Logo
Cover

USA call for solidarity with Venezuela

In a recent letter from the US embassy, German members of the Bundestag are called upon to show solidarity with the National Assembly in Venezuela. The letter was sent this week to the members of the political groups in the Foreign Affairs Committee, who then forwarded it to the members of all parties. In the name of the US Ministry of foreign Affairs Genevieve Libonati, Counsellor for political Affairs at the U.S. Embassy/Berlin, German parliamentarians to make a statement in support of the Venezuelan Parliament, ask, because,:

Their counterparts in Venezuela were forcibly prevented from entering their parliament hall on 5 January and an attempt was made to falsify an internal parliamentary election.

Misrepresentations by US embassy?

This account presumably does not correspond to the truth, the interpretation of the events of 5 January are at least highly controversial. A Version of the events that strongly contradicts the US view can be found, for example, on RT, where the behavior of the self-appointed “interim President” Juan Guaidó on that day is described as staging:

Juan Guaidó, who did not enter the meeting room, and other opposition members close to him, meanwhile, refused to take the oath of office, claiming it was an irregular meeting. Guaidó claimed that he could not enter the Parliament building, because the Bolivarian national guard prevented him. The Chavist camp, on the other hand, stated that Guaidó deliberately showed up late for the meeting because he did not have the necessary votes for re-election.

This view is also supported by a report from “Telepolis“:

In fact, the supposed lockout was staged Fake News. Whether it was because Guaidó was quiet at last; or because he was not sure of his re-election and needed a liberation strike. The fact is that Videos clearly show that he could have gone to parliament, but refused to attend the meeting.

The Foreign office and the Constitution of Venezuela

Accordingly, the allegations of “forgery” and the diffraction of parliamentary processes and laws rather the self-appointed “interim President” Juan Guaidó and its supporters in the United States and those in Germany: The questionable role of the German Federal foreign office (AA) on the subject of Venezuela was once more in the Federal press conference, apparently, as it is the controversial session of the Venezuelan Parliament by the 5. January went. In addition RT wanted to know whether the AA plans to continue to recognize the politician as “president” despite Guaidó’s dismissal as Parliament President. The answer is, as expected, but no less disturbing. According to the report, the German Foreign Office accepts Guaidó’s “proven false claims” and acknowledges his staged “re-election” in the editorial rooms of the radical opposition newspaper El Nacional, which was carried out in breach of numerous constitutional rules on the election of a Parliament President:

Contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, the election did not take place in the parliament, there was no Quorum, members of the ruling party PSUV and other Chavist parties did not have access, many pro-Guaidó members voted for him via Skype because they are abroad for fleeing the Venezuelan judiciary, although electronic voting is explicitly prohibited in the Constitution in absentia.

Double U.S. intervention: In the Bundestag and in Venezuela

Is this kind of democracy and Opposition now to be trusted by German parliamentarians according to US wishes? Should a policy of Western interference once again be clouded by fine words from democracy and the persecuted Opposition, which should be seen as the actual representation of the people? And in order to support US interference in Venezuela, should we now also “interfere” in the German parliament? Clearly: in the heated situation in Venezuela, even the government under President Nicolás Maduro cannot be acquitted of all deficits. But it is always more legitimate than the Western-backed and partly radical and militant Opposition. Such subtleties should not interest the German parliamentarians, however, as the solidarity letter pre-formulated by the US embassy suggests-here it follows in the wording:

The legislation/parliamentarians/government of Germany recognizes the Venezuelan national Assembly as the only legitimate, democratic legislation/the Parliament of Venezuela. The independence and powers of the National Assembly and the rights and security of its members must be protected. We categorically reject the harassment, intimidation and persecution of the democratically elected members of the Venezuelan National Assembly and demand their ability to freely carry out their constitutional mandate without fear of retaliation and in the interests of the people they represent.

We condemn the repeated violation and abuse of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the Venezuelan members of the Maduro Regime. We condemn the measures taken illegally and without due process, including detention, denial of parliamentary immunity, travel ban and confiscation of passports.

We commend the members of the National Assembly for their courage in continuing to defend democracy and an end to the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela. We call on all governments to join us in support of the Venezuelan national Assembly and a democratically elected President, the interim President of Venezuela Juan Guaidó, connect.

Who will respond to the US initiative?

The fact that the US is initiating such questionable moves for questionable personnel on the basis of questionable information in foreign parliaments should no longer be surprising. Interesting will be the question of which parties or individual politicians from Germany, this U.S. initiative.