rivera’s insistence on remaining in his Canchunchú valley and singing about the communal way of life was not a nostalgic or folkloric retreat, but rather a deeply political and assertive affirmation of cultural re-existence.

He sang with such transparent and loving clarity that his powerful message took root in the national collective imagination, ethically reframing the traditions, sufferings, joys, and experiences of campesinos in eastern Venezuela. Against the aesthetics of waste and the logic of neocolonial dispossession, he countered with the ethics of care and the sacredness of everyday life. His compositions served as a mechanism for preserving historical memory: he warned against the collective amnesia regarding the communal way of life driven by the discourse of developmental modernity; he championed food sovereignty in the face of dependence on the globalizing market; he dignified rural labor in the face of urban prejudice, revealing the profound ecological philosophy inherent in popular knowledge. But, moreover, his profound poetic work demonstrates that true national sovereignty is more than just the defense of natural resources or borders. It requires the preservation of the collective soul, the dignity of the living word, and the self-determination of the people’s power.

Luis Mariano Rivera’s life journey teaches us that decolonization is not achieved solely through theoretical confrontation or bellicose rhetoric, but above all through an organic connection to the land and the community. By recognizing himself through his own voice, he prevented imperialist corporations and the oil industry’s maelstrom from erasing the humanity of his surroundings. His music endures as an indestructible testament to cultural sovereignty: living proof that a people who remember their roots, cultivate their land, and tell their own stories become resilient in the face of modern oppressions and invincible against any attempt at external domination.

Fabiola José is a Venezuelan singer. She has performed in countries across South America, Africa, Europe, and Asia. Her singles and albums are available on all digital platforms. She hosted and produced “Cantante y Sonante” for Radio Nacional de Venezuela. In 2018–2019, she created a series of videos for social media, published on her YouTube channel #HechoEnCasa. She holds a bachelor’s degree in Music from IUDEM, Caracas (2005); specialized under Maestro Tom Krause in Spain (2007); and an M.A. in Arts and Cultures of the South from UNEARTE, Venezuela (2020).

Fidel Barbarito is a Venezuelan musician and researcher, with a bachelor’s and master’s degrees in music and history, respectively. He teaches in the undergraduate and graduate programs at the National Experimental University of the Arts (UNEARTE). Together with Fabiola José, he promotes several musical projects aimed at disseminating traditional repertoires, integrating them with contemporary compositions inspired by these sounds. Joropo llanero. Parranda de reexistencia is one of his published essays.

The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

DEL MAR — Bill Mott was nearly 2,500 miles from Del Mar on Saturday night, but if you listened closely as the field raced down the backstretch in the $1 million Pacific Classic, you probably could hear the Hall of Fame trainer scream.

Thirty years ago, Mott brought Cigar to this same track for this same race, hoping his superstar horse would set the modern-day North American record for consecutive victories. But Cigar, at odds of 1-10, got caught up in a speed duel and wound up losing to a 39-1 long shot named Dare and Go.

Now it seemed like it might be happening again.

Knightsbridge went off at odds of 11-10 instead of Cigar’s 1-10 and he wasn’t racing for history, but the race took on an eerie similarity as the favorite dueled head-and-head with Full Serrano for much of the 1¼ miles. And they were going fast — not quite as fast as Cigar but close enough (1 minute, 10.02 seconds to 1:09.29) for some anguish.

“I thought maybe they were going a little too fast down the backside,” Mott told Del Mar publicity by phone from Saratoga Springs, N.Y.

He had no way of knowing, but so did his jockey.

“I was a little worried we were going a little too fast,” Junior Alvarado said.

As it turned out, neither man had reason to worry. Knightsbridge had a short lead as the two horses passed the mile marker, and when they straightened out in the stretch, the race was over. He continued on, Full Serrano weakened, and the others were too far back.

The final time was 2:02.28, with Original Sin 6¼ lengths behind in second and Full Serrano third. Om N Joy, the first filly to try the Pacific Classic in a decade, finished fourth, followed by Hit Show, Malarchuk, Forged Steel, British Isles, Navajo Warrior, Subsanador and Finger, a Japanese 3-year-old.

With the victory, worth $4.20 to his backers and $600,000 to owners Godolphin, Knightsbridge earned an automatic berth in the Breeders’ Cup Classic on Oct. 31 at Keeneland. But whether he runs in that race or the Dirt Mile will be a decision for Mott and Godolphin, who also have Sovereignty, last year’s horse of the year and the top-ranked horse in the Breeders’ Cup’s initial poll for Classic contenders.

“They’re two different horses,” said Alvarado, who rides both. “It’s nearly impossible to [compare]. This horse carries a lot of speed. The other horse has a hell of a turn of foot coming for home … from the half-mile all the way to the wire, very strong at a mile and a quarter. I don’t recall having such a strong finisher like Sovereignty. So it’s going to be interesting. We got time just to decide what we’re going to do next.”

The idea that Knightsbridge would even be under consideration for the 1¼-mile Classic would have been unthinkable until last month; his first 10 career races were all around one turn at either seven furlongs or a mile. But Mott decided to try him at 1⅛ miles in the Monmouth Cup on July 18 at Monmouth Park, and the 5-year-old son of Nyquist won by 10¼ lengths in a time that earned him the fastest Beyer Speed Figure of the year (122).

With the West Coast handicap division weakened, Mott figured it was a good time to try the Pacific Classic again. He had won the race in 2008 with Go Between and enjoyed other successes here, including last year’s Breeders’ Cup Distaff with Scylla, but he also had to scratch Sovereignty from last year’s Breeders’ Cup Classic when the horse got sick.

Now he has another positive memory — his second win in Del Mar’s signature race, which has been won by only two other trainers not based in California, Todd Pletcher (Fierceness last year) and Dale Romans (Dullahan in 2012).

“It was quite impressive,” Mott said. “They went quick, but gosh he had something to finish with.”

The victory completed a Grade 1 sweep Saturday for Alvarado, who one race earlier captured the $300,000 Del Mar Oaks aboard Tam Tam ($7.40) for trainer Philip Bauer.

How did he plan to celebrate?

“We’re going to celebrate it going back to New York tonight on the red-eye flight,” he said, smiling.

In the other Breeders’ Cup Challenge race here Saturday, the 5-year-old gelding Sorrento Sky ($16), ridden by Umberto Rispoli for trainer Phil D’Amato, earned a spot in the Turf Sprint by capturing the $200,000 Green Flash Handicap by a length over No Nay Hudson. D’Amato and Rispoli also won the $300,000 Del Mar Mile with King of Gosford ($12.40).

The crowd of 15,187 was a 13% increase from last year. The mutuel handle of $29.14 million was the second highest in Del Mar history outside of the Breeders’ Cup, surpassed only by $36.02 million in 2021 when there was a Pick 6 carryover and mandatory payout.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei slams Trump’s latest threat as a return to ‘full-scale classic colonialism’.

Iran has decried impending United States sanctions as a “complete erosion of sovereignty” following US President Donald Trump’s threat to punish any country doing business with Tehran.

In a post on X on Saturday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the US announcement was “an assertion of extraterritorial sovereignty” against the United Nations’ member states.

No state can compel foreign banks, enterprises or airports to renounce commerce with Iran, he said.

“The end result would be the complete erosion of sovereignty as the foundational basis of the UN-based inter-State system, and a recipe for an abysmal return to full-scale classic colonialism,” Baghaei said.

Trump announced on Wednesday the “most crushing economic operation” yet against Iran and said any country whose institutions interface with Tehran would face “tremendous economic consequences”.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent doubled down on the president’s words on Thursday, saying the new sanctions regime would “collapse” Iran and that other countries are “either with us or against us”.

Iranian state media was quick to point out that Tehran has faced US sanctions for decades. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the new measures were “bound to fail”.

“We have seen this movie before,” Araghchi wrote on X, alongside a screenshot of a tweet from former President Barack Obama referencing earlier sanctions in 2012. “Same bull. Different bullies.”

The latest rhetorical back-and-forth comes as peace talks with Tehran have sputtered out. The US Navy has maintained its blockade against Iran’s ports, while oil shipment traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has virtually ceased.

Trump told reporters Friday that his government is “seeing what happens” in the conflict.

“They would love to make a deal, but they’re not ready to make the right deal in my opinion,” the president said.

While the US has blockaded Iranian vessels in their ports, the Strait of Hormuz remained bottled up with thousands of seafarers stranded on hundreds of vessels.

Only four commodity ships sailed along the strait on Thursday, none of them large crude carriers or liquefied natural gas tankers, ship-tracking data showed.

However, Iran has granted permission for several Iraqi oil tankers to pass through the strait following repeated requests from Baghdad, Iran’s state news agency IRNA ⁠reported on Saturday.

IRNA said obtaining special permission for Iraqi tankers was one of Baghdad’s main requests during Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher ⁠Ghalibaf’s visit to Iraq.

Reflect. Think about yourself, about those around you, and you will reach the same conclusion as I have. Since the signing of the disastrous economic adjustment package with the International Monetary Fund in February 1989, Venezuela has never experienced such a unanimous feeling of bewilderment, contained anger, and repulsion at others deciding for us.

In October 2025, a Hinterlaces survey had 83% of respondents state that they would be willing to confront a foreign military invasion. The attack came [on January 3], we were denied the possibility of resistance, and now we face an invisible invasion. An insolent foreign presence that barely appears on screen, but tramples us, crushing the executive, legislative, judicial, and moral attributes of sovereignty one after the other, stealing over $13 billion worth of oil from us in just half a year, resources that no one knows where they have gone, and remodeling our country so that the plundering can continue indefinitely.

Along with the looting, a shroud of opacity has fallen over Venezuela, relegating everything that matters to mystery, except for occasional voices that infiltrate informal media. María Alejandra Díaz Marín warns us from Colombia about the attempt to remove all constitutional limits that hinder the looting. Mario Silva contrasts what politicians used to say and what they say now. Ramsés Reyes confesses that he “spits blood.” José Sant Roz proclaims in Ensartaos: “I tremble with indignation when I hear people say ‘Iran is not Venezuela,’ ‘Cuba is not Venezuela.’”

Comparisons are odious, but more odious is avoiding them to escape self-criticism.

For my part, I preach that anger is a more valuable natural resource than the oil and gold that the US is plundering from us, because anger is infinitely renewable and more fruitful than resignation. I admire all the countries that have shaken off the yokes of empires. I appreciate those who reproach us for apparently having stopped doing the same. I do not even invoke the sacred wrath of the [1813] Decree of War to the Death, which liberated what are now six countries. The assertion that Venezuela is not like this or that country reiterates that freedom and sovereignty do not fall from the sky nor are automatically defended. They are conquered through the extreme pedagogy of the unbearable.

Venezuela is not Iran. Nothing could be truer. Since 1941, Iran had been living under the dictatorship of Shah Reza Pahlavi. The nationalist Majlis movement succeeded in having Mohammed Mossadegh appointed as prime minister in 1951, and he nationalized the oil industry. The hegemonic countries blockaded the Iranian state from selling oil. In 1953, the CIA and MI6 incited street demonstrations, a military coup ousted Mossadegh, and Shah Reza Pahlavi was installed as a dictator, handing over oil to Europeans and yankees and presiding over a repressive autocracy. Only in 1979, after an endless 37 years of fierce monarchical dictatorship and the continuous theft of oil by foreign powers, did waves of Iranians depose the puppet and confirm that autonomy is not gifted: it is defended. They took their affirmation of cultural identity to the extreme. They faced the selective assassination of their scientists and leaders until they became impregnable. They won wars against neighboring Iraq, instigated and armed by the United States, and now against the US Empire itself. They divided their defensive system into “mosaics” capable of continuing to resist when others would have fallen. We are not like the admirable Iranians. But they teach us a rough path to become like them.

We are not like the Cubans. When José Martí arrived in Caracas in 1881 and first visited the statue of Simón Bolívar, it had already been 57 years since we had gained independence and formed what are now six countries. The Liberator included in the Panama Congress of 1826 the goal of the emancipation of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Hispaniola, and planned to achieve it with an expedition that domestic secessionism thwarted. The Apostle [Martí] and Cuba still had to endure a bitter lesson. For Martí, death in his first battle. For his homeland, the humiliation of an independence interfered with by the US invasion of 1898, and a sovereignty tarnished by the Platt Amendment. And still remaining was the bitter record of 60 years of dictatorships and corruption covered up by the United States, until Commander Fidel Castro arrived and put a stop to it. Martí never felt humiliated because in his time Cuba was not like Venezuela. He sacrificed his fragile existence in the Promethean attempt to overcome it, and his legacy pierces our conscience like red-hot iron.

China is not like Venezuela. Starting from 1848, it was attacked by England amid the Opium Wars. Through the Infamous Treaties, Western powers filled it with military bases and puppet governments. Starting in 1931, the Japanese invaded Manchuria; the rest of the world threatened, blockaded, or ignored China. Only after a bitter century of humiliations could the country, in 1948, resume the arduous path that led it to becoming the world’s leading power.

No, Venezuela is not Algeria, or Vietnam, or Korea, or Afghanistan, or India, or Pakistan, or Somalia, or Yemen. Venezuela preceded them. In 1810, we had a foolish homeland that had to learn to stand on its feet, and in 1825 it taught the world lessons. Today we must understand, along with so many admirable nations, that there is no independence greater than that which is conquered, nor sovereignty greater than that which is defended.

Once again, the current metropolis [the US] is losing its hegemony. Its bases are demolished, its mercenaries put to flight. Its Congress denies funds for its reckless aggressions, its energy sources slip away, its fraudulent unbacked currency vanishes, emerging powers surpass it in economy, social advantages, science, culture, and defense. The path diverges between the road to extinction and that of Utopia.

What Venezuela needs to relearn is to be like Venezuela.

Translated by Orinoco Tribune. Minor edits by Venezuelanalysis.

Source: Luis Britto García blog

“Innocence will not kill the people, but it won’t save them either. Their conscience will save them and that’s where I put my heart and soul.”
Alí Primera

Still reeling from two consecutive earthquakes, our hearts heavy with sorrow for our compatriots who have died or been injured, moved by the pain of family members who are still searching for their loved ones, if only to give them a proper burial, and in solidarity with the anguish of the tens of thousands of families left homeless, with all the world’s sorrows converging at once, we cannot help but raise our voice about the need to fight for Venezuela’s independence and dignity. In fact, the tragedy striking us today makes this need all the more urgent.

Taking advantage of the catastrophic situation, armed US troops have landed in La Guaira, warships have been stationed off our coasts, and Venezuelan airspace is violated daily by drones, airplanes, and helicopters belonging to the occupying power. They have not rescued nor aided anyone. They merely occupy the territory, surveying land, and controlling port and airport facilities. They are humiliating us.

They announce lavish reconstruction projects alongside the Israeli government, whose top leaders face substantiated accusations of blatant genocide against the Palestinian people before the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. A peaceful and solidarity-driven people like the Venezuelans, with a tradition of fighting for independence, peaceful coexistence, and the human cause, do not deserve this affront.

To add insult to injury, we witness a widespread silence of political leaders from all sectors with representation and responsibilities in various state institutions. They appear more interested in presenting themselves as the best option for collaborating with the Trump administration’s colonization plan than in fulfilling their constitutional duty to preserve the integrity and dignity of the Republic.

Under these circumstances, those of us who deeply love our Venezuelan homeland are compelled to denounce, once again, that the United States government:

1. Is exercising colonial rule in Venezuela, exploiting our resources and hijacking our economic revenues, which are, moreover, necessary for reconstruction following the earthquakes and for overcoming the precarious economic and social situation of the general population. This is exacerbated by the imposition of an unfair and corrupt debt service plan, which will tie up a high percentage of public finances for the remainder of this century.
2. Has violated the right to self-determination by imposing a political plan tailored to its annexationist intentions.
3. Has carried out a military invasion of our sovereign territory, beginning last August 2025, including the vile missile attack on January 3, 2026, which resulted in deaths and injuries, and continuing with several incursions and attacks in the following months. This invasion is currently manifested in the landing of heavily armed soldiers and equipment in La Guaira since late June, with the grave risk that this presence poses to the physical and moral integrity of the population, especially women and children.
4. It forces the implementation of a neoliberal, extractivist model that excludes the vast majority of the population from the common good and will irreversibly damage our ecosystem.
5. It draws Venezuela into its geopolitical war in West Asia, with dangerous consequences for our security as a nation.

Consequently, as a people, we must be aware of the gravity of the occupation and its consequences, and trust in our capabilities as a nation to advance a unified agenda that will allow us to:

1. Regain the right to political, institutional, and legislative self-determination. We, the Venezuelan people, are the ones who must democratically decide who governs us and what laws and institutions we need and want, within the framework of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
2. Regain economic sovereignty: freely trade our resources and products. The Venezuelan State must manage, under strict fiscal controls, the revenues from these resources for the common good and, as a matter of urgency, to overcome the economic and social consequences of the emergency caused by the earthquakes and a decade of economic chaos and brutal, unjust, and illegal sanctions.
3. Demand the withdrawal of military troops and security agents from the United States and the State of Israel, and the cessation of any type of foreign military operation within Venezuelan territory. The security of the nation is the responsibility of the Venezuelan State.
4. Build a model and a plan for political, economic, and social development based on inclusion and social equality, agreed upon by all political currents.
5. Exercise our right to maintain peaceful and cooperative relations with all nations of the world that share the principles of humanity and international coexistence.

Fellow compatriots, there is an effort underway to convince us that we are incapable of governing our own nation, that the only way to achieve development and welfare is under the tutelage of or annexation by the United States government. This is utterly false. The Venezuelan people must understand that the United States neither promotes development nor generates well-being for the vast majority in the countries it occupies. This runs counter to its own doctrine.

This colonial administration will only establish oil and mining enclaves, with no economic benefits for the nation, no limits on the violation of the Venezuelan people’s rights, and with appalling environmental destruction. The consequence will be the deepening and generalization of structural poverty, as evidenced in all the countries occupied over the past decades.

It is necessary and timely to warn that La Guaira is set to undergo a process of gentrification and displacement of the local population, so that the Trump family, their associates, and business partners can secure the best plots of land to develop a real estate enclave linked to port, airport, and tourism services. This may likewise happen in some other coastal towns as well.

Current circumstances demand that we do everything in our power to reach a national accord aimed at restoring our Republic, and to prove to ourselves that we can indeed build a democratic society here on Venezuelan soil, where we can all live with equality, justice, and dignity. The Trump clan’s occupation will only structurally expand and entrench underdevelopment and poverty. Only by regaining our national self-determination can we attempt, once again and as many times as necessary, to build a homeland that shelters the entire Venezuelan family. In other words, a true Republic. So it shall be. Let’s fight!

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

Translated by Venezuelanalysis.

Source: Horizonte en Disputa

July 17 (Asia Today) — South Korean President Lee Jae Myung said Friday that the government will designate Dec. 3 as People’s Sovereignty Day to commemorate citizens who resisted the 2024 martial law declaration and preserve the country’s democratic values.

Lee made the announcement during a citizen event marking the launch of the presidential Light Committee at Cheong Wa Dae on Constitution Day.

“The government of popular sovereignty will firmly uphold the most basic and fundamental principle that the people are the owners of the country,” Lee said.

He said South Korea must ensure that democracy and popular sovereignty are never threatened again.

“No one should attempt to stand above the Constitution,” Lee said.

The presidential Light Committee was established in March to promote projects preserving the spirit of citizens who opposed the Dec. 3, 2024, martial law declaration. The committee officially launched Monday.

Park Mi-kyung, chairwoman of the Gwangju Federation for Environmental Movement, was appointed to lead the committee.

Lee recalled the citizens who rushed to the National Assembly after martial law was declared, remained outside the legislature for several nights over concerns that martial law could be imposed again and participated in outdoor demonstrations calling for the president’s impeachment during the winter.

“The great people of our country chose solidarity over division, peace over violence and action over silence,” Lee said.

“They clearly demonstrated that South Korean democracy may be shaken, but it will never collapse.”

Lee said the committee will preserve and document what his administration calls the “Revolution of Light,” referring to the public movement opposing martial law.

“Through the Light Committee launched Monday, we will remember and record this great history for generations,” Lee said.

He said the government will designate Dec. 3 as People’s Sovereignty Day so citizens can remember the events together each year.

“This will allow the values of democracy to be fully passed down to future generations forever,” Lee said.

The president also announced plans to systematically collect and preserve records related to the public opposition to martial law.

The government will develop a digital archive to document citizen participation and promote South Korea’s democratic experience internationally, he said.

Lee described the country’s model of citizen-led democracy as “K-democracy.”

“I hope the brilliant lights of many colors that our citizens raised in the streets and public squares will become a bright beacon illuminating democracy around the world, beyond South Korea,” Lee said.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260717010006351

When Journalism enters the Del Mar Racetrack starting gate shortly after 5:30 p.m. Saturday, 363 days will have passed since he last won a race.

Anyone who watched the colt win six of eight starts — including the Santa Anita Derby, Preakness Stakes and Haskell Stakes — during the eight months leading up to July 19, 2025, might find that unthinkable.

Imagine being his primary owner.

“Yeah, it’s pretty hard to believe that a horse like him hasn’t won a race in a year,” said Aron Wellman, managing director of Eclipse Thoroughbred Partners, which co-owns the 4-year-old son of Curlin. “Frustrating for sure.”

It’s not like Journalism has been disgraced during his four-race winless streak. Two of the races came when he was a 3-year-old facing older horses. His speed figures have ranked among the highest of his career. And five of the seven horses who finished ahead of him have won Breeders’ Cup races while a sixth captured two legs of the Triple Crown.

“You can understand how he might have found it hard to make his way into the winner’s circle,” Wellman said. “But it’s not for lack of ambition or lack of trying, or I don’t think any deterioration in his form, really. It’s just been a matter of circumstance, and hopefully he can get back in the win column on Saturday.”

Journalism, with jockey Umberto Rispoli, crosses the finish line to win the 150th Preakness Stakes in 2025.

(Rob Carr / Getty Images)

There’s no guarantee Journalism, the even-money favorite on the morning line, will win the $300,000, Grade 2 San Diego Handicap. But even with another past Breeders’ Cup winner (Full Serrano) among his five opponents in the 1 1/16-mile race, it’s unarguably the weakest field he will have faced since winning the Haskell last July at Monmouth Park.

In the last year he finished second behind Fierceness in the Pacific Classic; fourth behind Forever Young, Sierra Leone and Fierceness in the Breeders’ Cup Classic; third behind White Abarrio and Sovereignty in the Oaklawn Handicap, and third behind Nysos and Knightsbridge in the Met Mile.

Even with those defeats, as well as his runner-up showings last year behind Sovereignty in the Kentucky Derby and Belmont Stakes, he has six wins, three seconds and three thirds in 13 starts, with earnings of nearly $4.6 million. Nothing to apologize for, but there’s also no question Journalism’s star has dimmed. He no longer is ranked among the top 10 older horses in the National Thoroughbred Racing Assn. weekly poll.

Wellman, though, believes Journalism is not done writing his story. A good performance Saturday, one in which he shows what the owner calls “the explosivity that we’ve seen in the past,” surely would make him one of the favorites for next month’s Pacific Classic. And his connections would like to give him another chance to win the Breeders’ Cup Classic, scheduled for Oct. 31 at Keeneland, before he goes off to stud next year.

“We haven’t lost any faith in him,” Wellman said. “I mean, he’s a horse that’s inspired confidence from Day 1, and put together a campaign last year for the ages. You don’t see many modern-day horses string together the type of races that he did, travel back and forth across the country multiple times, take on all comers and maintain elite performance, race in and race out.

“So, are we frustrated by the fact that he hasn’t won in some time? Absolutely. But when you compete at this level, you can’t play scared. You’ve got to continue to take on the best of the best, and no matter how much any horse or human has accomplished in this game, or in any sport, I think the best and the most driven athletes, equine or otherwise, feel as though you’ve constantly got to prove yourself.”

Perhaps reuniting with the jockey who was aboard Journalism during a streak of eight straight wins or runner-up finishes will provide a boost. Umberto Rispoli was replaced by Jose Ortiz before the Breeders’ Cup Classic, but the 37-year-old Italian is returning to the saddle Saturday. Rispoli, the leading jockey at last fall’s Del Mar meeting, has had his own rough stretch, missing five months of action after breaking his right ankle and leg in a January spill at Gulfstream Park.

“It was a difficult, difficult situation,” Wellman said, “considering the success that Umberto had on Journalism. It was hard on everybody for a lot of reasons. But the relationship speaks for itself between (trainer) Michael (McCarthy), our group, and Umberto.

“Obviously, Umberto holds Journalism himself in the highest regard and maintains an incredible rapport with the horse. It’s great to see Umberto coming back so strong off a serious injury, and we’re delighted to give him the opportunity to get back on Journalism. Hopefully they can find that magic again with the camaraderie that they share for one another.”

Del Mar underway

Del Mar’s annual eight-week summer meeting opened Friday, with racing normally held Thursday through Sunday. Post time is at 2 p.m. every day except closing weekend, Sept. 5-7, when it shifts to 1:30. Daily coverage is available on FanDuel TV.

Across Africa, the ability to defend borders, monitor territory and protect critical infrastructure remains heavily dependent on foreign suppliers. Turkish drones patrol borders, Chinese surveillance systems monitor cities and Russian fighter jets form the backbone of several air forces.

For decades, African militaries have turned abroad for critical defence technologies, leaving the continent largely positioned as a buyer rather than a producer.

An Abuja-based start-up is attempting to change that equation.

Terra Industries, founded in 2024 by Nathan Nwachuku and Maxwell Maduka, both in their early twenties, designs and manufactures drones, autonomous surveillance towers and unmanned ground vehicles from facilities in Abuja and Accra.

Unlike companies that primarily assemble imported components, Terra says it develops its own software, airframes, propellers and lithium-ion battery packs, with more than 70 percent of its inputs sourced locally.

The company says its systems are currently used to protect infrastructure valued at approximately $11bn, including power plants, lithium and gold mines, oil refineries and other strategic assets across eight African countries and Canada.

Building capability

The shift from importing security technology to producing it locally has become an increasingly important debate across Africa. Governments facing armed groups, porous borders, maritime insecurity and attacks on critical infrastructure are searching for faster and more adaptable solutions.

Terra’s move from private infrastructure security into engagements with Nigeria’s defence institutions reflects that changing environment. The company says its systems are designed to address challenges ranging from maritime surveillance and border monitoring to the protection of energy and mining assets.

“Coastal states in West Africa are focused on maritime surveillance because of piracy and illegal fishing in the Gulf of Guinea,” chief executive Nathan Nwachuku told Al Jazeera. “States dealing with insurgency and porous borders want persistent aerial surveillance and a rapid-response capability. Others are looking at protection for pipelines, power and energy infrastructure, and mining assets, the same problems we started solving in Nigeria.”

The company is now preparing for a larger regional footprint. Nwachuku confirmed that Terra’s second production facility in Ghana will become Africa’s largest drone manufacturing hub, with an annual production capacity of 50,000 units by 2028.

“Our long-term ambition goes beyond the continent because the threats our systems are designed to address exist across the Global South,” he said. “Governments in South Asia and South America face them too, and they face the same dependency on foreign suppliers. We intend to serve them as we grow.”

Investor confidence

The scale of investment behind Terra reflects growing interest in Africa’s emerging defence technology sector. The company has raised $34m in seed funding, which it describes as one of the largest early-stage funding rounds in African technology.

The investment was led by 8VC, the venture capital firm founded by Palantir Technologies co-founder Joe Lonsdale, alongside Lux Capital and Valor Equity Partners, investors behind companies such as Anduril and SpaceX.

“The round closed in under two weeks, which is rare even by global standards,” Tage Kene-Okafor, Terra Industries’ director of communications, told Al Jazeera. “But what has been more exciting is our cap table, where we have the likes of 8VC, Lux Capital and Valor Equity Partners, investors that have backed companies shaping the future of defence and advanced manufacturing globally.”

Security imperative

The interest in companies like Terra comes as drones become increasingly central to conflicts across Africa. In the Sahel, inexpensive commercial drones have moved from surveillance tools to weapons used on the battlefield, creating new challenges for militaries that often lack effective counter-drone capabilities.

According to the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED), Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM), the al-Qaeda-linked coalition operating in Mali and Burkina Faso, has carried out more than 100 drone attacks since 2023, with 2025 recording the highest number to date.

Terra says its Kama interceptor drone was developed in response to this changing threat environment. The company says the system can reach speeds of up to 300kph and is designed to counter hostile drones in environments where traditional air defence systems may be unavailable or too expensive.

Building defence technology, however, is not the same as achieving defence sovereignty.

Sovereignty question

While a country can build manufacturing capacity through investment, engineering talent and industrial policy, defence sovereignty requires institutions capable of managing procurement, ensuring accountability and sustaining strategic industries over the long term.

Janice Greaver, director at the Pan African Sustainable, Innovation and Development Associates (PASIDA), argues that local production alone cannot answer those questions.

“Seventy percent local sourcing means little until we know who controls the intellectual property, who is employed and who is left out,” she told Al Jazeera. “And when private capital arms the state with no visible civil society oversight, we are simply trading one dependency (on foreign suppliers) for another (on unaccountable domestic capital).”

Terra Industries has demonstrated that sophisticated defence technologies can be designed and manufactured in Africa. Its rapid rise reflects both growing technical capability on the continent and the pressure created by worsening security challenges.

Whether that becomes genuine defence sovereignty will depend on what happens beyond the factory floor: how governments buy, regulate and oversee the technologies they increasingly seek to build themselves.

As Greaver cautions: “Its manufacturing capacity is being built, sovereignty requires the accountability structures that do not yet exist”.

Hungary’s political landscape has undergone a major shift following the electoral defeat of Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party after 16 years in power. The new governing Tisza party, led by Prime Minister Péter Magyar, is now reversing several institutions created under the previous administration, including the controversial Sovereignty Protection Office.

The office was established in 2023 under former Prime Minister Viktor Orbán to monitor what the government described as foreign political interference in domestic affairs.

What Happened

The Tisza party has submitted a bill to parliament proposing the abolition of the Sovereignty Protection Office (SPO), arguing that it has no genuine public function and was used for political purposes.

According to the bill, the agency was designed to pressure opposition figures, journalists, civil society organizations, and media outlets by labeling them as serving “foreign interests.”

The SPO did not immediately respond to requests for comment. During its operation, it published studies aligned with the former government’s positions on issues such as migration, Ukraine, and relations with the European Union.

Why the Office Is Controversial

Critics have long argued that the Sovereignty Protection Office functioned as a political tool rather than an independent watchdog. It was frequently accused of targeting government critics and reinforcing narratives favorable to the ruling party at the time.

The European Commission had also launched infringement proceedings against Hungary over the law that created the agency, raising concerns about its compatibility with EU standards on media freedom and democratic oversight.

Opponents compared the SPO to similar legislation in other countries that restrict foreign-funded organizations, warning that it risked undermining press freedom and civil society independence.

Political Shift After the Election

The proposed abolition comes after a major political transition in Hungary, where the Tisza party defeated Orbán’s Fidesz in parliamentary elections, ending more than a decade of uninterrupted rule.

The new government has signaled a broader effort to dismantle institutions seen as politically aligned with the previous administration and restore institutional neutrality in governance.

What Comes Next

The bill will now be debated in parliament, where the Tisza party holds a governing majority. If passed, it would formally dissolve the Sovereignty Protection Office and potentially roll back other measures introduced under Orbán’s leadership.

The move is likely to deepen political divisions in Hungary, where debates over media freedom, foreign influence, and relations with the European Union remain highly contentious.

With information from Reuters.

Elías Jaua is a Venezuelan intellectual, university professor, and politician who served as vice president under Hugo Chávez in addition to several ministerial roles in the  Chávez and Maduro administrations. He currently heads the Center for the Study of Socialist Democracy (CEDES). In this exclusive interview, Jaua discusses Venezuela’s post-January 3 conjuncture, the anti-imperialist struggle to reclaim sovereignty, and the role to be played by Chavismo.

Venezuela’s reality changed on January 3 with the US strikes and kidnapping of President Maduro. How would you describe the current situation? And regarding the US, there is talk of “conditional sovereignty” and “tutelage,” while officials speak of a “cooperation agenda.” What is your take on this?

Sovereignty is a comprehensive concept. You either have it or you don’t. Sovereignty means not depending on anyone. It is the foundation of a republic. A republic means independence from others, something distinct from liberal, individual freedom. Venezuela today is a state under tutelage, overseen by the Donald Trump administration. This was officially declared by Trump and White House officials such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

This is also clearly reflected in oil production, which must be sold primarily to the US, and the proceeds from those exports do not enter directly into Venezuela’s coffers but instead into a US Treasury account. From there, the Venezuelan government will make requests and have certain amounts necessary for the country’s basic functioning disbursed. That is a complete loss of economic sovereignty. We have also seen how reforms to strategic laws, such as those governing hydrocarbons and mining, have been rushed through. Today, there is immense pressure on labor legislation, both from the Venezuelan business community and from transnational capital, which views labor laws as yet another obstacle to attracting investment.

And finally, we have seen that Venezuela’s foreign policy – which was openly supportive of Palestine, Iran, and Cuba – has been significantly toned down. This is another clear sign that Venezuela is no longer an independent state. Its status as a republic is entirely relative.

In light of all this, how do you feel the government and other national political groups should respond?

I view the decision made on January 3 not to respond to the US military attack as a responsible one, because the enemy clearly had military superiority and the capability to control the entire airspace using high-tech means. A response would have resulted in significant destruction of the country’s infrastructure and armed forces, as well as the killing of thousands of civilians. 

Now, four months later, the Venezuelan government and all political forces should clearly denounce to the international community the coercion to which we are being subjected. On the one hand, as a public denunciation, but also to have it formally recorded before international bodies such as the International Commission on Human Rights. What occurred in January were war crimes, a fact supported by United Nations rapporteurs. Next, a complaint should be filed with the International Court of Justice to restore control over national revenues to the Venezuelan state. 

One might argue that this is ineffective at the moment, that international law is irrelevant and international organizations are incapable of acting – and that is true. But the country must establish a legal precedent because these institutions still exist, and as a result they are a source of rights. These complaints set precedents so that the country can, in the future, claim the rights that have been damaged by the occupying power. 

Finally, it is important to reach out to the international community, and above all to the peoples of the world, so that they know there is a nation that refuses to be placed under tutelage and subjected to these conditions, in order to build international solidarity. An internal political stance must also be established, because this attempt to conceal the gravity of the coercion to which the country is being subjected numbs popular consciousness, undermines patriotic morale, and that is contrary to what is expected of the leadership – not only of the government, but of the entire political leadership of the nation.

But what if that triggers another US military attack?

I don’t think a repeat of the January 3 incident is imminent because it would have repercussions in the US domestic political landscape. The political cost for the Trump administration would no longer be zero, as it practically was on January 3, but there would be greater resistance, especially for attacking a country that has simply exercised its rights before international bodies to claim sovereignty over resources and political self-determination. 

Put another way, the option of not denouncing this, of not activating available mechanisms, is to accept and normalize this situation of neocolonialism, and I believe that is a very dangerous path that could even lead to Venezuela’s annexation by the US. I believe there are moments when peoples, nations, and their leaders must take a firm stand for the sake of history. Here it is no longer a matter of defending a party or a political movement, but rather the existence of a nation that was born free. We have a historic responsibility to ensure it remains that way for future generations.

US officials repeat their “three-phase plan,” which ends with a political “transition,” on a daily basis, while the extremist opposition demands immediate elections to seize power at any cost. From your perspective, what is the path forward, and what should the priorities be?

The priority is to regain independence. If we hold elections, that is with candidates for what? For governor of the colony? Anyone who truly wants to hold the presidency of the Republic of Venezuela must first raise their voice in favor of the immediate restoration of the country’s sovereign rights over its resources and revenues and the assertion of political self-determination. 

In any case, I argue that any eventual electoral process should be the result of a national agreement, renationalizing politics and not waiting for a call from the White House one day announcing that there will be elections in six months. That would be very shameful. I believe that Venezuelan political forces would be obligated, as part of that strategy to reclaim and demand the restoration of Venezuela’s sovereignty, to also commit to the international community and the Venezuelan people to seek a political, democratic, and electoral path forward.

In a recent article, you spoke of an inability to manage the internal political conflict, which paved the way for foreign intervention. Could you elaborate on this idea? How has that situation changed since January 3?

Foreign meddling began on the very first day of the Bolivarian Revolution, and there were agents that facilitated it. The first concrete example was the April 11, 2002 coup d’état, with the open participation of the US and Spanish governments, and from that point on, that interference never ceased. But there was always a degree of autonomy that allowed, especially after 2004, for the democratic resolution of the conflict through national agreements. For instance, the recall referendum that ultimately ratified Chávez’s mandate.

But starting in 2014, after the right-wing insurrectionary attempt known as “La Salida” and its failure, the US began to intervene directly by declaring Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat,” and from that point on, the opposition lost any capacity to make decisions. I was a member of the dialogue delegation in the Dominican Republic in 2018 and saw how an agreement signed by everyone was overturned by a phone call from the US embassy. 

I also believe that later, over the past five years, the Venezuelan government chose to engage in dialogue with the US and bet that the conflict would be resolved directly with Washington. Therefore, everyone put all their eggs in the White House’s basket, and the decision slipped completely out of the control of the country’s internal institutions until the game came to a standstill. And indeed, at the behest of the far-right opposition, Washington intervened and attacked on January 3. That is why I say that reclaiming internal political control in order to resolve the conflict would be an act of dignity and courage on the part of the entire Venezuelan political leadership. Conflict is not going to vanish, because today the calls for a conflict-free Venezuela come alongside a set of measures that deepen it. For example, labor deregulation, social disinvestment, political exclusion, etc.

In recent years, you have analyzed and debated the direction of Chavismo amid sanctions and the implementation of orthodox macroeconomic adjustment policies. Since January 3, we have seen a drastic overhaul of key pillars of the Bolivarian project, such as the Hydrocarbons Law, and critical voices growing louder, including Mario Silva and Luis Britto García. What is the current state of Chavismo, in your opinion?

First of all, the revision and change of course regarding fundamental aspects of Chavismo’s historic program did not begin on January 3 but much earlier. It was formalized starting in 2018 with the Program for Economic Recovery, Growth, and Prosperity, aimed at halting the advance of the transition to socialism and restoring the private sector’s hegemony in managing the economy, with clear consequences for social rights and the fight against social inequality. This was also accompanied by increasingly undemocratic mechanisms, from the political leadership, to impose a change of course in economic and social policy. 

However, a fundamental core of Chavismo’s programmatic unity – the struggle for independence and national sovereignty – remained intact, and that kept Chavismo cohesive despite major differences. Today, I believe Chavismo must be situated within different spheres. There is a Chavismo within the United Socialist Party (PSUV) – no one can dispute that  – but I believe there is a broader, and much larger, Chavismo, with a cultural, political, and symbolic identity rooted in a metanarrative that exists outside the PSUV and the Great Patriotic Pole. That sector currently lacks clear leadership and organizational structure, but it retains its values. It may have circumstantial views of the situation, but essentially it continues to uphold the principles that launched this process: sovereignty, participatory and protagonist democracy, democratic pluralism, freedom, political ethics, debate, speaking the truth, and social equality. It also holds a vision of a multipolar world, in solidarity with international struggles. These were, in essence, the core tenets of Chavismo from its inception and remain relevant for a significant portion of the Venezuelan population that is Chavista or was once Chavista.

You have talked about building national unity at this juncture, but also about upholding Chávez and his legacy. Are these two paths compatible?

This is a difficult and painful reflection because the figure and the project of Hugo Chávez have been burdened with a series of deviations. Practices that run completely contrary to the principles and values he defended, and upon which he built the Chavista project. For example, the case of Víctor Hugo Quero and his mother is deeply outrageous (1). It is a truly shameful incident, yet international news outlets report, “Chavismo admits to the disappearance of a detainee,” “Mother of prisoner killed by Chavismo dies.” Is it Chavismo or just a few individuals responsible? What about the men and women who, for over 25 years, laboriously dreamed, built, and dedicated part of their lives to creating well-being and the common good in their communities, to building a national project called “Chavismo”? It is very unfair because Chavismo, as a movement, is being accused of things it did not do. Chavismo is not this or that leader; it is the men and women who gave up the only thing they had – their time, their effort – to build community, a national project, to plant crops, to learn to read and write or to teach others to read and write, to study, and so on. 

I stand by Chavismo as the men and women who dreamed, who continue to dream, and who have given their all to build a more humane society. For me, that will continue to be Chavismo. And those of us who have held leadership posts in this process must assume their responsibilities for the good and the bad. But it is unethical to blame a popular movement, a popular ideal like Chavismo, for the mistakes, deviations, and vile acts that some leaders may have committed. 

I believe that the call for national unity, to paraphrase [revolutionary communist leader Alfredo] Maneiro, will spring from the most authentic Chavismo, but will transcend it. It will converge with other currents of the left that were not Chavista, with social democratic sectors that broke away from the extremist opposition, and with people who never took a stance on the political conflict the country has experienced in recent decades. It will be the plurality of opinions, of people, of organizations, that will provide the foundation for a necessary movement, which I see as unstoppable and already feel in the streets, in this struggle to regain independence and sovereignty.

Note

(1) Victor Quero died in state custody in July 2025 but his family was not notified. His mother, Carmen Navas, continued to search for him until his death was publicly acknowledged in May 2026 after a judge denied an amnesty request. Navas passed away shortly afterward.