General

The ICC Plays Scripted Role in Regime Change Plot Against Venezuela

By Dakotah
Lilly, Mint Press News, March 22nd, 2018

When it
comes to Venezuela, we should be wary of hyperbole and exaggeration, bearing in
mind that “humanitarian crisis” is a highly technical and loaded
term that can be misused as a pretext for military intervention and regime
change.
United Nations U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley, right, listens as
Organization of American States Secretary General Luis Almargo speaks during a
U.N. meeting on human rights in Venezuela, Nov. 13, 2017 at U.N. headquarters.
(AP/Bebeto Matthews)
The
Hague, Netherlands (Opinion) — The prosecutor of the International Criminal
Court, Fatou
Bensouda,
recently announced
that a “preliminary investigation” would be launched into the sovereign state
of Venezuela, citing alleged incidents of state violence committed during the
months of street protests in 2017. These violent protests claimed the lives of
over 100 people from direct violence, violence related to looting, road blockades
that prevented ambulances from reaching hospitals, as well as instances of
adventurism.

The
prosecutor failed to mention where her information was coming from, what
brought her attention to this issue, or a justification for the ICC getting
involved. Also absent from the press release or any mainstream coverage of
Venezuela is the fact that most of the violence committed has been at the hands
of the opposition. Some leaders of opposition parties were even seen directing
protesters clad in gas masks and with weaponry.
The Rome Statute
stipulates that the ICC may get involved if the state in question is “unwilling
or unable” to prosecute certain crimes to the detriment of the citizens of the
state. This does not apply to Venezuela, nor do claims of “humanitarian
crisis,” as will be demonstrated in the following paragraphs.
Problems
and obstacles, yes; “humanitarian crisis,” no
People
wait outside a supermarket for subsidized food to in Caracas, Venezuela.
 (AP/Ariana Cubillos)

In
September of 2017, many in the media had a field day when Delcy Rodriguez, the
president of the newly convened National Constituent Assembly and former
foreign minister, stated strongly in an interview with Al Jazeera
that “there is no humanitarian crisis in Venezuela.” Contrary to the content of
the interview, many talking heads twisted this to mean that Rodriguez was
denying that any problems or obstacles occurred in Venezuela. Apart from the
material conditions and statistics that disprove a humanitarian crisis (such as
Venezuela receiving recognition
from the Food and Agriculture Organization wing of the UN in 2015 for its
efforts in eliminating hunger, as well as caloric intake being above the FAO’s
guidelines for food security), what Rodriguez did is correctly refute the
legality of a humanitarian intervention in Venezuela.

We should
be wary of hyperbole and exaggeration, bearing in mind that “humanitarian crisis”
is a terminus technicus that can be misused as a pretext for military
intervention and regime change. In the international arena, “humanitarian”
intervention has been invoked against numerous states such as Libya, Kosovo,
Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Serbia. In every case, there is the same familiar
script: a tyrant or dictator violating the rights of his or her people, who
must be stopped at risk of jeopardizing world peace. So not only is it
paramount to telling the truth to deny the existence of a humanitarian crisis
in Venezuela, but it is also needed in order to protect the sovereignty of
Venezuela and the lives of the Venezuelan people.
John
Kelly, head of the U.S. military’s Southern Command until 2016, said that if a
humanitarian crisis persisted in Venezuela a military option would be explored.
This sentiment has been supported by President Donald Trump, who has said that
he “would not rule out a military option” in regard to Venezuela. Such usages
underwrite the importance of demystifying the loaded term “humanitarian
crisis.” Unfortunately, the international legal arena requires this degree of
semantic parsing, based on the long history of surmounting legal obstacles to
war through terms like “humanitarian” crisis or intervention.
The
“legalese” surrounding the preliminary investigation into Venezuela for
“alleged state crimes against humanity” is of the utmost importance. The notion
of a “preliminary investigation, which the ICC is opening against Venezuela, is
nowhere to be found in the Rome Statute. The most applicable document that
explains what a preliminary investigation is, is a 2013 policy paper
that explains the reason for a preliminary investigation is “determining if
there exist reasonable findings to start an investigation,” while clarifying
that they themselves are not formal investigations.
Investigating
whether to investigate
Venezuela’s
former prosecutor Luisa Ortega Diaz attends a meeting of Mercosur trade bloc
prosecutors, in Brazil, Aug. 23, 2017. (AP/Eraldo Peres)

So what
exactly is a preliminary investigation? An investigation (but not an
investigation) that is launched to determine whether an investigation is
needed. Now if that isn’t clear, concise and sensible, then perhaps it’s time
to brush up on your Orwell. The ICC prosecutor launched this investigation on
her own accord, but why was Venezuela not notified until after the decision had
already be made? Why was the government of Venezuela not afforded the right to
disprove these allegations or at the very least participate in a dialogue?

I think
it is fairly obvious that there are more actors behind this decision than just
Fatou Bensouda. My own hypothesis is that Luisa Ortega Diaz, a former attorney
general living in exile who has several corruption charges against her, has
filled the prosecutors heads with lies. Under Diaz, corruption and various
cases of violence went uninvestigated until she eventually fled to Colombia
with the former head of Venezuela’s DISIP (a secret police organization from
two decades ago notorious for torture, murder and violation of human rights).
Diaz
recently went to The Hague and accused
the Venezuelan government of crimes against humanity — and, not long after
this, the prosecutor announced she was opening up an investigation. There is a
clear conflict of interest in regard to Diaz, and there is also no doubt in my
mind that Bensouda is under immense pressure from the United States to open
this investigation. Would we take what the fox says about the hens as absolute
fact and without consulting the hens? I hope not.
The ICC
is stipulated by the Rome Statute as a “complementary” court that is able to
open legal proceedings only in cases in which national legal institutions fail
or are unable to address them. Also worth noting is that, as defined in the
November 2013 policy paper previously referenced, preliminary investigations
“arise from the principle of complementariness. National jurisdictions have the
primary responsibility of ending impunity for the accused crimes.” This further
complicates the ICC’s jurisdiction in Venezuela, considering the actions the
Venezuelan state has taken in regards to the violence experienced in 2017.
There’s
no vacuum, so why is ICC rushing in?
A
protester holds a poster that reads in Spanish “Against Imperialist aggression,
respect Venezuela” outside the National Assembly in Caracas. (AP/Howard Yanes)
Two of
the first acts passed by the Constituent Assembly of Venezuela were the
dismissal of the attorney general seen as turning a blind eye to prosecuting
the violence, as well as the establishment of a “Truth, Justice, and Reparations
Commission for Victims
” in relation to the protest violence. The
Constituent Assembly has also ended the use of military trials for some of
these cases despite a major backlog in civilian courts. The Commission for
Victims in tandem with the Constituent Assembly also released 80 people who
participated in the riots and protests as a sign of the government’s commitment
to further dialogue and reconciliation. In conjunction with all of this, dozens
of police officers, national guard members, and members of the military have
been arrested for violating the rights of people and are being submitted to
justice.

It is
therefore abundantly clear that the Venezuelan state is taking numerous and
continuous measures in the interest of peace, justice and tranquility. The
action by the ICC in its “preliminary investigation” is illegal under the Rome
Statute for violating the sovereignty of Venezuela. Furthermore, the exceptions
set out in the Statute that permit an investigation to take place are not
applicable in Venezuela, where the state is actively working towards justice
and peace.  
There are
some genuine obstacles in the path of the Bolivarian Revolution and the
Venezuelan Government. However, the last thing the country needs is even more
foreign intervention or colonialist finger-wagging. Alfred De Zaya — a
professor at the Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations, and
the UN Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable
International Order — recently visited both
Ecuador and Venezuela
.
In his
words, “the situation in Venezuela definitely does not reach the threshold of
humanitarian crisis.” Not to say that there are not societal or structural
problems that are being addressed, but the hyperbole involved in branding
Venezuela a “failed state” is an affront to truth and the people of Venezuela.
It is
also of the utmost importance that we understand the lengths to which the
economic war is caused and exacerbated by actions of the U.S. government. For
instance, the sanctions put on Venezuela caused 300,000 doses
of insulin destined for Venezuela to sit in port.
The sanctions make
it especially difficult to import food and medicine, as payment methods are greatly
affected. The president of Colombia also halted a shipment of anti-malaria
medicine when it was known that the destination was Venezuela.
This
statement
from CIA Director Mike Pompeo is also quite telling: he
began by saying he is  “hopeful that there can be a transition in
Venezuela the CIA is doing its best to understand the dynamic there.” He added:
I was
just down in Mexico City and in Bogota a week before last talking about this
very issue, trying to help them understand the things they might do so that
they can get a better outcome for their part of the world and our part of the
world.”
When it
comes to outright bribes, the U.S. government is quite generous. According to
Telesur (and Vice, and WikiLeaks, et al) the Venezuelan right-wing opposition
has received over $49 million
from the U.S. government
. This is the same opposition that has
participated in bombings and other terroristic acts directed at hospitals,
the Supreme Court
Building
, and Bolivarian
National Guard members
. These videos of such acts are as telling as
they are chilling. If such attacks were occurring in the United States, is
there any doubt that it would trigger martial law?
Donald
Trump, Mike Pence and Marco Rubio meet with Lillian Tintori, wife of
US-backed Venezuelan opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez. (White House Photo)
What the
world can and should do to help

So what
is to be done on the international stage? To begin, as De Zaya stated, when
speaking of the sanctions applied against Venezuela by the United States,
Canada, the OAS, and the European Union:
Direct
and indirect sanctions have hit the economic situation in Venezuela seriously.
The sanctions must be terminated. The economic war has to end — that would be
the greatest help for the country. However, what we can observe in Venezuela is
the result of a targeted economic war. There are many countries participating,
even from Europe.”
 

On top of
this, the idea of an oil embargo has been floated by Argentine President
Mauricio Macri as well as by President Trump. As oil represents upwards of 90 percent of government
export revenue
— which is then used to import food, medicines,
hygiene products, etc., — this will only exacerbate the problems already caused
by the U.S.-led economic war. The fact that this idea is being floated is
further proof that the concern of international actors is not with the people
of Venezuela but instead focused on invalidating and attacking the sovereign
government of Venezuela.
There are
actions the international community might take if its concern actually lay with
the people of Venezuela. Ending the sanctions, fighting smuggling and hoarding
of subsidized goods, and prosecuting companies and actors engaging in the
economic war are just some of the things that can be done. Starting bogus and
politically charged “preliminary investigations” against the democratically
elected, popular, and inclusive government of Nicolas Maduro is not one of
them. Eighty percent of eligible voters voted in the last
presidential election in 2013
, which saw Maduro elected, albeit
narrowly.
Perhaps
the ICC could be directed to the crimes being committed in Palestine, Colombia,
Saudi Arabia, or Ferguson — oppression funded and sponsored by the United
States — if they are experiencing a slow day at The Hague.