Feb 13, 2019, 3:30 PM
News Code: 83208224
0 Persons
Iran: US coup in Venezuela aimed at dominating country's oil

New York, Feb 13, IRNA - Iran's chargé d’affaires to the United Nations in a statement said the US coup against Venezuela is aimed at dominating the country's oil.

Addressing on Tuesday evening the Extraordinary Meeting of the Coordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement on “Situation in Venezuela”, Eshagh Al Habib said 'while they direct their goals at a civil coup and aim to overthrow a constitutional and democratically elected Government, their ultimate objective, as they openly admitted, is to dominate Venezuela’s oil.'

The full text of Al Habib’s speech is as follows:

In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful,

Mr. Chairman,

First, I thank you for organizing this meeting at this critical juncture.

The current developments in Venezuela are entirely of an internal nature and pose no threat to regional or international peace and security.

Therefore, to choose the method in which to address this situation is exclusively the prerogative of Venezuelans: both the Government and the opposition.

No external measure can be taken without the explicit consent of the respective Government; and no one can dictate to them what to do or what not do; what system to choose; or what policies to adopt.

More importantly, no country or organization is entitled to determine which national institution of another country is democratic or legitimate. This is ridiculous nonsense.

According to article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 1(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, only the “will of the people” shall be the basis of the authority and legitimacy of government.

This is an inherent right, the exercise of which cannot be made conditional, including to external recognition by any other nation or organization. Therefore, it must be strictly respected by all.

This means all of the hostile American policies and provocative illegal measures have to stop.

By waging an economic war and imposing unilateral sanctions, the US has created an economic crisis in Venezuela.

Now, it brazenly uses this crisis as a pretext to justify its animosity against Venezuela while nothing of such nature, including so-called notion of responsibility to protect, can justify interference or intervention in any country.

All such measures are exclusively aimed at securing the American narrow national interests in this region where the US wishfully considers it as its so-called backyard.

They are neither to support democracy nor human rights. Conversely, such policies are seriously undermining both human rights and democracy.

While they direct their goals at a civil coup and aim to overthrow a constitutional and democratically elected Government, their ultimate objective, as they openly admitted, is to dominate Venezuela’s oil.

This is the standard practice pursued historically by the US in intervening within other countries and overthrowing the democratically elected governments, including that of my country in 1953.

All of the US policies with respect to Venezuela are of hostile, coercive, destabilizing and provocative in nature and thus a gross violation of the fundamental principles of international law, in particular article 2(4) of the UN Charter.

Its attempts, including in exploiting the Security Council, also constitute a clear manifestation of interference in the domestic affairs of another country which is explicitly prohibited by article 2(7) of the UN Charter.

Moreover, it is a clear example of intervention on the side of the Government’s opposition which is explicitly prohibited under international law, according to which no State shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State or interfere in civil strife in another State.

That’s why, in its 1986 judgment on Nicaragua vs. US, the ICJ rejected such intervention by stating that “no such general right of intervention, in support of an opposition within another State, exists in contemporary international law.”

Additionally, in the case of Congo in 2005, the Court again made it clear that “the principle of non-intervention prohibits a State to intervene, directly or indirectly, with or without armed force, in support of an internal opposition in another State”.


Follow us on Twitter @IrnaEnglish