Voices from inside the besieged Venezuelan embassy

“If the US invades the Venezuelan Embassy tomorrow, it will send a message to the world that no embassy is safe in the United States… it’s a message that ‘if you don’t bow down to us, do what we tell you, put in the government that we’d like, we will take your embassy.”

These were the remarks of Kevin Zeese, American lawyer and political activist, who currently serves as co-director of Popular Resistance.

MintPress correspondent Alexander Rubinstein teamed up Wyatt Reed to compile a report in this regard, titled: “Voices from inside the besieged Venezuelan embassy.”

A group of activists banding together as the “Embassy Protection Collective,” in defense of the sovereignty of the Venezuelan Embassy in Washington, defied orders by the U.S. government to vacate the premises by the 25th of April. Later in the morning, the Trump administration’s special envoy to Venezuela, Elliot Abrams, condemned the activists, saying that they would “have to leave.”

The activists, Abrams argues, are “clearly breaking the law.”

In interviews with MintPress News, Embassy Collective protesters argued the opposite: that an invasion of the Venezuelan Embassy by U.S. authorities would be illegal under international law as defined by Article 22 of the Vienna Convention. The article states: Article 22 confirms the inviolability of mission premises – barring any right of entry by law enforcement officers of the receiving State and imposing on the receiving State a special duty to protect the premises against intrusion, damage, disturbance of the peace or infringement of dignity. Even in response to abuse of this inviolability or emergency, the premises may not be entered without the consent of the head of mission.”

Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CODEPINK and member of the Embassy Protection Collective, told MintPress News: “Today is the last day that Venezuelan diplomats in the United States have to leave the country. There were a few diplomats left that work with the Organization of American States (OAS) and today they said they had to be out. So tomorrow there are no diplomats left in the embassy, which opens the way for the Guaido folks to come in.”

After the OAS recognized the representatives of Venezuela’s self-appointed president, Juan Guaido, in violation of its own charter, the State Department issued the Venezuelan diplomats a two-week ultimatum to vacate the embassy.

Meanwhile, the elected government of Venezuela has turned over the keys to the activists in hopes they may be able to safeguard the building. For the past two weeks, members of the collective have been protecting the building.

Speaking via live stream, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza repeatedly thanked the group: “We are very honored because you are protecting the Venezuelan territory… And please, keep on doing it. It’s important, it’s really important for the Venezuelan people. You are an example to us, to all the Venezuelan people. You are an example to the American people as well.”

Last Thursday morning, Embassy Protection Collective activists interrupted an address by Elliot Abrams, Trump’s point man for regime change in Venezuela, hosted by the Atlantic Council. The think tank is among the most powerful foreign policy influence shops in Washington and lobbies on behalf of NATO, Persian Gulf State monarchies, and oil conglomerates.

Bearing a sign reading “No coup in Venezuela,” CODEPINK activist Ariel Elyse Gold shouted over Abrams as he attempted to speak.

Speaking to MintPress immediately after she was removed by security from the premises, Gold said: “Elliot Abrams is a war criminal and responsible for the destabilization of entire regions. I spoke out while he was addressing the Atlantic Council and told him: ‘How dare you orchestrate a coup in Venezuela? How dare you impose sanctions that harm the people?’

My government has no right to overthrow the government of another country. This is undermining the basic principle of democracy. Maduro was elected by 6 million people in Venezuela. Whether anybody likes Maduro or not, we need to respect the election.”

Medea Benjamin, one of the lead organizers of the movement to protect the embassy, explained the motivations of the collective to MintPress News, saying they are “people who came together to say we cannot allow the fake, illegal quote ‘government’ of Juan Guaido to come in and take over this embassy.” She added:

You can’t have an international community that doesn’t recognize real governments, that starts creating parallel governments, fake governments, and concedes them to take over embassies. It just can’t work like that. It’s against international law. So we’re the citizens that are protecting this embassy against a takeover that is part of a coup that is orchestrated by our government to get rid of a government that it doesn’t like in Venezuela.”

Benjamin explained how the U.S. demand that all Venezuelan diplomats leave the country by April 24th was a move designed to open the embassy to occupation by opposition squatters. In response, the collective has been living and working in the embassy 24/7 and hosting teach-ins and concerts every evening. They aim to hold the space for as long as possible, she says –“and we will not go out easily.”

After reaching out to the Venezuelan government in late March, Benjamin says they were invited to hold the space when the Venezuelans realized the U.S. government was “egging on” the opposition to take it. They gave the collective keys to the building and, she says, their full support.

Though many embassy protectors admire the accomplishments of socialist Venezuela, Benjamin says they aren’t there just to show support for the Venezuelan government. Instead, they want to reject another coup and the attempted social engineering of their leaders. She says the failure by coup plotters to turn the Venezuelan military against the government has done little to stop their U.S. handlers from plotting further aggression.

She notes the hypocrisy of a U.S. establishment that has spent the past few years hyper-fixating on a supposed Russian interference threat now “overtly trying to overthrow governments.” Benjamin was adamant that international law was on the side of the collective even if the Trump administration “doesn’t care” about such formalities.

Max Blumenthal, founder of the Grayzone, visited Caracas in February and described to MintPress News a profound disconnect between Western perceptions of Venezuela and the reality on the ground.

I was prepared to see something, to see an economic collapse, to even see a humanitarian crisis. And at least in Caracas, I didn’t see anything approaching that… it wasn’t a war situation. It wasn’t a conflict zone.”

Amidst ongoing economic warfare, life in Venezuela continues with relative normalcy, with residents taking full advantage of the free public gyms, salsa nights, and basketball courts, Blumenthal observed.

He described a “sort of utopian” experience visiting a public housing development in Caracas. It’s one of many such projects that comprise 2,500,000 total housing units provided by the socialist government to working Venezuelans free of charge, Blumenthal told MintPress.

He recounted that Venezuelan journalists he met with explained that they never could have become reporters without the socialist government, as prior to the Bolivarian revolution dark-skinned people weren’t allowed to go to college. “Now they have a place in their society.”

By contrast, Blumenthal says the opposition strongholds were like a “bubble of affluence.” Despite repeated accusations of a supposed humanitarian crisis, the largely white, wealthy opposition is still enjoying yoga classes and sushi dinners.  “They seem very comfortable, but at the same time feigning this humanitarian crisis.”

Still, Blumenthal notes that there are of course real economic problems, but stresses the many ways they’re exacerbated by capitalist forces and “speculation.”

Recently, the Grayzone exposed an off-the-record meeting in which 40-odd coup plotters discussed their plans for a military attack on Venezuela. Attendees included representatives from the U.S. State Department, the former commander of the United States Southern Command, Colombian diplomats, and emissaries of Brazil’s fascist government.

With that context, their plan to invade the Venezuelan Embassy is par for the course, Blumenthal argued.

As the property was purchased by the Venezuelan government, anyone occupying it without permission would be squatting, he said, joking that it is perhaps for that reason that “Juan Guaidó says he has so much in common with Israel – because they like squatting on other people’s property.”

John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer who blew the whistle on the agency’s torture program, was also on hand to give a talk on ‘an insider’s perspective on CIA coups.’ Afterwards, he spoke exclusively to MintPress News, saying that he also came to “show support for the sanctity of the Venezuelan Embassy.” It’s a world he’s intimately familiar with; as the executive assistant to the CIA’s deputy director for operations, Kiriakou had access to “literally everything that the CIA was doing around the world operationally.” After signing a number of secrecy agreements, he was finally informed what the job he’d agreed to was: “to assist in the overthrow of the Iraqi government.”

He describes a specific intelligence office that oversees CIA coup operations — one so shrouded in secrecy that even its name is classified. Indeed, should Kiriakou reveal it, he would risk being sent back to prison for once again blowing the whistle on the agency.

Kiriakou told MintPress that whenever a CIA agent expresses a desire to overthrow a government, the office creates a plan that is generally rubber-stamped by the Department of Justice and approved by the National Security Council. Once the president signs off, Kiriakou says the officer is given a blank check to carry out their sabotage and subterfuge.

He goes on to describe an agency so arrogant that even before it finished destroying Iraq, when he once walked into the office of a senior officer in the unnamed coup department, that officer had already set about designing the new flag with colored markers. “Don’t you think the Iraqis should design the new Iraqi flag?” Kiriakou asked. The officer paused. “No.”

The depth of their imperial hubris is matched by the depth of their pockets, Kiriakou argued: “Their budgets are secret. Nobody knows what the CIA budget is. It’s been a secret since the founding of the CIA…. It’s just impossible to know what the CIA has to spend. I can tell you that it’s a lot.”

Kiriakou continued, “We’ve got this unwritten policy that if we don’t like the politics of a foreign leader, we just take him out and we put in our own guy.” It’s a policy that he says operates independently of long-term U.S. interests or human-rights considerations.

Do the countries targeted by the CIA have something in common? “Natural resources,” he says. “It’s always been frowned up to say ‘we went into Kuwait for the oil. We went into Iraq for the oil. We went into Libya for the oil.’ But we did!”

Kiriakou recounted the words of a friend of his in Kuwait, who asked him, if the country “had gravel instead of oil, do you think we would have cared about these people?”

“Venezuela has oil, and Iran has oil, and Afghanistan has rare-earth metals, and we’re in all of those countries as well,” Kiriakou noted.

This implicit threat to anyone who refuses to toe the State Department line is clear to Kevin Zeese as well. The peace activist, lawyer and co-director of Popular Resistance was similarly disturbed by the U.S. government’s threats to invade the sovereign territory of Venezuela:

If they do this tomorrow, it will send a message to the world that no embassy is safe in the United States… it’s a message that ‘if you don’t bow down to us, do what we tell you, put in the government that we’d like, we will take your embassy.’”

Though he’s skeptical that any international court could enforce a ruling against the U.S., Zeese insists that these actions render the U.S. a “renegade nation” in the eyes of the public and the international community.

These rogue, aggressive actions characterize a nation whose once-hegemonic economic and military influence is waning, but which still has little trouble convincing its European and Latin American partners to go along with its imperialist agenda. “They all want to steal Venezuela’s wealth, and Venezuela’s very wealthy,” Zeese says. Aside from the world’s largest oil reserves, Venezuela also boasts the largest gold and diamond reserves, the fifth largest gas reserves, and many other extremely valuable mineral deposits, Zeese said.

For its own sake, Zeese says, he seriously hopes the U.S. ruling class will reject the temptation to bring them under their control. Given the Chinese and Russian support for Venezuela, and a U.S. military still reeling from its failures in Iraq, he argues that an invasion of the Bolivarian Republic could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. “The US Empire will be crumbling.”

MintPress News will continue to keep a reporter at the Venezuelan Embassy in Washington D.C. in anticipation of a raid by U.S. authorities.

The Crisis in Venezuela: Sign of a Regime Change Addict

TEHRAN (FNA)- Here are some of the facts and blatant lies we know so far about the ongoing crisis in Venezuela:

- Relying on doubtful interpretations and in breach of international law, the United States and some other countries have recognized opposition leader Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s new president. In response, President Nicolas Maduro has broken off diplomatic ties with Washington. All the while Venezuelan army chiefs have confirmed their loyalty to democratically elected President Maduro, who has denounced a “coup d’état in development” and received the support of Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, Bolivia, Mexico, and the United Nations Security Council.

- Recognizing the legitimate government there, these governments have helpfully ripped off the fig leaf that the Trump administration and other partners are using to justify their unlawful interference in Venezuela. The constitutional argument that Maduro isn’t really president is nothing more than a fig leaf for regime change. The US policy is, in practice, to seek regime change in Venezuela. They just won’t say so directly.

- The US pursues and promotes regime change in Venezuela because of its regime change addiction. That’s why the opposition has found a willing and important ally in the United States. However, the US government does not have the right to interfere in Venezuela’s internal political affairs. The long history of US meddling in Latin America is a shameful chapter that the UN should want to see closed, because the people in the country that “benefit” from regime change will pay the greatest price of all.

- The crisis has opened the door for the Trump administration to squeeze the vital flow of petrodollars to the Maduro government - which counts on oil for 95 percent of its export earnings. Trump plans another illegal and illegitimate move to send the proceeds from purchases of Venezuelan oil to foreign accounts that could be set up and controlled by Guaidó. Diverting oil funds to Guaidó could have a huge impact on the Venezuelan economy. Not that Trump cares.

- To many observers, the aggressive gambit by the Trump administration and partners will only make Venezuela’s predicament worse. In doing so, the US and partners have taken a highly visible and risky step that will be difficult to undo, with many unpleasant, unpredictable, and unforeseen consequences. The resulting crisis could morph into the worst humanitarian disaster and instability in memory, and inevitably spill across borders.

- The opposition’s strategy, conducted in coordination with Washington, is clearly for regime change, but it will not work. The Maduro administration continues to have the support and recognition of its people, and the roots of US support for liberal democracy in Venezuela turns out to be shallow. The Iraqis and the Libyans and the Yemenis and the Syrians and the Afghans know only too well: when the US invades, open-ended chaos and terrorism is much more likely to follow than stability - let alone democracy.

- Given the scale of US interference, Venezuela is likely to remain unstable for a long time. The immediate challenge for its citizens and their leaders, as well as for the international community, is to contain the impact of this American-instigated decline. For all the economic problems they have experienced, the Venezuelan people have never stopped supporting their government. Most of them are national and grass-roots affairs, but they show a people with the will to fight for themselves and determine their own fate.

Long story short, this new saga serves as further evidence that the foreign policy of President Trump is no longer unpredictable and his destructive actions in Venezuela are not shocking or surprising at all. Quite the opposite, his positions to recognize Guaidó and promote regime change in Caracas are all consistent with the United States' long-time known strategy as well as the worldview Trump has publicly espoused since his election. For the first time, it is possible to identify a singular Trump administration foreign policy. This policy consists of a preference for authoritarian regimes over democracies, a general disregard for human rights and the rule of law, and the promotion of unilateralism at the expense of world peace and stability.

What goes on in Venezuela?

By Heshmatollah Rahnama 

TEHRAN - To clarify what is happening on in Venezuela one must begin to with some backgroud information on the latest in Caracas.

Approximately a quarter of U.S. resources are supplied from Latin America through contracts that allow Americans, among other things, to exploit Venezuelan resources shamelessly. The royalties paid are peanuts considering the resources (mining, oil, agricultural products) not to mention the irreversible damages to the environment and the trampling on Venezuela’s rights and culture.

Latin American countries have multi-billion dollar debt to international organizations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank whose main shareholders are American banks. This is while a majority of people in Latin American and the Caribbean live in poverty and want to migrate to the U.S. Many reach the U.S.-Mexico border. Some don’t get to cross the border while others get into the U.S. to serve as cheap labor in physically demanding jobs. 

Latin America is tightly controlled by over 70 U.S. military bases for its energy sources and other natural resources. Washington considers Latin America its own backyard for its vast fresh wáter reserves and strategic location.
The U.S. has a long history of intervention in Latin America and around the world. Today, however, the interference has changed shape and style and evolved.  For the past three decades, Washington no longer deploys troops to Latin America but initiates a soft coup d’etat. The U.S. has overthrown Latin American governments in the past two decades including: the 2002 failed coup in Venezuela against Hugo Chavez, the 2004 coup in Haiti, the 2008 failed coup in Bolivia, the 2009 coup again in Bolivia, the 2010 failed coup in Ecuador, the 2012 coup in Paraguay, and the 2016 coup in Brazil. 

It is clear now who’s behind the recent coup in Venezuela. January 22, 2019, failed coup in Caracas was an organized attempt to bring about a national crisis with Nicolas Maduro’s opposition group, Washington and other regional right wing-countries played a role in the coup. 
The event was widely reported stating that “Guaidó declares himself President of Venezuela.” Immediately, videos started circulating on social media showing a group of armed, uniformed men promising to “re-establish the constitutional order”. Social media caught up with the news and circulated the latest videos and clips of people rioting.
The very first report released by Reuters quoted a man who identified himself as-as Alexander Bandres Figueroa, the head of an opposition group, telling viewers: “Get out on to the streets … It is today. It’s today … People, get out, support us. He added a second video saying, “You wanted us to light the fuse, here we are and we light the fuse. This fight is for you, for Venezuela. This fight is for you, for Venezuela.” 

In response to Figueroa, a crowd in San José de Cotiza, in northern Caracas took to the streets and set fire to dumpsters but soon were dispersed by a gas tear or arrested by police. 

The Armed Forces of Bolivia strongly condemned the attempted coup, attributed it to right-wing radicals and considered it contrary to the basic principles of military discipline, honor, and traditions.  

Juan Guaidó, a 35-year-old legislator from a coastal town in Venezuela, who had been playing with the idea of the presidency in his head for a while and stood against President Maduro, said “We do not wish to break up the armed forces of the country or confront them. We want the National Armed Forces to be united with the nation, the constitution and against usurpation. Our army knows that the chain of command has been torn by the usurpation of the presidential office. The National Assembly requires all members of the armed forces to actively engage in re-enforcing the constitution.” 
Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court Chamber of the Supreme Court reiterated the unreliability of the constitutionally mandated law on Monday, January 21, and confirms that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 138 of the Constitution, the National Assembly has no statutory and accredited board of directors.

Colombian President Ivan Duque announced that he would wait until the head of the National Assembly (AN), Juan Guaido, officially declares himself responsible for the presidency, so that the Lima group could recognize him.

U.S. Vice President Mike Pence pledged White House backing of Guiaido and the parliament. 
It seems the ultimate goal of the operation was to display to Venezuelans worn out by economic crisis an excuse for Columbia, Brazil and the U.S. intervention in  Venezuela. However, that turned out to be a failed coup.

Election Interference Before Military Intervention? Hands Off Venezuela

by RON JACOBS

When it comes to interfering in other countries’ election, no nation is better at it than the United States. No nation interferes more and no nation does so more blatantly. The recent machinations in Venezuela that recognized Juan Guiado as the President of that country are just the latest proof. In case you missed the news, Juan Guiado, who was recently elected to head Venezuela’s National Assembly, declared himself president of Venezuela on Wednesday, January 23, 2019. His announcement was met immediately with support from the right wing regimes in Brazil, Colombia and the United States. A few other nations—Canada and Costa Rica among them—joined the US and the others. It seems safe to assume that Guiado did not make his announcement until he knew he had the support of the United States. Of course, it’s not like there was much of a chance that Washington would not provide such support, given that its agencies have been trying to remove the Bolivarian government from power since it was first elected to power in 1999.

Guiado is a member of the Voluntad Popular (Popular Will) party. This party’s politics are considered right of center, yet in a manner quite descriptive of the current state of the Socialist International, it is a member of that group. Voluntad Popular favors neoliberal capitalism (euphemistically known as supporting the free market) over any form of socialism. Along with a broader coalition with most members further to their right, it has been part of the protests against the Bolivarian government. These protests are supported by US intelligence and propaganda agencies. They have supported the sanctions on the Venezuelan economy; sanctions which have driven millions of Venezuelans into deep poverty. Based on the history of sanctions, one assumes that this is the intention of the sanctions in the hope that the Venezuelans most affected by the sanctions (who are also the Bolivarian government’s strongest supporters) will turn against the government.

Why does Washington care so much about what happens in Venezuela? Like Washington’s never-ending intervention in the Middle East, it seems fair to say the reason is oil. Venezuelan oil reserves are the largest in the world. This oil wealth has always been why Washington is interested in Venezuela. If the United States had its way, the national oil company of Venezuela would be taken over by US-based corporations and the bulk of the profits would go to US banks. However, this is an unlikely scenario. Until recently, a few different companies refined Venezuelan heavy crude in their refineries along the US gulf coast. After Washington tightened sanctions, most of those companies either halted refining Venezuelan oil or moved their refining operations outside the United States. If Trump’s government tightens sanctions even further, ending any oil imports from Venezuela, the economic effects would not just be felt in Venezuela. In fact, according to Bloomberg News, oil prices had already risen the day after Guiado’s assumption of the Venezuelan presidency. No matter what speculations one manufactures, the fact is that Washington’s primary interest in Venezuela is its oil and, as the world has seen too often and too recently, Washington is willing to kill for oil.

This brings us to the crucial reality. Any further intervention in Venezuela must be opposed. A likely scenario, should the Pentagon and politicians decide to use military force to oust Maduro and his government, would be one where the militaries of Brazil and Colombia invaded Venezuela after civil unrest (fomented by Washington as it was in Chile) to “restore stability.” Russia has already put Washington on notice should any military moves against Venezuela be made. Furthermore, it recently moved some of its forces into the country to emphasize its support. Very few elected representatives in the United States will oppose anything Trump does to Venezuela. They have bought the line that the Bolivarian revolution is a mortal enemy. Any opposition must begin with the grassroots and in the streets. It’s way past time to revitalize the long dormant antiwar movement in the United States.

Ron Jacobs is the author of Daydream Sunset: Sixties Counterculture in the Seventies published by CounterPunch Books. His latest offering is a pamphlet titled Capitalism: Is the Problem.  He lives in Vermont. He can be reached at: ronj1955@gmail.com.

Trump Recognition of Rival Venezuelan Government Will Set Off a Diplomatic Avalanche

WAYNE MADSEN 

The Trump administration’s January 23 recognition of Venezuela’s National Assembly leader, Juan Guaidó, as the president of Venezuela, in opposition to the “de facto” and “de jure” president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, threatens an avalanche of nations recognizing leaders of various political factions in countries around the world as legitimate governments. In reaction to Trump’s move, Maduro severed diplomatic relations with Washington and ordered all US embassy personnel in Caracas to leave the country within 72-hours. Venezuela’s opposition-controlled National Assembly declared a caretaker government as a rival to the Maduro government with Guaidó as the interim president.

Maduro was recently sworn in for a second term as Venezuela’s president, an action that has been rejected by the US-financed Venezuelan right-wing opposition. US Vice President Mike Pence declared “the United States’ resolute support for the National Assembly of Venezuela as the only legitimate democratic body in the country.” Luis Almagro, the secretary general of the Washington-based Organization of American States (OAS), previously referred to Guaidó as Venezuela’s “interim president.” OAS members Canada, Colombia, Brazil, Peru, and Argentina stand ready to recognize Guaidó as president of a rival Venezuelan government. Mexico has rejected the anti-Maduro stance of the “Lima Group,” a right-wing bloc of Latin American states demanding Maduro’s ouster.

We may soon see a situation where the governments of the United States, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, and other countries declare Venezuelan diplomatic personnel accredited by the Maduro government expelled and their embassies turned over to loyalists of the Guaidó government. With the severance of Venezuelan relations with the United States, the Trump administration may turn over the keys of the Venezuelan embassy in Washington to the Guaidó-led opposition.

A similar situation has already been experienced by Syria. In 2013, the Syrian opposition established a rival “interim government” based in Azaz, Syria, that was in opposition to the “de facto” and “de jure” government of President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus. The “interim government” was backed by Turkey, the United States, Saudi Arabia, and others, but it has all-but-dissolved following Assad’s overall victory in the Syrian civil war. Assad’s government retained the support of Russia, Iran, Iraq, China, North Korea, and Venezuela.

What portends for Venezuela is a situation that will rapidly be copied by other countries that will rush to recognize rival presidents and governments, perhaps even extending support to the establishment of governments-in-exile. Such situations will only add to the destabilization of international relations that already permeates the globe.

There are several diplomatic “dominos” that are following the example of Venezuela. The most pressing situation is in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where opposition leader Félix Tshisekedi was declared the winner of the nation’s contentious presidential election, receiving 38.57 percent of the vote. Tshisekedi is due to replace outgoing president Joseph Kabila. However, supporters of another presidential candidate, Martin Fayulu, have called the former ExxonMobil executive the actual winner of the DRC election. Fayulu won 34.8 percent of the vote. Emmanuel Ramazani Shadary, a third candidate, who was backed by Kabila, decisively lost, receiving 23.8 percent of the vote.

Already, thanks to the American example being set in Venezuela, various countries are lining up to support either Tshisekedi or Fayulu as the leaders of rival DRC governments. The DRC has a tortured history of rival governments, starting from its independence in 1960. After Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba was deposed in a Central Intelligence Agency-led coup in 1960, leftist leader and Lumumba deputy prime minister Antoine Gizenga established the Free State of the Congo in Stanleyville (now Kisangani) as a rival to the Republic of the Congo in Leopoldville (now Kinshasa). Gizenga’s government was recognized by the Soviet Union, China, Mongolia, Poland, East Germany, Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Cuba, Iraq, the United Arab Republic, Ghana, Guinea, the Algerian provisional government, and Morocco. The Leopoldville government continued to be recognized by the United States, United Kingdom, France, Belgium, and other Western countries.

A secessionist State of Katanga, led by Moise Tshombe and supported by Belgian mercenaries, was established in Elisabethville (now Lubumbashi). At the same time as the Katangan secession, the State of South Kasai was proclaimed in Bakwanga, with Albert Kalonji as president. Although no nation extended diplomatic relations to either Katanga or South Kasai, they received military support from France, Belgium, South Africa, and the Central African Federation (also known as the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland).

In a case of déjà vu, the Tshisekedi presidency is supported by South Africa, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Algeria, Russia, and China, while Fayulu has the backing of France, Belgium, United Kingdom, the United States, and the Vatican. Zambia, whose president originally backed Fayulu and called for a recount, changed its position to support Tshisekedi. The DRC seemed to have slipped into a time machine, ending up in 1960, with some of the same foreign actors lining up on the same sides in support of rival Congolese leaders.

In Yemen, there are rival governments backed by rival countries. Two leaders claim to be the leaders of the Republic of Yemen. One is led by interim president Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, who largely rules from exile in Saudi Arabia. The other, which has occupied the Yemeni capital of Sana’a, is led by Mohammed Ali al-Houthi, the President of the Revolutionary Committee of Yemen. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council nations of Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Oman, as well as the United States, Egypt, and Pakistan, recognize Hadi’s government as the legitimate government of Yemen. Iran, Syria, and Lebanese Hezbollah recognize al-Houthi as the legitimate government of Yemen. Supporters of the former independent South Yemen took control of Aden in January 2018 and established the Southern Transitional Council, which, although not enjoying any diplomatic recognition, enjoys the support of the United Arab Emirates.

The Trump administration, which appears to thrive on chaos and instability at home and abroad, has given a jump start to other rival governments. Washington is encouraging nationalist sentiments, both Chinese and Taiwanese, on Taiwan. The “Republic of China” on Taiwan claims to be the government of China. However, the People’s Republic of China considers Taiwan to be a renegade province. China and Taiwan have vied for diplomatic advantage by engaging in “checkbook diplomacy.” China has been successful in weaning away nations recognizing Taiwan by offering them substantial aid packages in return for establishing relations with Beijing and severing them with Taiwan.

With the Trump administration advancing the concept of extending diplomatic relations to rebellious political leaders, other effects of this dangerous policy will soon be felt in nations with rival political power centers or secessionist claims. These include Somalia, Libya, the Central African Republic, Afghanistan, Mali, Equatorial Guinea, Vietnam, Laos, Gabon, Nigeria, Niger, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Madagascar, Myanmar, Ethiopia, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Cameroon, Nigeria, and Comoros.

Extending diplomatic relations to rival governments, including those in exile, rarely succeed. After the fall of the Spanish Republic in 1939 to the fascist forces of Generalissimo Francisco Franco, the Spanish Republic established a government-in-exile, first in France, and then in Mexico. During its exiled existence, the Spanish Republic was only recognized by Mexico, Panama, Guatemala, Venezuela, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Albania.

The plans by the Trump administration to recognize the right-wing opposition in Venezuela as the legitimate government of that nation is as doomed as the Spanish Republic in exile in Mexico and other failed exiled governments, including the East Turkestani government-in-exile in Washington, the Western Kurdistan government-in-exile in London, and the Free City of Danzig government-in-exile in Berlin.

What Trump has unleashed with his actions directed toward Venezuela is a situation where competing governments will be fighting over seats in the United Nations, embassies and consulates abroad, and the right to speak on behalf of their countries in international forums. It is the sort of bedlam upon which Trump, a proud destroyer of institutions, thrives.

It is increasingly being said that Trump’s White House consists of a team of “morons” and “idiots.” When it comes to the White House recognizing Venezuela’s right-wing opposition as the government of Venezuela, those appellations for Trump and his administration have definite merit.

WAYNE MADSEN

Investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. A member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club

Is US Hubris Taking The World To The Edge?

by Askiah Adam

Another US regime change undertaking is about to begin. Meanwhile, the Syrian misadventure will, hopefully, end soon and Bashar Al Assad’s enduring presence in Damascus is Washington’s failure writ large.

But that is not stopping the neoconservatives. Washington is beating the war drums again, this time in Latin America.

Venezuela, and its Bolivarian socialist revolution has long irked the United States. And, when on 10thJanuary last the re-elected Nicolas Maduro was sworn-in for his second six-year term as President, US imperial vitriol was unleashed, unfettered.  The pomp and ceremony was attended by 94 international delegations — among them Russia and China — and the presidents of Bolivia, Nicaragua and Cuba, and too the celebrating crowds of Venezuelans. Obviously, neither Maduro nor Venezuela is isolated.

The US National Security Advisor, John Bolton, declared that Washington is not recognising President Maduro whose claim to power the US considers illegitimate. As has become the norm this decision was based on lies. Bolton claims the latter’s election was “not free, fair or credible” but the international Council of Electoral Experts of Latin America found it to be perfectly legitimate despite US meddling. The same tact is being voiced by the US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo.For his part he promises that “the United States will work diligently to restore a real democracy to that country.”

Given the news blockade imposed on Venezuela there is no way mainstream media reporting on the country can be balanced and fair. With regard the 20th May 2018 elections, mainstream media reported it as heavily rigged to favour Maduro, the dictator. However, former president Jimmy Carter whose Carter Centre has a Democracy Programme said, “As a matter of fact, of the 92 elections that we’ve monitored, I would say that the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.”

If then a resounding victory over his opponent does not make Maduro the winner, what does? Over 60 per cent of a turnout of 46.02 per cent of eligible voters cast their votes for him. Even Donald Trump won the US presidency on a minority vote smaller than that commanded by Maduro. In today’s democracies, with the exception of President Vladimir Putin of Russia, who can claim otherwise?

That it is mere pretext used to destabilise Venezuela further cannot be denied. A US-led economic war against Venezuela has been on-going. A financial blockade is already in place leaving the Venezuelan economy vastly weakened with inflation spiralling out of control. The blockade has crippled its oil industry, the country’s main foreign currency earner. All this to facilitate US multinational corporations like Exxon-Mobil. Meanwhile the people suffer. And yet, Nicolas Maduro is returned to power peacefully via the ballot box because his policies ensure that the ordinary Venezuelan is fed, schooled and employed: the CLAP Boxes programme distributes food boxes to households; there is free healthcare and education; and, wages are protected.

Unfortunately, regime change is already underway. The US is supporting a move by the leader of the National Assembly to step in as interim president. But the National Assembly is held in contempt by the country’s Supreme Court for swearing-in three deputies under investigation for election irregularities. And the former has been unwilling to accept the judgement until today, making all its actions null and void. Such a move by the US is nothing short of contemptuous. Furthermore, the needs of governance forced Maduro to convene another elected assembly, the National Constituent Assembly, a move provided for by the Venezuelan Constitution, meaning that democracy is alive and well.

In the meantime, the US ambassador to Germany is throwing his weight around, behaving as if he’s the colonial master, threatening German companies involved in the Nord Stream2 project with sanctions. Prior to this he openly supported the right wing, anti-immigration party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), to the point where he was accused by the German media of attempting a “regime change”. However, this interference is not new. Under President Obama America’s intelligence tapped into the personal phone calls of Chancellor Merkel.

If an ally is treated with scant respect, what more a government unwilling to acquiesceto Washington’s will?

However, the signals emanating from Washington, at the moment, are conflicting. President Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria was vociferously attacked, not by a handful, but nearly everyone who matters in Washington including Bolton and Pompeo who were desperately trying to walk back that decision. And, if reports are to be believed the President has again reaffirmed his wish to withdraw from Syria thus negating his own advisors.

Several instances suggest that he is being actively subverted by his own administration and that the Democrats’ call for his impeachment could be bipartisan and is being stage-managed by the Deep State.

In Venezuela, however, he appears to be at one with them and has yet to repudiate the threats made by both Pompeo and Bolton to change the elected government in Caracas. This is true also with regard Ukraine where the failed regime, actively backed by the US, is acting as its proxy. The overt provocations against Russia, as in the recent Kerch Strait incident, is proof.

How does one explain Washington’s bizarre foreign policy, one that has resorted to nabbing individuals almost literally off the streets and holding them in detention, the latest being the Press TV anchorwoman and journalist Marzieh Hashemi? At the time of writing she has been held for some 48 hours with no reasons given.

A nuclear superpower going rogue is a frightening spectacle. What more when its chief executive appears to be finding it near impossible to assert his authority. And, not forgetting, too, the flagrant violations of international law by the US. Is the world helpless to defend itself against such unpredictable volatility?

Askiah Adam, Executive Director, International Movement for a JUST World [JUST]

Washington bullies Central American countries for adopting “One China” policy

This weekend, Washington temporarily recalled its ambassadors from the Dominican Republic and El Salvador, and its charges d’affaires from Panama over “recent decisions to no longer recognize Taiwan.” This referred to the decisions to establish diplomatic relations with the Chinese government in Beijing by El Salvador in August, the Dominican Republic in May and Panama last year.

The Trump administration also canceled a meeting scheduled for this week with foreign ministers and top military officials of the Northern Triangle of Central America—El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala.

Having based its relations with China since 1979 on the “One China” policy, recognizing Beijing as the sole legitimate government of all of China, Washington’s measures against countries adopting the same policy constitute a remarkable level of imperialist bullying and rank political hypocrisy.

The spokesperson of the Salvadoran government, Roberto Lorenzana, declared Monday that “We have no objections to this meeting [the recalling of the ambassadors], the only thing we ask is that our decisions are respected.” Far from protesting and sharply exposing the predatory character of Washington’s response, officials of the countries affected have only made meek appeals and otherwise insisted that relations with the US remain unchanged.

The previous Monday, Republican Senators Cory Gardner and Marco Rubio, and Democrats Ed Markey and Bob Menendez, introduced a bill authorizing the State Department to suspend US aid and break diplomatic relations with any other countries that decide to establish ties with Beijing. With unbelievable cynicism, the press release announcing this proposed intimidation of impoverished and historically-oppressed countries denounces what they like to name “Chinese pressure and bullying tactics.”

The White House said in a statement in late August that it would “re-evaluate” its relations with El Salvador and condemned what it called “China’s apparent interference in the domestic policies of a Western Hemisphere country.” China’s Foreign Ministry responded: “We hope that the relevant country [the US] can respect other sovereign states’ right to choose and formulate their foreign policies and stop interfering in other countries’ domestic affairs.”

Significantly, Beijing sent its business charge d’affaires to Sunday’s conference of the FMLN, the ruling bourgeois party in El Salvador, after leaders of the far-right opposition party, ARENA, declared that if elected in 2019 it would switch the country’s diplomatic ties back to Taiwan. The opposition’s obsequious appeal to the US led to widespread condemnations citing the theft of $15 million in Taiwanese aid intended for families affected by the devastating 2001 earthquakes by the ARENA administration of the late President Francisco Flores.

The diplomatic decision by the FMLN, however, in no way reflects a defense of “national sovereignty” against US imperialism, as some leaders claimed Sunday. It is, above all, a desperate quest for new sources of loans after two years of persistent public debt defaults—particularly at a time when the US central bank is raising its interest rates—while continuing to impose Wall Street’s diktats of social austerity.

Washington had previously stopped denouncing the Dominican Republic’s switch to China after the Dominican government adopted a tougher stance against the Maduro government in Venezuela. However, the political alliance of FMLN and the Venezuelan government and now its shift to Beijing could result in efforts of the Trump administration to forcibly undermine the FMLN government. Relations between Taiwan and El Salvador were cemented by Taipei’s extensive support for the Salvadoran military, supplying weapons and training its officers.

These factors, as underlined by comments to CNN by former senior adviser at the US State Department, Daniel Erikson, “made El Salvador a particularly attractive target for a White House ready to draw a line in the sand regarding the deepening ties of the Asian rival in Latin America.” He added: “El Salvador, in part, has become a battle axis in the new strategic context between the US and China in Latin America.”

At the same time, China has invested heavily in the Panama Canal and become the second top user after the US. Chinese companies have also become the main supplier for Panama’s Colon free-trade zone, the second largest in the world, and manage the main port terminals on both entrances of the Canal. This growing presence provoked warnings to Congress last year by Admiral Kurt Tidd, chief of the US Southern Command, which considers the “defense” of the Panama Canal one of its main tasks.

The Taiwanese government of Tsai Ing-wen has used the affair to further reassure Washington of its interest in having a greater role in the US confrontation with China. Taipei’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported that resources previously allocated to its missions in the Dominican Republic and El Salvador will be transferred to lobbying efforts in the US Congress and expanding the Global Cooperation and Training Framework with the US. According to Taipei Times, the Ministry of Defense announced last weekend that it will increase its budget to upgrade air-to-air capabilities of its US-provided F-16 fighters to “maintain parity” with Chinese fighters. This is on top of the 5.6 percent increase in Taipei’s military budget to $11 billion between 2018 and 2019.

The historical context of the US response highlights its hypocrisy, but also the grave danger posed to the people in Taiwan, Latin America and the entire world by the rapid escalation of the confrontation between the US and China.

The United States had a close alliance with Taiwan during the Cold War under the US-Taiwan Mutual Defense Treaty, signed after the Korean War. However, the treaty was annulled in 1980 as the Carter administration renewed relations with Beijing and adopted the One-China policy in January 1979.
However, despite criticisms by Beijing, the US continued military sales and cooperation unofficially with Taiwan. This military partnership has strengthened and become increasingly open, particularly since the implementation of Barack Obama’s “pivot to Asia” against China.

The growing US challenge to Chinese influence in the Asia-Pacific region and globally has also severely undermined diplomatic relations between Beijing and Taipei. Now, the Trump administration threatens to openly turn Taiwan and its 24 million people into a US frontline state against China. In December 2016, Trump complained about “being bound by a One China policy” and, once he assumed office, accepted a call from the Taiwanese president as the first direct contact since 1979 between leaders of the two countries.

The 2018 US military spending bill, approved last month with overwhelming bipartisan support, takes Washington-Taipei relations to a new stage, indicating that the “Six Assurances” of military cooperation are a cornerstone of US-Taiwan relations, and calling for stronger defense and security ties, including joint exercises and training. Earlier this year, in a highly provocative step, two US warships sailed through the Taiwan Strait.

The recall of diplomatic personnel from El Salvador, the Dominican Republic and Panama last week constitutes a new step in the use of Taiwan by US imperialism to counter growing Chinese economic influence across the world. This is in the context of the most recent US National Defense Strategy document describing China and Russia as Washington’s main geopolitical rivals. US Defense Secretary James Mattis announced in January “Great power competition—not terrorism—is now the primary focus of US national security.”

As Chinese economic presence in Latin America was growing exponentially at the beginning of this century, Washington agreed to a US-China sub-dialogue on Latin America in April 2006. The minutes made available on WikiLeaks report that the Chinese Latin American Affairs director, Zeng Gang, exhorted that; “Taiwan’s authorities use relations with these countries as tools to further their secessionist activities and damage China’s core national interests,” but “some of the leaders of these countries have told the PRC (People’s Republic of China) that they must take US concerns into account” demanding “clarification of US views.” At the time, the chief US diplomat for Latin America, Thomas A. Shannon—most recently Trump’s acting Secretary of State and Deputy Secretary of State—claimed that “The United States does not encourage or discourage” ties with China and cannot “dictate” other countries’ position on this issue.”

As its economic position internationally deteriorates and global capitalism sits on the verge of major economic and political shocks, US imperialism is abandoning the pretense of respecting the internal politics of other countries as it seeks to defend its hegemony over Latin America.

That was from an article by Professor Andrea Lobo from Rowan University Glassboro, New Jersey, United States.