Venezuelan Who Defeated Five Dictators: There Is a Way to Hold the Lukashenka Regime Liable

• 12.03.2021, 15:26

The formula, named after Diego Arria, has already been exercised at two meetings of the UN Security Council on the situation in Belarus.

The legendary Venezuelan opposition figure Diego Arria was interviewed by the leader of the European Belarus civil campaign, presidential candidate in the 2010 elections Andrei Sannikov.

The formula, named after Diego Arria, has already been exercised during two meetings of the UN Security Council on the situation in Belarus.

Diego Arria used to be a minister in the Venezuelan government, the governor of the Caracas metropolitan region, the representative of Venezuela to the UN.

"Diego is the most decent person. Every stage of his life deserves a separate book. I had one very simple reason to talk to him. I knew that three of the dictators Diego Arria had dealt with passed away. In 1976, Diego negotiated with the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet for the release of his friend Orlando Letelier. He was a witness in The Hague during the trial of Yugoslav dictator Slobodan Milosevic. In 2011, he sued Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez in the International Court of Justice and accused him of crimes against humanity.

After talking to Diego, I learned that he had also dealt with Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi.

Altogether, he has five dictators in his "record book," who can no longer do evil on Earth," said Andrei Sannikov.

Charter97.org publishes a translation of the interview with some cuts:

- Good afternoon, Diego! How are you doing?

- Fine.

- Your name, Arria, has become a legend. It's not a compliment but a fact. Diplomats, in my opinion, are technologists. One of the procedures of the UN Security Council has your name. Today, there have already been two meetings on the situation in Belarus under this formula.

The first meeting was convened at the initiative of Estonia. We are grateful to them for that. You mentioned that they are also actively involved in your campaign to deprive Venezuela of a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. Estonia has demonstrated its commitment to human rights in the world.

I would like to start our conversation with congratulations. I congratulate you on the title of honorary citizen of Sarajevo. This title is directly related to what we're going to talk about. Could you tell us how the famous "Arria formula" emerged?

- Indeed, this is the only UN procedure that bears someone's name. The Security Council was a closed body. The format I proposed was the first democratic procedure that allowed non-members and representatives of civil society organizations to participate in its meetings.

I was representing Venezuela at the UN at that time, and a war was waging in Yugoslavia. A priest from the Bosnian Medjugorje addressed me. He shared the events in his homeland and complained that no one at the UN wanted to listen to him. When I talked to him, his name was Jozo Zovko, I invited the members of the Security Council for coffee in the delegates' hall.

- Were you chairing the Council at the time?

- Yes, but I invited them as a person not a member of the Council. They came, the priest spoke out, and I saw their reaction. The Secretariat of the Security Council did not tell us the facts that Jozo Zovko mentioned. The next day, after the formal meeting of the Security Council, I noticed that the stance on Yugoslavia became more human.

- Of course, today the format of such meetings has changed. They are public. When you initiated such meetings, they were closed and informal. Today, they are available online, everyone can watch the video. Which do you think is more effective? Open meetings used to inform the public or closed ones? I sometimes think closed meetings are more effective. Diplomacy often enjoys silence to solve a problem. How may one achieve a result, in particular, on the situation in Belarus?

- It's a very good question. I do not have a specific answer. I can say that much depends on the position of the permanent members of the Security Council. It is difficult to change their position. Even if the Holy Spirit came to the meeting, they would hardly listen to it. However, there was such a case three years ago. Ukraine was a non-permanent member of the Security Council and demanded a formal meeting to consider the issue of Russia's cyberwar against it. Russia vetoed it, and the Ukrainian ambassador called an Arria-formula meeting. It had a major effect. All the media were there and bore a great resonance.

- There is another question. Veto-wielding states try to ignore any meetings on such issues. In event of Belarus, both antagonists - Russia and Belarus - were present at the informal meeting. I consider it a positive sign because their presence admitted to the problem. China was also present, by the way. What do you think about it?

- You know that the Arria formula meetings are vetoed, don't you? Indeed, it is great that they participated in. Now, no one can say that they weren't informed and didn't know anything. In other words, the Arria formula put an end to all the far-fetched excuses of ignorance and uninformedness.

- Do you mean that publicity helps?

- Let me give you an example: the previous UN High Commissioner for Human Rights was going to report to the Council on human rights violations in China. China vetoed it. It happened at 10 in the morning. Shortly after, the U.S., French and British delegations called an Arria-formula meeting. It was a very high-profile meeting with a lot of press present.

- There is another question that is also related to the Security Council: your lawsuit against Hugo Chavez at the International Criminal Court. Like many people, I admire what you did, and I would like to exercise this experience in Belarus.

- Thank you. You know, I publicly threatened Chavez. I said that on November 22, 2011, I would go to the International Criminal Court and accuse you of crimes against humanity. Lawyers and I spent about a year developing a well-founded case against Chavez. Chavez died before the investigation of his case was over.

Today, we have a similar lawsuit against Maduro. Since he is still alive, we were able to develop the case more thoroughly than that of Chavez.

- Speaking of international instruments, you often say that everyone criticizes the UN. Then they go to the UN with their problems anyway. What do you mean?

- When we talk about the UN, we mean a non-existent organization, because the problems are the fault of specific states, not the UN: Russia, China, the United States, France, and the United Kingdom. They dominate the UN. For example, China has over a million Uighurs in concentration camps today. China has more weight in the UN system than anyone else. It is silly to accuse the UN of violating human rights in China. It is better to speak directly about the culprit state.

Sometimes, states hide behind the UN brand, sometimes they solve serious issues bypassing the UN, such as the liquidation of Gaddafi. The US, France and Britain took that decision. One does not need to blame the UN for what individual states are guilty of.

- I agree with you. I want to know your opinion on the dictatorship lawsuit. We collect materials to bring a case to the International Criminal Court against Lukashenka and his regime for crimes against humanity. The problem is that Belarus has not signed and, therefore, has not ratified the Rome Statute that established the Court. Nevertheless, there are mechanisms for referring a case to the Court. The UN Security Council is one of them. Do you think it's a good idea to take up the draft of the Council's resolution on the issue, being aware both of a veto and resistance? Is it worth resorting to your formula for such a discussion?

- You should do it. Everything needs documentation. They must be aware of the consequences of their actions or inaction, not only for Belarus but also for freedom around the world. One must deal with the draft resolution, use the "Arria formula" for it to hold them liable. One must draft such a resolution and force them to comply.

- The last question concerns sanctions. Unfortunately, our situations, in Venezuela and Belarus, are similar. How effective are international sanctions against such regimes? Some people think they don't work. I don't think so. What is your opinion?

- As for Lukashenka, he's just an accomplice of the Venezuelan regime.

- Of course, he is!

- Given the regime in Belarus, the issue is crystal clear.

- What is your personal opinion about the very mechanism of sanctions?

- The issue is who imposes sanctions and how. Resolutions are a primitive tool. Take Milosevic, for example. There were hundreds of resolutions, but he fell when the Americans started bombing him. The resolutions had nothing about the bombing, after all.

- You know, when I think of you, I always keep in mind that your country, like mine, is in a challenging situation, but you're a unique person. You saw the fall of the three dictators you dealt with: Milosevic, Pinochet and Chavez.

- I also met with Hussein and passed a resolution on Gaddafi.

- Even cooler! Thank you for this conversation! Viva Venezuela Libre!

-Y Belarus tambien!