SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
nicolas maduro
The US Should Focus on Democracy at Home, Not in Venezuela
This is not to say the Venezuelan government is perfect nor to endorse the fairness of last month's election. But let's be clear: Venezuelan political disputes should be settled by Venezuelans, not by the United States.
Aug 18, 2024
There is now widespread controversy surrounding the Venezuelan presidential election on July 28th. The National Electoral Council says that current President Nicolás Maduro was reelected with a 51% majority. The opposition, led by Maria Corina Machado, claims that its candidate, Edmundo González, won with an overwhelming majority of the votes cast. The primary questions being asked in the media are “who really won?” and even “how can Maduro be made to step aside?”
Instead the question US observers should be asking is, “what business is this of ours?”
The United States government constantly criticizes elections around the world that it deems to be undemocratic. It claims to support an “international rules based order” and maintain a foreign policy with human rights at its center. But the United States of America isn’t exactly a fair arbiter. It is without question the most hyper-interventionist country in the history of the world. It has repeatedly intervened in the internal affairs of governments it doesn’t like, often invading and overthrowing them, ostensibly, for the cause of democracy. It does not, however, criticize the antidemocratic behavior of its allies, like apartheid Israel or the absolute monarchy that rules Saudi Arabia. As in Orwell’s famous novel, America may claim that all animals are equal. But it’s clear that it believes some animals are more equal than others.
On July 27th, a day before the Venezuelan election, the People’s Forum, a New York City movement incubator, released a letter warning that, “a Western media narrative is already being spun to present the election as inevitably fraudulent – and pave the way for a new regime change operation if the right-wing opposition does not prevail at the ballot box.”
That letter has come under criticism for asserting that, “the campaign has seen energetic participation all across the country and vigorous, democratic debate,” and that since 2002, “Venezuela has held over 30 elections that have been conducted professionally and impartially.” In the days after the most recent election international organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and a fact-finding mission from the United Nations have disagreed, citing reports of politically motivated arrests, assaults, intimidation, and even deaths. The governments of Colombia, Mexico, and Brazil are calling for more transparency.
But the credibility of Venezuela’s elections should not be the main issue in question. The main issue is that criticism is used as an excuse to promote US intervention and regime change or to justify more deadly sanctions that kill Venezuelan people. True to form, on Thursday August 1st the U.S. State Department announced that it recognized González as the winner.
In one egregious example of media promoting intervention, a July 31st editorial in the Boston Globe called on the Biden Administration to intervene, saying, “It’s in U.S. interests for the Biden Administration to help deliver the regime change Venezuelans have voted for.” It endorsed the policy of former President Donald Trump, suggesting that President Biden should revive the office of special representative to Venezuela and later quoted the man who held that office under Trump, Elliott Abrams.
But it failed to provide extremely important context about Mr. Abrams. In 1991 Elliott Abrams, who still serves in government, pled guilty to two counts of lying to the US Congress about his knowledge of the Iran-Contra affair, a secret deal to illegally sell arms to Iran and use the proceeds to fund right-wing militias trying to overthrow the left wing government of Nicaragua. Congress had explicitly forbidden military assistance for the purpose of overthrowing the Nicaraguan government. A man who was deeply involved in the attempted overthrow of a Central American government is not a credible voice on Venezuelan democracy.
The United States has a terrible record when it comes to supporting self determination, globally, in Latin America, and in Venezuela specifically. The U.S. has interfered with the affairs of Cuba, Nicaragua, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Panama, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Bolivia, Venezuela, and more. Focusing on Venezuela alone there are multiple instances of interference just in the 21st century.
In 2002 the Bush Administration sanctioned a coup attempt against Maduro’s predecessor Hugo Chavez. In March of 2015 the Obama Administration unilaterally levied harsh economic sanctions on Venezuela. President Obama declared that Venezuela posed an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” The effects of such sanctions, and even more punitive ones imposed by the Trump Administration, were studied by the Government Accountability Office in 2021. They found that the sanctions have already killed tens of thousands of people in Venezuela, due to restricted access to food and medicine.
In 2019 the Trump Administration recognized 35 year old opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the legitimate president of Venezuela, despite the fact that he never ran for the office. They then handed over control on Venezuela’s assets in the United States to Guaidó, a move that the New York Times called, “one of Washington’s most overt attempts in decades to carry out regime change in Latin America.”
Given the exhaustive record of U.S. interference and intervention in the politics of Latin American countries, it’s just common sense to be skeptical about pronouncements from Washington regarding Venezuela’s election. That’s asking the fox's opinion on the management of the henhouse. To be clear, this is not to say that the Venezuelan government is perfect or to endorse the fairness of the July 28th election. It is to say that Venezuelan political disputes should be settled by Venezuelans, not by the United States.
With its own presidential election less than three months away, the U.S. has enough on its plate. The recent history of presidential elections in the United States is less than stellar. Two of the last six presidential elections were won by the candidate who received less votes (George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald J. Trump in 2016). In 2000 Bush had a co-chair of his campaign purge 173,000 voters from voting rolls as Florida Secretary of State, in a key election decided by 500 votes. Trump tried to stay in power after losing the 2020 election to President Joe Biden. His followers famously stormed the Capitol Building in an effort to stop the certification of that election on January 6th 2021.
The bottom line? We have authoritarianism at home. When it comes to taking action abroad to “defend democracy” America would do well to adhere to the motto recommended by Founding Grandfather Benjamin Franklin: “Mind your business.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Very Unpleasant Regime': Fellow Leftist Lula Criticizes Maduro Amid Election Dispute
The words of Brazil's president, a potential mediator in Venezuela, signal that leftist leaders may be withdrawing support for Maduro.
Aug 16, 2024
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a potential mediator in the ongoing electoral dispute in Venezuela, spoke harshly on Friday about the government of President Nicolas Maduro, calling it a "very unpleasant regime" with an "authoritarian slant"—perhaps the first time he has been so publicly critical of his fellow leftist.
Venezuala has been in turmoil since its presidential election on July 28, pitting Maduro against opposition candidate Edmundo González Urrutia, came to a disputed result. The electoral council controlled by Maduro's government announced that he'd won reelection with 51.95% of the vote, but provided no evidence. However, the opposition also claimed victory, and did have some evidence: copies of vote tallies from more than 83% of precincts.
The international response has been broadly anti-Maduro, whose government has been widely accused of human rights violations and is often characterized as autocratic. Many countries—even Chile, led by a left-leaning government—declared fraud on the part of the Venezuelan government, and some, such as the United States, recognized González as the winner. Only a handful of small Latin American countries did so for Maduro.
Lula hasn't take sides in the electoral dispute but, like other international actors, called for Maduro to release the full tallies. Lula and Colombia President Gustavo Petro, another leftist, have indicated they could be intermediaries between the two Venezuelan sides. The U.S. came out in support of the Brazil- and Colombia-led dialogue. But Lula's role as interlocutor didn't stop him from making the critical remarks on Friday.
"I think Venezuela is living under a very unpleasant regime," Lula said on Rádio Gaúcha.
The Brazilian president said that Maduro was not a dictator but had authoritarian leanings:
"It's different to a dictatorship—it is a government with an authoritarian slant but it isn't a dictatorship the likes of which we know so many in this world."
Brazilian president, Lula da Silva, condemns “very unpleasant regime” Maduro regime in Venezuela
He says it has “authoritarian slant” & refuses to accept that Maduro won the election. Lula demands publication of suppressed local election tallies. YES!
https://t.co/YLWuddKhcL
— Peter Tatchell (@PeterTatchell) August 16, 2024
Lula and Petro had earlier this week suggested that Venezuela might redo the election—and U.S. President Joe Biden appeared to support the idea, though the administration later walked back the comment—but both Maduro and the opposition dismissed the idea.
Maduro's government has cracked down on dissent since the election, arresting more than 2,000 people, in what experts have called an unprecedented level of repression, The New York Times reported Saturday. Maduro is "bent on punishing those he considers disloyal," according to the Times.
A panel of four U.N. experts who were in Venezuela during the election issued an interim report last week that found that "the announcement of an election outcome without the publication of its details or the release of tabulated results to candidates has no precedent in contemporary democratic elections."
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), a left-leaning, U.S.-based think tank, released a report on Tuesday arguing that the Brazil and Columbia-led mediation was the best way forward, and that more U.S. sanctions would only deepen the political crisis in Venezuela.
The report says that sanctions "have taken the lives of tens of thousands of Venezuelans and fueled the migration of millions more," and argues that failed U.S. policies and U.S.-supported coup attempts in 2002 and 2019, per CEPR's characterization, contributed to the current crisis in Venezuela.
Maduro has held power since 2013, when his predecessor and former boss, the socialist Hugo Chávez, died after ruling the country for 13 years. Chávez, buoyed by fossil fuel reserves, helped lift the standard of living for working-class Venezuelans, but the country has faced a combination of political and economic challenges in the past decade, and Maduro appears to have lost working-class support.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Details Best Path Forward to End Political Crisis in Venezuela
The Center for Economic and Policy Research warned the U.S. against piling on economic sanctions that have "taken the lives of tens of thousands of Venezuelans" and "helped create the current crisis."
Aug 14, 2024
A report released Tuesday by a U.S.-based think tank calls on the Biden administration to support a regional effort to reach a negotiated solution to Venezuela's dangerous political crisis as the country's president and right-wing opposition continue to declare themselves the rightful winners of last month's election.
The new analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) argues that Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia's attempt at mediation and dialogue—not additional economy-crushing sanctions by the U.S. and other Western nations—represents "the best opportunity for bringing about a peaceful resolution of the current crisis."
U.S. sanctions, the report notes, "have taken the lives of tens of thousands of Venezuelans and fueled the migration of millions more." Other "failed policies" include "military coup attempts, such as those that U.S. administrations supported in 2002 and 2019," the report adds.
"Recognizing a parallel government, or imposing more sanctions on Venezuela, will only make the crisis much more difficult to resolve; in fact, these policies helped create the current crisis," CEPR said.
The report comes less than two weeks after the U.S. State Department formally recognized Edmundo González, Venezuela's opposition candidate, as the winner of last month's presidential election over incumbent President Nicolás Maduro, who says he prevailed in the contest that has attracted close scrutiny and calls for transparency from the international community and independent watchdogs.
A four-member team of United Nations experts that was in Venezuela's capital for more than a month ahead of the presidential election—at the invitation of Venezuela's Consejo Nacional Electoral (CNE)—issued an interim report Tuesday that criticizes the CNE's management of the July 28 contest, arguing that it "fell short of the basic transparency and integrity measures that are essential to holding credible elections."
While turnout was significantly higher than in 2018 and the election "took place in a largely peaceful environment and was logistically well-organized," the U.N. experts said, the CNE's "announcement of an election outcome without the publication of its details or the release of tabulated results to candidates has no precedent in contemporary democratic elections."
"This had a negative impact on confidence in the outcome announced by the CNE among a large part of the Venezuelan electorate," the experts added. The CNE said Maduro won the election with just under 52% of the vote.
"The new presidential term in Venezuela does not begin until January 2025, providing more than four months for all sides to reach a negotiated agreement."
CEPR's assessment of the contest and its aftermath resembled that of the U.N. experts. The watchdog group criticized the CNE's failure to "release a breakdown of the results at the voting table (mesa de votación) level" and urged it to make the information public "as promptly as possible."
"The government has rejected the authenticity of the tally sheets published by the opposition," CEPR's report notes. "But the case it has made so far has been unconvincing, presenting about three dozen purported tally sheets (out of about 25,000) where there are allegedly missing signatures and similar issues which are common in most electoral processes."
CEPR also criticized the opposition for backing "what amounts to a military coup," threatening a repeat of "the errors that many opposition politicians made in 2019 when they called on the armed forces to turn against the government and support the installation in the presidency of Juan Guaído, a member of the National Assembly who was never elected president."
"Extra-constitutional efforts of this sort should be vigorously opposed internationally," CEPR said. "Likewise, the government needs to ensure that security forces adhere to international human rights standards when responding to protests and disturbances; they should also refrain from carrying out arbitrary detentions."
Amid calls to release detailed election results, Maduro has taken his case to Venezuela's Supreme Court, which is conducting a review of the election.
While the Biden administration is reportedly considering fresh sanctions against Venezuela, Reutersnoted Tuesday that U.S. officials have "so far held off on new punitive measures."
"The presidents of Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia are coordinating action while calling for full access to voting records, while a coalition including the U.S., Canada, Panama, and others are holding separate talks among each other and with Venezuela's opposition," Reuters added.
CEPR stressed in its report that "the new presidential term in Venezuela does not begin until January 2025, providing more than four months for all sides to reach a negotiated agreement and allow for diplomatic efforts to take shape."
"In that regard, it seems like the most promising efforts are led by the group formed by Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia, who are 'holding conversations with both sides,'" CEPR added, citing Associated Pressreporting. "The likely alternative is not promising: If these governments were to be sidelined, the United States would likely play a bigger role together with right-wing regional governments who are allied with Washington. Given the history described above, it is highly unlikely that this would result in a positive outcome for Venezuela."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular