[H-PAD] Response letter to WOLA

[Marc Becker]

Members and friends of Historians for Peace and Democracy,

We are circulating the following request for signers for a response 
letter to the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) after they wrote 
a statement in reaction to a previous open letter about Venezuela that 
we circulated to this list. The original statement questioning some of 
WOLA's positions on US policy toward Venezuela is here 
<http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?key=-1&url_num=2&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fviews%2F2019%2F03%2F05%2Fopen-letter-washington-office-latin-america-about-its-stance-us-effort-overthrow>. 
If you haven't read WOLA's response, it's on their site here 
<http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?key=-1&url_num=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wola.org%2F2019%2F03%2Fpeaceful-democratic-solution-venezuelas-crisis-requires-fact-based-analysis-advocacy%2F+>. 


The text of the response letter addressed to WOLA is below. Initial 
signers include Greg Grandin, Noam Chomsky, Venezuela experts Sujatha 
Fernandes and Steve Ellner, Laura Carlsen of CIP's Americas Program, 
Elisabeth Jean Wood of Yale University, and John Mills Ackerman of UNAM.

If you're interested in signing this new letter please email Joseph 
Salvatore Sammut at j.s.sammut at qmul.ac.uk.

If you are in need to more information on the current situation on 
Venezuela, see the excellent syllabus drafted in part by H-Pad member 
Kevin Young at 
http://afreesociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/HandsOffVenezuela_ofsReader2.pdf 

_____________________________

Thank you for your response to our letter of 
<https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/03/05/open-letter-washington-office-latin-america-about-its-stance-us-effort-overthrow>March 
5 
<https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/03/05/open-letter-washington-office-latin-america-about-its-stance-us-effort-overthrow>. 
Unfortunately it did not address our most important concerns. And it 
contains some factual errors.

Our main point was summarized in the letter as follows:

“WOLA should oppose this [Trump’s] regime change effort unequivocally, 
just as progressives throughout the world opposed the Iraq War of 2003. 
But it has not done so. Rather, it has endorsed much of it. People may 
have differing personal opinions regarding the internal politics of 
Venezuela or how Venezuelans might best resolve their differences. But 
there is no doubt that the Trump administration’s illegal regime change 
operation is greatly worsening the situation and should be opposed by 
all who care about human life and international law.”

In its response, WOLA does not offer any explanation for why they do not 
oppose this illegal regime change effort, nor do they recognize the 
enormous damage that Trump and his allies have done and continue to do.

The financial embargo that Trump imposed by executive order in August 
2017 has been killing people by depriving them of medicine, medical 
supplies, and other essential imports; and preventing a recovery from 
what has become the worst depression in Latin American history.

Yet WOLA has not opposed these ongoing sanctions, even in their response 
to our criticism of their stance. In fact, following the implementation 
of these sanctions, WOLA Senior Fellow David Smilde wrote 
<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/14/opinion/united-states-venezuela-attack.html>in 
The New York Times that “Countries throughout the region and the United 
States … should continue to pressure Mr. Maduro by deepening the current 
sanctions regime…” He also praised the [August 2017] “‘debt sanctions’ 
levied by the Trump administration that prohibit United States citizens 
or institutions from buying or issuing new Venezuelan debt,” noting that 
they “have hamstrung the Maduro government’s ability to raise new funds.”

Contrary to WOLA’s response to us, this position does not reflect that 
they “are in principle suspicious of” sanctions, even when these 
sanctions kill innocent people.

And does it matter that the vast majority of Venezuelans, according to 
opposition polling, have consistently opposed 
<https://lta.reuters.com/articulo/topNews/idLTAKCN1C72X5-OUSLT>these 
sanctions by large majorities? Shouldn’t their human rights and opinions 
be taken into account?

WOLA claims that they now “oppose the January 2019 U.S. oil sanctions 
<https://www.wola.org/2019/01/u-s-oil-sanctions-risk-deepening-human-suffering-venezuela-weaken-mobilization-democracy/>.” 
But as a factual, logical, and economic matter ― as we noted in the last 
letter ― they cannot oppose these new sanctions without opposing the 
recognition of Guaidó.

That’s because this action /by itself /— /aside from other sanctions 
such as those on PDVSA ― /involved a transfer of the accounts of 
Venezuela’s Central Bank and Republic of Venezuela to Guaidó. This means 
that the government of Venezuela cannot make payments ― including those 
for life-saving medicines and essential goods ― in the US or European 
financial system. Furthermore, companies and financial institutions in 
countries outside of Europe or the US are inhibited from carrying out 
transactions with the actual Venezuelan government, because they too 
will be sanctioned for doing so. Even Gazprom of Russia closed a PDVSA 
account because of this threat.

The recognition of Guaidó also leads to the imposition of a devastating 
trade embargo, since about 73 percent of Venezuela’s oil goes to the 
United States and its allied governments who have recognized the 
parallel government. This means that the Maduro government cannot 
receive payment for oil, which deprives the Venezuelan economy ― both 
public and private sector ― of almost all of its foreign exchange. 
Perhaps these are the “oil sanctions” that WOLA claims to oppose. But 
again, these sanctions are the direct and inevitable consequence of 
recognizing a parallel government, which WOLA emphatically does not 
oppose. Smilde 
has<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/world/americas/juan-guaido-facts-history-bio.html>stated 
<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/world/americas/juan-guaido-facts-history-bio.html>that 
“The opposition has finally put forward a fresh face that has courage, 
new ideas and leadership skills.”

The recognition of Guaidó, therefore, is provoking even greater economic 
damage and causing more deaths than Trump’s August 2017 executive order. 
If WOLA staff lack a clear understanding of the consequences attached to 
the recognition of Guaidó, then it is our sincere hope that they 
reconsider the position that they’ve taken.

OPEC data released 
<https://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/publications/338.htm>for February 
shows a collapse of oil production since the recognition of Guaidó and 
the */resulting/ *financial sanctions and trade embargo. Venezuela’s oil 
production fell by 142,000 barrels per day. For the prior six months, it 
had fallen by an average of 20,500 barrels per day. This is another 
devastating blow to the people of Venezuela, who depend on the foreign 
exchange earnings of oil sales for necessary imports.

We also find it inexplicable that, as a human rights organization, WOLA 
did not respond to our argument that the US sanctions against Venezuela 
― all of them ― are illegal under international law, including theOAS 
charter 
<https://www.oas.org/en/sla/dil/inter_american_treaties_A-41_charter_OAS.asp#Chapter_IV>, 
the UN char 
<https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-6265-051-0_4>t 
<https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-6265-051-0_4>er 
<https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-6265-051-0_4>, and 
various international conventions 
<https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule103>against 
collective punishment. In our view, that alone should settle the debate 
over sanctions.

Most human rights experts believe that increasing compliance with 
international laws and treaties that protect human rights has a vital 
role to play in reducing human rights abuses. If WOLA shares that view, 
then they should explain why international law does not enter into 
WOLA’s discussion of the US sanctions against Venezuela /anywhere /in 
their writings on this subject; and not even when it is presented to 
them directly in a criticism of their position regarding these illegal 
sanctions.

In our letter, we criticized WOLA for dismissing the mediation offers of 
neutral parties, including the Vatican, and the governments of Mexico 
and Uruguay, as a “non-starter,” and supporting the International 
Contact group as the only place where negotiations can take place. WOLA 
responds with certain statements that are not true, and also by 
mischaracterizing our criticism.

First, it is not true that, as WOLA states, that “this initiative [by 
Mexico and Uruguay] appears to have been discarded.” On the contrary, 
the initiative remains on the table and has been joined by most of the 
Caricom countries (seehere 
<https://www.gob.mx/sre/prensa/encuentro-del-secretario-marcelo-ebrard-con-el-secretario-general-de-la-caricom>and 
here 
<https://www.eluniversal.com.mx/columna/juan-ramon-de-la-fuente-y-pablo-arrocha/nacion/mexico-ante-la-crisis-en-venezuela>). 
WOLA’s assertion that Uruguay has abandoned the effort appears to be 
based on the fact that it is also a member of the International Contact 
Group, but of course the country can be, and is, part of both 
initiatives 
<http://talcualdigital.com/index.php/2019/02/19/mecanimo-de-montevideo-enviara-delegacion-para-buscar-soluciones-a-crisis-venezolana>. 
WOLA presents no evidence that Mexico has abandoned its effort to 
promote dialogue.

WOLA also advances the illogical argument that the ICG is not dominated 
by Washington simply because the Trump administration didn’t want it in 
the first place. The Trump administration does not want any negotiation 
at all, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t dominate this group after 
failing to prevent its creation. Every country in the group except for 
Uruguay and Italy has recognized Guaidó as interim president of 
Venezuela. As explained above, this is equivalent to an economic 
embargo, which the Europeans ― both willingly and under open threat of 
US sanctions on European financial institutions– are carrying out. This 
is not a neutral party by any stretch of the imagination, and the fact 
that one or two neutral countries have joined the group cannot change 
this reality.

In our letter we also noted that it is possible that, eventually, the 
Europeans might break with Washington and pursue a negotiated solution 
while adopting a more neutral stance. But many Venezuelans will likely 
die before that happens. We find it disturbing that WOLA would pretend 
that the ICG is neutral and be so eager to bury the efforts of neutral 
parties.

Furthermore, in the history of conflict resolution, it is both normal 
and more pragmatic to have negotiations without setting as a 
precondition the central issue that the opposing parties of a polarized 
country disagree on. In this case, that is the call for new elections, 
since the government and its supporters consider the May 2018 
presidential elections to be legitimate and the opposition does not. 
Moreover, given the very polarized political environment in Venezuela, 
the Maduro government is highly unlikely to agree to new elections 
without prior agreement on basic guarantees ensuring fair treatment and 
protection from judicial persecution in the event of an electoral 
defeat. Those who do not want a negotiated solution ― including the 
Trump team and their allies ― would understandably set new elections as 
a precondition. It is not clear why a human rights organization that 
claims to be in favor of a negotiated solution would support such 
preconditions.

Finally, we must respond to what WOLA claims is

“[our] most fundamental disagreement, and probably the one that explains 
our difference with the signatories of the letter, is in how we frame 
the problem.”

“For the signers, this is about the United States. The letter mentions 
the United States twice as many times as it mentions Venezuela. What is 
more, the letter’s mentions of Venezuela are almost exclusively as a 
passive subject receiving action. The only real actor mentioned in the 
text is the Trump administration. Most specifically, there are no 
descriptions of the Maduro government’s assault on democratic 
institutions and violations of basic human rights.


For WOLA, this is about Venezuela. *As a human rights organization, 
WOLA’s central focus is on the Venezuelan people and their rights.”*

**

*Our central focus is also on the Venezuelan people and their rights. 
But our letter to your organization, which is based in Washington—the 
first word of your institutional title—is to question your conspicuous 
lack of opposition to concrete policies developed in Washington that are 
killing people on a daily basis in Venezuela right now. The U.S. 
sanctions and trade embargo against Venezuela, which undermine the rule 
of law, have been developed and imposed on the Venezuelan people by the 
Trump Administration without a modicum of democratic input from the 
American people or their elected representatives. These sanctions 
contribute to the lack of access to medicine, medical supplies, and 
other essential imports for Venezuelans, and prevent a recovery from 
what has become the worst depression in Latin American history. *

**

WOLA faults us for not including “descriptions of the Maduro 
government’s assault on democratic institutions and violations of basic 
human rights” in a letter about WOLA’s positions on the Trump 
administration’s illegal sanctions and attempt to overthrow the 
government of Venezuela. But that is simply because we do not believe 
that the Trump administration’s regime change operation has anything to 
do with democracy or human rights, and indeed is likely to worsen the 
human rights situation. If WOLA believes otherwise, we would like to 
know how they might draw such a conclusion from the actions and 
statements of the leaders of this effort: Trump, Bolton, Rubio, Pompeo, 
and Elliott Abrams. We would also be interested in how the organization 
might reconcile such a belief with the past 17 years of US involvement 
in regime change efforts in Venezuela, which have been antithetical to 
advancing human rights or democracy in Venezuela.

It is not enough to simply oppose US military intervention in a 
situation where the Trump administration is using brutal collective 
punishment to prevent a negotiated solution and topple the government of 
Venezuela. As we noted previously, WOLA “should unequivocally oppose the 
whole sordid regime change operation, the violations of international 
law, and the illegal sanctions that are causing so much suffering.”

Signed:

Greg Grandin, Professor of History, New York University

Noam Chomsky, Emeritus Professor, MIT

Laura Carlsen, Director, Americas Program, Center for International Policy

Sujatha Fernandes, Professor of Political Economy and Sociology, 
University of Sydney

Steve Ellner, Associate Managing Editor of Latin American Perspectives

Elisabeth Jean Wood, Professor of Political Science, Yale University

John Mill Ackerman, Law Professor, National Autonomous University of 
Mexico (UNAM)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.historiansforpeace.org/private.cgi/h-pad-historiansforpeace.org/attachments/20190404/f48abf99/attachment.htm>