What Venezuela’s UN Seat Illuminates About US Hypocrisy

Reading Time: 4 minutes
Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro at the UN. (UN photo)

Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro at the UN. (UN photo)

The impending arrival of Venezuela on the United Nations Security Council is provoking a firestorm of media criticism in the U.S. Virtually all the stories focus on the human rights record of this South American nation with an avowedly leftist government.

In addition to the five permanent members of the Security Council – the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China—the U.N. General Assembly votes to fill 10 other seats, on a rotating basis, for two-year terms.

On Oct. 16, Venezuela won the seat reserved for a Latin American or Caribbean nation unopposed. The last time Venezuela was up for a seat, in 2006, the U.S. succeeded in blocking its bid.  This time, U.S. officials have had to be content with issuing dire warnings about a dangerous new player on the international community’s most prestigious and powerful panel.

An article in the New York Times suggested the newly appointed country “may well use its perch on the Council for delivering anti-American diatribes.” A Foreign Policy story entitled “Venezuela’s Revenge” described the Venezuelan delegation as cult followers of late president Hugo Chavez, then quoted Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations:

Venezuela’s conduct at the U.N. has run counter to the spirit of the U.N. charter and its violations of human rights at home are at odds with the [U.N.] charter’s letter.

The Christian Science Monitor uncritically repeated American officials’ condemnations, and added that some “conservative critics say” Venezuela has “provided Iran with entree into the Western Hemisphere.”

But is Venezuela really an unrivaled human-rights monster, worthy of universal condemnation?

A look at some established human-rights metrics offers a more nuanced view:

THE DEATH PENALTY

The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives protection from the deprivation of life as well as cruel punishment. “The death penalty violates both of these fundamental rights,” Amnesty International said.

Venezuela abolished the death penalty in 1863, although security forces have been involved in extrajudicial killings and have often gotten away with it.

The U.S. has executed 30 people this year. Last year, it executed 39, the fifth most in the world, according to Amnesty. Police killings of unarmed “suspects” have made headlines in the American press all too frequently.

MEDICAL CARE

The Universal Declaration states that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including… medical care.”

Venezuelans are guaranteed the right to health care under the country’s constitution. While the system is plagued by shortages of medicine, patients are not turned away based on their inability to pay.

The U.S., despite its position among the richest societies in the world, scores poorly in terms of healthcare among its peers. The U.S. charges high fees to the uninsured, resulting in a situation in which the majority of bankruptcies filed by U.S. citizens are caused by medical debt.

Hand-in-hand with this trend, American citizens are far more likely to forego medical care because of cost than citizens of comparably prosperous societies.  It’s too soon to tell how Obamacare will affect this situation.

STATE POWER

Thanks to an excessive police response, Amnesty International sent an observation team to Ferguson, Missouri, during the unrest—the first time Amnesty has deployed observers in the United States. It has been estimated that routine practices at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp may violate as many as 19 of the 30 articles in the Universal Declaration.

In Venezuela, police abuse and prison violence—the worst in Latin America—remain serious problems. Security forces enjoy impunity for extrajudicial violence, according to Human Rights Watch.

PRESS FREEDOM

Venezuela’s government has routinely targeted TV stations, websites and publications critical of the government with administrative enforcement actions. It has yanked TV stations with opposing political views off the air with little or no warning, or threatened their licenses.

Despite occasional harassment (and even imprisonment) of reporters who fail to cooperate with courts by revealing the names of sources, the United States is generally rated a bastion of press freedom. An issue that has generated increasing controversy is whether freelance investigators deserve the same Constitutional protections as credentialed journalists for mainstream publications.

ACCESS TO WATER

The U.N. in resolution 64/292 declared the right to safe water and sanitation an essential human right.

In June, a group of experts who report to the UN called the cut-offs of water supply to Detroit families unable to pay water bills a violation of human rights. “In other words, when there is genuine inability to pay, human rights simply forbids disconnections,” said Catarina de Albuquerque, U.N. special rapporteur on the right to safe drinking water and sanitation.

About three-fourths of Venezuelans living in rural areas had access to potable water in 2007, according to the World Bank. Venezuela claims it has given water access to 96 percent of the public, but the latest World Bank reports have no correlating data.

***

None of this is to say that Venezuela is not a large-scale violator of human rights, as it most certainly is. Even the United Nations has taken it to task for attacks by security forces on university students and protesters. Rather, the facts demonstrate a selective national blindness on the part of many Americans toward their own government’s human rights record.

To the mainstream American media, the term “human rights violations” refers to events in which a country commits violations that the United States does not.

Samantha Power’s diplomatic rhetoric is to be expected, and hypocrisy is part of the game in such a setting. What is more telling is the American media’s complacency with a double standard that pretends to objectivity where there is none.

To ignore the very real criticisms coming from the U.N. and other countries about human-rights violations in the U.S. is to perpetuate a failure to see ourselves as others see us—a failure that can prove self-defeating to any nation that seeks to advance its interests in an international forum it does not control.

[box] WhoWhatWhy plans to continue doing this kind of groundbreaking original reporting. You can count on us. Can we count on you? What we do is only possible with your support.

Please click here to donate; it’s tax deductible. And it packs a punch.[/box]

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.

print

6 responses to “What Venezuela’s UN Seat Illuminates About US Hypocrisy”

  1. B. Casey says:

    One of the most accidentally revealing media accounts highlighting the real meaning of “democracy” in U.S. discourse is a still-remarkable 2002 New York Times Editorial on the U.S.-backed military coup in Venezuela:

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/17/democracy-really-means-u-s-jargon-subservience-u-s/

  2. Pragmatist says:

    To punish ourselves, we should stop funding the U.N. and kick it out of the United States. That will show us!

  3. Incurable Romanticist says:

    “To ignore the very real criticisms coming from the U.N. and other
    countries about human-rights violations in the U.S. is to perpetuate a
    failure to see ourselves as others see us”

    The only thing the U.N. sees about us is that we’re friends with Israel, and nothing else matters to them. They are permanently arrayed against us now. They should only go somewhere else and get their own real estate. In seventy years of living with the concept and the reality, I can only say that the United Nations is the biggest disappointment I’ve ever had. NASA’s running a close second.

    As for what European countries see, so what? I’d listen to the Germans, but nobody else. I remember in 1968, when we were embroiled in Vietnam, a French girl taking extension courses at the University of California took it upon herself to come tell me what bastards Americans were for fighting in Vietnam. She picked the wrong person. I don’t think she expected the pent up harangue she got about how the French had caused the trouble by mistreatment of the Vietnamese since before World War I, how the French had deliberately starved to death a million Vietnamese in World War II, and how we were only in that country, because of the mess the French had left there. I told her to take her too tight skirt and sweater, bad hair and body odor back to France, and to pick up the Statue of Liberty on her way. It’s ugly.

    People were shocked. I didn’t care. I still don’t. Since then, I’ve come to hate all of Europe, and their history, and their stuck up attitudes. There wouldn’t be any Europe if we hadn’t saved them. Every time they’ve screwed themselves up fighting with each other, we’ve been dragged in. Think about it: the French and Indian War, The Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, WWI, Vietnam and the Middle East. Now that I think about it, we should have left France out of the Marshall Plan, because the French pretty much caused all the problems–without their demands at Versailles, WWII might have been avoided.

    I really do care what Canada and countries south of the border think of us. I know it’s bad, and I know we’ve contributed to a lot of their problems. But they are all victims of Europe, too. And I liked what I saw when I followed a link below from Orangutang.

    Oliver Stone has never been my go to guy for dependable research, but I like the possibilities he opens up in the film Orangutang suggests. It’s something to shoot for–a whole hemisphere that hangs together with at least some decency and dignity.

  4. sfulmer says:

    Who owns hypocrisy? The US’s size and diversity in part explains apparent political hypocrisy and contradictions. For example, it’s hypocritical to say it’s too early to know if Obamacare makes a difference in making health care more accessible without acknowledging that a good portion of that uncertainty is due to behavior of the people, which, to some extent, is influenced by misinformation. The law itself is an improvement even if it is a corporate giveaway politically. It’s the people that have to shape the health of the country. This unapparent but intuitively inescapable national security linked regime, which is super-electoral, is an easy target that makes it hard to be a self-respecting American. The hypocrisy of this regime seems to have no limit. However, my liberal friends revealed themselves as most uncleanly misinformed and righteous in the aftermath of Chavez’ death. The hypocrisy therein lies somewhere in between this fatalistic, lesser-of-two evils acceptance of the Democratic party, with or without former Republican Elizabeth Warren, and the false confidence in “alternative media” in shaping or influencing the real power, the aforementioned super-electoral national security state. But lastly, most hypocritical of all, would be a critique on the US hypocrisy surrounding Venezuela’s rise at the UN as if the UN were some beacon of institutional purity. All you need to do is look at the unquestioned internal review and continuity of UN’s MINUSTAH in Haiti to see that the UN is anything but above hypocrisy. Clean water, says the UN? Please. At least you shouldn’t shit in someone else’s, particularly if you’re carrying a little cholera at home.

  5. goingnowherefast says:

    If you keep in mind that in the US corporations are considered more human than actual flesh and blood humans, the coded official rhetoric makes sense.

    Freedom means freedom for private enterprise to be unobstructed to do as it pleases and human rights are the right of private interests to be unmolested in their exploitation of resources and economic units (flesh and blood humans).

    The trick is to keep the majority of the public believing that these terms refer to them personally.