Taking the country to total collapse, far from helping to solve the problem, takes us away from it, making the precarious situation in which most people live even worse.

The statement of former ambassador Brownfield, affirming that the way to solve the problem of Venezuela is causing the total collapse of the country, I generated anguish and rejection, despite understanding that his approach is made from solidarity. This is not a new proposal. It is the same rational that propelled sanctions and isolation of many countries in history. It starts from the premise that the induced destruction of a country's economic system will generate the necessary stimulus for the people to remove the abuser from power. I'm not going to set an ethical position on this issue. I concentrate on analyzing their chances of success.

Starting with history, the result of this strategy has been quite poor. The sanctions of the United States against some Latin regimes were not very determinant in the history of their political changes. Sanctions against Russia have been disappointing in results. The success against the Zimbabwe regime was nil. The sanctions against Serbia did not dissuade the invasion in Bosnia. The sanctions of the Soviet Union against China, Yugoslavia and Albania had no effect. The history of sanctions and isolation against Cuba is part of the annals of the most resounding failure in history. In the case of sanctions against Iran, global unity in the world produced some behavioral changes, but the end result is that the government is still standing and its action is still unpresentable. North Korea is a poem. We could say that a success story is that of South Africa, where many years of sanctions (and sacrifices of the people) helped change, but determined by a strong internal opposition and a structured and identifiable leadership that does not smoke here.

The weakness of general sanctions is so evident that the UN concentrates on personal sanctions, totally different, with much more impact in terms of fracturing the dominant elite. They call the latter: intelligent sanctions, as opposed to general sanctions, which are implicitly defined by the antonym.

A sanction that leads to "collapse", produces a brutal deterioration, affecting government and people at the same time. When this sanction is not accompanied by the entire international community, including China, Russia and India, these allow a level of subsistence to the government in power, who although impoverished, is the only one that has something to share and far from weakening politically, is strengthens, becoming the "Big Brother" of the charquero.

Some say it does not matter that the sanctions cause collapse, because the country is collapsed; that the people can not be worse and sacrifice is needed to bring about change. They do not know what they are saying. The "collapse" is infinitely worse than what we are experiencing and is suffered by the people who live inside and without guarantee of any change that will improve their future life. The majority of Venezuelans, living in Venezuela, reject Maduro but also reject mostly the general sanctions against the country because they believe (or know) that they will be worse off. In the light of history ... they seem to be right.

I agree with the majority of Venezuelans who are overwhelmed by the economic crisis and the regular violation of political, economic and human rights. We wish the immediate rescue of democracy, evidently lost. But that desire should not make us susceptible to siren songs, from those who do not have to bear the brutal costs of mistakes made. Bring the country to total collapse, far from helping to solve the problem, away from it, further worsening the precarious situation in which the majority of the country lives, without high chances of achieving change ... but quite the opposite.