[pr-x] Fwd: Maria Zakharova discusses US policies towards Venezuela

Tue Apr 16 17:07:51 PDT 2019

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Maria Zakharova discusses US policies towards Venezuela
Date: 	Tue, 16 Apr 2019 16:46:17 -0700
From: 	Sid Shniad <shniad at gmail.com>

*(Maria Zakharova is the Director of the Information and Press 
Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation 
and Spokeswoman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian 
Federation.)*
*
*
*http://thesaker.is/maria-zakharova-discusses-us-policies-towards-venezuela-must-read/
*
*
*
*The Saker          April 14, 2019*
*
*

  Maria Zakharova discusses US policies towards Venezuela

*Excerpt of the weekly MFA  briefing by Maria Zakharova 
<http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/3612738?p_p_id=101_INSTANCE_cKNonkJE02Bw&_101_INSTANCE_cKNonkJE02Bw_languageId=en_GB>:*
——-
The UN Security Council held a meeting in New York yesterday at the 
initiative of the US to discuss the humanitarian situation in Venezuela. 
Russia’s position, whereby this is not the appropriate platform or 
format for discussing this topic, remains unchanged. We are not turning 
a blind eye to the challenging social, economic and humanitarian 
developments in Venezuela. Still, we do not see any threats to regional, 
let alone international, stability or security.

Representatives of Donald Trump’s administration are obsessive in 
hammering home the message that “all options are on the table.” This is 
a matter of grave concern. Let me reiterate that the possible military 
scenario, if this is what representatives of the US establishment have 
in mind, would lead nowhere. It is dangerous, since it could bring about 
a civil war. We urge our US colleagues to review these irresponsible 
plans that are at odds with international law. I would like to draw the 
attention of our Western colleagues once again to what they have done in 
a number of countries around the world. Just look at the scenarios you 
have been trying to follow there, and what came out of it.

We will continue to do everything we can to prevent the dangerous 
scenarios that we witnessed in a number of countries from taking place 
in Venezuela. We are glad that there is little support for this option 
within the international community, even though Washington regrettably 
persists in its efforts.

It is also unfortunate that the US Security Council was not able to 
refrain from discussing the humanitarian situation in Venezuela. Vice 
President Mike Pence’s remarks went beyond the bounds of decency when he 
called for recognising Venezuela’s new leader, backing up his claims 
with ultimatums and threats of new sanctions.

Representatives of the US administration do not hesitate when it comes 
to breaking fundamental principles and norms of international and 
regional law as they seek to unseat the legitimate President of 
Venezuela. Aggressive rhetoric against official diplomatic 
representatives of the Venezuelan government, recognising appointees who 
appeared out of nowhere, illegal takeover of diplomatic property, 
financial assets and other acts of this kind are all reminiscent of gang 
warfare rather than what professional politicians and diplomats normally 
do. It is possible that the US is guided by its own experience when it 
promotes broad recognition and largely directs the appointment of 
so-called Venezuelan ambassadors and official representatives around the 
world. Over the past years, we have seen people without any prior 
experience in public service being appointed US ambassadors, be it in 
executive or legislative branches, let alone diplomatic work. These were 
people that were in good graces of one administration or another or 
contributed to an election campaign financially. They were rewarded by 
ambassador posts. This is how it happens in the US. This does not mean, 
however, that this approach, coupled with violations of international 
law, should be applied elsewhere.

Washington conceals its disdain for the decades-old international legal 
framework behind the opaque notion of a rules-based world order and 
imposes it everywhere, including in regional and international affairs. 
This fully applies to the call by Mike Pence on the UN Security Council 
to withdraw the mandate from Venezuela’s permanent representative, as 
well as to the prospect of the US putting forward a resolution 
recognising the legitimacy of this country’s alternative government and 
its representative.

There were new developments lately regarding this situation. In 
particular, the Permanent Council of the Organisation of American 
States, a prominent structure in the Western hemisphere, decided to 
accept the appointment of a permanent representative designated by 
Venezuela’s National Assembly. This is nothing short of an attempt to 
legitimise the dual rule in Venezuela. The fallout from this is not just 
hypothetical, but real, since it establishes the duality of power in a 
sovereign country. All the prerequisites are created for a major 
internal standoff in this country. Instead of promoting a settlement and 
building bridges between the political sides, they are doing just the 
opposite. The sides are being separated only to be pitted against one 
another so as to make it impossible to settle this conflict by political 
or diplomatic means.

In addition to this, having placed on the agenda the question of the 
status of Venezuelan government’s official representatives, the US 
delegation ignored all legal arguments of other countries that are 
members of the Organisation of American States. In particular, this 
related to the fact that the Permanent Council is not entitled to 
determine the powers of delegations, and questions of this kind cannot 
be decided by a simple majority. Instead, they must be reviewed by the 
General Assembly of the Organisation of American States, to say the 
least. Therefore, the decision taken by the Permanent Council directly 
contradicts the organisation’s statutory documents, undermines it and is 
detrimental to the status of this structure. But who cares when the 
stakes are so high?

We call on our partners in Latin America and the Caribbean to think 
about the fallout from this precedent and how it will affect the future 
work of the Organisation of American States. I want to ask our foreign 
partners: What will happen if the US tries to further promote the 
approach of recognising a representative of an impostor as tested within 
the Organisation of American States? Who will be targeted after Venezuela?

In this connection, I would like to remind you that there is no such 
notion as collective recognition of governments and their powers in 
international law. This is a sovereign right of every country. Only the 
head of state, head of government and foreign minister are entitled to 
appoint official representatives abroad. We firmly oppose all attempts 
by a number of countries to question the powers of the Venezuelan 
delegation within various frameworks, and remain committed to fending 
off any such attempts moving forward. The ongoing developments are 
merely an attempt to revert human development to a primitive state.

Regarding humanitarian aid to Venezuela, there are no objective reasons 
for imposing it on Caracas. There are no hostilities taking place in the 
country, there were no natural disasters or epidemic outbreaks. Once 
again, let me point out that the best way to help the people of 
Venezuela is to lift the illegal unilateral sanctions that target 
primarily the people of Venezuela. This is what Washington is after, 
going to great lengths in order to make sure that every Venezuelan 
suffers and shapes his or her political position accordingly. Washington 
tested these tactics in many regions of the world.

For example, efforts to block the access of regional and local 
authorities to financial resources constitute a serious challenge for 
the people, while no one is questioning the legitimacy of these 
resources. Just think about it: the cost of humanitarian aid Washington 
seeks to impose on Venezuela is in the tens of millions of dollars, 
while the overall effect of sanctions, according to Venezuela, is 
estimated at over 110 billion dollars. Just give them their money back, 
lift the sanctions and the country will be back on track. Even a small 
portion of this enormous amount would have helped deal with the shortage 
of medicine and other essential goods in Venezuela, and help launch the 
needed economic reforms. Let me reiterate what we have been saying all 
along: if the package of measures that is currently used in Venezuela 
were applied to any so-called developed Western country, let alone 
developing ones, the targeted country would collapse.

The use by Washington of restrictive measures and threats against 
countries that work with official Caracas, in particular Cuba, which has 
been suffering from a US blockade for more than 50 years, is extremely 
cynical. By the way, by failing to abide by the UN General Assembly 
resolution urging to end the embargo against Cuba is yet another example 
of the US showing disdain for UN resolutions.

As for Russia, we stand for strict compliance with norms and principles 
of international law in all aspects related to a settlement in 
Venezuela, against ratcheting up tension and imposing outside rule on a 
sovereign country.

-- 
---------------------
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
8888 University Drive
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Home:   Phone 604-689-9510
Cell: 604-789-4803

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/project-x/attachments/20190416/34944c73/attachment.html>