Open Letter by Over 70 Scholars and Experts Condemns US-Backed Coup Attempt in Venezuela

"For the sake of the Venezuelan people, the region, and for the principle of national sovereignty, these international actors should instead support negotiations between the Venezuelan government and its opponents."

The United States government must cease interfering in Venezuela’s internal politics, especially for the purpose of overthrowing the country’s government.

Actions by the Trump administration and its allies in the hemisphere are almost certain to make the situation in Venezuela worse, leading to unnecessary human suffering, violence, and instability.

Venezuela’s political polarization is not new; the country has long been divided along racial and socioeconomic lines. But the polarization has deepened in recent years.

This is partly due to US support for an opposition strategy aimed at removing the government of Nicolás Maduro through extra-electoral means. While the opposition has been divided on this strategy, US support has backed hardline opposition sectors in their goal of ousting the Maduro government through often violent protests, a military coup d’etat, or other avenues that sidestep the ballot box.

Under the Trump administration, aggressive rhetoric against the Venezuelan government has ratcheted up to a more extreme and threatening level, with Trump administration officials talking of “military action” and condemning Venezuela, along with Cuba and Nicaragua, as part of a “troika of tyranny.” Problems resulting from Venezuelan government policy have been worsened by US economic sanctions, illegal under the Organization of American States and the United Nations ― as well as US law and other international treaties and conventions.

These sanctions have cut off the means by which the Venezuelan government could escape from its economic recession, while causing a dramatic falloff in oil production and worsening the economic crisis, and causing many people to die because they can’t get access to life-saving medicines. Meanwhile, the US and other governments continue to blame the Venezuelan government ― solely ― for the economic damage, even that caused by the US sanctions.

Now the US and its allies, including OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro and Brazil’s far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, have pushed Venezuela to the precipice.

By recognizing National Assembly President Juan Guaido as the new president of Venezuela ― something illegal under the OAS Charter ― the Trump administration has sharply accelerated Venezuela’s political crisis in the hopes of dividing the Venezuelan military and further polarizing the populace, forcing them to choose sides.

The obvious, and sometimes stated goal, is to force Maduro out via a coup d’etat.

The reality is that despite hyperinflation, shortages, and a deep depression, Venezuela remains a politically polarized country. The US and its allies must cease encouraging violence by pushing for violent, extralegal regime change.

If the Trump administration and its allies continue to pursue their reckless course in Venezuela, the most likely result will be bloodshed, chaos, and instability. The US should have learned something from its regime change ventures in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and its long, violent history of sponsoring regime change in Latin America.

Neither side in Venezuela can simply vanquish the other. The military, for example, has at least 235,000 frontline members, and there are at least 1.6 million in militias. Many of these people will fight, not only on the basis of a belief in national sovereignty that is widely held in Latin America ― in the face of what increasingly appears to be a US-led intervention ― but also to protect themselves from likely repression if the opposition topples the government by force.

In such situations, the only solution is a negotiated settlement, as has happened in the past in Latin American countries when politically polarized societies were unable to resolve their differences through elections.

There have been efforts, such as those led by the Vatican in the fall of 2016, that had potential, but they received no support from Washington and its allies who favored regime change. This strategy must change if there is to be any viable solution to the ongoing crisis in Venezuela.

For the sake of the Venezuelan people, the region, and for the principle of national sovereignty, these international actors should instead support negotiations between the Venezuelan government and its opponents that will allow the country to finally emerge from its political and economic crisis.

Signed:

Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus, MIT and Laureate Professor, University of Arizona

Laura Carlsen, Director, Americas Program, Center for International Policy

Greg Grandin, Professor of History, New York University

Miguel Tinker Salas, Professor of Latin American History and Chicano/a Latino/a Studies at Pomona College

Sujatha Fernandes, Professor of Political Economy and Sociology, University of Sydney

Steve Ellner, Associate Managing Editor of Latin American Perspectives

Alfred de Zayas, former UN Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order and only UN rapporteur to have visited Venezuela in 21 years

Boots Riley, Writer/Director of Sorry to Bother You, Musician

John Pilger, Journalist & Film-Maker

Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research

Jared Abbott, PhD Candidate, Department of Government, Harvard University

Dr. Tim Anderson, Director, Centre for Counter Hegemonic Studies

Elisabeth Armstrong, Professor of the Study of Women and Gender, Smith College

Alexander Aviña, PhD, Associate Professor of History, Arizona State University

Marc Becker, Professor of History, Truman State University

Medea Benjamin, Cofounder, CODEPINK

Phyllis Bennis, Program Director, New Internationalism, Institute for Policy Studies

Dr. Robert E. Birt, Professor of Philosophy, Bowie State University

Aviva Chomsky, Professor of History, Salem State University

James Cohen, University of Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle

Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, Associate Professor, George Mason University

Benjamin Dangl, PhD, Editor of Toward Freedom

Dr. Francisco Dominguez, Faculty of Professional and Social Sciences, Middlesex University, UK

Alex Dupuy, John E. Andrus Professor of Sociology Emeritus, Wesleyan University

Jodie Evans, Cofounder, CODEPINK

Vanessa Freije, Assistant Professor of International Studies, University of Washington

Gavin Fridell, Canada Research Chair and Associate Professor in International Development Studies, St. Mary’s University

Evelyn Gonzalez, Counselor, Montgomery College

Jeffrey L. Gould, Rudy Professor of History, Indiana University

Bret Gustafson, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Washington University in St. Louis

Peter Hallward, Professor of Philosophy, Kingston University

John L. Hammond, Professor of Sociology, CUNY

Mark Healey, Associate Professor of History, University of Connecticut

Gabriel Hetland, Assistant Professor of Latin American, Caribbean and U.S. Latino Studies, University of Albany

Forrest Hylton, Associate Professor of History, Universidad Nacional de Colombia-Medellín

Daniel James, Bernardo Mendel Chair of Latin American History

Chuck Kaufman, National Co-Coordinator, Alliance for Global Justice

Daniel Kovalik, Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh

Winnie Lem, Professor, International Development Studies, Trent University

Dr. Gilberto López y Rivas, Professor-Researcher, National University of Anthropology and History, Morelos, Mexico

Mary Ann Mahony, Professor of History, Central Connecticut State University

Jorge Mancini, Vice President, Foundation for Latin American Integration (FILA)

Luís Martin-Cabrera, Associate Professor of Literature and Latin American Studies, University of California San Diego

Teresa A. Meade, Florence B. Sherwood Professor of History and Culture, Union College

Frederick Mills, Professor of Philosophy, Bowie State University

Stephen Morris, Professor of Political Science and International Relations, Middle Tennessee State University

Liisa L. North, Professor Emeritus, York University

Paul Ortiz, Associate Professor of History, University of Florida

Christian Parenti, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, John Jay College CUNY

Nicole Phillips, Law Professor at the Université de la Foundation Dr. Aristide Faculté des Sciences Juridiques et Politiques and Adjunct Law Professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law

Beatrice Pita, Lecturer, Department of Literature, University of California San Diego

Margaret Power, Professor of History, Illinois Institute of Technology

Vijay Prashad, Editor, The TriContinental

Eleanora Quijada Cervoni FHEA, Staff Education Facilitator & EFS Mentor, Centre for Higher Education, Learning & Teaching at The Australian National University

Walter Riley, Attorney and Activist

William I. Robinson, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara

Mary Roldan, Dorothy Epstein Professor of Latin American History, Hunter College/ CUNY Graduate Center

Karin Rosemblatt, Professor of History, University of Maryland

Emir Sader, Professor of Sociology, University of the State of Rio de Janeiro

Rosaura Sanchez, Professor of Latin American Literature and Chicano Literature, University of California, San Diego

T.M. Scruggs Jr., Professor Emeritus, University of Iowa

Victor Silverman, Professor of History, Pomona College

Brad Simpson, Associate Professor of History, University of Connecticut

Jeb Sprague, Lecturer, University of Virginia

Kent Spriggs, International human rights lawyer

Christy Thornton, Assistant Professor of History, Johns Hopkins University

Sinclair S. Thomson, Associate Professor of History, New York University

Steven Topik, Professor of History, University of California, Irvine

Stephen Volk, Professor of History Emeritus, Oberlin College

Kirsten Weld, John. L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Social Sciences, Department of History, Harvard University

Kevin Young, Assistant Professor of History, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Patricio Zamorano, Academic of Latin American Studies; Executive Director, InfoAmericas

Source: Open Democracy

World climate conference: Conflict outside and inside Copenhagen meeting

Danish police battled several thousand demonstrators in the streets outside the world climate conference in Copenhagen, while inside the delegates of the major imperialist powers, China, India and dozens of less developed countries clashed over conflicting proposals to deal with the worldwide impact of pollution caused by industrialization, deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.

More than 260 protesters were arrested and many were teargassed, hit by pepper spray or beaten with batons as police repeatedly charged into the ranks of the demonstrators. Most of those demonstrating were in Copenhagen to demand emergency action against global warming and the climate-related deterioration in living conditions, particularly for people living in vulnerable coastal areas and island states.

The police were able to prevent any sizeable incursion into the conference, using dogs, shields, water cannon and armored vans to block access routes and push back most of the demonstrators. They also beat back a group of delegates who tried to leave the conference center and make a show of sympathy for the protests.

Inside the conference, a crisis atmosphere prevailed, with bitter exchanges between the representatives of the US, Britain and other industrialized nations, and those from Africa, Asia and Latin America. At one point Monday, delegates representing all 77 of the poorest nations staged a walkout to protest the intransigence of the rich countries, which are demanding that any climate agreement lock in their economic advantages, permitting double the per capita carbon consumption of the Third World.

Voicing a sentiment widespread among the delegates from the poor countries, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela denounced the position of the US-led bloc. He pointed to the trillions of dollars used to bail out the banks in the United States and Western Europe, telling the assembly, “If the climate was a capitalist bank, they would have already saved it.”

In the face of appeals by environmental scientists to reduce rich-country emissions of greenhouse gases by 40 percent by 2020 compared to 1990 levels, the EU has offered only a 20 percent cut, the US a mere 3-4 percent cut. Neither figure would be a significant contribution to averting a potential climate catastrophe. No action will be taken that impinges on the profits of the giant capitalist firms that produce and use fossil fuels, and no coordinated worldwide effort is possible given the conflicts between rival national interests.

No amount of pressure or protest around the theme of “climate justice” can persuade the capitalist billionaires and their political representatives in Copenhagen to act against their own class interests. The defense of the environment can be undertaken only by a turn to the international working class, the only social force whose interests are not tied to either capitalist profit or the nation-state system, and the building of a mass movement of working people based on socialist principles.

Source: World Socialist Web

The Enigma of South Africa’s Arms Trade

On Sunday, 2 August, the defence and veterans’ affairs spokesperson of the Democratic Alliance (DA), held a media conference in Cape Town in which he suggested that South Africa’s arms export control regime was in a state of crisis. He also accused the South African government of approving and/or considering the approval of permits to export arms and military equipment to “dodgy” destinations. Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe were mentioned during the DA media conference.

Ironically, South Africa has one of the most advanced and progressive arms export laws and processes in Africa, cornerstones of which, on paper at least, are transparency and human rights considerations. The National Conventional Arms Control Act (as amended) requires the South African government to publish annual reports on its arms exports, and to take human rights considerations of the recipient government (amongst other criteria) into account before approving arms exports. However, in recent years, the South African government appears to have not consistently adhered to these two principles. The reasons for this state of affairs remains a mystery.

As there is no treaty or convention to govern the international arms trade, this sector is primarily regulated by means of national controls and trust. In terms of the latter, the established practice is that exporting governments require importing governments to sign an end-user certificate indicating that they will not re-sell or re-export the arms or military equipment. Evidence suggests that the South African government has approved the export of arms and military equipment to Venezuela and is considering the approval of arms exports to Zimbabwe. Both countries have been implicated in inconsistently adhering to end-user certificates and re-exporting arms to controversial destinations. In addition, Zimbabwe is subject to EU and US arms embargos.

Should South Africa be selling arms to countries that cannot be trusted?

Source: Institute of Security Studies

Fight against blood diamonds under review in Namibia

Diamond-producing nations open a meeting on Tuesday to review global efforts to prevent trade in the gems from fuelling conflicts, with an eye on alleged abuses in Zimbabwe and Venezuela's recent suspension.

An international scheme known as the Kimberley Process, named after the South African mining town, was launched in 2003 with the aim of curbing the flow of "blood diamonds" into the mainstream market.

Namibia, which currently heads the process, is hosting the three-day meeting to deliberate on efforts to further curb the illegal diamond trade blamed for financing wars in developing countries.

"The clock is running out on Kimberley Process credibility," said Annie Dunnebacke of the London-based Global Witness, which monitors the exploitation of natural resources.

Global Witness has pointed to worries over smuggling, money laundering and human rights abuses in the world's alluvial diamond fields.

Source: Mail & Guardian

Ousted Haitian Leader Signs Pact With Old Rival

Nearly five months after he was ousted in a coup, the exiled Haitian President, the Rev. Jean-Bertrand Aristide, signed an agreement today with a former political rival who is now his Prime Minister, pledging to form a "government of national unity" and to begin a timetable for the President's return to Haiti.

With a formal accord in place, diplomats say Father Aristide, who was deposed by the military under Lieut. Gen. Raoul Cedras, may also be more willing to compromise on the army chief's future. In an interview on the ABC News program "Nightline" on Monday night, Father Aristide spoke of removing General Cedras, whom he calls a common criminal unqualfied for amnesty, by constitutional means as part of an army reorganization.

Before leaving Washington, where they have been talking since Friday, Father Aristide and his Prime Minister-designate, Rene Theodore, agreed to meet again in a month to discuss a multi-party cabinet as well as the mechanics of the President's return.

In the meantime, the two leaders -- Father Aristide in exile in Venezuela and Mr. Theodore in Haiti -- are to consult regularly. Before returning to Caracas, the exiled President left today for Geneva, where he is to address a meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

The accord signed by the two leaders provides for the sending of an international human rights team to Haiti to strengthen protection for civil liberties before Father Aristide returns. The Organization of American States has put together a list of about 60 potential members of a democracy mission similar to one sent to Nicaragua in 1990 to observe electoral politics, defuse crises, resettle rebels and verify accords.

Father Aristide, who won 67 percent of the votes in December 1990, has in effect exchanged some of this mandate for a compromise solution that gives him a far greater chance of returning. Many of his supporters are sharply critical of the accords signed this weekend because they are perceived as cutting into the President's legitimate powers. The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, a Washington policy group, called the agreement with leaders of Parliament "a near-total defeat for Haitian democracy."

A statement by the council said: "As a combined result of ineffectual actions taken by the State Department, the regional organization and the European Community, which never respected the embargo, Aristide was effectively left with no option but to mutilate his own stature by signing away his powers in exchange for the still uncertain prospect of his restoration to what will now be a figurehead presidency."

The Haitian Embassy here, which has remained loyal to the ousted President, disagrees, saying that the President will enjoy all the rights and privileges granted by the Constitution. U.S. to Help the Lawmen. In an interview with the Voice of America, which has expanded broadcasts to Haiti in recent months, Bernard W. Aronson, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, said the United States was ready to assist Haiti in professionalizing its army and police.

Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan and a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, believes that the Bush Administration did not do enough to dislodge Haiti's military rulers earlier, thus forcing Father Aristide to compromise his party and program. "What the military thugs down there understand is that they have got a nod and a wink from the U.S. Government," Mr. Conyers said in an interview today after introducing legislation that would give Haitian refugees safe haven in the United States until democracy is restored. "If you wanted to see an end to this mobster rule," he continued, "ban air travel to the United States, impose a blockade on Haitian ships into Miami, ask for a United Nations task force."

On Wednesday, the House will consider his legislation and other proposals to grant what is known as "temporary protected status" to Haitians.

Source: New York Times