Guest essay by Roger D. Harris and Peter Bolton, in The Multiplural World, Aug 11, 2024
(Below are brief biographies of the two writers. This essay originally appeared in Dissident Voice on August 10, 2024. Further below is related news and analysis, from the ‘World News’ page of The Multiplural World website.)
Corporate media’s reporting of Venezuela’s July 28 presidential election is akin to an investigation of a homicide that is focused not with identifying the murderer but with an unpaid parking ticket of the victim. Likewise, the media has shifted the narrative into the minutia of electoral procedures, ignoring the much larger issue of U.S. interference in the internal affairs of another sovereign county. Nowhere in the corporate media of Western countries is there even an inkling that U.S.-imposed regime-change activities in Venezuela or elsewhere might violate some basic principles.
U.S. is not interested in democracy
The United States is a homeland where the likes of George Clooney and Melinda Gates have the prerogative, because they are rich, to demand that a sitting president abandon his re-election bid. In this “land of the free”, corporations are considered persons, political bribery is an exercise in free speech, and no candidate for public office is competitive unless they accept bribes from corporate interests. Yet Washington considers itself to be the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes democracy in other countries.
The truth is that Washington is not interested in democracy in Venezuela, but rather is keenly concerned with Caracas’s geopolitical role as an exemplar of independent sovereignty from the empire. For that reason, Barack Obama and every subsequent U.S. president has declared Venezuela to be “an unusual and extraordinary threat” to U.S. national security.
Of course, the notion that Venezuela poses a national security threat to the U.S. is preposterous. Former U.S. President Trump correctly identified Washington’s actual motives when he openly boasted: “When I left, Venezuela was ready to collapse. We would have taken it over; we would have gotten all that oil.” Similarly, Biden’s four-star military commander for Latin America, Laura Richardson, opined: “…the importance of the region cannot be overstated enough, the proximity, number one, but all of the resources. This hemisphere is very rich in natural resources.” Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves, greater than second-place Saudi Arabia and third-place Canada.
U.S. hybrid war against Venezuela is the biggest obstacle to free and fair elections
Venezuelans went to the polls with a gun pointed at their heads. This is because a vote for the Bolivarian Revolution’s socialist project would de facto mean a continuation and likely intensification of the U.S. hybrid war. In other words, one purpose of the coercive measures is to incentivize Venezuelan voters to vote for the U.S.-backed opposition and disincentivize them to vote for the Chavistas.
So hell-bent has Washington’s determination been to affect the outcome of the election that Venezuela now has some 930 unilateral coercive measures imposed on it by the U.S., making it the second most sanctioned country in the world, after Russia.
The Washington Post carps about the “overuse of sanctions” because it “risks making the tool less valuable.” It argues, “Wall Street power brokers have started to grumble about the costs of complying” with the unilateral coercive measures. Further, “sanctions make it risky to depend on dollars.” Pity the poor banker, we are told, but damn the people of Venezuela.
While correctly labeling the U.S. efforts as “economic warfare,” neither the WaPo nor the other media inform their readers that these unilateral coercive measures – euphemistically called “sanctions” – are illegal under international law, the charters of both the United Nations and the Organization of American States, and even under U.S. domestic law.
Take, for example, a recent program on host Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now!. Ms. Goodman has come a long way from her humble origins as an alternative news source. She interviewed Jeff Stein with the WaPo about the efficacy of what is in effect collective punishment.
The thrust of the brief interview was the angst voiced by Stein over the so-called sanctions not “working”; that is, not achieving regime change, despite the horrific toll they are taking on its victims. He says, “We don’t really see that very much” from the effects of sanctions. Goodman was not so rude as to ask her guest whether the U.S. should be in the business at all of overthrowing governments not to its liking, nor does she even query about the legality of sanctioning one third of humanity.
Throughout the interview, Stein used the term “we” to describe the actions of the U.S. government. Any pretense of a separation between the reporter and the subject being reported is dropped by such stenographers for the State Department.
U.S. planned to claim fraud all along
This election is far from the first time Washington has tried to interfere in Venezuela’s democratic processes. Nicolás Maduro won the Venezuelan presidency in 2013 in a constitutionally mandated “snap election” after the untimely death of his predecessor Hugo Chávez, founder of the Bolivarian Revolution. The U.S. was the only country in the world not to recognize Maduro’s election that year.
For the 2018 election, the U.S. claimed fraud six months in advance. Washington ordered its Venezuelan collaborators to boycott the polls, going so far as threatening sanctions against a moderate opposition candidate for running anyway. Regime change could be accomplished, Washington reasoned, by the one-two punch of the impact of a collapse in international oil prices on the petro economy and U.S. coercive measures designed to impede recovery.
But this time around, conditions were different. Venezuela had reversed the economic freefall and begun to diversify the economy. GDP growth is projected to be amongst the highest in the hemisphere. Under such circumstances, boycotting was out of the question. Instead, Washington adopted a belt-and-suspenders strategy of contending in the presidential election while setting the stage to claim fraud if their preferred candidate did not prevail.
Given the pain of sanctions on the Venezuelans, Washington might have allowed a centrist opposition candidate to emerge and banked on a repeat of what happened in Nicaragua in 1990. The leftist Sandinistas were voted out of office then under the threat of a continuing U.S.-backed contra war.
However, the U.S. chose to promote the far-right Maria Corina Machado, who they knew had been banned since 2015 from running for office because of past misdeeds. Eventually, the completely unknown Edmundo González, who had no previous electoral experience, was chosen to run as Machado’s surrogate, given her electoral disqualification.
While the infirm González convalesced in Caracas, Machado barnstormed the country carrying his paper image. The campaign vowed to privatize the national oil company and promote a strongly Zionist foreign policy.
Foreign Affairs magazine reported on how the opposition united around González, but in fact, nine opposition candidates appeared on the ballot. You would also read that Machado “won the opposition primaries by a landslide”. You would not know that Machado circumvented the official electoral authority. Instead, she staged a private primary run by her own NGO, a recipient of U.S. funds earmarked for regime change. Her ‘92%’ win in a field of thirteen candidates was highly suspicious. When other candidates called fraud, the ballots were destroyed.
Most significantly, Foreign Affairs admitted that the far-right coterie is largely a Yankee astroturf operation: “In the absence of this sustained [regime-change] effort over successive U.S. administrations, the Venezuelan opposition may well have boycotted the 2024 election entirely…Washington’s approach toward Venezuela furnishes a remarkable example.”
The author of the article should know. Jose Ignacio Hernández was Venezuela’s pretend attorney-general under the now disgraced Juan Guaidó ‘interim presidency’ farce.
U.S.-backed candidate never agreed to be bound by the election results
While weary of the Yankee hybrid war, many Venezuelans also deeply resent the far-right, which had called for even harsher measures and military intervention. The massive outmigration from Venezuela, fueled by U.S. coercive measures, had also disproportionately eroded the opposition’s political constituency, because the affluent have better means to leave.
Tellingly, the Machado/González campaign had, weeks before the election, signaled that they would not abide by the results if they lost. Upon announcement of the official election results, rampaging opposition elements, embolden by U.S. support, killed Venezuelan security personnel and massively destroyed public property in what Venezuelan-Canadian sociologist Maria Paez Victor called an “attempted coup”.
The wave of violence has since largely dissipated in the face of huge demonstrations supporting Maduro. The government’s civic-military union held firm. Chastened by its failure to overthrow the Bolivarian Revolution by violence or by the ballot, Washinton as of August 6 supports negotiations with Maduro and will NOT use the term ‘president-elect’ for González, according to the Miami Herald. This is a sign that regime-change advocates have downgraded their objectives…for now.
So who won?
Edison Research’s election exit poll on July 28 found 65% for the U.S.-backed candidate and 31% for Maduro. An exit poll by Hinterlaces had the opposite results: Maduro 55% and González 43%; similar to the official results of 51% for Maduro and 44% González.
Hinterlaces is a long established and respected Venezuelan polling firm, whose owner has been critical of the Maduro administration. Edison, on the other hand, works for CIA-linked U.S. government propaganda outlets such as Voice of America, which are operated by the U.S. Agency for Global Media, “a Washington-based organ that is used to spread disinformation against U.S. adversaries”, reports U.S. journalist Ben Norton.
The question remains, was the Venezuelan election free and fair? However you weigh the evidence, at least some skepticism is warranted regarding the claims of sources that brought us the 2003 Iraq War based on the big lie of “weapons of mass destruction” in the hands of the then-Iraq government. Moreover, we must ask whether anyone should look to the U.S. as a good arbiter of electoral integrity when it has constantly intervened in other countries’ elections. As Mexican president-elect Claudia Sheinbaum has counseled: “We should…leave self-determination to the Venezuelans.”
Roger D. Harris was an international observer for Venezuela’s 2024 presidential election. He is with the U.S. Peace Council and the Task Force on the Americas. Peter Bolton is a New York City-based journalist, activist and scholar. Read other articles by Roger D. Harris and Peter Bolton.
Related news and analysis, from the ‘World News’ page of The Multiplural World website:
Five myths propagated by the Western powers to discredit the Venezuela presidential election of July 28, analysis by Tim Anderson (Australia academic and writer), in Al Mayadeen English, Aug 7, 2024
What are the main challenges that lie ahead for the Bolivarian Process?, two-part interview with Carlos Ron, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs for North America of Venezuela and the head of the country’s Simón Bolívar Institute, in Venezuela Analysis (Part one, July 20, 2024; part two July 27, 2024.) Excerpt: …We face many challenges. First, we have to find a way to transform Venezuela’s productive model and break away from oil dependency, which is bad for the environment and makes our nation more vulnerable to external attacks, such as the sanctions. We have to break with dependency. And we also have to deepen the revolution’s democratic model, which expresses itself in initiatives like the communes. Communes are key to our project, but they are still in the making. Additionally, we need to strengthen the process of continental integration by promoting and reactivating more internationalist cooperation. To defeat hyper-imperialism, we have to build more just, respectful, and equitable relations among countries in the region…
As U.S. leaders and pro-U.S. underlings call ‘fraud’ in Venezuela election, observers endorse the results, by Alan MacLeod, published in Consortium News, July 30, 2024 (This report appeared originally in Mint Press News on July 30, 2024.)
Nicolas Maduro, president of socialist Venezuela, wins reelection on July 28, Venezuela Analysis, July 29, 2024 [According to Venezuela’s election authority, Nicolas Maduro and the PSUV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela) party he leads won just over 51% of the vote, compared to 44% for the candidate backed by the United States and its imperialist allies, notably the large countries of the European Union. The entirety of state and corporate media in the West, including Al Jazeera, is condemning the election outcome as fraudulent. The Washington Post headlines its report on the election outcome with ‘World leaders cast doubt on Maduro’s claim of victory in Venezuelan election’. Of course ‘world leaders’ (translated as ‘Western leaders’) cast doubt: They have been waging economic war against Venezuela for many years in efforts to overthrow its popular, elected, socialist government. For its part, the New York Times calls the election “flawed” and the re-elected President Maduro an “autocrat”. The newspaper reports that the U.S. government has “serious concerns” with the election outcome.]
What are the main challenges that lie ahead for the Bolivarian Process?, two-part interview with Carlos Ron, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs for North America of Venezuela and the head of the country’s Simón Bolívar Institute, in Venezuela Analysis (Part one, July 20, 2024; part two July 27, 2024)
Excerpt: …We face many challenges. First, we have to find a way to transform Venezuela’s productive model and break away from oil dependency, which is bad for the environment and makes our nation more vulnerable to external attacks, such as the sanctions. We have to break with dependency. And we also have to deepen the revolution’s democratic model, which expresses itself in initiatives like the communes. Communes are key to our project, but they are still in the making. Additionally, we need to strengthen the process of continental integration by promoting and reactivating more internationalist cooperation. To defeat hyper-imperialism, we have to build more just, respectful, and equitable relations among countries in the region…
Marxist economist Michael Roberts in UK condemns the mixed economy policies of the Venezuela government, predicts electoral defeat on July 28 for President Nicolas Maduro, and offers no alternative course. Reference: ‘Venezuela: the end game?’ essay by Michael Roberts, published on his website blog, July 27, 2024
[Missing from left-wing analysis of Venezuela in the imperialist countries is any mention of the anti-Chavista, anti-Bolivarian ‘left’ in Venezuela and internationally, which condemn the country’s government and its newly re-elected president, Nicolas Maduro. Informative publications such as Orinico Tribune and informative writers on Venezuela such as Vijay Prashad also steer clear of the subject. See: ‘Statement of the Communist Party of Venezuela’, July 30, 2024. Excerpt: ‘We alert international public opinion [sic] that just as the government of Nicolás Maduro has stripped the Venezuelan people of their social and economic rights, today it intends to deprive them of their democratic rights.’ And see here a similar analysis in the Trotskyist publication International Viewpoint (and here). Another Trotskyist publication, this one in Australia, also opposed to the policies of the Venezuela government (calling itself ‘an international journal of socialist renewal’), has its own, new and novel approach to reporting on the July 28 election: silence! Not coincidentally, the Trotskyist publications of the world are united in opposing the mixed-economy policies of the Venezuela government while simultaneously favoring the violent overthrow of the government of the Russian Federation. Russia, like China, has for several decades been a reliable ally of Venezuela’s socialist government.]
