U.S. Trying to Use Venezuela’s Election as an Excuse to Impose Regime Change

By David Starr

 

Latin America, and the Caribbean, have had a bloody history dealing with the consequences of U.S. imperialism. And Venezuela is no exception. 

 

Venezuela was a market satellite of the USA for decades in the 20^th century. In what is all-too-familiar, the U.S. empire imposed a coup in 1908, installing Vice President Juan Vicente Gomez to head the government. Gomez ruled Venezuela either directly or through puppet leaders until his death in 1935. In Venezuelanalysis, Brett Wilkins writes that Gomez’s “regime was one of inconceivably medieval brutality.” And Gomez did Washington’s bidding, putting foreign oil companies in the country to establish private monopolies.

 

In the mid-20^th century, there was some semblance of democracy when Romulo Betancourt took over to lead the government. He was considered the founder of modern Venezuela. Betancourt wrote that Gomez “was the instrument of foreign control of the Venezuelan economy, the ally and servant of powerful outside interests.”

 

The U.S. empire got another client by backing the Marcos Perez Jimenez regime in order to further exploit Venezuela’s oil reserves. Jimenez was a typical U.S.-backed tyrant who was fond of torture (as was Gomez), ruling from 1948 to 1958. Wilkins writes that Jimenez got help from the U.S.A. by “providing his dreaded Directorate of National Security with invaluable assistance as it imprisoned, tortured and murdered thousands of innocent Venezuelans.”

 

Venezuela had a period of peace and prosperity, but the USA still interfered in its affairs.

 

Fast forward to 1998, where the newly elected Hugo Chavez launched the Bolivarian Revolution to make substantial changes for most Venezuelans. U.S. officials cynically declared that Chavez did not win his election fairly and the USA continued to interfere, attempting to cause chaos and instability. But Chavez implemented a socialist program nonetheless, and became a hero to millions of Venezuelans. 

 

But Chavez also became a target for regime change. The Bush Jr. regime attempted a military coup in 2002 against Chavez, but it failed. Many Venezuelans would not stand for it. In a speech at the United Nations, Chavez called Bush Jr. “the devil.” One of the plotters of the attempted coup was neoconservative Elliott Abrams, who under Reagan, supported death squads in Central America that committed atrocities in the 1980s. 

 

Like Bush Jr, President Barack Obama did not have kind words for Chavez, whom he called “authoritarian.” Obama even went as far as claiming that Venezuela was “an extraordinary threat to national security.” It’s a bizarre statement and puzzling as well since Venezuela is in South America.

 

In 2013, Nicolas Maduro was elected president after Chavez’s death. In 2016 Donald Trump was the U.S. president. Trump had imperial delusions, and like Obama, called Venezuela a threat. Trump threatened to attack its Bolivarian Revolution to “support” its people who were “suffering” because of it. Trump also supported Juan Guaido, who was pathetically posing as “president” of Venezuela. After being anointed by Washington, Guaido tried to play the role of president, although he wasn’t in the Venezuelan government at the time. Yet another “nephew” of Uncle Sam.

 

Moving up to the July 28, 2024 presidential election, Maduro, head of the United Socialist Party (PSUV), was declared the victor, winning 51% of the votes over right-winger Edmundo Gonzalez’s 44%. From 1981 to 1983, Gonzalez was posted at the Venezuelan embassy in El Salvador. He was involved in committing murder against the Salvadoran opposition, thus helping the U.S.-backed, fascist government at the time. 

 

Gonzalez and the Venezuelan right declared that the July 28 election was fraudulent, having done this in past elections where a Left/Progressive was the victor. U.S. officials have backed the right, claiming that Gonzalez is the “rightful” president.

 

Discussions and arguments were evident as to who really won the election. On Democracy Now!, there was an interview with two individuals about it. Both were on the left, but one of them was harshly critical of the Maduro government. Who knows? Maybe he was posing as a leftist. The person was Edgardo Lander, a sociologist who is a member of the Citizen’s Platform in Defense of the Constitution. Lander was interviewed while he was in Venezuela. And in Albany, New York, the other person was Nina Farnia, a legal historian at the Albany Law School, and a co-founder of the International People’s Tribunal on U.S. imperialism and Sanctions. Farnia was in Venezuela as an observer from the National Lawyers Guild for the election. 

 

Host Amy Goodman interviewed Lander first. He claimed that Maduro was “overwhelmingly defeated” in the election. While Lander admitted that “the technical part of the [electoral] system is probably one of the best in the world,” he mentioned the use of paper ballots “that are printed, and acts that are registered and signed by the witnesses at each voting booth that can be compared with the results by the totals of the Electoral Council.”

 

Lander accused the Council of “completely” throwing out the “checks established in the system.” He also claimed that the Council “published made-up data, so-called final results.” Lander added that “the witnesses at the voting booths have copies of what actually happened at each voting booth. And it’s clear that these papers show that there was an overwhelming result.” In other words, Maduro was routed in the election.

 

Goodman then questioned Farnia who said, “What we witnessed, by and large, was a free and fair election, which explains why former President Jimmy Carter once called this system the best in the world." Farnia mentioned the “international delegation of election monitors that included members of the African Union and Latin American election experts.” The monitors gained knowledge about the Venezuelan electoral system, as well as going to polling stations.

 

Farnia said that after interviewing voters, the monitors did not hear any complaints about fraud.

 

A little later in the interview, Lander implied that U.S. imperialism is “not a conspiracy, that it’s not fascism.” Lander doesn’t seem to realize the pattern U.S. imperialism has exercised over the decades where there’s been routine interference in other countries like Venezuela, and/or invading, bombing and occupying said countries. That’s not a conspiracy? The pattern says otherwise. And what about fascism? In those decades the USA has been brutal in its practice of killing large numbers of the local populations in those countries. Except for the local elites, which U.S. imperialism has supported. Fascism? It could apply.

 

Then, Lander appears to contradict himself when he said that “The United States has no right to decide who won the elections.” So, which is it: U.S. foreign policy objectives are not a series of conspiracies and the perpetration of fascism? Or, is it virtually the opposite?

 

Lander tries to make a big deal out of the fact that the voting tallies of the election have not been publicized yet. Farnia responded: “I want to correct Professor Lander. The Venezuelan government, according to the laws that we learned about while we were there, has 30 days to release the tallies from the day of the election. We’re not even 10 days yet [at the time of this interview].” Plus, things are being sorted out of the controversy that grew after the election. 

 

“Who is the US to preach ‘democracy’ to Venezuela?,” read the headline of an article published on the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS). After all, “US imperialism is guided by the same imperative of asserting its hegemony over the plant’s energy and strategic mineral producing regions…” 

 

And Washington made its judgement known about Venezuela’s election, quoted in WSWS: “Given the overwhelming evidence, it is clear to the United States and, most importantly, to the Venezuelan people that Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia won the most votes in Venezuela’s July 28 presidential election.” What evidence? The U.S. empire always makes these claims in regards to other countries’ elections in the Global South when the is a “threat” to U.S. ultra-national interests. 

 

Actually, Gonzalez stood in for Maria Corina Machado for the presidential election. Machado is a typical U.S. client, her organization, Unitary Platform, being funded by the U.S. Machado is the fascist leader of that group. It goes to show that in its obsession to stop socialism, the U.S. empire has even supported right-wing tyrants, or more directly put, fascists, in the Global South. 

 

Maduro made clear that he’s being threatened by, in his words, a “fascist coup.” Given the overwhelming evidence, his assertion is accurate. The CIA and USAID has funneled money to the right-wing opposition to support their attempt at regime change. And the sovereignty of nations in the Global South have been violated repeatedly.

 

There is concern about the violence that erupted after the election. For example, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris posted on X (Twitter) that the voting tallies should be released immediately, and that violence against peaceful protesters must be stopped. For an added twist, Harris said that “The U.S. stands with the Venezuelan people, and the will of the people must be respected.” But the violence has been perpetrated mainly by the right-wing opposition. 

 

Quoting from the WSWS: “The opposition has instigated a wave of riots, looting, the burning of PSUV offices, government buildings, schools and healthcare facilities. The explicit aim of Machado has been to provoke divisions in the armed forces, aiming for a coup, civil war and a potential foreign military intervention.”

 

U.S. behavior against Venezuela before, during and after the election has been typically abysmal. Besides the electoral interference, the U.S. sanctions against Venezuela have had their effect. The economy has been damaged, poverty has been increasing, many Venezuelans have gone into exile, and there have been an estimated 100,000 deaths according to U.N. Special Rapporteur Alfred de Zayas.

 

Quoting from the WSWS in regards to U.S. foreign policy, “For over a century, the methods employed by Washington to dominate the region have consisted of boundless aggression, including countless military invasions, military coups, and the installing of fascist dictatorships.” So, when does the democracy and freedom come into play?

 

John Kirby, Biden’s National Security Council spokesperson, had the nerve to say that “Our patience, and that of the international community is running out, running out. I’m waiting for the Venezuelan electoral [authority] to come clean and release the full detailed data on this election.” Kirby is not one to speak for the international community, much less for Venezuelans. The tone of his statement implies that the Venezuelan government is fully corrupt and is committing voter fraud. The hypocrisy is an old theme, and most Venezuelans are tired of it. 

 

U.S. elections have been corrupted and there is voter suppression by the Republicans. Politicians are bought by the wealthy and big corporations and in turn heavily influence elections. It’s kind of like giving the politicians bribes so their donors can get what they want. Money dominates.

 

And with U.S. money funding the right-wing Venezuelan opposition, the latter are bolder in causing chaos. At the Andres Bello polling center, about 100 of them stood at the entrance yelling, “Let us vote! Let us vote!” In front of the entrance, there were police guarding the polling station. There were women crying and angry-looking men in the crowd. They asked why Nicolas Maduro won’t let them vote.  

 

Published in Venezuelanalysis, Brian Mier, who was in Venezuela covering the election, writes: 

 

“Half an hour later, a group of hundreds of men rode on loud motorcycles, with some riders in black hoods and masks. They blocked off the road in front of the polling station and sat there, revving their engines as the crowd yelled things like, “Viva Venezuela!” As I prepared to record a report, a muscular white man in the crowd glared at me and said, ‘Nicolas Maduro,’ and made a throat-slitting gesture.

 

“Suddenly, a group of motorcyclists rode up onto the sidewalk to the entrance, everyone got off their bikes and left them blocking the road. Together, they marched into the crowd and rushed for the door, pushing at the police. A few minutes later, a group of motorcycles from the national police rode up, two to a bike, with the passengers holding assault rifles, and most of the motorcyclists vacated the premises.”

 

Mier adds that angry white men yelled at the police. As many people in the crowd left the scene, Maria Corina Machado supporters stayed, yelling “We want results! We want results!” They were few in number. 

 

Mier went to another polling station with other journalists. There was a Machado crowd there yelling, “Shut the doors! Shut the doors!” The doors were to be shut anyway at 6:00 pm. As soon as that happened, the crowd then yelled, Let us vote! Let us vote!” It was apparently a tactic to try and show that the crowd were denied their right to vote.

 

Elon Musk, the parasitical money-grubber, and considered by Maduro to be a far-right fanatic, was on the side of the Venezuelan fascist opposition and so favored U.S. intervention. In 2020 he said, quoting from CounterPunch, “We will coup whoever we want. Deal with it.” A poor excuse for a human being.

 

Another is Machado, where her group had no intention to seriously participate in the election. They refused to sign an agreement for all parties to respect the results and reject any violence after the results showed the winner. All parties except Machado’s respected this agreement. 

 

Maria Paez Victor writes in CounterPunch that Machado and her group planned this scheme. “Even before the results were in Machado was telling her formidable social media networks that Gonzalez had overwhelmingly won the election.” Further, “under the cover of campaigning, she was paying off bands of real criminals she grouped in what she called ‘comanditos [little commands].”’

 

Victor goes on to write that, “These were common criminals trained in Colombia with the help of” former Colombian president and drug dealer Alvaro Uribe and gangs of organized crime. The comanditos “were paid up to $150.00 a day to burst on the scene the day after the elections. There was a clear plan with strategic targets laid out for every comandito. It was discovered that a great number of them were trained terrorists.” With the backing of the U.S. empire, these thugs were carrying out physical violence and destroying property. 

 

U.S. interference in another country’s elections is a virtual tradition. The sovereignty of another nation is blatantly violated. This time the attempt at regime change failed in Venezuela. 

 

As of this writing, a criminal investigation has been launched against Gonzalez and Machado. So, perhaps justice will prevail and Venezuela can move on from this situation.