FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Venezuela Survives Another Attempt at Regime Change

by MARK WEISBROT

While most of the news on Venezuela in the week since the April 14 presidential election focused on the efforts of losing candidate Henrique Capriles to challenge the results, there was another campaign based in Washington that was quite revealing.  And the two were most definitely related.  Without Washington’s strong support – the first time it had refused to recognize a Venezuelan election result –  it is unlikely that Capriles would have joined the hard core elements of his camp in pretending that the election was stolen.

Washington’s efforts to de-legitimize the election mark a significant escalation of U.S. efforts at “regime change” in Venezuela.   Not since its involvement in the 2002 military coup has the U.S. government done this much to promote open conflict in Venezuela.  When the White House first announced on Monday that a 100 percent audit of the votes was “an important, prudent and necessary step,” this was not an effort to promote a “recount.”  They had to know that this was a form of hate speech – telling the government of Venezuela what was necessary to make their elections legitimate.  They also had to know that it would not make such a recount more likely.  And this was also their quick reply to Maduro’s efforts, according to the New York Times of April 15, to reach out to the Obama administration for better relations through former Clinton Energy Secretary Bill Richardson.

But the Obama team’s effort failed miserably. On Wednesday the government of Spain, Washington’s only significant ally supporting a “100 percent audit” reversed its position and recognized Maduro’s election.  Then the Secretary General of the OAS, Jose Miguel Insulza, backed off his prior alignment with the Obama administration and recognized the election result. Although some of the press had misreported Insulza’s position as that of the OAS, in reality he had been representing nobody but Washington.  It was not just the left governments of Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia, Uruguay and others that had quickly congratulated Maduro on his victory.  Mexico, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti and other non-left governments had joined them.  The Obama administration was completely isolated in the world.

Washington’s clumsy efforts had also helped highlight the election as an issue of national sovereignty, something that is deeply cherished in the region.  “Americans should take care of their own business a little and let us decide our own destiny,” saidLula da Silva at a rally in Brazil. Of course, there were screaming ironies:  George W. Bush “defeated” Gore in 2000, losing the popular vote and “winning” Florida officially by perhaps 900 votes (and quite possibly losing it altogether), with no recount.

But the demand for a “recount” was farcical from the beginning.  In Venezuela, voters mark their choice by pressing a touch screen on a computer, which prints out a receipt of the vote.  The voter checks the receipt and deposits it in a ballot box.  When the polls close, 53 percent of the machines are randomly selected and their results compared with the paper, in front of witnesses from all sides.  There were no reports of mismatches, so far not even from the opposition camp.  The opposition representative on the National Electoral Council, Vicente Díaz, acknowledged that he had “no doubt” that the vote count was accurate.

“No doubt” is an understatement.  My colleague David Rosnick calculated the probability that extending the audit to the remaining 47 percent of machines could change the result of the election:  about one in 25 thousand trillion.

On Thursday night Venezuela’s CNE agreed to do a complete audit of the remaining votes and Capriles called off his protests.  But it’s not clear what the audit entails.  The legal vote in Venezuela is the machine vote (as in parts of the United States where there is electronic voting); the paper receipt is not a vote, and it’s not clear that it would be possible to audit the remaining votes in the way that the first 53 percent were audited on site.

On Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry, affirming before Congress the U.S. refusal to recognize Venezuela’s elections, referred to Latin America as the United States’ “back yard.”  Oops.  Well, the contempt was obvious anyway, no?

Mark Weisbrot is an economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: the Phony Crisis.

This essay originally appeared in The Guardian

.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. and president of Just Foreign Policy. He is also the author of  Failed: What the “Experts” Got Wrong About the Global Economy (Oxford University Press, 2015).

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
July 22, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Good as Goldman: Hillary and Wall Street
Joseph E. Lowndes
From Silent Majority to White-Hot Rage: Observations from Cleveland
Paul Street
Political Correctness: Handle with Care
Richard Moser
Actions Express Priorities: 40 Years of Failed Lesser Evil Voting
Eric Draitser
Hillary and Tim Kaine: a Match Made on Wall Street
Conn Hallinan
The Big Boom: Nukes And NATO
Ron Jacobs
Exacerbate the Split in the Ruling Class
Jill Stein
After US Airstrikes Kill 73 in Syria, It’s Time to End Military Assaults that Breed Terrorism
Jack Rasmus
Trump, Trade and Working Class Discontent
John Feffer
Could a Military Coup Happen Here?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Late Night, Wine-Soaked Thoughts on Trump’s Jeremiad
Andrew Levine
Vice Presidents: What Are They Good For?
Michael Lukas
Law, Order, and the Disciplining of Black Bodies at the Republican National Convention
Victor Grossman
Horror News, This Time From Munich
Margaret Kimberley
Gavin Long’s Last Words
Mark Weisbrot
Confidence and the Degradation of Brazil
Brian Cloughley
Boris Johnson: Britain’s Lying Buffoon
Lawrence Reichard
A Global Crossroad
Kevin Schwartz
Beyond 28 Pages: Saudi Arabia and the West
Charles Pierson
The Courage of Kalyn Chapman James
Michael Brenner
Terrorism Redux
Bruce Lerro
Being Inconvenienced While Minding My Own Business: Liberals and the Social Contract Theory of Violence
Mark Dunbar
The Politics of Jeremy Corbyn
David Swanson
Top 10 Reasons Why It’s Just Fine for U.S. to Blow Up Children
Binoy Kampmark
Laura Ingraham and Trumpism
Uri Avnery
The Great Rift
Nicholas Buccola
What’s the Matter with What Ted Said?
Aidan O'Brien
Thank Allah for Western Democracy, Despondency and Defeat
Joseph Natoli
The Politics of Crazy and Stupid
Sher Ali Khan
Empirocracy
Nauman Sadiq
A House Divided: Turkey’s Failed Coup Plot
Franklin Lamb
A Roadmap for Lebanon to Grant Civil Rights for Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon
Colin Todhunter
Power and the Bomb: Conducting International Relations with the Threat of Mass Murder
Michael Barker
UK Labour’s Rightwing Select Corporate Lobbyist to Oppose Jeremy Corbyn
Graham Peebles
Brexit, Trump and Lots of Anger
Anhvinh Doanvo
Civilian Deaths, Iraq, Syria, ISIS and Drones
Christopher Brauchli
Kansas and the Phantom Voters
Peter Lee
Gavin Long’s Manifesto and the Politics of “Terrorism”
Missy Comley Beattie
An Alarmingly Ignorant Fuck
Robert Koehler
Volatile America
Adam Vogal
Why Black Lives Matter To Me
Raouf Halaby
It Is Not Plagiarism, Y’all
Rev. Jeff Hood
Deliver Us From Babel
Frances Madeson
Juvenile Life Without Parole, Captured in ‘Natural Life’
Charles R. Larson
Review: Han Kang’s “The Vegetarian”
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail