Several very interesting developments are unfolding regarding the situation in Venezuela. Here are some reported in the Miami Herald today:

• U.N. says Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has responded to a letter sent by Juan Guaido via Twitter, reiterating the offer of his "good offices" to find a political solution to the current crisis
• The United States strongly rejects offers from Mexico, Uruguay and the Vatican to mediate a dialogue between embattled Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and Juan Guaido, saying “"we reject any talks of any type of efforts that would allow Maduro to maintain himself in power.".
• A senior U.S. administration official says Maduro is the only obstacle to delivering medicine, food and other basic goods, which are all in extremely short supply in Venezuela because of a devastating economic crunch 
• Guaido accused police of trying to intimidate his family. Head of the national police says accusations that officers went to Guaido's home Thursday are "totally FALSE.".
• Valero Energy Corp., a key U.S. customer for Venezuelan oil says it has stopped importing crude from the South American country due to recently imposed U.S. sanctions.

These developments are all connected to the central question how is this political crisis in Venezuela to be resolved and by whom?
There is the view that the political affairs of that country are to be resolved by mediation/discussion between the opposing political players. This is the view being advanced by the UN, CARICOM, Mexico, Uruguay and the Vatican among others.
The other is that by a consensus among countries other than Venezuela, the political issues are to be decided based on whether a majority of countries recognise Maduro or Guaido as the President and that the US and other countries can use sanctions and even military intervention to decide the issues in Venezuela. The US told the UN Security Council that every country must ‘pick a side’.
The first is based on acknowledgement and affirmation of the right of the people of Venezuela are sovereign and are the ones to decide the issues.
The second is based on a claim of a “Right” of foreign powers to decide what and who is right or wrong in Venezuela and use interference, intervention and other coercive means to impose “their solution”.
Whether there will be a resolution of the issues in Venezuela which can be a basis of some lasting solution depends largely on which of these opposing approaches on the part of the international community holds sway.
Constitutional Question
The declaration by Guaido as President claiming to be acting based on the “illegitimacy” of Maduro’s Presidency and claiming to be acting on the basis of Article 233 of the Venezuelan Constitution and therefore being “Constitutional, legitimate and lawful”.
The US President “recognising” Guaido immediately claimed “The citizens of Venezuela have suffered for too long at the hands of the illegitimate Maduro regime”. A host of countries including the ‘Lima Group’ within the OAS have also claimed the ‘illegitimacy’ of Maduro’s Presidency.
The EU does not even bother to argue legitimacy, but simply says hold elections in 8 days or we will ‘recognise’ Guaido as President.
Locally, the Opposition ‘recognises’ Guaido by ‘condemning ..breaches of the rule of law and democratic process’ by Maduro. Some supporters of the US claim of Guaido’s so-called legitimacy is based on stating that Article 233 gives the President of the National Assembly the right to appoint himself President because Maduro is an illegitimate President.
Some claim that because less than 50% voted in the election of Maduro or that claims of opposition candidates being jailed or harassed makes his Presidency illegal, illegitimate or a usurper.
It is therefore important to examine Article 233 of the Venezuela Constitution to form any opinion as to what is constitutional or in keeping with the rule of law regarding the Venezuelan Presidency.
 
 Article 233 • Head of state replacement
The President of the Republic shall become permanently unavailable to serve by reason of any of the following events: death; resignation; removal from office by decision of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice; permanent physical or mental disability certified by a medical board designated by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice with the approval of the National Assembly; abandonment of his position, duly declared by the National Assembly; and recall by popular vote.
When an elected President becomes permanently unavailable to serve prior to his inauguration, a new election by universal suffrage and direct ballot shall be held within 30 consecutive days. Pending election and inauguration of the new President, the President of the National Assembly shall take charge of the Presidency of the Republic.
When the President of the Republic becomes permanently unavailable to serve during the first four years of this constitutional term of office, a new election by universal suffrage and direct ballot shall be held within 30 consecutive days. Pending election and inauguration of the new President, the Executive Vice-President shall take charge of the Presidency of the Republic.
In the cases describes above, the new President shall complete the current constitutional term of office.
If the President becomes permanently unavailable to serve during the last two years of his constitutional term of office, the Executive Vice-President shall take over the Presidency of the Republic until such term is completed.

Based on the provisions of Article 233, the President can only be replaced if the sitting President is “permanently unavailable to serve” due to:

1. Death
2. Resignation
3. Removal from Office by Decision of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice
4. Declared Physically or Mentally Disable by a Medical Board appointed by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice with the approval of the National Assembly
5. Abandonment of Presidency declared by  the National Assembly, or
6. Recall by Popular Vote.

Which of these 6 Constitutional conditions have existed to render Maduro “permanently unavailable” as President?
The President of the National Assembly can ONLY “take charge” of the Presidency of Venezuela, if the President becomes ‘permanently unavailable’ prior to his inauguration.
But Maduro was inaugurated on January 10 and Guaido proclaimed himself ‘President’ January 23.
In every other case, where a sitting President after inauguration and during his term of office becomes ‘permanently unavailable’, the Vice President is to ‘take over’ the Presidency,  not the President of the National Assembly.
Based on the provisions of Article, can Guaido claim to be legitimate and acting constitutionally and in keeping with the rule of law?
Can anyone ‘pick a side’ and ‘recognise’ Guaido as ‘legitimate’ and ‘lawful’ President of Venezuela based on the contents of Article 233 of the Venezuelan Constitution?
From a plain English reading of the Constitution, it is difficult that in the absence of a decision of the Supreme Tribunal or any of the other conditions spelt out in Article 233, it is difficult to believe that Guaido has acted in accordance with the Constitution, the supreme law of Venezuela.
What say you?
 
Clyde Weatherhead
A Citizen Fighting for
Democratic Renewal of
Our Society
 
31 January 2019

The economic and political crisis in Venezuela has been escalated by the US-led moves to install a regime favourable to the US via ‘regime change’ directed by that superpower.
Vice President Pence the day before large numbers of demonstrators miraculously took to the streets of Caracas and Juan Guaido declared himself Interim President issued a message calling on the Venezuelan people to speak out and the US will back them in their fight for ‘freedom’.
Do we really think that Pence’s message and the developments the next day are disconnected or co-incidental? If we believe so, then we have learnt nothing about how this superpower operates.
Is it also co-incidental that the OAS Secretary-General, US President and countries of the ‘Lima Group’ within the OAS all declared their ‘recognition’ of Guaido before his hand dropped after swearing himself into ‘office’?
US MANIPULATION OF THE SITUATION
This entire incident was orchestrated by Washington. Trump has since appointed Elliott Abrams a man convicted in the Iran-Contra scandal under Reagan who secretly funded murderous paramilitary groups as part of the US efforts to overthrow the Nicaraguan government, to “lead efforts to press for democracy in Venezuela”.
(https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/venezuela-latest-elliott-abrams-trump-pompeo-maduro-juan-guaido-a8747306.html).
US Secretary of State Pompeo described this convicted Abrams as “a true asset in our mission to help the Venezuelan people fully restore democracy and prosperity to their country.”.
The US has called for a UN Security Council meeting on Saturday 26 January to push for other country’s to ‘recognize Mr Guaido as (Venezuela’s) interim head of state’.
At the same time, CARICOM is seeking to meet the UN Secretary-General on Monday January 28, after the Security Council Meeting.
Today, the US Ambassador in TT issued a statement saying, “I find the official statements from the Government of Trinidad and Tobago recognising the undemocratic and illegitimate government of Nicholas Maduro to be deeply concerning.”.  Concerning to the US and making thinly-veiled threats by adding “Democracy and prosperity require tough choices.”.
TT and CARICOM POSITION
At the end of an emergency video conference meeting on Thursday night (January 24) CARICOM issued a statement saying, “Heads of Government reiterated that the long-standing political crisis, which has been exacerbated by recent events, can only be resolved peacefully through meaningful dialogue and diplomacy.”.
The Heads also decided to “seek an urgent meeting with the United Nations Secretary-General to request the U. N’s assistance in resolving the issue.”.
This meeting will come after the US resolution is debated by the Security Council.
That meeting with the UN Secretary-General will only be useful in the circumstances if CARICOM calls for a full General Assembly meeting on the situation in Venezuela.
The co-ordinated CARICOM position may have come a little too late. From the time the US organised the so-called Lima Group inside the OAS, CARICOM should have developed a joint position on the motion put to the OAS by that group and voted on January 10.
SITUATION REQUIRES PRINCIPLED STAND BY TT
This entire economic and political crisis in Venezuela requires that, as a small island state right on the doorstep of Venezuela, T&T must take and maintain a principled stand to protect the sovereignty and security of this country.
I suggest the following:

• What we MUST NOT do is TAKE SIDES IN THE INTERNAL MATTERS OF VENEZUELA. NO other country or power must impose their ‘solution’ on Venezuela.
• We must call for peaceful resolution and say NO to foreign-imposed ‘regime change’ and do what we can for a common CARICOM position.
• As best we can, we must assist those who come to us for help while being vigilant against those who may come for improper purposes. 
• We must refuse to be part of any military intervention against Venezuela.
• We must NEVER allow desperation to let the Dragon Field deal or any pressure from big powers determine what we do in this situation.
• We, the People of TT must not allow our disagreement with the PNM to drive us to take any stand that will compromise the Independence and sovereignty of our nation and peace in our region.

There are particular pressures that TT faces because of our location, the presence of refugees from Venezuela, threats from the US, concerns for our security and safety if military action is launched against Venezuela, particularly if world powers are involved.
We must focus on seeking peaceful resolution of the situation.
Should military adventure be undertaken we cannot stop it. But we must not join in it.
This is a very complex situation for our country, and we can only preserve our nation’s integrity and independence if we deal with every development with principled responses and not sacrifice our nation’s future for temporary benefits.
Clyde Weatherhead
A Citizen Fighting for
Independence, Security and Future
of our nation.  
25 January 2019

Firstly, many people use the terms interchangeably. That may be because their concern is both for the reduction of the extensive power that the illicit drug trade operators have in the society and the effect on the people, the youth in particular.
LEGALISATION
Generally, in legal terms and for Governments, Legalisation is the removal of prohibition against a substance. Eg the removal of the prohibition against alcohol produced outside of the legitimate facilities and channels or distribution.
With legalisation, what is sought is the bringing of the production and distribution of the substance under regulated control and, in the case of marijuana, for use for particular purposes eg medical marijuana.
Legalising marijuana, it is argued, will allow the state to obtain revenue from the drug that is now illegal, as happens with alcohol, tobacco and gambling.  In New South Wales, Australia alone the anticipated direct income to Government is estimated at $600M per year.
Licensed producers would also reap huge dividends now claimed by the illegal cartels which control the illicit production and distribution systems
Legalising also moves the problem away from a law enforcement to a health response problem.
The argument against legalisation is that just as alcohol and tobacco consumption is widespread because they are legally available, there is the fear that legalising marijuana will lead to increased consumption and a different cost to society in the form of larger numbers of hospital admissions and abuse treatment problems, for example.
There is no conclusive evidence for or against since legalisation has not been fully implemented in any country as yet.
The attraction in the national conversation for the Legalisation option is the possibility for legal profit and Government Revenues. That attraction may be out of concern for the current economic situation more than for dealing with the drug problem.
DECRIMINALISAITON
Decriminalisation has meant different things to different people and countries so far.
Essentially it involves the reduction of legal penalties mostly associated with the offences of use and possession, particularly to the possession of small quantities “for personal use” as is frequently said in our Courts and in the media.
It also includes the use of ‘civil’ fines without incurring  a criminal record and the use of compulsory treatment programmes as an alternative to jail time.
From the state’s perspective, decriminalisation is touted as having the potential to reduce burdens on the police criminal justice system.
Given our out-of-control criminal situation, this is an attractive argument in TT.
In Portugal, research suggests that decriminalisation has not led to increased drug use rates, as well. In Australia, a side effect, however, is that more people have been brought into the criminal justice system.
In a sense, decriminalisation is aimed at the end user rather than the illicit production and distribution system.
In TT, there is an emotional argument for decriminalisation that is based on the view that it will remove the harassment and stigma against “little black boys”.
At the moment, there is not enough experience and therefore EVIDENCE to conclusively evaluate the success of either Legalisation or Decriminalisation globally.
There is a lot of sentiment involved in the debate.