Air Force Two in Caracas

 By: Ricardo Abud

National Sovereignty or the 51st State That Nobody Warned Us About?

The landing of Air Force Two in Caracas on June 3, 2026, was not a mere diplomatic event. The arrival of the aircraft carrying the highest-ranking military officer of the country's Armed Forces opened a debate that transcends foreign policy, delving into the realm of sovereignty, constitutional legality, and institutional coherence.

Caracas was the scene of two extraordinary events: first, the landing of MV-22 Osprey aircraft from the United States Marine Corps to carry out rapid response exercises at the American embassy; then, the arrival of Air Force Two with the highest US military command.

In response to these events, a question began to circulate, laden with irony, but also with concern:

Are we already the 51st state and we don't know it?

No one seriously argues that Venezuela has lost its status as an independent nation. The question points in another direction. It seeks to question to what extent certain decisions made by the political powers are compatible with the historical narrative of the unrestricted defense of national sovereignty.

Could Venezuelan military personnel land in Washington, armed, in the name of reciprocity?

No country in the world, least of all the United States, would allow such an operation without prior authorization, strict protocols, constant oversight, and the involvement of multiple security agencies. The hypothesis seems absurd precisely because it highlights the importance that major powers place on controlling their territory.

The Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela establishes that sovereignty resides inalienably in the Venezuelan people and that the organs of the State have the duty to guarantee national independence. 

Within this framework, article 187, number 11, acquires special relevance, which attributes to the National Assembly the power to authorize the use of foreign military missions in the country or the transit of foreign military forces through the national territory.

The rule exists for one fundamental reason: to prevent foreign military presence from depending solely on political agreements or administrative decisions made by the executive branch. Its purpose is to guarantee institutional control over matters that directly affect the sovereignty of the state.

Was there express authorization from the National Assembly for these operations?

Where is it published?

Was it publicly debated?

Are citizens aware of the terms under which the presence of US military personnel in Venezuelan territory was authorized?

The lack of detailed information is causing concern because this is not a visit from a diplomat or a trade delegation. It concerns the presence of foreign military structures operating within national territory.

The situation becomes even more striking when one observes the silence of institutions traditionally associated with the defense of sovereignty. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of the Interior, and the Bolivarian National Armed Forces have offered few public explanations regarding the specific legal grounds that supported these activities.

For years, overflights, military exercises, and visits by high-ranking foreign officials were presented in official discourse as potential threats to national independence. Today, similar events seem to occur with a nonchalance that surprises even former proponents of that narrative.

Sovereignty does not disappear simply because there is cooperation between states. Nor is it weakened by merely maintaining diplomatic relations with a foreign power. What can erode sovereignty, however, is a lack of transparency regarding the legal mechanisms that regulate such sensitive activities as foreign military presence.

A sovereign country is not one that lives isolated from the world. A sovereign country is one that enforces its own laws, demands compliance with its Constitution, and guarantees that citizens know the legal basis for decisions that affect the integrity of the Republic.

The real question, therefore, is not whether Venezuela has become a 51st no-man's-land. The question the Venezuelan state should answer is far more important: were all the required constitutional procedures followed to allow these military operations and high-level visits?

Until that answer is offered with absolute clarity, the questions that many Venezuelans ask today with irony, but also with concern, will continue to resonate.

Because when foreign military aircraft land, foreign troops conduct exercises, and high-ranking military officers enter and leave the country without detailed explanations, the debate ceases to be a matter of international politics. It becomes a discussion about the actual validity of the Constitution and about how a nation understands and exercises its sovereignty in the 21st century.

THERE IS NOTHING MORE EXCLUSIONARY THAN BEING POOR