“Given the overwhelming evidence, it is clear to the United States… that Edmundo González Urrutia won the most votes in Venezuela’s July 28 presidential election.” But it was only clear for four days.
Almost two weeks after holding still-disputed general elections, the situation in Venezuela remains volatile and unclear. Violence is rising on both sides. It is still far from clear who actually won the elections. Venezuela’s National Electoral Council (CNE) has still not publicly released the tally sheets confirming Maduro’s victory though it has handed them to the Supreme Court. As I noted in my piece, Groundhog Day in Venezuela, Maduro has a clear motive (winning the elections) as well as probably the means to commit wide-scale electoral fraud.
The question is: did he need to?
For the moment there is no conclusive evidence showing that the election was rigged.* It is also clear from that the main opposition forces’ strategy from day one was to discredit the results if they didn’t win. Hardly helping matters is the fact that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken issued a press release on August 1 congratulating, without definitive proof, the opposition candidate, Edmundo González, on his “overwhelming victory” and calling for a “respectful, peaceful transition,” which right now appears to be the last thing on the cards:
[T]he democratic opposition has published more than 80 percent of the tally sheets received directly from polling stations throughout Venezuela. Those tally sheets indicate that Edmundo González Urrutia received the most votes in this election by an insurmountable margin. Independent observers have corroborated these facts, and this outcome was also supported by election day exit polls and quick counts. In the days since the election, we have consulted widely with partners and allies around the world, and while countries have taken different approaches in responding, none have concluded that Nicolás Maduro received the most votes this election.
Given the overwhelming evidence, it is clear to the United States and, most importantly, to the Venezuelan people that Edmundo González Urrutia won the most votes in Venezuela’s July 28 presidential election.
The statement also criticises Venezuela’s electoral system, the voting day processes, and the way in which results have been released by Venezuela’s National Electoral Council (CNE), as if the US were a shining beacon of electoral integrity and transparency. As PlutoniumKun noted in the comments section to yesterday’s links, “the Venezuelan system has always been acknowledged as one of the best in the world when it comes to eliminating fraud — certainly better than the US system.”
The State Department’s unilateral declaration of González’s victory was lambasted by other governments, political analysts, and social movements. They accused the US of attempting to resurrect its failed “Guaidó plan,” in which the Trump administration unilaterally hand-picked a member of Venezuela’s National Assembly, declaring him constitutional president of Venezuela, while at the same time imposing crippling sanctions on the country. A slapstick but deadly farce that would last for most than three years.
Needless to say, the US’s latest attempt to impose its will on Venezuela was quickly relayed, uncritically, by English and Spanish-speaking media:
- CBS News: “US Recognizes Opposition’s Edmundo González As Winner in Venezuela Election”;
- New York Times: “U.S. Recognizes Maduro’s Rival as Winner of Venezuelan Election”;
- Financial Times: “US Declares Opposition Candidate Winner of Venezuela’s Disputed Election”
- El País (translated from Spanish): US Recognises Edmundo González as Winner of Venezuela’s Election
Clearly, the US government was trying to set the narrative. As the El País article notes, “After four days of Washington calling for the publication of the official electoral tallies which, according to the ruling party in Caracas, give victory to Nicolás Maduro, the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, has gone a step further.”
A handful of US-aligned countries in the region quickly followed suit. On Monday, González and his handler, María Corina Machado issued a statement on Monday unilaterally declaring González as “president-elect” and calling on the police and armed forces to follow his orders, to apparently little avail. But on the same day, the US government took a big step back. And then made a 180-degree turn. In a press conference, State Department Spokesman Matthew Miller clarified that the US still does not consider González as president of Venezuela:
We are not at that point yet (of recognizing him as president). We are in close contact with our partners in the region, especially Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, to find a way forward.
As far as I can tell, this clarification was not reported nearly as widely as the statement it was meant to clarify.
As I noted in my Goundhog Day piece, the moderately left-of-centre governments of Brazil, Mexico and Colombia are likely to play a key role in determining how this crisis evolves, and whether or not a negotiated outcome is possible. Unlike most countries, they have adopted a more neutral stance by neither rejecting nor celebrating when Venezuela’s electoral authorities declared Maduro the winner at the ballot box.
Since then, the three countries have issued a joint statement urging Venezuela’s electoral authorities to release tens of thousands of vote tally sheets, considered the ultimate proof of results — something the authorities are still yet to do. The three nations, whose current presidents are Maduro allies, are also holding regular conversations with both sides, according to a senior Mexican official cited by The Associated Press.
For its part, the EU Commission’s diplomatic service has cast doubt on the official electoral results while tentatively suggesting that González “would appear to be the winner… by a significant majority.” Besides the US, six other countries on the American continent have so far recognised Gonzalez’s “victory”: Argentina, Peru, Ecuador, Uruguay, Costa Rica and Panama.
Panama’s President José Raúl Mulino even offered to host a regional summit of presidents to address the crisis in Venezuela. Coincidentally (or not), Mulina made the proposal on the same day that he met up with the commander of US Southern Command, General Laura Richardson, to renew a memorandum of understanding for air, maritime and ground domain awareness between the US and Panama.
#SOUTHCOM Commander Gen. Laura Richardson & Panamanian Minister of Security Frank Alexis Ábrego signed a Cooperative Situational Information Integration (CSII) agreement today in Panama. The Memorandum of Understanding for Air, Maritime, & Ground Domain Awareness between the U.S.… pic.twitter.com/clXbJ46nIc
— U.S. Southern Command (@Southcom) August 6, 2024
Unsurprisingly, many countries in the region rejected Mulino’s proposal point blank.
“No country has the right to ‘foment actions’ that are not within the framework of respect for the self-determination of peoples,” said the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America, or ALBA, whose members include Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Grenada, Nicaragua, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Venezuela. In a statement, the organisation described Panama’s proposal as “interventionist,” with the aim of destabilising Venezuela or even fomenting a coup in the country.
Crucially, as Venezuela Analysis reports, the presidents of Brazil (Lula de Silva) Colombia (Gustavo Petro) and Mexico (Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador) “have all rejected foreign interference and emphasized Venezuelan sovereignty, as well as the need for all parties to pursue a Venezuelan-led solution to the dispute. At the same time, they have demanded greater transparency regarding the results.”
Even Argentina’s Milei government, which was one of the first in the region to cast aspersions on the official results, also appeared to suffer pangs of doubt earlier this week. On Tuesday, the presidential spokesman Manuel Adorni clarified that the Argentine government “is not in a position to proclaim any winner” of the presidential elections in Venezuela, until the situation of alleged electoral fraud is clarified. From La Voce d’Italia:
“We are not in a position to declare a winner because we are waiting to have all the necessary elements to be able to do so. We have asylum seekers there (…) we have to be very careful,” he said at a press conference.
Adorni, when asked why Edmundo González is not being proclaimed, responded that they should wait for the situation to progress and “be very cautious about what happens in Venezuela.” He also added that Argentina has asylum seekers in the custody of other nations and they should be “careful.”
A day later, the country’s Foreign Minister set the record straight (again), reaffirming that it had indeed recognised Edmundo González as president, which would seem to suggest that Argentina’s foreign ministry isn’t, after all, concerned about the aforementioned asylum seekers. They were simply a pretext for taking a brief step back.
Nonetheless, all of this flip-flopping invites the question: why did the US — and to a lesser extent, Argentina — have second thoughts about recognising González?
Could it be that whoever is still running policy in the White House suddenly realised that further chaos and possibly even civil war in Venezuela could hinder efforts to keep a careful lid on oil prices in the months leading up to November’s US elections? While Venezuela’s oil production is a shadow of its former self, in part due to decades of under-investment and mismanagement but also because of US-imposed sanctions, the partial lifting of those sanctions led to a recovery of sorts in 2023.
Or perhaps it was the realisation that another failed intervention in Venezuela could further erode US influence in the region. And perhaps it would enjoy less support than even Plan Guaidó did.
The Guaidó plan was an unmitigated diplomatic disaster for the US and its closest allies, a slapstick spectacle that began with 60 governments around the world recognising his imaginary government and ended with him being deported from Colombia after gate crashing a conference there. By late 2022, allegations of widespread corruption by his “shadow government” had become impossible to ignore and only a handful of countries still recognised his claim to the presidency. Of course, they included the US and the UK, which has continued to hold on to Venezuela’s gold long after Guaidó’s retirement to Florida.
Another possible explanation is that the White House realised that trying to topple the Maduro government could merely serve to fast track the country’s membership of BRICS-plus? It is certainly coincidental that on August 2, Putin, three days before the US walked back its recognition of González, Vladimir Putin invited Maduro to the next BRICS conference, to be held on October 23-24. Venezuela’s foreign minister posted a copy of the invitation on his twitter account which included the following words:
“I am sure that your personal participation will enrich the upcoming discussion, help identify promising areas of multilateral cooperation for the benefit of the world majority and will undoubtedly contribute to further progressive development of Russian-Venezuelan relations.”
A day later (Aug 3), Maduro issued a threat to the Collective West. In a televised address, he said that if the US government and its “partners in the world make “the mistake of their lives” — presumably in reference to their recognition of the opposition coalition’s victory in the election — Venezuela would give the oil and gas blocks that have already been signed over to US and other Western companies “to our allies in the BRICS.”
The BRICS nations already account for the lion’s share of investments in Venezuela’s oil and gas sectors already, Maduro said, adding that the grouping also boasts a “portfolio of interesting opportunities” for the Caribbean country.
Venezuela boasts the world’s largest oil reserves, though much of it is heavy by international standards, and as a result must be processed by specialised domestic and international refineries. US-based Chevron is currently working in partnership with state-owned PDVSA on five onshore and offshore production projects, including the Orinoco Oil Belt in the east of the South American nation, which has the largest proven oil reserves.
In November 2022, the US granted Chevron a license to resume operations in Venezuela, which experts say has contributed to the increase in Venezuelan oil production, which averaged 904,000 barrels per day (bpd) in the second quarter of this year. Although Washington resumed its sanctions against Caracas last April, after six months of relief, it has issued licenses to international companies to operate in Venezuela. Those licenses could be offered on a platter to the US’ main strategic rivals, China and Russia, if Washington continues with its overt regime-change tactics.
But is this all a bluff on Putin’s part? It is hard to tell. Venezuela has been seeking membership of the BRICS grouping since at least 2015, and when the time finally came to expand BRICS membership early this year, Venezuela’s application was passed over in favour of Argentina, only for the Milei government to reject the invitation.
That said, China and Russia, arguably the two senior BRICS members, were among the first countries to congratulate Maduro on his alleged electoral victory — for obvious reasons. Beijing has made significant investments in Venezuela over the years and there is a not insignificant chance chance that a González/Corrina Machado government not only would not honour those investments but would probably refuse to pay back Venezuela’s debts to China, no doubt citing Beijing’s odious debt trap diplomacy — with US connivance of course.
For its part, Russia has a long-standing military partnership with Venezuela. As a reminder of this, the Smolny training ship of the Russian Baltic Fleet docked in Venezuela’s La Guaira port on Tuesday as part of a what is being dubbed a “working visit”. According to local media, the arrival of the Smolny is part of an effort to strengthen bilateral relations between Venezuela and Russia , which includes areas such as energy, economy, culture, tourism and agriculture.
The ship’s crew is expected to participate in several events , including a wreath-laying ceremony at the Bolívar-Chávez Plaza. They will also visit the governor’s office and take a tour of the historic center of La Guaira. The visit comes just weeks after two Russian military ships, including the Admiral Gorshkov, the most advanced frigate in the Russian fleet, anchored for four days at La Guaira. The visit was intended to strengthen “ military-technical cooperation” between Caracas and Moscow, Venezuelan Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López said at the time.
There are also (as yet unconfirmed) reports of Wagner units offering support to the local police and army. A few days ago, Zelensky denounced the alleged presence of Russian mercenaries in Venezuela, accusing the Wagner Group of bringing only death and destabilisation wherever it goes. As for Putin, he would presumably like nothing more than to put the US on alert in its own “back yard.”
Lest we forget, Venezuela is the world’s heavyweight champion when it comes to oil reserves. Meanwhile, fellow ABLA member, Bolivia, is home to the world’s largest lithium reserves, and, coincidentally or not, was recently the centre of a failed coup d’état. Was that an expression of the US government’s desire to “box out” its main strategic rivals, China and Russia, from the American hemisphere’s strategic resources? It is not clear.
What is clear is that the governments of Venezuela and Bolivia want to join BRICS+, which is probably the last thing the US wants. China and Russia appear to be willing to open the membership books — they just have to convince the other three founding members, Brazil, India and South Africa, that it is in their best interest, which will be no easy task. As we have been warning since August 2022, Latin America is back on the grand chessboard, as the race for strategic resources and influence intensifies in the new Cold War.
* Yesterday, the Carter Center’s observation mission confirmed figures that gave the opposition candidate a victory. It also rejected the government’s claims that Venezuela’s electoral system was the target of a cyberattack during the elections last month. This is potentially quite damning given that Venezuela’s Chavista government has traditionally trusted the Carter Center, which until this year’s elections has found little, if anything, to fault with previous elections.
But concerns have been raised that the Carter Center may not be quite as independent an electoral observer as it once seemingly was. One possible reason for this is that its current CEO, Paige Alexander, who was appointed in 2020 — i.e., after Venezuela’s previous election but before this one — has spent the lion’s share of her career working for USAID, the CIA’s soft-power arm. She has also served on the board of the Free Russia Foundation.
If that doesn’t raise enough flags, there’s also the Carter Center’s list of donors to take into account. The highest bracket of sponsors ($1 MILLION+) includes the US State Department, which already declared Venezuela’s opposition candidate as electoral victor before backtracking, USAID, Belgium, the UK Development Office, Pfizer, Open Society, Coca Cola, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Turner Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Walton Foundation, to name just a few. It really is quite an impressive list, which you can see in all its glory here (pages 33-63).
Also, as Bn and William Beyer point out in the comments below, there were many other independent observers and witnesses on the ground from all over the world, lots of whom have described the elections as fair and transparent.
40 comments
Comments are closed.
Thank you, Nick, for this excellent report.
What’s up with this?
An in-depth article from Venezuela regarding this is here: https://orinocotribune.com/an-attempted-coup-by-any-other-name/
Here is an excerpt that struck me: “Millions of eligible voters (in Venezuela) cast their electronic ballots before the presence of more than 635 international witnesses including electoral experts of the United Nations, the African Union, and electoral staff of 65 countries. How many international witnesses are allowed for the USA or Canadian elections? None.”
I have read that the CNE had 48 hours from the election to provide the final results and declare the winner (which they did), and 30 days from the election to provide table-level results ( which they have provided much quicker in the past) . There is no procedure that I have found for the CNE to post the actual tallies, and they have not been posting them in past elections I am told. They are useful in situations such as this, when one party claims fraud, the tallies can be used to confirm or reject fraud allegations. In the case of fraud, the candidate brings his case to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court runs the fraud check of the CNE run election. Edmundo Gonzalez skipped that step and just declared himself president-elect and called on the military to back him, which is a golpe de estado. If Maduro did participate in electoral fraud, that would be an autogolpe.
I’m going to take a guess and say that the US had to give up on this colour revolution due to lack of support. María Corrina Machado and her puppet Edmundo González Urrutia declared the later as President and called on the Army and the police to follow his orders. But both organizations declined taking orders from these muppets. There was hope that massive rallies of people would turn up to demand that the election be overturned but the Venezuelan people were too sophisticated to fall for this. One rally I saw was done at a cross-intersection to make the numbers of people look large but of course there were no aerial image. But most importantly of all is that the world has moved on from 2019 when Juan Greedo declared himself the President and the US was able to force 60 countries to recognize this nobody. But as I said, the world has moved on and very few countries would be willing to do so for yet another muppet. It’s not 2019 anymore so Maduro is now safe – until the next plot surfaces.
Threatening the government of Venezuela has been ongoing US policy for more than 20 years. Here, Hugo Chavez was restored to the Presidency by popular affirmation in a few days:
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/13/opinion/hugo-chavez-departs.html
April 13, 2002
Hugo Chávez Departs
With yesterday’s resignation of President Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator. Mr. Chávez, a ruinous demagogue, stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader, Pedro Carmona…
When was the last time that the NYT did not endorse a U.S.-run or U.S.-supported regime change operation? There have been so many that it’s hard to keep track, but I cannot recall a single such instance. Clearly, the Times is a key player in all such disinformation campaigns. Hence, a savvy reader must learn to presume the opposite of whatever he or she reads in that propaganda rag.
My thought is this is an inertia thing. No one in DC is capable of discussing changing conditions and simply repeats the processes from successful efforts in the past. It’s just people who were afraid of the spectre of communist putting them against walls aren’t afraid of higher marginal rates the same way.
The local RCC isn’t governed by Euros. The cardinals and archbishops have been local for a long time. They aren’t connected to a random Italian with a Mussolini fetish anymore. Then the head virgin isn’t even from Europe. They aren’t at risk of being torn apart by native uprisings, and the Pope isn’t remotely as evil as that Polish hole.
Finally, the flaws in the former Spanish colonies economies (by design) can be addressed via trade with Asia. The widgets don’t have to come from Europe.
Even the appointment of Pete Buttigieg…I’m sorry Guaido as president was a joke in 2019.
The National Lawyers Guild, with an apparently spotless record defending civil rights here and abroad, had observers on the ground in Venezuela who consulted with 910 other electoral observers present from 95 countries, including the Carter Center, the United Nations, the African Union, and the Latin American Council of Electoral Experts (CEELA). NLG president Suzanne Adely said:
Never heard of the NLG before, but they’ve been harassed by the FBI, so they must be legit.
The National Lawyers Guild has righteous radical roots in defense of civil liberties. In the 60s they were reliably on the front lines both as attorneys and advocates. Glad they’re still going strong.
And they go back at least as far as the CIO union struggles of the 1930’s. They started as a radical alternative – back then close to the CPUSA – to the American Bar Association.
JFYI, the ACLU doesn’t defend protesters imprisoned. NLG does.
As senior scholars have several times shown, Chinese “debt trap diplomacy” is a myth:
“Beijing has made significant investments in Venezuela over the years and there is a not insignificant chance chance that a González/Corrina Machado government not only would not honour those investments but would probably refuse to pay back Venezuela’s debts to China, no doubt citing Beijing’s odious debt trap diplomacy…”
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953/
February 6, 2021
The Chinese ‘Debt Trap’ Is a Myth
The narrative wrongfully portrays both Beijing and the developing countries it deals with.
By DEBORAH BRAUTIGAM and MEG RITHMIRE
Deborah Brautigam is Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. Meg Rithmire is F. Warren McFarlan Associate Professor at Harvard Business School.
From what I have read, it is clear that the recent elections in Venezuela were not fair and open. A foreign country has, for more than twenty years, repetedly attempted to overthrow the government by means of military coups, post electoral violence, economic sanctions, and millions of dollars worth of destabization efforts including terrorism and cyberatacks. That same foreign country declared a winner of the election (for the second time in a row) before the results have been announced. The candidate financed and supported by the US should be disqualified. The United States has made a mockery of the democratic electoral process in the current Venezualan elections, and elections world wide.
The United States has made a mockery of the democratic electoral process… You might as well have stopped there. Says it all.
Time for a Venezuelan ‘NGO Declaration of Interest and Funding’ law, I imagine.
Past time Id say
Who counts the votes matter, sheets are suspect!
Beside Biden’s “team” has an an election this fall to…..
Here, I’ll finish your last sentence …… “steal”.
“…lawfare”.
Maybe there is a war somewhere …
heh heh. Coffee’s bitter this morning.
I know Nick cited Ben Norton in his earlier piece, but I don’t know if this article was included. In it Ben points out the irregularities in some of the “tallies” released by the US-backed opposition. Regarding the “exit poll” findings, he notes that
“One of Venezuela’s leading independent polling firms, Hinterlaces… published an exit poll on the day of the vote that predicted that Maduro would win with 54.57%, compared to 42.82% for González… This was quite similar to the final results of 51.95% for Maduro and 43.18% for González. (The remaining votes were split among the eight other opposition candidates.)” This of course, varies considerably from the findings blasted all over the Western media from Edison Research, a company which “works closely with CIA-linked US state propaganda outlets and previously did dubious polling in Ukraine, Georgia, and Iraq…”
These seem to be the two pieces of evidence used by the Carter Center to come to its conclusions. It’s pretty clear that the Carter Center has gone the way of the OPCW and every other international watchdog agency we have been able to pervert.
https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2024/08/03/us-government-funds-electoral-fraud-venezuela/
No, I hadn’t seen this, pjay. Thanks for linking to it. More grist for the mill.
As to the Carter Center: I don’t believe Jimmy is still taking an active role. Nothing, and no one, can last forever. It has lost its credibility.
This is a good article about the Venezuela electoral system: https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/cybersecurity-expert-on-fraud-claims-and-voting-safeguards-in-venezuelas-presidential-election/
I understand that Venezuela’s thick crude requires specialized refineries to process. For many years, a refinery in Houston was dedicated to this. However, sanctioning Venezuela curtailed imports to this refinery. To maintain production, the corporation imported a Russian crude with similar chemistry, but sanctions on Russia ended this arrangement. Thus, partial easing of sanctions on Venezuelan oil serve US interests to maintain production at an otherwise idle facility. We will see what happens next whether ideological policies trump industry.
I believe I read somewhere that the oil trade with Russia was exempt from the sanctions. It may be the case that Russia has finally had enough and is threatening to cancel the deal.
I think the commentariat has been looking at this from the geopolitics angle, and you seem to think that the local dynamics are subsumed to those narratives. I am no expert on the subject, but from here in Latin America and from talking to actual venezuelans (exiles & migrants with families in the country), a few views stand out: the electoral process itself went smoothly, there weren’t many irregularities at voting booths; however, venezuelans abroad were mostly disqualified from voting (that’s around 7 million people!). It was during the count, when the results started trickling in and they weren’t in favor of Maduro, that things started going haywire: count reports from CNE stopped for a couple of hours, reports from electoral witness intimidation, etc.
Consensus view is that the chavistas genuinely thought they were going to win; Maduro had seen only favourable polls, so they were blindsided by the results.
But a large majority venezuelans are genuinely sick of chavismo and its results: the country’s economy is in shambles, the collapse is not only due to sanctions but to long term mismanagement and incompetence. The collapse in average living standards is something unseen in a country that hasn’t been through a war! There are genuine chavistas who look fondly on the social wins made through chavismo, but the collapse of the economy & corruption are two undeniable facts. Chavista support for Maduro is now predicated on fear of what the opposition would do to them: they fear prosecution; some of the poorest fear the end of subsidies and handouts (whose real value has been eroded up to nothing anyway), etc. But a lot of poor people are also sick of chavismo; even some of the criminal gangs are siding with protesters.
And now the heavy hand of repression is tightening its grip throughout the land. People who went to Venezuela to vote are reporting their passports are being canceled, the police are checking people’s phones on the streets, activists are being disappeared, the whole shebang.
The only sure outcome of this is more emigration and it’s probably gonna have 2nd order effects on the US election. No wonder Gen Richardson was in Panamá, the Mulino government started cracking down on the migrant traffic through the Darien gap; the US is basically financing more enforcement at this border.
Just my 2 cents…
Some links to the broad statements of fact would be useful.
Talking to the Venezuelan diaspora is like talking to the Cubans in Miami about what is going on in Cuba, an utterly biased take that will always be skewed against Maduro. References to support your very broad assertions would be useful.
I think that by “Plutonium Kim” you mean PlutoniumKun :-)
Fixed! Thanks, Jan, and apologies, PK.
A day later (Aug 3), Maduro issued a threat to the Collective West. In a televised address, he said that if the US government and its “partners in the world make “the mistake of their lives” — presumably in reference to their recognition of the opposition coalition’s victory in the election — Venezuela would give the oil and gas blocks that have already been signed over to US and other Western companies “to our allies in the BRICS.”
LOL
See? The BRICS don’t even need their own currency (yet) to suffice as a powerful weapon wielded in defense!
It doesn’t matter. Venezuela will eventually join the BRICS anyway, and thereafter even more countries from the Global South. So long as the US is all in and doubling down on being the “Miss Hilly” (via YouTube) of the world, more countries will be driven away from its rotten “sphere of influence”.
Nick and some of the Commentariat fall in with the MSM line that Venezuela’s economic problems are caused not only by sanctions, but also by government “mismanagement” .
I would like to read an article detailing this mismanagement, please.
The sanctions began more than twenty years ago, long before Trump made Guaido president. They are a form of warfare practiced by the US, the EU, the UK, and the rest of the collective west. The UK has stolen Venezuela’s gold reserves, and the US has stolen Venezuela’s oil company, Citgo. The same interests have promoted coups d’etat within the country, financed terrorist acts and the sabotage of the energy infrastructure. The US and EU also prioritize Venezuelan economic migrants as “refugees,” thus privileging yet another angry, right-wing Latin American diaspora.
In this context, I await detailed evidence of Bolivarian “mismanagement”, and the extent to which it is the cause of Venezuela’s current difficulties.
Recently in an apparently authoritative report, I heard that the US effort to make Venezuala’s economy scream has caused a 71% contraction. That is a jaw dropping amount, to say the least.
As for the so called mismanagement, as I understand it, the government maintains staple price controls, but subversive elements over buy at controlled prices and then sell on the black market. That is not exactly mismanagement, and the corruption is not within the government.
Yep, and Chavez had to go to war with the mob that was running the oil industry for its own benefit and was shutting down production to bring down the government. That by itself took a toll on the oil industry.
That the alleged “true” results of Venezuela’s election have the opposition win 70% of the vote on a platform of uprooting the entire public system initiated 25 years ago followed by mass privatizations does not seem at all possible.
Coming very late to the party. This article by Brian Mier (who does work (sometimes?) for Telesur which would be more pro-left and Chavista) seems to detail an episode of fake voter suppression staged by the opposition. It seemed to me to have convincing detail. Who knows?
https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/08/05/election-theater-in-venezuela-a-tale-from-election-day-in-caracas/
Thank you!
“But is this all a bluff on Putin’s part? It is hard to tell. Venezuela has been seeking membership of the BRICS grouping since at least 2015, and when the time finally came to expand BRICS membership early this year, Venezuela’s application was passed over in favour of Argentina, only for the Milei government to reject the invitation.”
I suppose they learned from the Argentina snub..They were snubbed after the Wal street friendly American cutout Milei was installed. Maduro and Venezuela have shown they can prevent that from happening. . I suspect Russia would have Chosen Venezuela and it was China that insisted on Argentina..Putin is gloating. Venezuela wont be passed over again.