Just International

‘Moral Disgrace’: EU Parliament Lectures World on Rule of Law, Then Destroys Legality in Venezuela

By John Laughland

1 Feb 2019 – It’s a moral disgrace when the EU Parliament, which lectures the world on the need to respect the rule of law, uses legal language to tell lies about the legality of the situation in Venezuela, and to destroy that legality.

Exciting news from France: Marine le Pen is the country’s new president. After the Macron regime plunged the country into political crisis, Mrs Le Pen took the oath of office on Place de la Concorde on Friday before a small crowd of gilets jaunes (yellow vests) specially assembled – with the TV cameras – for the occasion.

Proclaiming that she was acting according to Article 7 of the Constitution of the 5th Republic, Mrs Le Pen announced that Emmanuel Macron is no longer in office. To be sure, the government and civil service, the police and the armed forces all continue to operate normally, and Mr Macron continues to work in the Elysée Palace as usual, while Mrs Le Pen is under investigation for financial irregularities. But as she has received official recognition from both Russia and China, she has now become the legitimate president of France.

Of course, this fictitious scenario is ridiculous. But it is no more ridiculous than the recognition of Juan Guaido as president of Venezuela, voted by the European Parliament on January 31, one week after the recognition of him by US President Donald Trump.

Indeed, Brussels’ vote in favour of recognition is even more absurd than recognising Marine Le Pen because, unlike her, Juan Guaido has never been a candidate in his country’s presidential election, let alone been elected to it, and until a few weeks ago no one, not even in Venezuela, had even heard of him.

The resolution voted by the European Parliament is actually worse than President Trump’s “recognition” of Guaido on January 23. Four political groups in the European Parliament, acting independently of one another before later agreeing on a common resolution, sat down to formulate their texts, in legal language, which state that Juan Guaido is the legitimate president “according to Article 233 of the Venezuelan constitution.”

That they did this, and that the common resolution was then voted by all but 100 or so MEPs, is a frightening illustration of power of groupthink. Or perhaps it is just dishonesty. No one who has ever read Article 233 of the Venezuelan constitution could possibly conclude that it says anything of the kind.

On the contrary, Article 233 is precisely what Juan Guaido violated when he performed his little stunt of proclaiming himself president in a public square in Caracas on January 23.

Most countries’ constitutions have articles like Article 233 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. It deals with what happens if the president of the Republic does not, or cannot, fulfil his duties.

It lists six circumstances in which his term can be cut short: if he dies; if he resigns; if he is removed from office by a ruling of the country’s supreme court; if he is proclaimed physically or mentally unfit after a formal medical procedure validated by the National Assembly and by the supreme court; if he abandons his office; or if he is impeached by a popular referendum.

Not a single one of these conditions has been fulfilled: President Maduro has not resigned; he is not dead or unfit; he has not been impeached by the courts or by the people. Worse, Article 233 goes on to say who takes power if the presidency falls vacant – which it has not – and, guess what? It specifies that it is the vice-president who takes over, in this case Mrs Delcy Rodriguez, not the president of the National Assembly (Guaido).

The only circumstance in which the president of the National Assembly takes over is if the president has not been inaugurated. As Maduro has been president since 2013, it is impossible to pretend that this is the case. He took the oath of office for his second term on January 10, in front of the president of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice.

Maduro’s opponents in the European Parliament, like the head of the Spanish conservative Partido popular delegation, Esteban Gonzalez Pons, claim that the inauguration of 10 January was invalid. In support of this claim, in an open letter sent to the president of the European Parliament on January 24, Mr Pons quotes Article 231 of the constitution:

“The candidate elected shall take office as President of the Republic on January 10 of the first year of his constitutional term, by taking an oath before the National Assembly.”

If one took Mr Pons at his word, one might perhaps believe that Maduro’s inauguration had indeed been invalid. But Mr Pons’ dishonesty is easily demonstrated: he does not quote the next sentence of this same Article 231 which says:

“If for any supervening reason, the person elected President of the Republic cannot be sworn in before the National Assembly, he shall take the oath of office before the Supreme Tribunal of Justice.”

So, the form of inauguration which Maduro’s enemies from Venezuela’s former colonial power in Europe claim is anti-constitutional is, in reality, specifically provided for in the constitution.

As Mr Pons also knows perfectly well, although he chooses to hide this too from his readers, there is a very good “supervening reason” why Maduro could not be sworn in before the National Assembly. It is that it was dissolved in 2017 for electoral fraud. The assembly had sworn in members whose elections had been declared invalid by the Supreme Court, which incidentally is the guardian of the constitution when it comes to electoral disputes.

In all other circumstances – in Poland, for instance, or in Hungary – members of the European Parliament typically demand that judges be given total independence and the right to overrule the decisions of elected assemblies if they deem laws anti-constitutional.

On Venezuela, by contrast, MEPs deploy precisely the opposite argument: the European Parliament pronounced in its resolution that the (dissolved) National Assembly was the only legitimate body in Venezuela, i.e. that the Supreme Court has no legitimacy.

It is obvious that there is a serious political crisis in Venezuela, between a presidency elected by universal suffrage and a political class in the parliament which opposes him. For foreign powers to wade into such a crisis is politically foolish and incidentally quite illegal under international law. But when a body like the European Parliament, which lectures the whole world on the need to respect the rule of law, uses legal language to tell outright lies about the legality of the situation in another country, and to destroy that legality, it is a moral disgrace.

John Laughland, who has a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Oxford and who has taught at universities in Paris and Rome, is a historian and specialist in international affairs.

4 February 2019

Source: transcend.org

US Stops All Aid to Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza

By Yolande Knell

The US has confirmed it stopped all aid to Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, in a step linked to new anti-terrorism legislation.

1 Feb 2019 – More than $60m (£46m) in annual funds for the Palestinian security services has now ended, and – while Israel has backed some previous cuts in US aid for Palestinians – officials have expressed concern about this move.

It is thought that co-operation with Israeli forces, which helps keep relative calm in the West Bank, could be affected.

The Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act (ATCA), passed by Congress and then signed into law by President Donald Trump last year, has just come into force.

This allows Americans to sue those receiving foreign aid from their country in US courts over alleged complicity in “acts of war”.

At a news conference on Thursday, senior official Saeb Erekat said the Palestinian Authority (PA) had sent a letter to the US state department asking them to end funding because of a fear of lawsuits.

“We do not want to receive any money if it will cause us to appear before the courts,” he said.

The PA denies Israeli accusations that it incites militant attacks.

“We are not seeking anything, the Americans have made their decision, but we will continue to participate in the fight against terrorism in the region,” Mr Erekat went on.

He pointed out that there were currently cases against three banks operating in the Palestinian territories before US courts, and that in the past, several attempts to allow US victims of Palestinian attacks to sue the PA and Palestine Liberation Organisation had failed because of a lack of jurisdiction.

Despite a large hole in its budget, the PA maintains that the halt in US aid will not affect the work of its security forces.

“At the request of the Palestinian Authority, we have wound down certain projects and programmes funded with assistance under the authorities specified in ATCA in the West Bank and Gaza,” a US official told the BBC on Friday.

“All USAID assistance in the West Bank and Gaza has ceased.”

It is not clear how long the halt will remain in effect.

But the Palestinian official said no steps were currently being taken to close the USAID mission in the Palestinian territories and no decision had been made about future staffing at the US embassy in Jerusalem.

Last year, Washington cut hundreds of millions of dollars of aid to the Palestinians, which included funding of humanitarian projects – such as health, education and infrastructure – supported by USAID.

This was widely viewed as a way of pressing Palestinian officials to restart peace talks with Israel and re-engage with the White House ahead of the announcement of its promised Middle East peace plan.

The Trump administration also ended all US funding for the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA. It had previously been the largest donor to UNRWA, giving more than $360m in 2017.

Recently US government scholarships awarded to Palestinian students have been suspended and hundreds of Palestinian and foreign workers working on US-funded programmes have lost their jobs.

“Our work was really important. We’d made a big impact but now we’re stopping a lot of our projects in the middle,” said one Palestinian whose position in law and order supported by USAID was terminated this week.

“We were really helping to build the capacity of the Palestinian police and prosecutors, helping them to carry out their investigations and daily work,” the man said. “It’s a huge setback.”

US support for creating professional Palestinian security services dates back to the creation of the PA after the breakthrough 1993 Oslo Peace Accords.

While an EU-funded programme has offered training to civil police, the US focused on the national security forces, intelligence and presidential guard.

Reports suggest that Palestinian, US and Israeli officials have been seeking means to keep sending money to these security forces in the West Bank.

Speaking on Israeli radio on Thursday, security cabinet minister Yuval Steinitz said “we will find a solution”, adding that he could not go into details.

Yolande Knell BBC News, Gaza.

4 February 2019

Source: transcend.org

UN Rapporteur: US Sanctions against Venezuela Causing Economic and Humanitarian Crisis

By Irish Examiner

28 Jan 2019 – A former United Nations rapporteur has criticised the US for engaging in “economic warfare” against Venezuela which he claimed was the real reason for the economic and humanitarian crisis facing the country.

Alfred de Zayas, who last year became the first UN rapporteur to visit Venezuela for 21 years, also suggested in his recently published UN report, that US sanctions on the country are illegal and could amount to “crimes against humanity” under international law.

Mr De Zayas, an American lawyer, writer, historian and former secretary of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), presented his Venezuela report to the HRC in September.

In the report, which can be read in full here, Mr De Zayas recommended, among other actions, that the International Criminal Court investigate economic sanctions against Venezuela as possible crimes against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute.

In the report conclusions Mr De Zayas, who is an expert in the fields of human rights and international law, went on to say the solution to the Venezuelan crisis lay “in good faith negotiations between the Government and the opposition, an end to the economic war, and the lifting of sanctions.”

The US imposed sanctions against Venezuela began in 2015 under President Barack Obama and have intensified under Donald Trump.

US sanctions against Venezuela prohibit dealing in currencies and stop US-based companies or people from buying and selling new debt issued by the state-run oil body, PDVSA or the government.

The US Department of State’s sanctions and justifications can be read here

In his report Mr De Zayas said modern-day economic sanctions and blockades are comparable with medieval sieges of towns.

“Twenty-first century sanctions attempt to bring not just a town, but sovereign countries to their knees.”

Since 2015 around 1.9m people have fled the country and inflation has reached 60,324%.

Speaking to The Independent yesterday Mr de Zayas also suggested his research into the causes of the country’s economic crisis has so far largely been ignored.

“When I come and I say the emigration is partly attributable to the economic war waged against Venezuela and is partly attributable to the sanctions, people don’t like to hear that. They just want the simple narrative that socialism failed and it failed the Venezuelan people,” Mr de Zayas told The Independent.

Mr de Zayas went on to suggest that sanctions are part of a US effort to overthrow the Venezuelan government and instal a friendlier regime.

“I’ve seen that happen in the Human Rights Council, how the United States twists arms and convinces countries to vote the way they want them to vote, or there will be economic consequences, and these things are not reflected in the press,” he told The Independent.

Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world and other abundant natural resources including gold, bauxite and coltan.

“If you crush this government and you bring in a neoliberal government that is going to privatise everything and is going to sell out, a lot of transitional corporations stand to gain enormous profits and the United States is driven by the transnational corporations,” the former UN special rapporteur told The Independent.

“The business of the United States is business. And that’s what the United States is interested in. And they can’t [currently] do business with Venezuela.”

In his report, Mr de Zayas expressed concern that those calling the situation a “humanitarian crisis” are being “weaponised” to discredit the government and make violent overthrow more “palatable”.

Amnesty, for example, have said the Maduro government is responsible for “the worst human rights crisis in the country’s history,”

“There is nothing more undemocratic than a coup d’état and nothing more corrosive to the rule of law and to international stability when foreign governments meddle in the internal affairs of other states,” he told The Independent.

“Only the Venezuelans have a right to decide, not the United States, not the United Kingdom … What is urgent is to help the Venezuelan people through international solidarity – genuine humanitarian aid and a lifting of the financial blockade so that Venezuela can buy and sell like any other country in the world – the problems can be solved with good faith and common sense.”

Mr De Zayas is one of over 70 signatories of an open letter, along with with Noam Chomsky and over 70 other academics and experts, who have condemned what they described as a US-backed coup attempt against the Venezuelan government.

Mr De Zayas personal blog can be read here.

4 February 2019

Source: transcend.org

CNN Goes ‘Undercover’ to Manufacture Consent for Coup Attempt in Venezuela

By Kevin Gosztola

29 Jan 2019 – A CNN “exclusive” report from inside Venezuela aired multiple times on the network on January 28. It is a prime example of how influential media outlets in the U.S. effectively create propaganda for the opposition, which now is receiving funds from President Donald Trump’s administration.

For the four-minute report, CNN correspondent Nick Paton Walsh went “undercover” amidst what the network described as the “deepening crisis in Venezuela” in order “to capture the desperation gripping the nation.”

The segment highlighted hyperinflation at grocery chains, Venezuelans lined up in queues for fuel and food, particularly in Caracas, and opposition demonstrations on January 23, when opposition leader Juan Guaido declared himself president of the country.

“This was the day when change was meant to come,” Walsh stated.

It suggested President Nicolas Maduro’s government has given “handouts” to Venezuelans for years to buy their loyalty, but now “handouts” are no longer enough. Opponents like to equate social programs to “handouts” because corporate elites favor de-nationalization and privatization of services.

Walsh interviewed a rank-and-file officer in the Venezuela military and granted him anonymity. The officer stated, “I would say 80 percent of soldiers are against the government. Some even go to demonstrations. But the big fishes, the senior officers, are the ones eating, getting rich while the bottom we have it hard.”

Video showed the opposition throwing stones at a military airfield in a standoff that apparently has lasted “for months.” One part of the barricade was on fire.

Sitting with his back against what appeared to be a concrete barricade, like he was part of the opposition hurling objects, Walsh declared, “They may be throwing stones here, but what they really need is the army to switch sides.”

Walsh offered no comment on what it would mean for democracy in Venezuela if the military played an instrumental role in helping Guaido and a U.S.-led group of countries oust Maduro.

Another part of the report featured street children in Caracas. A 14 year-old boy recounted how his brother was killed in July by a member of a gang. He said he has to go through the garbage for food and beg so he does not go hungry.

Walsh did not show a cause-and-effect relationship, yet the boy’s poverty was wryly attributed to a “socialist utopia that now leaves nearly every stomach empty.”

On the surface, the report may have seemed balanced and neutral because CNN spoke to citizens caught in the middle of the political crisis. Yet, there was no clips of the tens of thousands of Maduro supporters who marched through Caracas the same day that Guaido claimed he was the country’s interim president.

CNN also omitted the role of U.S. sanctions and other measures in making Venezuela’s economic recovery nearly impossible.

According to Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), sanctions did not create hyperinflation in the country. However, they have made it incredibly difficult for the government to restructure their debt for a recovery.

In 2017, weeks before the Trump administration imposed new sanctions, a former top State Department official predicted they would cause the government to “default on their bonds and a collapse of internal investment and oil production.” They would spur “civil unrest, refugee flows across their borders, and a cutoff of Venezuelan financial support to Cuba and Haiti that could lead to migration flows to the United States.” (Note: It was estimated in June 2018 that about 35,000 refugees were crossing from Venezuela to Colombia each day.)

The same day that CNN aired their report the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned the country’s state-owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA). The company is a “primary source of Venezuela’s income and foreign currency,” including U.S. dollars and Euros, according to the Department.

National security adviser John Bolton said the sanctions would block $7 billion in assets and result in the loss of $11 billion in proceeds from exports over the next year.

Even after the Trump administration announced oil sanctions, CNN still largely ignored the potential effect of sanctions when it aired this “undercover” report another time.

Oil sanctions are likely to intensify the suffering for Venezuelans, not make their lives better. In the 1990s, Iraq faced sanctions from the United Nations on their oil exports as well as restrictions on other foreign trade. To many, it was “one of the decade’s great crimes” because the sanctions contributed to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children.

In Iran, the poor bear the brunt of sanctions on oil that were re-imposed by the Trump administration. Financial Times reported in October on millions of Iranians, who were already stretched as “the value of the rial” had “plunged more than 70 per cent against the US dollar over the past year.”

“The sharp drop has pushed up import costs and stoked inflation, eroding purchasing power and leaving the most impoverished struggling to pay for basic goods such as meat, dairy products, and fruit,” FT noted.

As journalist Gregory Shupak previously highlighted for Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), “When Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in November 2017 proposed a meeting with creditors to discuss a restructuring of the country’s public debt, the Trump administration warned U.S. bondholders that attending this meeting could put them in violation of U.S. economic sanctions against Venezuela, which can be punished with 30 years in jail and as much as $10 million dollars in fines for businesses.”

“That same month, the U.S. government added further sanctions that prevent Venezuela from doing what governments routinely do with much of their debt, which is ‘roll it over’ by borrowing again when a bond matures. The sanctions also made it difficult if not impossible for Venezuela to undertake debt restructuring, a process wherein interest and principal payments are postponed and creditors receive new bonds, which the sanctions explicitly prohibit.”

Additionally, Francisco Rodriguez noted for Foreign Policy in 2018, “Ninety-five percent of Venezuela’s export revenue comes from oil sold by the state-owned oil company. Cutting off the government’s access to dollars will leave the economy without the hard currency needed to pay for imports of food and medicine. Starving the Venezuelan economy of its foreign currency earnings risks turning the country’s current humanitarian crisis into a full-blown humanitarian catastrophe.”

This is not the first time that the opposition in Venezuela has destroyed the economy to help it win power. Back in 2002, the same year that President Hugo Chavez faced a coup backed by the U.S. government, his opponents “called for a massive strike in the country’s oil sector.”

“The strike brought oil production to a standstill and caused a double-digit recession in an attempt to get Chavez to resign,” Rodriguez recalled. “This event single-handedly convinced Venezuelans that they could not trust a political movement that was willing to destroy the economy in order to attain power. In a recall referendum held two years later, voters resoundingly backed Chavez.”

None of this history seems to matter to CNN anchors, who subscribe to the Washington bipartisan foreign policy consensus on Venezuela. Nor do they mention that it is not only Maduro’s security forces that commit violence. The opposition was involved in lynchings, burning people alive, and erecting barricades that cause deadly accidents in 2017. Some opposition leaders, including exiles like Lorent Saleh, have ties to neo-fascists.

When CNN anchor Jim Sciutto introduced the report, he mentioned Guaido had again urged the people of Venezuela to “hit the streets to demand new elections” in an effort to oust Maduro. It is easy to see how playing the report after this statement might help gin up sympathy for Guaido’s calls to action.

But apparently there is reason to believe the opposition may have the support of leaders from several Latin American and Western countries but still be struggling to win over the people.

Walsh noted the country is not seeing daily mass street protests. Guaido’s message may be resonating with some of the middle class, but it is not a message that inspires those in the slums, who have their own “poverty-based fight.”

In other words, it is likely that lower classes in Venezuela remain skeptical of the opposition because they fear it will mean inviting outside corporate interests to raid government assets and natural resources so they may enrich themselves. This would potentially lead to cuts or an end to social welfare programs that they utilize to help them survive.

This skepticism toward the opposition among Venezuelans is not something CNN wants to feature in its limited coverage of the attempted coup. But it should be viewed as a key reason to doubt the consensus around support for the opposition, which news networks are working to manufacture.

Kevin Gosztola is managing editor of Shadowproof.

4 February 2019

Source: transcend.org

International Appeal: Stop 5G on Earth and in Space

By Arthur Firstenberg

To the UN, WHO, EU, Council of Europe and Governments of all nations:

We the undersigned scientists, doctors, environmental organizations and citizens from (__) countries, urgently call for a halt to the deployment of the 5G (fifth generation) wireless network, including 5G from space satellites. 5G will massively increase exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation on top of the 2G, 3G and 4G networks for telecommunications already in place. RF radiation has been proven harmful for humans and the environment. The deployment of 5G constitutes an experiment on humanity and the environment that is defined as a crime under international law.

Executive summary

Telecommunications companies worldwide, with the support of governments, are poised within the next two years to roll out the fifth-generation wireless network (5G). This is set to deliver what is acknowledged to be unprecedented societal change on a global scale. We will have “smart” homes, “smart” businesses, “smart” highways, “smart” cities and self-driving cars. Virtually everything we own and buy, from refrigerators and washing machines to milk cartons, hairbrushes and infants’ diapers, will contain antennas and microchips and will be connected wirelessly to the Internet. Every person on Earth will have instant access to super-high-speed, low- latency wireless communications from any point on the planet, even in rainforests, mid-ocean and the Antarctic.

What is not widely acknowledged is that this will also result in unprecedented environmental change on a global scale. The planned density of radio frequency transmitters is impossible to envisage. In addition to millions of new 5G base stations on Earth and 20,000 new satellites in space, 200 billion transmitting objects, according to estimates, will be part of the Internet of Things by 2020, and one trillion objects a few years later. Commercial 5G at lower frequencies and slower speeds was deployed in Qatar, Finland and Estonia in mid-2018. The rollout of 5G at extremely high (millimetre wave) frequencies is planned to begin at the end of 2018.

Despite widespread denial, the evidence that radio frequency (RF) radiation is harmful to life is already overwhelming. The accumulated clinical evidence of sick and injured human beings, experimental evidence of damage to DNA, cells and organ systems in a wide variety of plants and animals, and epidemiological evidence that the major diseases of modern civilization—cancer, heart disease and diabetes—are in large part caused by electromagnetic pollution, forms a literature base of well over 10,000 peer-reviewed studies.

If the telecommunications industry’s plans for 5G come to fruition, no person, no animal, no bird, no insect and no plant on Earth will be able to avoid exposure, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, to levels of RF radiation that are tens to hundreds of times greater than what exists today, without any possibility of escape anywhere on the planet. These 5G plans threaten to provoke serious, irreversible effects on humans and permanent damage to all of the Earth’s ecosystems.

Immediate measures must be taken to protect humanity and the environment, in accordance with ethical imperatives and international agreements.

5G will result in a massive increase in inescapable, involuntary exposure to wireless radiation

Ground-based 5G

In order to transmit the enormous amounts of data required for the Internet of Things (IoT), 5G technology, when fully deployed, will use millimetre waves, which are poorly transmitted through solid material. This will require every carrier to install base stations every 100 metres[1] in every urban area in the world. Unlike previous generations of wireless technology, in which a single antenna broadcasts over a wide area, 5G base stations and 5G devices will have multiple antennas arranged in “phased arrays” [2],[3] that work together to emit focused, steerable, laser-like beams that track each other.

Each 5G phone will contain dozens of tiny antennas, all working together to track and aim a narrowly focused beam at the nearest cell tower. The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted rules [4] permitting the effective power of those beams to be as much as 20 watts, ten times more powerful than the levels permitted for current phones.

Each 5G base station will contain hundreds or thousands of antennas aiming multiple laser-like beams simultaneously at all cell phones and user devices in its service area. This technology is called “multiple input multiple output” or MIMO. FCC rules permit the effective radiated power of a 5G base station’s beams to be as much as 30,000 watts per 100 MHz of spectrum,[4] or equivalently 300,000 watts per GHz of spectrum, tens to hundreds of times more powerful than the levels permitted for current base stations.

Space-based 5G

At least five companies[5] are proposing to provide 5G from space from a combined 20,000 satellites in low- and medium-Earth orbit that will blanket the Earth with powerful, focused, steerable beams. Each satellite will emit millimetre waves with an effective radiated power of up to 5 million watts[6] from thousands of antennas arranged in a phased array. Although the energy reaching the ground from satellites will be less than that from ground-based antennas, it will irradiate areas of the Earth not reached by other transmitters and will be additional to ground-based 5G transmissions from billions of IoT objects. Even more importantly, the satellites will be located in the Earth’s magnetosphere, which exerts a significant influence over the electrical properties of the atmosphere. The alteration of the Earth’s electromagnetic environment may be an even greater threat to life than the radiation from ground-based antennas (see below).

Harmful effects of radio frequency radiation are already proven

Even before 5G was proposed, dozens of petitions and appeals[7] by international scientists, including the Freiburger Appeal signed by over 3,000 physicians, called for a halt to the expansion of wireless technology and a moratorium on new base stations.[8]

In 2015, 215 scientists from 41 countries communicated their alarm to the United Nations (UN) and World Health Organization (WHO).[9] They stated that “numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF [electromagnetic fields] affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines”. More than 10,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies demonstrate harm to human health from RF radiation.[10] [11] Effects include:

  • Alteration of heart rhythm[12]
  • Altered gene expression[13]
  • Altered metabolism[14]
  • Altered stem cell development[15]
  • Cancers[16]
  • Cardiovascular disease[17]
  • Cognitive impairment[18]
  • DNA damage[19]
  • Impacts on general well-being[20]
  • Increased free radicals[21]
  • Learning and memory deficits[22]
  • Impaired sperm function and quality[23]
  • Miscarriage[24]
  • Neurological damage[25]
  • Obesity and diabetes[26]
  • Oxidative stress[27]

Effects in children include autism,[28] attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)[29][30] and asthma.[31]

Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is abundant evidence of harm to diverse plant- and wildlife[32][33] and laboratory animals, including:

  • Ants[34]
  • Birds[35][36]
  • Forests[37]
  • Frogs[38]
  • Fruit flies[39]
  • Honey bees[40]
  • Insects[41]
  • Mammals[42]
  • Mice[43][44]
  • Plants[45]
  • Rats[46]
  • Trees[47]

Negative microbiological effects[48] have also been recorded.

The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded in 2011 that RF radiation of frequencies 30 kHz – 300 GHz are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).[49] However, recent evidence, including the latest studies on cell phone use and brain cancer risks, indicate that RF radiation is proven carcinogenic to humans[50] and should now be classified as a “Group 1 carcinogen” along with tobacco smoke and asbestos.

Most contemporary wireless signals are pulse-modulated. Harm is caused by both the high-frequency carrier wave and the low-frequency pulsations.[51]

The deployment of 5G satellites must be prohibited

The Earth, the ionosphere and the lower atmosphere form the global electric circuit[52] in which we live. It is well established that biological rhythms—of humans,[53][54] birds,[55] hamsters,[56] and spiders[57][58]—are controlled by the Earth’s natural electromagnetic environment and that the well-being of all organisms depends on the stability of this environment, including the electrical properties of the atmosphere.[59][60][61][62] Cherry, in a groundbreaking paper, [63] explained the importance of the Schumann resonances[64] and why ionospheric disturbances can alter blood pressure and melatonin and cause “cancer, reproductive, cardiac and neurological disease and death”.

These elements of our electromagnetic environment have already been altered by radiation from power lines. Power line harmonic radiation[65] reaches the Earth’s ionosphere and magnetosphere, where it is amplified by wave-particle interactions.[66][67] In 1985, Dr. Robert O. Becker warned that power line harmonic radiation had already changed the structure of the magnetosphere, and that the continued expansion of this effect “threatens the viability of all life on Earth”.[68] The placement of tens of thousands of satellites directly in both the ionosphere and magnetosphere, emitting modulated signals at millions of watts and millions of frequencies, is likely to alter our electromagnetic environment beyond our ability to adapt.[69]

Informal monitoring has already provided evidence indicating serious effects on humans and animals from the approximately 100 satellites that have provided 2G and 3G phone service from low orbit since 1998. Such effects cannot be understood only from consideration of the low levels of radiation on the ground. Knowledge from other relevant scientific disciplines must be taken into account, including the fields of atmospheric physics and acupuncture.[70][71][72][73] Adding 20,000 5G satellites will further pollute the global electric circuit[74][75] and could alter the Schumann resonances,[76] with which all life on Earth has evolved. The effects will be universal and may be profoundly damaging.

5G is qualitatively and quantitatively different from 4G

The idea that we will tolerate tens to hundreds of times more radiation at millimetre wavelengths is based on faulty modelling of the human body as a shell filled with a homogeneous liquid.[77][78] The assumption that millimetre waves do not penetrate beyond the skin completely ignores nerves,[79] blood vessels[80][81] and other electrically conducting structures that can carry radiation-induced currents deep into the body.[82][83][84] Another, potentially more serious error is that phased arrays are not ordinary antennas. When an ordinary electromagnetic field enters the body, it causes charges to move and currents to flow. But when extremely short electromagnetic pulses enter the body, something else happens: the moving charges themselves become little antennas that reradiate the electromagnetic field and send it deeper into the body. These reradiated waves are called Brillouin precursors.[85] They become significant when either the power or the phase of the waves changes rapidly enough.[86] 5G will probably satisfy both criteria.

In addition, shallow penetration in itself poses a unique danger to eyes and to the largest organ of the body, the skin, as well as to very small creatures. Peer-reviewed studies have recently been published, predicting thermal skin burns[87] in humans from 5G radiation and resonant absorption by insects,[88] which absorb up to 100 times as much radiation at millimetre wavelengths as they do at wavelengths presently in use. Since populations of flying insects have declined by 75-80 per cent since 1989 even in protected nature areas,[89] 5G radiation could have catastrophic effects on insect populations worldwide. A 1986 study by Om Gandhi warned that millimetre waves are strongly absorbed by the cornea of the eye, and that ordinary clothing, being of millimetre-size thickness, increases the absorption of energy by the skin by a resonance-type effect.[90] Russell (2018) reviews the known effects of millimetre waves on skin, eyes (including cataracts), heart rate, immune system and DNA.[91]

Regulators have deliberately excluded the scientific evidence of harm

Stakeholders thus far in the development of 5G have been industry and governments, while renowned international EMF scientists who have documented biological effects on humans, animals, insects and plants, and alarming effects on health and the environment in thousands of peer-reviewed studies have been excluded. The reason for the current inadequate safety guidelines is that conflicts of interest of standard-setting bodies “due to their relationships with telecommunications or electric companies undermine the impartiality that should govern the regulation of Public Exposure Standards for non-ionizing radiation”. [92] Professor Emeritus Martin L. Pall lays out the conflicts of interest in detail, and the lists of important studies that have been excluded, in his literature review. [93]

The thermal hypothesis is obsolete—new safety standards are needed

Current safety guidelines are based on the obsolete hypothesis that heating is the only harmful effect of EMFs. As Markov and Grigoriev have stated, “Today standards do not consider the real pollution of the environment with nonionizing radiation”.[94] Hundreds of scientists, including many signatories to this appeal, have proven that many different kinds of acute and chronic illnesses and injuries are caused without heating (“non-thermal effect”) from radiation levels far below international guidelines.9 Biological effects occur even at near-zero power levels. Effects that have been found at 0.02 picowatts (trillionths of a watt) per square centimetre or less include altered genetic structure in E. coli[95] and in rats,[96] altered EEG in humans,[97] growth stimulation in bean plants,[98] and stimulation of ovulation in chickens.[99]

To protect against non-thermal effects, duration of exposure must be considered. 5G will expose everyone to many more transmissions simultaneously and continuously, day and night without cessation. New safety standards are needed and should be based on cumulative exposure and not only on power levels but also on frequency, bandwidth, modulation, waveform, pulse width and other properties that are biologically important. Antennas must be confined to specific, publicly identified locations. To protect humans, antennas must be located far from where people live and work, and excluded from the public rights-of-way where people walk. To protect wildlife, they must be excluded from wilderness sanctuaries and strictly minimized in remote areas of the Earth. To protect all life, commercial communications satellites must be limited in number and prohibited in low- and medium-Earth orbits. Phased arrays must be prohibited on Earth and in space.

RF radiation has both acute and chronic effects

RF radiation has both immediate and long-term effects. Cancer and heart disease are examples of long-term effects. Alteration of heart rhythm[100] and changes in brain function (EEG)[101] are examples of immediate effects. A syndrome that was called radiowave sickness[102] in the former Soviet Union and is called electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) around the world today[103] can be either acute or chronic. Professor Dr. Karl Hecht has published a detailed history of these syndromes, compiled from a review of more than 1,500 Russian scientific papers and the clinical histories of more than 1,000 of his own patients in Germany. Objective findings include sleep disorders, abnormal blood pressure and heart rate, digestive disorders, hair loss, tinnitus and skin rash. Subjective symptoms include dizziness, nausea, headache, memory loss, inability to concentrate, fatigue, flu-like symptoms and cardiac pain. [104]

The EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 states that EHS develops when people are “continuously exposed in their daily life” to increasing levels of EMFs, and that “reduction and prevention of EMF exposure” is necessary to restore these patients to health.[105] EHS should no longer be considered a disease, but an injury by a toxic environment that affects an increasingly large portion of the population, estimated already at 100 million people worldwide,[106][107] and that may soon affect everyone[108] if the worldwide rollout of 5G is permitted.

The International Scientific Declaration on EHS and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), Brussels, declared in 2015 that “[i]naction is a cost to society and is not an option any more… [W]e unanimously acknowledge this serious hazard to public health… [urgently requiring] that major primary prevention measures are adopted and prioritized, to face this worldwide pan-epidemic in perspective” (emphasis added).[109]

World governments are failing in their duty of care to the populations they govern

In their haste to implement 5G and to encourage the unconstrained use of outer space, the European Union, United States and national governments worldwide are taking steps to ensure a “barrier-free” regulatory environment.[110] They are prohibiting local authorities from enforcing environmental laws,[111] and “in the interest of speedy and cost-effective deployment”, removing “unnecessary burdens… such as local planning procedures [and] the variety of specific limits on electromagnetic field (EMF) emissions and of the methods required to aggregate them”.[112]

Governments are also enacting laws to make wireless facilities a permitted use in all public rights-of-way.[113] To date, most wireless facilities have been located on private property at some distance from homes and businesses. In order for them to be spaced less than 100 metres apart as required by 5G, however, they will now be located on the sidewalk directly in front of homes and businesses and close above the heads of pedestrians, including mothers with babies.

Public notice requirements and public hearings are being eliminated. Even if there were a hearing and 100 scientific experts were to testify against 5G, laws have been passed making it illegal for local authorities to take their testimony into consideration. US law, for example, prohibits local governments from regulating wireless technology “on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency radiation”,[114] and courts have reversed regulatory decisions about cell tower placement simply because most of the public testimony was about health.[115] Insurers will not provide coverage against EMF risks,[116] and there is zero clarity as to what entity will bear legal responsibility for damage to life, limb and property arising from exposure to 5G, whether ground- or space-based.[117]

In the absence of an agreed comprehensive legal regime governing activities in outer space, legal liability for those activities is non-existent, despite the prospect of whole continents, the atmosphere and the oceans being put at risk by them.

International agreements are being violated

Children and duty of care

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: States shall “undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being” (art. 3), “ensure… the survival and development of the child” (art. 6) and “take appropriate measures to combat disease… taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution” (art. 24(c)).

The Nuremberg Code (1949) applies to all experiments on humans, thus including the deployment of 5G with new, higher RF radiation exposure that has not been pre-market tested for safety. “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential” (art. 1). Exposure to 5G will be involuntary. “No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur” (art. 5). The findings of over 10,000 scientific studies and the voices of hundreds of international organizations representing hundreds of thousands of members who have suffered disabling injury and been displaced from their homes by already-existing wireless telecommunications facilities, are “a priori reasons to believe that death or disabling injury will occur”.

Duty to inform and EMFs

The World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (2012) of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) stated that “[t]here is a need to inform the public of the potential effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs)” and invited Member States “to adopt suitable measures in order to ensure compliance with relevant international recommendations to protect health against the adverse effect of EMF”.

The Mid-term review of the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010 (2008): “The European Parliament… [n]otes that the limits on exposure to electromagnetic fields which have been set for the general public are obsolete, … obviously take no account of developments in information and communication technologies, of the recommendations issued by the European Environment Agency or of the stricter emission standards adopted, for example, by Belgium, Italy and Austria, and do not address the issue of vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women, newborn babies and children.”

Resolution 1815 (Council of Europe, 2011): “Take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposure to children and young people.”

Environment

The Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (1972): “The discharge of toxic substances… in such quantities or concentrations as to exceed the capacity of the environment to render them harmless, must be halted in order to ensure that serious or irreversible damage is not inflicted upon ecosystems” (principle 6).

The World Charter for Nature (1982): “Activities which are likely to cause irreversible damage to nature shall be avoided… [W]here potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activities should not proceed” (art. 11).

The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992): “States have… the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction” (principle 2).

The United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002): “There is an urgent need to… create more effective national and regional policy responses to environmental threats to human health” (para. 54(k)).

The African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (2017): “The Parties shall… take all appropriate measures to prevent, mitigate and eliminate to the maximum extent possible, detrimental effects on the environment, in particular from radioactive, toxic, and other hazardous substances and wastes” (art. 13).

Health and human rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” (art. 3).

The United Nations Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health(2016-2030) has as objectives and targets to “transform”, by expanding enabling environments; to “survive”, by reducing maternal and newborn mortality; and to “thrive” by ensuring health and well-being and reducing pollution-related deaths and illnesses.

Space

The Outer Space Treaty (1967) requires that the use of outer space be conducted “so as to avoid [its] harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth”(art. IX).

The United Nations Guidelines for The Long-Term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities (2018): “States and international intergovernmental organizations should address… risks to people, property, public health and the environment associated with the launch, in-orbit operation and re-entry of space objects” (guideline 2.2(c)).

World governments are playing dice with life on Earth

Albert Einstein famously asserted that “God does not play dice”.[118] Yet by pursuing the broadcast on Earth and from space of 5G, an unprecedented technology of millimetre waves previously used as an energy weapon in military operations and crowd control,[119] world governments are recklessly playing dice with the future of life on Earth.

To refuse to accept and apply relevant and valid scientific knowledge is ethically unacceptable. Existing research shows that 5G—and especially space-based 5G—contravenes principles enshrined in a host of international agreements.
We call upon the UN, WHO, EU, Council of Europe and governments of all nations,

1. (a) To take immediate measures to halt the deployment of 5G on Earth and in space in order to protect all humankind, especially the unborn, infants, children, adolescents and pregnant women, as well as the environment;

2. (b) To follow the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and Council of Europe Resolution 1815 by informing citizens, including teachers and physicians, about the health risks (to adults and children) from RF radiation, and why they should and how they can avoid wireless communication and base stations, particularly in or near day-care centres, schools, hospitals, homes and workplaces;

3. (c) To favour and implement wired telecommunications instead of wireless;

4. (d) To prohibit the wireless/telecommunications industry through its lobbying organizations from persuading officials to make decisions permitting further expansion of RF radiation, including ground- and space-based 5G;

5. (e) To appoint immediately—without industry influence—international groups of independent, truly impartial EMF and health scientists with no conflicts of interest, [120] for the purpose of establishing new international safety standards for RF radiation that are not based only on power levels, that consider cumulative exposure, and that protect against all health and environmental effects, not just thermal effects and not just effects on humans;

6. (f) To appoint immediately—without industry influence—international groups of scientists with expertise in EMFs, health, biology and atmospheric physics, for the purpose of developing a comprehensive regulatory framework that will ensure that the uses of outer space are safe for humans and the environment, taking into account RF radiation, rocket exhaust gases, black soot, and space debris and their impacts on ozone, [121] global warming, [122] the atmosphere and the preservation of life on Earth. Not only ground-based but also space-based technology must be sustainable [123] for adults and children, animals and plants.

Please respond to the Appeal Administrator listed below,

detailing the measures you intend to take to protect the global population against RF radiation exposure, especially 5G radiation. This appeal and your response will be publicly available on www.5gSpaceAppeal.org.

Respectfully submitted,

Arthur Firstenberg, Appeal Administrator, info@5gSpaceAppeal.org

4 February 2019

Source: transcend.org

Big lie technique alive and well on CBC’s Power and Politics…or at least a lot of ignorance is

By Jim Miles

Canada’s CBC talk show, Power and Politics, hosted by Vassy Kapelos, demonstrated today (Friday, February 01, 2019) the usage of the big lie technique for disseminating news about Venezuela. At the same time some of it could be simple ignorance, stating an supposed ‘fact’ when that simply is not the case. The Power and Politics panel are mostly frequent pundits on the show, but are not necessarily experts on anything but their own opinions,.

It started with comments rather interestingly concerning Canada’s Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland, wanting to “legitimate an American stance”. This was combined with comments about an “emerging international” consensus against Maduro. Also included in the discussion were the usual comments about a “barely functioning democracy” and how the Chavistas have “Drive this country into the ground.” Further it was noted that anyone against government change was not “on the side of democracy.”

All well and good except for a full lack of context and some outright lies, mainly by dissimulation. The missing context includes the several decades of U.S. interference in Venezuela’s affairs. An attempted and sort of successful coup against Chavez in 2002 was backed by the U.S. with its contacts with the right wing backers of the coup. Sanctions placed on Venezuela have restricted its ability to work through the U.S. dominated and controlled global financial network.

The U.S.’ main interest is not the people of Venezuela nor democracy. It is, as per John Bolton, access to Venezuela’s oil and other mineral riches currently denied to U.S.corporations. If the U.S. was truly interested in democracy, the Saudi tribal theocracy would have gone long ago – but in reference to oil, it is Saudi oil supporting the U.S. petrodollar so no need to worry about democracy.

Another big lie technique is the argument an “emerging international consensus” or as stated even more unequivocally by PM Trudeau last night, Maduro was illegitimate “in the eyes of the world.” Perhaps the ‘Five Eyes’ but not Italy, or Greece, or Turkey – all EU and NATO compatriots – nor in the eyes of China, Russia, India, Mexico, Uruguay (the latter being the most democratic South American country) and many others, comprising more than half the world’s population. But what’s a few billion people statistically speaking….

Later in the show, Kapelos hosted Eric Farnsworth, a former U.S. State Department employee, currently Vice President of the Council of the Americas. This council is comprised of ex-politicos and many business men and women from the financial, energy, mining, manufacturing, media, technology and transportations corporations. Included among its notables is John D. Negroponte, the Honduran ambassador who ignored Honduras’ human rights abuses while targeting the Guatemalan government with the Contras.

To his credit, Farnsworth did not beat the drums by advocating military action, but did reiterate the “all options” mantra of the U.S. government, and then qualifying that by saying he thought military action was “unlikely”. However, when questioned about U.S.history in the region – and as any well read person knows the CIA, covert operators, and militaries and paramilitaries trained at WHINSEC, have attacked in different ways just about every country in Latin America – he acknowledged that yes “we do have a history” without specifying any of it. He then backtracked and said we “must separate from history” due to the nature of the problems in Venezuela.

Unfortunately that “history” gives full lie to the democracy arguments as indicated immediately above, all democratic governments in Latin America that have worked to have an independent foreign policy and to control their own resources, and to use them to benefit the people and not the corporations, have been overthrown by the U.S.. Greg Grandin’s “Empire’s Workshop – Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism.” Metropolitan (Henry Holt & Co.), New York, 2006, is a good starter reference for this along with most material from the late William Blum, but especially “Killing Hope – U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II.” Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine, 1995.

Farnsworth’s final comments concerned the Lima Group – a group of nations all having recently been turned over by U.S. actions of some sort, except Columbia which has been a long standing war base for U.S. operations in the region. Canada was lightly praised as it “plays an important role” in actions against Venezuela, which is to say it supports the U.S.empire in its quest to control the oil resources of the world (among other resources) in order to sustain the highly indebted U.S. petrodollar.

Thus the CBC continues its editorial policy of supporting the U.S. in its global desires. Every now and then it advertises itself, a recent spot saying, “when there are multiple sides to a story, we cover them all.” Only in Edwin Abbott’s “Flatland”.

Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist of opinion pieces and book reviews for The Palestine Chronicle. Miles’ work is also presented globally through other alternative websites and news publications.

2 February 2019

Source: countercurrents.org

An open letter to Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada

By The Global Afrikan Congress

  • declaring opposition to his agreement with intervention in the internal affairs of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (República Bolivariana de Venezuela); and
  • urging him to facilitate negotiations between the Venezuelan government and its opponents that will allow Venezuela to continue on its visionary path of genuine peace fostered by social and economic justice.

29 January 2019

The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, P.C., M.P.
Prime Minister of Canada
justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca

Dear Prime Minister,

What would your Daddy say?

Your father, the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau, was known as a friend and supporter of Fidel Castro and his revolutionary vision of transforming Cuba into a democracy led by and for the people, where informed citizens could live lives of political and social self-determination.

Canada stood in firm opposition to the U.S. led sanctions on Cuba. We are sure that your father supported that opposition.

We acknowledge that, to its credit and consistent with its history, Canada has been working with Peru, Colombia, Brazil, Argentina and Chile to resolve the current crisis in Venezuela. However, stating support for a person who declares himself to be President of Venezuela is not consistent with Canada’s history of supporting democratic action, in general and its commitment to the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS) which requires the “pacific settlement of disputes between members”.

Prime Minister, we wonder what your Daddy would say if he knew what you have done.

What would your “Gramma” say?

You have been quoted as saying that you “loved your grandmother – the late Kathleen Sinclair – immensely.” Her husband was a Cabinet colleague of the then-Secretary of State for External Affairs, Lester B. Pearson. As you know, Pearson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his actions in getting a United Nations Emergency Force sent to Egypt to avert a major war in the region.

We believe your grandmother would have been supportive of Pearson’s actions. Those actions stand in stark contrast to your implied support of Trump-style (U.S. led) military intervention into Venezuela.

The Raging Grannies are peace activists who formed their first group in BC, the beloved home of your grandmother. While it is unlikely that your grandmother was one of the Raging Grannies, we’d like to believe that she would have been with them in spirit.

We wonder what the Raging Grannies and your grandmother would say to you now.

What would Paul Martin and other past PMs say?

One similarity between you and former PM Paul Martin, Jr. that stands out is the passion that both of you bring to indigenous issues; attempting to redress a long and dishonourable history in North America with respect to indigenous peoples.

Prime Minister, you appear to be committed to achieving negotiated settlements with indigenous peoples that allow for self-determination. Your actions parallel Mr. Martin’s success in negotiating the Kelowna Accord, for example. An accord that was reversed by the succeeding Harper government.

The principle of support for self-determination seems to have abandoned you with respect to the Venezuelan people, many of whom are indigenous. The double standard puzzles us. We think Mr. Martin would be similarly puzzled.

U.S. President Kennedy informed PM John Diefenbaker about photographs of construction of several nuclear missile sites in Cuba and requested that Canada join the U.S. in raising its military status to crisis level. Diefenbaker doubted the intelligence that he was provided and recommended that independent United Nations inspectors survey the Cuban missile sites. Kennedy was angry that Diefenbaker did not immediately go along with the U.S. position.

Similarly, PM Jean Chretien demonstrated that Canada was not the 51st state of America. He refused to commit to military action in Iraq without a resolution from the UN Security Council in part because he was not persuaded that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, as U.S. President Bush was asserting.

Prime Minister, Canada is not the 51st state. Diefenbaker knew it. Chretien knew it. Both acted after careful consideration of the facts and in a way that demonstrated respect for Canada’s recognition of the UN as the agency to lead action in potential international conflicts.

What are the women around you saying?

Over 70 academics, political scientists, historians, filmmakers, civil society leaders, and other experts published an open letter condemning intervention by the United States in Venezuela. Code Pink co-founder, Medea Benjamin, was one of the 70 people, along with several other highly respected women.

The corporate media – left and right – have been spectacularly silent connecting your response on Venezuela to the December agreement allowing Russia to mine Venezuelan gold. They have been spectacularly silent about the history of the U.S. to gain control of Venezuelan oil. They have been spectacularly silent about the U.S. failed attempt to depose Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in 2002 or that the attempted coup was managed by Elliott Abrams, who has now been appointed by Trump as U.S. Special Envoy for Venezuela.

Prime Minister, you have been a supporter of women and have called yourself a feminist. You have appointed a remarkable number of women to senior posts in your government.

The horrendously negative impact of the crisis in Venezuela, as happens in virtually all similar crises throughout history, falls disproportionately on women and children.

We have no way of knowing what you think of the position taken in opposition to yours by brilliant women like Ms. Benjamin. We wonder about what the women around you are saying.

What were you thinking?

Some years ago, U.S. President Barack Obama mused out loud about the possibility of taking military action to oust Syrian President Assad. Donald Trump – still some years away from becoming President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States – tweeted “TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA – IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!” Wise counsel from the Donald. President Obama eventually decided against such intervention.

Now when he is in power, President Trump is speaking out of the other side of his mouth with respect to Venezuela.

William Faulkner wrote: “I know now that what makes a fool is an inability to take even his own good advice.” Trump gave good advice to President Obama, although written disrespectfully. He should take his own earlier advice about Syria and apply it to Venezuela. Prime Minister, so should you.

We wonder what you are thinking when you adopt Trump’s position today.

Prime Minister, we were shocked to learn that you endorsed Juan Guaido as president of Venezuela. Señor Guaido declared himself to be president. Señor Guaido did not even run in the election at which millions chose Nicolas Maduro from a competitive field of four. Prime Minister, you are endorsing a coup. Have you given a moment’s thought to how you would have responded if someone had declared himself Liberal Party Leader after your landslide victory in 2015?

Prime Minister, you have been very clear that Canada should have a robust working and middle class. Many of Canada’s people were affected by the sanctions – ‘economic aggression’ is a better term – imposed on Canada by Donald Trump. The continuing crisis in Venezuela is the direct result of various forms of trade barriers, tariffs and restrictions on essentials like food, health care products and medicine. Prime Minister, we cannot believe you do not see the parallels. Prime Minister, what are you thinking when you adopt Trump’s position on Venezuela?

Here’s what we say!

Prime Minister, we urge you to return to Canada’s long-established policy and practice of facilitating negotiated settlements in international crisis situations. In particular, we urge you to facilitate negotiations between the Venezuelan government and its opponents that will allow Venezuela to continue on its visionary path of genuine peace fostered by social and economic justice.

Respectfully,

Cikiah Thomas
Chair
Global Afrikan Congress (North America)

The Global Afrikan Congress is an international network of Pan-Afrikanist and Afrikan-centred organizations and individuals who are committed to building linkages and genuine and permanent relationships across the Afrikan world. We aim to mobilize the human, economic, political, spiritual and cultural resources of Afrika and the Afrikan Diaspora in the interests and to the benefit, of Afrika and her scattered daughters and sons. The International Working Committee is the governing body of the GAC and comprises representatives from throughout the Afrikan world.

The GAC recognizes that Afrikans and Afrikan descendants continue to suffer post-traumatic slavery syndrome, internalized oppression, inter-generational trauma, racism, captivity, slavery, wage slavery, prison slavery, and other forms of dehumanization, and have proclaimed a profound determination to achieve their absolute freedom.

The GAC Constitution and By-Laws were adopted in October, 2004, at the GAC Constitutional Conference and Family Gathering held in Paramaribo, Suriname.

31 January 2019

Source: countercurrents.org

Trump Cranks up the Miseries of the People of Venezuela

By Jesse Jackson

It is a time for diplomacy and for restraint, not another intervention that unleashes violence that we surely will come to regret

President Trump apparently has decided that intervention in Venezuela’s agonies can help repair an image scarred by the government shutdown debacle.

In recent days, he recognized an obscure, right-wing opposition leader when he declared himself acting president. Trump has blustered that “I am not going to rule out a military option.” Mike Pompeo, his secretary of state told the world’s nations to “pick a side” in the internal Venezuelan standoff.

Trump is ratcheting up sanctions, increasing the miseries inflicted on the Venezuelan people. And most recently, he named as point person for Venezuela the notorious Elliott Abrams, ardent advocate of dictators and war criminals, a cheerleader for virtually every catastrophic U.S. intervention from Reagan’s covert war on Nicaragua to the Bush’s invasion of Iraq, and a convicted perjurer (withholding information about the Iran-Contra scandal).

This is like putting Al Capone in charge of enforcing law and order.

Venezuela is in deep crisis. Inflation is soaring, the currency is in free fall, corruption is crippling. Oil—it has the largest known reserves in the world—is its blessing and curse. For decades, the rapacious elite pocketed the wealth, leaving the vast majority in poverty.

When a popularly elected president, Hugo Chavez, took over oil production, redistributed land and provided greater resources for health care, food and housing for the poor, the elites sought to overthrow him in a 2002 failed coup — one the U.S. shamefully supported (including Abrams as a member of the Bush National Security Council).

When the price of oil plummeted, the economy went into crisis; government mismanagement and corruption made things worse. Millions have fled the country. The opposition exacerbated the situation by refusing to recognize the 2013 electoral victory of Nicolas Maduro, sponsoring violent attacks, boycotting future elections and calling for military and foreign interventions. The agonies were worsened by U.S. economic sanctions, illegal under treaties of the Organization of American States and the UN.

Now, the U.S., joined by a significant number of Latin American countries as well as an increasing number of European allies, is calling for Maduro to resign and for new elections.

Abrams’ appointment signals that the pressure will be ramped up even more. Most likely, Trump will follow the textbook used in the overthrow of Chile’s democratically elected leader, Salvador Allende. Then U.S. sanctions were tightened to “make the economy scream.” Covert efforts were made to enlist generals to overthrow the president.

The CIA helped fuel strikes and demonstrations from the opposition. The result was the Augusto Pinochet dictatorship that consolidated itself with savage brutality.

The U.S. has a long sordid history of regime change—military and covert interventions aimed at overthrowing governments — in Latin America, a record that belies our proclamations about international law and a rule based global order. We would do well to avoid adding to that regrettable record.

Last week, an open letter signed by 70 scholars and other experts on Latin America called on the Trump administration to “cease interfering in Venezuela’s internal politics, especially for the purpose of overthrowing the country’s government.” Given how polarized the country is, the experts argued, “the only solution is a negotiated settlement.”

They called on the U.S. and outside countries to support negotiations between the government and its opponents, rather than to risk fostering a coup that might plunge the country into further violence.

It is a time for diplomacy and for restraint, not another intervention that unleashes violence that we surely will come to regret.

Jesse Jackson is an African-American civil rights activist and Baptist minister.

31 January 2019

Source: countercurrents.org

Your Complete Guide to the N.Y. Times’ Support of U.S.-Backed Coups in Latin America

By Adam Johnson

A survey of The New York Times archives shows the Times editorial board has supported 10 out of 12 American-backed coups in Latin America

On Friday, The New York Times continued its long, predictable tradition of backing U.S. coups in Latin America by publishing an editorial praising Donald Trump’s attempt to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. This will be the 10th such coup the paper has backed since the creation of the CIA over 70 years ago.

A survey of The New York Times archives shows the Times editorial board has supported 10 out of 12 American-backed coups in Latin America, with two editorials—those involving the 1983 Grenada invasion and the 2009 Honduras coup—ranging from ambiguous to reluctant opposition. The survey can be viewed here.

Covert involvement of the United States, by the CIA or other intelligence services, isn’t mentioned in any of the Times’ editorials on any of the coups. Absent an open, undeniable U.S. military invasion (as in the Dominican Republic, Panama and Grenada), things seem to happen in Latin American countries entirely on their own, with outside forces rarely, if ever, mentioned in the Times. Obviously, there are limits to what is “provable” in the immediate aftermath of such events (covert intervention is, by definition, covert), but the idea that the U.S. or other imperial actors could have stirred the pot, funded a junta or run weapons in any of the conflicts under the table is never entertained.

More often than not, what one is left with, reading Times editorials on these coups, are racist, paternalistic “cycle of violence” cliches. Sigh, it’s just the way of things Over There. When reading these quotes, keep in mind the CIA supplied and funded the groups that ultimately killed these leaders:

  • Brazil 1964: “They have, throughout their history, suffered from a lack of first class rulers.”
  • Chile 1973: “No Chilean party or faction can escape some responsibility for the disaster, but a heavy share must be assigned to the unfortunate Dr. Allende himself.”
  • Argentina 1976: “It was typical of the cynicism with which many Argentines view their country’s politics that most people in Buenos Aires seemed more interested in a soccer telecast Tuesday night than in the ouster of President Isabel Martinez de Perlin by the armed forces. The script was familiar for this long‐anticipated coup.”

See, it didn’t matter! It’s worth pointing out the military junta put in power by the CIA-contrived coup killed 10,000 to 30,000 Argentines from 1976 to 1983.

There’s a familiar script: The CIA and its U.S. corporate partners come in, wage economic warfare, fund and arm the opposition, then the target of this operation is blamed. This, of course, isn’t to say there isn’t merit to some of the objections being raised by The New York Times—whether it be Chile in 1973 or Venezuela in 2019. But that’s not really the point. The reason the CIA and U.S. military and its corporate partisans historically target governments in Latin America is because those governments are hostile to U.S. capital and strategic interests, not because they are undemocratic. So while the points the Times makes about illiberalism may sometimes be true, they’re mostly a non sequitur when analyzing the reality of what’s unfolding.

Did Allende, as the Times alleged in 1973 when backing his violent overthrow, “persist in pushing a program of pervasive socialism” without a “popular mandate”? Did, as the Times alleged, Allende “pursue this goal by dubious means, including attempts to bypass both Congress and the courts”? Possibly. But Allende’s supposed authoritarianism isn’t why the CIA sought his ouster. It wasn’t his means of pursuing redistributive policies that offended the CIA and U.S. corporate partners; it was the redistributive policies themselves.

Hand-wringing over the anti-democratic nature of how Allende carried out his agenda without noting that it was the agenda itself—not the means by which it was carried out—that animated his opponents is butting into a conversation no one in power is really having. Why, historically, has The New York Times taken for granted the liberal pretexts for U.S. involvement, rather than analyzing whether there were possibly other, more cynical forces at work?

The answer is that rank ideology is baked into the premise. The idea that the U.S. is motivated by human rights and democracy is taken for granted by The New York Times editorial board and has been since its inception. This does all the heavy lifting without most people—even liberals vaguely skeptical of American motives in Latin America—noticing that a sleight of hand has taken place. “In recent decades,” a 2017 Times editorial scolding Russia asserted, “American presidents who took military action have been driven by the desire to promote freedom and democracy, sometimes with extraordinary results.” Oh, well, good then.

What should be a conversation about American military and its covert apparatus unduly meddling in other countries quickly becomes a referendum on the moral properties of those countries. Theoretically a good conversation to have (and one certainly ongoing among people and institutions in these countries), but absent a discussion of the merits of the initial axiom—that U.S. talking heads and the Washington national security apparatus have a birthright to determine which regimes are good and bad—it serves little practical purpose stateside beyond posturing. And often, as a practical matter, it works to cement the broader narrative justifying the meddling itself.

Do the U.S. and its allies have a moral or ethical right to determine the political future of Venezuela? This question is breezed past, and we move on to the question of how this self-evident authority is best exercised. This is the scope of debate in The New York Times—and among virtually all U.S. media outlets. To ante up in the poker game of Serious People Discussing Foreign Policy Seriously, one is obligated to register an Official Condemnation of the Official Bad Regime. This is so everyone knows you accept the core premises of U.S. regime change but oppose it on pragmatic or legalistic grounds. It’s a tedious, extortive exercise designed to shift the conversation away from the United States’ history of arbitrary and violent overthrows and into an exchange about how best to oppose the Official Bad Regime in question. U.S. liberals are to keep a real-time report card on these Official Bad Regimes, and if these regimes—due to an ill-defined rubric of un-democraticness and human rights—fall below a score of say, “60,” they become illegitimate and unworthy of defense as such.

While obviously not in Latin America, it’s also worth noting that the Times cheerledthe CIA-sponsored coup against Iran’s President, Mohammad Mossadegh, in 1953. Its editorial, written two days after his ouster, engaged in the Times’ patented combination of victim-blaming and “oh dear” bloviating:

  • “The now-deposed Premier Mossadegh was flirting with Russia. He had won his phony plebiscite to dissolve the Majlis, or lower House of Parliament, with the aid of the Tudeh Communists.”
  • “Mossadegh is out, a prisoner awaiting trial. It is a credit to the Shah, to whom he was so disloyal, and to Premier Zahedi, that this rabid, self-seeking nationalist would have been protected at a time when his life would not have been worth the wager of a plugged nickel.”
  • “The Shah … deserves praise in this crisis. … He was always true to the parliamentary institutions of his country, he was a moderating influence in the wild fanaticism exhibited by the nationalists under Mossadegh, and he was socially progressive.”

Again, no mention of CIA involvement (which the agency now openly acknowledges), which the Times wouldn’t necessarily have had any way of knowing at the time. (This is part of the point of covert operations.) Mossadegh is summarily demonized, and it’s not until decades later the public learns of the extent of U.S. involvement. The Times even gets in an orientalist description of Iranians, implying why a strong Shah is necessary:

[The average Iranian] has nothing to lose. He is a man of infinite patience, of great charm and gentleness, but he is also—as we have been seeing—a volatile character, highly emotional, and violent when sufficiently aroused.

Needless to say, there are major difference between these cases: Mossadegh, Allende, Chavez and Maduro all lived in radically different times and championed different policies, with varying degrees of liberalism and corruption. But the one thing they all had in common is that the U.S. government, and a compliant U.S. media, decided they “needed to go” and did everything to achieve this end. The fundamental arrogance of this assumption, one would think, is what ought to be discussed in the U.S. media—as typified by the Times’ editorial board—but time and again, this assumption is either taken for granted or hand-waved away, and we all move on to how and when we can best overthrow the Bad Regime.

For those earnestly concerned about Maduro’s efforts to undermine the democratic institutions of Venezuela (he’s been accused of jailing opponents, stacking the courts and holding Potemkin elections), it’s worth pointing out that even when the liberal democratic properties of Venezuela were at their height in 2002 (they were internationally sanctioned and overseen by the Carter Center for years, and no serious observer considers Hugo Chavez’s rule illegitimate), the CIA still greenlit a military coup against Chavez, and the New York Times still profusely praised the act. As it wrote at the time:

With yesterday’s resignation of President Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator. Mr. Chávez, a ruinous demagogue, stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader, Pedro Carmona.

Chavez would soon be restored to power after millions took to the streets to protest his removal from office, but the question remains: If The New York Times was willing to ignore the undisputed will of the Venezuelan people in 2002, what makes anyone think the newspaper is earnestly concerned about it in 2019? Again, the thing that’s being objected to by the White House, the State Department and their U.S. imperial apparatchiks is the redistributive policies and opposition to the United States’ will, not the means by which they do so. Perhaps the Times and other U.S. media—living in the heart of, and presumably having influence over, this empire—could try centering this reality rather than, for the millionth time, adjudicating the moral properties of the countries subject to its violent, illegitimate whims.

Originally published by Truthdig

Adam Johnson is a New York-based journalist, a contributing analyst for FAIR.org,and co-host of the Citations Needed podcast.

31 January 2019

Source: countercurrents.org

Venezuela’s oil and the geopolitics of the US-backed coup

By Gabriel Black

The United States has steadily escalated its regime change operation in Venezuela, seeking to remove Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro by means of a coup d’état driven by crippling economic sanctions tantamount to a state of war and the continuous threat of outright US military intervention.

The aim is to install the US puppet, Juan Guaidó, who in December traveledto the United States to discuss the operation with the Trump Administration.

Guaidó, an operative of Voluntad Popular, a right-wing party funded by the USAID and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has bipartisan support from Democrats and the Republicans. He been presented in the media as a kind of freedom fighter and champion of democracy against Maduro, a dictator and force of evil. As Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated in a speech last Saturday, warning other governments at the United Nations, “Either you stand with the forces of freedom, or you’re in league with Maduro and his mayhem.”

Beneath Washington’s tired and hypocritical invocation of “freedom” and “democracy” lies the real motives for a coup that could quickly spiral into civil war and armed intervention.

Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves of any country in the world—several billion barrels more than Saudi Arabia. This valuable prize is not simply a source of profit, but a critical geopolitical piece in the growing conflict between the US and China—especially in light of growing fears that the oil markets could soon tighten.

On Monday, the Trump Administration tried to stop the flow of oil revenues to the Maduro government by halting all US payments to the state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA). Venezuela sends 41 percent of its oil exports to the US and is heavily reliant on this trade for its revenue.

Washington’s aims were nakedly expressed by National Security Adviser John Bolton who told Fox News on Monday that, with a successful coup, “It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela.”

For that to happen would require the reversal of Venezuela’s nationalization of its oil industry, which took place more than four decades ago—long before the advent of Maduro or his predecessor, Hugo Chávez—and the transformation of the country into an open semi-colony of US imperialism and Big Oil.

The latest US bid to strangle the flow of Venezuelan oil revenue—described by some economic analysts as the “nuclear option”—follows several years of collapse in the Venezuelan oil industry. Crude production fell from almost 3 million barrels per day (mb/d) to 1.5 mb/d late last year—with some predicting it will plummet to 800,000 b/d this year.

Venezuela’s extra-heavy crude oil, located in the Orinoco Belt, while voluminous, is extremely expensive to produce. Similar to Canada’s tar sands, it can only be profitably produced at a relatively low rate of extraction. In order to turn extra heavy oil, or tar sands, into usable crude, Venezuela must import a large volume of light oil from the United States to blend with its crude in an energy-intensive refining process.

These underlying geophysical realities complicate and intensify the economic crisis facing the national-bourgeois regime of Maduro. Like Chavez before him, Maduro relies on these oil revenues for the limited social-programs that has allowed his regime to falsely posture as the proponent of “Bolivarian Socialism,” while guaranteeing the property and profits of both domestic and foreign capital.

Venezuela, like many other oil-producing countries suffers from over reliance on the commodity. When a country relies heavily on a valuable export-oriented resource, the influx of foreign currency can lead to general inflation and prioritize investment in that extractive resource over all other sections of the economy. This inevitably leads to the slowing down of other sections of the economy, especially industry and manufacturing, unless radical measures are taken to halt the process.

Venezuela has experienced several spiraling economic crises due to this process, as far back as the 1920’s. This time, the insufficient capital of the Venezuelan regime and the volatile price of oil has prevented the government from making the necessary and costly investments in its heavy-oil fields to keep production stable.

The prospect of a protracted regime-change operation leading to the temporary withdrawal of Venezuelan crude from global oil markets does not bother the United States and its allies because US crude oil production, along with the steady growth of tight-oil and shale gas, will make up for any shortfall. However, Venezuela’s reserves are still seen as critical for the long-term economic and geopolitical stability of the United States for two reasons.

The first is that Venezuela has recently undertaken plans to intensify its collaboration with the Chinese state and Chinese oil companies. Venezuela owes around $20 billion to China—making the country one of its largest creditors—and it has already paid $40 billion of another loan back to China using oil exports as the method of payment. Chinese petroleum companies have taken large shares in various ventures in Venezuela as well with the intention of halting the downward spiral of the industry and sending oil back to China.

China’s oil production amounts to 3.5 mb/d and does not begin to meet its nearly 15 mb/d in consumption of petroleum. Unlike the United States, China has no significant shale formations. This lack of oil has pressured the Chinese ruling class to desperately seek oil abroad. On the other side, the United States understands that strategically holding—either through alliance or direct ownership—the world’s major oil fields would cripple the Chinese economy in the event of conflict. Thus, oil rich countries like Venezuela and Gadaffi’s Libya, both of which entertained Chinese and Russian oil investment, are seen by the US as major targets.

A second reason why Venezuela’s oil is of particular importance is that, though it is expensive, it could help meet an expected supply-demand gap that will emerge later this decade. The International Energy Agency believes that the world needs to spend at least $640 billion every year to keep production at adequate levels; however, spending in the industry is well below that, at $430 billion.

Currently, hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in the United States has been able to supply markets —however, even if there is a significant economic recession in the coming years, new oil, like Venezuela’s, needs heavy investments to fill the gap. Should the US-backed coup succeed, companies like Exxon, which have historically controlled Venezuela’s oil, would be brought back in to invest and control the resource.

There is nothing new about the United States’ desire to control the flow of Venezuelan oil. Prior to nationalization in the 1970s, various Western companies dominated Venezuela’s oil wealth. Beginning with Royal Dutch Shell (an Anglo-Dutch venture) in the early part of the 20th century and ending with the antecedents of modern-day Exxon Mobil (Standard Oil, Exxon, and Mobil) prior to nationalization, Venezuela’s oil has long been dominated by foreign capital.

In the early 1970’s, Venezuela was a close ally of the United States in Latin America. In 1976, under the presidency of Carlos Andrés Pérez, the country’s oil was officially nationalized and Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) was created as the state oil company. Venezuela’s oil nationalization gave much more generous terms to Western oil relative to other OPEC members.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a second major economic downturn occurred, again bound up with the economy’s over-reliance on oil and the resultant economic woes. It was out of this economic crisis, and the mass popular revolt against austerity measures known as the Caracazo, that former Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez first emerged as a national figure, leading an abortive coup in 1992 and being elected as president in 1998.

Chavez pursued social reforms that improved the standard of living, at first, of a section of the working class—largely funded by oil revenues. However, Chavez, a bourgeois nationalist, did not in any way represent the working class or advance its struggle for control over production and society. On the contrary, he spoke for a layer of businessmen who thought their situation could be improved by achieving greater independence from foreign capital while using oil revenues to ease class tensions.

In the end, as in the economic crisis of the 1990s, the global forces of capital acting on a national economy dependent on an extractive resource disturbed a very temporary equilibrium. In the years leading to Chavez’s death in 2013, the economic situation deteriorated, and the Venezuelan regime found itself confronting an increasingly hostile and disillusioned working class.

US imperialism is now seeking to exploit this crisis for its own purposes. Under the phony banners of “freedom” and “democracy” it is seeking to carry through a naked imperialist intervention that would install a dictatorship dedicated to suppressing the working class and assuring the unfettered control of the Venezuelan economy by Big Oil and Wall Street.

Originally published by WSWS.org

31 January 2019

Source: countercurrents.org