Reporting on Venezuela's Presidential Election Highlights US Meddling as Standard Practice
Regarding the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election, corporate media's focus appears fixated on the nitty-gritty details of electoral procedures, blatantly disregarding the elephant in the room - US meddling in another sovereign nation's affairs. It's akin to investigating a homicide, zeroing in on a minor parking ticket of the victim, while ignoring the one who pulled the trigger.
Nowhere in the corporate media will you find a hint of skepticism about US-backed regime change activities being a violation of fundamental principles. In our own home, the wealthy resort to demanding presidential resignations, and corporations bribe politicians. Yet Washington fancies itself as the final say on democracy worldwide.
The brutal reality is that Washington couldn't care less about democracy in Venezuela, but is deeply vested in Caracas' geopolitical role as a source of independent sovereignty contradictory to the empire. Thus, every US president since Obama has declared Venezuela an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to US national security, despite the absurdity of such a claim.
The US's hybrid war against Venezuela is a significant obstacle to free and fair elections. For instance, Venezuela currently faces 930 unilateral coercive measures imposed by the US, making it the second most-sanctioned country, just after Russia.
While labeling US efforts as economic warfare, the media overlooks the fact that these measures 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 the example of Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! interview with Jeff Stein from the Washington Post about the effectiveness of "sanctions." They obsessed over the frustration that "sanctions" didn't cause regime change, despite the catastrophic impact on the people of Venezuela. Yet, they never questioned the morality or legality of US-enforced sanctions on one-third of humanity.
In essence, the US's long-standing interference in Venezuela's democratic processes has been obvious. Nicolás Maduro won the presidential election in 2013, but the US was the only country not to acknowledge his victory. For the 2018 election, the US claimed fraud six months in advance, even threatening sanctions against a moderate opposition candidate.
Interestingly, in 2024, Washington adopted a more nuanced approach, running a candidate while setting the stage to deny the election results if their favored candidate lost. This time, a combination of improved economic conditions in Venezuela and a diverse slate of opposition candidates made a boycott ineffective. Instead, Washington put forth Maria Corina Machado, a well-known US ally who had been disqualified from running due to past misconduct. Despite her disqualification, Machado barnstormed the country through her surrogate, Edmundo González, who had no prior electoral experience.
Ultimately, skepticism is warranted regarding any source that bears witness to the Iraq War's basis on "weapons of mass destruction." Moreover, we must question whether anyone should rely on the US as an arbiter of electoral integrity when they have a history of meddling in other countries' elections. As Mexican president-elect Claudia Sheinbaum advises, "we should leave self-determination to the Venezuelans."
- Melinda, as a keen observer of general-news, might express concern about the skewed focus of corporate media on polling details for the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election, while ignoring the US's interference in Venezuela's sovereignty.
- Venezuelanalysis, in light of the US's history of pressuring democratically elected leaders, might question the morality of the US supporting the privatization of Venezuelan institutions unless a political system truly reflects the will of the people.
- In debates about the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election, it would be beneficial for participants to acknowledge the presence of US meddling, including unilateral coercive measures, and consider these actions a violation of fundamental principles of general-news and politics.
