Shami Chakrabarti really should re-evaluate her ‘trusted sources’ on Venezuela

Chakrabarti on Sky News Feb 3, 2019
Joe Emersberger

On 3 February, Shami Chakrabarti told Sky News: “when I’m not an expert in a particular region like South America, I go to my trusted sources for the picture and for me as a human rights campaigner my trusted sources have always been Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch”.

But both of these groups have demonstrated a clear bias in support of the foreign policy goals of the United States.

A petition to Amnesty that nobody should have to write

Start your day with The Canary News Digest

Fresh and fearless; get excellent independent journalism from The Canary, delivered straight to your inbox every morning.

Last year, I asked Amnesty if it denounced the economic sanctions that Donald Trump had imposed on Venezuela in August of 2017. Those sanctions cost Venezuela’s government revenues equal to about 6% of GDP in the first year after they were imposed. Most countries in the region spend about 7% of GDP on health care. Amnesty replied saying it “does not take a position” on the economic sanctions.

I also asked Amnesty for its position on the threats and open efforts to incite a military coup in Venezuela by numerous US politicians and officials (Trump, Rex Tillerson, Marco Rubio, just to name a few). Amnesty said it “believes that a responsible discussion on the current state of human rights in Venezuela should not be focused on statements made by parties outside the country and context”.

This is utter nonsense. And now, as a consequence of the negligible opposition Trump has received for his illegal economic attacks and threats against Venezuela, he is assembling an Iraq-style ‘coalition of the willing’ that is seeking to topple the democratically elected government. US National Security advisor John Bolton recently suggested that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro could end up in the US-run torture camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. US sanctions have now been intensified and could cause an additional 15% fall in GDP in 2019 according to updated projections by Torino Capital.

On January 25, a petition was sent to Amnesty asking it to change its position and oppose US economic sanctions and the deliberate incitement of a military coup in Venezuela. It was signed by filmmaker and political activist John Pilger, Alfred de Zayas, former UN special Rapporteur to Venezuela, and the popular Canadian author Linda McQuaig among others. A letter like this should never have had to be sent to a human rights group.

Amnesty’s updated position scarcely less shocking

On February 7, Amnesty replied to me updating its position. The full statement can be read here.

Amnesty now “reminds” the US government that it should be careful in imposing economic sanctions and asks that the US ‘monitor’ its impact on the “most vulnerable groups”. There is nothing that Amnesty or anybody else needs to ‘monitor’. The devastating impact has been very well established. The sanctions are an extremely grave human rights violation – a clear violation of article 2 of the UN Charter and Chapter IV, Article 19 of the Charter of the Organization of American States. And that was true before Trump made the sanctions much worse in January. Asking Trump to be careful and to ‘monitor’ the impact of his criminal assault on Venezuela’s economy is grotesque.

Regarding US threats and incitement of a military coup, Amnesty now vaguely asks the “international community” to not ‘escalate’ the conflict. Amnesty asks that attention not be diverted from Venezuela’s internal crisis towards “possible military intervention”. The statement seems calculated to be as vague and weak as possible, as if Amnesty were annoyed that extreme US belligerence has obligated them to say anything all.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) as the Empire’s human rights group

Meanwhile, Kenneth Roth, HRW’s executive director, wrote in 2015 that “For all its faults, the U.S. government remains the most powerful proponent of human rights, and the Human Rights Watch base in the United States gives the organization special access to Washington”. He wrote these words long after it was clear that a US-led war based on a lie had resulted in the deaths of at least half a million Iraqis, just to state one of many reasons to recoil from his words.

As for HRW’s “access to Washington”, in 2014, a letter to the group signed by two Nobel Laureates and over 100 activists, journalists, and academics asked HRW to “close its revolving door” with the US government.

Most recently, various HRW officials (including Roth) heaped praise on the late Senator John McCain, a man who was proud of his participation in the Vietnam War which killed millions of Vietnamese. He also unapologetically used the racist term “gooks”. McCain parlayed his participation in the mass slaughter in Vietnam into a political career in which he pushed US military aggression all over the world.

Chakrabarti should read her “trusted sources” much more critically, and simply refer to them as “sources”.

Featured Image via YouTube

Since you're here ...

We know you don't need a lecture. You wouldn't be here if you didn't care.
Now, more than ever, we need your help to challenge the rightwing press and hold power to account. Please help us survive and thrive.

The Canary Support
  • Show Comments
    1. Mr Emersberger has highlighted regularly the bias in the treatment of Venezuela in the mainstream media and other organizations, and makes valid points in the process. How ironic then that he ends up showing the same deficiencies as them in his own analysis of the Venezuelan crisis, omitting facts inconvenient to his argument and dodging uncomfortable points he doesn’t like. The media remains polarized on the subject, one side tending to whitewash the US backed, right wing opposition and the other tending to whitewash the Maduro regime. Fortunately, there are some on the left able to maintain a critical stance on both, like Eva Golinger. Mr Emersberger, I’m afraid, is no more of a ‘trusted source’ than the ones he criticises, and it is important that ‘a sensible reader takes his bias into account’.

    2. Strip the politics out of the conversation, and Mr. Emersberger makes a valid point. Too often the reasons why things happen aren’t acknowledged by these NGO’s which I’m sure they have their reasons for.
      They only seem to be interested in their own organization, and its rules of engagement.
      Curiousity to the reasons why a situation has evolved they do not entertain.
      The revolving door with Washington is definetly a mistake.

    3. not surprised by this awful response by Shami Chakrabarti, this is the woman who threw Iraq War victims lawyer Phil Shiner under the bus in his quest for justice for victims of that colonial war and I run into a huge sizeable chunk of left-leaning people who fall for Shamnesty International and Human Rights Fraud (Watch’s) propaganda bullshit which is recycled by the Democracy Nows, Pacfica, and other supposed left-leaning outlets to push for Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Haiti, Yugoslavia and whatever is needed to get the left to support imperialism. I just keep being stunned that Jeremy Corbyn appoints these people into high positions who are the polar opposite of his honorable record but hey! He’s a Party man to the Labour Party despite their track record. Shameful to see these so called socialists be socialists at home but imperialists abroad and they need to be called out so thanks Joe for the excellent work you always do.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.