The coup plot comes just a month and a half after President Nicolás Maduro was reelected in the presidential election, which to date, the US has refused to recognize
In a press conference given on September 14, Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello announced that authorities had dismantled an operation reportedly backed by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States and the National Intelligence Center of Spain, which sought to assassinate President Nicolás Maduro, Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, Cabello, and other government officials. The minister announced that Venezuelan authorities had seized 400 weapons from the US and arrested 14 mercenaries who were involved in the plot. Among the arrested is Wilber Joseph Castañeda, an active US military officer and Navy Seal. Two Spanish citizens were reportedly also arrested, José María Basua and Andrés Badasbe.
#ÚltimoMinuto| Ministro de Interior @dcabellor da detalles de la operación sobre Venezuela que han sido detectados y desarticulados.
Algunos puntos claves:
✔️ Fueron decomisadas 400 armas que provenían de EEUU para asesinar al presidente Nicolás Maduro, la Vicepresidenta… pic.twitter.com/ztdATsYVDq
Officials stated that according to a document they seized from one of the detainees, the plot included attacking the Miraflores Palace and other public institutions, in addition to carrying out sabotage actions against various public services to generate chaos.
According to officials, those arrested possessed between 10-12 weapons in their homes that were set to be used in the destabilization plan. Cabello noted that many of those arrested also have links to Venezuela’s far-right opposition network.
He added that the weapons seized by authorities were brought to the country in “apparently legal” shipments and received by groups linked to the extreme right.
One of the leaders of the illegal arms trafficking network in the country, Cabello claimed, is a man who is already a fugitive from Venezuelan justice, Iván Simonovis. “Because of the capture of this weaponry here in Venezuela, they have taken actions in other countries that have included the murder of people. Simonovis knows what I am talking about,” he stated.
Venezuela has demanded that the United States government respond to the incident and “clarify the use of its agencies and the use of its territory to traffic weapons aimed at overthrowing a democratically elected government.”
Cabello declared: “The United States is behind this operation, they are delivering these weapons so that they circulate freely and reach Venezuela…They can say what they want, their agents are confessing. Castañeda is the head of the operation [of] the CIA here and they have a link with criminal groups in Venezuela.”
Regarding the Venezuelan state’s intelligence capacities, Cabello stated: “Let the world know that we are going to use all the necessary mechanisms to repel, to defeat these groups of mercenaries, of terrorists who try to undermine peace and order in Venezuela…prepare to be defeated again.”
A pensioner struggles to keep warm at home. Photograph: Studio Romantic/Shutterstock
Call comes after government forced to reveal that 71% of pensioners with disabilities will lose entitlement despite dependence on warmer homes
Groups representing disabled people are demanding urgent meetings with ministers after it was revealed that 1.6 million pensioners with disabilities will lose their winter fuel payments because of government cuts.
The figures were released by the Department for Work and Pensions on Friday evening, in answer to a freedom of information request, despite the government having said it had done no official impact assessment on the policy. The internal DWP analysis also suggested that nine in 10 pensioners aged between 66 and 79, and eight out of 10 over-80s would lose their allowance.
Since those over 80 receive a higher payment – £300 as opposed to £200 – they would take the greatest financial hit, the document said.
The analysis revealed that although people with disabilities were more likely to retain the payment, 71% – 1.6 million – would still lose their entitlement, despite their greater dependence on heating their homes.
The analysis also estimated that of the 880,000 pensioners entitled to pension credit but who do not claim the benefit, only 100,000 are expected to sign up to it as a result of a government campaign now under way, meaning about 780,000 pensioners on low incomes would continue to miss out.
Exclusive: Ex-Labour leader gives speech at event where organisers say they aim to start party named Collective
Jeremy Corbyn has addressed a meeting for a new leftwing political party named Collective attended by the former Unite general secretary Len McCluskey and a number of former independent candidates.
Key figures in the group said they hoped the party would act as an incubator for future leaders who could replace Corbyn as a figurehead of the left, and aim to contest seats at the next general election.
At the private meeting on Sunday, where Corbyn gave the opening speech, founders said they would begin drawing up democratic structures for a new party to launch.
A source close to Corbyn said his attendance was not an official endorsement and that he had attended the meeting to “listen to and share a variety of views about the way forward for the left”.
North Sea oil and gas licenses may be ruled unlawful after High Court bans new coalmine
NORTH Sea oil and gas licences may be ruled unlawful after plans for Britain’s first coalmine in 30 years were thrown out at the High Court, a leading campaigner said today.
The government was urged to provide to sustainable jobs and a “coherent” industrial strategy after the ruling left “all eyes on” judicial reviews of the proposed Rosebank and Jackdaw offshore oil and gas fields.
Planning permission for a new mine in Whitehaven in Cumbria was quashed after claims it would be “net zero” were challenged by Friends of the Earth (FoE) and South Lakes Action on Climate Change (SLACC).
Mr Justice Holgate said in his judgement: “The assumption that the proposed mine would not produce a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions, or would be a net-zero mine, is legally flawed.”
Project developer West Cumbria Mining (WCM) said it would “consider the implications” but the judgement suggests a landmark ruling in June has paved the way for successful legal challenges against fossil-fuel extraction projects in Britain.
…
FoE senior lawyer Niall Toru said today’s ruling was “a huge victory for our environment” which “could have ramifications internationally as there are cases abroad where challenges are being made against fossil-fuel projects on a very similar basis.”
He added: “We believe that the writing is on the wall and that WCM should withdraw its application for this climate-wrecking project.”
[dizzy: This article was published April 4, 2024 and refers to the United Kingdom’s previous Conservative government. Since then UK has a new Labour government under UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. UK violating International law will not have changed since April 2024 and Keir Starmer should be well-aware of legal requirements since he is often referred to as a human rights legal expert.]
The UK government has received internal legal advice that Israel has broken international humanitarian law in its current war on Gaza. The advice was revealed by Alicia Kearns, the Conservative chair of the House of Commons foreign affairs select committee, in a speech to a fundraising event on March 13 and leaked to the UK’s Observer newspaper.
The paper quoted British barrister and war crimes prosecutor Sir Geoffrey Nice as saying: “Countries supplying arms to Israel may now be complicit in criminal warfare. The public should be told what the advice says.”
The Guardian has now revealed that the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, has since received a letter signed by 600 lawyers and academics, including three former supreme court justices – among them Baroness Hale, the court’s former president – as well as former court of appeal judges and more than 60 KCs, warning that UK arms sales to Israel are also illegal under international law.
But what does international law actually say on this issue, and what are the UK’s (and other nations’) legal obligations in relation to the ongoing assault on Gaza?
In recent months, a number of countries have announced they are suspending arms exports to Israel. These include Canada, Belgium, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands, as well as the Japanese company Itochu Corporation. Germany and the US – by far the biggest suppliers of arms to Israel – have not as yet signalled intentions to follow suit.
Neither has the UK. But with arms exports amounting to £42 million in 2022, it is not one of Israel’s major suppliers.
Suspending arms exports to Israel indicates not only political concerns, but also fear over the legality of continuing to support Israel militarily in its assault on Gaza. The Netherlands court of appeal ruled in February that the Dutch government must discontinue its sales of F35 fighter jet parts on the basis of its obligations under the UN arms trade treaty. A similar lawsuit is currently pending in Denmark which exports F35 parts to the US, which then sells the finished jets to Israel.
In the UK, the high court dismissed an attempt to challenge the government’s continued licensing of arms exports to Israel. But this was because the particular procedural hurdle that applicants in such cases have to get over is notoriously high. The judgment said nothing definitive as to Israel’s (or the UK’s) compliance with international law.
Following this, 130 MPs and peers from across party lines recently signed a letter to the foreign secretary calling on the government to suspend arms exports to Israel.
Arms trade treaty
So what is the position under international law of countries, such as the UK, that support Israel militarily? There are many specific and general rules of international law that are relevant here.
The most obvious, and the one emphasised in the British MPs’ letter, is found in the UN arms trade treaty, to which the UK is a party. Article 7 requires a risk assessment for all weapons transfers, and prohibits exports where there is an overriding risk that the weapons could be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law (the law of armed conflict).
The only objective test we have for determining risk of future violations is to examine whether there is evidence of a pattern of past violations by Israel. UN reporting of past serious violations is one of the key considerations that the UK’s own policy points to in determining future risk. In 2019, the UK court of appeal suspended arms exports to Saudi Arabia based on the government’s failure to assess whether past violations of international law had likely been committed in Yemen.
The available evidence suggests there have been countless examples of Israeli actions in Gaza that appear, on their face, to be inconsistent with international humanitarian law. Among the most recent examples are the Israeli attack on an aid convoy on April 1, the destruction of Gaza’s hospitals, and the well-documented famine that now engulfs the territory.
The Hague court of appeal that ordered the Dutch government to suspend arms exports to Israel relied on reports from Amnesty International and the UN when it listed multiple examples of apparent violations of the law of armed conflict in Gaza.
And in the long-awaited UN security council resolution adopted on March 25, with the US abstaining, the security council condemned “all attacks against civilians and civilian objects, as well as all violence and hostilities against civilians”, and demanded the flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza, in line with international humanitarian law.
This suggests a pattern of past serious violations and thus a clear risk of continuing violations. So, signatories to the arms trade treaty continuing to supply weapons to Israel likely do so in breach of article 7.
Geneva conventions
Yet all nations have other obligations that take on particular importance in relation to Gaza. One of these is the obligation to prevent genocide under article 1 of the Genocide convention (which was the focus of the letter to the prime minister referred to above).
This is especially relevant since the International Court of Justice (ICJ) determined in January that there is an imminent risk of irreparable harm to the rights of Palestinians in Gaza under the Genocide Convention.
But it also includes article 1 of the 1949 Geneva conventions, which requires states to “ensure respect” for international humanitarian law. There is overwhelming support for the view that this requires all states not only to avoid aiding or assisting violations (for example, through arms exports) but to take proactive steps to ensure warring parties comply with their obligations under international law. They can do so via diplomatic channels or by imposing sanctions.
On March 1, Nicaragua instituted proceedings before the ICJ against Germany (the second-biggest arms exporter to Israel), in part alleging that it is violating article 1 of the Geneva conventions due to its support for Israel.
In this way, all countries are legally obliged to ensure that others comply with international humanitarian law. If the catastrophic destruction, massive civilian death toll and immense suffering of those still alive in Gaza is not enough to pull Israel’s allies into line over their continuing arms sales, it is difficult to conceive of any situation that ever could.
