A broad debate took place this Wednesday at the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva, in light of the report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
In the debate held at the UN body, many countries spoke out against the report, considering that the decision taken to prepare it did not have the support of the concerned country, contradicting the principles that should govern relations between the Council and the States, as are genuine dialogue and cooperation.
Likewise, the countries that spoke in favor of the Venezuelan Government indicated that the report denies the principles of the UN Charter, such as respect for sovereignty, self-determination and non-interference in the internal affairs of States.
They stressed that there is a democratically elected government in Venezuela that scrupulously respects the human rights of the people.
Along these same lines, member countries called on the HRC to end these interventionist procedures, through the imposition of resolutions without the endorsement of the concerned country.
International support and condemnation at the HRC
In its intervention, the delegation of the Russian Federation categorically rejected the politically motivated mandate against Venezuela.
“You cannot stigmatize specific countries, nor should you intervene in the internal affairs of the States (…) It is irrational and it is not constructive to reject the legitimate authorities. We are concerned about unilateral coercive measures that affect the most vulnerable”, said the Russian representation.
At the same time, Russia expressed its support for the legitimate authorities in Venezuela and asserted that they have spoken of diplomatic solutions, without destructive interference from foreign countries.
Likewise, the delegation of the People’s Republic of China urged respect for Venezuela’s right to self-determination, and condemned any attempt to use military force to intervene in the internal affairs of the South American country.
Cuba, for its part, strongly rejected the report, and expressed its firm and irrevocable solidarity with Venezuela. Denouncing that “criminal” unilateral coercive measures are applied against Venezuela and are minimized and ignored by the HRC.
The Government of Nicaragua also spoke out denouncing that the unilateral coercive measures of the United States against Venezuela violate the human rights of the Venezuelan people.
The Syrian Arab Republic, in turn, a country suffering from imperialist aggression and terrorism, clarified that the Human Rights Council was an international platform for the promotion and protection of human rights. Alerting thus, their concern that the space be used as an “instrument for political harassment of countries.”
For its part, the Islamic Republic of Iran, a country in solidarity with Venezuela, denounced that the imposition of unilateral coercive measures and harassment by the United States only worsened the situation.
The Republic of Belarus said that the resolution from which the report derives is destructive and did not accompany it, nor did Venezuela; and that it was evident that unilateral coercive measures violated human rights.
During the debate, the delegation of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar reiterated its position regarding specific mandates against countries, as they are not constructive in addressing human rights situations.
Respect for the Constitution, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Venezuela, was the call made by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea during its intervention.
For its part, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic noted that international harassment was not helping to solve the problems, and that the international community should cooperate with Venezuela to strengthen its technical capacity.
The delegation of the Kingdom of Cambodia condemned the initiatives and mechanisms imposed against countries, for being counterproductive. And stressed that the Council’s work should be guided by cooperation and capacity-building, rather than the so-called “name and shame” of countries.