The Washington-Caracas agreement: an optimistic vision
By: Luis Beltrán Guerra G. - 05/04/2026
Share:
An insightful analysis from the University of Salamanca suggests that the evolution of artificial intelligence is one of the most fascinating and debated topics today, becoming a valuable tool in our lives. The proposal aims to demonstrate the possibility of machines solving problems that, in principle, fall exclusively under human responsibility. Ultimately, it presents an alternative for humanity to build a fairer, more inclusive, and more sustainable future.
It is in this context that it would be advisable to seek the help of a suitable methodology in order to understand the "Washington-Caracas Agreement" of January 3 of this year, to which this essay refers. But let us insist on the possibility of determining, God willing, to what extent this alliance would lead us down the right path. That is, that international cooperation will contribute to reasonable cooperation in pursuit of the expected levels of unity and prosperity, a long-held aspiration, for whose realization "that good friend" will keep us from "apathy, boredom, shortages, dishonesty, cunning, and a lack of love for the Fatherland." A few practical lessons are required to overcome episodes with which we have mistakenly coexisted for many decades, for which we must assume that reality must be understood, making the most of it. It is even advisable to ask God for this during this Holy Week.
In our view, there seems to be no other way to understand the "Washington-Caracas Agreement," without, of course, disregarding the legitimate possibility of demanding its rational observance and even objecting when it is ignored. What does seem unthinkable is to understand it as "colonialism" on the part of the US, a country that, despite all its possible mistakes, has undeniably played an effective role as a guarantor of peace for humanity.
Let us assume, therefore, since no other options are apparent, that the political regime that, since January 3rd, has jointly governed Venezuela is a reality, and that we should take full advantage of it to maximize the well-being of Venezuelans. Let us agree that, with regard to the United States government, the task is less complicated, given its development, which is more than enough reason for us not to delve into theorizing. That it is described, within the realm of legal classification, as a "contract of adhesion," because it seems more palatable than "a co-government," might have academic significance, as it constitutes another chapter in the context of the theory of sovereignty, the latter being a virtue that the Venezuelan government will have to defend, a task in which it must take into account that, for some encyclopedias, it is an attribute of power. That is to say, popular sovereignty, but, in order to be objective, without forgetting that this is subject to certain restrictions. Very specifically when it is abused, a scenario in which Washington has characterized the last decades in Venezuela.
The circumstances, among others, as we read, seem to recommend the opportunity offered by the relationship with the United States, through a shared responsibility agenda encompassing political negotiation, migration management, and security in the region, namely: 1. The United States seeks to guide the Venezuelan transition to ensure stability and prevent the return of traditional Chavismo; 2. It will use economic and political pressure without a direct and massive military occupation; 3. The reestablishment of diplomatic and consular relations; 4. The signing of energy agreements aimed at increasing Venezuelan crude oil exports with US investment; and 5. An interim government headed by Delcy Rodríguez, so that, in proper coordination with the US administration, the agreed-upon policies can be implemented. Some scholars rationally characterize the agreement as a "proxy" or tutelary government. It would seem appropriate, then, to pay attention to the AI (Interim Administration), at least insofar as it is attributed to it.
The considerations presented thus seem to reflect that the "accession agreement" between the US and Venezuela is a "fact," which, according to some encyclopedias, is defined as: 1. "An event or occurrence beyond the control of individuals," 2. An affirmative response to grant or accept what is requested or proposed, and 3. A presumption of fact and law. In our view, it is a procedure to be carried out for specific purposes, and given the power of the nation that establishes it and the legitimacy it possesses, it constitutes a state of necessity. However, in the context that demonstrates it—that is, both with regard to the active and passive subjects, namely the US and Venezuela—it is not inadvisable in reality to accept its classification as an act of good faith. And that it be respected as such.
For the sake of better understanding, let us risk being labeled a "blank copy," allowing us to turn once again to Artificial Intelligence regarding the nature of the agreement in which we read:
1. A tacit agreement is a pact not formally expressed (neither in writing nor orally),
2. It is that which is deduced from the conduct, actions or inaction (silence) of the parties, and
3. It is based on implicit acceptance in which the behavior demonstrates the intention to be bound, having legal validity if the consent is voluntary and is made known to the interested parties.
It must be noted that, legitimate or not, the last decades of the Venezuelan government generated a unique atmosphere, fueled by behaviors that fostered an anarchic scenario. The source of this, to take the least questionable example, was the habitual use of populist promises of a supposed welfare state for the popular classes, in a kind of exchange for suffrage. Prestigious analysts, when discussing anarchism and its terrible consequences, point out that it is susceptible to resurgence, in one form or another, when oppression or inequality becomes unbearable, but its fatal destiny will lead it to die as soon as it is born, a victim of its own incoherence. Our plea is that this desire be fulfilled.
Venezuela, at that time, was experiencing a democracy in decline due to the disintegration of the political parties that had enabled a genuine democracy for decades. This democracy, failing to fill the void left by the neglect of significant segments of the population, was characterized, as admittedly, by growing needs but not by a corresponding lack of resources to satisfy them. It is in this context that it seems opportune to use this pause to reflect and prepare ourselves more effectively to successfully address this lamentable problem. Patience appears to be the guiding principle, but without forgetting what is good, so that we may salvage it and bid farewell to what is meaningless.
One question we ask ourselves to conclude: Is Venezuela at a crossroads? A linguistic question with more than one answer, so with all due respect we would recommend the one that refers to "the place where two or more streets or roads intersect."
This does not mean, it must be said, that despite the hardships we have endured, we should lose faith in the goodness of the present and the future, and that we should remember that we have faced more than one crossroads. Let us strive to emerge victorious from this one and vow never to fall into another.
«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».