Trump: destroying international law

           By Reginald Johnson

    The distinguished economist and foreign policy analyst Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia says that President Trump is a "thug" who is flaunting both domestic and international law and creating a more dangerous world in the process.

      In an interview with Danny Haiphong following the US attack on Venezuela and abduction of that nation's leader Nicolas Maduro, Sachs said, "We have a thug who is President of the United States. He is threatening the lives of world leaders, kidnapping them, threatening the worst, threatening the president of Colombia, Gustavo Petro. This is thuggery."

Sachs said that  "we have international law to prevent human annihilation, to prevent the tragedy of international anarchy."

  But Trump is ignoring rules outlined in the UN Charter prohibiting threats against other countries, its leaders and attacks against other countries except in cases of self-defense.

 Sachs said the assault on Venezuela was "brazenly illegal" and a "grotesque violation of the UN Charter."

"Trump is ripping up the UN Charter. Obviously, he did not pay one iota of attention to it and in my view this extroardinarily dangerous," he said.

 In other comments on the Venezuela situation to the UN Security Council, Sachs, a former advisor to the Secretary-General, said it was imperative that the world body condemn the US attack on Venezuela, and threats against other countries.

  He urged the council to pass resolutions calling on the United States to "immediately cease and desist from all explicit and implicit threats or use of force against Venezuela," end the naval quarantine and withdraw all forces from in or near Venezuela.

 Sachs closed his remarks to the council with a sobering message: "The survival of humanity depends on whether the United Nations Charter remains a living instrument of international law or is allowed to wither into irrelevance. That is the choice before this council today."

  The Venezuelan representative to the UN, Samuel Moncada, condemned the US attack and also pleaded with the council to do something.

  "If the kidnapping of a Head of State, the bombing of a sovereign country and the open threat of further armed action are tolerated or downplayed, the message sent to the world is a devastating one --- namely, that the law is optional and that force is the true arbiter of international relations," he said.

 US Ambassador to the UN Michael Waltz, meanwhile, justified the US assault by characterizing it as a "law enforcement action" designed to remove a "narco-trafficker" who was involved in illegal activity harmful to the American people. About 100 Venezuelan and Cuban security forces died during the attack.

  "There is no war against Venezuela," he said.

Despite wide criticism by member countries of the US action, the council failed to take up any statement condemning the attack.

  In recent weeks, Trump has continued his pattern of threatening other countries. He's demanded that Denmark give up control of Greenland and turn it over to the US, saying that America needs Greenland for national security. Trump has indicated he would use military force if a "deal" is not reached.

 Most disturbingly, Trump continues to threaten Iran, saying that the government there is crushing a purported "democratic uprising" by the people and the US may have to take punitive military action. The US already bombed Iran last year, with Trump claiming the US needed to destroy that nation's alleged nuclear bombing-making facilities. Iran has denied making any nuclear weapons.

  It should be noted that last year's attack was illegal under the UN Charter, since Iran had not attacked the US and there was no threat of an imminent attack by Iran. Any renewed attack by the US would be similarly illegal.

  Sachs said "there is a high likelihood" of war with Iran in the near future.

 "If it happens," he said, "that would be vastly more dangerous than what's happening in the Americas, because that area is in the most explosive zone in the world and it is an area where the great powers can easily clash and where escalation --- even to nuclear war --- becomes possible."

Democrats silent on U.S. coup in Venezuela

                    

By Reginald Johnson

  Members of Connecticut’s congressional delegation --- all Democrats --- are remaining mostly silent as the Trump administration tries to oust Nicolas Maduro as president of Venezuela, threatening to use force if necessary.

  Claiming that Maduro is running an authoritarian regime which has mismanaged the Venezuelan economy, President Donald Trump and other officials are demanding that Maduro be replaced, and they have hinted at the possibility of a military intervention. Crippling economic sanctions have also been levied against Venezuela.

  On January 23, Trump said in response to a question about possible military action by the U.S., that “all options are on the table.” He reiterated the comment that  “all options” were being considered, at a press conference with Colombian President Ivan Duque Marquez last week.

   In threatening to use military force to overthrow a sovereign government, Trump is violating the UN charter, to which the United States is a signatory.

     Article 2, paragraph four of the UN charter unequivocally states: “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

  Yet all members of the Connecticut congressional delegation, with one exception, have said nothing about Trump’s strong-arm policy.

   A check of congressional websites shows none of the five members of the House of Representatives from Connecticut have taken a stand on Trump’s Venezuela policy.

   Phone calls were also made last week to the offices two congressmembers,  Rep. Jim Himes, D-4, and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3, seeking comment on Venezuela.  A staff person for Himes said the congressman had not taken a stand yet on the issue, but someone would call back if he chose to comment now. So far, there’s been no reply.

   A staff person at DeLauro’s office said she didn’t know if the congresswoman had a position on the administration’s Venezuela policy. “All her positions are on the website,” she said.

   A spokesman at the office of U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn, said “I don’t think he’s made a comment on that yet,” when questioned about Venezuela. But he promised that if the senator did take a stand, the office would inform me.

   U.S. Sen. Chris  Murphy, D-Conn  is the only one to comment on the Trump policy.  He wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post on Jan. 29 saying that while he agreed with the objective of replacing Maduro --- due to his “lack of democratic legitimacy” and economic mismanagement --- he cautioned against a military solution. He said “the administration must recognize the troubled history of US intervention in Latin America” and added that “public bluster about military options and private leaks about coup planning only serve to undercut the legitimacy of the democracy that we should support.”  

       Murphy said that “the United States should be working with international partners to support negotiations with all of Venezuela’s factions in pursuit of a transitional government that can hold new elections.”

    

President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela  (Getty Images)

    Henry Lowendorf, chairman of the Greater New Haven Peace Council, which is strongly opposed to the U.S. Venezuela policy, said “there seems to be a conspiracy of silence --- not just in the Connecticut delegation, but in general, among Democrats.”

     Lowendorf added, “Republicans are cheering Trump on.  Democrats for the most part, with a few exceptions, have been silent. Maybe a half dozen Democrats, including Tulsi Gabbard,  Ro Khanna and Bernie Sanders have said we shouldn’t overthrow the government. That’s none of our business.”

   “I don’t want to let the Republicans off the hook,” Lowendorf said.  “Historically, over the last half-century or so, Republicans have been the war party. But Democrats now are the war party. The Republicans continue to push for war and more military but the Democrats are pushing it even more.”

  Lowendorf said over the last two years, whenever Trump has done something that is not militaristic, such as moving to pull troops out of Syria and Afghanistan, or make a peace deal with North Korea, the Democrats have criticized him. Also he noted, very few Democrats have criticized the “U.S. role in the devastation of Yemen.”

   Despite the stand of the Democrats, peace activists in Connecticut and elsewhere are beginning to mobilize to protest U.S. policy on Venezuela and prevent what could be a catastrophic American military intervention.

   Next Saturday, February 23,  rallies are being held around the country and around the world to protest U.S. policy towards Venezuela.  Locally, the Greater New Haven Peace Council is sponsoring a rally in New Haven, on the New Haven Green at Elm and Church Streets from 12 noon to 1 PM.  There will also be a march to Congresswoman DeLauro’s office at 59 Elm Street.

  Another rally sponsored by the Connecticut Peace and Solidarity Coalition is taking place in Hartford outside the Federal Building on Main Street from 12 noon to 1 PM. In New York City, there will be another rally entitled “March on Wall Street to Defend Venezuela,” beginning at 1 PM at 40 Wall Street in Manhattan.
  "We must stop another war. We must end the sanctions. No to the coup," said Lowendorf.

       

   

 

  

   

 

   

Making War on Syria

By Reginald Johnson



In a sickening reminder of what happened during the lead-up to the Iraq War, reporters and members of Congress are failing to ask the tough questions about why the U.S. is getting involved in the Syrian conflict.

The administration of President Barack Obama announced Thursday that the U.S. is planning on sending military weapons to the opposition forces fighting a bloody civil war against the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad.

The administration claims that it has determined that Syria used chemical weapons against the “rebel” forces, and crossed a “red line” which the U.S. finds unacceptable.

“The president has said that the use of chemical weapons would change his calculus, and it has,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, as reported in The Washington Post. Rhodes said U.S. intelligence had determined with “high certainty” that Syrian government forces have “used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year.”

Intelligence agencies estimate that 100 to 150 people have died as a result of chemical weapons use, he said.

Soon after the administration announcement, members of Congress from both political parties rushed to show support for the decision to send arms, and even push for bolder action.

”The U.S. should move swiftly to shift the balance on the ground in Syria by considering grounding the Syrian air force with stand-off weapons and protecting a safe zone in northern Syria with Patriot missiles in Turkey,” said Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa. as quoted in the Post.

Media coverage has been soft, with reporters steering away from asking uncomfortable questions of the administration about links between the rebels and al-Qaeda and the illegality of sending arms to opposition forces.

So the bandwagon has started rolling towards another war for the U.S.  First we’re sending military aid, then possibly impose a no-fly zone, and then who knows? Boots on the ground? The thought of another war in the Middle East involving American forces is mind numbing, after the utter disaster of Iraq. And a war in Syria could quickly get much larger, involving Iran and Russia on one side and America, Britain, France and Israel on the other side. Scary.

We better start asking questions and demand good answers, before this gets out of hand.

Question Number 1: Just who is the opposition in Syria and why should we side with them? Are they simply “freedom-loving rebels” (as Ronald Reagan once called the drug-running contra fighters in Nicaragua) who just want the Syrian people to be free of the dictator Assad? Or are they something else, not so glorious?

The truth is that the opposition forces today are dominated by two groups --- a faction called al-Nusra which is openly affiliated with al-Qaeda, and Islamic-Sunni extremists. In the beginning of the Syrian revolt, there were genuine independence fighters, trying to free the country of the despotic Assad. But those people are no longer in the forefront of the opposition. Al Nusra and the Sunni extremists are.

Al-Qaeda is supposedly our sworn enemy. They caused 911, according to the official account. Why would we send arms to a coalition that includes an al-Qaeda affiliated group, as well as other Islamic fundamentalists?

Moreover, UN investigators on a commission of inquiry have said that while it appears chemical weapons have been used in the Syrian conflict, it’s not clear by whom. It may be that both sides have used sarin gas. In fact, one member of the UN commission of inquiry on Syria said in May, prior to the full commission report, she believed the rebels had used sarin gas.

I’d like to know why it is that American intelligence can be so categorical in saying that the government used poison gas, while a UN team has said it’s an open question? It brings to mind former CIA Director George Tenet’s famous line about whether there was enough evidence to prove there were WMDs in Iraq --- “it’s a slam dunk.” Of course WMDs were ultimately never found, but we had already gone to war anyway.

Speaking of the UN, this brings up Question Number 2. Doesn’t the UN Charter, a treaty which the U.S. signed and is bound by, prohibit one country from making war on another country, unless it is acting in self-defense or have Security Council authorization? The answer is, yes, it does. We will be breaking international law by sending military aid to a group trying to overthrow a foreign government. It won’t make it any more legal if the aid is filtered through allies like Turkey, or done in conjunction with NATO allies like Britain and France (former colonial powers in the Middle East). We will be war criminals.

If the U.S. is so concerned about the oppression of the Assad regime over the Syrian people, and the government’s use of chemical weapons, then America should take its case to the United Nations. The U.S. should lay out the crimes of the Assad regime, and argue for collective action to remove him. Even if one assumes Russia would veto any UN move, couldn’t we make a very powerful case? Wouldn’t we at least shame the Assad regime, and possibly trigger some changes?

But making that case would rest on proving Assad’s crimes, his use of chemical weapons and atrocities committed by his military. There’s a lot of evidence of all that, but there’s also evidence of war crimes by the opposition, so the picture gets complicated. It becomes a situation of ‘a plague on both houses.’

Finally, reporters need to ask, is the U.S. intervening because it is really worried about Iran? Are we trying to install a friendly regime in Damascus, to take away a key ally of Iran and ultimately topple the Iranian regime as well? And why are we so worried about Iran? Is it really because of their alleged nuclear bomb-making program (there’s no verification of such a program yet) or is it because, like Iraq, Iran holds such a large supply of oil?

I’m hoping that reporters and members of Congress will start asking some pointed questions about what’s going on with the Syria policy. Based on what I’ve seen so far, I’m not holding my breath.

And that’s a shame, because after Iraq and Afghanistan, we don’t need more loss of blood and treasure.