The Strategic Operational Commander of the Venezuelan Army (FANB) Admiral Remigio Ceballos reported through his Twitter account that on the night of Wednesday, March 24, “a group of Colombian criminals tried to attack a border post and several terrorists were neutralized.”
“We continue to give heavy blows to Colombian irregular criminal groups that flee to Colombia, and no one stops them. Last night they tried to attack a border post and several terrorists were neutralized. Search and Attack Operations Continue! We will win!” reads the message on the social media network.
Argentina has withdrawn from the Lima Group of countries established in 2017 to push for regime change in Venezuela.
Buenos Aires withdrew symbolically on March 24 — the Day of Remembrance for Truth and Justice, which commemorates victims of Argentina’s “dirty war” on the anniversary of the 1976 coup d’etat.
It condemned the group’s support for sanctions on Venezuela in the midst of a global pandemic and its treatment of the self-proclaimed Juan Guaido administration, a US-backed body with no territory, as Venezuela’s representative within it.
Venezuela’s Foreign Affairs Minister Jorge Arreaza on Friday informed that his country sued the U.S. before the World Trade Organization (WTO) for imposing unilateral coercive measures contrary to international norms and principles.
“Sooner rather than later, Venezuela will defeat through law what the U.S. intends to impose through force,” he said, recalling that the U.S. blockade seeks to destabilize President Nicolas Maduro’s administration.
In an attempt to avoid criticism from a multilateral institution, the United States prevented Venezuela from requesting the formation of a WTO panel whose objective would…
On February 20, the New York Times published an article titled “Venezuelan Women Lose Access to Contraception, and Control of Their Lives.” This article attempts to distort reality, as it completely ignores the siege and aggressions the Venezuelan people currently subjected to.
For greater context, we should note that in 2012, Venezuela granted completely free access to safe and quality contraceptives, reaching a coverage of 22.16% in the national public health system. Access was nearly universal both due to the purchasing power of Venezuelans at the time and because both private and public health networks were subsidized up to 70% by the government, with funds guaranteed by the country’s foreign income.
Recent statements made by US officials suggest that Washington will continue to pursue a hardline policy on Venezuela. The new Biden Administration, however, needs to urgently rethink its approach.
US State Department spokesperson, Ned Price, remarked on February 3 that he “certainly” does not “expect this administration to be engaging directly with (President) Maduro.” Namely, Price expects that the Biden Administration will adhere to the strategy of its predecessor, which is predicated on completely ignoring the current government in Caracas.
Moreover, the Biden government will also continue to dialogue with Venezuela’s opposition leader, Juan Guaido. On March 2, Guaido conversed with the new American Secretary of State, Antony Blinken. It was the highest-level US contact with the increasingly-discredited and isolated Guaido since Biden’s inauguration last January. In their exchange, Blinken and Guaido agreed on the “importance of a return to democracy in Venezuela through free and fair elections”.
It would be rational, therefore, to conclude that no significant change regarding US foreign policy in Venezuela will occur under the Biden Administration, at least imminently. However, such a conclusion would be hasty, as it fails to appreciate the numerous changes that have transpired in and around Venezuela in recent years, especially since Washington strengthened its economic sanctions on the South American country in 2015 and again, in 2017, 2019 and, finally, February 2020.
Washington’s agenda in Venezuela has unmistakably failed, and no amount of additional sanctions is likely to change the political outcome. Not only did the Maduro government, ruling party, regional and international allies prove durable and capable of withstanding immense political and economic pressures, Washington’s allies are no longer united, neither about Venezuela nor anywhere else.
Guaido, who arrived on the scene in 2015, was elevated from being a little known politician to the anti-socialism hero designated by Washington to reclaim Venezuela in the name of liberal democracy. Guaido’s legitimacy was largely derived from the Venezuelan opposition’s victory in the elections of that same year.
Since then, however, Guaido’s own legitimacy has slowly eroded. By disproportionately investing in Washington’s ability to oust Maduro through severe sanctions, diplomatic delegitimization and political pressure, Guaido slowly abandoned his initial Venezuela-centric approach, thus delegitimizing himself instead, even among his own supporters. Frustrated by Guaido’s self-serving priorities, and knowing that the man’s current strategy would not lead to any substantive political reordering in the country, Venezuela’s opposition disintegrated into small factions.
In January 2020, another opposition lawmaker, Luis Parra, attempted to claim the position of Speaker of Parliament. This led the parliament security to block Guaido’s access to the Palacio Federal Legislativo for he, too, was claiming the same chair. Images of the chaotic scene were beamed across the globe.
Venezuela’s most recent legislative elections last December have also reflected the deep divisions among the country’s opposition parties, where some strictly adhered to the boycott of the elections while others participated. The outcome was a decisive victory for Maduro’s United Socialist Party, which now has complete control over the country’s political institutions. France24 news agency captured this new reality in this headline: “New Venezuela Parliament leaves Western-backed Guaido out in cold”.
Actually, Blinken’s call to Guaido, whose moment has faded, is unlikely to change much on the ground. His usefulness now lies in the fact that Washington has no other ‘strong man’ in Caracas. Additionally, Washington has invested tremendous financial resources and political credit which allowed Guaido to claim the title of the country’s interim president. Completely divesting from Guaido is also a risky maneuver.
Of note is the shift in language in the US political discourse, following the Blinken-Guaido telephone conversation: the “importance of a return to democracy in Venezuela through free and fair elections.” The change is, perhaps, subtle but still significant, as it is no longer a decisive demand to remove Maduro from power.
It seems that the distance between the US and Venezuela’s position is shrinking. In August 2019, the Washington Postreported that Venezuelan negotiators, speaking on behalf of Maduro’s government, made a “startling offer” during mediated talks with the country’s opposition in Norway two months earlier, where the government “signaled (its) willingness to hold such a vote within nine to 12 months,” referring to the opposition’s demand for fresh presidential elections.
Nevertheless, it behooves Washington to engage Caracas in civil political conversations, away from threats and sanctions, for two main reasons:
First, despite claims that the majority of Venezuelans living in the US support Washington’s hardline policies, 46 percent of them also “support a removal of oil sanctions if the Maduro government agrees to hold internationally recognized free and fair elections,” according to a recent opinion poll published by the right-wing Atlantic Council.
Second, Washington’s futile sanctions-based approach to Venezuela has proved not only immensely harmful to the welfare of the Venezuelan people but also to Washington’s own regional interests. Washington’s obstinacy allowed its global rivals, Russia and China, to unprecedentedly cement their economic and strategic interests in that country.
In their 2019 report, the Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) revealed that, in the 2017-18 year, US-led sanctions on Venezuela “have inflicted – and increasingly inflict – very serious harm to human life and health, including an estimated more than 40,000 deaths”.
Certainly, there can be no political logic or moral justification for this ongoing calamity.
Venezuela has “categorically rejected” US President Joe Biden’s renewal of Executive Order 13692.
The renewal extends a state of national emergency which has been the basis for Washington’s sanctions regime against Venezuela. The decree states that Venezuela represents an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the [US] national security and foreign policy.”
The order has been renewed annually by both former presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama since its initial signing in 2015, and been widely denounced by the international community, as well as at the United Nations, with over five million Venezuelans signing a petition demanding its withdrawal.
Penning his decision to Congress last Wednesday, Biden argued that “The situation in Venezuela continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy.” He offered no further explanation.
The Biden administration granted Temporary Protected Status to refugees from Venezuela, which will permit them to live and work in the United States. This is the right thing to do, and it is a break with the previous administration, but there need to be more significant changes to U.S. policy towards Venezuela. The TPS decision is treating the symptom of Venezuela’s deepening crisis while U.S. sanctions intensify it. As long as our government’s broad sanctions remain in place, they will exacerbate the economic and humanitarian crises in the country. The U.S. will succeed only in making conditions for ordinary Venezuelans worse while Maduro and his allies become more firmly entrenched.
Trump’s pursuit of regime change in Venezuela was one of his worst policies, and it has deepened the misery of the Venezuelan people. It is maddening that the complete failure of this policy hasn’t prompted more demands for abandoning it.
US “virtual ambassador” to Venezuela James “Jimmy” Story promised to answer a series of questions sent to him by The Grayzone this February 24. But after a Whatsapp exchange with this reporter during which Story offered to explain why he regularly alternated between Gargamel and the Smurfs as his avatar on the messaging app, the promised exchange never took place.
On March 2, Story’s assistant, David Fogelson, informed The Grayzone that the virtual ambassador “won’t be able to do the interview.” He offered no further details on Story’s turnabout.
That same day, during a Zoom event with the Venezuelan American Association of the US, Story boasted that his willingness to accept a few critical questions from his online audience “shows a transparency that the regime [in Caracas] does not show.”
Outside of Venezuela, communes are a little known aspect of the Bolivarian Revolution, yet the development of the communal state is integral to the vision of 21st century socialism laid out by former President Hugo Chavez.
In this series, In Commune, Venezuelanalysis will explore different experiences of rural and urban communes to help better understand what these highly controversial bodies mean, how they have been put into practice, and what they could signify for the continuity of the Bolivarian Revolution in the current situation of political and economic imperialist aggression.
The Venezuelan government is shipping jet fuel to Iran as part of cooperation to tackle its gasoline and diesel shortages in the South American country.
According to Reuters, state oil company PDVSA and its Iranian counterpart NIOC have agreed to a swap deal that sees Tehran ship gasoline to Caracas, with the vessels carrying jet fuel in the opposite direction. Venezuela currently has a glut of the latter, with air traffic all but ground to a halt during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The agreement is described as a “perfect trip” in the maritime industry as the tankers travel fully loaded in both directions.
Oil export monitor Tanker Trackers reported that Iran’s handysize Forest tanker docked in El Palito refinery on February 20 and unloaded 44 million liters of gasoline, approximately 277,000 barrels.
In its regime-change effort in Venezuela, the US has imposed devastating sanctions that have caused tens of thousands of deaths among the most vulnerable – without ever coming close to toppling the president.
Alena Douhan, the UN Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures and human rights – a new position created by the UN Human Rights Council in March of 2020 – issued a stinging preliminary report last week condemning US and EU sanctions against Venezuela. Ms. Douhan has urged the US, EU and other nations to drop all sanctions against Venezuela after her two-week fact-finding mission to the country.
As the report explains, sanctions were first “imposed against Venezuela in 2005 and have been severely strengthened since 2015 . . . with the most severe ones being imposed by the United States.”
The countries of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America-People’s Trade Treaty (ALBA-TCP) have “energetically” rejected the latest sanctions approved by the European Union (EU) against 19 representatives of the different powers of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in a joint communiquè.
“These actions constitute a clear violation of international law and represent an unacceptable interventionist application that in no way contributes to the development of the Venezuelan people,” the text underlines.
In this sense, the South American alliance has ratified its “solidarity” and support to the Venezuelan government and people and demanded the international community to reject the Brussels measures and “demonstrate in defense of the principles of respect for the sovereignty, self-determination, and independence of peoples.”
Although I have decided to focus this blog mostly on human rights defenders and their awards, I will make an exception for the regular sessions of the UN Human Rights Council of which the46th session has started on 22 February and which will last until to 23 March 2021. This post is based on the as always excellent general overview published by the International Service for Human rights: “HRC46 | Key issues on agenda of March 2021 session”. Here’s an overview of some of the key issues on the agenda which affect HRDs directly:
Modalities for NGOs this year: According to the Bureau minutes of 4 February 2021: “Concerning the participation of NGOs in the 46th session, the President clarified that under the proposed extraordinary modalities, NGOs in consultative status with the ECOSOC would be invited to submit pre-recorded video statements for a maximum of three general debates in addition to the interactive dialogues, panel discussions and UPR adoptions as they had been able to do during the 45th session. In addition, “the Bureau agreed that events organised virtually by NGOs in consultative status with the ECOSOC could be listed on the HRC Extranet for information purposes.”
Human Rights implications of COVID-19
The pandemic – and States’ response to it – has presented various new challenges and threats for those defending human rights. The pandemic has exposed and deepened existing discrimination, violence and other violations. Governments have used COVID as a pretext for further restricting fundamental rights, including through the enactment of legislation, and specific groups of defenders – including WHRDs and LGBTI rights defenders – have lost their livelihoods, access to health services have reduced and they have been excluded from participating in pandemic responses. Action to address the pandemic must be comprehensive and systemic, it must apply a feminist, human rights-based, and intersectional lens, centred on non-discrimination, participation and empowerment of vulnerable communities. Last March ISHR joined a coalition of 187 organisations to draw the Council’s attention to the situation of LGBTI persons and defenders in the context of the pandemic.
Reports of cases of intimidation and reprisals against those cooperating or seeking to cooperate with the UN not only continue, but grow. Intimidation and reprisals violate the rights of the individuals concerned, they constitute violations of international human rights law and undermine the UN human rights system. See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/reprisals/
The UN has taken action towards addressing this critical issue including:
Establishing a dedicated dialogue under item 5 to take place every September;
Affirmation by the Council of the particular responsibilities of its Members, President and Vice-Presidents to investigate and promote accountability for reprisals and intimidation; and
Appointment of the UN Assistant Secretary General on Human Rights as the Senior Official on addressing reprisals.
ISHR remains deeply concerned about reprisals against civil society actors who try to engage with UN mechanisms, and consistent in its calls for all States and the Council to do more to address the situation.
During its 42nd session, the Council adopted a resolution which listed key trends such as the patterns of reprisals, increasing self-censorship, the use of national security arguments and counter-terrorism strategies by States as justification for blocking access to the UN. The resolution also acknowledged the specific risks to individuals in vulnerable situations or belonging to marginalised groups, and called on the UN to implement gender-responsive policies to end reprisals. The Council called on States to combat impunity and to report back to it on how they are preventing reprisals, both online and offline.
Item 5 of the Human Rights Council’s agenda provides a key opportunity for States to raise concerns about reprisals, and for governments involved in existing cases to provide an update to the Council on any investigation or action taken toward accountability to be carried out.
During the organisational meeting held on 8 February, the President of the Council stressed the importance of ensuring the safety of those participating in the Council’s work, and the obligation of States to prevent intimidation or reprisals.
In line with previous calls, ISHR expects the President of the Human Rights Council to publicly identify and denounce specific instances of reprisals by issuing formal statements, conducting press-briefings, corresponding directly with the State concerned, publicly releasing such correspondence with States involved, and insist on undertakings from the State concerned to investigate, hold the perpetrators accountable and report back to the Council on action taken.
Other thematic reports
At this 46th session, the Council will discuss a range of economic, social and cultural rights in depth through dedicated debates with mandate holders, and consider the annual report of the Secretary-General on the question of the realization in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights. The debates with mandate holders include:
The Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, annual report on COVID-19, culture and culture rights and country visit to Tuvalu
The Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, annual report on twenty years on the right to adequate housing: taking stock – moving ahead and country visit to New Zealand
The Council will discuss a range of civil and political rights through dedicated debates with the mandate holders, including:
The Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, annual report on combating anti-Muslim hatred
The Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy, annual report on artificial intelligence and privacy, and children’s privacy, and country visit reports to the United Kingdom, France, Germany, United States of America, Argentina, and Republic of Korea.
In addition, the Council will hold dedicated debates on the rights of specific groups including:
In addition, the Council will hold dedicated debates on interrelation of human rights and human rights thematic issues including:
The Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, annual report on human rights and the global water crisis: water pollution, water scarcity and water-related disasters
The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, annual report on human rights impact of counter-terrorism and countering (violent) extremism policies and practices on the rights of women, girls and the family
Country-specific developments
China
A pile of evidence continues to mount, including the assessment from the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, about policies of the Chinese government targeting ethnic and religious minorities, including Uyghurs, Tibetans and Mongolians. The rule of law is being further eroded in Hong Kong, as deeply-respected principles of due process and pluralistic democracy are disappearing at an alarming rate. Human rights defenders and ordinary citizens confront ongoing crackdowns on civic freedoms, pervasive censorship and lightning-fast recourse to administrative sanction, enforced disappearance and trumped-up national security charges to silence critics. – In the face of this, inaction has become indefensible.
The UN Special Procedures issued a sweeping statement in June 2020, calling for the international community to take ‘decisive action’ on the human rights situation in the country. At the March session, ISHR urges States to convey at the highest level the incompatibility of China’s actions domestically with its obligations as a new Council member, and to continue to press for transparency, actionable reporting and monitoring of the situation. Statements throughout the Council are key moments to show solidarity with individual defenders – by name – , their families, and communities struggling to survive. And finally, States should take every opportunity to support efforts by China that meaningfully seek to advance human rights – while resolutely refuting, at all stages of the process, initiatives that seek to distort principles of human rights and universality; upend the Council’s impressive work to hold States up to scrutiny; and weaken the effectiveness and impact of the Council for victims of violations and human rights defenders. Furthermore, other Council members should step up their commitments to the body’s mandate and purpose, and reject efforts by China and its partners and proxies. See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/china/
Egypt
The Egyptian authorities continue to systematically carry out patterns of reprisals against human rights defenders for their legitimate work, including for engagement with UN Special Procedures. These have included arbitrary arrests and detention, enforced disappearance, torture, unlawful surveillance, threats and summons for questioning by security agencies. The government’s refusal to address key concerns raised by States in its response to the UPR in March 2020 demonstrated its lack of political will to address its deep challenges and to engage constructively with the Council. ISHR reiterates its call on the Council to establish a monitoring and reporting mechanism on the human rights situation in Egypt. See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/egypt/
Saudi Arabia
In 2020, the Council continued its scrutiny over the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia. Yet, the Saudi government has failed the litmus test to immediately and unconditionally release the women’s rights activists and human rights defenders, instead they continued to prosecute and harshly sentence them for their peaceful activism. On 10 February 2021, it was reported that WHRDs Loujain Al-Hathloul, and Nouf Abdulaziz have been released conditionally from prison after spending over two and a half years in detention solely for advocating for women’s rights, including the right to drive and the dismantling of the male guardianship system. ALQST reported that WHRDs Nassima al-Sadah and Samar Badawi remain in detention and that “in a worrying development, the Public Prosecution has appealed the initial sentence issued on 25 November 2020 by the Criminal Court against al-Sadah of five years and eight months in prison, half of it suspended, seemingly with the aim of securing an even harsher sentence”. See: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/1a6d84c0-b494-11ea-b00d-9db077762c6c
The government’s refusal to address this key concern raised in the three joint statements demonstrates its lack of political will to genuinely improve the human rights situation and to engage constructively with the Council. ISHR reiterates its call on the Council to establish a monitoring and reporting mechanism on the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia.
Nicaragua
On 24 February, the Council will hold an interactive dialogue on the High Commissioner’s report on Nicaragua. Despite the renewal of Resolution 43/2, the human rights situation in Nicaragua has steadily deteriorated over the last months. Civil society space has sharply shrank, due to new restrictive laws on foreign agents and counter-terrorism, while attacks against journalists and human rights defenders -the last remaining independent human rights observers – continue. The lack of an independent judiciary or NHRI further deprives victims of the possibility to seek justice and redress. Whilst the repression deepens, State inaction in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic and the passage of hurricanes have also exacerbated the ongoing humanitarian crisis and the deprivation of economic, social, and cultural rights. In light of upcoming elections in Nicaragua, ISHR urges the Council to renew and strengthen its resolution on the human rights situation in Nicaragua, laying down a clear benchmark of key steps the State should take to demonstrate its willingness to cooperate in good faith, while clearly signaling the intention to move towards international investigation and accountability should such cooperation steps not be met within the year. States should also increase support to targeted defenders and CSOs by raising in their statements the cases of student Kevin Solís, Aníbal Toruño and Radio Darío journalists, trans activist Celia Cruz, as well as the CENIDH and seven other CSOs subject to cancellation of their legal status.
Venezuela
Venezuela will come under the spotlight several times with oral updates from OHCHR on the situation of human rights in the country (25 February, 11 March) and an update from the international fact-finding mission on Venezuela (10 March). OHCHR is mandated to report on the implementation of the recommendations made to Venezuela, including in reports (here and here) presented last June. The fact-finding mission has started work on its renewed and strengthened 2-year mandate, despite delays in the disbursement of funds and is due to outline its plans to the Council. Intensifying threats and attacks on civil society in Venezuela since November 2020, provide a bleak context to these discussions. States should engage actively in dialogue on Venezuela, urging that recommendations be implemented – including facilitating visits from Special Rapporteurs; that the fact-finding mission be granted access to the country and that civil society be promoted and safeguarded in its essential work.
Burundi
On 2 February 2021, the Supreme Court of Burundi announced its decision allegedly adopted on 23 June 2020 to sentence 12 defenders to life in prison. The date of the adoption of this decision was announced after the Court decided to defer it further to 30 June 2020 and again after that. The Court never assigned or informed the 12 concerned of the proceedings. This case was investigated and judged in the absence of all those concerned and the sentence only made public seven months after the alleged proceedings took place. Among the victims of this arbitrary procedure are renown lawyers such as Me Armel Niyongere, Vital Nshimirimana and Dieudonné Bashirahishize, who are being targeted for their engagement in the defense of victims of the 2015 repression in Burundi and for filing complaints for victims to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. A group of civil society organisations denounced the dysfunctioning and lack of independence of judicial proceedings in the country. After confirming the 32 years sentence of defender Germain Rukuki, Burundi continues its crackdown against civil society. In addition to ensuring the continued work of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi, members of the Council need to call on Burundi to uphold its international obligations and stop reprisals against defenders for engaging with any international mechanisms. See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2019/03/29/ngo-statement-condemns-new-irregularities-in-the-case-of-germain-rukuki-burundi/ The Council will hold an interactive dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi on 10 March.
The High Commissioner will provide an oral update to the Council on 25 February. The Council will consider updates, reports on and is expected to consider resolutions addressing a range of country situations, in some instances involving the renewal of the relevant expert mandates. These include:
Oral update and interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Eritrea
Interactive Dialogue on the High Commissioner’s report on Sri Lanka
Enhanced Interactive Dialogue on the High Commissioner’s report on Belarus
Oral update and interactive dialogue with the Group of Eminent International and Regional Experts on Yemen
Interactive Dialogue on the High Commissioner’s report on ensuring accountability and justice in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
Interactive Dialogue with the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan
Interactive Dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar
Interactive Dialogue with the High Commissioner on the situation of human rights in Ukraine
Oral updates and enhanced interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the team of international experts on the situation in Kasai
High-level Interactive Dialogue with the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in the Central African Republic
Interactive Dialogue with the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Mali
Council programme, appointments and resolutions
During the organisational meeting for the 46th session held on 8 February, the President of the Human Rights Council presented the programme of work. It includes seven panel discussions. States also announced at least 28 proposed resolutions. Read here the reports presented this session.
Appointment of mandate holders
The President of the Human Rights Council proposed candidates for the following mandates:
Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (member from Africa)
Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (member from North America)
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia
Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent (member from African States)
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (member from Asia-Pacific States).
Resolutions to be presented to the Council’s 46th session
At the organisational meeting on 8 February the following resolutions were announced (States leading the resolution in brackets):
Promotion of the enjoyment of the cultural rights of everyone and respect for cultural diversity (Cuba)
Human rights and the environment, mandate renewal (Costa Rica, Maldives, Morocco, Slovenia, Switzerland)
Prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Denmark)
Question of the realization in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights (Portugal)
Guarantee of the right to the health through equitable and universal access to vaccines in response to pandemics and other health emergencies (Ecuador)
Negative impacts of unilateral coercive measures (Azerbaijan on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement-NAM)
Human rights, democracy and the rule of law (Morocco, Norway, Peru, Romania, Republic of Korea, Tunisia)
Freedom of religion or belief (EU)
Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, mandate renewal (EU)
Situation of human rights in Myanmar, mandate renewal (EU)
Combating intolerance based on religion or belief (OIC)
Ensuring accountability and justice for all violations of international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (OIC)
Right of the Palestinian people to self-determination (OIC)
Human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (OIC)
Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan (OIC)
Technical assistance and capacity-building for Mali in the field of human rights (African Group)
Persons with albinism (African Group)
Impact of non-repatriation of funds of illicit origin to countries of origin (African Group)
The situation of human rights in Iran, mandate renewal (Moldova, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Iceland)
The right to privacy in the digital age, mandate renewal (Austria, Brazil, Germany, Liechtenstein, Mexico)
The human rights situation in the Syrian Arab Republic, mandate renewal (France, Germany, Italy, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Netherlands, Qatar, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka (Canada, Germany, Montenegro, North Macedonia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
Situation of human rights in South Sudan, mandate renewal (Albania, Norway, UK)
Adoption of Universal Periodic Review (UPR) reports
During this session, the Council will adopt the UPR working group reports on Belarus, Liberia, Malawi, Panama, Mongolia, Maldives, Andorra, Honduras, Bulgaria, the Marshall Islands, the United States of America, Croatia, Libya and Jamaica. ISHR supports human rights defenders in their interaction with the UPR. It publishes and submits briefing papers regarding the situation facing human rights defenders in some States under review and advocate for the UPR to be used as a mechanism to support and protect human rights defenders on the ground.
Panel discussions
During each Council session, panel discussions are held to provide member States and NGOs with opportunities to hear from subject-matter experts and raise questions. Panel discussions scheduled for this upcoming session:
Annual high-level panel discussion on human rights mainstreaming. Theme: The state of play in the fight against racism and discrimination 20 years after the adoption of the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action and the exacerbating effects the COVID-19 pandemic has had on these efforts
Biennial high-level panel discussion on the question of the death penalty. Theme: Human rights violations related to the use of the death penalty, in particular with respect to whether the use of the death penalty has a deterrent effect on crime rate
Meeting on the role of poverty alleviation in promoting and protecting human rights
Annual full-day meeting on the rights of the child [two accessible panels]. Theme: Rights of the child and the Sustainable Development Goals
Annual interactive debate on the rights of persons with disabilities [accessible panel]. Theme: Participation in sport under article 30 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Debate on the midterm review of the International Decade for People of African Descent. (Commemoration of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination)
To stay up-to-date: Follow @ISHRglobal and #HRC46 on Twitter, and look out for the Human Rights Council Monitor. During the session, follow the live-updated programme of work on Sched.
Red Lines host Anya Parampil speaks with Alena Douhan, UN special rapporteur on the negative impact of the unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, about her recent trip to Venezuela.
In her first interview since the publication of the preliminary findings of her mission to Venezuela, Professor Douhan discusses her main takeaways from the visit, her method for investigating, as well as the response to her report.
Alena Douhan is the United Nations’ special rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights. Douhan visited Venezuela on 1 February “to assess the impact of unilateral sanctions on the enjoyment of human rights by people living in Venezuela and any other affected people”.
On 12 February, Douhan published her preliminary findings based on “extensive consultations with a wide range of interlocutors”. The UN independent expert recognised the negative impact of coercive sanctions on human rights and urged European banks to “unfreeze assets of the Venezuela Central Bank”.
The Special Rapporteur of the United Nations (UN) on the effects of sanctions on human rights, Alena Douhan, held a press conference today before leaving Venezuela. Douhan detailed the impact of the United States’ unilateral coercive measures on the Venezuelan people.
Douhan reported that the unilateral “sanctions” violate International Law. The conclusion followed Douhan’s comprehensive report on damages caused by coercive measures implemented by Washington and its European partners against Venezuela, and specified that the final report will be presented to the UN in September 2021. Douhan urged the interlocutors to continue presenting additional material so that she can include them in her final report.
Alena Douhan is the United Nations’ special rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights. Douhan visited Venezuela on 1 February “to assess the impact of unilateral sanctions on the enjoyment of human rights by people living in Venezuela and any other affected people”.
On 12 February, Douhan published her preliminary findings based on “extensive consultations with a wide range of interlocutors”. The UN independent expert recognised the negative impact of coercive sanctions on human rights and urged European banks to “unfreeze assets of the Venezuela Central Bank”. She also noted how the push for regime change “violates the principle of sovereign equality of states”.
Sanctions
Since the Barack Obama administration declared Venezuela “an unusual and extraordinary threat to national security” in March 2015, the South American country has come under one of the world’s harshest sanctions regimes. These sanctions have targeted Venezuela’s oil industry, cutting off the country’s main source of income.
A report conducted by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) estimated that US sanctions had killed 40,000 Venezuelans between 2017 and 2018.
Since 2017, the European Union has also imposed sanctions on Venezuela, with European banks freezing Venezuelan assets worth billions of dollars. In particular, following US pressure, the UK froze around $2bn worth of gold held in the Bank of England.
Unfreeze assets
The Nicolás Maduro government has repeatedly urged governments to unfreeze Venezuelan assets in order to respond to the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic.
Legal documents dated 29 December 2020 show that Venezuelan opposition figure Juan Guaidó’s UK legal team rejected a proposal to use the gold stored in the Bank of England for the purpose of supplying coronavirus vaccines to Venezuela. Guaidó’s lawyers claimed that sanctions are not “an impediment to the Maduro regime meeting its payment obligations” for coronavirus relief.
the Governments of the United Kingdom, Portugal and the United States and corresponding banks to unfreeze assets of the Venezuela Central Bank to purchase medicine, vaccines, food, medical and other equipment, spare parts and other essential goods to guarantee humanitarian needs of the people of Venezuela and the restoration of public services through and under the control of the UNDP and other UN agencies.
She added that “Venezuelan assets frozen in US, UK and Portuguese banks amount to US $6 bln”. Roughly one third of this, US$2bn, is frozen in the Bank of England. To add perspective, CEPR found that the value of “Imports of food and medicine [to Venezuela] for 2018 were just $2.6 billion”.
The “repeated refusals of banks in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Portugal to release Venezuelan assets”, Douhan noted, “even for buying medicine, vaccines and protective kits, under the control of international organizations, violates the above principal and impedes the ability of Venezuela to respond to the COVID-19 emergency” [emphasis added].
Douhan is thus calling on the UK to return the gold held in the Bank of England to Venezuela, so that it can better respond to the economic and health crisis facing the country.
The violation of sovereignty
Douhan also noted how unilateral coercive sanctions violate Venezuela’s sovereignty and are not grounded in international law.
As such, “freezing assets of the Central Bank of Venezuela on the ground of non-recognition of its government as well as the adoption of relevant sanctions violates the sovereign rights of the country and impedes its effective government to exercise its duty to guarantee the needs of the population”.
The ultimate purpose of sanctions, Douhan recognised, is to remove the Nicolás Maduro government:
The announced purpose of the “maximum pressure” campaign – to change the Government of Venezuela – violates the principle of sovereign equality of states and constitutes an intervention in domestic affairs of Venezuela that also affects its regional relations.
In this context, Venezuela’s ability to provide public services under the present sanctions regime has been totally debilitated – “the government’s revenue was reported to shrink by 99% with the country currently living on 1% of its pre-sanctions income”.
For instance, the diversion of assets of Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA’s US subsidiary CITGO “has prevented transplants of liver and bone marrow to 53 Venezuelan children”.
“Among other factors reported to affect the economy of Venezuela”, Douhan added, are “mismanagement, corruption and state price controls”.
UK response
Douhan’s report follows another study published in February by the US Government Accountability Office which recognised, according to Venezuela Analysis, that “sanctions have pushed the Venezuelan economy into crisis”. She will present her full report to the United Nations Human Rights Council in September 2021.
Washington, DC ― A new report from the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) finds that US economic sanctions on Venezuela are harming the Venezuelan economy, especially by depressing oil production and exports, and that they are also hindering US-backed humanitarian assistance to the country. The report, which looks at the impact of US sanctions on Venezuela’s economic crisis, was requested by former chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Eliot Engel (D-NY) and committee member Congressman Andy Levin (D-MI).
“This report from the GAO offers more evidence that these unilateral, illegal US sanctions are a form of collective punishment against the Venezuelan population and should be ended immediately,” Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) Co-Director Mark Weisbrot said.
In the middle of the holidays, the pipes in my apartment got clogged for the second time this year. On both occasions water was scarce for several days, and when it did arrive it brought so many rocks that the flow got blocked.
I had no option but to call our “community plumber.” In other words, a man that for the past 30 years has fixed issues with pipes in this building and nearby (and lately he’s been as busy as ever).
We’re talking about a good-natured fellow, a lovely guy, one of those who helps you carry bags, preaches about Jesus, sends his regards to the family and suddenly tells you, with a sweet smile: “that will be US $200.” And one can’t help but think “he’s screwing me, but how on earth can I curse such a nice man?”
Today, February 5, the Comptroller Commission of Venezuela’s National Assembly (AN) presented before the Public Ministry (MP) charges against the 2015 deputy Juan Guaidó for damage to the Republic and usurpation of functions.
In statements transmitted by Venezolana de Televisión, the president of the commission, deputy José Brito, stated that the charges presented by the Commission included criminal association, organized crime, usurpation of functions, assassination, attempted coup, homicide, and others.
“The sum of penalties would add up to more than 200 years in prison,” said Brito. In this regard, he mentioned the official assignment of two national prosecutors from the MP to the special commission to investigate the actions of the outgoing National Assembly.
President Biden has inherited a terribly flawed US foreign policy. For the past few decades, the pro-corporate US foreign policy has been a catastrophic failure, especially in the Middle East. Our criminal military interventions there have resulted in the devastation of much of that area, impoverished millions, created millions of refugees, and injured or killed millions more. Moreover, this criminal policy has wasted trillions of US taxpayer dollars, injured or killed thousands of US forces, and has badly damaged US strategic interests.
The illegal US use of aggressive sanctions against nations that don’t follow its dictates has also harmed tens of millions of people worldwide. In addition, US pro-corporate trade policies as well as the US-influenced International Monetary Fund and World Bank have impoverished tens of millions in the Third World. Perhaps of even greater importance, the US-led opposition to enforceable policies that ameliorate the effects of climate chaos threatens billions of people.
Clearly these ruinous policies need to be changed. The Biden administration must seize this opportunity and implement a sane foreign policy. Below are some excellent principles that provide a guideline for such a foreign policy. These principles were laid out in the “ Cross of Iron” speech delivered by President Dwight Eisenhower on April 16, 1953. Two lengthy excerpts from this speech are shown next.
He said:
The way chosen by the United States was plainly marked by a few clear precepts, which govern its conduct in world affairs.
First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.
Second: No nation’s security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effective cooperation with fellow-nations.
Third: Any nation’s right to form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable.
Fourth: Any nation’s attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible.
And fifth: A nation’s hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations.
Later in this speech, Eisenhower added:
This Government is ready to ask its people to join with all nations in devoting a substantial percentage of the savings achieved by disarmament to a fund for world aid and reconstruction. The purposes of this great work would be to help other peoples to develop the underdeveloped areas of the world, to stimulate profitability and fair world trade, to assist all peoples to know the blessings of productive freedom. The monuments to this new kind of war would be these: roads and schools, hospitals and homes, food and health. We are ready, in short, to dedicate our strength to serving the needs, rather than the fears, of the world. We are ready, by these and all such actions, to make of the United Nations an institution that can effectively g uard the peace and security of all peoples.
Eisenhower also pointed out the implications of spending huge amounts on military weapons in terms of homes, schools, hospitals, etc. that weren’t built.
President Eisenhower plainly recognized that our security and well-being, as well as that of all people on the planet, come from cooperation, not competition. Once we understand this point, the necessary policies become clear. In summary, President Eisenhower, a military icon who knew well the horrors of war, specifically stressed respect for the sovereignty of nations, the need to make the U.N. stronger, spoke against forced changes in regimes or economic systems, called for military disarmament and supported world aid and reconstruction. Even though he wasn’t correct in describing what the US was willing to do or its path, imagine the difference had Eisenhower or any of his successors followed through on his words.
President Biden now has the opportunity to follow Eisenhower’s counsel in a world where US actions have destroyed the myth of its moral authority or of being the exceptional nation. The US must work to rejoin the community of nations by complying with international law instead of running roughshod over it. This means among other things that the US must stop threatening other nations as well as ending its illegal sanctions.
In particular, possible steps the Biden administration could take in collaboration with the international community are:
share covid-19 vaccines with all nations at an affordable cost; may require the temporary suspension of patents;
create enforceable steps for dealing with climate chaos including a large and increasing carbon tax; and fulfill funding climate change commitments to Third World nations;
drastically reduce weapons spending, disband NATO and rely on the UN and diplomacy for settling conflicts; may require the ability to override a veto in the Security Council;
strongly support international law and human rights for Palestinians; also support enforcement of the Right of Return for Palestinians;
rejoin weapons treaties including the JCPOA (aka, the Iran Nuclear Deal) and ratify the Ban Nuclear Weapons Treaty;
pay reparations for their rebuilding to nations the US has devastated;
close overseas military bases;
end unilateral sanctions, especially those against Venezuela, Cuba, Iran and North Korea; and,
strongly support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Disappointingly, it appears as if President Biden will continue to pursue the disastrous US foreign policy. It is up to us, we the people, to convince President Biden and Congress to put the public interest over corporate profits.
The media establishment was horrified when the “Stop the Steal” mob stormed the US Capitol on January 6, and the sentence was swift: President Donald Trump, with his baseless fraud allegations and refusal to concede defeat, was responsible for the mayhem.
Corporate outlets have summarily denounced Trump’s bogus claims of vote fraud, though for years they have faithfully echoed similarly spurious accusations made about elections held by official enemies (FAIR.org, 5/23/18, 8/23/18, 2/12/19, 8/5/19, 11/18/19, 10/30/20, 11/20/20). But media make no effort to account for years of hypocrisy and double standards.
Venezuela’s December 6 parliamentary election offers an instructive case study, with corporate journalists unquestioningly repeating Trump officials’ unsubstantiated allegations of “fraud” there at the same time that they debunked Trump’s virtually identical claims vis-a-vis the US election. And the right-wing violence that was rightly portrayed as a threat to democracy in the US was heartily endorsed as a democratic campaign in Venezuela, where it served Washington’s foreign policy goals.
The media’s uncritical echoing of fraud allegations is in turn used to justify the continuation of Washington’s regime-change policies. Early signs point to this dynamic continuing in full force under the new Biden administration (Reuters, 1/19/21).
Who needs ‘evidence’?
NPR ( 12/5/20) allows opposition politician Juan Guaidó to claim to be the rightful president of Venezuela “because Maduro’s 2018 reelection was rigged”—no evidence necessary.
Venezuela’s parliamentary elections on December 6 followed a familiar pattern: The US-backed opposition boycotted the vote, and the ruling United Socialist Party (PSUV) and allies won an overwhelming majority. Just like in President Nicolás Maduro’s 2018 reelection, opposition candidates failed to counter their hardline sectors’ calls for abstention, and the government scooped some two-thirds of the vote, albeit with a depressed turnout.
Corporate media coverage also hit the usual notes, with outlets taking their cue from the US State Department and Venezuela’s self-proclaimed “interim president,” Juan Guaidó, in declaring the internationally observed process a “fraud” (BBC, 12/7/20; DW, 12/7/20; NPR, 12/5/20; France24, 12/6/20).
“National Assembly President Juan Guaidó and his allies declined to seek reelection, saying they didn’t trust the authoritarian [Nicolas] Maduro to hold a fair vote,” the Washington Post (12/7/20) noted, throwing in a smear against Venezuela’s head of state for good measure.
For all the quick trigger adjectives, reporters made no effort to explain how Venezuela’s voting system works (and why vote rigging would be very far from straightforward), much less what this “fraud” consisted of. This stance is hardly new, with coverage looking like a rerun of previous Venezuelan elections (New York Times, 8/16/04; Washington Post, 11/22/15, 5/10/13)—most recently, the 2018 presidential election, which the Trump administration preemptively refused to recognize months in advance, with unanimous support from politicians and corporate pundits of all political stripes (NPR, 5/21/18; BBC, 5/21/18; Reuters, 5/20/18; Bloomberg, 5/7/18; Miami Herald, 5/2/18; New York Times, 5/17/18).
The latest round of pliant stenography on Venezuela stood in stark contrast with the media’s almost instantaneous dismantling of the domestic “fraud” accusations hurled by Trump and his allies about the US’s 2020 presidential vote. While conservative outlets afforded the president some leeway, centrist and liberal corporate journalists were steadfast in factchecking Trump’s “baseless” claims (Guardian, 11/6/20), “torrent of falsehoods” (New York Times, 11/5/20) or “false claims of vote fraud” (Washington Post, 11/5/20). Venezuela observers would be forgiven for wondering where this sudden quest for “evidence” of electoral fraud had come from.
When Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stood by the administration in refusing to concede defeat, corporate journalists reminded readers of the lack of evidence surrounding the fraud allegations (NPR, 11/10/20; Reuters, 11/10/20; AP, 11/11/20). Yet when Pompeo declared the Venezuelan elections “a fraud and a sham,” major outlets uncritically echoed the equally baseless official claim (New York Times, 12/6/20; Financial Times, 12/7/20; AP, 12/6/20).
Similarly, Trump’s allegations that his victory was stolen were immediately picked apart as “desperate” (New York Times, 12/26/20; Washington Post, 12/8/20), but Trump officials can routinely claim that Maduro “stole” the 2018 election (Financial Times, 12/6/20; France24, 12/7/20) with no dissent from corporate journalists.
The Trump administration began spinning its fraud stories in Venezuela and at home long before polls opened in either country. But in the US, Trump was confronted about the lack of evidence surrounding his pre-election claims of mail-in vote irregularities (AP, 9/30/20; Reuters, 8/18/20). In contrast, no one in the corporate media batted an eye when the administration pre-emptively declared that the Venezuelan elections would be fraudulent (Reuters, 8/4/20; AFP, 9/3/20).
Mobs and conspiracy theories
The New York Times (11/17/20) demonstrates that it does have the ability to factcheck Trumpian claims about Venezuela after all.
The hypocrisy concerning electoral fraud allegations was even more evident when the most unhinged members of Trump’s team tried to scapegoat Venezuela for their loss.
Trump’s private attorney, Rudy Giuliani, sought to weaponize nearly two decades of anti-Chavista media bias, this time against political rivals at home. But while friendly Fox News hosts (11/15/20) were happy to let him say that “a Venezuelan company” was counting US ballots, in reference to Smartmatic, the New York Times (11/17/20) quickly clarified that the company (which used to provide voting software in Venezuela) is based in London, and had nothing to do with the US elections.
The paper of record then wasted no time in reheating Smartmatic’s accusation that Venezuelan authorities inflated turnout in the 2017 National Constituent Assembly elections, but left out that the software company did not offer any proof to back the claim, with Venezuelan electoral authorities stressing that it did not have access to results.
However, the most bizarre conspiracy theory was floated by attorney Sidney Powell, who accused late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez of being behind voting software used to “hack” the US presidential election (AP, 11/19/20).
Powell’s wild theory relied on screenshots of an affidavit purportedly from a Venezuelan military official claiming the US election was “eerily reminiscent” of the 2013 Venezuelan presidential election, with the New York Times (11/19/20) adding that “no evidence was provided that votes had been switched in the United States.” The paper of record failed to add that no evidence of vote switching was provided in the 2013 Venezuelan presidential election, either.
Automatically rejected elections
Like Trump’s, Venezuelan opposition claims of electoral fraud can be easily debunked (Venezuelanalysis, 6/4/18).
The 2013 contest, in which Maduro was elected for the first time after Chavez’s death, was followed by violent efforts to challenge the results, leaving eight people dead (Reuters, 4/17/13; BBC, 4/19/13; CNN, 4/18/13). Western outlets chose to echo the opposition’s fraud claims, championed by then–Secretary of State John Kerry, even though all the “evidence,” much like Trump’s, was easily dismissed (Venezuelanalysis, 4/17/13).
US government and corporate media backing for the Venezuelan opposition in its refusal to acknowledge defeat paved the way for deadly street violence (Reuters, 4/21/13) that was eerily reminiscent of the far-right MAGA mobs who are convinced that Trump’s “landslide victory” was stolen.
Armed and ready with the “fraud” epithet, corporate journalists could disqualify all Venezuelan elections, without the slightest interest in examining the substance behind the allegations (FAIR.org, 5/23/18; Venezuelanalysis, 6/4/18). The 2013 violence returned in much bigger and deadlier incarnations in 2014 and 2017, with the Western press happy to fall in line behind the State Department, automatically labeling violent efforts to overthrow the Venezuelan government as a defense of “democracy” (Washington Post, 5/1/13; Guardian, 4/10/14; CNN, 4/20/17). The words “coup attempt,” which immediately made headlines and were subject of debate after the Capitol assault (Washington Post, 1/7/21, 1/7/21; New York Times, 1/7/21; Politico, 1/11/21), have been notoriously absent from the Venezuela coverage.
Beyond endorsing right-wing violence in Venezuela, the baseless claims also served to justify Washington’s violence against the Venezuelan people. Ever since Maduro’s 2018 victory, deadly sanctions have been justified by his second term being “widely dubbed illegitimate” (Reuters, 1/28/19), or his reelection considered “fraudulent” (Guardian,8/5/19).
But in the end the imperial chickens came home to roost. Regardless of whether Trump is impeached or not, any semblance of impartiality from the corporate media has been shattered. Long used to whitewashing right-wing mobs and baselessly crying “fraud” when it favored US interests, Western pundits got a (small) taste of their own medicine.
Featured image: AP photo (12/6/20) of a Venezuelan soldier in front of a mural featuring Hugo Chávez’s eyes.
In early December I travelled to Venezuela to be an election observer at their national assembly election. I was part of a group of eight persons from Canada and US organized by CodePink. There were about two hundred international observers in total, including the Latin American Council of Electoral Experts. I have previously been an official election observer in Honduras and was an unofficial observer at the 2015 Venezuela national assembly election.
Meeting Opposition Leaders
Before the election, our small group met eight leaders of the Democratic Alliance. This is the major opposition coalition. Pedro Jose Rojas of Accion Democratica said the US sanctions are not doing what is claimed; they are hurting average citizens. Bruno Gallo of Avanca Progressista said Venezuela needs negotiation not confrontation. Juan Carlos Alvarado of the Christian Democratic Party said Venezuelans have been “victims of politics” and that dialogue and flexibility are needed. Several leaders spoke about the importance of the national assembly and the road to change is through voting not violence. Several leaders expressed the wish for better relations with the US; another one said Venezuelan sovereignty needs to be respected. The common request was to end US sanctions and interference in Venezuelan politics.
We visited the factory where voting machines were assembled, tested and certified. The staff was openly proud of their work. In March this year, nearly all the pre-existing voting computers were destroyed in a massive fire at the main election warehouse. There were calls to delay the December election. But in six months, forty thousand new computers were ordered, built, assembled, tested and certified for the December election.
The Election Process
On election day, Sunday December 6, we visited many different elections sites. Typically, the election voting takes place at a school, with five or ten classrooms designated as “mesas”. Each voter goes to his or her designated classroom/“mesa”.
The voting process was quick and efficient, with bio-safety sanitation at each step. The first step is to show your identity card and prove your identity with fingerprint recognition. Step 2 was to make your voting choices at the touchscreen computer and receive a paper receipt. Step 3 is to verify the receipt matches your voting choice and deposit the receipt in a ballot box. The fourth and final step is to sign and put your fingerprint on the voting registry. The entire voting process took about 3 minutes.
At the end of the voting day, we observed the process of tabulating the votes. At each “mesa”, with observers from other parties present, the paper receipts were recorded one by one. At the end, the results were compared to the digital count. Voting results were then transmitted to the headquarters for overall tabulation.
Election results were announced by the Council for National Election (CNE) which manages the entire process. CNE leaders are not permitted to be members of any party and the CNE leadership was recently changed at the request of the opposition. In our discussion with leading opposition members, they complained about incumbent party advantages but acknowledged the election process is free, fair and honest.
PBS Newshour Special
With this firsthand experience, on December 29 I watched a PBS Newshour segment about the Venezuela election and overall situation. PBS reporter Marcia Biggs said, “Maduro’s party essentially ran unopposed in this month’s election.” As noted above, this is untrue.
In fact, there were 107 parties and over 14,000 individuals competing in the December 6 election for 277 national assembly seats. While 8 parties were in alliance with the governing United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), there were over 90 opposition parties. The strongest opposition coalition was the Democratic Alliance comprising 7 opposition parties. The Democratic Alliance won 1.1 million votes or 18% of the vote. The LEFT opposition to the PSUV, under the banner of the Communist Party of Venezuela, received 168 thousand votes.
Reporter Marcia Biggs claimed that “politics permeates everything in Venezuela and can determine whether you support Maduro and eat or go hungry.” This claim is based on a campaign statement by PSUV Vice President Diosdado Cabello encouraging people to vote. He jokingly said that women are in the forefront and can say to their family, “No vote, no food.” Video of him making the statement is here. This statement has been distorted out of all meaning and context.
The PBS story showed a fistfight in the national assembly, implying that it was the Venezuelan government. But, as reported in the “Juan Guaido surreal regime change reality show“, the fight was between competing factions of the Venezuelan opposition.
When they showed Juan Guaido climbing over a fence, that was a publicity stunt to distract from the important news that Luis Parra was elected Speaker of the national assembly one year ago. That was embarrassing because Guaido’s claim to be “interim president” was based on his being Speaker.
Election turnout was lower than usual at 31% but one needs to account for the election taking place despite covid-19 with no mail-in voting. Also, millions of registered voters have had to leave the country due to economic hardship. Also, transportation is difficult due to gasoline scarcity. This was a national assembly election, equivalent to a US mid-term election, which gets lower turnout. Note that 95% of voting eligible Venezuelans are registered voters compared to just 67% in the USA. Thus a turnout of 50% registered voters in the US equates to 33% of eligible voters.
US Meddling in Venezuela
The star of the 7-minute PBS story is Roberto Patino, the Venezuelan director of a food distribution charity. The report neglects to mention that Patino is associated with a major US foreign policy institution. He is a Millennium Leadership fellow and “expert” at the neoliberal Atlantic Council where the “regime change” goals against Venezuela are clear. His food charity “Alimenta la Solidaridad” is allied with the “Rescue Venezuela” funded by the US with the apparent goal of undermining the Venezuelan government and promoting “interim president Juan Guaido”.
Roberto Patino says the Venezuelan government is “very paranoid and they see conspiracies all over.” Paranoia is a mental condition where there is fear of imaginary threats. But US threats and aggression against Venezuela are not imaginary; they are very real:
In 2002 the US supported the kidnapping and coup against the popular and elected President Hugo Chavez. The years have gone by but US hostility persists.
* In August 2018 there was a drone assassination attempt on the Venezuelan President.
* In February 2019 President Trump threatened military intervention against Venezuela.
* In March 2019, there was massive power blackout caused by sabotage of the electrical grid, with probable US involvement.
*In May 2020, two former US Special Forces soldiers and other mercenaries were arrested in a failed attempt to overthrow President Maduro.
* In June 2020, the US Navy warship Nitze began provocative “freedom of navigation” patrols along the Venezuelan coast.
* In August 2020, the US seized four ships carrying much needed gasoline to Venezuela.
* In September 2020, in a attempt to undermine the Venezuelan election, the US imposed sanctions on political leaders who planned to participate.
* The US 2021 stimulus bill includes $33Million for “democracy programs for Venezuela”.
Based on the past twenty years, Venezuela’s government has good reason to be on guard against US threats, meddling and intervention. The PBS program ignores this history.
Another hero of the show is the exiled politician Leopoldo Lopez. He was imprisoned in 2014 for instigating street violence known as “guarimbas” which led to the deaths of 43 people.
Like Patino, Lopez is from the Venezuelan elite, studied in the US and has major public relations support in the US. Like Guaido, Leopoldo Lopez is more popular in Washington than his home country.
Will the US respect Venezuelan sovereignty?
If the PBS Newshour reporters had not been so biased, they would have interviewed members of the moderate opposition in Venezuela. Viewers could have heard Democratic Alliance leaders explain why they participated in the election, why they are critical of US economic sanctions and US interference in their domestic affairs. That would have been educational for viewers.
On January 5, the newly elected national assembly will commence in Venezuela. The fig leaf pretense of Juan Guaido as “interim president” of Venezuela will be removed because he is no longer in the national assembly. In fact, he was removed as speaker of the national assembly one year ago.
But viewers of the PBS special did not learn this. Instead, they received a biased report ignoring the moderate opposition and promoting a few US supported elites. The report ignores or denigrates the efforts of millions of Venezuelans who carried out and participated in an election which compares favorably with the election process in the US. You would never know it from PBS, and you might not believe it, unless you saw it with your own eyes.
Voters looking to find their voting “mesa”
Voter putting receipt in the ballot box
PSUV Rally (Note: This is a photo that I did not take)
Voting computer screen with multiple competing parties
Add this to the “you can’t make this stuff up” file: Canada’s foreign minister recently met his Haitian counterpart, who is part of a de facto administration illegally rewriting the constitution, to discuss Venezuela’s supposed democracy deficiency. Apparently, Ottawa wants a Haitian regime extending its term and criminalizing protest to maintain its support for Juan Guaidó as “constitutional” president of Venezuela.
Last week foreign affairs minister François-Philippe Champagne spoke with his Haitian counterpart Claude Joseph. According to Champagne’s tweet about the conversation, they discussed COVID-19, Haiti’s elections and Venezuela. Presumably, Champagne relayed Ottawa’s position concerning Venezuela’s recent National Assembly elections, which delivered a final blow to opposition politician Guaidó’s farcical presidential claims. In August Joseph met his US and Canadian patrons in Washington on the sidelines of an anti-Venezuela Lima Group meeting. In response Haïti Liberté’s Kim Ives noted, “what could be more ironic and ludicrous than Haiti’s President Jovenel Moïse accusing Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro of being ‘illegitimate and dictatorial’ while demanding that he immediately ‘hold free, fair, and transparent general elections’? But that is exactly the position of the Lima Group, a collection of 15 Latin American states and Canada, which Haiti joined in January 2020.”
Joseph is the representative of a prime minister appointed extra-constitutionally. His boss was picked by Moïse after parliament, which needs to endorse a prime minister, expired because the president failed to organize elections. Moïse is ruling by decree and pushing to extend his term by a year to February 7, 2022, against the wishes of most Haitians and constitutional experts.
Canada is essentially supporting Moïse’s bid to extend his mandate. Ottawa is also supporting an election process that most political actors in Haiti reject. In the summer Haiti’s entire nine person electoral council resigned in response to Moïse’s pressure and few believe a fair election is possible under his direction.
Canada is backing the elections and an illegal constitutional rewrite. After the call with Champagne, Joseph tweeted, “I had a fruitful conversation today with my Canadian counterpart François-Philippe Champagne. We discussed, among other things, Canada’s support for constitutional reform and the holding of elections in 2021.”
Moïse is seeking to rewrite the constitution. Soon after parliament was disbanded, he picked individuals to rewrite the constitution in flagrant violation of the law. Moïse appointed former Supreme Court justice Boniface Alexandre to head the constitutional rewrite. Alexandre was made figurehead “President” after the US, France and Canada overthrew elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004. In another throwback to a period that saw thousands killed in political violence, Moïse recently made Léon Charles head of police. The former military man oversaw the police in the 17 months after the 2004 coup with Charles publicly referring to the “war” the police waged against the pro-democracy sector.
In another regressive throwback, Moïse unilaterally decreed the creation of a new National Intelligence Agency at the end of November. Kim Ives explains, “this secret agency’s completely anonymous officers (Article 43) will have false identities (Article 44), carry guns (Article 51), be legally untouchable (Article 49), and have the power not just to spy and infiltrate but to arrest anybody engaged in ‘subversive’ acts (Article 29) or threatening ‘state security’ i.e. the power of President Jovenel Moïse.” The new agency appears analogous to the Duvalier dictatorship’s Volontaires de la Sécurité Nationale (Ton Ton Macoutes) or the Service d’Intelligence National the CIA created after Baby Doc fled in 1986. Supposed to fight the cocaine trade, SIN members were involved in hundreds of murders in subsequent years.
Even most of Moïse’s foreign patrons have nominally distanced themselves from the new intelligence agency, which reach beyond the constitutional powers of the president. The Core Group, a US and Canada led alliance of foreign ambassadors that heavily influences Haitian affairs, released a statement critical of Moïse’s intelligence agency decree. (But, I could not find a mention of the Core Group statement on either the Canadian ambassador or Canada in Haiti Twitter accounts.)
Alongside the intelligence agency announcement, Moïse decreed new legislation “for strengthening public security”. It includes massive fines and 50-year jail sentences for individuals convicted of “terrorism” related charges, which include the common protest tactic of blockading roads.
As it seeks to overthrow Nicolás Maduro for purported human rights violations and democratic deficiencies, the Trudeau government has endorsed Moïse’s repressive measures. After a meeting with the president, Canada’s ambassador Stuart Savage tweeted on December 10: “Important discussion with Jovenel Moïse on this International Human Rights Day on the subject of democratic renewal, rule of law and food security.” Savage failed to criticize Moïse’s bid to extend his term, rewrite the constitution, establish an intelligence agency or label road blockades “terrorism”.
Even before these recent unconstitutional measures, partnering with Moïse to demand Maduro follow Canada’s interpretation of the Venezuelan constitution was laughable. Moïse is the hand-picked successor of Michel Martelly who the US, Canada and Organization of American States inserted into the presidency after the horrific 2010 earthquake. A relatively obscure businessman who had never held public office, Moïse benefited from two million dollars in public funds (ironically stolen from Venezuelan assistance) funneled his way by the Martelly administration. According to official figures, Moïse received 595,000 votes — just 9.6 percent of registered voters in the 2016 election. (For his part, Maduro received the support of 27% of registered voters in the May 2018 presidential election.)
Moïse faced an unprecedented popular uprising against his presidency between July 2018 and late 2019. The country’s urban areas were paralyzed by a handful of general strikes, including one that largely shuttered Port-au-Prince for a month. The only reason the unpopular president is still in office is because of diplomatic, financial and policing support from Ottawa and Washington.
Shining a light on Canadian policy towards Haiti makes clear that its bid to replace Maduro as President of Venezuela is not about democracy. Ottawa is completely comfortable with an undemocratic government in Haiti.
I reviewed Sra. Michelle Bachelet’s Report on Venezuela, and was quite outraged at her lack of consideration and due diligence. I will, in a moment, tell everyone why this report needs to be trashed, but even before that, I think I should mention two systemic flaws about this type of reporting regardless of which country it is written for.
First
The Report treats Venezuela as an isolated entity, along with other entities, such as the United States, Colombia,… floating in separate air space, without impacting or being impacted by any other country, in any way, shape, or form.
Everyone knows, however, that the truth is otherwise, that the funds the United States government has allocated to bring down the Maduro Bolivarian Government are probably more than some small countries’ annual budget, and that the United States’ sanctions to punish the Venezuelan people and deprive them of food, medicine, and fuel amount to no less than crimes against humanity. That clearly tells me that Venezuela is on earth and not in space, and both its government and its people are greatly impacted by the actions of other countries, and in particular the United States. It also, in my mind, invalidates the entire UN Report, but it takes spine, and we all know that Sra. Bachelet would not remain in office long if she attempted to produce one such report that takes into consideration all players influencing Venezuela and its people’s rights.
In this report, there is no mention of international criminals, such as Elliot Abrams (what a shame), who have been convicted in his own country and is now running loose, being employed by the Trump Administration to bring death and horror upon the people of Venezuela, as they did in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala,… CAN A TRUE HUMAN RIGHTS OBSERVER REALLY REMAIN SILENT ON THESE ISSUES?
Second
The expression “Political Prisoner” is loosely defined and even more loosely utilized. A political prisoner is someone who has been imprisoned or subjected to other restrictions by the State, because of his beliefs, party affiliations, or peaceful protest. Such description is generally accepted by most, but loosely used to include violent opposition as well. As Fidel Castro would often ask: “Don’t we have the right to defend ourselves?” This issue is seldom addressed by ‘human rights’ organizations. Many people who are presented as political prisoners are often violent individuals of no independent character who are funded by the United States government or private individuals, somehow tied to the US government. Unless the HR report presents a list of the individuals, their alleged crimes against the State, and their investigated claims, one can never be certain if they can be categorized as political prisoners.
In addition, repressive actions by ‘friendly governments’ are oftentimes ignored whereas ‘unfriendly governments’ are placed under constant scrutiny. As an example, how can we put Venezuela under a magnifying glass when daily crimes by the repressive State in Saudi Arabia are often ignored? In my opinion, those who place the Bolivarian State right next to the Saudi Arabian Dictatorship must be mentally deranged.
The report is all unproven innuendos and play-with-words. It keeps referencing itself so many times that one starts wondering where the meat is. What is the real content? Where are the emperor’s clothes?
And Now For the Meat
The first paragraph (graves vulneraciones)… que se han documentado en el pais. (POR FAVOR, QUE SON ESTAS?)
Where are your research data?
So where is the meat?
The Seventh and Eighth Paragraphs
Sra. Bachelet admits that the Bolivarian government announced its commitment to cooperate with her men to deal with the various themes. “The issue is complicated,” claims Sra. Bachelet. Why? The Venezuela government’s cooperation, which is pretty significant, is mentioned in a one-sentence blurb, perhaps intended to imply the Bolivarian government’s admission of its guilt which would be not true.
The next paragraph (one of very few statistics) refers to 66 deaths, 52 of them allegedly inflicted by Security Forces. What about the other 14? Venezuelan opposition is notorious for miscategorizing pro-government deaths as its own, and many opposition members walk around armed. Is there any verification of such claims?
Speaking of efficiency, there are, of course, many government functions that could be done better and much more efficiently if more funds were available, and the country’s wealth wasn’t robbed so much by the United States and the European Union countries, such as the case of the $2 billion British robbery of Venezuelan gold. Sra. Bachelet, how many more kids could receive milk and other alimentation if the stolen gold could be handed over to the constitutional government of Venezuela?
The US finally appointed an ambassador to Venezuela after a decade hiatus and in the runup to the Venezuelan National Assembly elections. The new ambassador, James Story, was confirmed by US Senate voice vote on November 18 with Democrats supporting Trump’s nominee.
Ambassador Story took his post in Bogotá, Colombia. No, this is not another example of Trump’s bungling by sending his man to the wrong capital. The US government does not recognize the democratically elected government in Caracas.
Impasse of two Venezuelan presidents
US hostility to Venezuela started when Hugo Chávez became president in 1999 and continues to this day, according to Adán Chávez, the late president’s older brother and vice-president of the PSUV, the ruling socialist party in Venezuela. “For the last 21 years,” he commented, “the empire has been perfecting its attacks” on Venezuela.
The elder Chávez, spoke at an international online meeting with the US Chapter of the Network of Intellectuals, Artists and Social Movements in Defense of Humanity on November 19. Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution, he explained, was not initially socialist, although it was against neoliberalism. The traditional parties in Venezuela in 1998 had lost their appeal to the voters. Hugo Chávez ran and won, looking for a “third way” that was neither capitalist nor socialist. What the revolution discovered was that there was no third way: either socialism or barbarism.
When in 2013, Venezuela elected President Nicolás Maduro and not the US-backed candidate, the US declared that election fraudulent and refused to recognize the winner. In the 2018 when Maduro was reelected, the US – not taking any chances – proclaimed fraud four months in advance of the vote.
Then in January 2019, US Vice President Pence telephoned the newly installed president of Venezuela’s National Assembly, Juan Guaidó. The following morning Guaidó declared himself president of Venezuela on a Caracas street corner. Almost immediately Donald Trump recognized him as Venezuela’s de facto president.
Guaidó’s claim to the national presidency was based on being third in constitutional succession, overlooking that neither the Venezuelan president nor vice-president had vacated their offices. At the time, the 35-year-old was unknown to 81% of the Venezuelan people, according to a poll by a firm favorable to the opposition. Guaidó was not even a leader in his own far-right party, Popular Will. He had never run for national office and his previous “exposure” was just that. A photograph of his bare behind made the press when he dropped his pants at a demonstration against the government. The person, whose butt may have been better known than his face, only got to be president of the National Assembly by a scheme which rotated the office among the parties in the legislature.
But Juan Guaidó had one outstanding qualification to be the US-anointed puppet president of Venezuela – he was a trained US security asset.
Guaidó’s parallel government has named ambassadors without power and has colluded with the US to loot Venezuelan national assets, some $24 billion. His former attorney is now on the legal team working to take over CITGO, the oil company in the US owned by Venezuela.
“As time went on,” Mission Verdad reported from Venezuela, “support for Guaidó faded and his childish image became a laughable anecdote of Venezuelan politics.” After several failed coup attempts, corruption, embezzlement, resigning from his own party, and losing the presidency of the National Assembly, Guaidó’s last shred of legitimacy – his National Assembly seat – will be contested on December 6 with elections to the unicameral legislature.
US interference and sanctions on Venezuela
The extraordinary level of US interference in Venezuela’s electoral process highlights their importance. The US government has preemptively declared the upcoming National Assembly elections fraudulent. Guaidó’s political party and others on the far right have dutifully obeyed Trump’s directive to boycott the contest.
However, other opposition elements have broken with the US strategy of extra-parliamentary regime change and are participating in the elections. They have also distanced themselves from Guaidó’s calls for ever harsher sanctions against his people and even for US military intervention.
To maintain discipline among the moderate opposition, the US has sanctioned some opposition party leaders for registering to run in the parliamentary elections. Nevertheless, 98 opposition parties and nine Chavista parties (supporters of the Bolivarian Revolution) will be contesting for 277 seats in the National Assembly.
Following the US’s lead, the European Union rejected the upcoming election and an invitation to send election observers. A long list of international figures including Noble Prize winners and former heads of state petitioned the EU: “This election represents, above all a democratic, legal and peaceful way out of the political and institutional crisis that was triggered in January 2019 by the self-appointment of Juan Guaidó as ‘interim president’ of Venezuela.”
The Council of Electoral Experts of Latin America (CEELA) and other internationals will be observing the election on December 6. CEELA Chairman Nicanor Moscoso noted: “We, as former magistrates and electoral authorities in Latin America, have organized elections and also participated in over 120 elections…Our aim is to accompany the Venezuelan people.”
Communists normally would not get favorable ink in The New York Times. But when there are splits on the left, the empire’s newspaper of record exploits them: “They championed Venezuela’s revolution – they are now its latest victims.” The paper reports: “The repression is partly an outcome of Mr. Maduro’s decision to abandon the wealth redistribution policies of his late predecessor, Hugo Chávez, in favor of what amounts to crony capitalism to survive American sanctions [emphasis added].”
The key to deconstructing the Times’s hit piece is the phrase, “to survive American sanctions.” As Alfred de Zayas, the United Nations Human Rights Rapporteur on Venezuela, had observed even before the pandemic hit, the US sanctions on Venezuela are causing “economic asphyxiation.” Compromises have been necessitated.
President Maduro has survived a drone assassination attempt, mercenary invasions, and abortive coups. In this context, the ruling party realistically feels under siege.
Although running independent candidates, Communist Party leader Oscar Figuera states “we see imperialism as the main enemy of the Venezuelan people.” And on that the Chavista forces are united.
National Assembly elections as a referendum on the Venezuelan project
Venezuela’s Vice Foreign Minister Carlos Ron characterized the election as a referendum against the “brutal blockade” imposed by the US and its allies and against their effort to undermine Venezuela’s democracy by trying to prevent the election from being conducted. He spoke from Caracas in a webinar produced by the US Peace Council and others on November 18.
Carlos Ron lamented that the Venezuelan opposition does not play by the rules. In the 24 national elections held since the election of Hugo Chávez, only the two that have been won by the opposition were deemed truly legitimate by them. Yet this is the electoral system that former US President Jimmy Carter proclaimed to be “the best in the world.”
Margaret Flowers of Popular Resistance spoke in the November 18 webinar calling for the US government to end the illegal coercive economic measures, including unfreezing Venezuela’s assets. Flowers called for reestablishment of diplomatic relations with the legitimate government of Venezuela based on peace and mutual respect.
Ajamu Baraka of the Black Alliance for Peace spoke at the webinar of the necessity to protect the Venezuelan project as the “gateway to the transformation of the entire region,” which is also why the US sees Venezuela as a threat. He cautioned that Joe Biden has the same regime-change policy as Trump. Our responsibility, Baraka concluded, is to build a clear anti-imperialist movement.
