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






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