All We Are Saying Is Give Peace a Chance-John Lennon, 1969…(The “peace” movement came to an abrupt end in Nov. 2008 when Obama was elected)

……….

“Give Peace a Chance,” Official Video, 1969 

Lyrics by John Lennon: 

“Give Peace A Chance” 

“Two, one two three four

Ev’rybody’s talking about
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism, is-m, is-m, is-m.

All we are saying is give peace a chance 
All we are saying is give peace a chance

C’mon
Ev’rybody’s talking about Ministers,
Sinisters, Banisters and canisters
Bishops and Fishops and Rabbis and Pop eyes,
And bye bye, bye byes. 

All we are saying is give peace a chance   
All we are saying is give peace a chance

 Let me tell you now
Ev’rybody’s talking about
Revolution, evolution, masturbation,
Flagellation, regulation, integrations,
Meditations, United Nations,
Congratulations.

Ev’rybody’s talking about John and Yoko, Timmy Leary, Rosemary,
Tommy Smothers, Bobby Dylan, Tommy Cooper,
Derek Taylor, Norman Mailer,
Alan Ginsberg, Hare Krishna,
Hare, Hare Krishna”

………

Comment: No one wants to “give peace a chance” in 2019. The “peace” movement was loud and strong until Nov. 2008. It magically disappeared as soon as Obama was elected. During his 8 years Obama transformed the Democrat Party into the home of the Endless US Taxpayer Funded Foreign War Industry and remade government into something about which everything was “classified.” Thus, should a clueless rube dare ask a question about why this is happening, the rube was told, “That information is classified, national security,” you hick. The entire US political class likes it this way. The most important thing the Endless Foreign War Industry does is permanently silence and enslave all Americans from birth. Whatever else it does is of secondary importance.

………..

.................

Cardinal George Pell found guilty of child rape in Australia court. Forced his penis onto face of 13 year old boys. Before trial began, Pell was Vatican Treasurer, trusted and praised by Pope Francis-UK Guardian

2/25/19, “Cardinal George Pell found guilty of child sexual assault," UK Guardian, Melissa Davey 

“Vatican treasurer, the third most senior Catholic in the world, convicted on five charges in Australian Court case.” 

“Cardinal George Pell, once the third most powerful man in the Vatican and Australia’s most senior Catholic, has been found guilty of child sexual abuse after a trial in Melbourne. 

A jury delivered the unanimous verdict on 11 December in Melbourne’s county court, but the result was subject to a suppression order and could not be reported until now. 

A previous trial on the same five charges, which began in August, resulted in a hung jury, leading to a retrial. 

Pell, who is on leave from his role in Rome as Vatican treasurer, was found guilty of sexually penetrating a child under the age of 16 as well as four charges of an indecent act with a child under the age of 16. The offences occurred in December 1996 and early 1997 at St Patrick’s Cathedral, months after Pell was inaugurated as archbishop of Melbourne. 

He is due to be sentenced next week but may be taken into custody at a plea hearing on Wednesday, having been out on bail since the verdict and recovering from knee surgery. 

Pope Francis, who has previously praised Pell for his honesty and response to child sexual abuse, has yet to publicly react, but just two days after the unreported verdict in December the Vatican announced that Pell and two other cardinals had been removed from the pontiff’s council of advisers. 

Pell’s conviction and likely imprisonment will cause shockwaves through a global Catholic congregation and is a blow to Francis’s efforts to get a grip on sexual abuse. 

It comes just days after an unprecedented summit of cardinals and senior bishops in the presence of the pope at the Vatican, intended to signal a turning point on the issue that has gravely damaged the church and imperilled Francis’s papacy. 

Before returning to Australia to face the charges, Pell was for three years prefect of the secretariat for the economy of the Holy See, making him one of the most senior Catholics in the world. He was one of Francis’s most trusted advisers, and was handpicked to oversee the Vatican’s complex finances and root out corruption. 

On the day of the dramatic verdict, after a four-and-a-half-week trial, Pell stood in the dock showing no reaction and staring straight ahead. The room was silent as the foreman told the court that the jury had found the cardinal guilty on all charges. Pell’s defence barrister, Robert Richter QC, when asked by journalists if he would appeal, responded: “Absolutely.” 

Pell will now almost certainly face jail time. 

The case against Pell centred around events of more than 22 years ago. 

The jury found that in the second half of December 1996, while he was archbishop of Melbourne, Pell walked in on two 13-year-old choirboys after a Sunday solemn mass at St Patrick’s Cathedral and sexually assaulted them. 

The complainant, who is now aged 35 and cannot be named, said he and the other choirboy had separated from the choir procession as it exited the church building. The prosecution’s case hinged on his evidence, as the other victim died in 2014 after a heroin overdose. Neither victim told anyone about the offending at the time.

After leaving the procession, the complainant said, he and the other boy sneaked back into the church corridors and entered the priest’s sacristy, a place they knew they should not be.

There they found some sacramental wine and began to drink. The complainant alleged that Pell had walked in on them and told them something to the effect that they were in trouble. 

Pell manoeuvred his robes to expose his penis. He stepped forward, grabbed the other boy by the back of his head, and forced the boy’s head on to his penis, the complainant told the court. 

Pell then did the same thing to the complainant, orally raping him. Once he had finished, he ordered the complainant to remove his pants, before fondling the complainant’s penis and masturbating himself. The complainant said the attack lasted only a few minutes, and the boys left the room afterwards, hung up their choir robes and went home. 

Being in the choir was a condition of the complainant’s scholarship to attend St Kevin’s College, an elite independent school in the affluent inner-Melbourne suburb of Toorak, the court heard. 

“I knew a scholarship could be given or taken away even at that age,” the complainant told the court. “And I didn’t want to lose that. It meant so much to me. And what would I do if I said such a thing about an archbishop? It’s something I carried with me the whole of my life.” 

The complainant alleged that either later that year in 1996, or in early 1997, Pell attacked him again. He said he was walking down a hallway to the choristers’ change room, again after singing at Sunday solemn mass at the cathedral, when Pell allegedly pushed him against the wall and squeezed his genitals hard through his choir robes, before walking off. 

The complainant told the court that after the attacks he could not fathom what had happened to him and that he dealt with it by pushing it to the “darkest corners and recesses” of his mind.
In his police statement, the complainant said he remembered Pell “being a big force in the place”. 

“He emanated an air of being a powerful person,” he said. “I’ve been struggling with this a long time … and my ability to be here. [Because] I think Pell has terrified me my whole life … he was [later] in the Vatican He was an extremely, presidentially powerful guy who had a lot of connections.” 

In his closing address, the crown prosecutor Mark Gibson told the jury their verdict would come down to whether they believed the complainant beyond reasonable doubt. They should find the complainant an honest witness, Gibson said. 

Pell pleaded not guilty from the beginning. He was interviewed by a Victorian detective, Christopher Reed, in Rome in October 2016, and the video of that interview was played to the court. In that interview Pell described the allegations as “a load of garbage and falsehood”. 

When Reed said the attacks were alleged to have occurred after Sunday mass, Pell responded: “That’s good for me as it makes it even more fantastically impossible.” 

Pell’s defence team told the jury there were so many improbabilities in the prosecution’s case that they should conclude the abuse could not have happened. Richter said it was unlikely that two boys could leave the choir procession after mass unnoticed or that the sacristy would be unattended or left unlocked, or that Pell would be able to manoeuvre his robes to show his penis in the way described by the complainant. The robes were brought into the court for jurors to view…. 

In his directions to the jury, the judge, Peter Kidd, told them that the trial was not an opportunity to make Pell a scapegoat for the failures of the Catholic church. 

The jury took less than four days to reach their unanimous verdict. 

Until now the trials have been subject to a suppression order and could not be reported. The reason for the strict order was that Pell faced a second trial in relation to separate alleged historical offences. The first trial was suppressed temporarily so information from it would be less likely to influence the jury in the second. Suppression orders are not unusual in such cases. 

But Kidd has now ordered that reporting restrictions be lifted after the Department of Public Prosecutions dropped the second set of charges. Kidd had ruled that key evidence was inadmissible and could not be used, significantly weakening the prosecution’s case.”




.................

There’s no such thing as “humanitarian military intervention” distinct from war or counterinsurgency. US claim that needy citizens require intervention is really an argument for political war. Alleged philanthropic imperialism is imperial nonetheless-Harvard Int. Review, 3/21/2007

March 21, 2007, “No Such Thing as Humanitarian Intervention," Harvard International Review, hir.harvard.edu, Alex De Waal 

“There is no such thing as humanitarian military intervention distinct from war or counterinsurgency. Intervention and occupation should not be confused with classic peacekeeping, which is difficult enough even with a ceasefire agreement and the consent of the parties. If we want an intervention to overthrow a tyranny, protect citizens from their own government, or deliver humanitarian aid during an ongoing conflict, we should be honest with ourselves – we are arguing for a just war. And if we wish to make this case, let us be clear that the war is political (and must be very smartly political to succeed); that military logic will dictate what happens (including probable escalation and various unpredictable factors); and that it will entail bloodshed including the killing of innocent people. 

Let us be very wary of developing any doctrine for humanitarian intervention. Any principle of intervention can readily be abused – as by the French in central Africa – or become a charter for imperial occupation. There may be cases in which imperial rule is the lesser of two evils, perhaps to end genocide (a current preoccupation) or to end slavery (a late 19th century one), but philanthropic imperialism is imperial nonetheless. As Harcourt noted, ethics can sometimes override law, and invasion, like revolution, can sometimes bring about a better state of affairs. But chasing the chimera of humanitarian intervention distracts us and impedes the search for real solutions to crises such as Darfur.” (These are last two paragraphs in article).




............

Armed “humanitarian” interventions are a US specialty and will continue. For instance US said its reason for trying to assassinate President Maduro in Feb. 2015 was because US was so humanitarian

2/24/2015, “Obama failed his coup in Venezuela," Voltaire Network, Thierry Meyssan 

“Once again, the Obama administration has tried to force the change of a political regime that resists it. On February 12, [2015] an Academi (formerly Blackwater) plane disguised as an aircraft of the Venezuelan army was supposed to bomb the presidential palace and kill President Nicolas Maduro. The plotters had planned to place former MP María Corina Machado in power.”…
………………………….. 

Armed “humanitarian” interventions are the US specialty and will continue under R2P: 

2/18/19, ““Humanitarian Intervention” And The “New World Order“: Violation Of The International Law (III),” Oriental Review, written by Vladislav B. Sotirovic 

(Scroll down): “Arguments Against Humanitarian Intervention” 

“There are several focal objections by the scholars, policy-makers, and lawyers to humanitarian intervention advocated at various times. Here, we will address the most important arguments against humanitarian intervention taking primarily the case of NATO’s bombing of the FRY [Serbia and Montenegro, the Former Yugoslavia] in 1999:

1. No real basis for humanitarian intervention in Public International Law. The common good is best preserved by maintaining a ban on any use of force not authorized by the UNSC. Interveners have typically either claimed to be acting in self-defense according to the “implied authorization” of the UNSC resolutions and the UN Charter or have refrained from making any reasonable legal argument based on Public International Law at all.
2. States do not intervene for primarily humanitarian reasons. States always have mixed real reasons for humanitarian and other interventions and are very rarely prepared to sacrifice their own soldiers overseas. It means that humanitarian intervention is guided by calculations of national interest but not by what is best for the victims in whose name the intervention is formally carried out.
3. States are not allowed to risk the lives of their own soldiers in order to save strangers. Political leaders do not possess any moral right to shed the blood of their own citizens on behalf of suffering foreigners. Citizens are having the exclusive responsibility of their own state, and their state is entirely their own business and, therefore, if a civil authority has broken down this is the responsibility only of the citizens and political leaders of that state but not of the foreign powers.
4. The issue of abuse. In the absence of a not politically colored mechanism for deciding when a real humanitarian intervention is permissible, states have a possibility to espouse humanitarian motives just as a formal pretext to morally cover the pursuit of national self-interest as, for instance, A. Hitler did with the Sudetenland.
5. Selectivity of response. States all the time apply principles of humanitarian intervention selectively following their own national interest but not real protection of human rights. In other words, a state’s behavior is always governed by what the Government decides to be in their interest and, therefore, states are selective about when they choose to intervene. As an example, the selectivity of response is the argument that NATO’s “humanitarian” intervention in Kosovo in 1999 could not be driven by real humanitarian concerns as it has done nothing to address, for instance, the very much larger humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur, a province in West Sudan (Darfur genocide).
6. A problem of moral principles. There is no generally reached consensus on a set of moral principles about humanitarian intervention which should not be permitted in the face of disagreement about what constitutes extreme cases of the violation of human rights.
7. Practically, humanitarian intervention does not work. Humanitarian intervention is not workable as the outsiders cannot impose human rights especially by those who have the same problem in their homes. Democracy can be established only by a domestic struggle for liberty but not from the outside. It means that human rights cannot take root if they are imposed by outsiders [such as murderous US neocons]. The argument is that the oppressed people should by themselves overthrow non-democratic authority.[vi]

Conclusion

The norms of Public International Law and doctrine of collective security after 1945 presented above, unfortunately, did not stop different forms of armed interventions around the globe but especially by the US – a country which became a global champion of aggression. Armed “humanitarian” interventions are still and are going to be a reality of the present and future international relations under the umbrella of the R2P. 

After the Cold War, the most brutal, illegal and shameful “humanitarian intervention” was in the southern Serbian province of Kosovo-Metochia in 1999 that was, in fact, NATO’s aggression against the FRY [Serbia and Montenegro, former Yugoslavia] in a form of an [bombing] air campaign. However, beside this example of “humanitarian intervention” as a violation of Public International Law, there were many similar interventions before like when in 1983 the USA invaded a sovereign state of Granada with some 8.000 soldiers under justification to protect the lives of about 1.000 American citizens living there under the belief that they were threatened due to the unrest in this country. However, the real reason of such “humanitarian intervention” has been of purely political and geostrategic nature rather than humanitarian one as US’ troops occupied the whole island (state) of Granada including and those parts in which US’ citizens did not live. The focal proof of abuse of Public International Law was a fact that the American troops de facto occupied Granada as they stayed on the island even after all the American citizens had left and changed the Government of it. 

From the presentation above, it is quite clear that NATO’s military action against Serbia and Montenegro in 1999 cannot be characterized as a just war of “humanitarian intervention” even according to the criteria by the 17^th-century Dutch philosopher Hugo Grotius not to speak about the modern set of criteria incorporated into the UN Charter and Public International Law. Therefore, the action was rather a classic example of brutal military aggression against a sovereign state covered by politicized Western mass media. It is true that “media are not only spectator in modern conflicts, but must be considered active participants forming public opinion and also creating and directing threat perception”[vii] that was exactly the case of the 1998−1999 Kosovo War when the Western corporate mass media succeeded to convince public opinion that NATO’s “humanitarian intervention” was a just war.”

“Endnotes: 

[i] About the Western lies on the Kosovo War, see in [Lesly Alan Horvitz, Christopher Catherwood, Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide, New York: Facts On File, 2006, 270−271]. The authors wrote this chapter and suggesting the further reading list exclusively on the „sources“ of those warmongers who attacked the FRY and their political supporters – notorious pro-Albanian and Serbophobic Western „academicians“ and „journalist“ like NATO’s General Wesley K. Clark (who bombed Serbia and Montenegro in 1999), Noel Malcolm, Tim Judah, Julie Mertus or Michael Ignatieff.
[ii] Мирко Чупић, Отета земља: Косово и Метохија (злочини, прогони, отпори…), Београд: Нолит, 2006.
[iii] For instance, Resolution 1203 on 1998-10-24 or Resolution 1207 on 1998-11-17.
[iv] Др Радослав Гаћиновић, Насиље у Југославији, Београд: ЕВРО, 2002, 292−304.
[v] Milan Paunovic, „Humanitarian Intervention as an Abuse of the Principle of Prohibited Use of Force in International Law“, Eurobalkans, Autumn/Winter, 1999, 22.
[vi] Andrew Heywood, Global Politics, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011, 325−328.
[vii] Žaneta Ozoliņa (ed.), Rethinking Security, Rīga: Zinātne, 2010, 219−220.”


………………………………
.........
 

Image above from TheTechnocraticTyranny.com, published 2/27/2016, “State Department’s Mission: Coup d’etat"

Added: Obama tried to assassinate Maduro in Feb. 2015: 

2/24/2015, “Obama failed his coup in Venezuela," Voltaire Network, Thierry Meyssan 

“Once again, the Obama administration has tried to force the change of a political regime that resists it. On February 12, [2015] an Academi (formerly Blackwater) plane disguised as an aircraft of the Venezuelan army was supposed to bomb the presidential palace and kill President Nicolas Maduro. The plotters had planned to place former MP María Corina Machado in power and have her immediately acclaimed by former Latin American presidents.” 

“President Obama had given a warning. In his new doctrine of Defence (National Security Strategy), he wrote: “We stand with citizens whose full exercise of democracy is in danger, as the Venezuelans.” Yet, Venezuela is, since the adoption of the 1999 constitution, one of the most democratic countries in the world. This sentence presaged the worst to prevent it from continuing its path to independence and wealth redistribution. 

It was on February 6, 2015. Washington was finishing developing the plan for the overthrow of the democratic institutions of Venezuela. The coup was planned for February 12. 

“Operation Jericho” was supervised by the National Security Council (NSC), under the authority of Ricardo Zuñiga. This “diplomat” is the grandson of the homonymous president of the Honduran National Party who organized the coups of 1963 and 1972 in favor of General López Arellano. He directed the CIA station in Havana (2009-11), where he recruited and financed agents to form the opposition to Fidel Castro while negotiating the resumption of diplomatic relations with Cuba (finally concluded in 2014). 

As always in this type of operation, Washington is careful to not appear involved in the events it leads. The CIA works through supposedly non-governmental organizations to organize coup leaders: the National Endowment for Democracy [NED] and its two pseudopods of the right (the International Republican Institute) and left (the National Democratic Institute) Freedom House and the International Center for Non-Profit Law. In addition, the United States always seeks allies to outsource parts of the coup, in this case at least Germany (responsible for the protection of NATO nationals during the coup), Canada (responsible for controlling the civilian international airport in Caracas), Israel (responsible for the assassination of Chavez personalities) and the UK (in charge of the propaganda coup). Finally, they mobilize their political networks that are ready to recognize the coup: Washington Senator Marco Rubio, former Chile president, Sebastián Piñera, in Colombia former Presidents Alvaro Uribe and Andres Pastrana, in Mexico the former presidents Felipe Calderón and Vicente Fox, in Spain the former President of the Government José María Aznar. 

To justify the coup, the White House had encouraged large Venezuelan companies to warehouse rather than distribute essential commodities. The idea was to cause queues at the shops, and to infiltrate agents into the crowd to cause riots. In reality, though there had been supply problems in January-February and queues in front of stores, never did Venezuelans attack shops. 

To strengthen its economic action, on December 18, 2014, President Obama signed a law imposing new sanctions against Venezuela and several of its leaders. Officially, this was to punish individuals who had suppressed student protests. In fact, since the beginning of the year, Washington [Obama] was paying four times the medium salary income – to gangs so that they would attack the police. The pseudo-students had thus killed 43 people in a few months and spread terror in the streets of the capital. 

Military action was overseen by General Thomas W. Geary, from SOUTHCOM in Miami, and Rebecca Chavez, from the Pentagon, and outsourced to a private army, Academi (formerly Blackwater); a company now administered by Admiral Bobby R. Inman (former head of the NSA) and John Ashcroft (the former Attorney General of the Bush administration). A Super Tucano, registered N314TG, purchased by the Virginia firm in 2008 to assassinate Raul Reyes, the No. 2 man in the Colombian FARC, was to be disguised as an airplane of the Venezuelan army. It was supposed to bomb the Miraflores presidential palace and other targets from a pre-determined dozen, including the Ministry of Defence, the management of Intelligence at the ALBA, Telesur television channel. The plane, being parked in Colombia, the operational headquarters of “Jericho” had been installed at the US Embassy in Bogota with the participation of the Ambassador, Kevin Whitaker and his deputy, Benjamin Ziff.

 
Some senior officers, active or retired, had registered in advance a message to the nation in which they announced the takeover of power in order to restore order. They were scheduled to subscribe to the transition plan, published on February 12 in the morning by El Nacional and drafted by the US State Department. A new government would have been formed, led by former MP María Corina Machado.

The coup was supposed to place Corina Machado in power. On January 26, she hosted her main foreign accomplices in Caracas.

María Corina Machado was the president of Súmate, the association that organized and lost the recall referendum against Hugo Chávez Frias, in 2004, already with [US taxpayer] money from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the French advertising services of Jacques Seguela. Despite her defeat, she was received with honor by President George W. Bush in the Oval Office, May 31, 2005. Elected representative of Miranda state in 2011, she suddenly appeared on 21 March 2014 as Chief of the Panamanian delegation to the Organization of American States (OAS). She was immediately dismissed from her duties as a member for violation of sections 149 and 191 of the Constitution.

To facilitate the coordination of the coup, María Corina Machado organized a symposium in Caracas on January 26, “Citizen Power and Democracy today”, which was attended by most of the Venezuelan and foreign personalities involved.

 
No luck, Venezuelan Military Intelligence watched personalities suspected of hatching a previous plot to assassinate President Maduro. Last May [2014], the Caracas prosecutor had accused María Corina Machado, Henrique Salas Römer, governor, former diplomat Diego Arria, lawyer Gustavo Tarre Birceño, Eligio Cedeño, banker and businessman Pedro M. Burelli, but they challenged emails, claiming they had been falsified by Military Intelligence. Of course, they were all in cahoots. 

By tracking these conspirators, Military Intelligence discovered “Operation Jericho”. On the night of February 11, the main leaders of the plot and a Mossad agent were arrested and aviation security was enhanced. Others were rounded up on the 12th. On the 20th, confessions obtained permitted the arrest of an accomplice, the mayor of Caracas, Antonio Ledezma.

 

The Mayor of Caracas, Antonio Ledezma, was the liaison officer with Israel. He secretly went to Tel Aviv, May 18, 2012 to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman. He represented the head of the Venezuelan opposition, Henrique Capriles Radonski.

President Nicolas Maduro immediately intervened on television to denounce the conspirators. Meanwhile in Washington, the spokesman for the State Department was joking with journalists who remembered the coup in Honduras organized by Obama in 2009 – for Latin America – or, more recently, the attempted coup in Macedonia in January, 2015 – for the rest of the world -, stating: “These charges, like all previous ones, are ridiculous. It is a matter of long-standing policy: the United States does not support political transitions through unconstitutional means. Political transitions must be democratic, constitutional, peaceful and legal. We have seen repeatedly that the Venezuelan government is trying to divert attention from its own actions by accusing the United States or other members of the international community of responsibility for the events in Venezuela. These efforts reflect a lack of seriousness on the part of the Government of Venezuela to cope with the serious situation it faces. »

For Venezuelans the failed coup poses a serious question: how do we keep democracy alive, if the main opposition leaders are in jail for the crimes they were about to commit against democracy?
 
For those who think, wrongly, that the United States has changed, that it is no longer an imperialist power and that now it defends democracy in the world, “Operation Jericho” provides endless food for thought. 

The United States against Venezuela:

*In 2002, the United States organized a coup against elected President Hugo Chavez Frias [1], then they murdered the judge in charge of the investigation, Danilo Anderson [2].  In 2007, they tried to change the regime by organizing a “color revolution” with Trotskyist groups. [3]  In 2014, they seemed to give up their goal and supported anarchist groups to vandalize and destabilize the country, it is the Guarimba [4].”

[1] « Opération manquée au Venezuela », par Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 18 mai 2002.
[2] « Notre ami Danilo Anderson assassiné à Caracas », Réseau Voltaire, 19 novembre 2004. “The CIA behind Danilo Anderson’s Murder?”, by Marcelo Larrea. “FBI and CIA identified as helping Plan Venezuelan Prosecutor’s Murder”, by Alessandro Parma, Voltaire Network, 1 December 2004 and 11 November 2005.
[3] « Venezuela : conclusion d’une année déterminante », par Romain Migus, Réseau Voltaire, 10 octobre 2008. “The Albert Einstein Institution: non-violence according to the CIA”, by Thierry Meyssan, and Gene Sharp’s answer, Voltaire Network, 4 January 2005.
[4] “US against Venezuela: Cold War Goes Hot”, by Nil Nikandrov, Strategic Culture Foundation (Russia), Voltaire Network, 8 March 2014. «Las “guarimbas” de Venezuela: derecha embozada», por Martín Esparza Flores, Contralínea (México), Red Voltaire , 28 de abril de 2014.”

 

Thierry Meyssan 

Political consultant, President-founder of the Réseau Voltaire (Voltaire Network). Latest work in French – Sous nos Yeux. Du 11-Septembre à Donald Trump (Right Before our Eyes. From 9/11 to Donald Trump). 

Can Venezuela and its neighbours survive the coming war? 

Voltaire Network

Voltaire, international edition

..............

“Sick tyrant” Pompeo couldn’t care less about protecting “Venezuelan citizens” because he refuses to protect American citizens. He demands that we live in a death trap created by 2000 mile open US southern border. Save “humanitarian” rap, US tried to assassinate Maduro in Feb. 2015

Unelected Global Dictator and “sick tyrant” Mike Pompeo says Maduro’s “days are numbered.” In Feb. 2015 Obama attempted to assassinate Pres. Maduro, the plot failed, and the US is very lucky Venezuela didn’t attack the US in return. Maduro does allow aid from other entities. He correctly refuses so-called aid from the country that tried to assassinate him in Feb. 2015.



Image from TheTechnocraticTyranny.com, published 2/27/2016, “State Department’s Mission: Coup d’etat"
…………………………..

2/24/19, “Venezuela-There Was A Riot At The Border But What Else Did The “Aid” Stunt Achieve?" Moon of Alabama 

“Yesterday’s [Sat., 2/23] “humanitarian aid” stunt at the Colombian-Venezuelan border was supposed to achieve four points:

1. to breach the border and thereby open venues that could later be used for the passage of arms and fighters,
2. to incite large scale defections from the Venezuelan army and police forces,
3. to demonstrate to the outside world that the Random Guyaido, who declared himself president, has a large following and is thereby legitimate enough to support him,
4. to deliver justification for further steps against Venezuela.

Point 1 was clearly not achieved. A few hundred young men attacked the Venezuelan National Guard force that closed off the border. Attempts were made to ram “aid” trucks through. Random Guyaido was nowhere to be seen. The whole thing ended in a minor riot. The violent attackers received gasoline and made Molotov cocktails to attack the guards and set the “aid” trucks alight. Here is a video that proves that. The riots continued (vid) until about midnight but neither…rioters nor the aid passed through the border. 

The New York Times headlines, and Guaido claimed, that some “aid” passed into Venezuela from Brazil:

Some Aid From Brazil Pierces Venezuela’s Blockade, but Deadly Violence Erupts 

Down in paragraph 17 of its story the NYT admits that its headline is fake:

But as of Saturday night, the trucks remained stranded on the border, according to Jesús Bobadillo, a Catholic priest in Pacaraima, the Brazilian border town.

Bloomberg’s bureau chief in Venezuela confirmed that the “aid” never entered the country:

Patricia Laya @PattyLaya – 4:31 PM – 23 Feb 2019 An important note from our reporter on the Brazil border @SamyAdghirni: while the aid is technically on Venezuelan territory, it hasn’t crossed security or customs checkpoints

The attempt to incite defections of Venezuelan security forces largely failed. A handful of National Guard foot soldiers went over to the Colombian side. But the National Guard lines held well even under a hail of stones and fire and the units were quite disciplined in taking and holding their positions. The military of Venezuela stays firmly on the side of the state. 

The “aid” nonsense did not help to brush up Guaido’s legitimacy. Defying a court order Guaido left Venezuela and entered Colombia. If he ever goes back he will have to go to jail. The large mobilization inside and outside of Venezuela he had promised completely failed to appear. The melee at the border crossing only showed that his [Guaido’s] followers are a gang of brutal thugs. 

Guaido also lost his original legal position. He claimed the presidency on January 23 under this paragraph of article 233 of the Venezuelan constitution: 

"When an elected President becomes permanently unavailable to serve prior to his inauguration, a new election by universal suffrage and direct ballot shall be held within 30 consecutive days. Pending election and inauguration of the new President, the President of the National Assembly shall take charge of the Presidency of the Republic." 

That the “elected President becomes permanently unavailable” was never the case to begin with. But if article 233 would apply Guaido would have had 30 days to hold new elections. The 30 days are over and Guaido did not even call for elections to be held. He thereby defied the exact same paragraph of the constitution that his (false) claim to the presidency is based on. 

All the above will not change the U.S. urge to “regime change” Venezuela. But it will certainly lower Guaido’s support within the country as well as his international standing. It demonstrated aptly that he is nothing but an empty suit. 

The last aim of yesterday’s stunt was to give justification for the next steps towards [US taxpayer funded] “regime change” – whatever those steps may be. The success of achieving that aim was never in question as all U.S. media and politicians were already backing Trump’s plans by accepting the “humanitarian aid” nonsense in the first place: 

"Bernie Sanders @SenSanders – 18:47 utc – 23 Feb 2019 

The people of Venezuela are enduring a serious humanitarian crisis. The Maduro government must put the needs of its people first, allow humanitarian aid into the country, and refrain from violence against protesters."

This response to the fake socialist is warranted: 

"Roger Waters @rogerwaters – 22:27 utc – 23 Feb 2019
Replying to @SenSanders Bernie, are you f-ing kidding me! if you buy the Trump, Bolton, Abrams, Rubio line, “humanitarian intervention” and collude in the destruction of Venezuela, you cannot be credible candidate for President of the USA. Or, maybe you can, maybe you’re the perfect stooge for the 1 %." 

When the day was over Guaido and his U.S. handlers put out some statements that they probably wrote even before their “aid” stunt failed: 

"Juan Guaidó @jguaido – 2:33 utc – 24 Feb 2019
Translated from Spanish
Today’s events force me to make a decision: to raise the international community formally that we must have open all the options to achieve the liberation of this country that struggles and will continue to fight. Hope was born to not die, Venezuela! 

To advance on our route, I will meet on Monday with our allies of the international community, and we will continue ordering upcoming actions to the internal of the country. Internal and external pressure are essential for liberation. Hope was born not to die!" 

"Marco Rubio @marcorubio – 2:43 utc – 24 Feb 2019 Marco Rubio Retweeted Juan Guaidó

After discussions tonight with several regional leaders it is now clear that the grave crimes committed today by the Maduro regime have opened the door to various potential multilateral actions not on the table just 24 hours ago."

U.S. Vice President Mike Pence will arrive in Colombia tomorrow [Monday] to tell Guaido how to proceed. The focus will most likely be on how to start a sabotage campaign and a low level guerrilla war within Venezuela. Both will certainly hurt the country and its people but they are unlikely to achieve the larger “regime change” aim.

Fact free propaganda by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is already preparing a wider field: 

"Secretary Pompeo @SecPompeo – 3:25 utc- 24 Feb 2019 

Cuban agents are directing attacks on the people of #Venezuela on behalf of Maduro. The Venezuelan military should do its duty, protect the country’s citizens, and prevent the Havana puppeteers from starving hungry children. #EstamosUnidosVE" 

The Economist is speculating about the consequences of military intervention in Venezuela, also known as a war of aggression. It is not (yet) convinced that it is the immediate way to go, but foresees that it is likely the only way to actually “change the regime”: 

“Outsiders tend to play down the ideological commitment of some in the armed forces. […] There are many guns in the hands of pro-regime militias. Venezuela has a tradition of guerrilla warfare. 

An American invasion would thus be highly risky. It would also be counter-productive, because it would deprive a new government of legitimacy and revive anti-imperialism across Latin America when the main issue is the defence of democracy. Yes, Cuba is intervening in Venezuela [as is the US], and there is scant evidence that Mr Maduro will go peacefully. Even so, maintaining the broadest possible political front against him remains the best option.” 

The next steps the U.S. will take will “soften up” its target for an upcoming invasion. They will include further measures to make Venezuela ungovernable and to starve its people into submission. One possible step, even while legally unjustifiable, is a sea and air blockade. The “soften up” phase will take many months, if not years, to achieve some noticeable changes on the ground. Only then will further action be merited. The actual point in time will depend on how it may influence Trump’s domestic standing. 

Would launching a war on Venezuela help him to get reelected or will the war have to wait until he won his second term?”

…………………………………….. 

Added: 

2/24/2015, “Obama [Feb. 2015] failed his coup in Venezuela,“ Voltaire Network, Thierry Meyssan
………………………………….. 

2/21/19, “When Humanitarian Aid Is Used as a Weapon to Bring Down Regimes,“ The Atlantic, Dylan Baddour, Cucuta, Colombia
…………………………… 

Added: Armed “humanitarian” interventions are a US specialty and will continue under R2P: 

2/18/19, ““Humanitarian Intervention” And The “New World Order": Violation Of The International Law (III),” Oriental Review, written by Vladislav B. Sotirovic 

(Scroll down): “Arguments Against Humanitarian Intervention”





...................

80% approve of Yellow Vests proposal to unite France using citizen referendums to create new laws, “Referendum Initiated by the Citizen,” RIC

1/3/2019, “80 Percent of French Back Yellow Vest Citizen Referendum Initiative Proposal,” Breitbart, Chris Tomlinson



Image: Yellow Vests carry RIC banner, “Citizens’ Initiated Referendum“, undated AFP 

“According to a new poll, 80 percent of the French public support a proposal backed by the Gilets Jaunes  (Yellow Vests) movement that would allow citizens to propose referendums that would create new laws. 

The Citizen Initiated Referendum (RIC) would allow French citizens to propose their own laws that would then be voted on by the general public in a referendum that could effectively bypass the French parliament, broadcaster RTL reports. 

According to the Yellow Vest movement, the RIC would not be limited to just proposing new laws but would have several other functions including repealing existing laws and referendums on amendments to the French constitution. 

The movement also backs the idea of a RIC to, “dismiss any politician, the president, a minister, a deputy or any other elected official,” which given French President Emmanuel Macron’s historic low approval ratings could put his position as French leader in jeopardy should such a referendum occur. 

“Protests took place outside French Mainstream Media Headquarters https://t.co/Ymiag7YBfA— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) December 29, 2018″ 

Supporters of the populist Rassemblement National (RN) led by former presidential candidate Marine Le Pen, along with the far-left France Insoumise of Jean-Luc Melenchon, both overwhelmingly support the proposal while members of Macron’s Le Republique En Marche! (LREM) are less enthusiastic. 

In his New Year’s speech, President Macron announced his government would be launching a “grand debate” on the future direction of the country and address the concerns of the Yellow Vests. 

The respondents of the RTL poll showed far less enthusiasm for Macron’s proposal with 50 percent saying they believed the government would take into account the opinions of the French citizenry and 47 percent saying the Macron government would likely ignore their concerns. 

Some have expressed concerns about the RIC proposal and the consequences of more direct democracy in France such as LREM MP Stanislas Guerini who said he feared the return of the death penalty which was abolished in France in 1981. 

Despite giving in to the initial Yellow Vest demands and scrapping the proposed fuel tax hike and raising the minimum wage among other measures, President Macron continues to face opposition from the movement who he also referred to as a “hateful crowd” in his New Year’s speech.”
…………………………….. 

Added: More on RIC from France24: 

12/17/2018, “‘Yellow Vests’ open a new front in the battle: Popular referendums,” France24.com 

“Many of the “Yellow Vests” who hit the streets again on Saturday wielded signs with the acronym RIC – for “Citizens’ Initiative Referendum” – as demonstrators demanded popular votes be held to allow citizens to vet government policy proposals. 

In a list of demands released in late November, the Yellow Vests ask that any policy proposal garnering 700,000 signatures trigger a national referendum to be held within a year. The RIC is one item on a list of 42 measures being demanded by the Yellow Vests. 

A 2008 constitutional amendment provided for holding a referendum if a measure had the support of one-fifth of the members of Parliament and the backing of one-tenth of registered voters. But the citizens’ initiative has never been used, despite the launch of a website dedicated to listing the public proposals currently under debate. 

Several of the 2017 presidential candidates were vocal supporters of popular referendums, notably far-left firebrand Jean-Luc Mélenchon and far-right leader Marine Le Pen. Socialist Party candidate Benoît Hamon also proposed a measure that would have called on Parliament to debate any proposal that received support from at least 1 percent of the electorate. 

An RIC system already exists in some countries, notably Switzerland, where voters are regularly called upon to vote on policies. Italy’s constitution calls for a vote to be held if a proposal gets 500,000 signatures or is backed by at least five regional councils. 

Those Yellow Vests who support holding public referendums nevertheless differ on the mechanics, with some arguing the public votes should merely inform government policy (with no obligation on the part of the government to implement them) and others insisting the will of the people should automatically become policy. 

There have also been suggestions for setting up a platform to allow citizens to submit their own policy proposals; those that garner a certain number of signatures online would then proceed to a vote. 

And so far the government seems at least somewhat amenable to the idea. 

In an interview with Les Echos newspaper published online Sunday evening, Prime Minister Édouard Philippe said the government had “made mistakes", among them that it had “not listened enough to the French people”. 

He said there were plans to debate holding referendums on government policy, adding that they could be a “good tool for a democracy”. 

The French government is likely hoping that the recent decline in Yellow Vest protesters indicates that the most direct challenge so far to Emmanuel Macron’s presidency may finally be losing steam. The interior ministry estimated some 66,000 people demonstrated across France for a fifth straight Saturday on December 15, down from 125,000 the week before. 

Macron’s approval rating has dipped to 23 percent over the last month, according to a poll published Sunday in the Journal du Dimanche weekly. In an effort to defuse the crisis Macron has already announced a series of measures, including a €100 monthly increase in the minimum wage and reducing some taxes on low-income pensioners. On December 5 the government abandoned plans for the tax hike on fuel that first ignited the protests.”

…………………………..

Added: 7 Yellow Vests images, AP, AFP


Above, Crowd near Eiffel Tower, Sat., 2/23/19, AP


Above, Yellow Vests carry sign, “We are against anti-Semitism,” undated, AFP


Above, Trocadero Plaza near Eiffel, police use tear gas, undated, AFP


Above, Yellow Vests carry RIC banner, “Citizens’ Initiated Referendum“, undated AFP


Above, French police with shields, 2/23/19, “Local authorities in the central French city of Clermont-Ferrand urged residents on Saturday to avoid downtown, where 2,500 yellow vest protesters clashed with police forces,” AFP


Above, general street scene with tear gas, undated, AFP


Above, “A wheelchair bound protestor passes alongside marchers during an anti-government demonstration in front of The Opera de Paris Palais Garnier in Paris,” undated, AFP

Above images are from article below:

2/23/19, “Thousands of yellow vest protesters take to the streets across France for a 15th weekend running…,” Daily Mail and AP, James Billot

[I removed the following editorial text from headline: “as they try to re-invigorate supporters while trying to stamp out violence and anti-Semitism in the movement’s ranks.”
..........
Map from “France in Defeat, 1940.″ Hitler defeated France but allowed them to in effect "play house" in a southern portion of France known as Vichy.

Vichy associates are by definition anti-Semitic but are desperate to divert attention from themselves so they and their bomb-thrower media accuse Yellow Vests, of being ”anti-Semitic.” This means the Establishment can’t think of a single justification for its existence except to effectively claim, Oh yeah? You’re anti-Semitic and we’re not. Yellow Vests on the other hand have offered a substantive solution to unite France with RIC, Citizen Initiated Referendums. That’s what this article should’ve been about.]


Above, Yellow Vests carry sign, “We are against anti-Semitism,” undated, AFP

Added: More on Vichy and the French Establishment:

“It was not until [President Francois] Mitterand retired in 1995 that France began to face up to its responsibility in the persecution of Jews.” Mitterand had been a Vichy official:


Map from “France in Defeat, 1940.” Hitler easily defeated France in WWII. Until the War was completed, he divided France into two sections, the southern portion called Vichy. French personnel were allowed to be nominally in charge of Vichy until the war ended.

2/17/2011, “The Vichy Policy on Jewish Deportation,” BBC, Paul Webster

[Scroll down): “Post-war indifference to anti-Semitic persecution pushed the issue into the background until Serge Klarsfield, a Jewish lawyer whose Romanian father died in Germany, reawakened the national conscience. He tracked down the German chief of the Secret Service in Lyon, Klaus Barbie, who was hiding in Bolivia but was subsequently jailed for life in 1987. His case threw light on Vichy’s complicity in the Holocaust. 

Klarsfeld’s efforts were frustrated by the Socialist president of France at this time, Francois Mitterrand, who had been an official at Vichy and was decorated by Pétain. It was not until 1992 that one of Barbie’s French aides, Paul Touvier, who had been a minor figure in wartime France, was jailed for life for his crimes

(subhead, Facing Facts): French courts, responding to Mitterrand’s warnings that trials would cause civil unrest, blocked other prosecutions, including that of the Vichy police chief, René Bousquet, who organised the Paris and Vichy zone mass arrests. He was assassinated by a lone gunman in June 1993. 

It was not until Mitterrand retired in 1995 that France began to face up to its responsibility in the persecution of Jews. When the new right-wing president, Jacques Chirac, came to power, he immediately condemned Vichy as a criminal regime and two years later the Catholic Church publicly asked for forgiveness for its failure to protect the Jews.

But the most significant step forward was the trial in 1997 of Maurice Papon, 89, for crimes concerning the deportation of Jews from Bordeaux. He had served as a cabinet minister after the war, before losing a 16-year legal battle to avoid trial. He was released from jail because of poor health, but his ten-year prison sentence has been interpreted as official recognition of French complicity in the Holocaust, although there are still those who continue to defend his actions.

Since the trial, France has opened up hidden archives and offered compensation to survivors – and ensured that schools, where history manuals used not to mention France’s part in the deportations, now have compulsory lessons on Vichy persecution. While anti-Semitism is still a social problem in France, there is no official discrimination, and today’s 600,000-strong Jewish community is represented at every level of the establishment, including in the Catholic Church, where the Archbishop of Paris is Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger. 

In 1942, while on the run from the French police, Lustiger converted to Catholicism, but three years later was told that his mother had died in the Auschwitz gas chambers. It seems fitting that he presently (June 2003) occupies such an important position within French society.”
…………………………. 

Added: French Establishment attempts to smear Yellow Vests as anti-Semitic: 

2/21/19, “French ruling elite attacks “yellow vests” while claiming to fight anti-Semitism,” Worldwide Socialist Website, Alex Lantier
………

Among comments to above article at WSWS:

“rictus. 19 hours ago-The timing of this incident is impeccable; a timing so perfect that a question that must be asked is “Cui Bono?” (Who benefits?). It wouldn’t surprise to find out a police provacatuer or undercover state agent was behind it. What better way for Macron to regain the high-road by posturing outrage over anti-Semitism (but not over Vichy) to discredit the Giles Jaunes?”






……………………….