by Ajamu Baraka and Margaret Kimberley, published on Black Agenda Report, July 21, 2024
Ajamu Baraka, Black Agenda Report editor and columnist, discusses observing the recent elections in Venezuela and why the U.S. still seeks to undermine that democracy.
Margaret Kimberley: Ajamu Baraka is a Black Agenda Report editor and columnist. He is joining us from Caracas, Venezuela, where he was an observer in the recently held national elections. We will discuss what he observed, the meaning of the results, and the ongoing attempts from the U.S.-backed right wing to destabilize the elected government. Good morning, Ajamu, and thank you.
Ajamu Baraka: It’s a pleasure to be here and to have this opportunity to discuss what’s unfolding here in Venezuela.
MK: Tell us about your role as an election observer. How did that come about?
AB: Well, it’s a combination of factors. One is, that this makes my third experience observing elections here. And then as well, I’ve done this here and in other places around the world, or for quite some time. Secondly, though, the invitation was extended to the Black Alliance for Peace , to join the more than 800 international observers to come in and to lend their eyes and ears to this process.
The rationale was that I think the Venezuelan authorities understood that, despite the fact that this election process in Venezuela is one of the cleanest in the world, one of the most effective and efficient, then there was a strong possibility that if the opposition did not win, then they were going to cry fraud. And so they wanted to have a variety of different eyes on this process. So we were accepted. So my role basically, here is partly as a journalist with the Black Agenda Report, and also politically with the Black Alliance for Peace.
MK: The election was held on July 28. We’re talking two days later, and President Maduro’s party, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, in Spanish the PSUV, did win a majority of votes with this process that you have described as being transparent and internationally recognized. But no sooner were these results announced than the US government, not surprisingly, said that the results were questionable, and there were allegations of fraud. And of course, the opposition did not accept being defeated. Talk to us about events since the election results were announced.
AB: Well, what we saw unfold was the playbook that the US has, when it comes to events in this region and really around the world, that when there’s an attempt to have internal democratic processes, where the possibility of forces that may not be in alignment with the US come into power, and there is an attempt on the part of the US and the Western European allies to undermine those processes. And that’s exactly what has occurred here in this country.
I think the world was forewarned that the possibility of violence erupting if the opposition didn’t win, was something that had to be dealt with, and acknowledged. But even before we talk about that, I wanted to just briefly share with the people who are reading this interview, that the process will determine how people actually vote here in this country. On the day of the election, we had an opportunity to move around primarily around Caracas and right outside, to view the process of various voting spaces and voting precincts, and what we saw was the process in place.
They have a pretty robust process to make sure that results cannot be manipulated by any force. For example, the first thing that a voter has to do when they get ready to vote is present their ID, but then it has to be verified through a biometric process. When they are identified they are given a slip of paper. And then they are able to cast their vote electronically and to have a paper ballot to verify the fact that they in fact, have voted. And that is to ensure that there that the electronic count and the paper ballot count correspond.
And then during the election process, the day of the vote, the government engages in audits really before the voting takes place, but during the day of the voting, and afterward, 54% of the machines are randomly selected for audit, all of this is clearly observed by opposition forces. Opposition forces are allowed to be in the voting spaces to observe the process and to be present when they begin the process of recording the votes at the end of the day. So it’s very difficult to manipulate this process. And that’s why when Secretary of State Antony Blinken talked about some counter data that they have, we want to hear what that data is because I didn’t observe too many gringo elements out there, engaging in interviews with voters to get a sense of what was really unfolding.
Now we know that, for example, in this country, it is not legal to engage in these exit polls because of how they can be used. So we suspect that this statement by Blinken is part of the process of providing a narrative that would justify the violence that the opposition is now starting up in the country. And again, this is part of how the US operates as an anti-democratic force. That basically the only concern is maintaining the ability to manipulate and control processes in various countries. Venezuela is a key country that they feel compelled to try to control because of the role it plays in our region. So we have observed a process that was clean, and efficient. We didn’t see any irregularities. And so again, whatever information that the opposition has, along with their masters in the US, that information needs to be revealed.
MK: I think we also need to talk about the role that the corporate media plays in amplifying what the state says. I’m looking at the New York Times right now and it says, “Venezuela’s authoritarian leader was declared the winner of the country’s tumultuous presidential election. The vote was riddled with irregularities and citizens were angrily protesting the government’s actions at voting centers, even as the results were announced.” Talk to us about The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other news organizations in the country and how they work with the state against governments that are declared enemies or adversaries.
AB: Well, you know that’s part of the process. That’s the role that they play. These are not journalistic outlets, these are propagandists posing as journalists, they have an ideological mission, and their mission is to support and prop up the interests of the U.S. and Western capital. So an experiment like Venezuela is a very threatening one. So, undermining that process is their number one objective, and the way you attempt to undermine that process is to attempt to de-legitimize it in the eyes of the popular forces not only inside the country but globally.
Fortunately for Venezuela, that process is not as effective as it was about 10 years ago, because of a shift in global power, because of the consciousness of people globally who have recognized the true role that the US plays in undermining people’s democracies globally. So they are mainly speaking to a domestic audience. When they talk about these claims of irregularities and massive opposition and violence at polling places. We did not observe any of that. Most of the international observers didn’t see that happen. Anytime we saw some potential violence at the polling places was when the opposition showed up, they tried to stop the voting process. The Venezuelan authorities have a commitment that even though the polls are supposed to close at 6:00 pm, if they have people in line, just like in the US, they are allowed to cast their vote. But the opposition showed up at a number of polling places trying to get them to shut down the voting, this is in line again with the behavior of these right wing forces, both in Venezuela and in the US.
So this is part of the process, these outlets are not there to report what objectively happens in these various countries, but to ensure that the dominant narrative coming from the US state, and the US ruling elite, becomes the narrative that shapes people’s awareness or consciousness of these events in places like Venezuela.
MK: And there have been acts of violence but all perpetrated by the government’s opposition. The day after the voting, there were fires set, including at a hospital and other government buildings. The police were attacked. Talk to us about this. And this is two days later. Is this still going on?
AB: Well, this is part of what they had in store for Venezuela. We have to be reminded that this opposition in Venezuela is one of the most backward and violent ones in the region. We remember the violent activity that it engaged in 2014 and in 2017, that resulted in a number of people losing their lives, people being literally burned to death by these thugs and gangsters, many of them on the payroll of western intelligence agencies. So you can’t take them lightly, they did come out in force, yesterday, and as you know, because we talked, even at the hotel that I’m located in, because in a community that is a part of the opposition, we are basically confined to our hotel because of the demos taking place in the streets. And because again, of the real potential for violence from those forces. So today’s been relatively quiet.
But we fully expect a continuation of that kind of activity today, until it is quite obvious to the opposition that they’re not going to be in the position they were a few years ago, to really disrupt the society and to engage in the kind of criminal behavior that they engaged in before. There’s no stomach for that, at this point, in this country. People have accepted the fact that there’s a Bolivarian process, and that it is going to go forward. And these voices, with their backward looking perspective, are really on the wrong, on the opposite side of history. And I think that they already recognized that.
MK: And we also see the US working with other governments in the region to undermine Venezuela, which broke off diplomatic relations with seven nations, Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Peru, Panama, Dominican Republic and Uruguay.
AB: Well, the authorities of Venezuela, believe that these nations are engaged in a systematic process to interfere in the electoral process within this country, that they make statements and that by their failure to recognize the process objectively aligns themselves with the interests that are trying to undermine Venezuelan democracy. So they made the decision to withdraw their diplomatic status. It is interesting that one of the states that was grouped in with those states because they’re considered to be reactionary is Chile. And that’s a whole other conversation. But that’s their decision that they’re going to have to live with.
But also, it’s a decision that is helping to define the grouping of states, in this region, between those that are looking forward, that are committed to transforming social and economic realities in favor of the people versus those states that are still in alignment objectively, with the past, with the reactionary elements that are still hegemonic in their societies, and that are then connected to the backward elements in the US and in Europe.
So this is part of an intensified struggle, if you will, a class struggle, this has taken the form of these of a national struggle between these various states, and Venezuela and other progressive states and in this region.
MK: You know, the Biden administration’s hostility to Venezuela is not new. Every president from the time of Hugo Chavez to the president, that’s George W. Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden, have all to varying degrees sought to undermine this government or even to enact regime change. What does it tell us about the US that these efforts are bipartisan and ongoing,
AB: It reflects the nature of the US regime, that the US government, that it is, in fact, a reactionary force, that, in my opinion, represents an excellent existential threat to global humanity. There’s no commitment to any kind of democratic process. They don’t respect national sovereignty. They are in the business of subversion and war in order to maintain their hegemony. So it’s important to point out that these activities targeting Venezuela weren’t because of any personality that is at the head of the process, in Venezuela, or in the US. But these are objects of interest that are clashing. Venezuela represents a threat to US interests. The US is operating from a framework that they have defined as full spectrum dominance. That doctrine suggests that any regional state that poses a real or potential threat to US regional dominance must be undermined. And here in this region, our region, the Americas, that state was in fact, Venezuela. Venezuela was driving the integration process, here in this region.
Venezuela had the ability through its revenues from oil to assist progressive and revolutionary processes here in this region. And therefore, they were the main target for subversion. So that’s why you see this bipartisan cooperation, if you will, targeting this country, imposing illegal sanctions to the extent that even during the pandemic, they moved to ensure that the Venezuelans couldn’t even secure COVID testing. And then when the vaccine was available, they tried to deny them access to vaccines, resulting in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of people here in this country. That’s the fiendish character of US and Western imperialism. So, this is not driven by personalities but it is driven by the objective interest, the evil interests of the US to maintain the the evil empire if you will, and that means undermining democratic experiments, socialist experiments, like here in Venezuela and in Cuba and in Nicaragua, and in Bolivia and across the planet. That is what they are, therefore, it doesn’t really matter who sits in the white people’s house. That objective interest, that objective strategy will continue to unfold until there is an effective, domestic counterforce to this. And that’s why it’s so vitally important that it’s built. We organize a campaign to make the Americas a Zone of Peace . That’s an act of solidarity. It’s an act of solidarity to eject from our region, those forces led by the US that are only committed to force and violence. We want to demilitarize the region, and the control being exercised by the US. So this is why we organize these kinds of campaigns, because we understand objectively, we have a responsibility to ourselves, and to the people of this region, and really globally, to put a brake on the ambitions, the agenda of US barbaric imperialism.
MK: And my last question is about immigration, and the links to US policy towards Venezuela. The imposition of sanctions, which as you point out caused thousands of deaths in Venezuela, their attempt to destroy the economy inevitably resulted in thousands of Venezuelans being forced to leave their country with many of those people coming to the US. Many of the people who have come here as asylum seekers are Venezuelans. So the US is responsible for this migration. But that’s something that is never mentioned, as immigrants are demonized, as the process is demonized. And it’s always discussed in terms of the border, is a direct result of the actions we’ve been discussing. But that connection is rarely made.
AB: Or is really made because it will fully implicate us policy in driving people toward the southern border. And that’s part of the conversation that the authorities want to avoid. But it’s our responsibility to, in fact, make those connections, because you can’t understand the migration issue until you understand what role US capital is playing throughout the region, and not just in Venezuela, of course, but across the region, and into Central America and the Caribbean.
So the kind of subversion we see of democracy in Haiti is part of that process. The continuation of the colonial status of Puerto Rico is part of that process. The subversion of Nicaragua is part of that process. A few years ago, you had very little migration from Nicaragua. So this is part of the story. But that part of the story they don’t want to talk about in the US, but that’s part of the story that has to be understood, because we see how they are using the issue of immigration or migration.
On the far right, and the right, represented by the neoliberal Democrats, that basically, these migrants are being used as an instrument to undermine the potential unity that we are attempting to build in terms of an anti colonial process. You have even some Black folks who are now sounding like Trumpists when they talk about the role of migration. So it poses a more difficult challenge for progressive revolutionary forces in the US, they try to counter the growing reactionary xenophobia, that has been used by the ruling class, to undermine our unity and to ensure that their rule can continue. So it makes it a very dangerous situation, both for the US and in this region. Because these same forces, also domestically, are providing support to these individuals, these arrogant interventions into the internal affairs of countries like Venezuela, and other countries here in the region.
MK: Thank you Ajamu.
AB: Thank you. Appreciate it.
Ajamu Baraka is the Chairman of the Coordinating Committee of the Black Alliance for Peace and an editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report. Baraka serves on the Executive Committee of the U.S. Peace Council and leadership body of the U.S.-based United National Anti-War Coalition (UNAC) and the Steering Committee of the Black is Back Coalition.
Margaret Kimberley is the author of Prejudential: Black America and the Presidents . You can support her work on Patreon and also find it on the Twitter , Bluesky , and Telegram platforms. She can be reached via email at margaret dot kimberley at blackagendareport dot com.