

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

A new study, which analyzes the results of Bolivia's October election, concludes "we cannot find results that would lead [...] to the same conclusion as the OAS" that there was an "inexplicable" and drastic change in the trend of the vote. The analysis, by Jack Williams and John Curiel of the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, determines: "it is very likely that Morales won the required 10 percentage point margin to win in the first round of the election on October 20, 2019." In an article for The Washington Post's Monkey Cage today, Williams and Curiel write: "as specialists in election integrity, we find that the statistical evidence does not support the claim of fraud in Bolivia's October election."
The study, commissioned by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) to independently verify its November 2019 study, reaches many of the same conclusions as that earlier statistical analysis, and replicates some of the most significant statistical findings showing consistent voting trends in favor of Morales, before and after the interruption of the preliminary vote count [trep]. Repeated Organization of American States (OAS) claims of an "inexplicable" change in the vote count trend of the TREP were the basis for allegations of fraud shortly after the elections took place.
But "The OAS's claim that the stopping of the trep during the Bolivian election produced an oddity in the voting trend is contradicted by the data," the MIT researchers conclude. "While there was a break in the reporting of votes, the substance of those later-reporting votes could be determined prior to the break."
"The OAS seems to have made statements regarding the preliminary election results without basis in fact," Jack Williams, coauthor of the study, said. "Morales appears to have been heading toward a first-round victory prior to the interruption of the preliminary count. The results once the count resumed are in line with the prior trend."
Bolivia's electoral authority suspended the processing of tally sheets in the preliminary count on election night with 83.85 percent of tally sheets verified and Morales ahead by a difference of 7.87 percentage points over runner-up candidate Carlos Mesa. When results from the preliminary count were next reported with additional tally sheets verified, they showed Morales above the 10 percentage point margin of victory that would give him a first-round win.
But, contrary to OAS statements that fueled violent protests opposition rejection of the election results, these results are entirely consistent, and there was no "inexplicable change in trend" in the preliminary count as the OAS had claimed.
"The OAS greatly misled the media and the public about what happened in Bolivia's elections, and helped to foster a great deal of mistrust in the electoral process and the results," CEPR Co-Director Mark Weisbrot said. "This important analysis from MIT election researchers is the latest to show that the OAS's statements were without basis, and that simple arithmetic shows that there is no evidence that fraud or irregularities affected the preliminary results, or the official results -- the ones that actually matter. The OAS needs to explain why it made these statements and why anyone should trust it when it comes to elections."
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was established in 1999 to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. In order for citizens to effectively exercise their voices in a democracy, they should be informed about the problems and choices that they face. CEPR is committed to presenting issues in an accurate and understandable manner, so that the public is better prepared to choose among the various policy options.
(202) 293-5380"They have spoken openly about controlling Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest in the world," said US Sen. Bernie Sanders. "It recalls the darkest chapters of US interventions in Latin America."
US President Donald Trump left no doubt on Saturday that a—or perhaps the—primary driver of his decision to illegally attack Venezuela, abduct its president, and pledge to indefinitely run its government was his desire to control and exploit the country's oil reserves, which are believed to be the largest in the world.
Over the course of Trump's lengthy press conference following Saturday's assault, the word "oil" was mentioned dozens of times as the president vowed to unleash powerful fossil fuel giants on the South American nation and begin "taking a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground"—with a healthy cut of it going to the US "in the form of reimbursement" for the supposed "damages caused us" by Venezuela.
"We're going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, and start making money for the country," Trump said, suggesting American troops could be deployed, without congressional authorization, to bolster such efforts.
"We're going to get the oil flowing the way it should be," he added.
Currently, Chevron is the only US-based oil giant operating in Venezuela, whose oil industry and broader economy have been badly hampered by US sanctions. In a statement on Saturday, a Chevron spokesperson said the company is "prepared to work constructively with the US government during this period, leveraging our experience and presence to strengthen US energy security."
Other oil behemoths, some of which helped bankroll Trump's presidential campaign, are likely licking their chops—even if they've been mostly quiet in the wake of the US attack, which was widely condemned as unlawful and potentially catastrophic for the region. Amnesty International said Saturday that "the stated US intention to run Venezuela and control its oil resources" likely "constitutes a violation of international law."
"The most powerful multinational fossil fuel corporations stand to benefit from these aggressions, and US oil and gas companies are poised to exploit the chaos."
Thomas O'Donnell, an energy and geopolitical strategist, told Reuters that "the company that probably will be very interested in going back [to Venezuela] is Conoco," noting that an international arbitration tribunal has ordered Caracas to pay the company around $10 billion for alleged "unlawful expropriation" of oil investments.
The Houston Chronicle reported that "Exxon, America’s largest oil company, which has for years grown its presence in South America, would be among the most likely US oil companies to tap Venezuela’s deep oil reserves. The company, along with fellow Houston giant ConocoPhillips, had a number of failed contract attempts with Venezuela under Maduro and former President Hugo Chavez."
Elizabeth Bast, executive director of the advocacy group Oil Change International, said in a statement Saturday that the Trump administration's escalation in Venezuela "follows a historic playbook: undermine leftist governments, create instability, and clear the path for extractive companies to profit."
"The most powerful multinational fossil fuel corporations stand to benefit from these aggressions, and US oil and gas companies are poised to exploit the chaos and carve up one of the world's most oil-rich territories," said Bast. "The US must stop treating Latin America as a resource colony. The Venezuelan people, not US oil executives, must shape their country’s future."
US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said that the president's own words make plain that his attack on Venezuela and attempt to impose his will there are "about trying to grab Venezuela's oil for Trump's billionaire buddies."
In a statement, US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) echoed that sentiment, calling Trump's assault on Venezuela "rank imperialism."
"They have spoken openly about controlling Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest in the world," said Sanders. "It recalls the darkest chapters of US interventions in Latin America, which have left a terrible legacy. It will and should be condemned by the democratic world."
“What is being done to Venezuela is barbaric," said Delcy Rodríguez, who assumed the role of interim president following the US abduction of Nicolás Maduro.
Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, who assumed the role of interim president following the US abduction of Nicolás Maduro, said in a televised address Saturday that "we will never again be a colony of any empire," defying the Trump administration's plan to indefinitely control Venezuela's government and exploit its vast oil reserves.
“We are determined to be free,” declared Rodríguez, who demanded that the US release Maduro from custody and said he is still Venezuela's president.
“What is being done to Venezuela is barbaric," she added.
Rodríguez's defiant remarks came after US President Donald Trump claimed he is "designating various people" to run Venezuela's government, suggested American troops could be deployed, and threatened a "second wave" of attacks on the country if its political officials don't bow to the Trump administration's demands.
Trump also threatened "all political and military figures in Venezuela," warning that "what happened to Maduro can happen to them." Maduro is currently detained in Brooklyn and facing fresh US charges.
Rodríguez's public remarks contradicted the US president's claim that she privately pledged compliance with the Trump administration's attempts to control Venezuela's political system and oil infrastructure. The interim president delivered her remarks alongside top Venezuelan officials, including legislative and judicial leaders, Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, and Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino, a projection of unity in the face of US aggression.
"Doesn’t feel like a nation that is ready to let Donald Trump and Marco Rubio 'run it,'" said US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who condemned the Trump administration for "starting an illegal war with Venezuela that Americans didn’t ask for and has nothing to do with our security."
"The 'Trump corollary' to the Monroe Doctrine—applied in recent hours with violent force over the skies of Caracas—is the single greatest threat to peace and prosperity that the Americas confront today," said Progressive International.
US President Donald Trump and top administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, characterized Saturday's assault on Venezuela and abduction of the country's president as a warning shot in the direction of Cuba, Mexico, Colombia, and other Latin American nations.
During a Saturday press conference, Trump openly invoked the Monroe Doctrine—an assertion of US dominance of the Western Hemisphere—and said his campaign of aggression against Venezuela represented the "Donroe Doctrine" in action.
In his unwieldy remarks, Trump called out Colombian President Gustavo Petro by name, accusing him without evidence of "making cocaine and sending it to the United States."
"So he does have to watch his ass," the US president said of Petro, who condemned the Trump administration's Saturday attack on Venezuela as "aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and Latin America."
Petro responded defiantly to the possibility of the US targeting him, writing on social media that he is "not worried at all."
In a Fox News appearance earlier Saturday, Trump also took aim at the United States' southern neighbor, declaring ominously that "something's going to have to be done with Mexico," which also denounced the attack on Venezuela and abduction of President Nicolás Maduro.
"She is very frightened of the cartels," Trump said of Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. "So we have to do something."
"This armed attack on Venezuela is not an isolated event. It is the next step in the United States' campaign of regime change that stretches from Caracas to Havana."
Rubio, for his part, focused on Cuba—a country whose government he has long sought to topple.
"If I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I'd be concerned, at least a little bit," Rubio, who was born in Miami to Cuban immigrant parents, said during Saturday's press conference.
That the Trump administration wasted no time threatening other nations as it pledged to control Venezuela indefinitely sparked grave warnings, with the leadership of Progressive International cautioning that "this armed attack on Venezuela is not an isolated event."
"It is the next step in the United States' campaign of regime change that stretches from Caracas to Havana—and an attack on the very principle of sovereign equality and the prospects for the Zone of Peace once established by the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States," the coalition said in a statement. "This renewed declaration of impunity from Washington is a threat to all nations around the world."
"Trump has clearly articulated the imperial logic of this intervention—to seize control over Venezuela's natural resources and reassert US domination over the hemisphere," said Progressive International. "The 'Trump corollary' to the Monroe Doctrine—applied in recent hours with violent force over the skies of Caracas—is the single greatest threat to peace and prosperity that the Americas confront today."