Investigating Pat Robertson
His frightening public call to assassinate Hugo Chávez is consistent with
the U.S. government's hostile stance toward Venezuela -- but that doesn't
mean it should go unpunished.
By Deborah James, AlterNet
August 25, 2005
On Monday, August 22nd, right-wing televangelist Pat Robertson called for
the assassination of democratically-elected President Hugo Chávez of
Venezuela.
Robertson (a candidate for the GOP´s Presidential nomination in 1992) and
the millions of supporters of his television show, The 700 Club, are a key
constituency of the Republican party.
In his Monday show, Robertson said, "If [Chavez] thinks we're trying to
assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."
In an apparent reference to past US invasions of countries like Vietnam and
Iraq, he added that "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. We have
the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise
that ability. ... It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert
operatives do the job and then get it over with."
President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Senate Majority Leader
Bill Frist, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, and House Majority Leader
Tom DeLay should be lining up to condemn -- in the strongest terms possible
-- such immoral statements from a leader of their political base. Instead,
State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack merely referred to Robertson's
statement as "inappropriate."
Calling for terrorist homicide against a democratically elected president
is not merely "inappropriate" -- it is illegal, unethical, and it must be
investigated for potential violations of federal and international law.
Fortunately, there are a few Congresspeople who understand the implications
of this extremist act. Representative Serrano said the comments were
"beyond the pale." Representative Lee chimed in that "President Bush should
quickly and clearly condemn Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of
the democratically elected leader of Venezuela, particularly since his new
Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy, Karen Hughes, has appeared on
Robertson's show."
In addition, the National Council of Churches stated: "Pat Robertson's call
for the murder of Venezuela President Hugo Chavez is appalling to the point
of disbelief. It defies logic that a clergyman could so casually dismiss
thousands of years of Judaeo-Christian law, including the commandment that
we are not to kill."
Reverend Jesse Jackson, Jr. said that Robertson's "rhetoric, especially if
taken to their conclusion, only undermines international diplomacy and
dialogue, and has no place in today's world."
On Monday Venezuelan Vice President José Vincent Rangel noted in a Caracas
press conference: "Before, they were openly calling for Chávez's overthrow,
now the call is to assassinate him."
The next day, Robertson "clarified" his comments, incredulously stating
that "I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take
him out.' 'Take him out' could be a number of things, including
kidnapping."
Finally, on Wednesday, Robertson apologized -- but put the blame on Chávez
for provoking him: "Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I
apologize for that statement. I spoke in frustration that we should
accommodate the man who thinks the U.S. is out to kill him."
His apology is welcome, but it calls attention to the larger picture: the
context of ongoing US aggression towards Venezuela.
Robertson's Comments Consistent with US Government Policy
For years the US government has been working to create a climate hostile to
the democratically elected government of Venezuela -- Pat Robertson's
statements are, unfortunately, consistent with the actions of the Bush
administration. The administration supported the 2002 coup against
President Chávez, and has continued to fund coup leaders in their efforts
to remove President Chávez from office after the coup.
Recently, the US has stepped up efforts to isolate Venezuela in the region
(although these efforts have been largely rebuffed by other Latin American
leaders.) Last week, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld continued the Bush
administration's rhetorical assault against President Chávez, re-issuing
old and unsupported claims regarding Venezuela.
Yet in August 2004, President Chávez won a referendum on his presidency by
59%, results which were certified by the Organization of American States
(OAS) and Carter Center as free and fair. His popularity currently stands
at over 70% -- much higher than his US counterpart's, and one of the
highest in Latin America. There is complete freedom of press, assembly,
speech, and civil rights in the country, and there are no serious human
rights organizations that have argued that these rights have been reduced
under Chávez, nor do they compare unfavorably to other regional
governments.
The policy of America's governmental antipathy towards Venezuela stems more
from that country's creation of an alternative economic vision than
unsubstantiated concerns regarding democracy. President Chávez has embarked
on a series of economic reforms, such as funneling billions of oil industry
profits into massive programs for health care, education, literacy, and
clean water, and promoting regional integration, which fly in the face of
Bush's failed efforts to promote corporate globalization by establishing a
Free Trade Area of the Americas.
The US "free trade" economic model has failed to deliver growth in the
region; according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Latin
Americans have experienced less than .5% per capita economic growth overall
in the last 25 years. Meanwhile, Chávez's economic policies (combined with
oil profits) have made Venezuela the fastest growing economy in the region.
But the American government's dislike for Chávez's vision certainly does
not give anyone a license to kill.
In his comments, Robertson invoked the Monroe Doctrine, the primary
instrument of the US policy of intervention and domination in the Western
Hemisphere since 1823. "We can't allow this to happen in our sphere of
influence," he said.
Past US involvement in the overthrow of democratically-elected governments
weighs heavily on the minds of Latin Americans from countries like Chile,
Guatemala, Haiti, Grenada, and the Dominican Republic. In addition, the US
government has been connected to the 1963 assassination of South Vietnamese
President Ngo Dinh Diem, as well as the murders of Congolese President
Patrice Lumumba, Chilean President Salvador Allende, and repeated attempts
on the life of Cuban President Fidel Castro.
Robertson's comments have little basis in US or Venezuelan reality. He
stated that if Chávez were to be assassinated, he didn't "think any oil
shipments will stop." President Chávez has repeatedly stated that oil
shipments from Venezuela - which represent approximately 15% of US imports
- will continue steadily as long as the US does not commit violent acts of
aggression against Venezuela's sovereignty. Articles quoting his repeated
declarations on this topic are available here.
Venezuela is expanding exports to other countries, including China, the
Caribbean, and South America, but has maintained shipments to the US, which
light up our Eastern Seaboard with heating oil and keep 14,000
Venezuelan-owned Citgo gas stations in business. Chavez has also offered to
provide lower-cost gasoline to struggling Americans. But in the case of an
attack on the physical integrity of the Venezuelan leader, the immediate
cessation of exports from the US's fourth largest source would be all but
guaranteed.
The US government's ongoing hostility towards President Chávez has created
a climate in which a Republican leader feels comfortable in calling for the
US to kill an elected head of state as part of US foreign policy on the
cheap.
Robertson's comments should be a clarion call for a new foreign relations
policy with Venezuela - one based on respect for a thriving democracy and
an important economic ally.
Obligations Under Federal and International Law
Despite his apology, Pat Robertson should still be investigated -- and
potentially prosecuted -- for calling for the murder of a democratically
elected head of state. Under Title 18 of US Code Section 1116, "whoever
kills or attempts to kill a foreign official, official guest, or
internationally protected person shall be punished." Section 878 of the
same title makes it a crime to "knowingly and willingly threaten" to commit
the above crime.
The US government is also obligated under international law to prevent and
punish acts of terrorism against foreign heads of state, if those acts are
conceived of or planned on US territory. The 1973 United Nations Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally
Protected Persons makes it a crime to commit a "murder, kidnapping, or
other attack upon on the liberty of an internationally protected person;"
[including] a "threat to commit any such attack."
The US is also a signatory to the 1971 Convention to Prevent and Punish
Acts of Terrorism Taking the Form of Crimes Against Persons and Related
Extortion that are of International Significance of the OAS, Article 8a of
which obliges "[t]he contracting states undertake to cooperate among
themselves by taking all the measures that they may consider effective,
under their own laws, and especially those established in this convention,
to prevent and punish acts of terrorism, especially kidnaping [sic],
murder, and other assaults against the life or physical integrity of those
persons to whom the state has the duty according to international law to
give special protection, as well as extortion in connection with those
crimes." This includes foreign heads of state as internationally
protected persons.
The Christian Broadcasting Network should also be investigated for the
potential illegality of using federally licensed airwaves to call for an
assassination. In light of the $550,000 fine against CBS for the accidental
airing of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction," it would be extremely
ironic if the CBN were not similarly punished for airing a call for
terrorist homicide.
Considering the history of US involvement in the overthrow of
democratically-elected governments, along with the current US hostility
towards Venezuela, the incitement by a key Bush supporter to kill
democratically-elected President Chávez should be a clarion call: It's time
to turn over a new leaf in our policy towards Venezuela, and build
relations of respect with the most popular democratically-elected leader in
Latin America.
Deborah James is the Global Economy Director of Global Exchange, and a
frequent traveler to Venezuela.
http://www.alternet.org/story/24541/
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
http://www.spaink.net/cos/warhero/
.
|
