Council on Foreign Relations Head Promotes War on Venezuela
Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. once called the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR) a “front organization (for) the heart of the American establishment.” It promotes an agenda hostile to world peace and the general welfare.
Separately, Schlesinger warned about the US presidency becoming uncontrollable, exceeding its constitutional limits, one of George Washington’s concerns in his farewell address.
He called a large standing army “in a time of Peace…dangerous to the liberties of a Country,” urging “a few (only) Troops (as) indispensably necessary.” He warned against foreign entanglements, the defining feature of US geopolitics today.
He expressed concern about relations with other countries, drawing America into destructive foreign wars – the way US-dominated NATO operates, an alliance for endless wars, hostile to world peace.
GOP hardliner Richard Haass served as Bush/Cheney director of policy planning, coordinator for the future of Afghanistan, and special envoy to Northern Ireland.
He’s currently Council on Foreign Relations president. In his book titled “The Reluctant Sheriff,” he argued that the US should assume this role internationally in “forg(ing) coalitions…for specific tasks” – serving its own interests, adding:
This role is “crucial (for) the United States to persuade others to adopt and abide by its preferences – and the will and the ability of the United States to act as a sheriff, to mobilize itself and others to insist on them when resistance emerges.”
His later book titled “Imperial America” argued that US leaders should pursue “an imperial foreign policy…organiz(ing) the world along certain principles, affecting relations between states and conditions within them” – operating like “19th century Great Britain” to exert international control over other nations.
Separately, he argued that the US should have intervened more forcefully to topple Syria’s Bashar al-Assad – on the phony pretext of claiming Damascus used CWs, aiding the rise of ISIS, created and controlled by the US, as I’ve explained many times.
Haass endorses geopolitically what international and US constitutional law prohibit. He turned the responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine on its head, tweeting the following:
What Maduro “is doing to the people of Venezuela is inconsistent with the obligations that come with being a sovereign state” – a bald-faced Big Lie, adding:
“The time has come for the UN or OAS or Lima Group to consider how to apply the (R2P) doctrine” in Venezuela.
A previous article said democracy building, responsibility to protect, and humanitarian intervention are Washington’s deadliest exports.
There’s nothing remotely legal about US actions against Venezuela, its sovereign independence, democratically elected government and people – nothing legitimate about so-called US humanitarian aid, unrelated to helping Venezuelan people.
R2P and humanitarian intervention are unrelated to legally binding principles under international humanitarian law. R2P initially came from a 2001 International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) report titled “A Responsibility to Protect.”
It focused on the responsibility of states to protect their citizens, recognizing that when unable to, the world community help, according to principles of international humantarian law.
At a 2005 World Summit gathering of heads of state, the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing – a non-legally binding action.
In a 2009 report to the General Assembly, then-secretary general Ban Ki-moon cited three elements of R2P, notably that the world community should recognize and protect the sovereignty of member states.
It should focus on the crimes of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.
It should recognize that nations bear primary responsibility for protecting the rights, welfare and security of its citizens.
R2P is a principle, not legally binding international law. The same goes for humanitarian intervention – justifiable only when requested by a sitting government, not otherwise.
Haass argued for intervening extrajudicially in Venezuela, falsely claiming Maduro failed to apply the R2P doctrine – ignoring Trump regime economic and sanctions war on the country.
Haass is an imperialist, supporting it in his writing, paying no heed to its illegality, causing enormous harm on people wherever the US shows up. Mass slaughter, vast destruction, and human misery always follow.
International law is clear and unequivocal. No nation may interfere in the internal affairs of others except in self-defense if attacked.
Only Security Council members can authorize intervention against nations, when their people are legitimately threatened and need protection. alone, notably in times of war.
Venezuela under Maduro neither attacked or threatened other nations – what the US and its imperial partners do repeatedly.
R2P and humanitarian intervention principles are unrelated to US imperial designs on Venezuela and all other nations it targeted and continues targeting for regime change.
Haass supports and advocated for what international and US constitutional law strictly forbid.
Note: UN Charter Chapter VII authorizes “action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
Post-WW II, the US never got Security Council Chapter VII authorization for war. From North Korea in the early 1950s to now, all US wars are illegal aggression against nations threatening no one.
On March 18, 2011, the US pressured, bullied, and bribed enough nations to pass SC Res. 1973, Russia and China abstaining instead of vetoing the measure.
It authorized “all necessary measures…to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack,” including a no-fly zone, not war. Libyans were grievously harmed, their safety and well-being not protected.
The Obama regime and its imperial partners terror-bombed the country straightaway, transforming it into an endless cauldron of violence and chaos.
Does the Trump regime plan something similar in Venezuela without Security Council authorization?
Its intentions will become clear in the days and weeks ahead, aiming to gain another imperial trophy.
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”