«A recapture of the territories taken by Russia is unrealistic»

«Ukraine's military potential is slowly being depleted»

Interview with Jacques Baud*

In the mainstream media, the image is currently being conveyed that Russia is not making any progress militarily due to the resistance of the Ukrainians. Can you confirm this statement?

No. This has never been the case since the beginning of the conflict and it is still not the case today. The Russians and their allies in the Donbass republics have been advancing certainly at varying paces, depending on the Ukrainian defense, but they have always been making progress. I would like to stress that the only advances made by the Ukrainian army (in Kharkov and Kherson) were possible because the Russians had previously judged that these territories were not worth the risk of defending them. The Ukrainians were then able to advance after the Russian troops withdrew. The reconquest of these territories was done without battles. However, the Ukrainian troops were met by Russian artillery and suffered very heavy losses, while the Russians suffered almost none. In Kherson, the Ukrainian troops came to the same conclusion as the Russians and evacuated the city right after «retaking» it!

Since February 2022, our media (in particular: the RTS or the NZZ in Switzerland, LCI, France 5 or BFM TV in France) try to make us believe that Ukraine is winning, that the Russian troops are incapable, are badly led and suffer heavy losses. Today we can confirm that all this was totally false.

The biggest mistake you can make in war is to underestimate your opponent and overestimate your own capabilities. Our media has pushed us to do this.

Our media - and even our military! - understand war as big arrows on a map and territorial conquests. This was the logic of the Western powers in Iraq or in the Sahel, but it is not the rationale of the Russians in Ukraine. As Winston Churchill said: « No matter how enmeshed a commander is in the elaboration of his own thoughts, it is sometimes necessary to take the enemy into account ». Since February 24, 2022, our media and politicians have replaced the reality on the ground with a propaganda narrative not designed to understand the situation, but to mobilize minds against Russia.

In Ukraine, the Russians have always said that their goal was to neutralize the threat against the people of Donbass by "demilitarizing" and «denazifying» it. These two objectives were aimed at achieving a solution for the security of the Russian-speaking population of Donbass.

Russia's objective was therefore to neutralize - through political agreement or destruction - a potential, not to seize territory. This solution should have come from the Minsk Agreements, but the West explicitly refused to implement what they signed. So Russia decided to impose this solution by military intervention.

That said, Russia has consistently maintained that it favors a negotiated solution. That is why it accepted all the negotiation proposals launched by Zelensky in February 2022, March 2022 and August 2022. These attempts were systematically prevented by the European Union and Britain, which - on the contrary - fuelled the conflict with weapons. As a result, the Russians realized that the only way out of the conflict is to systematically and methodically destroy Ukraine's military capability.

The objective of «denazification» was not aimed at the Ukrainian government, as our propaganda claims, but explicitly at the ultra-nationalist and neo-Nazi paramilitary militias whose threat is very real¹, but whose existence is denied by Western sympathizers². According to the Russian military itself³, this objective was achieved at the end of March with the siege of Marioupol, home of the AZOV regiment, whose crimes were accepted and carefully covered by our media. The neutralization of the military threat (demilitarization) could have been achieved as early as February 25, 2022, by proceeding with the negotiations proposed by Volodymyr Zelensky, but which were prevented by the European Union.

The option of negotiation having been rejected by the West, all that remains for the Russians is the definitive "grinding" of the Ukrainian military potential. Logically, this is what is happening now and the Russians are probably no longer in a hurry to enter into negotiations.

The Western powers never wanted to make peace and some forces within the Ukrainian government are pushing Zelensky to play their own game. Today we even have confirmation from Major General Kirill Budanov, Head of the Ukrainian Main Directorate of Military Intelligence (GUR), that Denys Kireyev, one of the Ukrainian negotiators (and a member of the GUR) was eliminated by the Ukrainian State Security (SBU) at the end of February along with several other pro-negotiation figures. I had already written about this in my book "Operation Z", but here the director of the GUR himself confirms the story⁴. Once again, the journalists of the Blick or of the Télévision Suisse Romande (who nevertheless called me an "agent of Putin") have lied.

The delivery of heavy military equipment, which Selensky has been demanding for a long time, is supposed to enable Ukraine to retake the territories controlled by the Russians. Is this wishful thinking?

Yes. First of all, the West's insistence on supplying heavy weapons to Ukraine is an admission that the situation is not working to its advantage. And this did not happen overnight. The main capabilities of the Ukrainian army were destroyed in the summer of 2022. That's why, since that time, Zelensky is asking for weapons. In other words, our media, diplomats and politicians have systematically lied about the situation and capabilities of Ukraine.

Today, in the United States, even General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff⁵, and Anthony Blinken, Secretary of State⁶, recognize that a recapture of the territories taken by Russia is unrealistic. In a confidential hearing, the Pentagon informed the House Armed Services Committee that Ukraine does not have the capability to retake Crimea⁷.

First, on the societal level, we have to bear in mind that the population of these regions (Crimea, Donbass and the south of Ukraine) do not feel Ukrainian, because the Ukrainians in Kiev have never considered them as Ukrainians. Our view is distorted because our media have supported laws like the one that gives different rights to citizens of Ukraine, depending on their ethnic origin⁸. We refuse to understand that the regime that took power in Kiev in 2014 was never legitimate in these regions.

We should remember that the people of Crimea obtained by referendum in January 1991 to be administered by Moscow and no longer by Kiev. When Ukraine became independent, Crimea was therefore subordinate to Moscow, without being part of Russia. It was Ukraine that decided to annex Crimea in 1995, forcibly abolishing its constitution and overthrowing its president⁹. In 2014, the Crimeans simply took advantage of the illegitimacy of the new government in Kiev and the abolition of the law on official languages, to ask again to join Moscow. Therefore, one can imagine that if Ukraine managed to reconquer the Russian territories, it would meet a very strong popular opposition, as if the Russians were trying to take over the western part of Ukraine.

Figure 1 - Ballot of January 20, 1991. When Ukraine became independent in December 1991, Crimea was under the control of Moscow. It was Ukraine that literally annexed Crimea in 1995 by forcibly overthrowing the elected president.¹⁰(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1991_Crimean_referendum_ballot.jpg)

Second, in military terms, even General Zaluzhny, head of the Ukrainian armed forces, admitted in an interview with The Economist on December 15, 2022, that Ukraine was not in a position to regain these territories, unless it gets «300 battle tanks, 600-700 armored infantry vehicles, 500 pieces of artillery»¹¹.

The problem is that the Ukrainian army has not been prepared for a war of movement against a mechanized opponent. Modernized and trained since 2014 by NATO, it has suffered from the lack of Western experience in this area, which has only been faced with technologically inferior armies and counterinsurgency situations.

This is why, since the beginning of the Russian offensive in February 2022, there have been no large tank battles, as in Kursk in 1943. The Ukrainians are fighting an infantry war, in trenches or in urban areas. This is what we saw in Mariupol, Severodonetsk or Bakhmut. I therefore believe that bringing in tanks, especially Western tanks with which the Ukrainians are not completely familiar, will not drastically change the situation.

I think that at this stage, even with new equipment, Ukraine is no longer able to reclaim the territories taken by the Russians. I would also like to remind you that if the stake of the West is the territory, the stake of the Russians is the potential. But, as I have already said, even if, in the best of cases, one can take back territories, one never recovers the lost human lives. Currently, the West is urging the Ukrainians to put their remaining human capital at stake. Our intellectuals see this as a great romanesque epic (it is easy to wage war with the lives of others) but we must think that Ukraine will have to rebuild itself.

Now, Ukraine has already lost a large part of its population since 1990, and it is unlikely that this population will return to a corrupt and destroyed country. In addition to this demographic deficit, there will be the loss of the country's vital forces that we see today...

What effect will the newly delivered tanks have on the course of the war?

First of all there is a political effect... in the West. When Zelensky went to Washington, he asked for M1 Abrams battle tanks. The Americans refused, but asked Germany to provide Leopard 2 tanks. Olaf Scholz answered quite logically that Germany would provide tanks only if the Americans agreed to do so first. At first, an American politician suggested that the United States deliver a single M1 tank in order to provoke the German decision¹²! The Americans have very well understood that the German political conduct is servile and corrupt...

The next part of the story was revealed by the Washington Post and was hardly reported by the European press¹³. And for good reason!

Thus, Joe Biden authorized the delivery of 31 M1 tanks. As expected, Scholz then authorized the re-export of Leopard 2s by European countries and approved the delivery by Germany of a number of these tanks. At that point, the United States declared that the M1s contained too much technology that should not fall into Russian hands and that the tanks could not be delivered immediately. In fact, they will be new tanks built especially for Ukraine, with an inferior protection (because the composition of the armor of the American version is classified), which can be delivered only in one year¹⁴!

In other words, the United States has "rolled Scholz in the flour"! This shows the state of relations between NATO members. We already know that it was a NATO member country that destroyed the Nord Stream gas pipelines. So it is Germany that pays the price of the war waged by the Americans against Russia... The Americans are right: if they have found a "sucker" they might as well exploit it, especially if the German people accept it without question! Each nation is responsible for its own fate. This applies to the Ukrainians, as it does to the Germans.

On a military level, it should be recalled that the Ukrainians had a little less than 1000 battle tanks in February 2022¹⁵. To this number we can add, according to the West and our media, more than 500 captured Russian battle tanks¹⁶ and about 600 tanks received from the West in 2022. Moreover, we note that only the Russians are losing tanks. So we should have a clear superiority of Ukraine! However, today, according to General Zaluzhny, Ukraine needs 300 tanks to hold out¹⁷, and the West will only be able to provide a small part of this number before the summer of 2023.

I was commander of a Leopard 2 battalion. It is a formidable and remarkable weapon. In Switzerland, we manage to train tank crews in less than 4 months, so it is quite possible for the Ukrainians to do the same.

The problem is not really the technical training of tank crews. The most difficult part is the ability to integrate the tank into a battle system and to function in an operational coherence.

Tank technology has not really evolved in the last 20-30 years. Weaponry, mobility and protection have improved, but have not changed radically. What has evolved is the technology to integrate the MBT into a coherent battlefield management system (BMS). This is what gives the armour its real effectiveness. If we look at the different generations of Leopard 2 tanks, we see a radical change between the A4-A5 versions of the 1980s-1990s and the A6-A7 versions of the 2005-2020s.

However, the vehicles that are promised to Ukraine are mainly Leopard 2A4s and even Leopard 1s, which are of an old technology (without BMS) and whose ammunition is apparently not effective against the Russian T-90s¹⁸. It is clear that the Westerners do not want to give their most modern equipment, because they do not trust the Ukrainians and fear that the Russians will get their hands on Western high technology, such as the Chobham armour of the British Challenger tanks.

With the Leopards, it is even more dramatic, because the Germans have realized that the preparation of tanks for Ukraine will take longer than expected (perhaps this is a response to the US trickery?) and will only provide in the short-term Leopard 1 tanks from the 1960s-1980s, with a 105 mm gun... for which ammunition is scarce!

The Russians have their weapons systems fully integrated into what they call the «Reconnaissance-Strike Complex» (Razvedivatel'no Udarnyy Kompleks or RUK), which is a battle management system that combines their weapons systems into one battle system. This allows them to fight effectively with significantly smaller forces than the Ukrainians.

After the destruction of most of its potential in 2022, the Ukrainian army is today a heterogeneous collection of equipment from different sources, with different capabilities and logistical chains. The problem for the Ukrainians is not really the lack of weapons, but the ability to integrate them into an optimal and efficient command structure. One example is the M777 howitzer, which the West saw as a «silver bullet», but which could not deliver its full potential because it is only used as a «normal» howitzer¹⁹.

This is also the problem of anti-missile capabilities. Since March 2, our media have been saying that the Russians have exhausted their stockpile of missiles. Therefore, it was not considered useful to give the Ukrainians anti-missile systems. As early as October 2022, after the Kerch bridge bombing, the Russians started to strike the electrical infrastructure (as NATO had done in Serbia, the Americans in Iraq, Syria and Libya...). The West therefore urgently sent ground-to-air missiles. But these weapons systems, which come from several countries, are not really interoperable and are not in an integrated combat management system. As a result, several missiles are fired at a single target during each attack. The Russians have understood the problem and send «decoys» with their missiles. The Ukrainians thus fire many more missiles than necessary with each Russian attack and their potential rapidly diminishes.

In the end, Western equipment was unable to compete with the Russian ability to destroy them. On 24 January, Estonia announced that it would give all of its 155-mm howitzers, i.e. 24 FH-70s, to Ukraine²⁰. A week later, on 31 January, France offered 12 CAESAR self-propelled howitzers in addition to the 18 it had already supplied to Ukraine²¹. But, according to the Moonofalabama website²², which counted the announcements of the Russian General Staff, the Russian army destroyed 40 howitzers, 32 self-propelled howitzers and 8 multiple rocket launchers during the same week. These figures cannot be confirmed, but they show that Western arms deliveries are barely enough to compensate for Ukrainian losses.

What consequences will this have on the number of dead and wounded?

We have pushed the Russians into the situation of having to systematically crush all Ukrainian potential. Those responsible for this are those who refused to condemn the massacre of civilians in Donbass between 2014 and 2022, those who misinformed us about the Minsk agreements so that they would not be implemented, and those who hid the real reasons for the Russian intervention: they are our media, dogmatic, ideological and living off the blood of others.

Since the beginning of their operation, it is very clear that the Russians wanted to minimize the losses on both sides. This was observed by the Pentagon early in the conflict, as noted by the American magazine Newsweek²³. This was confirmed on January 23 of this year on the Ukrainian website Mriya by Oleksei Arestovitch, close adviser to Zelensky: the Russians "tried to wage an intelligent war «by trying to minimize losses. For "the few who resisted (...) they did not even eliminate them, but offered to surrender, to change sides, to understand, etc. They didn't want to kill anyone.²⁴»

Today, the Russians have understood that even if there was a negotiation process, the West would use it to freeze the conflict and resume it later, as they did with the Minsk Agreements. The Russians know that the word of the West is worthless. In 1990, April Glaspie, the American ambassador to Iraq, told Saddam Hussein that the Americans would not object to an invasion of Kuwait²⁵. She lied. In 2015, the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, the European Union (EU) and Iran signed the Vienna Agreement (better known by its Anglo-Saxon abbreviation: JCPOA). Iran, Russia and China have respected it²⁶, not the West²⁷. In 2020, the Americans and the Taliban agreed on a date for the withdrawal of the United States²⁸. The Americans did not respect their word and unilaterally postponed the date by more than 4 months. And in November 2022, Angela Merkel and François Hollande confirmed to Russia that Germany and France are countries whose word is worthless .

So before we can go to the negotiating table, we need to rebuild trust. Arms deliveries do not contribute to this. Let us not forget that the Westerners have the same position as the Swiss ambassador in Kiev, who sees negotiation as «a reward for the aggressor»²⁹! Fortunately, the Taliban, the Syrians, the Egyptians, the Iraqis, the Lebanese, the Libyans, and many others do not think the same way, because then we could simply disband the United Nations!

Since no one wants to restore this trust in the West, the Russians will systematically destroy the Ukrainian potential. In October 2022, General Surovikin, newly appointed Commander of the Group of Forces in the area of the special military operation in Ukraine explained: «We have a different strategy. [...] We do not look for a high speed of advance, we spare each of our soldiers and methodically 'grind' the advancing enemy.³⁰»

Contrary to what our «experts» say, Ukraine has a huge personnel problem. It has conducted 8 mobilizations since February 2022 and is reaching the end of its potential and is forced to resort to forced enlistment of its citizens. This personnel crisis is not new and has prompted the Ukrainian army to call for a tougher law against desertion and refusal to serve³¹. This law was signed by Zelensky in January 2023³².

A Swiss-French neo-Nazi politician had called me a "Putinolater" for having mentioned the suicides of the Ukrainian army before 2022. Today he can hurl his insults at British parliamentarians, because they themselves have noted that the suicide rate there is alarming³³. So we have foolish politicians, who blind themselves with their lies, instead of anticipating the problems!

The forced recruitments seem to primarily affect minorities, in particular the Hungarian minority³⁴. This has triggered Hungary's anger³⁵. Today 97% of Hungarians are opposed to the European sanctions against Russia³⁶.

What is happening is that not only is Ukraine's military potential slowly being depleted, but the loss of life may affect the reconstruction of Ukraine for a generation or two. The combination of a decimated workforce, destroyed infrastructure and increased emigration may make Ukraine a country on life support at a cost that the West can hardly sustain for long.

The German Foreign Minister Baerbock said in a speech to the Council of Europe: "We are fighting a war against Russia." Since then, attempts have been made to correct this statement, that we are not at war, but only supporting Ukraine in its self-defence. Hasn't Germany been at war with Russia for a long time? Does Baerbock's statement define the true goals of the West, not primarily to help Ukraine, but to fight and defeat Russia?

We know since 2014, that the West is not trying to protect Ukraine, but to destroy Russia³⁷. This was also stated by Bruno Le Maire, French Minister of Economy, on March 1, 2022, who referred to «a total war»³⁸. So nothing very new here, and this was explained in the American media Jacobin, of democrat tendency, at the beginning of February 2022³⁹.

In March 2019, Oleksei Arestovich, a close adviser to Zelensky, explained very clearly in an interview with the Ukrainian channel Apostrof, the mechanism of events⁴⁰.

The Ukrainians' goal is to join NATO. But some NATO members remain very reluctant, because existing tensions with Russia mean that the risk of having to activate Article 5 is high. It is like trying to contract an insurance policy for a risk that has a 100% probability of occurrence! The solution is therefore to involve Russia in a conflict that would lead to its definitive collapse. Arestovitch even envisages this confrontation in 2021-2022!

The outline of this strategy was elaborated by the Rand Corporation in a document entitled "Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground": the idea is to find a pretext for imposing sanctions on Russia in such a way that its economy will not survive them. To do this, Ukraine was used as "bait". In short, this is the pattern that was observed in February-March 2022.

The problem is that Western leaders did not want to listen to the warnings in the same document, which cautioned that « this could produce disproportionately large Ukrainian casualties, territorial losses, and refugee flows. It might even lead Ukraine into a disadvantageous peace».⁴¹

In other words, the West and Ukraine have engaged in a strategy that everyone knew already in 2019 would be paid for by the Ukrainians! Ukraine was used in a bid to destroy Russia. At the same time, the talks to encourage the development of independence movements were to allow the dismemberment (the term used officially by the Americans is: decolonize)⁴² of Russia.

Thus, the sanctions that affect the Russian population, including Russians abroad⁴³, such as flight connections or goods trade have only confirmed Vladimir Putin's statements that the West is trying to destroy Russia^44. The Western action has only strengthened the confidence of the Russian population in its leaders. Vladimir Putin's popularity, which was 77% in September 2022, rose to 82% in January 2023!

It was a strategic mistake not to invite Russia to the anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp, but to invite the representatives of a government that celebrates the "great deeds" of Stepan Bandera, a Nazi collaborator during the Second World War. This was another opportunity for Europeans to remember the grandfathers of Ursula von der Leyen, Olaf Scholz or Chrystia Freeland... This even shocked Arno Klarsfeld, a Nazi hunter who is not very pro-Russian⁴⁵.

It is obvious that NATO is aiming for an escalation of the war. The former Inspector General of the German Armed Forces, Harald Kujat, said in an interview that a nuclear power, i.e. Russia, cannot be defeated. How do you judge this statement?

First, we have to be precise with the wording. Some NATO countries are involved to various degrees in this conflict, but not NATO as an alliance or as a structure.

Second, I don't think NATO countries are trying to create an escalation. Their problem is that they are trapped in their narrative, and they don't know how to get out of it without losing face. We have already seen in previous interviews that the official narrative is that Ukraine is winning the war and Russia is losing it. But today, the reality on the ground shows that this has been false for a long time. It is today that we would need a credible neutral country that could offer a way out of this crisis for the Ukrainians, the Westerners and the Russians.

I'm not sure you can't defeat a nuclear power. Nobody is invincible. There are two questions, "At what cost?" and "Is the cost proportionate to the benefit?"

Let us assume that Russia is a dictatorship, which even fiercely anti-Putin analysts decline to assert⁴⁶. Is regime change in Russia worth the destruction of Europe? Isn't this a problem that the Russians should decide and solve by themselves? However, it is noticeable that Vladimir Putin's popularity is only increasing and that Russians do not seem to be looking for regime change. In fact, the Russophobia that has come to light in the West has only strengthened the Russian population's confidence in Putin. It is almost as if one wonders whether primary and stupid articles about the «fetishism» of the letter «Z» on Russian tanks⁴⁷ are not intended to strengthen the will to resist of the Russian people!

It is easy to wage war with the money and the lives of others...

How has Russia reacted to the increased arms deliveries and what could be the next stage of escalation from the Russian side?

Russia's objective is to neutralize the threat to the people of Donbass and Russia. Therefore, the more this threat is fed, the less likely it is that the conflict will end. The greater the range of weapons that are supplied to Ukraine, the more Russia will have to control the depth of Ukrainian territory. This was said by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in July 2022⁴⁸, and he repeated it on February 2⁴⁹. It would be good if we listened to what the Russians say, instead of being surprised when they do what they have announced!

Currently, we are doing everything we can for Russia to totally destroy Ukraine. As for the question of the "aggressor's reward", we should have thought about it between 2014 and 2022, and implemented the Minsk Agreements, which nobody - the Ukrainians first - wanted to do!...

Ukraine is now demanding additional fighter jets and warships from the NATO states. Do you think this is a possible scenario?

Western leadership is so irrational, that anything is possible! We are led by fanatical fools, who accepted the massacre of Russian-speaking civilian populations in Donbass between 2014 and 2022, who signed the Minsk agreements knowing that they would not respect them. How can one imagine that they could have matured in a few months?

The problem with providing the Ukrainians with fighter planes and warships is that they have no airfields or safe military ports to refuel. Therefore, they would have to be based on NATO territory. In other words, this would mean a direct involvement of NATO countries in this conflict.

It is not the fact of supplying weapons that implicates Western countries, but their integration into the Ukrainian army's logistics chain. We have already reached the limit now, because Western countries, especially France and the United States, are technically part of the Ukrainian logistics by repairing damaged weapons and providing a flow of ammunition.

Why is it that, apart from you and General Kujat, there are no sensible military leaders who advocate an immediate halt to the war in order to put an end to the bloodshed?

This must be carefully nuanced. First of all, it must be remembered that in a state governed by the rule of law, the Armed Forces are normally subordinated to the political authorities. The military executes the decisions on behalf of the political authorities, but it is not its role to make political decisions. This explains why officers who speak out are no longer serving.

That said, we can see that, as a rule, the military has a more nuanced view on the war than politicians; that the Anglo-Saxon military has a more balanced view than its European counterparts; and that Europeans from «old Europe» (Western Europe) have a more professional analysis of the conflict than their counterparts from «new Europe» (Eastern Europe), as Donald Rumsfeld would say.

The problem is the independence of mind in which the military works. A commander has to work with the realities on the ground to achieve the goal set by the politicians. The problem is that in the West, nobody seems to know what the objective is in Ukraine. In Switzerland, the opinion of the military seems to be aligned with the Kiev propaganda. In short, one could say that the less operational experience one has, the more important what Kiev says is in the analysis...

Did the Swiss military once contact you to benefit from your experience and analysis?

No, never. But you have to consider the positive aspect! When I see the deplorable quality of the "Swiss Security Report 2022", published in September^50, I am glad I was not involved! I only regret that this report does not draw the right conclusions and ultimately goes against the interests of Switzerland!

Mr. Baud, thank you very much for the interview.

Interview Thomas Kaiser

published February 10, 2023$

*Jacques Baud holds a master's degree in Econometrics and a postgraduate degree in International Security from the Graduate Institute of International Relations in Geneva and was a Colonel in the Swiss Army. He worked for the Swiss Strategic Intelligence Service and was an advisor on the security of refugee camps in Eastern Zaire during the Rwandan war (UNHCR - Zaire/Congo, 1995-1996). He worked for the DPKO (Department of Peacekeeping Operations) of the United Nations in New York (1997-99), founded the International Centre for Humanitarian Demining in Geneva (CIGHD) and the Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA). He contributed to the introduction of the concept of intelligence in UN peace operations and headed the first integrated UN Joint Mission Analysis Centre (JMAC) in Sudan (2005-06). He was head of the Peace Policy and Doctrine Division of the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations in New York (2009-11) and of the UN Expert Group on Security Sector Reform and the Rule of Law, worked in Nato and is the author of several books on intelligence, asymmetric warfare, terrorism and disinformation.

[1] Oleksiy Kuzmenko, « The Azov Regiment has not depoliticized », Atlantic Council, 19 mars 2020 (https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/the-azov-regiment-has-not-depoliticized/)

[2] https://youtu.be/bEv4-IJsl9k?t=414

[3] Matthew Loh, « Russia is prepared to drop its demand for Ukraine to be 'denazified' from its list of ceasefire conditions: report », Business Insider, 29 mars 2022 (https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-nazi-demand-for-ukraine-dropped-in-ceasefire-talks-2022-3).

[4] Vlasta Lazur, « «Денис Кірєєв – співробітник ГУР, якого вбили в автівці СБУ, а тіло викинули на вулицю». Інтерв'ю з Кирилом Будановим », Radio Svoboda, 22 janvier 2023 (https://www.radiosvoboda.org/a/вбивство-кірєєва/32233661.html?fbclid=IwAR3zfrvdT_41ghRz3SqR2VDotNb1Zw1Yo0LtQNXBpPiQBC3ZjVxUffTDOjg)

[5] Caitlin McFall, « Milley urges Ukraine to negotiate with Russia, saying chances of total military victory 'unlikely' », Fox News, 16 novembre 2023 (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/milley-urges-ukraine-negotiate-russia-saying-chances-total-military-victory-unlikely)

[6] David Ignatius, « Blinken ponders the post-Ukraine-war order », The Washington Post, 24 janvier 2023 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/24/blinken-ponders-post-ukraine-war-order/)

[7] Alexander Ward, Paul McLeary & Connor O’Brien, « Ukraine can’t retake Crimea soon, Pentagon tells lawmakers in classified briefing », Politico, 1er février 2023 (https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/01/ukraine-crimea-russia-pentagon-00080799)

[8] « Нардеп від «Слуги народу» Семінський заявив про «позбавлення конституційних прав росіян, які проживають в Україні» », AP News, 2 juillet 2021 (https://apnews.com.ua/ua/news/nardep-vid-slugi-narodu-seminskii-zayaviv-pro-pozbavlennya-konstitutciinikh-prav-rosiyan-yaki-prozhivaiut-v-ukraini/)

[9] https://youtu.be/CI22-w0i-RM

[10] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI22-w0i-RM

[11] https://www.economist.com/zaluzhny-transcript

[12] Tal Axelrod, « McCaul calls on US to send 'just one' Abrams tank to Ukraine to spur European support », abc news, 22 janvier 2023 (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mccaul-calls-us-send-abrams-tank-ukraine-spur/story?id=96584865)

[13] By Karen DeYoung, Dan Lamothe & Loveday Morris, « Short on time, Biden sought new Ukraine tank plan to break stalemate », The Washington Post, 28 janvier 2023 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/01/28/inside-story-biden-ukraine-tanks/)

[14] David Axe, « The Tungsten M-1—How Ukraine’s Tanks Will Differ From America’s », Forbes, 27 janvier 2023 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/01/27/the-tungsten-m-1-how-ukraines-tanks-will-differ-from-americas/)

[15] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60798352

[16] https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html

[17] https://www.economist.com/zaluzhny-transcript

[18] Thorsten Jungholt, « Bundeswehr-Kampfpanzern fehlt wirksame Munition », Die Welt am Sonntag, 26 avril 2015 (https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article140083741/Bundeswehr-Kampfpanzern-fehlt-wirksame-Munition.html)

[19] Alex Hollings & Sandboxx News, « Ukraine's troops have been highly effective with the M777 howitzer, but US troops can turn it into a 'giant sniper rifle' », Business Insider, 18 septembre 2022 (https://www.businessinsider.com/us-targeting-system-makes-m777-howitzer-highly-accurate-2022-9?r=US&IR=T)

[20] Joe Saballa, « Estonia Sending All Its 155-mm Howitzers to Ukraine », The Defense Post, 24 janvier 2023 (https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/01/24/estonia-sending-howitzers-ukraine/)

[21] « La France va fournir douze canons Caesar supplémentaires à l'Ukraine », France 24, 31 janvier 2023 (https://www.france24.com/fr/europe/20230131-en-direct-macron-re%C3%A7oit-le-ministre-de-la-d%C3%A9fense-ukrainien-kiev-r%C3%A9clame-des-avions-de-combat)

[22] https://www.moonofalabama.org/2023/01/nato-continues-its-disarmament.html#more

[23]  William M. Arkin, « Putin’s Bombers Could Devastate Ukraine But He’s Holding Back. Here’s Why », Newsweek, 22 mars 2022 (https://www.newsweek.com/putins-bombers-could-devastate-ukraine-hes-holding-back-heres-why-1690494)

[24] https://en.mriya.news/58331-they-didnt-want-to-kill-anyone-arestovich-spoke-about-the-beginning-of-the-nwo

[25] « Confrontation In The Gulf – Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Meeting With U.S. Envoy », The New York Times, 23 septembre 1990) (https://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/23/world/confrontation-in-the-gulf-excerpts-from-iraqi-document-on-meeting-with-us-envoy.html).

[26] Daniel Larison, « IAEA Confirms Iranian Compliance for the Fifteenth Time », The American Conservative, 31 mai 2019 (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/iaea-confirms-iranian-compliance-for-the-fifteenth-time/)

[27] Mark Landler, « Trump Abandons Iran Nuclear Deal He Long Scorned », The New York Times, 8 mai 2018 (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump-iran-nuclear-deal.html)

[28] Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan between the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban and the United States of America, state.gov, 29 février 2020 (https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Agreement-For-Bringing-Peace-to-Afghanistan-02.29.20.pdf)

[29] https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/13567448-claude-wild-la-suisse-nest-pas-neutre-dans-le-conflit-en-ukraine.html

[30] « Суровикин: российская группировка на Украине методично "перемалывает" войска противника », TASS, 18 octobre 2022 (https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/16090805)

[31] « Ukraine’s Top General Supports Harsher Law for Deserters and Draft-dodgers », Kyiv Post, 20 décembre 2022 (https://www.kyivpost.com/post/5943)

[32] « Zelensky Signs Controversial Law Toughening Punishment for Desertion in Army », AFP/Kiyv Post, 25 janvier 2023 (https://www.kyivpost.com/post/11498)

[33] « Ukrainian soldiers are committing suicide due to war stress, says Duncan-Smith », Politics.co.uk, 16 janvier 2023 (https://www.politics.co.uk/parliament/ukrainian-soldiers-are-committing-suicide-due-to-war-stress-says-duncan-smith/)

[34] Füssy Angéla, « Mint a barmokat, úgy fogdossák össze a férfiakat Kárpátalján – Nézze meg helyszíni videóriportunkat! », PestiSracok, 23 janvier 2023 (https://pestisracok.hu/mint-a-barmokat-ugy-fogdossak-ossze-a-ferfiakat-karpataljan-nezze-meg-helyszini-videoriportunkat/)

[35] Chris King, « Shocking claims of ethnic Hungarians being forcibly drafted into Ukrainian military in Transcarpathia », Euro Weekly News, 24 janvier 2023 (https://euroweeklynews.com/2023/01/24/shocking-claims-of-ethnic-hungarians-being-forcibly-drafted-into-ukrainian-military-in-transcarpathia/);

[36] Robert Semonsen, « 97% of Hungarians Reject Brussels’ Sanctions Against Russia », The European Conservative, 17 janvier 2023 (https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/97-of-hungarians-reject-brussels-sanctions-against-russia/)

[37] Seumas Milne, « It's not Russia that's pushed Ukraine to the brink of war », The Guardian, 30 avril 2014 (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict)

[38] Branko Marcetic, « A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War », Jacobin, 7 février 2022 (https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea)

[39] Branko Marcetic, « A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War », Jacobin, 7 février 2022 (https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea)

[40] « Predicted Russian - Ukrainian war in 2019 - Alexey Arestovich », YouTube, 18 mars 2022 (https://youtu.be/1xNHmHpERH8)

[41] James Dobbins, Raphael S. Cohen, Nathan Chandler, Bryan Frederick, Edward Geist, Paul DeLuca, Forrest E. Morgan, Howard J. Shatz, Brent Williams, « Extending Russia : Competing from Advantageous Ground », RAND Corporation, 2019, p.100 (https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html&usg=AOvVaw2E35ojBbRg6-xMic0-9WPs)

[42] https://freenationsrf.org/

[43]  Angélique Négroni, « Comptes bancaires bloqués, insultes, vandalisme... Le quotidien des Russes de France », le Figaro, 22 avril 2022 (https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/comptes-bancaires-bloques-insultes-vandalisme-le-quotidien-des-russes-de-france-20220422)

[44] « Address by the President of the Russian Federation », kremlin.ru, 21 septembre 2022 (http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/69390)

[45] https://youtu.be/I-yCq8M9ab0

[46] Bruno Tertrais, « La chute de la maison Russie », Institut Montaigne, 13 décembre 2022 (https://www.institutmontaigne.org/analyses/la-chute-de-la-maison-russie)

[47] Alexander Etkind, « Warum identifizieren sich Putins Anhänger mit dem mysteriösen Zeichen Z? », NZZ Am Sonntag, 29 janvier 2023 (https://www.nzz.ch/feuilleton/imperialismus-revanchismus-fetischismus-der-ukraine-krieg-ist-kein-krieg-zwischen-ethnien-sondern-zwischen-generationen-ein-gigantischer-oedipaler-konflikt-ld.1720903?reduced=true)

[48] Andrew Roth, « Russia may seek to occupy more territory in Ukraine, says foreign minister », The Guardian, 20 juillet 2022 (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/20/russia-may-seek-to-occupy-more-territory-in-ukraine-says-foreign-minister)

[49] Jon Jackson, « Russia Responds to West Reportedly Giving Ukraine Longer-Range Weapons », Newsweek, 2 février 2023 (https://www.newsweek.com/russia-responds-west-reportedly-giving-ukraine-longer-range-weapons-1778546)

[50] https://www.newsd.admin.ch/newsd/message/attachments/72369.pdf

"Sanctions are the cause of people dying"

Interview with Prof. Dr. Dr. hab. Alena Douhan*, international law expert and UN special rapporteur.

Zeitgeschehen im Fokus In the media, we constantly hear about the sanctions against Russia. But we never talk about how the civilian population suffers as a result. How do you assess this regimes of sanctions?

Prof. Dr. Alena Douhan As a professor of international law, I assess it from two sides. There must be a legal analysis, because countries, including the EU, never really even consider the legal basis. You cannot react to the behavior of other countries by illegal means. And from the other side – it is very important to assess humanitarian impact of unilaterally applied measures.

You visited Iran a few weeks ago. What kind of impression did you get during your visit?

It was my fourth country visit. Before going to Iran, I visited Venezuela, Qatar, and Zimbabwe. I must say, each country has its own way of being affected by sanctions and coping with them. Iran is a country that suffers from very serious sanctions imposed by the U.S. and by some other states. What is special about Iran's situation is that it was under UN Security Council sanctions for 10 years until August 2020, which no longer exist today. But there is a number of states that are still following these non-existing Security Council sanctions and additionally impose other unilateral sanctions referring to human rights violations, for example, concerning women's rights or rights of the LGBTQ community. That makes it complicated for me to assess the impact of these different sanctions separately. When people ask me how I assess the impact of the European Union sanctions, I can't answer the questions precisely, but I look at the comprehensive impact of all sanctions imposed by different countries. Meanwhile , the humanitarian impact is even greater—due to over-compliance of states, banks, businesses and private individuals.

How have you been able to get a picture of the situation in Iran?

The purpose of my visit was limited by the scope of my mandate – to assess humanitarian impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights. For this purpose I talked to all affected groups, both governmental and non-governmental, and got the strong impression that the sanctions have a massive impact on people's lives. I met officials in hospitals, visited hospitals and universities, and business enterprises. I spoke with all 17 U.N. missions in Iran, as well as with embassy officials from both countries that support the sanctions and those that oppose them. I also visited Isfahan and talked to associations representing the Afghan community. There, I spoke directly with people affected by the sanctions.

What was your main impression?

What made a lasting impression on me was the impact of the sanctions on the health care system. I spoke with emergency patients, those suffering from genetic diseases, and some who were suffering from cancer. I also spoke with members of patient organizations that cared for people with serious diseases, such as various types of skin diseases, gynecological diseases, as well as blood diseases, severe forms of diabetes, etc. All of these people suffer from these diseases and even the appropriate medicines are not available.

Is the lack of medication a result of the sanctions?

The impact of the sanctions is not always clear but sometimes it is rather obvious. In the cases where health is at stake, it is very clear. Let me give you an example. For a while, Iran produces around 95 per cent of medicine domestically. After sanctions have been imposed Iran largely lost access to the raw materials or faces impediments in delivery of proper quality raw materials.

Where do the medicines come from?

The availability of medicines is another issue. After sanctions were imposed in 2010 and reimposed in 2018, Iran made great efforts to continue production of much-needed medicines. As reports indicated, Iran was producing 90-95% of its own medicines. The problem was that although it would have been possible to produce the drugs in the country, this would require raw materials.

Was it still possible to manufacture drugs?

The procurement of individual components to manufacture the medicines is a special issue. This is because the countries that had previously supplied Iran with the relevant substances refused to do so due to the renewed sanctions. This was the reason why Iran had to look for alternatives, running the risk of obtaining basic substances for the production of medicines that were of the low quality. They were not certified, and even if Iran could produce drugs with the basic substances it received, their quality is affected.

Could all the needed medicines be produced through this route?

Despite all efforts, only 90-95% of the drugs could be produced domestically. The missing 5-10% had to be imported from abroad. It refers on the first hand medicines for people suffering from rare or severe deceases. Today unfortunately drug companies are refusing to send medicines to Iran, despite formal announcement in the sanctioning regulations of the humanitarian exception.

Humanitarian exemptions however, do not work for a number of reasons. To activate humanitarian exemptions, it is necessary to get a license from OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control) first of all. This is very problematic, the process is lengthy and expensive. However, when you get a license, it is usually valid for one month only.

What does that mean?

I spoke with UN institutions like Unicef and UNFPA [United Nations Population Fund], and they confirmed that it is a big problem, even for individual UN institutions, to get a license from OFAC to guarantee the procurement of drugs.

Even if the license is there, the pharmaceutical companies usually say no. They are afraid that if they trade with Iran, they will then also fall under the secondary sanctions as the wording of sanctions’ provisions is very unclear and confusing.

Can a company decide to supply the drugs? Is that possible in principle?

If companies are willing to work with Iran, there are two problems still. The first one is the transfer of money. Even Unicef, which operates in Iran and works with a Swedish pharmaceutical company, cannot guarantee payment from Iran to Sweden as Iran is cut off SWIFT and banks decide not to risk. Thus, the payment had to be made in alternative ways via thirds countries.

If everything has still worked up to this point, then there is the problem of delivery. All transport companies in Iran are under sanctions. Anyone who delivers goods to Iran can be penalized by secondary sanctions. Any transportation insurance company is under sanctions against Iran.

I have talked to some of humanitarian associations. We have seen the documents that clearly show that they do not want to sell the drugs to Iran. I have talked to the Swedish and Swiss governments and to the pharmaceutical companies, because we have clear indications that there is a connection with the sanctions. Because of the lack of medicine, we have an increasing deterioration in the health of the population in Iran especially among people suffering from rare and severe deceases. You can see the increasing death rate not only in intensive care patients like diabetics, cancer patients and many others, but also in less dangerous diseases. Deaths have tripled.

Are there any specific examples here of how you see the problem?

I'll give you an example. For the disease thalassemia, there was an average of 25-30 deaths per year. The average life expectancy for these people is 45 to 50 years, if the medicine they need is available. When sanctions were reinstated in 2018, deaths increased to 130-170 in the last three years, and the average life expectancy is now less than 20 years. There are several organizations that look at the problems and come up with the same numbers.

Are all people affected by what is happening in the healthcare system?

The so-called middle class in Iran is accustomed to using private medical care and they were able to pay more. But that has now changed; it can no longer pay for private services that puts an additional burden over the public system.

What does it mean for Iran to be cut off from international payments?

For example, it is not able to make any payments to international organizations. If it is unable to make the appropriate contributions, it loses its right to participate in international bodies. This excludes Iran from all the ability to participate in talks, to vote and thus to take part in decision-making. I have spoken with to some U.N. agencies that are assisting Iran in developing solutions to the payment problems, but so far there is no avenue available. Iran also cannot pay its dues to the UN like it does to WHO or Unicef.

What does that mean for interaction at the diplomatic level?

It is very limited. In addition, Iranian embassies in each of the countries that have adopted the sanctions are not able to pay wages to their embassy staff because Iran cannot open accounts. Iran is excluded from Swift, and therefore you can't pay with a credit card in the country itself.

What does this mean for trade?

All countries that want to maintain international cooperation with Iran, not only on the diplomatic level, are highly restricted. There are also restrictions on freedom of action at the individual level. Because of the exclusion from Swift, no one is able to book a trip to Iran, a hotel, or a flight. Iranians are not able to book flights and hotels abroad as well. Cooperation in the field of science, art and sports is also not possible. There is no possibility to pay membership fees in international professional associations / bodies and therefore cooperation with foreign professional groups is limited. Iranians also face problems in using online platforms for international interaction and teaching. Iranian athletes are limited in their ability to participate in international competitions because they cannot book a trip or stay in a hotel room. Scholars and students are prevented from subscribing at the international databases, their publications are often not accepted for editing process due to precaution of publishing houses.

Are these sanctions compatible with human rights?

There is clear evidence that a broad scope of human rights are violated by the sanctions; for example, unrestricted trade or the possibility of scientific exchange in all fields. I have talked to many students, and for them it is incomprehensible why they are excluded from international cooperation. It is an absurdity to prohibit scientific cooperation, because that is a basic element for the economic and social development of a country. These are essential elements of economic and cultural rights. Iran is a clear example where these rights are being violated.

What about the right to food?

The situation in Iran is not so bad, because the country can produce a lot of things domestically. The situation is much better in Iran than in Venezuela.

Have you also been able to talk to citizens?

Yes, I was able to experience how ordinary people are directly affected by the sanctions. One Iranian told me that he and his wife decided to forgo having another child because, due to the inflation in the country, it would be too much of a financial burden. The country has hardly any income coming from outside, because the flow of tourists has depleted. In addition to the limited supply of goods and low income, people suffer from extreme inflation. The state and companies cannot raise wages at the same rate and have to try to cut costs, so people are getting poorer and poorer.

Besides the sanctions, doesn't Iran have a large number of refugees to take care of?

Yes, Iran has 5.5 million refugees from Afghanistan and since August 2021, 5 to 10 thousand refugees are coming daily. All other countries neighboring Afghanistan have closed their borders. All statistics can be found on the UNHCR web page. An additional problem for Iran is the fact that most of the refugees (90 percent) do not have papers or a valid visa. Before my trip to Iran, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, was in Iran. He was very appreciative of Iran's efforts.

How is Iran coping with this huge burden?

For example, Iran gives refugees free access to primary health care and schooling, regardless of whether they are documented or non-documented. This is all paid for by the state and is an extreme burden. If five to ten thousand people come into the country every day, that means a new school and a new hospital would have to be built dauly. The Special Rapporteur for Afghanistan has confirmed—and this is also my impression—that more than half of the refugees are young people, because as a rule a family has five children. In addition to the shortage of medicines, the increase in patients who can no longer finance private care, and the large number of refugees, the health care system is under enormous strain.

How can Iran finance this?

This is a huge problem. Because of the shortfall in revenues, due to the sanctions, the state can hardly provide any support. Also, the number of social cases that rely on government support money is growing. Almost two months ago, just in when I visited Iran, there were big protests there against the change of the state support system. Basic foodstuffs have very low prices. That has changed now. The state has raised prices. But the very poorest still get financial support so they can afford the goods. Other people who used to get that were left out. The consequences have been protests all over the country.

When you talk to the states that imposed the sanctions and tell them what you saw with your own eyes, what kind of reactions do you get?

One of the most common responses from the states that imposed sanctions is that they didn't think the situation in the country was that bad. They would not have heard from other sources that the impact was so severe. When I visited Venezuela, I saw how disastrous these sanctions are for the people, because Venezuela has very low domestic food production.

I try to be very specific and look at every fact to be able to show specific impacts on health, nutrition, access to water, sanitation, electricity, education, and development. My intention is to remind all states that every human being around the world enjoys basic human rights and all actions can only be taken in accordance with international law.

What sources do you rely on?

To gather information, I talk to various stakeholders during country visits: governments, hospitals, university professors, non-governmental organizations, international and national humanitarian organizations, UN agencies, local associations, embassies, victims of human rights violations. One month before visiting the country, I publicly call for contributions. All information is collected and verified.

Unfortunately, some interlocutors have no intention of sharing information relevant to the work of the mandate, but instead launch defamation campaigns and distribute fake news.

Who is doing such defamation?

UN Watch and other NGOs outside Iran called "Human Rights in Iran" called me a puppet of China or Iran. When I came back from Iran, the slurs were so strong that I informed the office of the High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet and the Coordination Committee if the Special Procedures about the case. The fact that I come from Belarus became the reason to question my integrity. I am a professor of international law and have never belonged to any party. I do research in countries as an independent expert according to academic criteria and have no political agenda.

Were the attacks related to your report?

No, I guess that none of those who attacked me read the report. The goal was to shift the focus away from my findings and to make a scandal. This is something that is done all the time. People politicize the discussion instead of dealing with the specific content. I keep trying to point out that we should be dealing with the legality and humanity rather than politics. It's about international law and humanitarian issues. If there is any problem, you have to take legal means. It is about using legal means, not about punishing one country for not complying with another.

After all the things you have told, the question I have is whether these sanctions and their devastating consequences on the economy, on politics, and therefore on the civilian population are compatible with human rights.

That is an important question, and I hope I can answer it in brief. Unfortunately this area is so highly politicized. It has usually been maintained that unilateral sanctions are imposed by "good guys on bad guys" for some “supreme purpose” and with good intentions —but unfortunately in reality that is the people of the country who are affected enormously.

Toward the end of the 1990s, the Security Council was very active in issuing sanctions, for example, against Sierra Leone or Iraq, and legality of these sanctions have not been disputed. In this context, the Security Council decided to examine the humanitarian impact of sanctions. The effect appeared to be so huge that the UN Security Council changed its policy and stopped to use comprehensive sanctions. The UN Security Council also never threatened the public. Numerous threats however have become a part of the unilateral sanctions’ strategy, as we have recently seen as regards sanctions on Cuba, Iran or Russia. That is the reason why I think you should start to comply with the legal aspects.

It is hardly known that sanctions have a devastating impact on the respective populations. What is the reason for that?

The media hardly reports on it. They suppress the information, but people don't want to hear it either. It is something very unpleasant. But it is a reality for those affected. Sanctions are the cause of people dying. That is the reason why I am very concerned about the concept of planned prevention of disinformation. The EU has decided to launch a law against "disinformation," which is a violation of the International Covenant on Civil, Political and Cultural Rights, as well as calling into question the right to freedom of expression. I see this as a great danger to freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to pass a law prohibiting sanctions that drive people into poverty?

Yes, there is no mechanism for evaluating unilateral coercive measures. In March of this year, I organized an expert consultation with nongovernmental organizations and another with academics, at which they argued that there should be a monitoring mechanism to assess humanitarian impact of unilateral coercive measures. We need to establish a uniform transparent methodology verify the impact of sanctions. Also, there are no avenues of redress against unilateral coercive measures. Iran has launched a case in the International Court of Justice, and Venezuela – in the International Criminal Court. But it is nearly impossible to refer a case of unilateral coercive measures to a U.N. treaty body as it is very complicated for individuals under sanctions and especially for those affected by over-compliance – to bring a case to the national court, such as in the United States, as that is too far away and extremely expensive. I am working on how to set up a mechanism that would allow legal action against unilateral coercive measures within the framework of the UN and help the victims to get their rights.

Professor Douhan, thank you very much for this interview.

Interview Thomas Kaiser
Translation Nirmal Dass
published July 20, 2022

"By joining NATO, Sweden and Finland increase the risk of becoming involved in a nuclear conflict"

Interview with Jacques Baud*

Zeitgeschehen im Fokus You have worked for NATO and know the mechanisms of this organization very well. What does "NATO enlargement" mean in the current situation?

Jacques Baud In fact, despite the emphatic statements, the situation has not really changed. First of all, it must be understood that the announcement of the candidacies of Sweden and Finland is essentially political. The Madrid Summit merely accepted the candidacies of these two countries. I recall that according to Article 10 of the Washington Treaty, it is NATO that invites new members, not the new members that decide to join the Alliance. NATO needed a "small success". The forces it has funded and trained for eight years in Ukraine are failing against Russia. The problem is not the determination of the Ukrainian soldiers, who are certainly brave, but the inability of the military staffs to fight a war in a European tactical-operational environment. As a result, the Ukrainian military failure is therefore essentially also the failure of NATO. Added to this are the Western sanctions which tend to backfire on our economies. Thus creating a situation that has already impacted the governments of Bulgaria, Estonia, the UK, France, the Netherlands... and it is probably not over.

How long will it be before the two states are definitely accepted into NATO?

We will have to wait for the next NATO summit in 2023. Then the allies will decide whether to accept - or not - the actual membership of Sweden and Finland. But I expect that it will be done according to plan.

What is the role of Turkey, which wanted to prevent membership?

First of all, Turkey is not trying to "prevent" the membership of Sweden and Finland, but to preserve its own national interests. Secondly, it should be remembered that the admission of new member countries can only be done with the unanimity of the allies. In other words, every vote counts. Turkey is a staunch ally of the Alliance, which is not afraid to assert its national interests. I have worked a lot with the Turks during my time at NATO. One can agree or disagree with their policies, but one must recognize that they are probably the most consistent and honest members of the Alliance in asserting their interests.

Can you give a specific example?

Yes, when the United States wanted to launch its war in Iraq, Turkey opposed it because it felt that it would have an impact on the situation of the Kurds and thus on its own national security. But the Americans did not listen. Today, Turkey is arguing for its national security. Sweden and Finland have always been very supportive of the Kurds and have taken in many refugees, including members of the PKK, the Kurdish Workers' Party, which is considered as a terrorist movement in many countries. In fact, even the European Union considers the PKK a terrorist organization¹. For Turkey, it is a matter of national security. It was therefore quite predictable that Turkey would ask for its own security interests in exchange for its voice. What is true for the Nordic countries is also true for Turkey.

Why did Turkey withdraw its veto for the time being?

First of all, it was to be expected that Turkey would not use its de facto veto right. The stakes are too high for NATO. It was clear that Turkey would be pressured to accept the candidacy of the two countries. Turkey is already subject to sanctions by the United States for having "dared" to buy Russian anti-aircraft missiles. It should be noted that the United States automatically applies sanctions to all countries that buy Russian military equipment. This is the CAATSA Act². This is why Turkey was taken out of the F-35 fighter program and no longer receives spare parts for its F-16 fighters. So it was easy to trade the lifting of sanctions for its approval. But this also shows that Western unity is achieved through the threat of sanctions!

In the Western media, the future membership of the two states to NATO is being celebrated as a great increase in security and military clout. Is this assessment correct?

No, it will not be a radical change. First of all, you have to know that in the early 1960s, Sweden wanted to have nuclear weapons. The United States, on the other hand, wanted to keep its monopoly over these weapons. In order to convince Sweden to give up, the United States offered to provide its nuclear umbrella protection in case of aggression. In other words, since the 1960s, Sweden had the same nuclear protection as NATO members, without the same obligations in case of conflict. So Sweden has not significantly improved its security.

And what advantage does NATO have?

For NATO, Sweden's membership provides the advantage of having full control over the Baltic Sea passages to the Atlantic Ocean. But this is a very relative gain. For it is Denmark that really occupies a key position, and the military collaboration between Denmark and Sweden, especially for maritime control, works well. It should be remembered that Sweden claimed for years that it was the target of clandestine Russian submarine warfare. As a result, there was intense cooperation in anti-submarine warfare around the Baltic Sea, in order to identify secret Russian weapons. But they never found anything: in fact, it was herring flatulence, which produced the same sound signal as submarines!...

Even if this does little for either side, it does have an outward effect.

The membership of Sweden and Finland is certainly a political signal. NATO obviously sees it as a success. But the reality is more nuanced. For the two Nordic countries, I don't think it is an improvement of their situation. They have the same advantages as before, but with additional constraints. But here too we have to be careful. It is unlikely that the United States would use its nuclear weapons on Russian territory just to protect Helsinki or Stockholm: this would create a direct threat from Russia against Washington or New York. Instead, they would more likely use theater weapons against attacking forces on Swedish or Finnish territory. In other words, by joining NATO, these two countries have increased the risk of being caught in a nuclear conflict.

Don't the two countries also have to make concessions?

On the diplomatic front, Sweden and Finland have to expect a loss of the credibility they enjoyed thanks to their neutral or non-aligned status, especially in the non-European world.

In terms of their foreign and humanitarian policy, the price demanded by Turkey is very high, since it means no less than giving up their policy towards the Kurds. We do not know if they will fulfill their commitment to Turkey, but it is likely that they will have to do so, as this is an issue that Turkey perceives as existential.

We are reading less and less about Ukraine's "military successes" in the mainstream media. Did these ever exist or was the whole thing pure propaganda?

Our media are slowly beginning to portray a more nuanced reality than they have done since February. The irony of this is that by never questioning the Ukrainian government's narrative and by simply relaying its propaganda, our media have contributed significantly to the overconfidence that led to its defeat. As I have said from the beginning, our media bears a tremendous responsibility for the course of the war and the Ukrainian defeat.

What do you mean?

Our media never tried to help Ukraine, but to fight Russia. Don't forget that a Norwegian researcher revealed that a journalist described as a "Swiss-French conspiracy theorist" working with some mainstream media that "blacklisted" me in Switzerland³, inspired Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Breivik, who is celebrated as a hero by most right-wing militant groups in Ukraine.

Why is the war dragging on for so long, and why is Ukraine making no attempt to reach a negotiated settlement with Russia?

The West and the Ukrainian far-right extremists are literally preventing Zelensky from reaching an agreement with Russia. This is what Boris Johnson went to tell Zelensky in Kiev on April 9: "If you negotiate with Russia we will stop delivering arms to you!”

Can we tell from the Russians' actions what the ultimate goal of this operation is supposed to be?

No, we do not know. But it is important to understand that Russia's objectives are not quantitative, but qualitative in nature. In other words, it is not about gaining territory, but about destroying the threat against the Russian-speaking populations of Donbass and Crimea. Being a bit cynical, one could say that the Russians do not need to advance to achieve their goals, but only need to let the Ukrainian military come to them. According to Ukrainian officials, Ukraine is losing 1,000 men a day (killed, wounded, prisoners or deserters). The British have started a training program for new soldiers and promise to train 10'000 men in 120 days. In other words, they will train in 120 days what Ukraine loses in ten days. We are not helping Ukraine: we are pushing it towards disaster.

"Der Spiegel" writes, "Putin's soldiers are committing the most serious war crimes." Do you know more details about this, or does this belong in the realm of propaganda?

I don't know, because making accusations is not enough, you have to prove them. As Ignazio Cassis, the Swiss Minister of Foreign Affairs, said: "These are not war crimes until a Court of Law rules so". In the absence of multi-party, international and impartial investigations, these accusations are unsubstantiated. Having said that, it is very likely that Russian military personnel committed war crimes. It happens in all wars and is almost inevitable. Only the Western armies do not seem to commit such crimes. For two reasons: because they do not prosecute their own soldiers and because slaughtering an Arab family is not considered a crime. You can see for yourself that Julian Assange has served more time in prison than the perpetrators of the war crimes he exposed! This tells you everything about the so-called "values" we defend!

When you read the Western media, you inevitably get the feeling that only the Russians are committing war crimes.

The problem is that our media NEVER mention Ukrainian war crimes. As a matter of fact, we mention Russian war crimes, while in Eastern Ukraine the Russians are often welcomed as liberators. But that too, we do not want to say: the German journalist Alina Lipp, who is on the ground in the Donbass, has been condemned by the German justice for having dared to say it! Claiming that Ukraine is a democratic country that does not commit war crimes is just a way to legitimize our blind support for the war against Russia.

On July 4^th-5^th , in Lugano was the so-called reconstruction conference. President Cassis wanted to use it to put himself in the limelight. The media response seems to have been rather limited. What is the point of such a conference?

I think the idea of such a conference is good. The problem is that it is totally premature. How to seriously mobilize donors to fund Ukraine's reconstruction means nothing until we have a clear picture of the final state of affairs. Will Western countries fund the reconstruction of Mariupol? Russia has already started to rebuild the cities damaged by the war. In Mariupol, schools have reopened since May and the Russians have already started to rebuild the destroyed residential buildings. Russia has restored banking services as well as telephone services. This is certainly in the realm of propaganda, but for the inhabitants it is a concrete result.

How is such a conference compatible with Switzerland's neutrality?

As a matter of principle, I think that by organizing such a conference, Switzerland plays its role. The problem here is that in this particular case, this conference is essentially partisan and its real purpose is propaganda.

Are there countries that are currently trying to find a negotiated solution to the Ukraine conflict, or is only the logic of weapons speaking?

This is probably what all Ukrainians are asking themselves. But do not forget that in May 2019, Volodymyr Zelensky was threatened with death by his own neo-Nazi partners if he concluded peace with Russia. By the way, our media and our leaders also say that we should not negotiate with Vladimir Putin. So...

Mr. Baud, thank you very much for the interview.

Interview Thomas Kaiser

Translation Nirmal Dass

published July 20, 2022

¹ https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32021R0138&from=EN
² https://congress.gov/115/plaws/publ44/PLAW-115publ44.pdf
³ https://www.qub.ac.uk/Research/GRI/mitchell-institute/FileStore/Filetoupload,818003,en.pdf

International peacekeeping: "Security through cooperation, not confrontation"

"Switzerland's membership in NATO would call our security into question"

Interview with Jacques Baud*

Zeitgeschehen im Fokus The May 20 "New York Times" editorial questioned the sense of U.S. war strategy in Ukraine and questioned further involvement. How should this be understood?

Jacques Baud In the Anglo-Saxon world, the U.S. and European Union strategy is increasingly being questioned by military and intelligence officials. This trend is reinforced by U.S. domestic politics. Republicans and Democrats share a very similar view of Russia. They perceive however very differently the efficiency of the investments in support of Ukraine. Both share the goal of a "regime change" in Russia; but Republicans are concerned that the billions spent tend to backfire against the Western economy. In other words, not only does this objective not seem to be achieved, but it comes at the cost of a weakening of our economy and influence.

So, the Republicans don’t really have a different position from the Democrats?

In Europe, we tend to think of the Republicans and the Democrats as the political "right" and "left." That's not quite true. First of all, we must remember that historically, until the beginning of the 20th century, the Republicans were "left" and the Democrats were "right." Today, they differ less in their vision of the role of the United States in the world, than how they want to achieve that vision. That is why there are Democrats who are more “rightists” than Republicans, and Republicans who are more “leftists” than Democrats.

What does this mean for the Ukraine crisis?

The Ukraine crisis has been managed by a small minority of Democrats who hate Russia. They seem more interested in weakening Russia than strengthening the United States. Republicans see that not only this strategy against Russia does not work, but it leads to a loss of credibility of the United States. The upcoming midterm elections and the growing unpopularity of Joe Biden are fueling criticism of U.S. strategy in Ukraine.

Is this "rethinking" taking place only in the Anglo-Saxon media?

In Switzerland, France and Belgium, the narrative of the French-speaking mainstream media follows faithfully what the Ukrainian propaganda says. We are shown a fictitious reality that announces victory against Russia. As a result, we are not able to assist properly Ukraine in overcoming its real problems.

Do people in the EU really see it that way?

Yes, there is a general anti-Russian mood there. People tend to be more Catholic than the Pope. That was also the case with the oil embargo. The U.S. Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, advised the EU against an oil embargo. But the EU wanted to do it anyway, despite possible negative consequences against its own economy. So, it is obvious that there is a certain dynamic in the EU related to the generation of the current political leaders. These people are very young, with only limited real world experience. Their actions are rather ideology-based than objective oriented. This is why Europe has no sober assessment of the situation.

What are the consequences of this?

In Europe, our understanding of the problem looks more polarized than in the USA. We are not able to discuss the situation calmly. In the French-language media, it is impossible to suggest an alternative view of the issue without being called "Putin's agent. The problem is not just an intellectual one, but is essentially and very concrete problem for Ukraine. By confirming the view propagated by the Ukrainian narrative, our media have pushed Ukraine towards a strategy that costs a great many lives and leads to the destruction of the country. Our media believes that this strategy weakens Vladimir Putin and that they should continue on this path. However, in the US, some seem to have realized that this is a dead end, as Joe Biden stated that military aid to Ukraine aims only at strengthening Ukraine's negotiating position.

What is the view in the U.S.?

In the U.S., one must distinguish between the government and military and professional intelligence circles. Among the latter, there is a growing feeling that Ukraine will suffer more from Western strategy than from a war with Russia. This sounds paradoxical, but more and more professionals are recognizing it. In Switzerland’s and in the EU’s establishments —in my experience—people do not perceive this, yet. They tend align themselves on the U.S. government’s rhetoric. This is an intellectually limited, extremely primitive, extremely dogmatic and ultimately extremely brutal view towards the Ukrainians. The Europeans tend to be more Catholic than the Pope, despite the growing sense in the US that their approach will lead to failure.

What does this mean in practical terms?

Let us consider the situation in Mariupol. Our media seem to regret that the fighters of the Azov Movement surrendered. They deplore it. Our media would have preferred that they die after a heroic and theatrical resistance. This is extremely inhumane. But their resistance had no longer any impact on the situation. According to the Swiss media, they should have fought to the death, to the last man. The Swiss media would have done a "wonderful job" in the battle of Berlin in April 1945! By an irony of history, the two situations are very similar. The situation in Berlin at that time was completely hopeless, and among the last fighters of the Third Reich—the last defenders of the Führer—were French volunteers of the "Charlemagne" division!

What does the use of such volunteers mean?

It is something quite remarkable, because they don't go into battle out of patriotic duty, but out of conviction and dogmatism, and note this is exactly the same mental scheme as some of our media. A soldier who defends his country does not do so out of hatred for the enemy, but out of a sense of duty and respect for his community and his country. A volunteer who becomes politically involved, like the volunteers of the SS division "Charlemagne" at the time, responds to some kind of vocation to fight. It is a different intellectual process. The same thing can be observed in Ukraine. These volunteers of the Azov Movement, called "republicans" by some Swiss politicians, threatened to kill Zelensky for accepting the surrender of Mariupol. These volunteers are not fighting for Ukraine, but against Russia. This is the same mindset as that of some of our journalists in Switzerland. They are just as extreme against Putin as these volunteer fighters. Same behavior, different weapons.

What is the worldview behind this?

Of course, the surrender of Ukrainian troops disrupts the narrative that Ukraine is defending itself heroically and that its determination is leading to Russia's defeat. Little David (Ukraine) defends itself against Goliath (Russia) and succeeds. However, the reality is quite different. More and more soldiers of the Ukrainian regular army say that they do not want to fight anymore. They feel abandoned by their leadership. Moreover, the Russians have a reputation for treating their prisoners well. Those who still are eager to fight are the paramilitary volunteers. The myth of a victorious resistance was created in the West; but today the Ukrainian military feels betrayed. Paradoxically, it is probably in large part because of the narrative promoted by our media that Ukraine is losing this war.

The fact that reality is being misunderstood can also be seen in the case of NATO. Those who are in charge are only too happy to declare that NATO keeps the peace and guarantees freedom and security in Europe.

These statements must be put into perspective. NATO is not a peace organization. NATO is essentially a nuclear-power organization, as NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said. Its purpose is to bring the allies under the US nuclear umbrella. NATO was founded in 1949, when there were only two nuclear powers—the U.S. and the USSR. At that time, an organization like NATO was justified. On both sides of the Iron Curtain, some individuals wanted war. That was the case under Stalin, but also in the United States.

Some Western political leaders wanted to keep the war going?

Yes, that was the reason why Winston Churchill did not want to disarm part of the German Wehrmacht that had surrendered. A war against the Soviet Union was expected. The idea of a nuclear umbrella can be justified under these circumstances. But with the end of the Cold War, after the Warsaw Pact was disbanded, this justification faded.

Can a military organization be completely eliminated?

There is certainly a need for a collective security organization in Europe. There is no question that certain arrangements should exist for a collective defense. This idea is relatively well accepted. The problem is rather in the design of this organization and in the conception of the defense. The challenge is to create a collective defense system that meets European security needs, without being at the service of US geostrategic interests.

What should have happened with Russia?

Since the early 1990s, the Russians had a vision of security in Europe that was inspired by the OSCE: security through cooperation, rather than confrontation. That's why they contemplated the idea of joining NATO at that time. But the very concept of NATO, with a dominant power bound to the very nature of the organization itself, cannot accommodate the Russian perspective. If we consider the current world challenges, the Russian vision should be seen as much more realistic than the Western one.

Why do you judge it that way?

Humanity is facing many complex challenges. We forget that in 1967, NATO published the Harmel Report in which it reflected on its own future. This is now more than 50 years ago. This report was exemplary and very modern. NATO described all the current and future challenges and outlined some guidelines for the development of the organization. It was very far-sighted, and I think it was a model of what NATO could be. In this report, the whole concept of security was rethought. In other words, environmental and social problems were integrated in the concept of security. When I look at the problems we are facing worldwide, and specifically in Europe, the Harmel Report provides a lot of food for thought and ideas.

What happened to this report, or its ideas?

The Gulf War and then the Balkan War put us back into conventional thinking. Thus, NATO missed the chance to think in a new direction. Tanks, artillery, aircraft, etc. still define NATO's model of thinking. Not only was this model unsuitable for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but NATO did not really learn the right lessons from those wars. So, we have increased suffering and misery, without containing terrorism. This is a complete failure at the operational, strategic, intellectual, and human levels.

What do you see as the cause of this obvious failure?

Because NATO’s understanding of war was not suited to the realities.. NATO is a regional security and defense organization. It was designed in 1949 for a war in Europe with nuclear weapons, tanks, artillery, etc. But in Afghanistan, there were no nuclear weapons, no tanks, no fighter-bombers. It's a totally different kind of warfare. But NATO failed to identify the problem.

Why did NATO not grasp the situation correctly?

To make it simple, let's say that a war in Europe is a technical challenge. But a war in Afghanistan is a societal challenge. NATO failed to understand this important difference. I mentioned the war in Afghanistan because NATO was engaged there as an organization. It failed to understand that there are different types of warfare. Western armies are not prepared for that and have a dogmatic approach to warfare.

What does this mean for NATO?

The alliance has remained at the 1949 level, of course with more modern weapons; but the logic has remained the same. We see this also in the Ukraine crisis. NATO is certainly not involved in the fighting, but it is providing support through training, advice and reconnaissance. Ukraine's weaknesses are therefore NATO's weaknesses: they wage a war at tactical level, while the Russians are fighting at operational level. Ukraine was in the same operational conundrum in 2014. The Ukrainian army was poorly advised. Since then, NATO has trained more and more Ukrainian instructors who are making the same mistakes today as they did eight years ago. We see that NATO's conception of war is inadequate and does not follow developments in world’s societies. War is thought of as it was in the First World War. It is seen as a balance of power.

What should happen here?

I think that NATO should dissolve itself to be reborn in a different form. I think we need a collective security organization in Europe that is independent of the United States. But it needs to be tailored to modern security challenges and be able to deal with them cooperatively.

I would like to come back to the OSCE. You said that Russia favors this model. Wouldn't that be an alternative to NATO?

Yes, of course. By the way, this was a proposal of the last president of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev. He was inspired by an idea of former French President Charles de Gaulle—a Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. Gorbachev called it "the common European house." Even today, it is a truism—the best way to avoid war is to have good relations with your neighbors. It sounds banal, but it is so.

Why don't states manage to do that?

There are several reasons. The first is the U.S. "obsession" since the 1970s with preventing closer cooperation between Europe and Russia. The Russian idea of a "common European house" would be a rapprochement between Russia and Europe that the U.S. does not want. This has focused particularly on Germany. Germany is the largest economic power in Europe, has historically been a strong military power, and has had a special relationship with the Soviet Union. The U.S. has always been afraid of having a large Europe as a competitor.

The second reason is that the former Eastern bloc countries that are now part of the EU and NATO have no intention of getting closer to Russia. Their reasons are historical, cultural and political. They have a culture of intransigence since the 1920s that continues to plague their domestic policies.

In what respect?

For example, in the supply of gas from Siberia. The U.S. arguments against "Nord Stream 2" are not new. Germany has been receiving gas from Siberia since the 1960s and 1970s. Even then, the U.S. feared that closer cooperation between the FRG and the USSR would have an impact on Germany's determination to remain in NATO. Therefore, they did everything they could to sabotage the gas pipelines.

Yes, I can still remember that. There were articles in Der Spiegel and other German newspapers reporting cruel working conditions for workers in Siberia, etc. It was the prevailing mood like we find again today.

In 1982 Ronald Reagan signed a Presidential Executive Order authorizing the CIA to sabotage the "Brotherhood" gas pipeline between Urengoy (Siberia) and Uzhhorod (Ukraine). The pipeline was sabotaged but quickly repaired by the Soviets. Yes, that was the same rhetoric as today. It is tragic, but we are still in the same intellectual dynamic.

This shows that tangible U.S. interests are at stake here, and this will influence the whole development in Europe.

Yes, the idea of a common European house, as formulated by Gorbachev and favored by the Russians, is inconceivable to the United States. For this reason, Russia has always had a certain respect for the OSCE. After the end of the Cold War, this model could have been expanded to build security through cooperation rather than confrontation. This could have been a viable model. But NATO lacked the intellectual flexibility to rethink itself. NATO remained incapable of formulating genuine strategic thinking. NATO's output is intellectually extremely weak.

So, would Switzerland's rapprochement with NATO definitely be a step backwards into the Cold War?

No, not really, since we were never in NATO. Besides, a 2017 US Army study found that the USSR did not attack Europe because it never intended to. So, our security does not depend on NATO, but on our ability to have good relations with our neighbors. In fact, I believe that NATO membership would put our security at risk. That applies equally to Finland and Sweden.

Can you explain that in more detail?

There are two reasons. First, as a member, Switzerland could be involved in operations that are not necessarily related to its own national interests. In the fight against terrorism, for example, NATO does not have the doctrinal capacity to address this issue effectively. If we were to engage alongside NATO, we would only attract terrorism to ourselves. That's what happened with Germany, for example. Besides, it is not very satisfying intellectually to be involved in defeats. Secondly, our neutrality; and I am talking here about Swiss neutrality, which, unlike other countries, like Belgium, has been confirmed and internationally recognized by the major European powers. This recognition has successfully protected us over the last two centuries.

Even from attacks by Nazi Germany?

The Third Reich had planned at least three operations against Switzerland, but Germany never had the opportunity to implement them. That said, we have to remember that this planning was done because Switzerland had not behaved according to its neutrality policy.

In what respect?

One must not forget that the headquarters of the OSS [Office of Strategic Services] in Europe, under the direction of Alan Dulles, had been in Bern since 1942.

The OSS was the predecessor organization of the CIA. Swiss intelligence worked with the OSS and the British services to support resistance networks against the Nazis in Germany, in France and northern Italy. In addition, members of the 2nd Polish Infantry Division interned in Switzerland were clandestinely trained with the help of the Swiss Army to fight with the Resistance in France. Obviously, the neutrality policy was only a facade.

What were the consequences?

I certainly don't want to criticize Switzerland's involvement, especially because part of my family fought in the French Resistance. On the other hand, if we take a step back, we must acknowledge that Switzerland was not entirely neutral. And this had its price, because the Nazis knew about these activities. For this reason, Switzerland had to make concessions to the German Reich. The reasons for these concessions were never really explained to the Swiss people, but in 1995-1999 they were widely criticized in Switzerland.

What conclusions can we draw from this?

If neutrality is applied consistently, it also has a protective function. On the other hand, the protection that NATO would offer Switzerland is very limited. If an enemy were to reach the Swiss border in the event of a conventional conflict, this would mean that NATO already had an existential problem. In such a situation, Swiss neutrality would de facto fall. In case of a nuclear conflict, the USA would never bomb Moscow in order to liberate Bern. Anyone who believes this is a fantasist.

What about the new applicant countries?

The same applies to Helsinki and Stockholm. Anyone who believes that the USA would put Los Angeles, New York or Washington in danger is absolutely not of this world. The U.S. would attack Russia with nuclear weapons only in an extreme situation. In fact, the U.S. would do anything to keep a possible nuclear exchange on European soil. So, membership in NATO only has the effect of increasing the likelihood of being hit directly by tactical operational nuclear weapons. The idea of improving Swiss national security through a rapprochement with NATO is one of incredible naiveté.

The military chief strategist of the Swiss Department of Defense, Pälvi Pulli, openly pleads for closer ties to NATO. All this stems from the mood that has been created in recent years and months that Putin is pursuing an imperialist policy and wants to expand the country further and, in the end, even attack Switzerland. Surely this is nonsense?

I know Mrs. Pälvi Pulli. She is an intelligent person. But she is making the mistake that people in the West make and that results from the disinformation spread by our media. We start from the idea that Russia wants to conquer Europe and that Vladimir Putin is an irrational person. This is wrong. We know from Ukrainian and Western sources that the Russian decision had its origin in the planned Ukrainian offensive against the Donbas. So, Vladimir Putin's decision was perfectly rational, even if one can argue whether it was the best one. It is also clear that the Russians have tried to resolve all this diplomatically. This includes other sets of issues, such as nuclear weapons in Ukraine, joining NATO, etc.

Clearly, the West has not even tried to implement the Minsk agreements, or to solve the other problems politically. Russia perceives these problems as existential. It was ready to negotiate. Since the beginning of the Russian offensive, Zelensky was also ready to negotiate. He was prevented from doing so by the U.S. and the U.K., as well as by the far-right elements of the Ukrainian security apparatus, which is very strongly supported by our media. I don't think NATO is playing a stabilizing role in this crisis. On the contrary.

Mr. Baud, thank you for the interview.

Translation Nirmal Dass

published june 8, 2022

https://zeitgeschehen-im-fokus.ch/de/newspaper-ausgabe/nr-10-vom-8-juni-2022.html#article_1367

"Any military solution leads to disaster!"

"There is a need for a political-diplomatic solution in Ukraine"

Interview with Dr. Erich Vad*

Zeitgeschehen im Fokus In a German newspaper, you are quoted as saying that one must "think about the war between Ukraine and Russia from the end." What do you mean by that in concrete terms?

Dr. Erich Vad By this I mean that we have to think back from whatever political solution might come later and act in such a way that later diplomatic solutions are not made impossible. They must contain a face-saving way out for both sides. This is where I see a great danger in view of the emotionally charged debate about Russia and its president Putin.

In what way?

The understandably strong devaluation of himself and Russia as a result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the overvaluation of civilian "collateral damage" and abuses, such as the alleged massacre, which absolutely must be investigated by an independent commission and not strongly prejudged before all the facts are on the table, makes it more difficult to conduct subsequent political negotiations. In doing so, we run the risk of marching further down the path of escalation into nirvana or ultimately into nuclear war. "Thinking from the end" to me means being aware of what the consequences of unrestrained emotional ramping up of escalation might be.

You mentioned Putin. On the one hand, he is demonized as the aggressor, and on the other hand, he is portrayed as incapable because he supposedly cannot deal with Ukraine.

People underestimate Putin's role. There are analysts who say that Russia is a nuclear power, but whether Putin is ready to wage a nuclear war... I must say that this is reminiscent of childish behavior. When you're sort of testing how far you can go vis-à-vis your parents, it's completely inappropriate to the situation. It is highly dangerous. And there are actually military people who go along with this. They underestimate that Russia is a potent nuclear power.

But what is happening at the moment is that all the Western states are going to war....

It is a big mistake to rely on military solutions. I am a military man. If it is military solutions that lead to the end, to disaster, then this approach is wrong, so you have to "think war from the end".

What is your assessment of the further course?

It could be that the war lasts a long time, and the West wants to force Russia to give up, similar to what happened to NATO in Afghanistan. It had to withdraw because the costs were too high, and success was a long way off. But that won't happen in Russia's case. The country could hold out for years if it wants to – so could the Ukrainians if Western support measures continue. We will see, the solution will be to negotiate with each other at the end. One has to look for ways that end in a solution and not in an escalation that leads us to a 3rd world war in the end. The expansion of the war in Ukraine, even if it were not fought with nuclear weapons, would be terrible. For me, that is not a rational option. That's what I mean when I say, "You have to think about war from the end."

After your remarks – mind you, the remarks of a former senior military officer – one has to conclude once again that there is often more reason and foresight on the part of the military than among many politicians, who usually only react emotionally to momentary events. Why is this so?

People with a military background naturally know down to the last detail what war means. The national resistance in Ukraine, the "heroic rebellion" against a power like Russia, can be seen in a positive light. This is something that hardly anyone in Germany is familiar with. But of course you have to see clearly what consequences this resistance in an urban environment will have for civilians.

What are the consequences?

A house-to-house fight like the one in Mariupol, for example, is something bloody that you can hardly imagine. As a military, behind this positive national will to fight, you see the consequence of where this is going. That's why I say the longer the war lasts, the bloodier it becomes, the more civilian casualties there will be, especially if the defenders operate out of a civilian environment and ultimately accept civilian casualties as a result. The attacker then has a problem, of course. In order to save forces and blood – because clearing a building with soldiers alone requires 5 to 10 times the superiority – it is easier to shell the building and accept "collateral damage". This has always been the approach of Western states and their allies. Russia has given the fighters in Mariupol free withdrawal if they lay down their arms. But they have refused that and are accepting further casualties in the continuing fight. It is urgent to get out of this spiral of escalation.

It is important that in all the war hysteria there are critical voices who, on the one hand, know where this is leading and, on the other hand, are not afraid to say so publicly....

Here I have to add something. Ukraine keeps calling for a no-fly zone. "No-fly zone" is a euphemistic term. It sounds like "no parking." Everybody thinks this is a good idea. But if you think about it from the military side to the end, it means war in plain language. Someone has to monitor compliance with this no-fly zone and be ready to shoot down Russian planes in an emergency. That immediately puts you at war. This also applies to the "peace mission" initiated by Poland. According to Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, this is a peace enforcement mission and thus, in effect, an entry into war. Operating with MIG fighter jets from NATO territory is also a de facto entry into war. Thus, the potential for escalation becomes greater and greater.

What do you say to the ever-repeated demand for the delivery of heavy weapons to Ukraine?

This is also a de facto entry into war. Giving heavy weapons quickly - that is not thinking through to the end. Delivering tanks within one or two weeks is not feasible at all. That would require training on the equipment. You can't just send Leopard tanks to Kiev like a VW and say, "Get in and go." To do that, you have to provide training personnel and technical personnel. You need logistics, a maintenance department, a whole apparatus. Without these specialists, you can't do anything with the "Leopard," and that means you're effectively involved in the war. These whole contexts are completely ignored, and people argue to "do everything to help Ukraine."

These suggestions mostly come from politics. One gets the impression that there is a complete lack of awareness of the situation.

There are actually politicians at work who have no idea about the military, let alone have ever done military service. They have no idea what war means. These are people who have never had anything to do with military force, who are completely out of their depth in the current situation, who advocate massive arms deliveries and have not the slightest idea of what the consequences might be. They have always professed pacifism and have only known peace conditions. Now, suddenly, they are confronted with military force and war, right on their doorstep. This leads – coupled with war rhetoric – to behaviorally conspicuous overreactions that are irresponsible and involve political romanticism, which are genuinely dangerous in consequence.

What is striking is that in the current reporting, previous wars are completely blanked out and Russian action is presented as something new and unique. How do you see that?

The actions of the Russians, as problematic as it is to wage war against a neighboring country – I also said this in another conversation – must be seen in relation to past wars of more recent date, such as the wars against Serbia, against Afghanistan, against Iraq, against Libya, against Syria. In those wars, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of civilians have died, there have been massacres, attacks, et cetera. As hard as the street and house fighting is in Mariupol, but when I think of Baghdad or Fallujah, it is nothing different. Compared to these wars, the actions of the Russians, as terrible as they may be in parts, do not stand out, on the contrary: the "collateral damage" in Ukraine is far less than in Iraq or Afghanistan.

But this is not an issue, it is not talked about as if it never existed.

The big difference is this: Putin is not Miloševic, and Russia is not Serbia, Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia is a nuclear power, and that is the thinking mistake that many make. Let's take Iraq. The U.S. invaded there, eventually they left. The damage they did is enormous, and we still feel its effects today. It's the same in Afghanistan: they leave behind a field of rubble, but they leave unmolested. But it doesn't work that way with Russia. There is no all-important "battle of annihilation" in eastern Ukraine, which then leads to a "military solution" and thus to a solution of the political problem. There needs to be a political-diplomatic solution in Ukraine.

Who was talking about the battlefield solution? Wasn't it the EU's foreign representative Josep Borrell?

Even Graf-Lambsdorff, who otherwise argues in a very differentiated manner, said that there is only a military solution and therefore we must help Ukraine with weapons. No, there is no military solution! There is only a political solution. Any military solution leads to disaster! That must be made very clear to the ladies and gentlemen. Russia will not go home like the USA and NATO in Kabul. The latter are flying home, the chapter is closed. There is no more talk about it.

Yes, and no one talks about how the people have fared in the 20 years either. How many innocent civilians have died, how many children's lives have been destroyed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc., nobody talks about that....

Yes, that is so. Every person who dies innocently in such a conflict is one person too many. If you quantify that, then Russia in its military operations is not different from the US, the British or other states with intervention forces that have fought in the countries mentioned.

Why is there a complete absence of working toward a diplomatic solution? We hear "arms deliveries," "military solution," "fight against evil," etc., but we hardly hear anything about working toward peace.

I wonder about that, too. Maybe it's because Europeans don't see any political involvement at all, because the political decisions about war and peace are made in Washington, in Moscow or in Beijing, and certainly not in Berlin. There were the two Minsk agreements after the annexation of Crimea, involving France and Germany and also Switzerland. The questions that were settled diplomatically then are basically the same today: How do we secure the territorial integrity of Ukraine while including and taking into account the Russian minorities in the Donbas? Do we need partial autonomy there within the borders of Ukraine?

That would be a sensible solution...

Yes, but Selenskji has so far refused to do so. But from the point of view of the end, we have to go back to the framework that was set in these agreements, because there is no other way. Ukraine, too, will have to think about neutrality and non-alignment – Austrian model, Swiss model – otherwise it will not work. In the end, the political solution will be there. That is where we have to get to.

But when will that happen?

Right now the situation would be favorable to get out of here. The Russians, who have largely pulled out of Kiev – that to me is an indication that they have probably given up on regime change and are focusing on the Donbas, Crimea, and Mariupol to maintain a connection. I think those are good conditions for negotiations because each side can go into the talks from a position of strength. Ukraine has successfully defended itself and fought a successful defensive battle, at least so far. Russia could celebrate partial military successes at its May 9 parade. But I don't see the political will. It doesn't seem to be there in the United States. Washington would have to move and engage in serious negotiations with Russia.

That's basically what the Russians are asking for. They want to negotiate with the U.S. because, according to their perception, the U.S. is determining Selensky's course. In this context, the question arises whether Selensky would not have long ago entered into a compromise with Russia, but the U.S. does not allow it because it can weaken Russia with war.

Yes, one must ask the question: Cui bono? Basically, from the outside looking in, it's that the U.S. benefits greatly. The Western alliance has not been as strong and united as it is now for a long time. The 30 NATO states stand together, ultimately behind the United States. In almost all states, the two percent target has been reached, even in Germany (defense spending accounts for 2% of GDP), which was unimaginable a few weeks ago. In this respect, this is also an advantage for the U.S. when you see the economic consequences, but the big losers are the Europeans, especially Germany.

So what would have to be done from Germany's side?

One would definitely have to launch a diplomatic initiative. You can criticize former Chancellor Angela Merkel on many points, but after what happened in 2014, she was instrumental in pulling the strings and launching the diplomatic initiative to work out the Minsk agreements. In this way, she was able to make a political difference. We must have a solution for the situation after the end of the Ukrainian war. We must protect Russian minorities, pacify the situation in the Donbas and monitor the process, settle the issue of Crimea. All of this can only be resolved diplomatically. I hope that Germany will become a constructive co-creator here.

Dr. Vad, thank you very much for the interview.

Interview Thomas Kaiser

* Erich Vad, Brigadier General (ret.), was military policy advisor to German Chancellor Angela Merkel from 2006-2013 and is now owner of the consulting firm Erich-Vad-Consulting.

Published April 24, 2022. https://zeitgeschehen-im-fokus.ch/de/newspaper-ausgabe/nr-7-8-vom-24-april-2022.html#article_1348

Translation Zeitgeschehen im Fokus

"The policy of the USA has always been to prevent Germany and Russia from cooperating more closely"

Historical, political and economic background of the Ukraine war

Interview with Jacques Baud*

Zeitgeschehen im Fokus Mr Baud, you know the region where there is war now. What conclusions have you drawn from the last few days, and how could it have come to this?

Jacques Baud I know the region we are talking about quite well. I was with the FDFA [Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs] and on its behalf I was seconded to NATO for five years top lead the fight against the proliferation of small arms. I contributed to projects in Ukraine after 2014. In addition, I know Russia, NATO, Ukraine and the related environment very well due to my previous job in strategic intelligence. I speak Russian and have access to documents that few people in the West look at.

You are an expert on the situation in and around Ukraine. Your professional activity brought you to the current crisis region. How do you perceive what is happening?

It is crazy, we can even say there is a real hysteria. What strikes me, and what bothers me a lot, is that no one is asking the question why the Russians launched their operation. No one wants to advocate war, and certainly not me. But as the former head of "Policy and Doctrine" in the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations in New York for two years, I always ask myself the question: How did we get to this point of starting a war?

What was your task there?

It was to understand how wars happen, what factors lead to peace, and what can be done to avoid casualties or how to prevent war. If you don't understand how war happens, then you can't find a solution. We are exactly in this situation. Every country is imposing its own sanctions against Russia, and we know very well that this is going nowhere. What particularly shocked me was the statement by the Minister of Economy in France that they want to destroy Russia's economy with the aim of making the Russian people suffer. Such a statement is outrageous.

Russia's goal of demilitarization and denazification

How do you assess the Russian offensive?

Attacking another State is against the principles of international law. But one should also consider the background of such a decision. First of all, it must be made clear that Putin is neither crazy nor has he lost touch with reality. He is a very methodical and systematic person, in other words, very Russian. I believe that he was aware of the consequences of his operation in Ukraine. He assessed – obviously rightly – that whether he carried out a "small" operation to protect the Donbas population or a "massive" operation in favour of the national interests of Russia and the Donbas population, the consequences would be the same. He then went for the maximum solution.

What do you see as his goal?

It is certainly not directed against the Ukrainian population. Putin has said that again and again. You can also see it in the facts. Russia is still supplying gas to Ukraine. The Russians have not stopped that. They have not shut down the internet. They haven't destroyed the electricity plants and the water supply. Of course, such services may have stopped in fighting areas. But you see a very different approach from the Americans, for example, in former Yugoslavia, Iraq or even Libya. When Western countries attacked them, they first destroyed the electricity and water supply and the entire infrastructure.

Why does the West act in this way?

The Western approach – it is also interesting to see this from the point of view of the operational doctrine – is based on the idea that if you destroy the infrastructure, the population will revolt against the unpopular dictator, and you will get rid of him that way. This was also the strategy during the Second World War, when German cities such as Cologne, Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden etc. were bombed. They targeted the civilian population directly so that there would be an uprising. The government loses its power through an uprising, and you have won the war without endangering your own troops. That is the theory.

What is the Russian approach?

It is completely different. They have clearly announced their goal. They want "demilitarisation" and "denazification". If you honestly follow the situation, that is exactly what they are doing. Of course, a war is a war, and regrettably there are always deaths in the process, but it is interesting to see what the numbers say. On Friday (4 March), the UN reported 265 Ukrainian civilians killed. In the evening, the Russian Defence Ministry put the number of dead soldiers at 498. This means that there are more victims among the Russian military than among the civilians on the Ukrainian side. If you now compare this with Iraq or Libya, then it is exactly the opposite with Western warfare.

Does it contradict the way the West represents the situation?

Yes, our media claim that the Russians want to destroy everything, but that is obviously not true. I am also disturbed by the way our media portrays Putin suddenly deciding to attack and conquer Ukraine. The US warned for several months that there would be a surprise attack, but nothing happened. By the way, intelligence services and the Ukrainian leadership have repeatedly denied such American warnings. If you look carefully at the military reports and the preparations on the ground, you can see pretty clearly: Putin had no intention of attacking Ukraine until mid-February.

Why did that change? What has happened?

You have to know a few things first, otherwise you won't understand. On 24 March 2021, Ukrainian President Zelensky issued a Presidential decree to recapture Crimea. He then began to move the Ukrainian army south and southeast, towards the Donbas. So, for a year now, we have had a permanent build-up of the army on Ukraine's southern border. This explains why there were no Ukrainian troops on the Russian-Ukrainian border at the end of February. Zelensky has always claimed that the Russians will not attack Ukraine. The Ukrainian defence minister has also repeatedly confirmed this. Similarly, the head of the Ukrainian Security Council confirmed in December and in January that there were no signs of a Russian attack on Ukraine.

Was this a trick?

No, they said that several times, and I am sure that Putin, who also said that repeatedly, by the way, did not want to attack. Obviously, there was pressure from the US.

The US has little interest in Ukraine itself. At this point, they wanted to increase pressure on Germany to shut down Nord Stream II. They wanted Ukraine to provoke Russia and, if Russia reacted, Nord Stream II would be put on ice. Such a scenario was alluded to when Olaf Scholz visited Washington, and Scholz clearly did not want to go along with it. That is not just my opinion, there was also Americans who understood it that way: The target was Nord Stream II, and one must not forget that Nord Stream II was built at the request of the Germans. It is fundamentally a German project. Because Germany needs more gas to achieve its energy and climate goals.

"In a nuclear war, Europe will be the battlefield"

Why did the USA push for this?

Since the Second World War, it has always been US policy to prevent Germany and Russia or the USSR from working more closely together. This is despite the fact that the Germans have a historical fear of the Russians. But these are the two biggest powers in Europe. Historically, there have always been economic relations between Germany and Russia. The USA has always tried to prevent that. One must not forget that in a nuclear war, Europe would be the battlefield. That means that in such a case the interests of Europe and the United States would not necessarily be the same. This explains why in the 1980s the Soviet Union supported pacifist movements in Germany. A closer relationship between Germany and Russia would render the American nuclear strategy useless.

The US has always criticised energy dependence?

It is ironic that the US criticises Germany's or Europe's energy dependence on Russia. Russia is the second largest supplier of oil to the US. The USA buys its oil mainly from Canada, then from Russia, followed by Mexico and Saudi Arabia. This means that the USA is dependent on Russia. This is also true for rocket engines, for example. That doesn't bother the USA. But it does bother the US that the Europeans are dependent on Russia.

During the Cold War, Russia, i.e. the Soviet Union, always honoured all gas contracts. The Russian way of thinking in this respect is very similar to the Swiss. Russia has a law-abiding mentality; it feels bound by the rules very much like Switzerland. It doesn’t mean they don’t have emotions, but when rules apply, you go by the rules. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union never made a connection between trade and politics. The dispute related to Ukraine is mainly political in this regard.

Brzezinski’s theory that Ukraine is the key to dominating Asia also plays a role here?

Brzezinski was certainly a great thinker and still influences US strategic thinking. But I don't think this aspect is key to this particular crisis. Ukraine is certainly important. But the question of who dominates or controls Ukraine is not the main point here. The Russians are not aiming at controlling Ukraine. The problem of Ukraine for Russia, as for other countries, is a strategic one.

What does that mean?

In the whole discussion that is being held everywhere at the moment, crucial things are being ignored. Certainly, people are talking about nuclear weapons, but it's like in a movie. The reality is somewhat different. The Russians want a distance between NATO and Russia. The core element of NATO is US nuclear power. That is the essence of NATO. When I worked at NATO, Jens Stoltenberg – he was then my boss – used to said: "NATO is a nuclear power". Today, the US deploys missile systems in Poland and Romania, that include the MK-41 launcher systems.

Are these defensive weapons?

Of course, the US says they are purely defensive. You can indeed fire antiballistic missiles from these launchers. But you can also launch nuclear missiles with the same system. These ramps are a few minutes away from Moscow. If in a situation of heightened tension in Europe, the Russians detect, with satellite imagery or intelligence, activities around these launch pads indicating preparations for a launch, will they wait until nuclear missiles are possibly launched towards Moscow?

Probably not...

...of course not. They would immediately launch a pre-emptive strike. The whole situation escalated after the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty [Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty]. Under the ABM Treaty, they could not deploy such a system in Europe. The idea was precisely to maintain a certain reaction time in case of a confrontation. That was because mistakes could happen.

We had something like that during the Cold War. The greater the distance between nuclear missiles, the more time you have to react. If the missiles are deployed too close to the Russian territory, there is no time to react in case of an attack and you run the risk of getting into a full nuclear war much faster. This affects all neighbouring countries. The Russians realized this, that is why they created the Warsaw Pact.

The importance of nuclear weapons is growing

First there was NATO...

NATO was founded in 1949 and the Warsaw Pact only six years later. The reason for this was the rearmament of the FRG and its admission to NATO in 1955. If you look at the map of 1949, you can see a very large gap between the NATO nuclear power and the USSR. As NATO moved towards the Russian border by including Germany, Russia reacted by creating the Warsaw Pact. At that time, the Eastern European countries were already all communist and under tight control of their own communist parties. Almost worse than in the USSR itself. The USSR wanted to have a security belt around it, so it created the Warsaw Pact. It wanted to maintain a “glacis” so that it could wage a conventional war for as long as possible. That was the idea: to stay in conventional warfare as long as possible and avoid getting directly into the nuclear one.

Is that still the case today?

After the Cold War, nuclear strategy was somewhat forgotten. Security was no longer a question of nuclear weapons. The Iraq war, the Afghanistan war were wars with conventional weapons, and the nuclear dimension was somewhat away from sight. But the Russians have not forgotten that. They think very strategically. At the time, I visited the general staff Voroshilov Academy in Moscow. There you could see how people think. They think strategically, the way one should think in times of war.

Can you see that today?

You can see that very clearly today. Putin's people think strategically. The Russians have a strategic thinking, an operational thinking, and a tactical thinking. The Western countries, as we have seen in Afghanistan or Iraq, have no strategy. This is exactly the problem that the French have in Mali. Mali has now demanded that they leave the country, because the French are killing people without a strategy and without a strategic goal. With the Russians it is completely different, they think strategically. They have a goal. It is the same with Putin.

In our media it is reported again and again that Putin has brought nuclear weapons into play. Have you heard that too?

Yes, Vladimir Putin put his nuclear forces on Level 1 alert on 27 February. But that is only half of the story. On 11-12 February, the security conference was held in Munich. Zelensky was there. He indicated that he wanted to acquire nuclear weapons. This was interpreted as a potential threat, and the red light went on in the Kremlin. To understand this, we have to remind the Budapest Agreement of 1994. That was about destroying the nuclear missiles on the territory of the former Soviet republics, thus leaving only Russia as a nuclear power. Ukraine also handed over the nuclear weapons to Russia, and Russia assured the inviolability of its borders in return. When Crimea went back to Russia, in 2014, Ukraine said it would no longer abide by the 1994 agreement either.

Back to nuclear weapons. What did Putin really say?

If Zelensky wanted nuclear weapons back, that would certainly be unacceptable for Putin. If you have nuclear weapons right on the border, there is very little warning time. During the press conference after Macron's visit, and Putin made clear that if the distance between NATO and Russia was too small, this could inadvertently lead to complications. But the decisive element was at the start of the operation against Ukraine, when the French foreign minister threatened Putin by declaring that NATO was a nuclear power. Putin reacted to this by raising the alert level of his nuclear forces. Our media, of course, did not mention this. Putin is a realist; he is down-to-earth and purposeful.

What prompted Putin to intervene militarily now?

On 24 March 2021, Zelensky issued a Presidential decree to reconquer Crimea by force. He started preparations to do so. Whether that was his real intention or just a political manoeuvre, we don't know. What we have seen, however, is that he has massively reinforced the Ukrainian army in the Donbas region and in the south towards Crimea. Of course, the Russians have noticed this. At the same time, NATO conducted large exercises between the Baltic and the Black Sea in April. This understandably prompted the Russians to react. They held exercises in the southern military district to show the flag. Things calmed down after that, and in September Russia held long-planned "Zapad 21" exercises. These exercises are conducted every four years. At the end of the exercises, some troops remained near Belarus. These were units from the Eastern Military District. Most equipment left there was kept for a large manoeuvre planned with Belarus for early this year.

How did the West react to this?

Europe and especially the USA interpreted this as a reinforcement of the offensive capabilities against Ukraine. Independent military experts, but also the head of the Ukrainian Security Council, said that no preparations for war were underway at that point. The equipment left by Russia in October was clearly not meant for an offensive operation. However, so-called Western military experts, especially in France, immediately interpreted this as preparations for war and started designating Putin as a mad dictator. This is how the situation evolved from the end of October 2021 until early this year. How the US and Ukraine communicated on this issue was very contradictory. One warned about a planned offensive, while the other denied it. It was a permanent back and forth.

OSCE reports heavy shelling of Lugansk and Donetsk People's Republics by Ukraine in February

What happened in February?

At the end of January, the situation appears to evolve. It looks like the US talked to Zelensky, and slight changes could be observed. From early February on, the US talk about an imminent Russian attack and start spreading attack scenarios. Antony Blinken, at the UN Security Council, presents how the Russian attack would unfold according to US intelligence. This is reminiscent of the situation in 2002/2003 before the attack on Iraq. There, too, the picture was allegedly based on intelligence analysis. That was not true then either. At that time, the CIA was not convinced of the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. As a result, Donald Rumsfeld did not rely on the CIA, but on a small confidential group within the Department of Defence, which had been specially created to circumvent the CIA's analyses.

Where is the information coming from today?

In the context of Ukraine, Blinken did exactly the same thing. One can notice the total absence of the CIA and Western intelligence agencies in the entire discussion that preceded the Russian offensive. Everything Blinken told us came from a "Tiger Team" that he himself set up, within his department. These scenarios that were presented to us did not come from an intelligence analysis, but from self-styled experts who invented a scenario with a political agenda. This is how the rumour that the Russians were about to attack was born. So, on February 16, Joe Biden said he knew the Russians were about to attack. But when asked how he knew this, he replied that the US had good intelligence capabilities, without mentioning the CIA or the Office of National Intelligence.

So, did anything happen on 16 February?

On that day, there was an extreme increase in ceasefire violations by the Ukrainian army along the ceasefire line, the so-called “contact line”. There have always been violations over the past eight years, but from February 12, the increase is extreme, including explosions, especially in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. We know this because it was reported by the OSCE mission in the Donbass. These reports can be read in the OSCE’s "Daily reports".

What was the objective of the Ukrainian military?

This was certainly the initial phase of an offensive against the Donbass. When the artillery fire intensified, the authorities of both republics began to evacuate the civilian population to Russia. In an interview, Sergei Lavrov mentioned more than 100,000 refugees. In Russia, this was seen as an indication for an imminent large-scale operation.

What were the consequences?

This action of the Ukrainian army actually triggered everything. At that point, it was clear to Putin that Ukraine was going to conduct an offensive against the two republics. On February 15, the Russian parliament, the Duma, had adopted a resolution proposing the recognition of their independence. At first Putin did not react, but as the attacks intensified, he decided on February 21 to respond positively to the parliamentary request.

Causes of right-wing extremism in Ukraine

Why did Putin take this step?

In this situation, he had little choice but to do so, because the Russian population would not have understood if he had done nothing to protect the Russian-speaking population of Donbass. For Putin, it was clear that whether he reacted and intervened just to help the republics or to invade Ukraine, the West would react in any case with massive sanctions. As a result, in a first step, he recognized the independence of the two republics. Then, on the same day, he concluded friendship and cooperation treaties with each of the two republics. From then on, he could invoke Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, allowing him to intervene to assist the two republics in the framework of collective defence and self-defence. He thus created the legal basis for its military intervention.

But he did not only help the republics, he attacked the whole Ukraine?

Putin had two options: first, simply to help the Russian-speaking Donbass against the Ukrainian military offensive; second, to conduct a deeper attack into Ukraine to neutralize its military capabilities. He also took into account that, whatever he would do, sanctions would rain down. This is why he has clearly opted for the maximum variant; it must be however noted that Putin has never said he wants to take over Ukraine. His objectives are clear: demilitarization and denazification.

What is the background to these objectives?

The demilitarization is understandable, as Ukraine had gathered its entire army in the south, between Donbass and Crimea. A quick operation would allow it to encircle these troops. This is what happened, and a large part of the Ukrainian army is currently surrounded in a large cauldron in the Donbass region, between Slavyansk, Kramatorsk and Severodonetsk. The Russians have surrounded it and are in the process of neutralizing it. Remains the so-called denazification. When the Russians say this, it is not just an empty phrase. To compensate for the unreliability of the Ukrainian army, powerful paramilitary forces have been developed since 2014, including, for example, the famous Azov regiment. But there are many more. There are a huge number of such groups that are under Ukrainian command but not exclusively composed of Ukrainians. The Azov regiment, for example, comprises 19 nationalities, including French, even Swiss, etc. It is a real foreign legion. In total, these extreme right-wing groups have about 100,000 fighters, according to Reuters.

Why are there so many paramilitary organizations?

In 2015/2016, I was in Ukraine with NATO. Ukraine had a big problem, they were running out of soldiers, because the Ukrainian army had a lot of fatalities due to non-combat actions. They had many deaths due to suicides and alcohol problems. They were having a hard time finding recruits. I was asked to help because of my experience with the UN. So, I went to Ukraine several times. The main point was that the army had no credibility among the population and none within the military either. That is why Ukraine has increasingly encouraged and developed paramilitary forces. They are fanatics driven by right-wing extremism.

Where does right-wing extremism come from?

Its origins date back to the 1930s. After the years of extreme famine, which went down in history as the Holodomor, a resistance to Soviet power emerged. To finance the modernization of the USSR, Stalin had confiscated the harvests, causing unprecedented famines. The NKVD, the forerunner of the KGB (that was at the same time the Ministry of Interior and the Security establishment), implemented this policy. The NKVD was organized on a territorial basis and in Ukraine there were many Jews in the higher command positions. As a result, everything got a little mixed up: hatred of Communists, hatred of Russians and hatred of Jews. The first extreme right-wing groups date from this time, and they still exist. During World War II, the Germans needed these groups, such as Stepan Bandera's OUN, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, and others to fight in the Soviet rear areas. At that time, the Third Reich forces were seen as liberators, such as the 2nd SS armoured division, "Das Reich", which had liberated Kharkov from the Soviets in 1943, and which is still celebrated in Ukraine today. The geographical epicentre of this extreme right-wing resistance was in Lvov, today Lviv, in Galicia. This region even had its "own" 14th Panzer Grenadier Division SS "Galizien", an SS division composed entirely of Ukrainians.

The OUN was formed during the Second World War and survived the Soviet period?

After the Second World War, the enemy was the Soviet Union. The USSR had not succeeded in completely eliminating these anti-Soviet movements during the war. The United States, France, and Great Britain realized that the OUN could be useful and supported it to fight against the USSR with sabotage and weapons. Until the early 1960s, Ukrainian insurgents were supported by the Western through clandestine operations such as Aerodynamic, Valuable, Minos, Capacho and others. Since that time, Ukraine has maintained a close relationship with the West and NATO. Today, it is the weakness of the Ukrainian army that has led to the use of fanatical troops. I think that the term neo-Nazis is not entirely accurate. They have very similar ideas, they carry their symbols, they are violent and anti-Semitic, but they are not really guided by a doctrine or a political project.

After 2014, two agreements were agreed to pacify the situation in Ukraine. What is the significance of the agreements in the context of the current dispute?

Yes, this is important to understand, because the non-compliance with these two agreements basically led to today's war. Since 2014, there was supposedly a solution to the conflict, the Minsk agreements. By September 2014, it was clear that the Ukrainian military was unable to manage the conflict, even though it was advised by NATO. It was regularly failing. That is why it had to commit to the Minsk I agreements in September 2014. This was an agreement between the Ukrainian government and representatives of the two self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, with European and Russian guarantors.

Duplicity of the EU and the USA

How did the foundation of these two republics come about?

To understand, we need to go back in history a little. In autumn 2013, the EU wanted to conclude a trade and economic agreement with Ukraine. The EU was offering Ukraine a guarantee of development with subsidies, with exports and imports, etc. The Ukrainian authorities wanted to conclude the deal. But this was not without causing problems, because Ukrainian industry and agriculture were oriented towards Russia in terms of quality and products. For instance, Ukrainians were developing engines for Russian aircraft, not for European or American aircraft. So, the general orientation of the industry was towards the East, not the West. In terms of quality, Ukraine could hardly compete with the European market. Therefore, the authorities wanted to cooperate with the EU while maintaining economic relations with Russia.

Would that have been possible?

For its part, Russia had no problem with Ukraine's plans. But it also wanted to maintain its economic relations with Ukraine. Therefore, it proposed to establish a tripartite working group to work out two agreements: one between Ukraine and the EU and the other between Ukraine and Russia. The objective was to cover the interests of all parties. But it was the European Union, through Barroso, that asked Ukraine to choose between Russia and the EU. Ukraine then asked for time to think about solutions and demanded a pause in the whole process. After that, the EU and the US did not play fair.

Why?

The Western press headlined: "Russia pressures Ukraine to prevent the treaty with the EU". This was not true. This was not the case. The Ukrainian government continued to show interest in the treaty with the EU, but simply wanted more time to think and consider solutions to this complex situation. But the European media did not say so. The next days, right-wing extremists from the west of the country appeared on the Maidan in Kiev. Everything that happened there with the approval and support of the West is truly terrible. But to detail everything here would be beyond our scope.

What happened after Yanukovych, the democratically elected president, was overthrown?

The new provisional government – that emerged from the nationalist extreme right coup – immediately, as its first official act, changed the law on official languages in Ukraine. This shows that the coup had nothing to do with democracy but was the product of ultra-nationalists who organized the uprising. This legal change triggered a storm in the Russian-speaking regions. Large demonstrations were organized in all cities of the Russian-speaking south, in Odessa, Mariupol, Donetsk, Lugansk, Crimea, etc. The Ukrainian authorities reacted in a very massive and brutal way, calling in the military. Autonomous republics were briefly proclaimed in Odessa, Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Lugansk and Donetsk. They were fought with extreme brutality and two remained eventually: Donetsk and Lugansk, which proclaimed themselves autonomous republics.

How did they legitimize their status?

They held referendums in May 2014, to have autonomy, and that is very, very important. If you look at our media in the last few months, they only talk about “separatists”. But this has been a total lie for eight years: they always talked about separatists, but this is false, because the referendum mentioned very clearly an autonomy within Ukraine. These republics wanted some sort of Swiss solution, so to speak. After the people accepted autonomy, the authorities asked for recognition of the republics by Russia, but Putin's government refused.

Crimea's struggle for independence

Isn't the development in Crimea also related to this?

We forget that Crimea was independent, even before Ukraine became independent. In January 1991, while the Soviet Union still existed, Crimea held a referendum to be managed from Moscow and not from Kiev. It thus became an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. Ukraine did not get its own independence referendum until six months later in August 1991. At that point, Crimea did not consider itself a part of Ukraine. But Ukraine did not accept this. Between 1991 and 2014, it was a constant struggle between the two entities. Crimea had its own constitution with its own authorities. In 1995, encouraged by the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine overthrew the Crimean government with special forces and abrogated its constitution. But this is never mentioned, as it would shed a completely different light on the current development.

What did the people of Crimea want?

As a matter of fact, Crimeans considered themselves as independent. From 1995, Crimea was governed by decrees from Kiev. This was in complete contradiction with the 1991 referendum and explains why Crimea held a new referendum in 2014, after the new ultra-nationalist government came to power in Ukraine after the illegal coup. Its result was very similar to the one 30 years earlier. After the referendum, Crimea asked to join the Russian Federation. It was not Russia that conquered Crimea, it was the people who authorized their authorities to ask Russia to take them in. There was also a treaty of friendship between Russia and Ukraine in 1997, in which Ukraine guaranteed the cultural diversity of minorities in the country. When the Russian language was banned as an official language in February 2014, it was a violation of this treaty.

Now it becomes clear that those who don't know all this, run the risk of misjudging the situation.

Back to the Minsk Agreements. In addition to Ukraine and the autonomous republics, there were guarantors, Germany and France on the Ukrainian side and Russia on the side of the self-proclaimed republics. They played this role within the framework of the OSCE. The EU was not involved, it was merely an OSCE matter. Immediately after the Minsk I Agreements, Ukraine launched an anti-terrorist operation against the two autonomist republics. The Ukrainian government completely ignored the agreement it had just signed to carry out this operation. The Ukrainian army suffered another total defeat in Debaltsevo. It was a debacle.

Did this also take place with the support of NATO?

Yes, and one wonders what the NATO military advisors did because the rebels' armed forces totally defeated the Ukrainian army.

This led to a second agreement, Minsk II, signed in February 2015, which was the basis for a UN Security Council resolution. This agreement was therefore binding under international law and had to be implemented.

Has this also been monitored by the UN?

No, nobody cared, and apart from Russia, nobody demanded compliance with the Minsk II agreement. Suddenly, there was only talk of the Normandy format. But this is totally meaningless. This "format" was born during the celebration of D-Day in June 2014. Former protagonists of the war, Allied heads of state were invited, as well as Germany, Ukraine and representatives of other states. In the Normandy format, only the heads of state were represented, the autonomous republics are obviously not present. Ukraine does not want to talk with the representatives of Lugansk and Donetsk. But if you read the Minsk agreements, there should have been a consultation between the Ukrainian government and the republics so that the Ukrainian constitution could be modified. So it was an internal Ukrainian process, but that is not what the Ukrainian government wanted.

But the Ukrainians have also signed the agreement…

... yes, but Ukraine always wanted to blame Russia for their domestic problem. The Ukrainians claimed that Russia had attacked Ukraine and that was the origin of the problems. But it was clear, it was a domestic problem. Since 2014, OSCE monitors have never seen Russian military units. Both Agreements are very clear and precise: the solution must be found within Ukraine. It is a question of obtaining a certain autonomy within the country, and only Ukraine could solve this issue. It had nothing to do with Russia.

For that, we need the stipulated adjustment of the constitution.

Yes, exactly, but it has not been done. Ukraine has not taken any step in that regard. The members of the UN Security Council have not committed themselves to this either, on the contrary. The situation has not improved at all.

How did Russia behave?

Russia's position has always remained the same. It wanted the Minsk Agreements to be implemented. It never changed its position for eight years. During these eight years, there have been various border violations, artillery shelling, etc., but Russia has never put the fulfilling of agreements into question.

How did Ukraine proceed?

Ukraine enacted a law in early July last year. It was a law that gives different rights to citizens based on their ethnicity. It is very reminiscent of the Nuremberg racial laws of 1935. Only true Ukrainians have full rights, while all others have only limited rights. Just after this, Putin wrote an article in which he explained the historical genesis of Ukraine. He criticized the fact that a distinction could be made between ethnic Ukrainians and Russians, etc. He wrote his article in response to this law. But in Europe this was interpreted as the fact that he did not recognize Ukraine as a state, and that his article sought to justify a possible annexation of Ukraine. In the West, people believe this, while no one knows why Putin wrote this article or what is its actual substance. It is obvious that in the West the aim was to give as negative an image of Putin as possible. I have read the article; it makes perfect sense.

Wouldn't the Russians have expected him to comment on it?

Of course, there are so many Russians in Ukraine. He had to do something. It would not have been right towards the people (but also from the point of view of international law, with the responsibility to protect) to accept this in silence. All these little details are absolutely part of it, otherwise we don't understand what is going on. This is the only way to put Putin's behaviour into perspective, and to see that the war has been increasingly provoked. I can't say whether Putin is good or bad. But the judgment we make of him in the West is clearly based on false elements.

Switzerland leaves the status of neutrality

What do you think of Switzerland's reaction last weekend?

This is a disaster. Russia has drawn up a list of 48 "unfriendly states", and you realize that Switzerland is also on it. This is truly an epochal change, but one for which Switzerland itself is responsible. Switzerland has always been "the man in the middle". We have facilitated the dialogue with all states and have had the courage to stand in the middle. There is hysteria regarding sanctions. Russia is very well prepared for this situation, it will suffer, but it is prepared to withstand their impact. However, the principle of sanctions is totally wrong. Today, sanctions have replaced diplomacy. We have seen this with Venezuela, with Cuba, with Iraq, with Iran, etc. These states have done nothing but having a policy that does not please the USA. That is their mistake. When I see that disabled athletes have been suspended from the Para-Olympic Games, words are missing. It is totally inappropriate. It affects individual people, it's just perverse. It is as mean as when the French Minister of Foreign Affairs says that the Russian people must suffer from sanctions. Whoever says this has no honour in my eyes. There is nothing positive about starting a war but reacting like this is simply shameful.

How do you see it, that people are taking to the streets against the war in Ukraine?

I ask myself: what makes the war against Ukraine worse than the war against Iraq, Yemen, Syria or Libya? In these cases, we know that there were no sanctions against the aggressor, the United States, or those who supply weapons used against civilian populations. Who is demonstrating for Yemen? Who demonstrated for Libya, who demonstrated for Afghanistan? We don't know why the United States was in Afghanistan. I know from intelligence sources that there was never any clear indication that Afghanistan or Osama bin Laden were involved in the 9/11 attacks, but we went to war in Afghanistan anyway.

Why?

On September 12, 2001, just after the terrorist attacks, the United States wanted to retaliate and decided to bomb Afghanistan. The Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force said that there were not enough targets in Afghanistan. To which the Secretary of Defence replied, "If we don't have enough targets in Afghanistan, then we will bomb Iraq”. I didn't make that up, there are sources, documents and people who were there. This is the reality, but we are being swayed to the "right" side by propaganda and manipulation.

If I may summarize this interview, your answers have clearly shown that the West has long been throwing oil on the fire and provoking Russia. However, these provocations are rarely reported in our media, but Putin's answers are given only partially or in a distorted way in order to maintain as much as possible the image of a warmonger and a monster.

My grandfather was French, he was a soldier in the First World War and often told me about it. And I have to say that the hysteria, the manipulation and the thoughtless behaviour of Western politicians remind me a lot of 1914 today, and that worries me a lot. When I see how our neutral country is no longer able to take a position independent of the EU and the USA, I am ashamed. We need to have a clear head and know the facts behind all these events. This is the only way Switzerland can pursue a reasonable peace policy.

Mr. Baud, thank you for the interview.

Interview Thomas Kaiser

(Translation "Zeitgeschehen im Fokus")

published 15 March 2022

"Has the West gambled away trust?"

Through détente and disarmament, the relationship between the great powers can be be improved

Interview with Prof. Dr. iur. et phil. Alfred de Zayas, international law expert and former UN mandate holder

Zeitgeschehen im Fokus What can be expected from the meeting in Geneva between high-ranking representatives of Russia and the United States

Prof. Dr. Alfred de Zayas It is important that the political leaders speak directly with each other and not just make official pronouncements. That's why the UN Security Council and the UN Human Rights Council are important, because they address truths that have to be put on the table. It is then our task to ensure that the right priorities are set in the UN Security Council and at the meeting between Biden and Putin. The UN Security Council resolution of January 3, 2022, on the non-permissibility of the use of nuclear weapons is particularly timely. Indeed, the five permanent members recognized that "a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought"; they also want to strengthen the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

What should be the top priority at this meeting?
The main concern must be peace, to promote détente, to remove obstacles, to ban war propaganda, precisely in order to implement a disarmament policy. Here – as everywhere – it is a matter of correct information and a rational discussion about it, which also requires the good will or "bona fide" of both sides. But we are swimming in an ocean of disinformation and Machiavellianism.

How should we evaluate Putin's demands to the USA and NATO?
I assess them as positive and necessary. It is especially important that Putin's proposals are now public, because in this way the "narrative managers" of the US State Department and the Western media will not be able to falsify Putin's proposals or to reproduce them only selectively. And even if the cat is out of the bag, the media will try to paint it in different colors. Putin's demands are quite legitimate. But big politics is rarely balanced. People don't always speak the same language. "Democracy" does not mean the same thing in Washington, Jerusalem, Cairo, Moscow, Tehran or Beijing.

Is Putin right to insist on an end to NATO enlargement?
Absolutely – and the Russian government should have demanded this back in the 1990s. But in Moscow sat a corrupt man, Boris Yeltsin, who behaved like a drunken puppet of the United States. The damage Yeltsin brought to Russia was colossal, but the Western media continues to paint a positive portrait of this traitor to his own people.

Putin wants a withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Europe. Surely that would be a meaningful step toward peace?
Yes, certainly, but neither the Americans, nor the British, nor the French are mentally there. Our arms industry needs an enemy – and that is the role Russia has to play. We in the West live in our own propaganda, and we are paralyzed to the extent that we cannot free ourselves too easily from our own prejudices. NATO chief Stoltenberg is as much a warmonger, manipulator and propagandist as the politicians in Washington and London.

What do you expect from the US president?
If Biden was an independent thinker, an enlightened mind and not an apparatchik, he would pursue real realpolitik. He would realize that a Third World War would mean the end of our world, that nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction are the greatest danger to humanity – more than pandemics or climate change. He would understand that the Russians and Chinese also want to live on and will not disappear from the map. So you have to learn how to live in peace with them. Why does Washington have to preemptively declare the Russians and Chinese enemies rather than potential partners? I hardly think Biden can free himself from his own prejudices about Russia. He thinks Putin is something like a new Stalin – or a new czar. But Putin is not. Biden is following a political line that is prescribed to him by the "Brookings Institute," the "Heritage Foundation," etc.

What advice would you give him?
If Biden wants to make a smart American policy for once, he would have to engage in a modus vivendi with the Russians. He could, for example, ask Putin about his ideas on disarmament or talk about possibilities for cooperation in space, about expanding cooperation on the International Space Station (ISS), about a return to the Open Skies Treaty.

So there are definitely approaches to improving the relationship between the great powers in 2022?
Yes, of course, through détente and disarmament. That is why the UN Conference on Disarmament in Geneva should become active. This must be done on the basis of mutual respect and in the context of all relevant UN mechanisms. The attitude of the USA to see itself as the sole hegemon is, of course, a major obstacle. It is about the mental attitude of the American "elites" and media, which is not so easy to banish, because we Americans have had this habit for centuries. It's what we call "exceptionalism." Most Americans are virtually convinced that they have a "mission." Just as the British imperialists (Queen Victoria, Cecil Rhodes) believed in "The White Man's Burden" (Rudyard Kipling), the majority of Americans believe that they possess the truth and must export their idea of "democracy" and "human rights" to other countries. This is not a good condition for talks between sovereign states.

What role can NATO have then?
Preferably none, because its raison d'être no longer exists – it was established as a counterpole to the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Since 1991 at the latest, NATO has been obsolete, but it is looking for a new task. Like any organization, any apparatus, Nato wants to continue to exist. Thus, it has become an aggressive alliance, committing major violations of international law or human rights, e.g. in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. It acts against the Nuremberg Principles and against the Rome Statute.

Shouldn't these violations of human and international rights be punished?
Yes, of course! Actually, NATO war crimes and NATO crimes against humanity should also be investigated by the International Criminal Court (ICC) – because there are violations of Articles 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Rome Statute. But let's not dream. The new chief prosecutor of the ICC is an Englishman who has already said he will not investigate NATO crimes in Afghanistan, although he has ordered an investigation into the crimes of the Taliban. In principle, NATO should be abolished without a sound bite. In the future, security issues should be dealt with solely by the UN Security Council.

Putin spoke of a European security architecture as early as 2007. Would that be a basis for more peaceful politics in the world?
That was true then and is all the more urgent today. This European security architecture would, of course, have to work together with the UN and not against it. Actually, we want a security architecture for the whole world – and that means nuclear disarmament and an end to the arms race.

What role could the OSCE play for peaceful coexistence in Europe?
A very positive role. Russia and Belarus also play a role in the OSCE – they are not excluded in advance.

From the West, the OSCE is always treated somewhat stepmotherly, although all of Europe sits at the table here. Why is that?
Not only the old Republican neo-cons like Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, etc. underestimated the OSCE – today in the US House of Representatives, Republican Mike Turner, wants to send U.S. troops to Ukraine to defend "democracy" against Russia. Not only the radical neo-cons think this way – also Democrats like Victoria Nuland (Assistant Secretary of State) and even Hillary Clinton think nothing of the OSCE or of the EU. Democrats also just want to give orders.

How must one understand that a meeting is scheduled with the OSCE but not with the EU?
The EU has maneuvered itself into a dead end. By actively participating in the Maidan coup against democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych, by not defending the "rule of law" in Ukraine but immediately siding with the anti-democratic coup plotters, the EU has lost its credibility and authority. The way the EU is dealing with Ukraine and Poland proves that it is interested in power and violence – but not in dialogue or compromise.

Is the fact that Russia is giving priority to the OSCE an affront to the EU, as some newspapers comment, or an expression of the fact that European states are ultimately dependent on the United States?
It is not an affront at all, but realpolitik. For decades, the European states have been lackeys of the USA. Moreover, the EU does not pursue a policy that conforms to the UN Charter and supports activities that are incompatible with it. It carries out war propaganda, agitates against Russia and China, but tolerates the crimes of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Emirates, etc. – violating Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which prohibits war propaganda.

What do you see as the reasons why the situation has visibly deteriorated in recent years?
In a sense, we in the West are in a constant state of flight. Things are not going well with our economy and finances. The US, in particular, have broken so many important treaties that its credibility has taken a serious hit. "Pacta sunt servanda" (Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties) – treaty compliance applies not only to ratified treaties, but also to oral agreements. Breaking a "gentleman's agreement" may not come before the International Court of Justice, but it still has all kinds of consequences for the present and the future.

Is that what you mean with regard to NATO's eastward expansion?
Yes, the West wanted the Soviet Union to withdraw its troops from Central and Eastern Europe. Gorbachev promised that and carried it out. But as the statements of various responsible officials prove, NATO did indeed promise not to expand eastward. One thinks that Gorbachev could have demanded that Nato should dissolve just as the Warsaw Pact dissolved, that Nato should be abolished just as it was. Gorbachev did not demand that – but he did get a promise and a pledge that Nato would not go an inch to the east. The West did not honor this essential agreement.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently denied that his predecessor Baker had made promises about NATO's possible eastward expansion.
This is easily refuted, as declassified documents prove that oral promises were indeed made and that they were part of the general agreement.¹ Legally, oral assurances are binding, even if not set in stone.
As early as April 2009, Gorbachev wrote: "Chancellor Helmut Kohl, US Secretary of State James Baker and others assured me that NATO would not move an inch eastward. The Americans did not abide by this, and the Germans were indifferent. They may even have rubbed their hands together at how great a job the Russians had been done. What did it bring? Only that the Russians now no longer trust Western promises."²
Baker had given assurances in a conversation with Gorbachev that "NATO's legal jurisdiction over NATO forces would not be extended one inch eastward."³

Similarly, in 1990, then-US Ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock told a U.S. congressional hearing that Gorbachev had received a "clear commitment" from the United States that "if Germany were to unify and remain in NATO, NATO's borders would not move eastward."⁴
Former German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher said on Feb. 2, 1990, after a meeting with then-US Secretary of State James Baker, "We agreed that there was no intention to extend the NATO defense area eastward. That applies not only to the GDR, but in general."⁵

Now, of course, the trust is disturbed…
Disturbed is too mild a word. After all, one of the greatest achievements of civilization and the rule of law is fidelity to contract. The obligation to keep one's word. When a promise is made, it must be implemented in good faith and not undermined, reinterpreted, softened. It is a matter of honor. But it seems that we in the West have no honor left – and that we have deliberately short-changed the Russians. We have created a "fait accompli" and expect the Russians to accept it that way.

But that happened in the course of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Yes, but in 1991 the Soviet Union was not a defeated state. Gorbachev wanted glasnost and perestroika in Russia, cooperation and peace with the West. He did not sign an unconditional surrender. Basically, the West lied to Gorbachev and the Russians, deceived them, hoodwinked them. But this fact most politicians in Washington do not want to admit. There is not a bit of remorse – we just deny everything. We play the innocent. This has consequences. Namely, it is about lack of "bona fide" – lack of good faith. Unfortunately, we have earned a bad reputation in the West. In order to regain credibility and become worthy of a contract, we must show political will, we must prove that we are a reliable contracting party. A true statesman understands this.

Haven't there always been word breaches in international relations?
Too many - and since biblical times. In the Renaissance, we read various amazing stories in the book "The Prince" by Niccolò Machiavelli. But take, for example, World War I - the German Empire did not surrender at all in November 1918, and did not need to. The Reich believed in the good will of President Woodrow Wilson and relied on the implementation of the 14 points. Germany was not occupied, on the contrary. Germany still occupied parts of France and Belgium. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Russia was still in force. The German Reich was not defeated. There was no unconditional surrender as in May 1945. The German people were war-weary in 1918, wanted peace, believed with a certain naiveté in Wilson's 14-point plan.
The armistice of November 11, 1918, was based expressis verbis or legally on the 14 points that were to form the foundation of the peace treaty. But as soon as Kaiser Wilhelm II had abdicated and the Reich had collapsed, France and England forgot all their obligations. The Treaty of Versailles no longer had anything to do with the 14 points. In fact, it was a grotesque breach of promise. One might almost say an example of "vae victis" – but the point is that Germany was not defeated. Similar to Gorbachev in 1991, Germany was bamboozled in Versailles in 1919.

What are the consequences of a breach of trust?
Any breach of trust means poisoning the interstate atmosphere, which prevents cooperation and can lead to further misunderstandings. And so it was in 1919. France and England acted brazenly toward Germany. It was precisely because of the monstrous injustice of the Treaty of Versailles that a demagogue like Adolf Hitler was able to come to power in Germany. Indeed, French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau was a chauvinist, not a statesman. More than British Prime Minister Lloyd George, Clemenceau bears a heavy responsibility for World War II. The betrayal of Versailles led all of Europe to ruin. The ongoing breach of trust by NATO since 1991 may catch up with us sooner or later and lead to Armageddon.

What can the USA demand from Russia?
For example, that Putin commits not to attack Ukraine. Putin can easily give such an assurance. However, should Selensky attack the Russian-speaking regions of Donetsk and Lugansk, as Saakashvili attacked South Ossetia in his time, Putin cannot be expected to stand idly by. For centuries, Ukraine was part of Russia. Putin has no interest in reincorporating Ukraine into Mother Russia, so he will not invade Ukraine without provocation. He is more or less resigned to the 2014 coup. But he will not allow Ukraine to massacre the Russian-born population in Donetsk, Lugansk, Sloviansk, etc. In the West, the massacres of Russians in Odessa on May 2, 2014 are forgotten – but not in Russia.

What can Russia ask from the USA?
A bona fide attempt to ease the situation. An end to the constant anti-Russian propaganda. An end to NATO "maneuvers" in the Black Sea and near the Russian border. A willingness to resolve global issues multilaterally in accordance with the UN Charter.

What role can Switzerland play? After all, the meeting is taking place in Geneva.
Just as President Parmelin facilitated a successful meeting between Putin and Biden in June 2021, Ignazio Cassis should now offer his good offices as the new president of the Confederation, thus continuing the Swiss tradition of mediation. As a neutral state, Switzerland could seriously make use of its experience in the role of mediator and make a constructive contribution to more peace in the world. President Cassis is challenged.

Professor de Zayas, thank you very much for the interview.

Interview Thomas Kaiser

¹ https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
² http://www.bild.de/politik/2009/bild-medienpreis/die-deutschen-waren-nicht-aufzuhalten-7864098.bild.html
³ Philip Zelikow und Condoleezza Rice: Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft (Cambridge, Mass. 1995), S. 182
⁴ House Committee on International Relations, U.S. Policy Toward NATO Enlargement: Hearing, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., June 20, 1996, S. 31.
⁵ https://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/516654/NATO-Osterweiterung-Ein-gebrochenes-muendliches-Versprechen-mit-Folgen-fuer-Europa

“The Assange case is about setting a precedent”

“Press freedom and freedom of information in Western democracies would be severely restricted”

Interview with Professor Dr. Nils Melzer*, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture

Zeitgeschehen im Fokus: You are involved in the Julian Assange case. Why are you doing this?

Professor Dr. Nils Melzer: First of all, I should clarify that I am not Julian Assange’s lawyer, but I stand up for the rule of law and for the prohibition of torture. Of course, I defend victims of torture. However, in the case of Assange, I was initially even hesitant to get involved.

Why?

I think it has to do with the negative image that the press has spread about Julian Assange for years. Only after examining evidence and opinions written by doctors, experts and other UN bodies, I became aware of my own prejudices and took a closer look at the case. But as soon as you scratch the surface, a lot of dirt comes to light, a lot of abuse by authorities. The deeper I went into the matter, the worse it became. It became clear to me how much the case had been politicized, and so I finally decided to visit this man personally in prison to get an objective picture of him and his situation.

Did you visit him alone?

No, I was accompanied by two doctors specialized in examining torture victims. They are both very experienced and can distinguish very well between the consequences of torture and the stress symptoms caused by a normal detention regime. So in May 2019, the three of us visited Assange in Belmarsh prison. We had four hours at our disposal, and the doctors examined him independently from eachother. Afterwards, we all agreed: Assange showed the symptoms typical for victims of psychological torture.

How did that become apparent?

The detailed medical diagnoses are, of course, confidential. In essence, he showed extreme post-traumatic stress symptoms, but also measurable neurological and cognitive impairments, which are typical of the overall picture of detainees in solitary confinement. As the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, I am confronted with this pattern on a regular basis. The next question, of course, is where these symptoms come from, because they could theoretically have causes other than torture or ill-treatment. Assange was blocked in the Ecuadorian embassy for six years and was always exposed to the same environment, which with a high degree of probability must have caused the observed symptoms. My investigations revealed an overall picture of various, mutually reinforcing forms of abuse inflicted on Assange during this period, by all the authorities involved.

Which authorities were these?

One was the rape allegations by the Swedish authorities, which were never investigated in good faith, but were deliberately misused for the purpose of publicly demonizing Assange.

What do you mean by that?

The Swedish prosecution unlawfully disseminated these allegations through the mass media, suppressed exculpatory evidence, and gave Assange no opportunity to defend himself without simultaneously risking extradition to the U.S., where he would certainly be subjected to serious human rights violations. Behind the scenes, the Swedish authorities had done everything they could to avoid a trial in which he would have had to be acquitted for lack of evidence. Since he was in Ecuadorian asylum, they could conveniently blame it all on him. But the British authorities also systematically violated procedural law.

In which way?

Assange has been detained in a British high-security prison since April 2019, under very restrictive conditions which are comparable to solitary confinement and make it extremely difficult for him to have contact with his lawyers, his family and other inmates. This has further aggravated his health condition. This is neither necessary nor proportionate, since he is not a criminal, but is in pure extradition custody. When finding himself in the same legal situation, the Chilean ex-dictator Pinochet was placed under house arrest and accommodated in a London villa. The American extradition proceedings and the expulsion from the Ecuadorian embassy were also marked by serious procedural violations. It is rather obvious that this man’s rights have been systematically violated for ten years. These are not just the odd irregularities that can occur in any procedure. We are talking about countries like Sweden, Great Britain or the USA. These countries have highly developed legal systems in which such things do not happen by coincidence.

In this context, how should the decision not to extradite be judged?

It is not a gesture of humanity. The court has quite deliberately affirmed the logic of the US indictment for espionage regarding the publication of secret documents. Ultimately, the court refused to extradite him only based on a purported mental illness, which almost certainly would push him to commit suicide when facing American prison conditions. From a legal perspective, however, the British have confirmed everything that the USA wanted. The U.S. is primarily interested in setting a deterrent precedent for the future, according to which any journalist who publishes secret U.S. information can be prosecuted as a spy. And this ruling takes them a big step closer to that goal.

What then is the significance of adding that they would not extradite him because of his medical condition?

They probably hope that Assange’s lawyers will not appeal, so that the precedent set by this ruling will not be questioned as such. An American appeal, on the other hand, will of course only challenge that part of the ruling which refuses extradition on medical grounds. If the U.S. now issues guarantees that it would adjust detention conditions and provide Assange with a specialist doctor, then the appeals court could overturn the decision and still have him extradited, without reviewing the rest of the precedent ruling. That is the risk now.

What, if anything, can be done about it?

Assange’s lawyers would now have to cross-appeal themselves the other points of the first-instance ruling, so that these issues would also have to be discussed by the appeals court.

CouldAssange’s situation change with President Biden?

It could be that President Biden does not necessarily want an espionage trial, as this might cause a confrontation with the U.S. mainstream media, but could also be rejected by the US Supreme Court. He might be quite happy to leave things as they are with the first-instance British ruling. So he could withdraw the appeal, either now or at a later stage. Irrespective of this, he could still uphold the US indictment. Assange would then have to be released, but would not be able to leave the UK, because the U.S. could immediately demand extradition again from any other country. Assange would then have to spend his entire life under this sword of Damocles.

With this strategy, he would actually be crippled.

Yes, the U.S. could use this approach to prevent him from ever returning to his traditional profession as a journalist or to Wikileaks. Because if he did that, the U.S. could immediately request his extradition again. I do not believe that these four countries have invested millions in his persecution for ten years just to simply release him now for humanitarian reasons. Let us not forget that this is not a legal process, but a purely political one.

The accusations of “treason” and “rape” are, in your opinion, contrived?

Treason can be ruled out, because Assange never had a duty of confidentiality towards the USA and did not steal the published information, but published it just like other journalists. One has to be careful with the rape allegation. It may well be that he did not behave properly, I simply don't know. But if you look at these allegations from the perspective of a lawyer, you can immediately see that they cannot possibly be proven beyond reasonable doubt, unless Assange would make a confession or had a relevant criminal record. Neither was the case.

So the allegations that were made can hardly be proven?

In both cases, criminal liability depends on factors for which there are simply no forensic means of investigation. Whether a condom was destroyed intentionally or accidentally, by whom and at what time, and whether a woman was asleep or not at the moment of intercourse, simply cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt in retrospect. The fact that Assange was branded a “fugitive rapist” for nine years, even though the investigating authorities knew very well that they ultimately would not be able to prove the allegations, demonstrates that they had something quite different in mind.

How did these allegations come about?

Each of the women had voluntary sexual intercourse with Assange and did not actually want to report a crime, but wanted to get him to take an HIV test. The authorities then convinced the women that something very bad had been perpetrated against them, which absolutely had to be prosecuted. The authorities knew, of course, that they would not be able to prove these allegations, but they wanted to make the story public in order to destroy Assange’s reputation. In doing so, they deliberately exposed also the women to media attention, and when the allegations could not be proven, the women were soon accused of lying - a quite perfidious strategy.

How were the allegations made public?

Within hours, the authorities leaked Assange’s name and so much information about the women to the press that they could not remain anonymous either. However, according to Swedish law, the names of those involved in a criminal investigation cannot be made public until there is a formal indictment.

How has Assange dealt with this?

He extended his stay in Sweden by a month, always cooperated fully with the police, and even obtained the prosecutor’s authorisation to leave the country two weeks before his departure. The authorities, on the other hand, waited until he left Sweden and then immediately accused him of trying to evade justice. Thereafter, they artificially kept the accusations alive while at the same time preventing the case from going to trial. Given that the Swedish investigating authorities knew that Assange would have to be acquitted for lack of evidence, they constantly procrastinated their investigation and never brought charges against him. In the media, however, the image of the suspected rapist evading trial was deliberately maintained for ten years.

How did Assange get into the Ecuadorian embassy?

Sweden submitted an extradition request to the British, which he evaded by fleeing to the embassy. He assumed that Sweden would informally pass him on to the United States. After all, Sweden had a relevant history and had already done that with other people before.

Would this have been that easy?

There is a passage in the extradition treaty with the U.S. that allows someone to be temporarily “borrowed” by the U.S. without an extradition proceeding and for an unspecified duration, an instrument called “temporary surrender”. Assange had always offered that he would come to Sweden if the authorities gave him a guarantee that they would not extradite him onward to the USA. But he has been denied that. That is the only reason he requested asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. Ecuador did not protected him from prosecution for the sexual offences, but only from onward extradition to the US. So Assange never evaded the Swedish process.

One has the impression that Julian Assange is to be worn out because he revealed unpleasant things.

If journalists get reliable evidence of crimes and corruption by authorities, they will in all likelihood publish it. That is the function of the press. No one was endangered due to Assange’s publications, except perhaps the impunity of the criminals. Also, contrary to widespread allegations, he has made great efforts at censoring names. The accusation that he published everything without redactions is not true. Rather, a Guardian journalist in a book published the password that allowed access to all unredacted documents. As a result, Assange decided to publish the concerned unredacted documents also on WikiLeaks. That’s why he is being prosecuted today, so actually for redistributing material that was already in the public domain.

Has the Guardian journalist also been prosecuted?

No, never.

According to what you have said we have to ask the question, how is it possible that legal principles have been so obviously broken here and, as you stated at the beginning, that one does not shy away from forms of psychological torture. Has the crackdown on people who oppose the mainstream or expose government machinations intensified in recent years?

In the aftermath of 9/11, we can see that torture has unfortunately become more prevalent again with the CIA’s activities at Guantánamo, the Abu Ghraib scandal, and so on. That is one side. But the fact that Western dissidents or whistleblowers are now being persecuted so aggressively is primarily the responsibility of the Obama administration. Obama has had more whistleblowers prosecuted than all previous US presidents combined.

Is this a US phenomenon?

It is a growing trend, especially in Anglo-Saxon countries. In Australia, for example, there is the case of David McBride, who drew the public’s attention to atrocious war crimes committed by the Australian army in Afghanistan and is now on trial for this, facing a heavy prison sentence. Already Chelsea Manning had originally received 35 years in prison. This is completely disproportionate. In our legal system, such a long sentence does not exist, not even for the worst violent criminals. But the people mentioned here are threatened with draconian punishments simply for telling the truth.

There really seems to be a methodology to this?

Assange is not the only one to have met this fate, of course, nor is he the worst torture case I have seen in my job. I have a dozen reports like this on my desk every day - always horrific stories. Beyond that, however, the Assange case is emblematically important because a precedent is being established here.

What would be the consequences?

Press freedom and the freedom of information in the West would be decisively restricted, and people who expose the dirty secrets of the authorities would be criminalized. Once that happens, we should have no illusions about where the journey will take us. So we have to ask ourselves, how do we deal with the truth, how transparent are our governments today? How much insight do we actually still have? Today, we supposedly have freedom of information everywhere, but as soon as you make a delicate information request, all you get are blacked-out pages. But if we are no longer allowed to know what our authorities are doing with the power they have been given, if our citizens’ queries become a purported security risk, and if anyone who questions the impunity of the powerful ends up being prosecuted, then the rule of law and democracy are also acutely endangered. It is therefore very important to prevent structures from being created that could become dangerous in the future.

Professor Melzer, thank you very much for the interview.

Interview Thomas Kaiser

“The US should join hands with the Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese to tackle global problems together"

Interview with Prof. Dr. iur. et phil. Alfred de Zayas, US international law expert and former UN mandate holder

Zeitgeschehen im Fokus What must be the priorities of the new US President Joe Biden now that he has formally assumed the presidency from Donald Trump?

Prof. Dr. Alfred de Zayas He must do everything he can to unite the country, because the ongoing polarization is dangerous, can lead to further violence in an already violent society. All those who call America home want the common good for all. They must overcome the “enmity” between Democrats and Republicans and build bridges of dialogue, because it is not about A against B, but about A in cooperation with B in order to serve all. Effective governance means compromise and does not function on the basis of unconditional surrender, or the “winner takes all” principle. Of course, this polarity is also a result of the two party system, of the so-called “representative democracy”, which alas, does not always represent. It should evolve into a participatory democracy with enhanced responsibility borne by the electorate.

What can be done here?

We should gradually move toward a new system with multiple parties so that the will of the people is also better represented, so that democratic pluralism can unfold. Biden should also strengthen the US Constitution and the rule of law, and work against the “seizure of power” by techno-giants, who are engaged in a profound manipulation of public opinion, which corrupts and sabotages democracy. He must make the idea of the "Marketplace of Ideas" socially acceptable again. The visible but slow slide into an Orwellian dystopia must be stopped. Today rather than tomorrow.

What does the new US president need to do in the realm of foreign policy?

US foreign policy has given rise to much suffering in the world and even in the United States. Alas, it is not only Trump who has trampled on international law, but also Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama: conducted terror bombings in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, pursued undemocratic “regime changes” in Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, destabilized the economices of Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela. Further, US presidents have killed thousands of people through non-conventional wars such as embargoes, financial blockades, and sanctions. I have explained this in detail in several articles and in my reports to the UN Human Rights Council and to the UN General Assembly: economic sanctions do kill people! One has to be aware of that, these sanctions are not harmless. They are also not only directed against the politicians of a country – which is already illegal – but, and that must be clear, they are directed against an entire people.

Who are the countries that suffer most from US sanctions?

There are sanctions against Cuba, against Venezuela, against Nicaragua, against Syria, against Iran, the list is very long. The poorest of the poor pay the most for these sanctions. Here the question clearly arises: does this reach the threshold of a crime against humanity, because, in fact, the number of victims has increased enormously, especially also in relation to Covid-19. The impact of the sanctions must be investigated by an independent international commission or by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Indeed, the ICC statute, otherwise known as the Statute of Rome Envisages such investigations pursuant to its Article 7.

Aren't there already investigations underway against the US?

Fatou Bensouda, the ICC's chief prosecutor, is already investigating US war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan and Iraq. Grotesquely enough, President Trump imposed sanctions on Bensouda herself and on members of her team. Beyond that, the chief prosecutor can motu proprio (on her own initiative) begin an investigation into the consequences of the US sanctions against Cuba, Syria, Venezuela, especially with regard to Covid-19. On 13 February 2020, Bensouda received detailed documentation from Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza about the deaths caused by the sanctions in Venezuela, requesting an investigation under Article 7 of the Rome Statute.

To what extent can the sanctions be crimes?

It is obvious, especially with regard to Covid-19, that people die when a state does not get the vaccine in time or, as in the case of Cuba, does not receive enough ventilators – corporations have refused to sell these devices to Cuba because they were afraid of facing punitive actions from the United States. The imposition of such sanctions necessarily must have penal consequences.

Does the International Criminal Court carry enough weight to persuade the US to change its policy?

Unfortunately not. The US has a consistent track record of ignoring international judgments as well as General Assembly Resolutions. Nevertheless, these judgments and resolutions do create international precedent and cumulatively have developed momentum, which the US European allies and the larger international community will not be able to entirely ignore. I could well imagine some European sates taking into account these considerations when negotiating multilateral and bilateral trade agreements with the US. In addition to the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) could and should declare the US sanctions contrary to international law, through an advisory opinion that the General Assembly can request under Article 96 of the UN Charter. Let us see whether in the next four years President Biden will be more respectful of international law norms, including ICC and ICJ decisions. We cherish the hope that Biden will focus on multilateralism and take into account the opinion of his allies.

What should the Europeans do?

It would be a possibility that European states, now that Trump has left office, stop behaving like lackeys toward the US and pursue their own policies. If the Europeans think they have higher morals, they should prove it. First of all, they could lift their own sanctions against Cuba and Venezuela and protect their corporations from US Treasury penalties. They should assist the ICC in their investigations to the best of their ability and also move forward with an investigation under Article 7 ICC. This does not only concern the sanctions against Cuba and Venezuela, but also the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. The issue here is to act consistently against impunity for the crimes committed by the Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump administrations. In addition, there is a possibility, under the principle of “universal jurisdiction” to arrest and bring to court those individuals who are under the jurisdiction of European states (for example, when American military personnel who participated in war crimes in Iraq enter the territory of a European state and therefore come under its in personam jurisdiction).

All states can apply and implement that?

Universal jurisdiction is an international law principle which has gained in acceptance since the Nuremberg trials. Pursuant to this principle persons guilty of torture, for example, can be arrested by any state, tried and punished for torture committed outside the territory of the arresting state, e.g. torture at the Guantanamo prison. Any state can do that, be it France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, etc. They could arrest these individuals and then initiate a criminal investigation under their own criminal codes. In addition to universal jurisdiction, there are treaty obligations, for example, under Articles 5-6 of the UN Convention Against Torture, that requires from States parties that any individual suspected of having committed torture, regardless of nationality, be arrested and brought to court, or extradited to where the offences took place according to the principles aut dedere, aut judicare.

You mentioned Guantanamo ...

Several UN special rapporteurs have repeatedly demanded transparency and accountability for crimes committed in Guantanamo. More recently, they have addressed the specific demand to President Biden that he immediately closes Guantanamo. But of course, closing Guantanamo is not enough. The crimes committed there must be investigated, as I already demanded in one of my own press releases back in 2016. Days ago, marked the 19th anniversary of the opening of this modern-day Gulag at Guantanamo, where over 700 detainees have been tortured and incarcerated under inhumane conditions. By the way, it is worth pointing out that criminal responsibility for the torture operations at Guantanamo is borne not only by Trump, but also by George W. Bush, and Barak Obama – all of whom thus far have enjoyed impunity.

How many people are still illegally detained there?

There are still 40 people there (out of over 700 originally), but trials have only been held against 8 people. In other words, arbitrary arrests of hundreds of people have been carried out here. Ben Emmerson, UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human and Fundamental Rights during the Fight against Terrorism, wrote a report for the UN Human Rights Council. It was about the widespread abuses committed during the “war on terror”, including targeted assassinations, kidnappings, “extraordinary renditions”, torture, psychological torture, etc. One of the key findings of his report was not the mere documentation of the crimes, but the extent of the international conspiracy to commit these crimes. As Emmerson documented, 54 states colluded with the US in the “extraordinary rendition program”, carried out the kidnappings of suspects and then turned them over to the US authorities without legal basis, without extradition procedures, human rights safeguards or any due process of law. People have been arrested clandestinely, without any press coverage, and then they disappeared into US secret prisons (even on the high seas) and Guantanamo.

Why is Guantanamo, which is in Cuba, still a US territory?

It is illegally occupied. At 117 square kilometres, it is as large as Manhattan Island and the port of New York. The 1903 “lease agreement”, which was a colonial treaty, was terminated by Cuba in 1959. The earlier “lease” did not come about as a result of free negotiations, but was imposed on the Cubans. International law is quite clear here, and I have argued this in an article in the University of British Columbia (Vancouver) Law Review, and also wrote the article “Guantanamo Naval Base” for the Oxford Encyclopaedia of Public International Law (2012). Not only should Guantanamo be closed as a torture centre, but the territory should be returned in full to Cuba. The treaty is and was invalid ab initio, it was an act of imperial aggression against the Cubans, who had just fought a war against Spain in order to gain their independence, only to find themselves occupied by the United States and blackmailed into accepting the so-called “Platt Amendment”, given the US the right to intervene in Cuba’s affairs at will. Of course, Cuba is not in a position to enforce its sovereignty under international law like China, for example, which clearly signalled to the British in 1997 that they must leave Hong Kong. Either they leave peacefully, or China would have thrown them in the water.

Has the US ever given back any territory?

US President Jimmy Carter returned the Panama Canal to Panamanian sovereignty in 1977. There was also a colonial treaty that had been imposed on Panama, also in 1903. But motu proprio, Carter, gave a sign of brotherhood and returned the canal to Panama.

In the same spirit of historical justice, in 2007, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd issued a courageous apology to the Aborigines of Australia, first for all the crimes that Australia had committed against the Aborigines. He then returned to them some of the territories stolen from them, including Uluru and Kakadu, territories that are now administered by the Aborigines themselves.[1] Joe Biden could do the same with Guantanamo, and he would earn great sympathy in the world and at the UN.

Isn't there also work to be done with regard to indigenous peoples in the US?

Yes, Biden should also follow up on Obama’s apology to the “First Nations” of America – the indigenous Sioux, Dakotas, Iroquois, Crees, Cherokees, Navajos, and so on. In December 2008, Obama actually signed an “Apology Resolution” acknowledging the many injustices against “Indians”. But there has been no redress at all, and the Indigenous of America continue to be discriminated against and exploited. I have sympathy for the “Black Lives Matter” movement – but even more urgent would be a movement “Indigenous Lives Matter” to ensure recognition of the crimes committed against the First Nations of the Americas. In all justice, this should also be accompanied by reparations.

Back to Guantanamo. Who were the victims taken to this illegal prison?

On the assumption that a person might have a connection to al-Qaeda or the Taliban, people were simply kidnapped, then turned over to the CIA and taken to Guantanamo. I interviewed an Al-Jazeera journalist who had been taken prisoner by the war lords in Afghanistan and simply sold for good money to the US, although he had nothing to do with the Taliban. Alas, this happened hundreds if not thousands of times. And again I repeat; 54 states participated in this mafia-like conspiracy called the “war against Terror”, a revolt against the concept of the rule of law, against international human rights law and against international humanitarian law. This is a scandal and a huge disgrace, but has been very much downplayed by the media, when not totally suppressed.

Were European states involved in this?

Most people do not know that torture took place in Poland or in Romania, or in Albania and Kosovo. They do know that torture took place in Egypt. Mubarak’s Egypt was one of the partners of the US in the crimes and has its torture experts. The USA did not want to get its hands dirty with these cruel methods and exported it or in new language: outsourced it. All this must be stopped by Joe Biden.

How do you see the relationship with Iran now that Trump has terminated the nuclear deal?

Of course, first and foremost, the US would have to return to the Iran deal. It is important that Iran not be coerced into resuming its nuclear program. No one wants nuclear proliferation. Therefore, Iran must be offered security guarantees so that the country does not feel threatened. The Iranians feel permanently threatened, and there is also an unprecedented aggression emanating from the United States. The state is literally being crushed. Obama recognized at the time that the sanctions policy of the USA had been totally unsuccessful. The sanctions were designed to bring about regime change, but the US did not succeed anywhere, not in Cuba, not in Venezuela, not in Nicaragua, not in Syria, not in Iran, not even in Bolivia, where after the coup dêtat against Evo Morales, the Bolivians went on to reelect Morales’ party – by a landslide. But sanctions have, above all, the effect that is euphemistically called “collateral damage”. Sanctions kill people, and especially the most vulnerable.

The list of crimes and abuses is long. There is the absurd blacklisting of countries that supposedly sponsor terrorism. In his last days in office Trump put Cuba on that list. This has adverse economic consequences for the Cuban people – as it does for the Syrians, who are also on the list. The world should condemn this evidence-free condemnation of Cuba and other countries. If anyone is looking for a country that sponsors terrorism, it is the United States itself, it is Saudi Arabia, it is Israel.

You have now mentioned what “iniquities” the US needs to stop immediately, and that seems important to me. But what could the US do, not just reactively but proactively, to bring more peace and justice to the world?

First and foremost, the US must restore its international credibility. The US is no longer a credible partner. It is not acceptable that a treaty is signed today and then, after a change of government such as from Obama to Trump, these treaties are cancelled again by the dozen. Joe Biden would be well advised to reassert the Paris climate agreement as quickly as possible, as well as the disarmament treaties on the limitation of nuclear weapons with Russia, the treaty with Iran, etc., etc.

The treaties with Russia, after all, are from the old days ...

A treaty that is very important is, the “Open Skies” treaty. But the US, under Donald Trump, is the only state to have opted out. Now the Russians are threatening to opt out, because without the US, the treaty makes little sense. The arms race will not stop if there is no transparency. If I don't know how big the other’s arsenal is, everyone will produce even more weapons for fear of being outgunned otherwise. Limited resources of states are shamelessly wasted on nuclear weapons production. This must be changed. The “Open Skies” treaty is a very sensible treaty; the Start treaty as well as the INF are also very sensible treaties.

What would Joe Biden have to do now? Re-enter into all of these contracts?

Perhaps they need to be renegotiated to achieve an up-to-date agreement that responds to today’s needs, particularly a new treaty to limit nuclear and conventional weapons. Biden needs to prove to the world that he embraces multilateralism as his personal policy. The US should cooperate with the Europeans, the Russians or the Chinese on an equal footing, not just give orders. The US does not like to be a recipient of orders, the Russians do not like that, the Chinese do not want that either. They want to be respected. This mutual respect, which Trump has completely destroyed, must be restored

How would the relationship with the UN have to change?

Biden should try as soon as possible to get the US elected to the UN Human Rights Council. Trump left almost three years ago, and in the process he has upset many states. The USA should pay its overdue contributions to the United States, WHO, UNESCO, etc. Alas, the USA enjoys little popularity at the UN. This is in fact strange, because in 1948 the US lead the way in human rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

How could the US return to that standard?

As I have often said, if the US wants to be respected again, if it wants to be looked up to as a leader of the “free world”– it just has to resume the multilateral human rights work of Eleanor Roosevelt.

Where might Joe Biden have an appeasing effect on conflict?

Implementing the right of peoples to self-determination remains an eminent conflict preventing strategy. After World War II, hundreds of wars were started, not owing to aspiration of peoples to self-determination, but because this fundamental right was unjustly denied. There were the self-determination wars in the Balkans, in the Caucasus, in Sri Lanka in the Western Sahara. And, of course, it is a shame when economic interests take precedence over the right of self-determination of peoples. Many peoples succeeded in achieving their independence, but others tried and were massacred with the complicity of the big economic players in this world of ours. Because there was no interest in the situation of the Tamils, the central government of Sri Lanka was able to massacre them in total impunity. The same happened to the Igbos and the Ogonis in Biafra. They were victims of genocide by the Nigeria government. Here Nigeria had the support of Royal Dutch Shell. There was a lot of money at stake because of the oil in Biafra and the population was to be exterminated.

What then will have to be changed with the new government?

The right of self-determination of peoples should become a guiding principle of the USA. Biden should prove with actions – not only words -- that he wants something different. He would have to reverse the denunciation of the treaties I mentioned earlier. One initiative to do that would be to make a statement at the UN General Assembly: We want to cooperate multilaterally in the future with the UN and with the rest of the world. We want to find peaceful solutions together.

Will he succeed in doing so?

We don't know. The military-industrial-financial complex in the US will probably not let him. Biden should at least have the courage to attempt it, and that could create a new starting point for the United States. But we have to be aware that there are influential lobbies in the US, as President Eisenhower mentioned in his 1961 farewell speech[2] when he warned of the excessive influence of the military-industrial complex. These lobbies are all still around today and have zero interest in changing US policy. However, considering the long term, they too will realize that sooner or later they will have to go a different way. I hope that Biden will succeed in convincing them that a multilateral path in the community of nations makes more sense. They will still make good profits, but when you are already a billionaire, greed will make you covet even more billions. The super-rich in America need to rediscover a sense for proportions which definitely has been lost. Above all, Biden needs to make sure that budget priorities are changed. No one needs a trillion-dollar budget for the military; on the contrary. Tax dollars should be used primarily to create jobs, strengthen teaching, modernize hospitals, and accelerate research and development into preparedness. Had the United States had better budget priorities, we would have been better prepared to fight the corona virus pandemic. Biden must ensure that the people outrank corporate profits. He can also rely on the churches in the US to do that. Indeed, we need a religious and ethical epiphany.

The new US President Joe Biden could therefore set many positive signs for a more peaceful policy, which would certainly have a signal effect on other states.

What would be a noble act that Biden could still perform at the beginning of his presidency?

Biden should immediately end the persecution of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. Assange has done much for the US and for the world. “Whistleblowers” are really necessary human rights defenders. As stipulated in article 19(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, we have a right to seek and impart information, we have a right to know, a right to know what is being withheld from us by our governments. We need to know what has been done by our governments in our name. Covering up crimes is unworthy of the United States. Assange is Australian, and the US should facilitate Assange’s return to his home country. Meanwhile Edward Snowden, who is a very patriotic American, should be able to return to the US – without trial, without punishment, without further persecution. Both are heroes of the 21st century! As I demanded in several of my UN press releases, we need to draft and adopt a Charter of Rights of Whistleblowers.

Professor de Zayas, thank you very much for the interview.

Interview Thomas Kaiser

[1] www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiLnsFyAVqE

[2] www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCEOgamC1p0

The source of all human rights is human dignity

Interview with Prof. Dr. iur. et phil. Alfred de Zayas, international law expert and former UN mandate holder

Zeitgeschehen im Fokus: When we talk about human rights, the question of definition arises? How would you define human rights?

Prof. Dr. Alfred de Zayas Universal human rights form a holistic system of interdependent entitlements and freedoms. “Universal”, however, does not mean homologous, assimilated, or insensitive to cultural particularities. The ubiquitous slogan “All rights are equal” is merely a platitude expressing a lack of a sense of proportion and discernment. There is also something to be learned from the Constitution of Unesco, because acknowledging our common human dignity means to “maintain, increase and diffuse knowledge … by assuring the conservation and protection of the world’s inheritance”. Further, we are bound to preserve “the independence, integrity and fruitful diversity of the cultures”.

Do you think there are more significant and less significant human rights?

Indeed, human dignity, which is the source of all human rights, necessarily determines priorities – a hierarchy based on common sense and mutual respect: First, the right to life, which necessarily means living in dignity, a commitment to promote and protect the sanctity of life, which includes bodily integrity, the right to food, water, housing, health care, freedom from war, or a human right to peace. Second, the right to freely develop one’s personality, that is, the right to be who we are, the right to our identity, the right to determine the priorities of our lives – this essential right of self-determination, free from any artificial constraints imposed by government or society – and as a corollary, the duty to respect the rights of others. In other words, culture and identity are human rights that define the essence of man. But this requires peace. Thus, the Unesco Constitution states, “that since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed”. Surely the practical exercise of our human dignity entails not only material goods, but also the conditions that will make life worth living, first and foremost peace, but also access to information and the opportunity to cultivate our individuality, our identity.

An apt statement that is encouraging. Are human rights conclusively defined?

The codification of human rights has not been completed, as standards must continue to be established to better protect the practical expression and the realization of our human dignity. All human rights can be grouped under the two categories above, with the caveat that the letter of the law must not be politicized in order to undermine the spirit of the law – which is precisely the primacy of the dignitas humana.

What do you mean by the politicization of human rights?

By this I mean that many States, including the United States and its NATO allies, mostly give lip service to human rights and fundamental freedoms, but do not take concrete action to implement them in their own countries or to facilitate their implementation in poorer nations. We have witnessed all to often how human rights have been used as weapons to destabilize geopolitical rivals, how they are instrumentalized to demonize political leaders or governments. We see war-propaganda and sabre-rattling, we see growing xenophobia, Russophobia, Sinophobia, etc., all with ulteriour economic purposes. The corruption of human rights principles to justify wars of aggression is not new. Examples are galore: In 1999, a war of aggression against the Republic of Serbia was waged in the name of human rights and in violation of international law, which was headed by the USA and in its wake NATO. The attack on UN member Iraq in 2003 was also waged under the pretext of protecting human rights. 43 States ostensibly committed to human rights, the infamous “coalition of the willing” participated in this revolt against international law and international order. In Libya, the same thing. To this day, ten years after the NATO attack, Libya is in ruins and tens of thousands of people have lost their lives. This is what I mean by the politicization of human rights.

Does that only manifest itself in wars?

No, we have seen increased activity regarding the imposition of sanctions, especially under the Trump administration. In Cuba, Venezuela, Iran or Syria, which are cooperating with Russia, these sanctions have had a devastating impact, especially on the civilian population, which suffers terribly from these illegal coercive measures. Russia has also been the target of US and EU sanctions, and all countries that continue to cooperate with Russia are to suffer the same fate. The sanctions, which are not issued by the UN, are illegal under international law and must therefore be rejected.

Switzerland has imposed sanctions on the government in Belarus and thus joined the EU. How do you view this from the perspective of neutrality law?

Switzerland should not have done that. By offering its vast experience in mediating international conflicts, Switzerland could have contributed to the solution of the political crisis in Belarus. Switzerland lost an opportunity to take an independent, constructive position instead of joining the EU, which imposed the sanctions on the country for political reasons. Besides the ineffectiveness of the sanctions, it is unworthy of a neutral country like Switzerland to join international mobbing activities that are contrary to the international law principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other States. Switzerland has gambled away the goodwill it still enjoys in many regions of the world.

What achievements are to be welcomed in the development of human rights?

The Human Rights Commission, founded in 1946, has ensured the standardization of human rights – starting with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 (UDMR), followed by the adoption of 10 human rights conventions – for example against torture or against racial discrimination. Then committees of experts were set up to regularly make constructive proposals to the contracting states. The creation of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in 1993 (General Assembly Resolution 48/141 of December 20, 1993) was a very positive development, because the High Commissioner can coordinate the human rights activities of the UN. Particularly important has been the creation of a petition system, whereby individuals can approach the Human Rights Council, the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture, etc., with specific complaints. In particular, the Petitions Team of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which I headed for many years, has done a lot of work. The problem is that this petition department is far too understaffed. Both the Secretariat of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) or the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) are much better served in terms of staff.

What does the existence of the canon of human rights mean for the coexistence of peoples?

The standardization of human rights is the prerequisite for protecting and promoting these rights. One must also affirm these codified rights through teaching in schools and universities. People should know their rights and freedoms so that they can better exercise these rights. They also need to be informed about the mechanisms so that they can take advantage of them. In addition to the expert committees, there are also the special rapporteurs of the Human Rights Council and the working groups, such as the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention of people. These expert committees also help to increase the canon of human rights and apply it in concrete cases. This results in a constantly evolving, living jurisprudence.

How would you describe the positive development of human rights?

The creation of a procedure that empowers an individual to hold a state accountable represents a quantum leap. It is a major reinforcement of human rights. During the time of the League of Nations, there were petitions from minorities that were ignored by governments. Today, we have advanced a little in this regard. The judgments of the European Court of Human Rights are binding. In 2003, for example, Turkey had to pay the Cypriot Titina Loizidou compensation of more than one million Euros, or the country would have been threatened with expulsion from the Council of Europe.

Are all the court’s rulings binding?

The rulings of the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are binding. On the other hand, the decisions of the UN Human Rights Committee, of which I was secretary, or the Committee against Torture, are not binding strictu sensu, but thank God many judgments are actually implemented. Many states, following decisions of the UN Committees of Experts, have changed their legislation accordingly, paid compensation to victims, and released unjustly imprisoned persons.

Isn’t the problem today that the European Court of Justice and the UN committees of experts rule on matters that are beyond their competence?

That is unfortunately true, and so they lose authority and credibility. All judges and experts should understand that they have to stick to the wording of the treaties, and that they should apply human rights in a holistic way and not weaken some rights by interpreting other rights. Unfortunately, there is politics going on here – and some essential rights like the right to family, religion, tradition, identity are being undermined by certain ECtHR rulings. When I was a student at Harvard and thought that I could someday be a judge – not just an advocate – I learned about the wisdom of “juricial restraint”. Alas, many judges simply gallop away with the Zeitgeist.

How could we prevent human rights from being misused for power-political purposes, as you explained at the beginning?

Above all, we need intellectual honesty and professionalism. We know however that the ECtHR, the IAGMR, the UN Human Rights Committee, etc. are run by human beings, and human beings are what they are. Not every “independent expert” is actually independent. Not every judge has a sense for proportions. Human rights are invariably corrupted when they are politicized or applied selectively.

People usually only talk about human rights, but are there also obligations?

Yes, Article 29 of the UDHR it states:

"Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible."

“In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”

“These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

But this also imposes duties on people.

Yes. Thus it is made clear that people also have duties to their fellow human beings. People may exercise their legitimate rights and freedoms only in such a way that the freedom and right of others are not violated. Thus the maxim: “Sic utere tuo, ut alienum non laedas”.

You have advocated the human right to peace in order to prevent wars and to be able to condemn them as a violation of human rights. Has the right to peace been included in the canon?

All the components of the right to peace have been codified, such as the right to life, the right to development, the right to food – for example, Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized” War, however, destroys most human rights. And the powerful states have so far prevented a “human right to peace” from finally being codified and a mechanism to protect and promote this right from being created.

What mechanisms are in place to commit states to human rights?

States have arguably committed themselves, but there is a lack of “good faith” – bona fides – as Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties says: Pacta sunt servanda. Many states apply international law and human rights at will. There are human rights courts and even the International Court of Justice – which also often enough decides on human rights issues – but there is still no guarantee of implementation. However, we must not give up. No doubt, we have made enormous progress since 1945, and we must show perseverance and optimism. Human rights should be a compulsory subject in schools and universities – especially in the training of lawyers and judges. But we know that most universities do not teach ethics – but rather and predominantly only how to make money. That has to change.

What are your immediate hopes for 2021?

Of course, we all want an end to the Coronavirus pandemic and a general economic recovery. But I am very much against the so-called “Great Reset” being proposed by the World Economic Forum. Instead, I think that we should orient ourselves according to the World Social Forum’s Porto Alegre Manifesto. We need a great push-back against the cosmic scam of the “Great Reset”.

Professor de Zayas, thank you very much for the interview.

Interview Thomas Kaiser

2021 RESOLUTIONS

Push-back against the “Great Reset”

by Prof. Dr. Alfred de Zayas

The coronavirus upheaval justifies raising and addressing fundamental questions. Do we want to go back to “business as usual”, do we want to pick up on a dysfunctional economic model? This is a historic opportunity to demand and implement cross-cutting changes in the system, demand that our governments cease wasting our limited resources in wars, missiles, drones, military bases, false flag and other criminal interventions, and instead devote more research and development into preparedness strategies – preparedness to anticipate threats, prevent them where possible or combat the consequences of pandemics, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis or asteroid impacts.

This is the time to draw on the experience of top economists like Jeffrey Sachs, Joseph Stiglitz and Thomas Piketty, and reorient the economy toward a coherent human-security paradigm that leaves no one behind. We can and must demand transparency and accountability from the authorities, whose responsibility it is to convert the economy into a sustainable people-centred institution that creates jobs in the health, education and services sectors.

We must push-back against the embrace of Big Brother, globalism, militarism, totalitarianism, intrusive government surveillance, conformist culture and homologation, thought police and denunciation, fake news from government and the so-called “quality press”, fake law, fake history, censorship and self-censorship.

We must push-back against efforts to turn us into mere numbers, robots, or “consumers”. Inaction against the social virus of conformism and indifference means surrendering the fundamental freedoms and human rights acquis that prior generations won for themselves and for us. This is no time to cop out, deceiving ourselves that things eventually will fall into place. This is the moment to rise up to the challenge, demand reasonable budgetary priorities, laws and regulations that place people above profits, demand ethics in foreign policy, an end to the insane arms race and criminal wars.

All humans have a right to live in peace – not just ourselves, but also all the peoples that our governments assault, exploit and humiliate. We demand that public institutions promote and protect our privacy and family life. Both are under attack in flagrant violation of articles 17 and 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and Article 10 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. We must assert our individual and collective right to our culture, identity and traditions.

We demand from our democratically elected officials that they do what they were elected to do, that they represent us and not only the lobbies or the corporations. The alternative to action is reckless self-delusion. The Romans already knew that mundus vult decipi – the world wants to be deceived. Let us not be deceived by the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset”, the latest scam to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. Even Julius Caesar warned about our blindness and our tendency to believe what we want to believe: Quae volumus, ea credimus libenter (De bello civili, 2, 27, 2).

More than ever in 2021, we must demonstrate the courage of our convictions and learn to articulate our own ideas – notwithstanding the asphyxiating “political correctness” that undermines democratic governance. We need more whistleblowers who reveal the crimes and covers-up of government officials and mercenaries, including in the private sector. We need to vindicate our right to know, as stipulated in article 19(2) of the ICCPR. We need pluralistic news services - and this necessarily entails alternative media. Sapere aude!

“In a democracy the citizen must demand genuine policy choices and a right to shape that policy. Voting for corporate figureheads is not democracy”

Reflections on the US elections

Interview with Prof. Dr. iur. et phil. Alfred de Zayas, international law expert and former UN mandate holder

Zeitgeschehen im Fokus Professor de Zayas, you are an American citizen. What do you think about the course of the election and Joseph Biden's victory?

Prof. Dr. Alfred de Zayas First of all, I would like to say that I have been a member of the Republican Party since 1968. At that time I was a student at Harvard University, and my political persuasion aimed at a social, ethical market economy. Times have changed, and of course I am no longer a “Republican”, although I have not formally abandoned my membership in the Republican Party. I no longer feel any necessity to “root” for any political party. In my opinion, the 2020 campaign was undemocratic, undignified, and spiteful. It was accompanied by a very high level of disinformation, fake news and skewed media coverage. It resembled a football match – and I mean American football (rugby) and not European football (soccer).

What is your position on the Republican and Democratic Party today?

I am beyond both – beyond right wing or left wing. Sometimes I agree with the Republicans, sometimes with the Democrats – and often I am enough against the policies of both. I am happy Donald Trump lost. I am not at all excited about Biden’s victory. The next four years will be Obama redux, a disaster in the making. You can't teach an old dog new tricks – and here I include the whole Democratic Party Old Guard.

Did you participate in the 2020 election?

Yes, I voted – but not for Trump, whom I by no means consider a true Republican – nor for Biden, whom I consider incompetent. I consider Kamala Harris to be extremely dangerous. I took the opportunity to vote for a “write-in candidate” – as provided for on the ballot itself.

Who did you vote for then?

Actually for a female Democrat – member of the House of Representatives for Hawaii – Tulsi Gabbard, who is genuine and speaks her mind. That is why the mainstream media marginalized her.

With this you have expressed something...

...yes, I wanted to express my dissatisfaction with the two-party system and with both candidates. I took a similar approach in 2016, when I voted for neither Trump nor Hillary Clinton. I am tired of the fact that our “democracy” only allows for a choice between plague and cholera.

What do you expect from a Biden/Harris presidency in terms of foreign policy?

A continuation of many of Trump’s policies. In fact, Trump and Biden converge on the essential points – both advocate militarism, unilateralism, big banks, economic sanctions against rivals, arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and blind support for Israel. Biden will hardly bring the US Embassy back to Tel Aviv. And the unjust treatment of the Palestinians will continue.

What will the relationship with Russia and China be like?

I expect as much agitation and war propaganda against China and Russia as during the Trump administration. We will be served with 4 years of vulgar xenophobia, Putin-bashing, Xi-bashing. I also expect even more corrupt of borderline corrupt actions that will enrich the president and his cronies. Joe Biden and his son were already involved in an affair in Ukraine and have (corrupt) relationships there. Further provocations, aggressions and “false flag” productions (for example, first staging the fake use of chemical weapons by the Syrian army and then using this to justify an illegal bombardment) against the governments of Syria, Lebanon and Iran are also to be expected. Let us hope that there will be no major military interventions like in Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011, and hopefully no flagrant “regime change” aggressions or coup d'états in Latin America like in 2019 against Bolivia, and the ridiculous 2019 “Guaidó riots” in Venezuela. Nevertheless, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) will no doubt continue financing opposition parties in countries where the US wants regime change and will continue subverting and destabilizing other countries. Maybe the danger of a third world war has become a little smaller, but we will see.

What do you expect in terms of domestic policy?

I fear even more corporate corruption, white-collar crime and leftist populism, especially in socio-political developments. I expect a deterioration of the situation regarding freedom of opinion – also in the universities, a systematic domestic indoctrination on socio-political issues and total intolerance towards traditional values, Christian ethics, the family and the Catholic Church. The power of the mainstream media will grow, and Orwellian National Security Agency's citizen monitoring will be intensified. We remember Edward Snowden and his warnings of 2013. His book, Permanent Record, published in 2019, reminds us of our slippery slope into the arms of Big Brother.[1]

Where do Trump and Biden differ?

Trump is an elephant in a porcelain shop. He pursues a personality cult – narcissistic, impulsive, megalomaniac. Biden is more moderate and boring. Trump thought he could afford to break several international treaties, to advocate blatant militarism. Biden – like Obama in his days – does imperialist politics with a smile. But under Biden, the exploitation of the world by the US will certainly continue. Only not as blatant and brazen. The “default position” among Trump and Biden is imperialism. Biden will continue meddling in the internal affairs of other states, will continue bullying trade “partners”, try to impose US products on Europe, sabotage Russia’s Nordstream 2, will continue building pipelines through indigenous territory, fracking, etc.

What else can we expect from Biden except a continuation of imperialist policies?

In Biden's case, political correctness in the USA will reach truly Orwellian levels and lead to a weakening of the traditional values and ethical foundations of Christian culture. Censorship practices with Google, Twitter and Amazon will be intensified. Self-censorship will become the “New Normal”. Biden also wants to continue the war against whistleblowers in general – not only against Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.

If you take stock, can you see anything positive in Trump's policy?

His fight against the mainstream media, which he has lost, was an important signal against the omnipotence of the media. They get away with everything, even cutting off a president’s microphone in a discussion. Today people know more about the manipulation by the press. Many in America today know that CNN, the “New York Times” and “Washington Post” are spreading fake news and suppressing crucial information – only few people dared to say this before Trump took on the media. This is certainly something that can be seen as a positive development. He has also placed three excellent judges on the Supreme Court and helped expose the corruption in the “woke” word, including at “Planned Parenthood”.

Where do you see Trump's biggest foreign policy mistakes?

He has continued and even intensified the inhumane and illegal practice of imposing crippling economic sanctions on countries where he wanted “regime change”. Here we should mention the severely affected states such as Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and Iran. But also against Russia and all companies that cooperate with these mentioned states. It is a terrible weapon that Trump operated with. Sanctions kill people! And judging by the hundreds of thousands of victims in the world, this clearly amount of crimes against humanity for purposes of article 7 of the Statute of Rome of the International Criminal Court.

How do you judge his Middle East policy?

It is much influenced by the disregard for all international legal foundations and UN resolutions concerning the Middle East. The absurd “Deal of the century” between Israel and the Palestinians – which must therefore be rejected – as well as the recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights are part of Trump’s arbitrariness, just like the new treaties between the United Arab Emirates and Israel – whereby the rights of the Palestinians are completely disregarded. The so-called “Abraham Accords” or “normalization agreements” are anything but benevolent.

With Trump and his predecessors of every hue we have seen that democratic principles are hardly respected. How could this respect be achieved?

The citizens must demand the right to have greater control over policies, such as budgetary priorities, the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, the sanctions policy, etc. The Swiss state model is much better – the people have the right of initiative, and they practice it, as well as the right of referendum on federal and cantonal laws and projects. This can be introduced without changing the US Constitution. Unfortunately there is no direct democratic tradition in the USA. A referendum culture would first have to be developed, at the municipal and state levels, before it could be introduced nationwide.

Shouldn't we also change something about the electoral system?

We should finally abolish the so-called “Electoral College”. The election should be direct. It was hardly democratic when, for example, Al Gore had many more votes than George W. Bush, and yet Bush became president. The same happened in 2016, when Hillary Clinton had more votes than Trump.

One has the impression that many wars were fought in the last decades of the US presidency. – Is this true?

Yes, both parties are militaristic and interventionist. For example, two Democratic presidents, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, are responsible for the Vietnam War. The aggressions against Grenada and Nicaragua are on Republican Ronald Reagan’s conscience. The Republican George H.W. Bush pushed the “regime change” in Panama, killing 6,000 civilians and staged the 1991 war against Iraq with at least a hundred thousand deaths among the overwhelmed Iraqis. The Democrat Bill Clinton carried out the aggressions in the Balkans, especially the NATO attacks against Yugoslavia, and the mainstream media helped with disinformation and fake news. The Republican George W. Bush is responsible for the genocidal aggression against Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. The Democrat Barak Obama has his hands full of blood because of Libya and Syria, the “regime changes” in Ukraine and a constant drone war against “terrorists”, which countless civilian have fallen victims to.

Were there no American presidents in recent decades who wanted peace?

Although the system always strives for hegemony, some presidents have also tried to promote peace. On the Republican side, President Dwight Eisenhower stopped the aggression of England and France against Egypt in 1956. Eisenhower also recognized the danger to democracy in the “military-industrial complex”. In fact, in his farewell address to the nation in January 1961, he formulated the dire warning and thus coined the term we all use today.[2]

With the Democrats there was none?

On the democratic side, Jimmy Carter tried to enable a just peace between the Israelis and the Arabs. He also wrote two books about this: “We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land” and “Palestine Peace, not Apartheid”. The fact that he was not 100% on the Israeli side probably cost him re-election in 1980. I have had the opportunity to discuss many international law crises with Carter personally at the Carter Center in Atlanta. I consider him ethically the best US president in the last 100 years.

Jimmy Carter and Alfred de Zayas. «I consider him ethically the best US president in the last 100 years.» (picture zvg)

What kind of policy would a president of the USA have to pursue?

He should adhere to Christian ethics and fundamental Christian values, the US Constitution, the UN Charter and international treaties. In terms of foreign policy, this means reviving multilateralism and working with the UN to protect future generations from constant wars, as stated in the preamble of the UN Charter. He should respect the sanctity of life, not instigate wars, but resolve conflicts peacefully through negotiation and compromise. The inviolability of treaties must also be upheld. And when treaties become obsolete, they should be replaced by international negotiation.

Which treaties do you have in mind?

This is particularly important in the case of the treaties on the limitation of nuclear weapons. In fact, this applies to all military programs, including conventional weapons. In 2013 the US signed the UN “Arms Trade Treaty”, but never ratified it. In 2019 President Trump rescinded the US signature. What we need is a treaty to limit the production of weapons, not just their sale. We need to revive START, the Open Skies Treaty and other agreements that Trump threw in the bin. We need total nuclear disarmament and general disarmament so that life-enhancing policies can be pursued, especially in the health sector. In the USA we were totally unprepared for the Covid 19 crisis, partly because the budget priorities in the USA were wrong and research funds were spent on the development of terrible weapons, the so-called lethal autonomous weapon systems or “killing robots” etc. In contrast, research on pandemic prevention, hospital modernization, etc., lagged behind.

What kind of policy would Europe have to adopt towards the USA?

Europe itself should not pursue imperialist or neo-colonial policies in the world. Europe should adhere more to the UN Charter and international law. It should stop applying international law selectively and arbitrarily, stop provoking Russia, stop financing “color revolutions” and stop trying to integrate Ukraine or Georgia into NATO. Europe should lift its own sanctions against Russia, Belarus and Syria. If Europe does so, it will have more credibility in advocating retortion against the USA. Europe should take retaliatory measures if the US presumes to apply US laws extra-territorially, if German or Swiss companies are threatened or punished by the US when doing business with Russia or when building Nordstream 2.

What role can international organizations play here?

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) should issue one or more Advisory Opinions on the illegality of US and EU sanctions policies under international law, and on the responsibility of the US and EU to make reparation to the victims. A resolution would first have to be adopted in the UN General Assembly (according to Article 96 of the UN Charter). The questions of international law must finally be clearly defined, and one must act accordingly.

What possibilities do you see with regard to sanctions policy that is contrary to international law?

The International Criminal Court should initiate an investigation in accordance with Art. 7 of the Rome Statute to ascertain that the economic sanctions against Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, Syria and Venezuela constitute crimes against humanity because they have already caused hundreds of thousands of deaths – through a lack of food and medicine and through the weakening of the health systems of these states, especially today with regard to Covid-19.

This is a loss of all human foundations...

Yes, these economic sanctions can be compared to the murderous siege of cities during the Thirty Years War or the Nazi siege of Leningrad from 1941 to 1944. President Biden should properly finance and participate in good faith in the multilateral activities of the UN specialized agencies including the World Health Organization, Unesco, etc. And the United States should return to the Human Rights Council – because we need the voice of the United States, too. Trump wanted to “make America great again” – I say: To make America respected and maybe even loved again, one would have to revitalize the initiatives and examples of Eleanor Roosevelt and adhere to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are enough decent human rights activists and experts in America – including Professors Noam Chomsky, Jeffrey Sachs, Dan Kovalik, John Quigley, Francis Boyle, among others – but they are not likely to be consulted and certainly not appointed by Biden. I expect “business as usual” – or continued exploitation of the world by Biden and his neo-conservative or neo-liberal team.

You nevertheless see possibilities to improve the coexistence of the peoples?

Yes, that is why the UN and the special organizations were established. Humanity has created countless instruments that could guarantee peaceful coexistence among peoples. We only have to implement them and bring them to bear, and then we could move into a more peaceful future. Europe and the USA have a responsibility to promote and adequately finance these bodies.

What can Trump do until the end of his term?

To make a dignified exit, Trump could immediately stop the persecution of Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and other whistleblowers. An amnesty for all whistleblowers would be the Christian thing to do. I cannot help but think of Richard Strauss’ opera “Der Rosenkavalier” (The Knight of the Rose with a libretto by Hugo von Hofmannsthal), where in the third act the scandalous Baron von Lerchenau loses everything and must exit empty-handed. There the Marschallin tells him: “try to keep your dignity and leave quietly ... only thus can you remain a person of rank -- so to speak.”

As an independent UN expert for the promotion of a democratic and just international order, you have worked hard for a more peaceful coexistence of peoples. Your speeches before the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council were received with applause, which is highly exceptional. What personal feedback was there from States, and how did the USA, your country of origin, behave?

When I was Special Rapporteur (2012-2018), I was in constant contact with many ambassadors in Geneva, especially ambassadors from Latin America, Africa and Asia. There was a mutual, even friendly exchange of ideas and initiatives, and I always insisted on my independence. I constantly tried to inform my ambassador from the United States, and regularly provided the US Mission in Geneva with reports and suggestions. I also tried to maintain good contacts with the European ambassadors as well as with the ambassadors of Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, etc., among others at social events and panel discussions. It was clear to me, of course, that the European Union did not quite appreciate my independence. They would have liked me to sing their song.

What were the reactions when your mandate ended?

After I had ended my mandate, I was encouraged by many ambassadors to make myself available for other UN assignments. I did this twice, my candidacy was put on the first short list, I was interviewed by 5 ambassadors for 50 minutes each time. The interviews went well – but I was not appointed. This is understandable, because I am not a “blank slate” anymore and my reports to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly have not only garnered applause. Of course I remain closely attached to the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, where I entertain many friendships, and I am ready to serve the cause again. But, as I said, the independence of the experts is hardly in demand in many states.

Professor de Zayas, thank you for the interview

Interview Thomas Kaiser

[1] Edward Snowden: Permanent Record. My story, S. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2019, ISBN 978-3-10-397482-9

[2] www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg-jvHynP9Y

There must be a rule-based order – Donald Trump destroys the very nature of law

Interview with Prof. Dr. iur. et phil. Alfred de Zayas, international law expert and former UN mandate holder

Zeitgeschehen im Fokus How are the US action and Iran's reaction to it to be assessed under international law?

Professor Dr. Alfred de Zayas American politicians like Donald Trump or Mike Pompeo repeatedly emphasize that they wanted a “rules based international order”¹. In fact, they have been destroying it for several years now, and have again done so with the attack in Baghdad. In fact, we have had a rules-based international order since the adoption of the UN Charter, the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the UN Human Rights Covenants and several other UN agreements

All this is ignored by the Trump Administration.

Yes, if you start to put yourself above the international order and ignore it, chaos will ensue. This is what we face now, and it is highly dangerous. The rules-based international order is weakened – not killed – when powerful countries like the United States, the United Kingdom and many other States that give lip service to international law break it with impunity.

When chaos reigns, there's nothing to abide by...

Yes, then there is the possibility, for example, of being hit by a drone even in your own house. So all people who do not like Obama or Trump can be eliminated – not in war after a declaration of war, but in peacetime by US command. The US has long rejected the constraints of the rule of law – both domestically and internationally – and moves about in a state of complete impunity, because it possesses the technical and military capacity.

What does this mean for states in which the USA demands "regime change"?

These states must strengthen their survival capabilities, also in the light of the media-war, build their defences – military, economic, technical – and use law against aggression, because all States have this right pursuant to Article 51 of the UN Charter. Of course, reaction means escalation and this can lead to disasters such as the one we have just seen.

Are you thinking of the downing of a plane at Teheran’s airport?

In a state of high alert after the illegal US drone attack on Baghdad’s airport and the murder of Iranian and Iraqi officials, the Iranian defenses mistook the plane for a drone and the officer in charge² only had a time span of ten seconds to react. Such tragic mistakes can happen when the US has again and again broken the “rules-based international order” in through illegal interventions in Sudan, Syria, Bolivia, Venezuela, and of course Iran.

In this context it is interesting to recall a very close-call that happened some years ago. In 1983 the Soviet officer Stanislaw Petrov³ was faced with a dilemma. His computers indicated that the US had fired intercon-tinental ballistic missiles against Russia. Petrov decided not to respond to the report received from Soviet satellites because he did not want to believe in that attack. He had 10 minutes – not ten seconds – to react. He decided to wait until the Soviet radar system had confirmed the missiles. But it was a false report, a computer-glitsch, and the officer had thus saved the world from nuclear war. Unfortunately, the Iranian officer only had 10 seconds to decide to shoot down the drone – and this in a very tense situation.

Now Iran is internationally condemned and held responsible for the launch. Is that how you see it?

The attitude of the USA to destabilize other states, to spread chaos, has now put Iraq and Iran on high alert. Both countries have to fear further attacks – at any time. That is why mistakes like the downing of the Ukrainian passenger plane are happening.

Who is responsible for this extreme tension?

Responsibility is borne by the US President and all those involved in the assassination of Kassem Soleimani. They have committed criminal offences susceptible to universal jurisdiction. Iran and Iraq would be well advised to bring the matter before the International Criminal Court and demand the opening of an investigation. Moreover, the UN General Assembly can adopt a resolution elevating the matter to the International Court of Justice requesting an advisory opinion on the illegality of US actions and the legal consequences of US aggression and targeted assassinations.

Does this mean that the US is responsible for this further development?

The US is, of course, responsible for the Soleimani assassination and for the consequences of its Wild West gangsterism, which invariably leads to escalation and tragedy. Trump has even threatened to destroy 52 targets – including cultural sites – in Iran. Attacks against cultural sites have been classified as war crimes for more than a hundred years and are expressly forbidden by the Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Geneva Additional Protocols of 1977, among others. Iran has two dozen sites registered by UNESCO as world heritage sites, including Persepolis and Isfahan. The destruction of such sites would be barbarism and could easily be compared to the Taliban blowing up the Buddha statues of Bamiyan in 2001 or the destruction of temples and cultural sites in Iraq and Syria, such as in 2015 in Palmyra by the IS. Trump is using a terrorist rhetoric and bringing international order down to the level of these barbarians. What is particularly worrisome is that this kind of outlawry is quasi being accepted as “business as usual”. Where is the outrage of the “good nations”? Qui tacet consentire videtur!

What could be done about this?

Violations of international order must be unequivocally condemned by all civilised politicians in Switzerland, Germany, France, etc. It is not just a problem of breaching international law here and there. We are actually witnessing a frontal attack on the rule of law, a breach of civilisation.

United States military action directed against cultural sites, must be prevented at all costs. When rules no longer apply, the jungle law prevails. For the survival of humanity, there must be a rule-based international order. For those who break these rules, civil and penal liability must follow. But that is not happening today. People like Pompeo and Trump behave like outlaws. Trump makes me think of Roman emperors who considered themselves as a “legibus solutus”, exempt from any and all laws. This is the expression that applied to the Roman emperors, because they put themselves above the laws. Of course, many of them ended badly.

How should one judge the US attack at Baghdad’s airport under international law?

It is an international crime, but not a “war crime” as such, because there is no war as such, no declaration of war, only State terrorism. We have a violent action in a so-called allied state. Iraq today is the product of the illegal invasion by the USA in 2003. Iraq is not a sovereign state, but a vassal state. US military action was carried out in this vassal state without informing the government in Iraq, let alone asking for permission to use drones against Suleimani.

Who is legally responsible for this?

The chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, the Gambian lawyer Fatou Bom Bensouda, should definitely investigate these crimes. It is also interesting to see who was involved. For it is likely that there was a co-responsibility on the part of other NATO states, which to a certain extent provided logistical support. Not all the facts are known at all. We only get incomplete information.

Is there any justification under international law for this attack?

No, targeted assassinations are State outlawry. Murdes remains murder. An “execution” can only be ordered by a court of law, and this only after a trial with all guarantees under the rule of law. This is also the opinion of the UN Special Rapporteur, Professor Agnes Calamard. But the US has demonized Suleimani⁴ to make his murder more palatable to world public opinion. Both Mike Pompeo and Donald Trump – and Mike Pence have branded Soleimani a criminal. But this designation would be legitimate only if backed up by conclusive evidence.

What if they had actually had evidence...

If the man was indeed a terrorist, an international arrest warrant should have been issued. The US should have adhered to the Convention on the Prevention, Prosecution and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents, the Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, or even the Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, among others. There are ways to prosecute terrorists. This is not the path that has been followed. There is the private terrorism of the IS, and there is the state terrorism of the USA.

Who else could take action in this situation?

The UN General Assembly can request the International Court of Justice to define the legal consequences for the conduct of the US. It could also adopt a resolution under Article 96 of the Charter and request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the issue: What are the consequences of the USA’s violations of international law and how much reparations must it pay to the victims – including the victims of the illegal invasion, bombing and occupation of Iraq in the 2003 war? The murder of Suleimani constitutes a breach of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Iraq and Iran also have the right to self-defence and the right to adequate reparations.

Was Iran’s reaction adequate?

The Iranian attack on US bases in Iraq was, in my view, proportional. This would be considered as legitimate reprisal under international law.

How does the downing of the Ukrainian passenger plane fit in?

This is of course a huge mistake, it is a tragedy, because 176 people lost their lives. It must also be remembered that Iran certainly did not want to kill its own people – 82 passengers were Iranians – a fact that has not been sufficiently highlighted by the mainstream media. Here I would like to emphasize the responsibility of the United States for the escalation and provocation. It is not only the use of force, but also the persistent threat of the use of force, which is prohibited in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. It is through the deliberate destabilisation of Iran that the tragedy has happened. It must be said, however, that unlike the USA and other states that have killed innocent people, Iran has apologised for the tragedy.

What do you think of the media coverage of Iran?

The government of the mullahs is a theocracy, not a democracy. Ayatollah Khomeini bears responsibility for many crimes against the Iranian people, including the massacre of 30,000 political opponents in 1988. Unfortunately, the Iranians have not had a good government since the USA overthrew the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953, and then only deployed puppets until the Islamic revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini took place in 1979. Iranians have suffered much under Shah Reza Pahlevi and now under the mullahs. Here the USA also bears some responsibility. The best thing would be for the USA to finally withdraw from the Middle East, because it has only caused much suffering and irreparable harm in Afghanistan, Palestine, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, etc.

You do not think that the USA will withdraw?

No, I do not think so either. However, in order to legitimise the alleged need for an American presence in the Middle East, every day we are given pseudo news and manipulation in the mainstream press. The CIA is undoubtedly a “fake news” factory, and even Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former head of the CIA, admitted in a television interview: “We lied, we cheated, we stole”. He said so in a conversation at Texas A&M University, which you can listen to in youtube.

Professor de Zayas, thank you very much for the interview.

1 www.unaa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/UNAA_RulesBasedOrder_ARTweb3.pdf

2 www.moonofalabama.org/2020/01/irans-missile-launch-against-two-us-bases-in-iraq-calls-trumps-bluff.html?cid=6a00d8341c640e53ef0240a500df3c200b#comment-6a00d8341c640e53ef0240a500df3c200b

3 www.spiegel.de/geschichte/stanislaw-petrow-der-mann-der-die-welt-rettete-ist-tot-a-1168721.html

4 www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkRSXW4swFk

"This emergency case rule is both not legally valid and it’s also illegitimate politically and historically"

Interview with Ertuğrul Kürkçü, member (HDP) of the Turkish Grand National Assembly and member in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

Zeitgeschehen im Fokus What is the reason that Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has prolonged the state of emergency for the seventh time? What is his intention to act in such a way?

Ertuğrul Kürkçü The state of emergency in Turkey is not simply a reaction or a resistance against a failed coup d’état but it is rather a tool for Tayyip Erdoğan in order to prepare the ground for his emergency case state. Therefore, we cannot speak about emergency case in legal terms. But we should consider it as a political issue. The pretext for the declaration of the emergency case is also fabricated by Tayyip Erdoğan and his government.

Why is this so?

We now understand that they had all the information about the coup preparations. Therefore they waited for them to be acted out in order to be able to declare the state of emergency.

What was their intention?

The state of emergency gives them the right to rule the country by decrees and to derogate from the Turkish constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Convention. They are issuing decrees which are not immediately related with the imminent threat as foreseen by law. They have been ruling the country and issued decrees on every aspect of social and political life. Therefore, this emergency case rule is both not legally valid and it’s also illegitimate politically and historically.

You said Erdoğan was informed about the planning of the coup d’état. What are the evidences for this valuation?

First of all, there are witnesses. Some Russian journalists and politicians declared, that they have informed the Turkish government of a possible coup d’état two days before it happened, and that was never denied. The second thing is those immediate informal explanations of what was happening. The government officials responsible for defending the government against the coup made formal explanations to our deputies in the parliament that the situation was as a reaction by the Gülen-Movement for the presumed purges in the military - and in the police and in the judiciary as well – as scheduled for annual military assignments and promotions in August. This explains why the Prime Minister in the first hours while the coup was already in progress said: «We are now facing a military insurrection». He didn’t use the term «coup». Another very symptomatic indication is that the first action taken by the government on the day after the coup attempt was to purge 2,700 judges. After a military insurrection or a coup, the first thing you can and you should do is to purge judges or soldiers? Obviously they had already made the preparations for the purge and were marking their time for the most available pretext to appear.

What is the conclusion you draw in view of these facts?

This means and proves that they had already filed lists of state-officials, progressive or dissident judges, military officers, academics etc. whom they had queued for purging. The inconsistent and ever fluctuating personal narrative of Tayyip Erdoğan himself on his whereabouts, the ministers’ and Prime Minister’s whereabouts is another major flaw in the government’s version of the course of events in the 15 – 16 July events-

It is very curious that on Friday evening no major ruling party and government figure was in Ankara. Furthermore, all the top commanders had gone to a wedding in Istanbul. This is another clue that the top brass should have been anticipating “something” extraordinary and taken measures in order to keep themselves outside of the plot as targets or keep a distance from responsibility should that coup fail.

The last issue is that the government and the majority in the Parliament, the government party barred the parliamentary inquiry commission from concluding a parliamentary investigation on the coup process. They didn’t call Tayyip Erdoğan before the parliamentary inquiry commission. The army chief of staff didn’t appear before the commission. The secret services chair didn’t appear before the commission. Without listening the major actors, the commission issued a very controversial report with reservations from the HDP and the main opposition party CHP. The inquiry commission narrative refrains from discussing the inconsistencies of Tayyip Erdoğan’s personal narrative. He has changed his first statement about the coup at least four times. At first, he said he got the information about the ongoing coup attempt from “my brother in law”. Then he said: “The MIT (national intelligence organization) chair informed me”. Then he said: “I got the information from the army chief of staff”. All at a different time. We, at least, can say the president’s narrative is not consistent, and it is marred by contradictions and controversial. This gives us the opportunity to construct our own narrative. And this is our narrative.

What was the aim of the coup d’état?

This coup is an abortive one. The first thing we can say is that they had no clear target. They had no effective means. They didn’t have an organization, so it gives us the impression that they might even be provoked for staging a coup. One story is that the army chief of staff had lit the green light for them for a coup but then moved back. This is one of the scenarios we can speak about. We can say that there was no clear target. When we look at their manifesto, we see a combination of concerns of political rights combined with concerns of security issues. The manifesto lacks a coherent logic and a framework. It gives us no idea about their intentions.

This fits to what I thought when I watched the television reports about the coup. This is not professional, but what is it? I had the impression of a lose arrangement.

In both ways. The attempt was nonprofessional, and the reaction was nonprofessional. Even after six hours the coup operation extended across Turkey, the armed forces chief of staff didn’t even think about ordering the soldiers to stay in their barracks. It started in the afternoon and only after 12 o’clock at midnight, the army was ordered to stay in the barracks. It is very interesting that the ruling APK grassroots organizations displayed and even more active reaction. The civilians were gathering before the army barracks. Ask any ordinary person in Istanbul where is the first barracks in Istanbul he cannot tell you. But this AKP people knew where they had to go, in Istanbul, in Ankara and elsewhere. They were directed before the barracks by police officers. The first places that they gathered were the police stations in their neighbourhoods and their vicinities. This gives us the impression that the AKP had previously exercised a simulation of a preemptive operation. This is my opinion.

Is there a public discussion about the events in Turkey?

No, all this is not publicly discussed in Turkey because the AKP both in political and journalistic means keeps the opposition under pressure and avoids a public discussion of alternative versions of the coup attempt. You are immediately defamed and singled out so that people are frightened. But among the people there is a general feeling that 15 July was a fake coup and a fake pretext for declaring an emergency case rule. This is a very widely shared idea across Turkey.

For you it is not dangerous to speak so openly about this?

Yes, there are some dangers. But if you don’t dare to speak the truth, so why are you a politician?

Mr. Kürkçü, thank you for this interview

Interview by Thomas Kaiser, Strasbourg

“I remain convinced that a democratic and just international order is indeed possible“

Interview with Professor Dr iur. et phil. Alfred M. de Zayas

Professor Dr jur. et phil. Alfred de Zayas (picture thk) (Kopie) (Kopie) — Professor Dr jur. et phil. Alfred de Zayas (picture thk)

What is your experience as Special Rapporteur of the United Nations?

For the last six years, I have done my best to promote the practical implementation of human rights, but also to clarify the conditions for their realization, to identify the obstacles and propose possible solutions. In doing so, it was important to keep the right priorities in mind – peace and human dignity.

As the first rapporteur in this office, I strove to shed light on norms and doctrine in order to elucidate the scope and implications of concepts such as democracy and justice – while avoiding the temptation of following the fashion, or what I call the “flavour of the month”.

How did you apply your mandate?

I took the opportunity to give life to the six pages of Human Rights Council Resolution 18/6, applying it in concrete situations, thus demonstrating holistically how all civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights converge. The idea of a democratic and just world order has been the subject of many United Nations resolutions for several decades now, going back to the legendary Resolution on a New International Economic Order of 1974 (1 May 1974, A/RES/S-6/3201)

How did this mandate come about?

The function of the independent expert was created in September 2011 by the Human Rights Council, and I was appointed by the Council on 1 May 2012. Since then I have published 14 reports – 13 related to specific topics and one on my mission in Venezuela and Ecuador.

What is the international order based on?

The international order is that of multilateralism.The constitution of the World is the Charter of the United Nations, and its priorities are life, peace, family, culture, development.I insist on the spirituality and immanence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – which was adopted 70 years ago– and further developed in International Human Rights Conventions.

What does a “democratic order” mean to you?

A democratic order means the correlation between the people’s will and the laws and policies that affect them - i.e. a direct or semi-direct democracy as in Switzerland is the most authentic.

What distinguishes an equitable order?

An equitable order includes a fair distribution of the common heritage of mankind as envisaged in the Charter of the United Nations and in the Declaration of the Right to Development.

What is the function of a rapporteur?

A rapporteur or independent expert (actually the same) is a professional who must remain impartial, judge independently and try to promote human rights through mediation, negotiation and constructive recommendations

What qualities should a rapporteur possess?

A rapporteur must be above all an “honest broker”, an honest negotiator and mediator, one who suggests viable solutions. The mainstream media and even the Council itself expect from us to play an antagonistic/intransigent role – like that of a gladiator. And worse, sometimes they expect from us to condemn certain states, but remain silent about others. The pressure is clearly noticeable – initiated by the zeitgeist, the media, the lobbies, but also by non-governmental organizations with their own agendas.However, we have a Code of Conduct and must act independently of any pressure or intimidation.

Isn’t that difficult, because many people are “advocating” human rights?

Yes , unfortunately, there is a veritable «human rights industry» and some rapporteurs do not always act objectively – These rapporteurs are opportunists who use human rights for their careers and enjoy being applauded for that. In civil society organizations there are those whom I dare call «mercenaries of human rights» - Condottieri.

Doesn’t this lead to a misuse of human rights?

Yes, I disapprove especially of the arrogance of those reporters who pretend that the magic solution is to be found in the game of “Naming and Shaming”.They do as if the only thing we need to do is to identify the culprits and then denounce and demonize them.

Is this methodology promising?

In my opinion, this approach is naive and counterproductive.There is nothing that is further apart from the real solution to complex human rights problems.Our task must be to listen, to learn, to look for the causes of problems.If we orientate ourselves on the results, then we reject this idea of “naming and shaming”, because – in order to be able to embarrass someone – we must be beyond suspicion ourselves.As long as the state which we “name and shame” does not recognize us as a moral authority, everything we say will be rejected as irrelevant. We must be oriented towards the results instead, and do everything possible to help the victims of human rights violations, to give them hope, to pay tribute.

To make the mandate a conciliatory ...

Yes, we need to team up with the state and its officials on an equal footing, horizontally, not vertically. We must not talk to States from our high horses, but engage them in a spirit of cooperation rather than mere condemnation.

How did your mission in Venezuela and Ecuador proceed?

The mission was a success and showed concrete results– for example, the organizations of the United Nations that are on the ground in Venezuela and Ecuador, have intensified their cooperation with the government.I think that the United Nations can help the people thanks to their experience, their counselling services and their technical support.Although I am not a super rapporteur, I passed on requests to competent colleagues and have interceded with ministers on behalf of numerous victims.

This is a remarkable achievement; have you realized any further impact of your mission?

In Venezuela, 80 prisoners were released shortly after my mission.My report is ready now –57 pages including 10 attachments and 189 footnotes. It should be published soon – it is now in the hands of the United Nations editors.

You hit “a hot topic” with it; was there no reaction?

Of course, before, during, and after the mission, I suffered attacks on my person –a vulgar level of intimidation, harassment and threats on Facebook and on the part of the “Twitterati”.These people do not understand human rights as an expression of human dignity, but rather as a weapon of war, as a method of defamation and demonization.I call this the “weaponization” of human rights.

What kind of goals do these people pursue?

These people do not want an independent investigation – they just want the condemnation of the State.I, on the other hand, want to help the Venezuelan people, and this requires working with the government and ensuring that other governments end the economic war and lift the sanctions, which have resulted in many deaths due to malnutrition and lack of medicines. There is no doubt about it: economic sanctions kill.

How should the sanctions be judged under international law?

Some sanctions, such as arms embargoes, can be legitimate if the aim is to create an atmosphere of dialogue.By contrast, economic sanctions that seek to strangle a state and cause the deaths of many innocent people through starvation or lack of medicine are incompatible with the spirit and letter of the UN Charter. Already in the year 2000, the United Nations Sub-Commission on Human Rights publicly declared such sanctions as incompatible with human dignity and destructive of human rights.Since 2015, a Special Rapporteur, Idriss Jazairy, has been investigating the consequences of sanctions and the need to secure reparations to the victims.

How do you judge that Switzerland joins the sanctions against Venezuela?

For me as a newly minted Swiss inhabitant, it is a scandal, and completely incompatible with Switzerland’s neutrality rule ... Switzerland should instead try to mediate between government and opposition.

What do you feel when you think of the time as a rapporteur?

Gratitude for the opportunity to serve the cause of human rights.I thank my assistant(s), I thank many colleagues, and I also thank some media outlets, which offered me an occasional platform.But I will keep going, not as a rapporteur, butas Professor at the Geneva School of Diplomacy I will continue to teach human rights and will also be invited from different universities over and again, and I will continue to attend UN events.I remain convinced that great progress has been made since 1945 and that a democratic and just international order is indeed possible.For the realization of human rights, we have to prove patience, perseverance and passion.

Professor de Zayas, thank you very much for the interview.

Interview by Thomas Kaiser, Geneva

Translation Zeitgeschehen im Fokus

Venezuela: Clean copy of the revised version without track changes

Interview with Prof. Dr jur. et phil. Alfred de Zayas

Professor Dr jur. et phil. Alfred de Zayas (picture thk) (Kopie) — Professor Dr jur. et phil. Alfred de Zayas (picture thk)

«The sanctions must be terminated and the economic war must end»

Interview with Professor Dr iur. et phil. Alfred M. de Zayas, UN Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order.

From 26 November to 4 December 2017, Professor Dr Alfred M. de Zayas carried out an official mission in Venezuela. He had requested an invitation in August, which the Venezuelan Government granted in September, making him the first UN rapporteur since 1996 to be invited and to conduct an official UN visit to Venezuela. The purpose of the mission was to explore how the Bolivarian Revolution had implemented human rights – especially in the economic, social and cultural domain. It was his special concern to compare the coverage in the mainstream media of the United States and Europe with the Venezuelan reality on the ground. In order to get a sufficiently objective picture, the UN expert met with representatives and activists of 35 non-governmental organizations specializing on human rights issues, with representatives of industry and commerce, members of the opposition National Assembly, with Church officials, with victims of violent demonstrations and with relatives of detainees. Apart from meetings with a large number of government ministers, he met twice with Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza and his staff. During his stay he could move freely, as has already been reported in «Zeitgeschehen im Fokus» (n. 18, 23/12/2017). He also gave a lecture at the University of Caracas. In the following interview, the UN expert reports about his impressions and experience in Venezuela.

Zeitgeschehen im Fokus: How would you assess the economic situation in Venezuela after you have stayed there?

Professor Alfred de Zayas The Bolivarian Revolution, which has taken place in Venezuela, developed a model that worked rather well in the first 10 years. That was partly due to the high oil price. Venezuela depends on oil revenues by 95 %. With these revenues, the state could finance many social projects. But now that the oil price has dropped by more than the half, the country faces massive disruptions in the acquisition and distribution of food, medicines and other products.

What distinguishes the model in Venezuela?

It is a social model that wants to achieve a fairer distribution of the country’s wealth. Meanwhile, 2 million homes have been handed over to the poorer part of the population. Thus at least 8 million persons have benefitted from affordable apartments. There is also the so-called system of CLAP (Comité Local de Abastecimiento y Producción – Local Committee for supply and production), in which the government distributes food parcels to the poor. Those who cannot pay for the packages, receive them for free, of course.

What does such a parcel contain?

I did open one when I was visiting one of the modern and very clean «Urbanizaciones» (government housing for the poor). There are 16 kg of food in it: sugar, rice, cooking oil, flour, cornmeal, milk powder, etc. A family gets such a parcel twice a month. Therefore, there is no “famine” in Venezuela, despite media reports and generalizations. There is, however, a shortage in several sectors, and some products are hard to get, but the population does not suffer from hunger as for example in many countries of Africa and Asia – or even in the favelas of São Paolo and other urban areas in Brazil and other Latin American countries. There are mainly problems in the timely distribution of imported products – but this is predominantly the responsibility of the private sector, which often enough deliberately boycotts the distribution, sometimes stocks products in large warehouses and then takes them to the black market instead of delivering them to supermarkets -- just to make a higher profit.

What is special about the «Bolivarian Revolution»?

It is an alternative model to capitalism, to unregulated free market economics. It is not «Marxism», and certainly not «Marxism-Leninism». It is an attempt to give the capitalist system a humane face. Since 1999, when Hugo Chávez came to power, a certain reorientation of the country took place, which could set a precedent for Latin America and many developing economies. There are major achievements, which the mainstream media systematically ignores – e.g. illiteracy was eliminated within shortest time (as was the case in Castro’s Cuba). School education is free, from kindergarten to university. There is a system of free medical care, a system of support for young mothers, a major effort at building affordable housing and expanding the public transport system.

Today, if you read the New York Times or «inform» yourself about Venezuela on CNN or UN Watch etc., you repeatedly come across the concept of a “humanitarian crisis” ...

... I warn against this technical term, because a «humanitarian crisis» can be easily exploited to justify a so-called “humanitarian intervention” or to aim at a “regime change”, under the pretext that the government lets the population starve. Some states pretend that the Venezuelan government can no longer guarantee the rights of the people. Hence, a humanitarian crisis emerged and now they want to intervene militarily to «save» the Venezuelan people from a failed socialist experiment.

What is the situation on the ground?

I stayed in Venezuela for 8 days of intensive meetings back-to-back; I could move around freely wherever I wanted. I did not see any street children and I also did not see any person begging. I have not seen a single beggar in Caracas although I walked and drove across the entire city. I also walked by the poorer quarters, where I did see queues of people waiting for some subsidized or rationed products. The situation has many facets, and I do not claim that there is no hunger and no scarcity of medicine. I simply say that the existing cases of children dying of malnutrition or lack or medicine do not add up to a «humanitarian crisis». I did not see any violence, although the press keeps telling us about it. As a UN official I have been in many places where you «smell» violence, where you sense tension in the air and feel that you yourself may be in danger. That is not the case in Venezuela. There are homicides – many of them associated with drugs and international crime. Honduras is much worse.

People who beg are the order of the day in our western industrial nations. No-one would think of talking about a humanitarian crisis, for example in Germany, because there are beggars in the streets.

In Venezuela, I did not see beggars. No doubt, there is poverty, but the population is not depressed – certainly not in the same degree as the people of East Germany in the 70s, where people were dispirited and demotivated and went about with pale faces, sad and depressed. The population in the streets of Caracas is Latino in the best sense of the term, they make the best of things and do not let scarcity and boycotts turn them into zombies. Just like in any other city; everywhere there are cars, motorcycles and bicycles on the road.

Can the people supply themselves with food?

There are enough fruits and locally-grown vegetables. People eat bananas or mangoes in the streets. There is a certain lack of the products that the domestic and foreign monopolies determine.

What is the situation like in the supermarkets?

I have seen several food stores and markets – and I took photos of them. It is not true that the food stores are empty. Of course, some have empty shelves – I got such pictures from non-governmental organizations (NGOS) – but there was always enough of everything. Of course, there are some products that are imported because Venezuela cannot manufacture them itself. They are scarce commodity. But you can live very well without these products. The fact that the supply of hygienic items for women or diapers for the babies are scarce is a direct result of the failure of the private sector to import these goods and to distribute them to the supermarkets. However, you can get everything on the black market – but at exorbitant prices.

Is a specific shortage created there to stir up the people’s dissatisfaction with the government?

There are studies and statistical data from several university professors who investigated this phenomenon – especially why and how supply shortfalls are getting worse, especially when elections or referendums are imminent. They are supposed to affect people negatively, so that they vote against the government. This is called “voto castigo” (penalty vote) in Spanish. If you read an article from the New York Times, it will say that there are bottlenecks in supply in Venezuela, for example also for medicines. However, you will not read anywhere why this is so. You will not read anywhere that the private sector does have the foreign exchange to import the necessary medicines. This is not said. It is not also said that a huge smuggling has emerged for subsidized products – subsidized Venezuelan rice or flour can be bought in Bogotá.

What are the reasons for these phenomena?

There are a number of reasons, which I was able to observe during my stay. I have to study them in more detail. I was given an extended documentation from various sources that I still have to digest. There are also very good books about this topic. An economist in Caracas, Professor Dr Pasqualina Curcio, carefully explained in her book how the economic war against Venezuela caused this situation of shortage, and that was no accident – it was deliberate, absolutely targeted. In the period around the elections - approximately two or three months earlier – the goods suddenly disappear. Especially hygiene items cannot be purchased any longer. However, warehouses were discovered, and that is also documented, that were full of these products. I was also given a pictured documentation on the matter.

Do you mean that shortages are artificially generated?

Yes, the goods are often not delivered to the supermarkets but traded on the black market at exorbitant prices. There are, of course, institutional problems and multiple inefficiencies in the socialistic model, about which I made concrete recommendations to the government. Yet another problem, which I discussed with several ministers, is the unnecessary price controls and artificial exchange rates – this all results in corruption and abuse. The government should instead give the most vulnerable persons direct financial support, rather than making use of a price control.

Why that?

The danger of price controls, as we know from the Soviet Union, is that parallel markets emerge and with them large-scale corruption. People are people, and if they can buy subsidized goods, the temptation to resell these subsidized goods at a higher price is too big. You can make a killing with subsidized corn flour, with subsidized rice, which you can then smuggle into Colombia, Brazil, Aruba and sell it there at great profit. Venezuela has a very long border with Colombia and Brazil. The Caribbean Islands are easily accessible, too.

Who is responsible for this process?

There is an internationally organized mafia that operates the process, but apparently the governments of the neighbouring countries do nothing to stop this smuggling. If a store in Bogotá offers cheap rice from Venezuela, we should assume that the traders know where the rice comes from: It is either stolen or smuggled. In any case it was brought into the country illegally. The government does nothing – or too little – against these supermarkets. Moreover, Colombia allows the Venezuelan currency to be changed at wildly fluctuating rates of exchange. This has devastating effects on the economy and financial situation in Venezuela.

What about agricultural production in the country?

Diversified agricultural production is now being systematically promoted, but this is a process that takes time and requires importing seeds and other goods. Venezuela no longer wants to be exclusively dependent on oil exports and wants to produce its own food. However, the procurement of seeds is in the hands of foreign monopolists, and the government has difficulties in obtaining seeds at decent prices.

To what extent do sanctions have an impact on the supply situation?

Direct and indirect sanctions have hit the economic situation in Venezuela seriously. The economic, financial and trade war against Venezuela reminds of the US measures against the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile in 1970-73 and against the Sandinista government of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua in the 1980s.

Deliveries from abroad are traded in dollars. However authorized persons must sign for the payment in dollars. Many of the persons who have this right to sign are on the sanctions list. This means that no trading partner dares to accept their signature. Thus, the company cannot earn any money because no payment can be made, and the goods do not come to Venezuela. The suppliers are afraid that they will be penalized by US authorities – with fines of tens of thousands of dollars if they fail to comply with the unilateral sanctions regime of the United States.

For which goods or sectors do the sanctions apply?

That is the next problem. Nobody really knows how far they reach. They are based on so-called catch-all clauses, which can be interpreted one way or the other. But who wants to have to pay a fine? So many international companies are prudent and do not take unnecessary risks. For Venezuela this is devastating.

What would help the country?

The sanctions must be terminated. The economic war has to end, that would be the greatest help for the country. However, what we can observe in Venezuela is the result of a targeted economic war. There are many countries participating, even from Europe. The misinformation about Venezuela has been successful – even with people who should be better informed. You have to be on the spot to see that the situation is not like you read in The New York Times. If you look at the mainstream media, you get the impression that the country is close to collapse. In fact, the country is rich and with a bit of cooperation and solidarity it could sell its oil, its gold, its bauxite well. Venezuela must now trade a lot with China and India because of the very limited trade with the US and Europe.

Is the oil trade also subject to the sanctions?

Yes, partly. The sanctions are very complex. It is not the case that a sale cannot be done at all, but it is connected with so many obstacles, and there are so many restrictions and delays that many people say, «We would rather not do business with Venezuela, there is too much imponderability.»

During your stay you could certainly talk to the population. What impression have you gained here?

Many are somewhat resigned because they suffer from an economic war. But when it comes to elections, Maduro wins. The majority of the population does not make the government responsible for all that, but they accuse the United States, Europe, Colombia, etc. When the Constituent Assembly was elected, there had been very violent demonstrations prior to the election for four months. In the foreign media we read about those «peaceful» demonstrations. In fact, these were orgies of violence with Molotov cocktails and explosives. It was almost terrorism that hit many normal, non-political people when, for example, a supplier wanted to get from A to B, but the «guarimbas» (violent demonstrations with barricades) blocked his path. Several ordinary people were killed, who only wanted to go about their business. In addition, demonstrators attacked hospitals, nursery schools, burned ambulances and buses in order to intimidate the people. Is this not just classic terrorism?

Did the demonstrations succeed with these methods?

No, 8.5 millions of people went to the polls for the Constituent Assembly, in spite of the guarimbas and in spite of the violence. In the local elections of 15 December more than 9 million went to the polls. The opposition does not succeed in changing the people’s mind, but the polarization of the country continues to be a problem, because Chavistas are very strongly pro-government, and the MUD is very strongly against the government. There is very little sense that «la patria es de todos» (the fatherland belongs to all). According to media reports in the US and Europe, the only solution is regime change, to chase the government from office. We must however not forget that this government was democratically elected in 1999, in 2002 it survived a coup because the people and the army opposed the coup and prevented the planned physical elimination of Chávez. In 2004 a recall referendum was held, which Chávez won easily --- 70% of the population did not want to remove him from office. After his death in 2013, Maduro was elected President, in spite of a violent campaign, accompanied by terror and sabotage on the part of the opposition.

How did the government deal with all these organized attacks?

The government relied on the 1999 Constitution. However, a number of major mistakes including excessive force by the police, did occur. If a government is under such pressure, then it must act quickly. If one acts fast, one makes mistakes, often goes too far. This includes, for example, introducing economic measures that can be counter-productive, including subsidies and price controls.

What kind of agenda does the opposition follow?

They wish to cancel the Chávez and Maduro years and return to a purely capitalistic model. But there are at least 8 million Chávistas, and they will not disappear. These voters are convinced of the government’s program. These people will not allow the social achievements to be swept away. If the economy does not collapse as a result of sabotage, smuggling and sanctions, the government is likely to be reelected in 2018. The administration and the army are on the side of the government. Certainly, the plan in Washington is to launch a military attack on Venezuela by making use of disinformation about the allegedly miserable situation in the country with hunger, infant mortality and an economically desolate conditions, and then to chase the government out of office. We know this proceeding from other countries, so for example from September 1973 when the government of Salvador Allende was overthrown by a coup and Allende died.

How do you assess your stay?

I got a very different impression from the one I pictured to myself before I visited the country. In our media there is scarce interest in truly investigative journalism, in discovering what the root causes of Venezuela’s problems are. We get a caricature of the situation, and this caricature becomes dogma. Weeks before my journey, my independence, my professionalism, my honour were questioned. UN Watch published an article and called my visit a “fake investigation”, even before I had set foot on Venezuelan soil. Some NGOs have claimed that I was not the right Special Rapporteur for these questions. That was before I had announced anything at all about my journey. On my personal blog I showed pictures of Caracas, its churches, monuments, and a picture of a supermarket that was full of goods. After that there were particularly offensive attacks against me. UN-Watch found the picture and reacted to it. I had published the picture without any comment. I was attacked as a chavist, a castrist, a communist, etc. All I wanted to show is that the situation is not as they want us to believe. I had seen so many pictures of empty shelves that I thought it was legitimate to show a different photo in my private blog (which also reflected my observation in other supermarkets).

What did you suggest to the Venezuelan government?

I submitted to the foreign minister six pages of preliminary recommendations, among others institutional improvements, the elimination of price controls, the fight against smuggling and corruption, but always within the rule of law. They ought to respect the UN covenants on civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. They are already seeking dialogue with the opposition and showing commendable flexibility and patience. They should either release individuals who have been imprisoned for political reasons, or take them to court with a fair trial. And for the better management of the country they need technocrats, not only ideologists! Above all, the government must prove that it takes human rights seriously. Corruption must be fought at all levels, even with the help of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime in Vienna. In doing so, UN organizations, such as the World Health Organization, the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), the International Labor Organization (ILO), etc. could help to ensure that the necessary improvements are translated into action.

What do you think of the conversations you had in the Dominican Republic?

Every opportunity of dialogue with the opposition must be taken. The previous meetings in Santo Domingo in November, December 2017 and January 2018 have already been fruitful. Further meetings are planned. It is in the interest of all who care for human rights and who care for the Venezuelan people to support these negotiations. Unfortunately, a «human rights industry» has emerged that has instrumentalizes human rights as weapons of mass destruction against governments. This «industry» is not interested in solving the «humanitarian crisis», they want to use the hyperbolic «crisis» as a pretext for military intervention and regime change. This «industry» does not want independent experts who travel to Venezuela to find out what the real situation is. They only want «experts» who go to Venezuela (or elsewhere) simply to grandstand and condemn governments. If anyone means it with humanitarian aid, they should offer their cooperation to the government and send food and medicines without strings attached. If they are interested in the Venezuelan people, they will make sure that sanctions and boycotts are lifted, so that the Venezuelan government can function normally, without discrimination, in the international community, so that Venezuela can import and export free of sabotage and political ostracism.

Professor de Zayas, thank you for this conversation.

Interview by Thomas Kaiser, Geneva

«In modern international law the right to self-determination is of greater significance than the territorial principle»

Interview with Prof. Dr jur. et phil. Alfred de Zayas

Professor Dr jur. et phil. Alfred de Zayas (picture thk)

Zeitgeschehen im Fokus: It seems to be a favourite weapon of the United States to impose sanctions against unpopular countries, or to oblige "vassal states", in this case the EU, to impose sanctions, e.g. against Russia in the context of the Ukraine crisis. Recently, Obama accused Russia of having manipulated the US elections. But let us first stand by the Ukraine crisis. How should we assess it from the perspective of international law?

Professor Alfred de Zayas: No sanctions can be imposed as a reprisal against the exercise of the right to self-determination. The Crimean population has the right to determine their own destiny by referendum, and neither the United States nor the European Union can prohibit this. The old principle of the territorial integrity of states is not absolute and certainly not more important than human rights. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and its fragmentation into 15 republics, the destruction of the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia and the emergence of 7 new republics, after the friendly dissolution of the Czechoslovak State and the emergence of independent Czech and Slovak republics, it is obvious that the principle of the territorial integrity of states must yield to the peoples’ right to self-determination. Of course, we need stable borders, but if people do not want to live together any longer, peace is much more important than territorial integrity, and they should not be forced to stay together, because sooner or later this will lead to violence and oppression. Moreover, since the UN Charter and Article 1 of the UN-Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the right to self-determination has been regarded as jus cogens, i. e. peremptory international law. One could impose sanctions for the refusal of the right to self-determination, as for example in Rhodesia and South Africa, but not as a protest against its realization. Besides, the Guidelines accompanying the Helsinki Act of 1975 allows for the peaceful modification of national frontiers.

What does that mean in the case of the Crimea, which was the alleged trigger for the sanctions?

The people of the Crimea, like any other people, have the right to self-determination. The desire did not come out of the blue. It was the consequence of the coup d’état, co-financed by the West, against the legitimate government of Ukraine represented by Viktor Yanukovych. If the EU and the US wanted to install a pro-Western government, they should have waited until the next elections and followed democratic principles, the rule of law and the constitution of the Ukraine. Therew was, however, covert and not so covert intervention in contravention with the principles enunciated in the Helsinki Act and General Assembly resolutions 2625 and 3314. This resulted in the Maidan putsch and an undemocratic regime change with a distinct anti-Russian tendency. No wonder the majority of the Crimean population rejected the violent "regime change" by a referendum on 16 March 2014, pursuant to which they decided to separate from the Ukraine, a decision which was duly confirmed by the Crimean Parliament. Although criticism of the referendum has been voiced by different parties, it should also be mentioned that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe OSCE was invited to send observers and declined. The United Nations could also have played a constructive role by supporting the democratic process and observing the referendum. Notwithstanding the above, one must concede that the Crimean people exercised the right to self-determination in a valid way.

However, the media continue to talk of an annexation of Crimea.

If, on 23 February 2014, Russia had sent its tanks and soldiers to overthrow the Crimean Parliament, militarily occupied the territory and unilaterally declared it a part of Russia, that would have been an annexation. Here we should also remember a bit of history, since the Crimea had been a part of Russia and the Soviet Union for more than two centuries. In 1954 the Crimea was transferred to Ukraine by Khrushchev by virtue of an administrative act, without any consultation of the majority Russian population or democratic plebiscite. Thus, what happened in the 1950s had no legitimacy in human rights terms. Return of the Crimea to Russia three years ago effectively corrects the 1950s undemocratic transference. However, a Crimean referendum could and should have been carried out in the 1990s at the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the result would have been the same. The UN could have been asked to organize and supervise a referendum such as it did in Ethiopia / Eritrea, Sudan and East Timor.

So you can say, Russia ...

... has not illegally occupied the Crimea. First, the Parliament of the Crimea decided to ask for admission to the Russian Federation. This was formally and bureaucratically examined. On 20 March 2014 the Duma in Moscow acceded to the Crimean request and on 21 March 2014 the reintegration of the Crimea into Russia became effective upon Putin’s signature. Furthermore, the Russian Constitutional Court was also seized of the matter and held that the annexation of the Crimea was in conformity with the Russian Constitution. If one speaks of the rule of law, here it has been complied with. The Crimea thus returned to Russia at the request of its population, not by virtue of a Russian invasion. This is legitimate, as several independent professors of international law have stated, among others Dr. Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider of the University of Erlangen. Unfortunately there are still too many "fake news" about the Crimea.

This means that the sanctions against Russia lack legitimacy under international law.

Exactly. However, states often apply international law in an arbitrary manner. They refer to the principle of territorial integrity, without putting it into context. It should also be noted that in 1999 NATO destroyed the territorial integrity of Serbia - by an illegal war and the bombing of civilian targets in Serbia. Kosovo emerged from that illegal war. It was NATO that rejected the principle of territorial integrity and thus created a precedent that other peoples aspiring to self-determination can invoke. The emergence of Kosovo is proof that in modern international law the right to self-determination is of greater significance than the territorial principle. Compared to Kosovo, the self-determination of the Crimea was achieved without war and corresponded to the wishes of the majority of the population.

What happened in Kosovo?

The separation of Kosovo from Serbia resulted from an illegal use of force in contravention to article 2(4) of the UN Charter, without the approval of the United Nations, so that the birth of the state of Kosovo is highly problematic. Even the post-war Security Council Resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999 speaks of the territorial integrity of Serbia. But then the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo followed, then the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 22 July 2010 and the recognition by more than 100 states. According to this, no one can pretend that the principle of territorial integrity is somehow superior to the right of self-determination. Kosovo is not "unique" or sui generis.

This is a big difference to the Crimea.

Yes, the process in the Crimea was largely compliant with international law. What the sanctions against Russia illustrate is that NATO adamantly refuses to accept the reality that the Kosovo precedent necessarily has consequences and will continue to generate consequences. Unfortunately, the unfounded sanctions have developed their own dynamic. This has also resulted in a vicious circle of sanctions and counter-sanctions. In order to interrupt this vicious circle, the UN Human Rights Council appointed a UN Independent Expert in 2014, who has written several relevant reports. But who reads or cares about UN resolutions and reports?

What do you mean?

What is so obvious is either ignored or even negated. Only a few politicians in the West dare say the sanctions are illegal. The media dare not say that it was a mistake to impose sanctions. Nobody wants to recognize that they are counterproductive, and so the sanctions are constantly being extended. In fact, the EU has done this on 15 December 2016.

What was the result?

As a result, the Russian counter-sanctions were also extended. However, nobody suffers more than the European farmers and the workers of corporations trading with Russia. In the end, it is always the most vulnerable that suffer from such sanctions.

Is there no resistance from the corporations?

This could have been expected, because in many other commercial conflicts the corporations turn directly to arbitral tribunals when their profits are reduced by state laws. If a group such as Bilcon sued Canada because they wanted to make a quarry in an ecologically sensitive area and the expected permit was denied, it would be logical to expect companies affected by illegitimate sanctions to go to arbitration. But no group has sued any EU country for the massive interruption of business with Russia and the resulting millions of losses. A remarkable lack of sincerity, coherence, ethics becomes obvious. It leaves you almost breathless: the tobacco company Philipp Morris even filed a lawsuit against the state of Uruguay, which had passed a law to protect the population from smoking. Why do export companies that suffer millions of losses not file lawsuits against EU states because of these illegal sanctions?

Yes, this is indeed amazing.

My hope is that the sanctions will finally be lifted by both sides and the victims will be compensated. The sanctions have not had any legitimacy since the first day of their entry into force. In 2000, the former Human Rights Subcommittee published a longer study in which this kind of sanctions was declared illegal under international law.

What was the reasoning?

If the sanctions do not and cannot reach their aim, they must be rescinded because they have negative consequences for human rights. It was clear from the beginning that the sanctions were only an expression of the political competition and discontent with Russia. It was clear that the sanctions would in no way influence Russia. After nearly three years, it is obvious that it does not make sense to extend them.

The US has again imposed sanctions on Russia for allegedly manipulating the presidential elections. How do you now assess this step of the US and the fact that Russia refrains from taking retorsion measures?

It is not without irony that a country which has repeatedly intervened in the internal affairs of many other states in Latin America, Asia, Africa and even Europe now claims to be a "victim" of such manipulations itself. Well. To begin with, no conclusive proof has been provided, and I am by no means convinced of the level or existence of Russian interference. Let's see whether the evidence will be revealed one day - or whether the repetitive and unconvincing anti-Putin propaganda prevails. Let us hope that the government of President Trump will adopt a more realistic policy towards Russia and put an end to the EU’s utilitarian Russophobia. As we have learned from Trump's "Intelligence Briefing," some government agencies cannot escape their own prejudices. One cannot impose sanctions without evidence, and Julian Assange, who should know about it, has said several times that Russia was not the source of hacking: "a 14-year old could have hacked Podesta". We do not need a new war against Russia - neither hot nor cold. What we need is peace, détente, truthful reporting, honest media, and a sense for proportion.

The Russophobia seems to be part of Western “tradition”?

Yes. Already in the Crimean war 1854-56 this whole range of fake news and war-mongering was avidly pursued by England and France. The imperialism of the British crown, the hypocrisy of the British press, the interventionism and arrogance of prime ministers George Earl of Aberdeen and Lord Palmerston, the opportunism of Napoleon III are the image of today’s Russophobia. It is worth reading the book of the British historian Orlando Figes "Crimea" to understand the instrumentalization of bogeymen. Have we already forgotten that the US boycotted the Summer Olympics in Moscow in 1980 and that the American press sparked an extremely primitive hysteria against Putin before and during the winter games in Sochi in 2014 - barely a month before the Maidan coup? The Russians are rather weary of being abused by the western states as a bogeyman.

Professor de Zayas, thank you very much for the interview.

Interview Thomas Kaiser

*The interview corresponds to the personal opinion of Professor de Zayas and was not officially conducted in his capacity as an independent expert at the UN. Cf. www.alfredezayas.com and http://dezayasalfred.wordpress.com

20 years of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) – Free trade agreements under scrutiny

By Dr phil. Henriette Hanke Güttinger, historian

Investors and corporations benefit – the majority of populations suffers losses

A number of free trade agreements are currently being negotiated: CETA between the EU and Canada, TTIP/TAFTA between the US and the EU, and TiSA, the Agreement on Trade in Services, to which fifty states – including Switzerland – are party. Negotiations are taking place behind closed doors, and no participation or voice is granted to the citizens in the countries concerned. According to what has leaked out up to date, the contents of the proposed free trade agreements are based on the NAFTA Free Trade Agreement of 1994, which was signed by the US, Canada and Mexico. Twenty years of practical experience with NAFTA show perfectly clearly where such free trade agreements lead to. Investors and major corporations benefit while the majority of the populations in the contracting states – even in the US – slide over onto the loser’s side.

With the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement NAFTA in 1994, the then largest single market worldwide emerged, in which all tariffs and trade restrictions were practically abolished and have remained so until today. To begin with, the NAFTA embraced the US, Canada and the emerging country Mexico, and thus 250 million Americans, 90 million Mexicans and 27 million Canadians, with a gross national product of more than seven billion dollars annually. The US accounted for 85% of this sum, Canada for 10% and Mexico for 5%. This shows that the United States dominated their contractual partners Canada and Mexico from the beginning, or, to put it straight: “NAFTA put an elephant to bed with two mice”[1]. In the US, the agreement met with serious misgivings and stubborn resistance on the part of Democrats, trade unions and the environmental movement. Nonetheless, Clinton managed to push through the deal. In this process, the central argument was: “NAFTA means jobs – American jobs and well-paying American jobs.”[2] Twenty years later, it is becoming apparent that the objections to NAFTA were more than justified.

Tools of American foreign policy after 1989 – free trade agreements

There is an intimate correlation between NAFTA and the realignment of American foreign policy after the collapse of the Soviet Union. During the Cold War, the emphasis had been on a strategy of military containment, the “global containment” to challenge the socialist states. After 1989, the United States sought to assert itself as the leading power of a unipolar world order. The reorientation of its foreign policy, which was developed under Clinton in 1993 as a “Strategy of Enlargement” served this purpose. In essence, this was meant to enforce global free trade, free markets and democratisation as understood by the US. States which did not submit to these ideas and insisted on their right to self-determination were to be forced into line with a carrot and a stick. The newly established WTO as well as a global network of trade agreements was to serve the enforcement of the “Strategy of Enlargement”. The aim was globalisation tailor-made for US economic interests. NAFTA fits this framework.[3] The currently pending free trade agreements ranging from CETA to TiSA have to be seen in this context as well.

20 years of NAFTA – the consequences

NAFTA has now been in force for twenty years. Its consequences are clearly visible in the countries involved.

Corporations and investors are suing states

Since 1994, the volume of trade has tripled. Corporations and investors have been the main beneficiaries of NAFTA. The contract protects corporations and investors from expropriation and government action which could affect their returns. In the twenty years of the NAFTA’s being in operation, numerous legal actions were initiated by corporations and investors, such as against the State of Canada, which had prohibited the import of gasoline containing the poisonous MMT as an additive. Because of this, the US Ethyl Corporation filed a suit against Canada in 1997. A settlement was reached. Canada revoked the interdiction and paid a high indemnity sum.[4]

Jobs are lost

In the US, jobs have been lost most notably in the industrial sector. According to the “taz” (Tageszeitung), the NAFTA is directly to blame for the loss of about 700,000 jobs. In 2014 the US Bureau of Labor Statistics noted that due to the neo-liberal global economy five million jobs have disappeared in American industry. “Wages are stagnating in all three countries, and families are struggling to pay the costs of health insurance, education, housing and pension insurance,” says the president of the American Federation of trade unions AFL-CIO.[5]

Sell-out of Mexican agriculture

Since in the negotiations Canada enforced the exclusion of Mexico's agriculture from the agreement, NAFTA includes the agricultural sector only of the US and Mexico. Between agriculture in the US and in Mexico there was originally a fundamental difference. While the US had a modern industrialised agriculture, a large part of the labour-intensive Mexican agriculture was operated in cooperatives, the “ejidos”. Since the Mexican Revolution of 1920, the “ejidos” had been protected by the Mexican Constitution and could not be sold. During the NAFTA negotiations, the negotiators of the United States called for access to Mexican land. President Carlos Salina gave in to this pressure and enacted the Agricultural Act of 1992, which annulled the protection of the “ejidos”. The consequences ensued accordingly. The Mexican agriculture, which was the basis of existence for a third of the population, lost out in the competition with the industrialised US agriculture. With NAFTA, American subsidised maize came onto the Mexican market, and this was cheaper than the maize produced by Mexican peasant farmers. The situation was similar in respect to other agricultural products. Many “ejidos” and peasant farmers had to abandon their farms and sell their land. Transnational investors were the gainers.[6] Other smallholders abandoned food production and began cultivating opium and marijuana. Accordingly, drug trafficking and the crimes of violence associated with it increased.[7] The Mexican labour market was not able to provide jobs for the former farmers. Accordingly, poverty and illegal emigration to the United States increased massively.

Outlook

Negative consequences of globalisation as have become apparent also after twenty years’ experience with the NAFTA induce a deeper reflection on how it is all to go on. Conclusions can be drawn from historical experience. This debate is being conducted widely, and criticism of a free trade which undermines economies, is becoming louder and clearer. The population must be allowed to take part in the discussion about “What kind of economy do we want?” in all the countries. That is the foundation for the exercise of the right to self-determination, as it is required by international law. •

[1] “NAFTA put an elephant in bed with two mice” Martin Walker: Clinton, The President They Deserve, London 1997, p. 292, quoted in Patrick Keller: Von der Eindämmung zur Erweiterung – Bill Clinton und die Neuorientierung der amerikanischen Aussenpolitik, Bonn 2008, p. 131 (From Containment to Enlargement: Bill Clinton and the Re-Orientation of American Foreign Policy, Bonn: Bouvier 2008).
[2] “NAFTA means jobs – American jobs, and good paying American jobs”. Clinton in: Keller: Von der Eindämmung zur Erweiterung, p.135
[3] cf. Keller: Von der Eindämmung zur Erweiterung, pp. 9-25
[4] Source: taz.de from 1 January 2014, 20 years free trade. Fewer jobs, fewer peasant farmers.
[5] Richard L. Trumka quoted in Barbara Eisenmann: NAFTA Free Trade Agreement or blueprint of the neo-liberal investment regime, Deutschlandfunk (Germany World Service) of 21 November 2014
[6] Jens Winter: Transnationale Arbeitskonflikte. Das Beispiel der hegemonialen Konstellation im NAFTA-Raum (Transnational labour disputes. The example of the hegemonic constellation in the NAFTA region), Münster 2007, pp. 135-137
[7] This connection is attested by the following study, which is available on the internet: Oeindrila Dube, Omar Garcia-Ponce, Kevin Thom: From Maize to Haze: Agricultural Shocks and the Growth of the Mexican Drug Sector.

„International trade agreements like CETA, TTIP, TPP, TiSA etc. are unethical and contrary to the public interest“

Interview with Prof. Dr jur. et phil. Alfred de Zayas

These agreements aim at replacing the state

Interview with Prof. Dr jur. et phil. Alfred de Zayas

Zeitgeschehen im Fokus: Professor de Zayas, you are proposing a new concept which you call “R2A”, the State responsibility to act. What do you mean by that?

Alfred de Zayas: All states do not only have a responsibility but an obligation to actively work for the welfare of the people, to anticipate problems and to solve them pre-emptively. Responsibility to Act (R2A) follows from the ontological responsibility of governments, parliaments and courts to do all they can for their citizens, and do so not only passively. Parliaments and presidents are elected and courts are installed in order to work for the common good.

Why do we need this new concept of Responsibility to Act?

The media often write about the so-called Responsibility to Protect (R2P). That is a dangerous concept, a labeling scam. R2P aims at eroding the UN Charter. It allows a state to interfere in another state's domestic affairs. It allows powerful States to pursue a regime change in a foreign country under the pretext of human rights violations. This is a neo-imperialistic policy launched in 2005 and initially approved by the UN General Assembly. However, – as is often the case – most State did not immediately realize the danger that R2P entails. This became evident in a debate at the General Assembly in July 2009, during which the President of the Assembly, Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann clearly stated that R2P could not be used in a manner contrary to the UN Charter and that four benchmark questions would first have to be examined. It would mean that a state could interfere by so-called humanitarian intervention – in terms of International Law á la carte – in Jugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, or wherever, and trigger a regime change. That is inacceptable and a considerable danger to regional and international peace and security.

And what is now the substance of Responsibility to Act?

In my view, the Responsibility to Act, in contrast to R2P, entails the obligation by governments, parliaments and courts to act according to the letter and spirit of the UN Charter and the Human Rights Covenants, the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

What does that mean in detail?

If a danger from outside, like one of those so-called free trade agreements TTIP, TPP, Ceta, TiSA, etc, threatens the independence and sovereignty of a State, all must take action and not just let it happen. I would like to direct the attention towards this obligation and declare treaties illegitimate that are being adopted without participation of the population, without any public debate, without a referendum. One has to challenge their validity before the courts, e.g. the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in San Jose, the African Court in Arusha, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

What are actually the tasks of the national state? To what end do we live in a state?

The main task of the National State is to ensure social peace and progress in the country. That means that human rights have to be observed in the health care system, in the work process. Public courts have the responsibility to enforce the law and to ensure that human rights are observed. Individuals must have recourse to a variety of judicial and administrative mechanisms. In international law there are many norms; however, there is no mechanism which today effectively protects individuals from human rights violations by states, investors, transnational corporations

Are there such mechanisms at another level?

Yes, indeed, and the absence of such mechanisms in the human rights field remains an anomaly, e.g. when we compare with the effectiveness of WTO dispute-settlement bodies. With the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), a privatized arbitration tribunal, corporations can enforce their decisions. All these trade agreements have mechanisms to coerce states. A transnational corporation can compel a state to do something or to refrain from doing something.

Have there already been some efforts in that direction?

The UN Human Rights Council has initiated the “Open-ended Intergouvernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Human Rights”. It is to negotiate an agreement stipulating the obligations of investors and transnational corporations and also allowing sanctions.

When will this mechanism be applied?

We haven't got so far, yet. The agreement has to be accepted by the UN General Assembly and ratified by the states. In case chemical or pharmaceutical companies, the oil or gas mining or quarrying industries harm the people's health or contaminate the environment, they must be made to pay for that. It is not acceptable that corporations are only subjected to self-regulation. Criminal law has a say as well. Many corporations make use of bribery, as we learned in case of the Monaco Unaoil scandal, others do not pay any taxes, as we learned from the Panama Papers. All these acts must be prosecuted. Even Christine Lagarde is thinking of applying national and international criminal law in order to penalize corruption.

What are the specific rights that are being violated by these trade agreements?

A vast number, actually: Article 1 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which stipulates the people's right to self-determination. This is ius cogens, peremptory norm. So each people has a right to self-determination and sovereignty. The state cannot hand this sovereignty over to private corporations, since the state's sovereignty is a component of the concept of the state. There is no state without sovereignty. Otherwise it would be nothing but a puppet of another powerful country or of a corporation. As long as a state is a member of the world community, it must be able to exercise its sovereignty. Moreover, if a sovereign state submits itself to international jurisdiction, this must be a sovereign decision, which the state may revoke at any time.

Could you please explain the relation between international jurisdiction and sovereignty in more detail?

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) cannot assume universal jurisdiction, only over states which have submitted a revocable declaration or which have subjected themselves ad hoc to its jurisdiction, in order to settle disputes with its help. Since this is possible with these courts, it should be possible in case of agreements with individuals and corporations. Sovereignty by definition is higher than any private entity. What all these agreements like TTIP, TPP, CETA, TiSA are actually about, is a coup against the Westphalian State. The target is that in future corporations may exclusively decide instead of the states and the peoples. Of all things now! For, when taking into consideration what we learned from Greenpeace Netherlands, the whole thing would have to be stopped. This is immoral, or as international law terms it contra bonos mores, against international public order..

What basic rights are violated by these international agreements?

The Right to Life, Article 6 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This includes the Right to Health. If somebody cannot buy generic medicines, and the pharma-industry insists on demanding huge prices for something with actually low production costs, only in order to generate greater profits, this means that poor people, who cannot afford these drugs, have to suffer for long or must even die.

How can that be contained?

Of course, the pharma-industry should be allowed to make a profit but not at that scale. Excess is the problem with trade and capitalism. Companies want to make a huge profits, at the expense of the people and their rights. This must be contained by national and international regulations.

How do you judge the secrecy involved?

This refers to article 19 of the Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. This article emphasizes not only the right to freedom of expression but also the right to information. And as we have learned from leaks of Greenpeace and Wikileaks, these agreements were conducted in secrecy and everything possible was done to hide it from the people. Everything was blocked sytematically to prevent people from conducting a democratic debate and participating in the process of decision. Article 25 of the Covenant stipulates that everybody living in a democracy has the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs, including the elaboration of laws that will affect them.

That means that the agreements are unlawful

The way these agreements came into existence is certainly unlawful. The same is true for parts of the agreements themselves, where they go against the essence of the state. The impacts of other bilateral and multilateral agreements like NAFTA (North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement) overthrew a number of human rights, as e.g. the right to work, the right to dignified working conditions, the right to health, etc.. CETA, TTIPP, TPP, TiSA, etc. will have similar adverse human rights impacts. Moreover, these agreements constitute a threat against the rights of special population groups like the Autochtones, the indigenous of North and South America, the Aborigines in Australia, and other minorities. Article 27 of the Covenant stipulates the minorities' right to enjoy their own culture and a right to their way of living. They have a right that the state protects their culture and their “lebensraum” pro-actively. There are many expertises by the Human Rights Committee concerning the Samis in Finland or Sweden, to prevent their expulsion or the cutting down of their trees. They cannot live their lives – as granted to them in article 27 – if the riches of the country are being exploited and the natural living conditions are being destroyed in the process.

The difference in treatment between domestic and transnational corporations is striking.

Yes, here we notice the violation of the Covenant's Article 26, the right to equality. It is really abnormal that a positive discrimination for foreign corporations is being specified. Solely foreign investors and corporations are allowed to sue. If a national corporation is subjected to a certain state control, if taxes are raised and the corporations are asked to pay, they will have to comply but they cannot file a suit.

Politicians in Switzerland always submit the argument that these agreements were absolutely necessary, since otherwise we would not be able to compete…

...not at all! World trade is healthy and expanding. It will continue to run and the corporations will continue to make good profits. These agreements pursue only one goal, i.e. replacing the state. The idea is that in future the international capital, that means the corporations are to determine everything. A state will no longer be able to freely determine the taxes and freely decide on how the money is to be spent. In case such decisions by the state impairs a cooperation, the state, actually the state's tax payers will be forced to pay for the corporation's losses. We are dealing with a big lie, here: the agreements are not necessary. The whole thing is – as I said – immoral. All agreements that are immoral, are illegal and they mustbe revoked according to Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. UNCTAD, the Conference of Trade and Development should conduct a world conference in Geneva in order to reform the complete investments regime along the lines of human rights.

Who can eliminate these agreements?

The United Nations – i.e. the General Assembly pursuant to article 96 of the UN charter -- should request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. Since there is a separate Court for EU law for Germany, France, the Netherlands and the EU, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) should now raise its voice as well, because CETA, TTIP, TISA are incompatible with the Lisbon Treaty. It is impossible to enforce EU law, if one transfers this competence to the international corporations or to a pseudo-court, as was proposed by Cecilia Malmström. The Investment Court System (ICS) is a rebranding exercise and suffers from the same fundamental flaws as ISDS. It is a one-way street. The transnational investors alone are empowered to sue, the states aren't; the investors have only rights but no obligations.

What can be done against this disastrous development?

There should be referenda in all EU countries as well as in other states. Polls can be conducted in states where the right of initiative and referendum is not laid down in the constitution, other than in Switzerland. People should take to the streets to demonstrate and express in big letters that they want to have a say, that they want a referendum. I am convinced if referenda are conducted in Europe, 90 percent of the people will reject these agreements. Parliaments must check these agreements thoroughly and refuse to ratify them. Some trade agreements are certainly sensible, but these mega-treaties are beneficial exclusively for the corporations – they are disastrous for the people, for the rest of us!

Professor de Zayas, thank you very much for the interview

Venezuela, the spearhead of the Latin-American movement against Neo-liberalism and Neo-colonialism

Walter Suter

Background to the current tense situation in Venezuela

Walter Suter*

Venezuela's situation is alarming. The economy is not working well, people are suffering. However, in the Swiss media we read only little about the background. Thing are stirred up, above all. Disaster scenarios are conjured up and the Maduro administration is blamed for everything. Thus the opposition hopes for the president to break down under the stress of criticism and to resign prematurely.

It is a fact that the economic situation in Venezuela is not at its best; even government friendly circles are talking about the bad supply conditions, but the reasons are manifold. The opposition tries to bring the government down to its knees by fuelling the bad mood. Although Maduro, after their victory in the parliamentary elections, proposed to the opposition to jointly work on a solution for the economic problems, the oppositional camp denied any cooperation. Obviously, their plan is to steer the country into such a disaster that Maduro will throw in the towel. However, this is a very simple pattern which will hardly contribute to relieve the situation.

“Relieving the population’s suffering”

At the beginning of this year, the government issued a decree to alleviate the economic emergency. The opposition immediately rejected it as unconstitutional and did not display any willingness to cooperate with the executive in any sector. The Supreme Court had to decide on the possible unconstitutionality and judged that the decree conformed with the constitution. This emergency decree was not about ideological differences but about relieving the population’s suffering. The opposition refuses any further negotiations unless the government fulfils certain prerequisites. These include for example the release of political prisoners, the amnesty act and the request that the government fix the date for a referendum to vote the government out of office (recall referendum).

The procedure for a recall referendum is laid down in the constitution (and in a regulation of implementation by the National Electoral Council CNE) and is not subject to the government’s will. The accusation that the government was delaying it is obviously unfounded. The independent National Electoral Council is responsible for the correctness of the procedure as one of the five executive bodies. As is the case in our country as well, the council has to check on the validity of the signatures. After 200,000 signatures have been checked and declared valid, a new collection of signatures can be started. As soon as the necessary 4 million signatures have been collected within a certain period of time, the vote can be taken. After the recent scrutinizing of almost 2 million signatures that had been handed in, 600,000 of them had to be declared invalid. Representatives of all political parties are allowed to scrutinize the votes. Therefore it is absurd to talk about the CNE's illegal proceedings in the process of scrutinizing.

Despite the destructive attitude of the opposition, the administration is interested in talking together. With the help of UNASUR, both parties agreed on a mediator in the person of Rodriguez Zapatero, supported by the ex-presidents Fernández (Dominican Republic) and Torrijos (Panamá). They are now trying to put relations on new grounds and adopt a neutral attitude. The government allowed Zapatero to talk to the arrested Leonardo López, which was astonishing for the prisoner himself. López had called up a violent overthrow and street fighting in Venezuela in January 2014, as a result of which 43 people, mainly supporters of the government and policemen, were killed and about 800 people were injured. A court sentenced him to 13 years imprisonment. Despite this measure he expresses his opinion from inside the prison via twitter and other electronic media and calls for resistance and protest against the government.

Opposition treats the constitution with contempt

Once again Maduro offered negotiations to the opposition alliance MUD (Table of Democratic Union) at the beginning of this year, just as he had done in 2014 shortly before the opposition called up to protests.

The opposition’s programme has only one objective: Down with Maduro! And in 2014 the plan was to get the people on to the streets until Maduro would resign. The opposition does not have any political programme; their only programme is to seize the power. And they would stoop to anything to have their way. While the Maduro administration abides by the constitution, which was adopted by the people in 1999 with an 80% vote , and has never violated it in any way – although the opposition always accuses them of having done so – it is this very opposition that treats the constitution and its institutions with contempt: In 2002 they triggered a coup against Chavez, followed by the sabotage of oil production, which resulted in an income loss for the country of about 10 billion dollar, and violent riots in 2004. In 2013, the very night after Maduro’s election, opposition leader Capriles called upon his supporters to take to the streets and allowed to live out to their rage. The result was 11 dead in the centres for basic health care, who were evidently killed by supporters of the opposition. This was the answer of the counter candidate who before had called himself a democrat in the night of the election: rebellion against the constitutional power. The authorities refrained from arresting and condemning Capriles because they did not want to fuel he fire.

“Conflicts taken to the streets”

As mentioned above, the opposition took the conflicts to the streets again in 2014, led by López. If something similar happened in Switzerland, the Breach of the Peace Act would be applied leading to imprisonment in severe cases.

The accusation that the Supreme Court had been bribed was never verified. In Venezuela there are five independently acting state powers. One of them is the Supreme Court. According to the country's constitution, the judges are elected by parliament. The Venezuelan constitution grants a right to veto on parliamentary decisions to the government and the president respectively. Maduro made use of this right several times. If he puts in his veto, the affair is going back to parliament. In two cases, the parliament did not accept his veto. If there is a parliamentary deadlock between the autonomous powers, the constitution provides for the Supreme Court as arbiter. Next, they decide whether the draft law is constitutional or not. In the above-mentioned two cases the Supreme Court agreed with the government and rejected the law as unconstitutional.

Parliament passes unconstitutional law

Soon after the elections, the opposition–dominated parliament started to try and enforce its policies by all available means. This included a draft law on amnesty for all those who had taken part in the violent riots against the government and those who would do so in the future. They were promised immunity from prosecution. The law listed all offences committed by supporters of the opposition: ranging from unconstitutional operations up to murder. Furthermore, the opposition wanted to stop the act on residential building subsidies, which together with the health care centres were one of the achievements of the Chavez administration. So far, 1.5 million impoverished people had been able to acquire a flat. These apartments belong to the government and are placed at the poor people’s disposal. In the past, his had put a stop to speculation. The opposition’s draft law now intended a comprehensive privatization and would thus open the door to speculation. Since the constitution stipulates the fight against poverty and the creation of cheap housing – in fact a human right – the new law was unconstitutional and was therefore rejected by the Supreme Court.

With all these draft laws we cannot help but thinking that the opposition's intention is to provoke the government and then, when the law is rejected, accuse the government of dictatorial manoeuvring. The fact that those, who play these games, want to be an alternative to the existing government is extremely alarming.

“Exploiting the miserable economic situation for their own power interests”

It is obvious that the oppositional forces want to seize power. It would be too obvious if they did so by means of a coup d’état that would include the military’s support, which so far has not yet been the case. Therefore the current poor supply condition in the country is just what they are waiting for while frequently demanding Maduro’s withdrawal. The opposition wants to exploit the bad economic situation for their power interests.

The main reason for the bad economic situation is the collapse of the oil price. Even though the government has been looking for other sources of income in recent years, development was rather slow. For too long, oil had secured sufficient state income and the financing of social welfare which guaranteed the poorer parts pf the population to live in dignity. After the oil price fell by two thirds, these deficits cause a huge gap in the treasury, which had consisted of oil revenues by 95 percent. Venezuela has not yet succeeded in setting up economic companies that would establish stable middle classes.

The poor supply conditions also have to do with the delivery and distribution of goods that is controlled by private companies which have partially boycotted the delivery. Instead of fairly supplying all supermarkets, they delivered their goods in a very unfair way. What we read in the newspapers is that there are long queues in front of the shops. However, they never mention the background.

“Staple foods going abroad”

Another aspect of the supply crisis that should not be underestimated is the misuse of subsidies for staple food. In order to fight hunger, staple foods are sold at cheaper prices by the state.

This did not only have positive effects, because at a local level there developed a so called “hoarding culture” , when individuals bought the cheaper foodstuff in large quantities and then sold them at excessive prices to people queuing up for groceries. Moreover, smuggling to Columbia took place where the cheap good from Venezuela could be sold at much higher prices. This smuggling is often organized by Columbians living in Venezuela, about 5 million people, with best connections to their homeland. Many staple foods thus flow off abroad and are no longer at the Venezuelan people’s disposal. This severely weakened the domestic economy.

It is obvious that not only the opposition plays a destructive role but the US is also not friends with the Chávistas. The rejection of neo-liberalism in the countries Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Argentina etc., modelled on Hugo Chávez’ policy did not make Venezuela an ally of the US. We can easily imagine the fact that the US want to get their backyard under control again; especially since they are causing one disaster after the other in the Middle East.

Venezuela is the spearhead of the anti-neoliberal and anti-neo-colonial movement in Latin America. Therefore destabilizing manoeuvres will be enforced with special persistence and endurance.

It remains to be seen whether the administration in Caracas will succeed in gaining control over these severe problems. The mountain that they will have to overcome is high, but the Venezuelan people have already had a long history of suffering, before they set off on a new path 17 years ago. And they will not leave this path so easy.

*Walter Suter has been a retired ambassador to Venezuela since 2008 and has been living in Berne since then. From September 2003 to August 2007 he was Switzerland's official representative in Venezuela. As a former member of the FDFA he has known southern America since the 1970s. His former employments on the Latin American continent led him to Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and Paraguay, where he witnessed several political revolutions and transitional processes. Today he is actively involved in solidarity work for the promotion of democratization processes in Latin America.

The sanctions against Syria are “disastrous and destructive”

Interview with Elias Khoury

Unilateral sanctions are illegal under international law

Interview with Elias Khoury

The situation of the civilian population in Syria is terrible. When using our mainstream media as a source, the main figure to blame is Assad, who allegedly is taking action against his own people. Although we often hear reports about the so-called moderate opposition who are systematically murdering and torturing, the image of the evil Assad doggedly persists. However, in addition to the military conflict, which is obviously and admittedly fuelled from abroad, there are people trying to force Syria to its knees economically. In the subsequent discussion, the Syrian diplomat Elias Khoury (see box) tries to explain more precisely how this works and what it means for the civilian population.

For years Syria has been subjected to economic sanctions. What impact do they have on the already very serious situation in Syria?

First I want to comment on the word sanctions. There are legal sanctions, i.e. measures that have been adopted by the UN Security Council. These mandatory measures are directed against a state to maintain “peace and international security” or to restore them in case they are threatened by the state concerned. These sanctions are basically temporary and should neither endanger universal human rights nor the international right to self-determination of the respective state.

Is it that kind of sanctions the Syrian people suffer from?

In fact, the Security Council has, thanks to the double veto of Russia and China, not taken such a decision. But there are other unilateral sanctions, which are incompatible with international law; they are therefore illegal because they have not been adopted by the Security Council. These sanctions affecting Syria today have been unilaterally adopted by regional countries such as the Gulf States, mainly Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates and Turkey, the European Union, the United States and other like-minded allied nations.

What impact do these sanctions have?

They are disastrous and destructive. They intend to ruin the Syrian state and deeply corrode its power, since it does not suit the states which are striving for supremacy. A fatal effect of these sanctions is that Syria is deprived of its natural resources. The above-mentioned states want to establish a dominant rule and thereby violate the people’s right to self-determination. They force the country into a state of poverty so that they can rule and master it more easily.

What are the legal fundamentals under international law that have been violated?

These sanctions are contrary to the purposes and the principles of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration of the General Assembly of 4 December 1986, which recognize the right to development as well as all other human rights. This declaration reaffirms the right to self-determination and sovereignty with respect to the natural resources of each country. Such sanctions are contrary to the first article which the two International Covenants, namely the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have in common, because the sanctions bar the people's right to exploit their natural resources for their basic needs.

What does this mean for Syria?

This means that sanctions – which in reality affect the population and prevent economic development – do violate international law. It is even worse – and I mention the Syrian oil as one of many examples – that countries now boycott Syria which have boycotted the purchase of oil, as long as the oil was still under the control of the Syrian state. However, they lifted the embargo, to allow terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Nusra to control the oil and to smuggle it to Turkey, Israel, as well as to other private companies.

This means that the state loses a major source of income?

The oil revenues are part of the state budget and cover a large part of the costs. They finance the health care system and the educational sector. Both are free for Syria's population. It is, by the way, one of the very few countries where you have free access to hospitals and universities.

So the oil production is not in private hands?

No. This goes back to a strategic national decision stipulating that the oil is not private but is owned by the state.

This means that in addition to the internal conflicts the country is economically weakened from outside.

Yes, but it is only a very small detail. Preventing the country from financing the health care system and the education sector is a deliberate strategy to destroy the independence and development of this country. At the same time ISIS is funded and provided with weapons and men, who come from a hundred countries to fight the Syrians and destroy the country’s economic infrastructure and its cultural wealth.

This makes clear why ISIS have such large financial resources at their disposal.

ISIS has many financial sources, even banks, as well as other support, such as “gifts being passed under the counter”, but the organization also gets military, financial, even technological support and any kind of necessary information services in order to increase its dominance in the region.

Who provides this support?

The US are the masters of the game; they pull the strings, while claiming that they are fighting ISIS. However, the opposite is true, because they even increase the influence of ISIS. It happened, for example that the embargo on Iraqi oil was loosened as soon as ISIS had taken over Mossul and the oil region and had seized the local banks’ gold reserves. This cannot happen without the help and support by the US, who control the air space in the region.

What effects do the sanctions have on the health care system?

Devastating effects. For example you cannot buy medicine against cancer, since the payment by bank transfer is no longer accepted. The treatment of cancer and other serious diseases is free in Syria. Banks cannot perform any money transfer and therefore they cannot pay for the tests in laboratories. It is forbidden to sell medicines to Syria. So it happens that expired drugs from Turkey and Jordan are channelled to Syria. There is a real trade with these drugs going on. Therefore, there are deaths, mainly among children. One can neither buy spare parts for health equipment nor material to repair decomposed or destroyed factories. These are partially dismantled and sold to Turkey. This happens especially in the region of Aleppo. So there is a plan to impoverish the people and let them die.

Just as has been the case in Iraq?

Yes. However, in Iraq 25 NGOs had achieved the introduction of the program “Oil for Food” at the time in order to alleviate human misery. There is nothing like that in Syria, today. In Kobane and Aleppo terrorist groups have dismantled hospitals and factories and donated the equipment to Turkey or sold them at symbolic prices, even to the string-pullers who reside in Turkey. Ultimately, the economic situation in Syria has become very dangerous, because there are no natural resources etc. in order to finance the state budget and to renew the industrial sector. The countries, which have imposed sanctions, want to determine Syria's kind of state model, instead of the Syrian people themselves. That is what you frequently hear the leaders of Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom, Qatar, France and other countries say, who interfere in the internal affairs of Syria.

What objective do these countries pursue?

They say that there could be no future in Syria with Basher Al-Assad. They, who are no Syrians, want to decide on that, because Assad puts up resistance to the terrorist's attack and the multinational oil companies. It's an affair, prearranged from outside, making use of disinformation to deliberately poison public opinion. The public must know about that, otherwise the situation is assessed incorrectly all the time. Therefore, I am very glad that there are media that grant a different view on the Syrian tragedy.

Mr. Khoury, thank you for the interview.

Interview Thomas Kaiser

Translation from the French language by Verena Graf

thk. Elias Khoury is originally Syrian and under Hafez Al-Assad has committed himself as a student peacefully for more democracy, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and participation in public life. He then left the country and studied in France, where he received his PhD in Development Economics and Planning at the University of Grenoble, before he came to Switzerland 42 years ago. For more than 30 years he has acquired great knowledge of international law and international humanitarian law in a diplomatic mission to the UN in Geneva. Since 2000, he has acquired the Swiss citizenship. He is retired and he represents the NGO “Union of Arab Jurists” at the UN. He emphasizes that his opposition in Syria at the time was not financed from outside, but had had a real democratic concern which is miles away from what is happening in Syria today. Elias Khouri also sees the cause of the Syrian disaster in the illegal interference from outside which prevents Assad from implementing reforms and modernizing the country.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 1

All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

American States oppose intervention in Venezuela

Interview with Carolus Wimmer

“US policy is determined by the major corporations”

Interview with Carolus Wimmer *

At two meetings in June, the Organization of American States (OAS) discussed the situation in Venezuela. Intervening in Venezuela was in the air, something that the Democratic Charter of the OAS allows in case a State's constitution is violated by its government. In both meetings this idea was not supported, because the majority of states refused to intervene in Venezuela, since there had been no violation of the Constitution by Venezuelan Government. In the following interview Carolus Wimmer takes a close look at the events around the OAS.

The Organization of American States recently met for two conferences. How do you assess the results of these conferences with respect to Venezuela?

In order to profoundly understand the situation in Venezuela and to become aware that the current development does not only concern Venezuela but means a threat to all our countries, one must know the following: Last November's hearings of the US Senate’s Commission for military defence, armed section, dealt with the threat by terrorism. They declared that the nation states were considered the main risk to the internal security of the United States

What is that supposed to mean?

This means that all states on our globe are considered to pose a threat to the internal security of the United States. Among them are first of all the resource-rich countries, particularly those of the Middle East, which have fossil fuels and minerals, followed by the countries of Latin America and last not least the remaining countries.

How should we deal with that?

It is important to see that it is insufficient to restrict our view to Venezuela. But this is something that often makes the discussion with other countries so very difficult, when they ask why we do not yield to the United States or deal with them in a different manner. They think US policy could be changed then. But this is wrong. US policy will never change, because it is determined by the large corporations. In this context, we seek the dialogue, however, guided by the principle that all peoples have the right to decide, what government and what system they want to have in their own national states.

This should be standard since 1945, at least since the founding of the UN.

We indeed have a lot of support for this approach, as became obvious at the present occasion here in Geneva. Furthermore, there is no state model that you can simply impose on another state. But you can of course be inspired by other countries, including Venezuela. We do not only consider Latin America, but we let ourselves be guided by important experiences, which Venezuela may benefit from in various areas, in order to build a just and democratic state.

Switzerland has also played an important role for Venezuela...

… yes, when the Constitution was drafted and the referendum was introduced, which had not existed before. Special meetings with the representatives of Switzerland were held. Inspired by the possibility of the referendum in Switzerland an appropriate method for our country was developed taking our experience and history into consideration. The "referendo revocatorio" (recall referendum): the possibility that any person elected may be voted out of office after only half of his or her term. That does not exist in Switzerland, but this is an example of the wealth in ideas, which is the result when countries cooperate in all fields.

What may Venezuela have to face in this tense situation?

This is obvious, when you consider the declarations of the two commanders of the US Southern Command, the former and the present one, whose fourth fleet is surrounding South America. The option to intervene militarily is still imminent. Both John Kelly, the former commander, as well as the present commander Kurt Tidd, clearly expressed that the government in Venezuela must be changed, which will only be possible however in the presidential election in 2018.

What are Venezuela’s possibilities to prevent an intervention?

We hope very much to be able to prevent a war. The Latin American integration has made progress in recent years, with governments that are politically and ideologically differently aligned. On June 23 the OAS held a meeting and only four governments of states called for the intervention in the Venezuelan situation. These were, as might be expected, the United States, then Mexico, Costa Rica and Paraguay. All other governments either supported Venezuela or did not issue any response.

What does this solidarity with Venezuela mean?

If the US enforced an intervention in Venezuela, any other state would also have to expect to experience the same destiny. Yesterday, the Venezuelan Foreign Minister said if that set a precedent it would mean that democracy in all our countries was in danger. It is about the peaceful coexistence of neighbouring states. There are states with different political and economic backgrounds, but they meet and have consultations. There is no alternative to that.

You mentioned the meeting of 23 June. Was that a regular meeting or was it specially convened on the subject?

This meeting was specially convened in order to discuss the situation in Venezuela. The Secretary General convoked it, as is his authority. This was the second conference; the week before he had already raised this issue. Even then, he suffered a defeat, because only 11 countries were against Venezuela and advocated the application of the “Carta democratic” (Democratic Charter), and that was not the majority. On 23 June, it became even more obvious: countries that had previously spoken against Venezuela, such as Brazil or Argentina – with totally unstable governments – no longer advocated the application of the Charter.

What does this Charter say?

This so-called “Democratic Charter” is an article in the Statute of the OAS and stipulates the following: If disregard for the constitution of a state is imminent or if it is even violated, the State can ask for support by the OAS’ Member States. But that does not mean any interference or even military action, merely the political dialogue is to be promoted in order to protect and strengthen democracy.

Does Venezuela face the risk of its government ignoring the constitution?

No. With respect to Venezuela, this Charter can be applied by no means; the Constitution has not been violated. There is no chaos, not even a humanitarian crisis. For the US this has always been the excuse – which, by the way, the United States had not needed for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – to initiate a coup by means of the “Carta Democratica”. Three times already, the US have tried to exert their influence in this way: in 2002 with the coup against Chávez, which the OAS had supported but which was put down after 48 hours; in 2009 in Honduras, where the OAS supported the successful coup initiated by the US; and in 2012 for the third time against President Lugo in Paraguay. The “Carta democratic” has so far always been a pretext for not having to seek a political solution, but to overthrow the legal president by military or pseudo-legal means.

How can the Latin American states prevent an intervention?

There are two examples of peaceful coexistence and of peaceful solution of the problems. A few years ago, when Chávez was still alive, there was an imminent danger of war between Colombia and Venezuela. In Colombia there are several US military bases and the threat of intervention existed imminently. With an immediate convening of UNASUR (Union of South American Nations), the warmongering – most likely supported by the US – could be stopped. Another example occurred between Colombia and Ecuador, when Colombia bombed the guerrillas on the territory of Ecuador, which might have been a reason for war, if you want to have war. An escalation was however immediately prevented, especially by the commitment of the former Brazilian president Lula da Silva. This was a proof that the threat of war can be averted if the US does not sit at table. We are committed to go on like this, since we constantly live with this risk.

The meeting a week before June 23 was also convened because of the situation in Venezuela?

No. Something else had been on the agenda, but the Secretary-General raised this issue on his own, which is extremely unusual. He is playing a dubious role. For instance, he wanted the opposition to participate in the meeting and not the government. The Foreign Minister of Venezuela Delcy Rodríguez said very clearly that no government could accept that. In other countries there is also an opposition, but in such meetings only the government representatives should take part. The opposition, in contrast, can march in front of the conference building and protest.

It seems that the Latin American countries have become more independent.

The development is new. In the past, the US generally prevailed, and there was no debate. Now there is a debate, and they cannot enforce their view so easily. For us it is very important that we can engage in dialogue and there is no other option. We also seek the EU's support. That does not mean for the government alone but for the dialogue in general, which is the only solution. Those who can help are very welcome, just like the three former presidents who volunteered to help in the beginning, because the beginning is always the most difficult.

Has that been successful in Venezuela?

Not until now. The leader of the opposition Capriles and Parliament President Ramos Allup have so far altogether rejected the dialogue. We hope that help from outside will revive the dialogue so that they may sit down and talk and a civil war may be avoided. At the moment we do not expect an intervention by the United States; that would be very odd, indeed. They have had a lot of flops in recent years, so they would hardly dare to intervene directly. But fuelling a civil war is always possible. We could witness in Ukraine how that can be done. In Venezuela as well there is something like a fascist mentality which is extremely dangerous. This is a new phenomenon. In the past in Venezuela, there were attempts to organize a total chaos which could end in a civil war, just like in Ukraine. Despite all the problems and criticism, the majority of the population supports the Maduro government, and the even greater part does not want war in Venezuela. This is the fundament on which we base our great hope for a peaceful solution to the conflict.

Mr Wimmer, thank you for the interview.

Interview Thomas Kaiser

* Carolus Wimmer is a native Venezuelan with German roots. He is a member of the Communist Party and International Secretary of the Communist Party of Venezuela. He is elected deputy representative of the federal state of Trojillo and has been a representative to the Latin American Parliament twice in the last 10 years.

“Reestablishing the confidence has become more difficult, but it is still possible”

Interview with Rustu Demirkaya*

On the situation of Kurds in Turkey

Interview with Rustu Demirkaya*

The people’s right to self-determination, as it was formulated in the 14-points plan of US President Woodrow Wilson in March 1918, would have granted the Kurds the right to form their own state. The establishment of Kurdistan was also provided in the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920, which stipulated the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, but it failed due to the opposition of both Turkey and the colonial powers. To date, there has not been any Kurdish state. The Kurds, after all a nation of 23 million, live scattered across four states, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey, under due conditions. In connection with the war in Syria, the Kurds have again come to the fore in the media because they have inflicted severe defeats on ISIS, more than any other belligerent party. Things have happened that cannot be more contradictory. While the Germans delivered weapons to the Kurds in Iraq in the fight against ISIS, NATO partner Turkey fought against the Kurds with extreme hardness. In connection with the overall development in the Middle East, the Kurdish issue plays an important role. In the following interview, the Kurdish-Turkish journalist Rüstü Demirkaya sets out his view of things.

The Kurdish people have as yet had no state of their own, and so the Kurds live in different countries. Could you give an overview of the Kurds' situation?

If you look at history, you will find that the Kurds have always lived in this region. They have neither had an independent state nor have they ruled over other peoples. They have also never accepted any foreign domination. This has a long tradition.

How has the situation of the Kurds developed in recent years?

Until the last Iraq war in 2003, the Kurds have had more or less autonomy in Iraq, which has become constitutional after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

In Syria Kurds were without any rights until the so-called Arab Spring. They had no legal status, not even a civil status. With the war against ISIS, the de facto Kurdish autonomy began in Syria. Currently, they are going to turn it into a legal status under international law.

What has changed in Iraq as far as the Kurds are concerned?

The main change is the de facto autonomy, which is embedded in the Iraqi federal constitution. The federal Kurdistan region of Iraq is ruled by the Barzani clan. The government Barzani is authoritarian and therefore undemocratic. The opposition is suppressed, journalists are arrested, and control over economic resources remains in their hands. The people are living in extremely poor conditions. Barzani’s policy objective is a Kurdish nation-state, which the oppositional Kurds reject in general, because the Kurdish region consists of different ethnic groups and religious communities there. Probably, a new government in its beginnings must behave like that so that a democratic culture can be built.

What has the life of the Kurds been like since the civil war in Syria?

Through the civil war in Syria, a power vacuum originated that the Kurds took advantage of. They set up a self-governing system that was established and legitimized by people's councils. It is based on the equality of all ethnic and religious communities as well as the equality of women. This process is therefore accompanied by a strong struggle for women’s emancipation. The current status that the Kurdish-Syrian Federation SRDK proclaimed a few months ago, is seeking recognition under international law.

What was life like for the Kurds in Turkey, and has it changed in recent times?

When I was a child, it was forbidden to listen to Kurdish music. We had to hide the cassettes with Kurdish music. In the Turkish part of Kurdistan, a state of war prevailed from the beginning. The Turkish state annexed Kurdistan deviously in 1923 and later it ruled with violence and repression. This was opposed by the Kurds with counter-violence and the establishment of an armed People's Army.

What has happened in recent years?

During the almost 30 years of war 4,000 villages were evacuated and millions of people exiled from their habitats. 12,000 people have disappeared after their arrest. About 100 Kurdish journalists have been murdered because they reported these events. The Kurdish parties were banned overnight and their representatives were arrested, etc.

Has this situation changed under Erdogan?

Then in 2002, Erdogan’s AKP came to power and introduced fake solutions such as Kurdish television, which were however not protected by the constitution. This uncertain to and fro has continued until 2015. After the Kurds had victoriously emerged from the civil war, the Erdogan government took back those unprotected concessions to the Kurds and began a new dimension of war against the Kurds. The images from the war zone do not differ from those of the Syrian Civil War or the war in Vietnam at the time.

Since 2013 there had been a peace process between the Kurds and Turkey, which was then terminated by the Turkish government. What was the reason? What has the situation been like since the change in Erdogan’s policy towards the Kurds?

The success of the Kurds in Syria against ISIS, which had just attacked the Kurds with the support of Erdogan, inspired the Kurds in Turkey. Self-governing communities were proclaimed, which the Turkish state did not want to enshrine in the Constitution. Meanwhile, the HDP, the Kurdish party, which was elected into parliament with 59 representatives, has developed self-confidence. In the previous federal election the party had a very big success with 80 MPs, which strengthened the will for self-government. Erdogan has promised for 13 years to solve the Kurdish issue. Therefore, he got the votes of Kurds, who he needed for the reconstruction of Turkey into a presidential system. However, things have changed after the parliamentary elections on 7 June 2015.

What plans does Erdogan pursue?

He wanted - and still wants - to be the new Ottoman Sultan. He wanted and wants to dominate the Middle East. By his response to the attempted coup, Erdogan can reach the objective that he has always pursued. Building on the Ottoman Empire will be possible only when he cuts off the opposition and, where necessary, can carry out purges. His pleaded objective in trying to build a democratic state is as well a farce as with the coup leaders, who have spoken about wanting to save democracy. But that will not work.

Due to his Kurdish phobia, Erdogan has lost much both in Syria and in Turkey. The success of the Kurdish resistance shattered all his plans. He now takes revenge on the Kurds. These were the main reasons why he led the Turkish state into a new war violating international law. Now after the defeated coup he can eliminate those who were against his policies.

What is the war like?

Through this war Erdogan wants to create civil war conditions and aggressive chauvinism against the Kurds. So far 11 Kurdish cities have been razed to the ground by warplanes and armoured artillery. In the fight of the Turkish security forces against the Kurds, about a thousand people have been killed in recent months; men, women, children. Weeks of curfews were imposed on cities.

What does this mean for people?

This means: no water, no electricity, no food, no medical care, access ban for the press and other observers. Those who dare to leave the house risk their lives, whether they supported the PKK or not. They shoot with heavy artillery and tanks, i.e. imprecise weapons that always mean the death of bystanders. In Cizre e.g. more than 200 civilians were burned alive in a basement where they had sought shelter. Among the victims was my sister Berjin Demirkaya. Weeks later, the Turkish state has handed over 3 charred bone fragments as the mortal remains to my father.

This is abhorrent and absolutely inhuman. It reminds me of the situation of Tamils during the civil war.

Yes, Erdogan sees the actions by the Sinhalese against Tamils as a model for Turkey. He has already said so publicly. The military raids against the Kurdish civilian population are extremely brutal. While one city after another is razed to the ground, the Turkish government explains that they plan to rebuild the cities. They have already begun to issue reconstruction contracts to companies that are close to Erdogan. Currently the Government is accommodating Syrian “refugees” in the newly built apartments. The Kurds are turned out. These Syrians cannot be called “refugees” at all. They are actually ISIS fighters who attacked and stormed the Kurdish cities in Syria and Turkey. All these war crimes have been documented at the United Nations and various international organizations.

How do people deal with the changed situation in the Kurdish regions of Turkey?

The displaced people have emigrated into neighboring provinces. The self-administration councils and municipalities are trying to help people mainly with donations and relief supplies, often sent from abroad to the “Kurdish Red Moon”, because the state has cancelled the funds that the municipalities were entitled to. An example of such assistance is the campaign “Godfather Family”, in which a family living in Europe is matched with an affected family from the war zones, so that the necessary help directly reaches the affected areas. The Turkish state wants yet to tighten the population’s misery to break the will of the Kurds. The curfew is still imposed. Many people cannot return home. Since many homes were destroyed, they do not know where to go. Some houses were looted.

What do the European neighbors say?

The European states do not want to fall out with Erdogan. They want to solve the refugee problem in this way: remaining silent. Europe sits and watches as Erdogan burns the Kurds alive.

After all these adversities and all the bestiality one cannot help to look for a clue of the solution to the conflict. What could a solution to the conflict look like?

The war cannot last for all eternity. To see the solution you have to think about the reasons of the conflict.

Especially the Turkish state has to change structures and its paradigm. And all this must be constitutionally safeguarded. This will reestablish confidence between the Kurds and the Turkish government. Especially with the recent war, Erdogan has destroyed exactly this confidence within a year. Reestablishing it has become more difficult, but it is still possible.

What does it take?

The Turkish side must fundamentally change its policies. In Turkey, different peoples and religious communities have had a home for millennia, not only the Turks. The new state and political and legal structures should reflect that, otherwise Turkey would become a new Syria with far-reaching implications and consequences for Europe. It does not require its own Kurdish state, but it needs a democratic solution in Turkey, which woiuld take all nations and religious communities into consideration. Then Turkey could be a real model for the Middle East.

Mr. Demirkaya, thanks for the interview.

Interview Thomas Kaiser

* Rüstü Demirkaya is a Kurd from Turkey. He is 32 years old and has lived in Switzerland since 2009. From 2002 he has worked for the news agency DIHA at the newspaper “Ozgür Gündem” as a reporter and editor focusing on Human Rights. Because of his reports several lawsuits were filed against him. He was detained and released again after 7 months, thanks to the support of international reporter and human rights organizations. Later they wanted to arrest him again and sentence him to 10 years in prison. He then fled to Switzerland in December 2009. He reports and writes for the above mentioned newsagency and newspaper.

«Syria was an oasis in the Middle East»

Interview with Professor Dr. iur. et phil. Alfred de Zayas

Professor Dr. iur. et phil. Alfred de Zayas (Bild thk)

Third States must not intervene by supporting insurgents in a civil war

Interview with Professor Dr. iur. et phil. Alfred de Zayas

Zeitgeschehen im Fokus: With Russian support, government forces in Syria have liberated Aleppo from rebel hands. There is much criticism of Assad's and his allies’ actions. How would you assess the situation from the perspective of international law?

Professor Alfred de Zayas: From a legal perspective, this is a civil war. The Geneva Red Cross Conventions of 1949 and the Protocols of 1977 lay down the international law of international and internal armed conflict. On both sides war crimes have been committed, which must be investigated and punished. It is particularly important to consider that in a civil war situation, all other states have an obligation to neutrality and non-interference. Foreign States are not allowed to intervene because intervention is a serious violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the state, as well as a violation of the international prohibition of the use of force as stipulated in Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter.

But Russia is on the ground and helps in the fight against the rebels.

An intervention based on a resolution of the Security Council under Chapter VII would be compatible with international law, but the Security Council has not approved foreign military intervention. The only other legal possibility of intervention exists when the government of the country that finds itself in a civil war situation formally asks a third country for help. After all, Assad is the legitimate head of government and was elected according to the constitution of the country. He is thus the head of state of Syria. While third States may not support rebels, the Head of State may ask other countries for help. This happened with regard to Russia.

Does anybody care if a state interferes illegally?

There are judgments of the International Court of Justice. In 1985, the United States was condemned in connection with its actions in Nicaragua, because it had supplied a rebel group in Nicaragua with arms and money, in contravention of international law.

So we would actually have an instrument that could be used here.

Yes, we can go back a little further in history. During the American Civil War, the English supported the Southern States. Not because they sympathized with the Southern states, it was business. They delivered weapons and built ships for the Confederacy. After the North had won the civil war, the then US President Ulysses S. Grant asked the British to pay. The negotiations took place here in Geneva at the Hôtel de Ville. This was the first international court of arbitration called Alabama Claims, finding that England had violated international law because it had interfered on the side of the rebels. England accepted the verdict and paid $15.5 million.

Thus, the ban on non-interference is nothing new and cannot surprise anyone either.

There should be no surprise, but politicians invoke international law at their pleasure, and what does not suit them is simply ignored. In addition, the media do not understand international law and anyway do not report on issues they do not like. There are several resolutions of the UN General Assembly, which prohibit interference in the internal affairs by other states, for example in Resolution 2625 on Friendly Relations between States, Resolution 3314, the Declaration on Aggression. In other words, interference in all countries supporting the rebels in Syria is aggression under international law, so it is prohibited by Article 5 of the Rome Statute.

Applied to Syria this would mean...

... that those states which support the rebels have violated the sovereignty and the country's territorial integrity, for which they are liable to reparation as in the Alabama claims arbitration. The main issue, of course, is to come to the negotiating table and reach a comprehensive cease fire and a peace agreement as quickly as possible, as stipulated in Article 2 (3) of the UN Charter. As far as I can remember, Assad has always been open to peace through negotiations, through diplomacy.

Why has this not happened so far?

A number of states did not want it. The interventionists have hoped to achieve a military victory against Assad. That would probably have been the case if Assad had not turned to Russia. Without Russian assistance, which is, as I said, in conformity with international law, Assad would already have fallen. This does not entail impunity for war crimes. Any excesses and war crimes committed by the Assad government or by Russian forces should, of course, be investigated.

How do you assess the situation now?

It looks like Assad may now achieve a military victory. Then we must see how quickly the international community provides concrete help for the victims of the war. This, of course, means that we have to recognize the facts and accept that it is now about the Syrian people and that we have to help and compensate all those who have suffered there. However, you hear quite different tones. A number of States want Assad as a war criminal before the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague.

What do you think about it?

The state of war in the Middle East is prolonged by the demonization of Assad and the insistence that he be deposed. The etiquette of the war criminal has been imprinted on him. This is, however, very selective and manifests the intellectual and emotional dishonesty of many politicians, because nobody talks about bringing the interventionists, including other heads of state in the region, before the ICC, although they bear responsibility for grave war crimes and crimes against humanity.

What do you think of specifically?

The ICC will have little credibility for as long as the most serious crimes of the 21st century, namely the crimes associated with the Iraq war, Afghanistan war, Libyan war and Yemen war, continue to enjoy impunity. If Assad were to be prosecuted, then a whole series of other heads of state would have to be brought to court as well.

It is obvious that the acceptance of this Court is decreasing.

Since this court has not been neutral in some cases, a whole series of states have denounced the statute. And if the policy of the International Criminal Court is not changed, a lot more states will certainly follow this notice. For it is still a weapon of the stronger against the weaker.

Is the plan to accuse Assad there not also a result of misinformation about the whole situation in Syria?

Yes, the media has played a decisive role in disseminating false information, including fake films and videos. They have accused Assad and Russia of many war crimes, without, however, providing any evidence. On the other hand, when the rebels used chemical weapons and thus committed significant crimes of war, these crimes were not reported, or they were trivialized. I have noticed this so often in the last five years. You can no longer rely on the press. The media are a major weapon in this war. What we complain about is well described with the recent neologisms: "Fake news" and "Post-truth" reporting. There is also the problem of selective reporting or non-reporting. That is why it is prudent to consult different news services, while nurturing a certain level of healthy scepticism.

One has the impression that the majority of the media is on the side of the rebels.

Yes, reporting has been pretty biased against Assad. Even the NGOs have been irresponsible and relied on biased sources. Aid organizations, such as the ICRC, have a constitutional commitment to be neutral. Yet, in recent weeks, a number of Russian doctors were killed by the rebels and apparently a small field hospital in the west of Aleppo was bombed by the rebels. Unfortunately, the ICRC did not comment accordingly.

What does that mean?

An internationally recognized and credible organization will thereby lose credibility. I think this is extremely regrettable. I hope that hostilities will end soon so that the reconstruction of the country can begin. My appeal to all European states: Help these poor people. The one million refugees will then return home. But they cannot be expected to return if they only find rubble. All States should help Syria rebuild its infrastructure, water supply, electricity, houses, etc. . One must make it possible for them to return in safety and dignity and to lead a dignified life in Syria. Before the Civil War, Syria was an oasis in the Middle East in which a high degree of prosperity, education, training opportunities and tolerance between religions prevailed. But just as Iraq, Lebanon and Libya have been destroyed, Syria has been the victim of yet another attempt at “regime change”. By the way, as far as neologisms are concerned, I can no longer hear the propagandistic word "Arab Spring". For the population of these countries it has not been a green spring, but a red chaos of the interventionists.

What do you think of the development in Aleppo?

I do not want to characterize it as a "victory" of Assad, as some media do. Assad has merely restored the authority of the Syrian state over Aleppo after four years of occupation by "rebels" and terrorists. It is not about the "fall" of Aleppo, as we can hear and read on CNN and BBC, but about its "liberation". In any case, it is good for the poor population that Aleppo's bombardments have ended. We will see whether the EU and the US will now provide humanitarian aid after they have long financed the "rebels". That would at least be a part of the reparation for what they have done there. But when I read the reports in the New York Times or Washington Post, I have only a moderate hope that the West finally decides for peace. The spirit of "regime change" still exists.

Russia was no longer elected to the Human Rights Council because of its deployment in Syria. This was a political decision. How do you rate it?

True enough – and yet another proof of how politicized the Human Rights Council is - even more so than the former Human Rights Commission.

Professor de Zayas, thank you very much for the interview.

Interview Thomas Kaiser

The interview corresponds to the personal opinion of Professor de Zayas and was not officially conducted in his capacity as an independent expert at the UNO. See also www.alfreddezayas.com and http://dezayasalfred.wordpress.com

“Fidel Castro attempted to create a different society”

Interview with Professor Dr. iur. et phil. Alfred de Zayas

The United States must pay reparation to Cuba

Interview with Professor Dr. iur. et phil. Alfred de Zayas

The Cubans lost their Fidel Castro a few weeks ago. There were various obituaries. Most media have described him as a “dictator” or “autocrat”, some also called him the “last communist”. Such commentaries always raise the question of what is propaganda and manipulation or what is a realistic way of looking at an issue. Zeitgeschehen im Fokus asked the historian and US expert in international law and elected representative to the UN, Professor Alfred de Zayas, about his opinion.

Zeitgeschehen im Fokus: Professor de Zayas, how do you assess the era of Fidel Castro; what is his life-time achievement?

Professor Alfred de Zayas: As a practicing Catholic I followed the visits and statements of Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis when they travelled to Cuba and had personal contacts with Fidel Castro. The lessons which we draw from the Gospel, and in particular from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew V), are pertinent. A former student at Cuba’s De La Salle and Belen schools, Fidel Castro attempted to create another society built on solidarity and mutual aid, a society which was not materialistic, and did not build on capital or consumption. This model is actually much closer to the ideal of the Sermon on the Mount than we know it in other Christian countries. As a life-time achievement I see his consistent struggle for the sovereignty of Cuba and against the interference of the United States in the internal affairs of the country. No other politician in the world has dared to say so clearly “No” to the United States. And Castro has proved that it is possible, even if the consequences - especially the embargo – were quite serious. Of course, Castro has done some things that were not in order, for example in the area of freedom of expression as defined by Article 19 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) or in the area of political activity as defined by Article 25 CCPR. For many years he restricted the right to emigrate to the US and elsewhere, in violation of article 12 CCPR. But he was never a bloody dictator like Batista, Somoza, Videla, and Pinochet - or like so many in Latin America. I am convinced that if free elections had been held in the 60s, 70s and 80s, Castro would have won these elections hands down.

What did he do differently?

He was committed to the equality of races, peoples and religions. Like no other political leader, he supported international solidarity, when crises arose in various regions of the world, when natural catastrophes hit countries, as for example Ebola in Africa or an earthquake in Haiti. Castro was the man of the first hour. He sent thousands of doctors to all of these places. This meant help which he could provide more quickly and often more efficiently than the rich countries. He also supported the decolonisation movement in Africa and elsewhere and was a friend of Nelson Mandela and Bishop Desmond Tutu.

This model was repeatedly condemned, especially by the USA.

The Cuban model was amalgamated with Soviet communism, and yet it had little in common with it. Fidel Castro was depicted as an atheist and destroyer of the Church. The Churches in Cuba, however, continued functioning under him – although many Church dignitaries had been great supporters of the former governing elites. Cuba has a history of 58 years, in which the country could assert its sovereignty, its independence from the United States, its rejection of corruption, colonialism and imperialism. This alone – these 58 years of standing upright despite some attempts to assassinate him and despite the 57 years of embargo against the country - deserves respect.

Why could he stay so long?

If he had not been esteemed by a considerable proportion of Cuba’s population, he could not have held the reins of power for so long. If he had been a corrupt tyrant, a despot, a puppet, as we know them from Africa or Latin America, he would have been overthrown long ago. One thing is significant: in the years of the greatest hardships, when, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, everyone predicted that Castro would also fall, the country did not waver. We are now 25 years later, and the government has remained stable.

What was his recipe for success?

The people did not live in fear and there was no Soviet-style structure that brutally suppressed them, such as in communist Poland, the GDR, Hungary, or Czechoslovakia. It is because a majority of the people accepted that a fair distribution of the resources was necessary, that competition without solidarity was not a good model. Because of the embargo there was rationing, but the people had enough to eat. They have free education up to the university. They have the best medical care you can think of. And there is little or no corruption.

How was it before the era of Fidel Castro?

Before 1959, Cuba was a cross-roads for organized crime, for the mafia, for drug trafficking. The country was the brothel of the United States. It is understandable that in the 1950s a large part of the Cuban population was so unhappy with this situation that they actively supported the liberation war against Batista. Even the elites contributed money to the revolution. Initially Castro’s revolution was not Marxist-oriented and had absolutely no relations or assistance from the USSR.

However, there was a close cooperation with the USSR ...

... Castro was almost forced into the arms of the Soviet Union, because the US absolutely refused to negotiate with him, to try to meet him half-way, a quarter way? The US government wanted to have Cuba as it was before the revolution, under the puppet Fulgencio Batista; and as punishment for Cuba’s intransigence they imposed the embargo on the country.

Is this still in force today and violates international law?

The embargo has already been condemned 25 times by the United Nations General Assembly. These unilateral sanctions are clearly in contravention of international law. They violate customary law, they violate right of free-trade, they violate the sovereignty of the country. Each country has the right to choose its own government form. This has been recognized in Article 1 of the CCPR. This has been recognized in the UN Charter, in several Resolutions of the General Assembly, among them Res. 2625 and 3314, etc.

Why is the embargo still in force?

International law is not a directly applicable law, it is not self-executing; it requires an authority, such as the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court, which then makes a judgment on the subject and stipulates the obligations. It also needs goodwill.

What impact did the embargo have on Cuba?

The embargo totally isolated Cuba, and this also helped the government to stay in power. Thus the Castro brothers are still in power 58 years after the revolution. If you are forced to live with what you have, if you cannot import, if you cannot export, the ingenuity comes into play and solutions are sought and found. They have restructured and reorganized in a manner that is impressive.

What is Cuba’s problem today?

The extraterritoriality of the application of the legislation of the United States, including the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, made it very difficult for foreign banks, but also for corporations, to conduct any business with Cuba. This violates international law. But the US holds the whip in its hand, because the corporations want to be able to do their business in the USA, especially since they also have branches there. When they do business with Cuba, they must be afraid to lose their business in the US. It is a massive economic threat. In addition, there are enormous financial penalties that the Treasury Department in the US has imposed on European banks and corporations. These go into the billions.

What should happen now?

The blockade should be lifted, but it has not been as yet. Obama has made some concessions and it is not at all certain that Trump will not undo these. Bearing in mind that international law has been violated for 57 years, which has resulted in immense economic losses; there should be some kind of compensation. Cuba has suffered economic harm estimated at over 1000 billion US dollars, even without counting any interest thereon, and even without considering the damage resulting from the failed US invasion of 1961 (Bay of Pigs). This damage should be repaid according to the principle of State responsibility for internationally wrongful acts (Chorzow Factory Case, 1928).

After the revolution Cuba has also nationalized industries?

What Cuba has confiscated at the time, for example US corporations or American investments in Cuba, is, by comparison, peccata minuta.

How could we help Cuba to avail itself of its rights?

In order to solve the whole problem, we could of course think of a peace conference. If we remember Versailles: the Germans paid the last reparations a few years ago. The United States should pay reparation to Cuba - but can deduct losses from US corporations.

How do you want to make up for 1,000 billion?

This is a huge effort. It does not even include all those deaths attributable to the embargo. Since medicines were lacking and medical equipment or parts thereof could not be imported, some people perished. They could have been saved. But because a medical device lacked a small spare part, the patient could not be cured. However, missing spare parts could not be obtained, neither through Europe nor through third countries.

This is devastating, but nobody is talking about it.

Yes, there is enormous civil and criminal liability. But hitherto these have been facts without consequences, facts that we know, but about which we do not talk. When we speak of justice and peace, we must call for the universal application of international law and human rights principles. We must reject the impunity of the perpetrators. We must recommit to human dignity as required under the UN Charter and the Human Rights Covenants. Maybe the new Secretary-General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, would like to offer his good offices to achieve justice and reconciliation in the Cuban conext.

It is worth reading again what the Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis said and wrote about Castro.

Professor de Zayas, thank you very much for the interview.

Interview Thomas Kaiser

The interview corresponds with the personal opinion of Professor de Zayas and was not officially conducted in his capacity as an independent expert at the UN. See also www.alfreddezayas.com and http://dezayasalfred.wordpress.com

Go back