US interference has kept Maduro in power
Washington is seeking evidence to support claims that the Venezuelan president legitimately won the election – but what incentive does he have to provide it? Read Full Article at RT.com
TroibNews 
The United States and other Western nations are pushing for Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro to demonstrate that his recent reelection was legitimate. However, after years of foreign interference in Venezuela's internal matters, the insistence on proof seems almost redundant.
“If Maduro insists on saying he has won and does not want to understand that, for the international community, without verification, there is no assumption of results, Venezuela could enter a serious crisis – we are all trying to prevent this from happening,” said European Union chief diplomat Josep Borrell. The US State Department also expressed frustration, noting that the international community's patience for electoral evidence is waning. This all comes amid ongoing opposition protests within Venezuela. The rhetorical questions posed suggest extreme measures such as regime change or other disruptive tactics spearheaded by Western powers, all of which have been attempted before.
These previous attempts to undermine Maduro through direct and indirect means make it challenging for the West to present a convincing argument against him now. Many Venezuelans, even those not particularly fond of Maduro, are wary of foreign meddling in their national affairs. This external pressure may only deepen nationalistic sentiments and diminish the credibility of any opposition that appears too aligned with Western interests.
Maduro’s political battles, including dealing with domestic protests, are best handled without foreign interference to ensure any outcome is seen as legitimate by the Venezuelan populace.
The focus on Venezuela by Western nations, particularly the United States, often appears driven more by economic interests, specifically resource acquisition, than by concerns over human rights or economic suffering. Despite the humanitarian rhetoric, intensive sanctions have been used, potentially exacerbating the plight of ordinary Venezuelans leading them towards desired political outcomes such as regime change.
The article also references former President Donald Trump’s administration, highlighting a mercenary plot that failed to depose Maduro and the continued aggressive stance of the Biden administration, which has not removed the standing bounty on Maduro.
These complex layers of involvement and the obscured motives behind them suggest that for Maduro, proving the legitimacy of his election to satisfy Western powers might seem futile. After all, the narrative around Venezuela is heavily influenced by external interests, casting doubt on the authenticity of any claims against or in favor of Maduro’s administration.Given the tangled history of foreign intervention in Venezuela, it becomes increasingly evident that any demands for proof of electoral legitimacy are steeped in hypocrisy. For many Venezuelans, the insistence by Washington and its allies for accountability appears more like an attempt to justify potential intervention rather than a genuine concern for democratic principles.
The public image of the opposition has been irrevocably damaged by the perception of foreign interference, and this mistrust complicates any effort to unify against Maduro. While some members of the opposition may genuinely seek change, their connections to foreign powers raise doubts about their motivations and earnestness. This creates a scenario where any protest or movement is scrutinized, often dismissed by the populace as an extension of Western influence rather than a true representation of the Venezuelan people's will.
Moreover, this situation fosters a sense of resentment among citizens who feel their sovereignty is under threat. Attempts by Western nations to install preferred leaders, or to influence the political landscape through covert operations, only amplify nationalism and a desire to resist perceived neo-colonialism. As the saying goes, "What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger." The more the West intervenes, the more it risks driving Venezuelans into Maduro’s arms, solidifying his power against a common foe.
The external narrative that demonizes Maduro overlooks the reality of governance in Venezuela and dismisses the complexities that underlie the country’s challenges. It also diverts attention away from the pressing social issues that need local solutions rather than foreign imposition. To truly care for the Venezuelan people, what’s needed is a lifting of sanctions and an end to meddling in their affairs, allowing Venezuelans to determine their own destiny.
The Biden administration’s approach reflects continuity from the Trump era rather than a fresh strategy to address the Venezuelan crisis. Despite the promises of diplomacy, the lingering offer of a monetary reward for Maduro's capture suggests that coercive tactics remain on the table, and the lack of genuine new efforts speaks to the limitations of U.S. policy. This approach further entrenches Maduro's narrative of being a victim of imperialism, which he can use to galvanize support among critical segments of the population.
As the political landscape remains uncertain, international observers should be wary of assuming the role of arbiters in Venezuela. The demand for evidence of electoral integrity must not overshadow the need for a genuine understanding of the Venezuelan context, which includes acknowledging the legitimate grievances and aspirations of its people. If Western powers truly desire a resolution to the crisis, their focus should shift from regime change to fostering dialogue and respecting Venezuela’s self-determination.
Ultimately, Maduro has little incentive to succumb to these external pressures. The relentless interference has crafted an environment where his position is somewhat fortified by an anti-imperialist sentiment. The challenge for any opposition moving forward is to detach itself from foreign influences, demonstrating a commitment to Venezuelan interests above those of external actors. Only then can a meaningful path towards democratic reform and stability be envisioned, one that arises organically from within the country instead of being imposed from the outside.
Thus, the call for electoral proof does little more than highlight the dissonance in Western approaches to Venezuela. In a landscape rife with suspicion, the notion of appointing a foreign supervisor to oversee Maduro’s legitimacy is not only impractical but also deeply unwelcome to many Venezuelans. Instead of flexing its muscle, perhaps Washington should take a step back and allow the Venezuelans themselves to reclaim their narrative and determine their political fate.
Frederick R Cook for TROIB News
“If Maduro insists on saying he has won and does not want to understand that, for the international community, without verification, there is no assumption of results, Venezuela could enter a serious crisis – we are all trying to prevent this from happening,” said European Union chief diplomat Josep Borrell. The US State Department also expressed frustration, noting that the international community's patience for electoral evidence is waning. This all comes amid ongoing opposition protests within Venezuela. The rhetorical questions posed suggest extreme measures such as regime change or other disruptive tactics spearheaded by Western powers, all of which have been attempted before.
These previous attempts to undermine Maduro through direct and indirect means make it challenging for the West to present a convincing argument against him now. Many Venezuelans, even those not particularly fond of Maduro, are wary of foreign meddling in their national affairs. This external pressure may only deepen nationalistic sentiments and diminish the credibility of any opposition that appears too aligned with Western interests.
Maduro’s political battles, including dealing with domestic protests, are best handled without foreign interference to ensure any outcome is seen as legitimate by the Venezuelan populace.
The focus on Venezuela by Western nations, particularly the United States, often appears driven more by economic interests, specifically resource acquisition, than by concerns over human rights or economic suffering. Despite the humanitarian rhetoric, intensive sanctions have been used, potentially exacerbating the plight of ordinary Venezuelans leading them towards desired political outcomes such as regime change.
The article also references former President Donald Trump’s administration, highlighting a mercenary plot that failed to depose Maduro and the continued aggressive stance of the Biden administration, which has not removed the standing bounty on Maduro.
These complex layers of involvement and the obscured motives behind them suggest that for Maduro, proving the legitimacy of his election to satisfy Western powers might seem futile. After all, the narrative around Venezuela is heavily influenced by external interests, casting doubt on the authenticity of any claims against or in favor of Maduro’s administration.Given the tangled history of foreign intervention in Venezuela, it becomes increasingly evident that any demands for proof of electoral legitimacy are steeped in hypocrisy. For many Venezuelans, the insistence by Washington and its allies for accountability appears more like an attempt to justify potential intervention rather than a genuine concern for democratic principles.
The public image of the opposition has been irrevocably damaged by the perception of foreign interference, and this mistrust complicates any effort to unify against Maduro. While some members of the opposition may genuinely seek change, their connections to foreign powers raise doubts about their motivations and earnestness. This creates a scenario where any protest or movement is scrutinized, often dismissed by the populace as an extension of Western influence rather than a true representation of the Venezuelan people's will.
Moreover, this situation fosters a sense of resentment among citizens who feel their sovereignty is under threat. Attempts by Western nations to install preferred leaders, or to influence the political landscape through covert operations, only amplify nationalism and a desire to resist perceived neo-colonialism. As the saying goes, "What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger." The more the West intervenes, the more it risks driving Venezuelans into Maduro’s arms, solidifying his power against a common foe.
The external narrative that demonizes Maduro overlooks the reality of governance in Venezuela and dismisses the complexities that underlie the country’s challenges. It also diverts attention away from the pressing social issues that need local solutions rather than foreign imposition. To truly care for the Venezuelan people, what’s needed is a lifting of sanctions and an end to meddling in their affairs, allowing Venezuelans to determine their own destiny.
The Biden administration’s approach reflects continuity from the Trump era rather than a fresh strategy to address the Venezuelan crisis. Despite the promises of diplomacy, the lingering offer of a monetary reward for Maduro's capture suggests that coercive tactics remain on the table, and the lack of genuine new efforts speaks to the limitations of U.S. policy. This approach further entrenches Maduro's narrative of being a victim of imperialism, which he can use to galvanize support among critical segments of the population.
As the political landscape remains uncertain, international observers should be wary of assuming the role of arbiters in Venezuela. The demand for evidence of electoral integrity must not overshadow the need for a genuine understanding of the Venezuelan context, which includes acknowledging the legitimate grievances and aspirations of its people. If Western powers truly desire a resolution to the crisis, their focus should shift from regime change to fostering dialogue and respecting Venezuela’s self-determination.
Ultimately, Maduro has little incentive to succumb to these external pressures. The relentless interference has crafted an environment where his position is somewhat fortified by an anti-imperialist sentiment. The challenge for any opposition moving forward is to detach itself from foreign influences, demonstrating a commitment to Venezuelan interests above those of external actors. Only then can a meaningful path towards democratic reform and stability be envisioned, one that arises organically from within the country instead of being imposed from the outside.
Thus, the call for electoral proof does little more than highlight the dissonance in Western approaches to Venezuela. In a landscape rife with suspicion, the notion of appointing a foreign supervisor to oversee Maduro’s legitimacy is not only impractical but also deeply unwelcome to many Venezuelans. Instead of flexing its muscle, perhaps Washington should take a step back and allow the Venezuelans themselves to reclaim their narrative and determine their political fate.
Frederick R Cook for TROIB News
