Robertson's call for assassination of democratically elected leader of Venezuela is immoral, illegal, and must be investigated ___________ On Monday, August 22nd, extremist right-wing televangelist and Bush supporter Pat Robertson called for the assassination of democratically- elected President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela. Pat Robertson, a candidate for the GOP's Presidential nomination in 1992, along with the millions of supporters of his 700 Club, are a key constituency of the Republican Party. Robertson said in his Monday television show that "if he [Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it." In an apparent reference to past US invasions of countries like Vietnam and Iraq, he added that: "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with." President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay should be lining up to condemn in the strongest terms possible these immoral statements of a leader of their political base, which make a mockery of Christianity and give lie to the Republican claims that they stand for the right to life. Instead, State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack merely referred to Robertson's statement as "inappropriate". Calling for terrorist homicide against a democratically-elected president is not "inappropriate"; it is illegal, it is immoral, it must be condemned in the strongest language possible, and it must be investigated for potential violations of federal and international law. Fortunately, there are a few Congresspeople who understand the implications of this extremist act. Representative Serrano said the comments were "beyond the pale." Representative Lee chimed in that "President Bush should quickly and clearly condemn Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of the democratically elected leader of Venezuela, particularly since his new Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy, Karen Hughes, has appeared on Robertson's show." In addition, the National Council of Churches stated that "Pat Robertson's call for the murder of Venezuela President Hugo Chavez is appalling to the point of disbelief. It defies logic that a clergyman could so casually dismiss thousands of years of Judaeo-Christian law, including the commandment that we are not to kill." Reverend Jesse Jackson, Jr. said that Robertson's "rhetoric, especially if taken to their conclusion, only undermines international diplomacy and dialogue, and has no place in today's world." Venezuelan Vice President José Vincent Rangel noted in a press conference in Caracas today that "before, they were openly calling for Chávez's overthrow, now the call is to assassinate him." He added that "religious fundamentalism is one of the greatest problems facing the world today." Robertson's comments consistent with US Government policy The US government has been working to create a climate hostile to the democratically-elected government of Venezuela for years. Rather than contrasting, Pat Robertson's statements are consistent with the actions of the Bush administration. The Bush administration supported the 2002 coup against President Chávez, and has continued to fund coup leaders in their efforts to remove President Chávez from office, even after the coup, as documented on www.venezuelafoia.info. Recently, the US has stepped up efforts to isolate Venezuela in the region (although these efforts have been largely rebuffed by other Latin American leaders.) Earlier this week, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld continued the Bush administration's rhetorical assault against President Chávez, re-issuing old and unsupported claims regarding Venezuela. Yet in August 2004, President Chávez won a referendum on his presidency by 59%, results which were certified by the Organization of American States (OAS) and Carter Center. His popularity currently stands at over 70%, much higher than his US counterpart's. The policy of US government antipathy towards Venezuela stems more from that country's creation of an alternative economic vision for the hemisphere than any unsubstantiated concerns regarding democracy. President Chávez has embarked on a series of economic reforms, such as funneling billions of oil industry profits into massive programs for health care, education, literacy, and clean water, and promoting regional integration, which fly in the face of Bush administration's failed efforts to promote corporate globalization by establishing a Free Trade Area of the Americas. The US "free trade" neoliberal economic model has failed to deliver growth in the region; according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Latin Americans have experienced less than .5% per capita economic growth overall in the last 25 years. Meanwhile, Chávez's economic policies (combined with oil profits) have made Venezuela the fastest growing economy in the region. But the US government's dislike for Chávez's vision of a national economy that delivers development rather than free trade for US corporations does not give the US government ­ or US government supporters - a license to kill. In his comments, Robertson invoked the Monroe Doctrine, the primary instrument of the US policy of intervention and domination in the Western Hemisphere since 1823. "We can't allow this to happen in our sphere of influence," he added. Past US government involvement in the overthrow of democratically-elected governments weighs heavily on the minds of Latin Americans from countries like Chile, Guatemala, Haiti, Grenada, and the Dominican Republic. In addition, the US government has been connected in the past to the 1963 assassination of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem, as well as the murders of Congolese President Patrice Lumumba, Chilean President Salvador Allende, and repeated attempts on the life of Cuban President Fidel Castro. One aspect of Robertson's comments have little ground in US or Venezuelan reality. He stated that if Chávez were to be assassinated, he didn't "think any oil shipments will stop." President Chávez has repeatedly stated that oil shipments from Venezuela ­ which represent approximately 15% of US imports ­ will continue steadily as long as the US does not commit violent acts of aggression against Venezuela's sovereignty. Articles quoting his repeated declarations on this topic are available at www.venezuelanalysis.com. Venezuela is expanding exports to other countries, including China, the Caribbean, and South America, but has maintained shipments to the US, which light up our Eastern Seaboard with heating oil and keep 14,000 Venezuelan-owned Citgo gas stations in business. But in the case of an attack on the physical integrity of the Venezuelan leader, the immediate cessation of exports from the US's fourth largest source would be all but guaranteed. The US government's ongoing hostility towards President Chávez has created the climate in which a Republican leader ­ a former candidate for the Republican nomination for president ­ feels comfortable in calling for the US to kill an elected head of state as part of US foreign policy on the cheap. Robertson's comments are a clarion call for a new foreign relations policy with Venezuela ­ one based on respect for a thriving democracy and an important economic ally. Obligations under Federal and international Law Pat Robertson should be investigated and potentially prosecuted for calling for the murder of a democratically-elected head of state. Under Title 18 of US Code Section 1116, "whoever kills or attempts to kill a foreign official, official guest, or internationally protected person shall be punished." Section 878 of the same title makes it a crime to "knowingly and willingly threaten" to commit the above crime. It is incumbent upon the executive to investigate, and potentially prosecute, this wrongdoing by Pat Robertson to the fullest extent of the law. The US government also has obligations under international law to prevent and punish acts of terrorism against foreign heads of state if those acts are conceived of or planned on US territory. The 1973 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons makes it a crime to commit a "murder, kidnapping, or other attack upon on the liberty of an internationally protected person; .. [including] a "threat to commit any such attack." An internationally protected person means a head of state (or other specified persons.) The US is also a signatory to the 1971 Convention to Prevent and Punish Acts of Terrorism Taking the Form of Crimes Against Persons and Related Extortion that are of International Significance of the OAS, Article 8a of which obliges "[t]he contracting states undertake to cooperate among themselves by taking all the measures that they may consider effective, under their own laws, and especially those established in this convention, to prevent and punish acts of terrorism, especially kidnaping [sic], murder, and other assaults against the life or physical integrity of those persons to whom the state has the duty according to international law to give special protection, as well as extortion in connection with those crimes." This includes foreign heads of state as internationally protected persons. The Christian Broadcasting Network should also be investigated for the potential illegality of using federally licensed airwaves to call for the assassination of a democratically-elected head of state. In light of the $550,000 fine against CBS for the accidental airing of a "wardrobe malfunction", it would be ironic in the extreme if the CBN were not to be similarly punished for airing a call for terrorist homicide. If the US government did not have a history of provoking US-Venezuelan relations with baseless attacks, there would be little reason for concern about Robertson¹s remarks. But considering the facts of US involvement in the overthrow of democratically-elected governments historically, coupled with the current US aggression towards Venezuela, the incitement to terrorist homicide of democratically-elected President Chávez by a key Bush supporter certainly gives one pause. It¹s time to turn over a new leaf in our policy towards Venezuela, and build relations of respect with the most popular democratically-elected leader in Latin America. Calls to the White House Comment Line to let them hear from US citizens seem warranted if we'd like to prevent another bloodstain on American foreign policy: 202.456.1111. ------ Deborah James, Global Exchange, San Francisco