Corporate media’s coverage 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 US interference in the internal affairs of another sovereign county.

Nowhere in the corporate media is there even an inkling that US-imposed regime-change activities in Venezuela or elsewhere might violate some basic principles.

US is not interested in democracy

Ours 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 reelection 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, Obama and every subsequent US president has declared Venezuela to be “an unusual and extraordinary threat” to US national security.

Of course, the notion that Venezuela poses a national security threat to the US is preposterous. Former US 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.

US 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 US hybrid war. In other words, one purpose of the coercive measures is to incentivize Venezuelan voters to vote for the US-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 US, 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.” Besides, “Wall Street power brokers 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 US 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 US domestic law.

Take for example a recent program on 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 interview was the angst over the so-called sanctions not “working”; that is, not achieving regime change, despite the horrific toll they are taking on its victims. Goodman, for her part, was not so rude as to ask her guest whether the US should be in the business of overthrowing governments not to its liking or 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 US government. Any pretense of a separation between the reporter and the subject being reported is dropped by such stenographers for the State Department.

US 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 US was the only country in the world not to recognize Maduro.

For the 2018 election, the US 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 US 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 US-backed contra war.

However, the US 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 reported on how the opposition united around González; 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 US 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 US 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.

US-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 US 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 US 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 call González “president-elect,” 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 found 65% for the US-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 US government propaganda outlets such as Voice of America, which are operated by the US Agency for Global Media, “a Washington-based organ that is used to spread disinformation against US adversaries.”

The question remains, was the Venezuelan election free and fair? However you weigh the evidence, at least some skepticism is warranted regarding sources that brought us the Iraq War based on “weapons of mass destruction.” Moreover, we must ask whether anyone should look up the US 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 is with the anti-imperialist human rights group, Task Force on the Americas, a 30-year-old grassroots human rights organization founded in 1985 dedicated to supporting social justice movements in Latin America and the Caribbean, along with educating North Americans about the realities of the Americas and the role the United States plays there.

Peter Bolton is a New York City-based journalist, activist and scholar. He is a contributor to CounterPunch, LA Progressive and The Orinoco Tribune where he writes about global politics. He has a master’s degree from American University in Ethics, Peace and Global Affairs and is currently pursuing graduate studies in bioethics at NYU. His work has a particular focus on ethical issues in public policy and international affairs, and he aspires to bring academic analysis to a broad public audience. Follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his website here.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

Source: LA Progressive