Argentinean Ambassador to Russia Resigned in Protest for Vote Against Venezuela (UNHRC)
“Today I want to present my resignation as ambassador, because I do not agree with the current foreign affairs policy,” the leader wrote in her resignation letter.
Alicia Castro resigned her postulation as Argentine ambassador to Russia. The decision of the former deputy with a long diplomatic career was communicated in the last hours to the national government with a letter in which she expressed disagreement with the Foreign Affairs policy, after the Palacio San Martín voted against Venezuela at the United Nations Council of Human Rights on an interventionist resolution promoted by the Lima Group.
“Today I want to present my resignation as ambassador, because I do not agree with the current foreign affairs policy,” says the extensive letter sent by Castro, who had been appointed as future ambassador to Russia and whose appointment was still being discussed in the Senate, due to the pandemic.
During a radio interview, Castro assured that President Alberto Fernández contacted her to “review her decision”. “I replied that if you read my letter carefully you will understand what the reasons are” and that “it was not convenient for her to take on the role of ambassador,” she said.
In HER letter, Castro stated that Argentina’s position to accompany the controversial resolution on human rights violations in Venezuela “constitutes a dramatic turn in our foreign policy and does not differ at all from what the government of (Mauricio) Macri would have voted.”
She explained that “the Lima Group’ was created during the neoliberal restoration by a group of far-right governments, encouraged and financed by the United States with two explicit objectives: to promote a ‘regime change’ in Venezuela” and “to dismantle the regional unity.”
For this reason, and in case of being appointed as ambassador, “I could not follow instructions from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that I do not share and that I consider to be at odds with the interest of the Nation”. “My position and my ideal of building the Great (Latin American) Homeland is today, as it was during the two Kirchner governments, and it will continue to be firm and unwavering. Always,” she pointed out.
During the Néstor and Cristina Kirchner governments, Alicia Castro was ambassador to Venezuela and later to the United Kingdom . During her stay in Caracas, she built strong ties with then-President Hugo Chávez. And after knowing the Argentine vote at the UN, she came out to criticize Foreign Minister Felipe Solá. She described the “regrettable turn in our foreign affairs policy” and questioned him for voting in line with the governments of Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil), Sebastián Piñera (Chile), Iván Duque (Colombia) and Martín Vizcarra (Peru).
This is not the first time that Castro has criticized Solá . She had already done so last July through Twitter, when the head of the Palacio San Martín described the Maduro government as “authoritarian.”
Some differences had also arisen with the Foreign Affairs Ministry over an alleged request for remodeling of the official residence in Moscow. On another occasion she had questioned the Secretary for Strategic Affairs, Gustavo Beliz , when he published a column on the America Crece plan, from Washington, in which he considered that “the United States is once again positioning itself as a proactive partner for the development of America Latina ”.
The translated letter of resignation below was published by EN24:
I want to thank the national government, especially our vice president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, for having honored me with the appointment as ambassador to the Russian Federation. I had planned my transfer for the month of April, but in March, with the Placet granted by Russia, I began the period of preventive and mandatory isolation and made my formal request to the Senate of the Nation to postpone the treatment of my Statement due to the explosion of the pandemic, which materially prevents flights to Russia and the five countries where it would have concurrence.
Russia is a strategic country in the construction of a multipolar world, and I believe that it could serve with loyalty, efficiency and patriotism, until obtaining concrete achievements and recognition for our country, such as those registered during my ten years as ambassador to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. and before the United Kingdom. My greatest ambition is for Argentina to join the BRICS and thereby make a qualitative leap, both geopolitical and economic and commercial.
Today I want to present my resignation as ambassador, because I do not agree with the current foreign affairs policy.
On October 6, at the 45th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, Argentina’s vote accompanying the Resolution of the Lima Group constitutes a dramatic turn in our foreign policy and does not differ at all from what would have happened. Macri’s government voted. In fact, the Lima Group was created during the neoliberal restoration by a group of far-right governments, encouraged and financed by the United States with two explicit objectives: To promote a “Regime Change” in Venezuela -with the same matrix of those who operated by the US in the Middle East – and dismantle the regional unity.
In the past decade I had the honor of participating – as a deputy and as an ambassador – in the wonderful process of forging regional unity together with Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner and the progressive leaders of the Region, Hugo Chávez, Lula da Silva, Fidel Castro, Pepe Mujica, Rafael Correa, Evo Morales, Daniel Ortega, united in diversity. We clearly understand, following the legacy of our liberators San Martín, Bolívar, Artigas, that the union of South America is the key to our political sovereignty and economic independence. At UNASUR we achieved a dense and effective supranational institutional framework that managed to avoid two coups d’état in the Region and later we formed the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). Everything collapsed with the arrival of Temer, Macri, Bolsonaro, Lenin Moreno, the coups in Brazil and Bolivia with the manipulation of Lawfare and media operations. No one has been more exposed to media lynching than the Venezuelan government. It is well known how the Government Agencies of the United States orchestrate their Regime Change plans – with lies they have justified their military invasions in Iraq, the destruction of Libya – and their claims of direct interference in Latin American politics. It is worth asking why the US government and the Lima Group are not concerned about the flagrant violations of Human Rights in Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, Honduras, or Colombia – where 250 have been murdered. social leaders who signed the Peace Accords – Accords that – I also remember with pride – were promoted by Néstor Kirchner, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. No one can ignore today that Venezuela is under siege, subjected to a criminal blockade that deprives the people of medicine, food, and essential supplies. Contributing to intensify that siege is, to say the least, irresponsible.
Since the coup d’état perpetrated against Hugo Chavez in April 2002, coup attempts, assassination, sabotage, shortages, organized acts of violence to promote chaos have not ceased.
Most of the opposition parties do not present candidates for elections in order not to validate the triumph of the popular vote, as former president Rodriguez Zapatero explained with evidence from Caracas when Nicolas Maduro was reelected in 2018. As they failed to defeat Nicolas Maduro, the The US served a “self-proclaimed” president, Juan Guaidó, who also has the support of several European nations.
We take into consideration that, in a Front, not all of us think the same. We know that there are leaders among us who were always opposed to Venezuelan socialism – without ever having set foot in Venezuela – and even some who celebrated the proclamation of Guaidó.
But we trust that, regardless of preferences, the government of the Frente de Todos would respect the guiding principles of Non-Intervention in the internal affairs of other states, Peaceful Resolution of Controversies, and the enshrined principle of Legal Equality of States. Argentina has made doctrine with these founding principles of International Law, the Drago Doctrine, the Calvo Doctrine.
The countries of the European Union have as much right to interfere in the elections in Venezuela, as Venezuela can rule in the French elections.
Anti-colonialism is also an ethical imperative.
On October 6 at the United Nations Human Rights Council, two Resolutions were voted. Res. L.55. that it underlines the importance of maintaining constructive dialogue and cooperation with Venezuela in order to “strengthen its capacity to fulfill its obligations in the field of human rights”; “Expresses concern about the news regarding alleged restrictions to civic and democratic space, including reports of alleged cases of arbitrary detention, intimidation and defamation of protesters, journalists and human rights defenders”; welcomes the visit of the High Commissioner to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, which took place from June 19 to 21, 2019, and the commitments made with the Government to improve the human rights situation in the country; urges the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to apply the recommendations contained in the reports of the High Commissioner presented to the Human Rights Council at its 41st and 44th sessions and requests the High Commissioner to continue collaborating with the Bolivarian Republic Venezuela to address the human rights situation in the country and provide substantive support in the form of technical assistance and capacity building. “
This Resolution that promotes and encourages democratic participation was voted by several countries, among others, Mexico.
Later, the vote on Res. L.43 promoted by the Lima Group was put into consideration.
This Resolution, in addition to strongly condemning Venezuela, in line with the expressions of the opposition, promotes frank interference in internal affairs. Decides to extend for two years the mandate of an “Independent International Mission” that was constituted by three people without any representation, designated by the Lima Group, which limited itself to receiving reports from Panama by email from the Venezuelan opposition, which were never verified . In addition, it suggests the consideration of new measures.
For a greater display of cynicism, he expresses concern about the treatment of the Covid-19 pandemic in Venezuela, which, with 30 million inhabitants, has -according to WHO data- 80,000 infected with Covid-19 and a total of 653 deaths, which, clearly, it shows better performance, monitoring and care of public health than the countries that support Resolution 43, including ours.
This clearly demonstrates the lack of rigor of the arguments presented in this Resolution, which aim to demonize the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, its legitimate authorities and its people, who heroically resist the siege of the United States of America and its allies.
Argentina could have chosen to abstain, in any case, if it did not want to commit to either of the two Resolutions.
But instead, he voted with European countries that recognize the self-proclaimed Guaidó as president without a vote, a modality that puts the democracies of Latin America at risk. He voted alongside the United Kingdom, when Venezuela has been a constant and exemplary ally of the Argentine Republic in our fight for sovereignty in the Malvinas. He voted alongside the group of Latin American countries that have closely followed the instructions of the United States to demolish Venezuela. Argentina voted with Bolsonaro, with Piñera, with the coup leader Añez, with Lenin Moreno and empowered them as spokesmen for Human Rights.
For the above reasons, I present my resignation as plenipotentiary ambassador to the Russian Federation, I decline the high honor and privileges that such a high and important position holds.
I am not leaving the Frente de Todos y Todos, to which Kirchnerism contributed so much energy, so many efforts and the majority of the votes. And he built with so many dreams! I now vividly remember the masses of happy and conscious militants young and old at the historic Mar del Plata Summit, where we celebrated the rejection of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), the resounding success led by the “three musketeers”, as Hugo Chávez called his indestructible alliance with Néstor Kirchner and Lula da Silva.
I could not follow instructions from the Foreign Ministry that I do not share and that I consider to be at odds with the interest of the Nation. I want to act with responsibility and transparency; Let no one worry or harm by my statements, nor know concerns in off by the commercial media.
My position and my ideal of building the Great Homeland is today, as it was during the two Kirchner governments, and it will continue to be firm and unwavering. Forever.
Features image: File photo.
Translation: OT/JRE
