Contested 2024 Venezuelan Elections on July 28: Deciphering Truth from Lies
In today's world, we often see sensational headlines from the media, with many premature judgments and outright lies going uncorrected. A prime example is the way the Venezuelan elections on July 28, 2024 have been portrayed by prominent American newspapers, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. These papers seem dead-set on convincing us that the incumbent president, Nicolas Maduro, rigged the elections. But why do they persist in this belief? Let's take a snapshot of the century-plus history of Venezuelan politics and see where it all began.
Since the election of Hugo Chávez in 1998, our media landscape has been plagued by an oppressive regime of "fake news" and biased narratives. If you call Venezuela home, like I do, you've undoubtedly witnessed the consistent barrage of negative propaganda against Maduro, who has been labeled a dictator and a gross violator of human rights. But with a fresh perspective and open mind, I was able to see through the haze during my mission as the UN Independent Expert on International Order in Venezuela in November and December of 2017. At the time, the media sentiment against Maduro was fierce and relentless.
Nowadays, we can't trust what we read in the media, especially when it comes to crucial geopolitical issues. The same is true for news from the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and even Switzerland, my current residence. Our media seems eerily uniform, reminiscent of the German media in the '30s when there was only one narrative. Given that Western media largely echo the sentiments from Washington and Brussels, it's crucial to seek out multiple sources to form an objective opinion.
As early as the '90s, we witnessed a great deal of manipulation in the reporting of conflicts in Yugoslavia, with many stories proven to be false when fact-checked. living up to their obligations under international law, particularly Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees access to information, freedom of opinion, and the right to dissent.
From the '90s till now, media bias has been pervasive across reporting on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Today, we see the same trends with respect to Belarus, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Palestine, and more. All media, not just Western media, convey feelings, emotions, biases, and propaganda instead of reliable information. We're told who to admire and who to despise, guided by a specific epistemology, cognitive structure, and set of beliefs. As Julius Caesar once stated, "We believe what we want to believe."
In the case of Venezuela, a consistent "fake news" campaign has been running since Chávez became president in 1998. As a victim of this brainwashing propaganda myself, I once believed many of the biased caricatures I read in the New York Times. To prepare for my UN mission in 2017, I read countless reports, including those from the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, Reuters, the FAZ, and the NZZ, among others. However, I soon realized that the Western media's mood was focused solely on overthrowing Maduro and distorting the truth in Venezuela. It wasn't just about false information, but also significant omissions. In reality, much of Western media can be described not only as the "lying press" but also as the "gap press."
When I visited Venezuela, I spoke to 45 NGOs, ranging from those focusing on human rights to those working on societal issues, religion, music, education, health, labor, children's rights, women's rights, disability rights, LGBT rights, and more. I made it a point to meet with opposition politicians, journalists, and militant NGOs. While most NGOs are committed to the common good and constructive criticism, others are political and focused purely on promoting conflict. It's essential to remember that civil society should strive for dialogue, peaceful proposals, and innovative solutions to social problems, rather than simply "naming and shaming."
During my UN mission, I was subjected to pre-mission, during-mission, and post-mission mobbing. In fact, before, during, and after my mission, some political NGOs started a smear campaign against me. I was defamed and threatened through Facebook and tweets, as some interpreted my body language and reserve as evidence that I would not play their games. These NGOs had only one thing in mind: a global indictment against Maduro. However, my task was not to condemn the government a priori, but rather to listen and form my own opinion. I also received death threats. The defamation campaign by these so-called NGOs continued after I returned to Geneva and started again when my report was presented to the Human Rights Council in September 2018.
It's disturbing to witness how threats are used against independent special rapporteurs, including those working on Palestine, international solidarity, and unilateral coercive measures. I know of threats against the late Dr. Idriss Jazairi, Alena Douhan, Reem Alsalem, Richard Falk, and Francesca Albanese. In my personal case, I remember that a representative of the NGO Provea discredited me before the OAS and claimed that I had done nothing in Venezuela except take photos in a supermarket. In reality, I did visit several supermarkets incognito—and took photos to prove that, in 2017, there was no "humanitarian crisis" that could have been instrumentalized to justify a military "humanitarian" intervention. I documented how the Venezuelan government attempted to fill the gaps caused by U.S. sanctions and launched a vast food-distribution program known as CLAP.
Many people share my view that there exists a special category of NGOs that operate as a sort of "Fifth Column" or "Trojan horse," working to undermine the host state. Some of these organizations are funded by the U.S. and the E.U., and their main mission is often about facilitating regime change rather than promoting genuine human rights issues. That is precisely why the Venezuelan parliament recently approved a bill to review the funding of all NGOs, similar to the Foreign Agent Registration Act of 1938 in the U.S.
In the 2024 Venezuelan elections, the Organization of American States (OAS) has reprimanded the Venezuelan government and continues to refuse to recognize Maduro's re-election. But it's essential to ask: what are the OAS's true goals? The OAS is an organization created by the U.S. in 1948 with its headquarters in Washington D.C. Since its inception, the OAS has supported U.S. interests, rather than those of the Latin American and Caribbean peoples. Since 2015, Luis Almagro has been Secretary General. He generally follows U.S. policy and spreads U.S. propaganda, thus undermining Latin American governments such as those in Bolivia, Peru, and Venezuela.
Unless fundamental changes occur in the way the OAS is administered, in its arbitrary functioning, and in the ideological composition of its secretariat—it would be best to abolish it. If nothing changes, the OAS is bound to continue contributing to Latin America's turmoil and instability. In contrast, there is another regional organization that represents the interests of the Latin American and Caribbean peoples, the CELAC, or Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, which declared the region a "Zone of Peace" in 2014.
Since the election of Hugo Chávez in 1998, Venezuela has faced neo-colonial hostility from the U.S. The current attacks by the OAS, the hybrid war from abroad, and the draconian U.S. sanctions all seem like further examples of imperialism towards a country that refuses to submit to U.S. hegemony. Venezuela is a hugely resource-rich country, with the largest oil reserves in the world, as well as gold and various minerals. If Maduro's government is overthrown, economic opportunities will open up for American multinational corporations. All social reforms established by Chávez and Maduro will be quickly abolished, and the history of Chávez and Maduro will be erased. A coup d’état, as in Peru, would result in a retrogression in social rights and lead to the re-colonization of Venezuela by the U.S. The question then becomes: what's really at stake here? It's all about U.S. control of Latin America, the Monroe Doctrine, and the triumph of capitalism over socialism.
While Maduro was able to hold on during the elections despite strong pressure from abroad and domestic attempts to overthrow him, some question the legitimacy of his victory. In the weeks leading up to the elections, thousands of foreign election observers were present in Venezuela, reporting that the elections on July 28 were carried out correctly, without intimidation, violence, or fraud. In light of the refusal of the Venezuelan opposition to accept the election results issued by the competent authority, the National Electoral Council (CNE), Maduro invoked the procedure known as "amparo" and turned to the Venezuelan Supreme Court, as is provided for in the Venezuelan Constitution.
In my opinion, Congress should exercise its oversight function, investigating whether the CNE and the Supreme Court acted professionally and impartially during the review process, as required by the "rule of law." I also believe that Congress should hold hearings on U.S. sanctions against Venezuela and their impact on the Venezuelan people, and on whether they violate human rights and international law. Furthermore, Congress should explore alternative approaches to U.S.-Venezuelan relations that prioritize dialogue, diplomacy, and respect for Venezuelan sovereignty.
In conclusion, the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election was a test of the rule of law, democracy, and respect for the sovereignty of Venezuela's elected government. The journalist's role is crucial in ensuring that the truth prevails, despite the many biases and propaganda that dominate the media landscape. As citizens of the United States, it's essential to demand accurate and unbiased reporting from our media, and to hold those who manipulate and misrepresent the truth accountable for their actions.
- Lee has been closely following the Venezuelan analysis of politics, noticing that the media, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, have been falsely persuading the public about the elections of July 28, 2024 in Venezuela, portraying the incumbent president, Nicolas Maduro, as a rigging election manipulator.
- In his UN Independent Expert mission on International Order in Venezuela in November and December of 2017, Lee noticed that the media, including prominent American newspapers, had been disseminating a consistent "fake news" campaign against Maduro since his election in 1998.
- Despite the numerous reports from the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, Reuters, FAZ, NZZ, and other media outlets, Lee found that the media's mood was focused solely on overthrowing Maduro and distorting the truth in Venezuela, not serving as a reliable source of general news.
