Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 12 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H4'ed 5/9/19

Humanitarian Aid Blocked from Entering Venezuelan Embassy in Washington D.C.

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)     (# of views)   2 comments
Author 9
Follow Me on Twitter     Message David Swanson
Become a Fan
  (141 fans)

Venezuelan Embassy Protectors
Venezuelan Embassy Protectors
(Image by Code Pink)
  Details   DMCA
- Advertisement -

Two months ago, I heard a story. You heard it too, if you went anywhere near a television or a newspaper in the United States. The government of Venezuela needed to be overthrown because it wouldn't allow in humanitarian aid.

The story was false, of course. The United States had imposed brutal sanctions on Venezuela for years, resulting in 40,000 deaths (with more being added every day) and sought to cut off electricity, and had no more interest in aiding humanity than ExxonMobil has in sunrises, children, and rainbows. There are many places on earth in desperate need of humanitarian aid, so that someone actually concerned about humanity would have had no trouble finding somewhere else to deliver their aid.

Not only that, but Venezuela was in fact busy allowing in tons of humanitarian aid (needed largely because of U.S. sanctions) from any nation or agency not attempting to overthrow the Venezuelan government. The United States was apparently trying to ship weapons in with which to take over Venezuela an overthrow that the U.S. National Security Advisor said would be on behalf of U.S. oil companies.

- Advertisement -

The outrages and atrocities of the Venezuelan government are, of course, matched by those of dozens of other governments, including the U.S. government, and would be far outstripped by a U.S. war on Venezuela. Moreover, the U.S. wars and coups marketed as humanitarian that have ended up (shockingly each time) as devastating crimes against humanity have included Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and dozens and dozens more. The only humanitarian wars that have ever benefitted humanity have been the imaginary ones that people at think tanks funded by weapons makers keep telling us should have happened but didn't as the Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS) did on Wednesday citing Rwanda in the usual false manner.

But let's set all context and actual facts aside for a moment in order to play along with the propaganda. Let's assume that the media outlets that seem unaware of the U.S. sanctions or eager to support them, that falsely report that Juan Guaidó has been elected president, that falsely report that government forces block humanitarian aid and burn aid trucks (actually burned by coup proponents), that falsely report that Guaidó has taken over an airport, and that fail to acknowledge the illegality of overthrowing governments or even to recall Donald Trump's acknowledgement that such actions are disastrous prior to entering the White House (Trump went so far as to pretend to have opposed the 2003-begun war on Iraq) let's assume that these media outlets all mean well.

Operating under that pretense, their goal is not to kickstart another catastrophic bloody war generating millions of refugees who will be duly blamed for it. Au contraire! Their interest is in aiding humanity. If the Venezuelan government were to allow in the aid that we're pretending it's not allowing in, then all would be right with the world, and there would be no need to overthrow another nation's government and install servants of U.S. oil companies. Let's pretend that we're giving the media the benefit of the doubt, and more than that the viewers the benefit of the doubt. Certainly many viewers of U.S. media actually believe this stuff at least momentarily. Well, then, here's my question:

- Advertisement -

Why is it unacceptable to keep humanitarian aid out of Venezuela, but acceptable to keep it out of the Venezuelan Embassy in Washington, D.C.? Again, the facts are not what is most widely reported. The U.S. government ordered the Embassy staff out but did not lose its obligation to protect the embassy from takeovers. The Embassy staff asked peace activists to protect the Embassy, and they are trying to do so. But the Secret Service, the D.C. Police, and a gang of pro-coup thugs threatening and engaging in violence and vandalism have created a siege. The nonviolent protectors inside the embassy are now cut off from food, water, medicine, electricity, and communications. Those attempting to deliver humanitarian aid have not yet had their vehicles burned but have been assaulted and thrown to the ground and arrested by "law enforcement" soldiercops.

If we're in favor of delivering humanitarian aid to those in need, why are we in favor of it in Venezuela, North Korea, and Iran (while trying to starve residents through sanctions) but against it in most of the world, on the streets of Washington, D.C., itself, and in the Venezuelan Embassy in Georgetown? If the protectors of the embassy leave it, it will be taken over by an armed gang hoping to spark the takeover of the nation of Venezuela by the oil interests that many of us claim to be aware are out to destroy the world slowly whenever they're not making us too uneasy by trying to destroy the world quickly.

On Wednesday in Washington, at a stink tank funded by the world's biggest weapons dealers, the Secretary General of the OAS Luis Almagro got up and declared that the "archaic" concept of non-intervention has never existed in law. Therefore, he suggested, the United States must attack Venezuela in order to protect it under the banner of "the responsibility to protect." Again, the first casualty is truth. The so-called responsibility to protect (by bombing) actually does not exist in any law anywhere and never has. Meanwhile, the United Nations Charter forbids not only war but also the threat of war, meaning that war mongers who ignore it also violate it, and that "All options are on the table" is both narrower and wider than those who utter it intend: narrower, because what they're threatening is criminal; wider, because the option exists of arresting them for their crime.

Luis Almagro declares that we must "act" or not. "Act" like "do something" is defined as "start another war," while "not act" is defined as: engage in diplomacy or send actual aid with good intentions or join the world's treaties and courts and begin cooperating with the rule of law or abolish the Monroe Doctrine before its 200th birthday or literally anything whatsoever other than "start another war." I wrote War Is A Lie precisely so that nobody would have to wonder whether to believe a word such people say.

The real tragedy, of course, is that Venezuela, just like the rest of the world, actually needs an intervention from some actually sane and generous group able to develop alternatives to drilling, selling, or burning the oil that is going to kill us all. But U.S. aggression creates predictable demands for sovereignty and oil rights and oil profits and glorification of a flawed government being threatened by a worse one. We're three steps backward from the starting line in trying to save this beautiful little world. And the environmental groups' unwillingness to notice the existence of wars for oil, wars as burners of oil, or wars as pits of money needed to convert away from oil exacerbates the problem.

So, I'm not going to tell you to choose between some horrible action or nothing. There are a million and one ways to help. But one of them is this: Go and send others and send food to the Venezuelan Embassy in Washington, D.C. Right now. Go there. Do not wait. And while you're on your way tell the U.S. Congress to prevent the war and to protect the Embassy Protection Collective.

- Advertisement -

 

- Advertisement -

Valuable 3   Must Read 2   News 2  
Rate It | View Ratings

David Swanson Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

David Swanson is the author of "When the World Outlawed War," "War Is A Lie" and "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union." He blogs at http://davidswanson.org and http://warisacrime.org and works for the online (more...)
 
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Follow Me on Twitter     Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Feith Dares Obama to Enforce the Law

Obama's Open Forum Opens Possibilities

Public Forum Planned on Vermont Proposal to Arrest Bush and Cheney

Did Bush Sr. Kill Kennedy and Frame Nixon?

Eleven Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military

Holder Asked to Prosecute Blankenship

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

2 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments


Don Smith

Become a Fan
(Member since Feb 25, 2009), 23 fans, 136 articles, 578 quicklinks, 1749 comments, 45 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

This should be headlined to H1 or H2! Important, sad news.

Submitted on Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 6:18:50 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

Kenneth Morris

Become a Fan
Author 506896

(Member since Oct 15, 2016), 2 fans, 7 articles, 224 comments
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

I have been vaguely following affairs in Venezuela for years, and until recently was persuaded that Maduro needs to go. He just lacks the democratic legitimacy as well as seemingly the competence to govern effectively, while his strongman tactics aren't helping. True, as usual in these situations, I was no fan of his opposition either. They aren't the democratic angels they purport to be, and in my opinion are a co-equal part of the problem. Still, Maduro is a problem, and I figured that Venezuela would be better off without him.

But recently I've darn near found myself rooting for Maduro. The reason is the utter BS spewed by the US and some 50 other countries teamed up with the US in opposition to Maduro. In my opinion the tactics supported by this international coalition are (a) making the situation worse and (b) setting the stage for a violent overthrow of the government, whether through US military intervention or behind the scenes coup-mongering. Also, while a violent overthrow of Maduro will likely be successful in removing him from power, I seriously doubt that it will usher in an era of freedom and democracy. I think it will just usher in another strongman, and therefore don't believe that violence is any solution.

Especially disturbing to me about this international coalition in opposition to Maduro is pacifist Costa Rica's minor ringleader role in it. Costa Rica keeps saying that it opposes military action, but it keeps supporting policies that make military action inevitable. This is either stupidity, hypocrisy, or both.

Of course, mainstream media's superficial coverage isn't helping. It loves a good guy/bad guy narrative, but this narrative is superimposed on facts to the point of distorting them.

My heart goes out to Venezuelans who are suffering needlessly as a result of the antics of ALL SIDES in this crisis. It's a sad example of how lousy the world still is at meeting the basic political challenge of creating a decent society. Right now it looks like this political challenge will continue to be flubbed in Venezuela, while all the actors puff out their chests and claim the moral high road.

Submitted on Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 4:45:11 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment