Some American University faculty members got it wrong on the issue of Venezuelan elections

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LATIN AMERICAN BLOG

 

Venezuela Update: Confusion in Caracas…and Washington by clalsstaff An article by members of the faculty of American University on Venezuela contains, in our view, some important errors of perception or interpretation. I comment on them below: AULA blog: Three weeks after elections to choose Hugo Chávez’s successor, confusion still reigns in both Caracas and Washington. The Venezuelan opposition has rejected the results of the election, which the electoral tribunal says Chávez’s handpicked man – Nicolás Maduro – won by only 1.8 percent. Opposition candidate Henrique Capriles originally asked only for a vote recount – considered reasonable by many because of the narrow margin – but his lawyers upped the ante on 2 May when they officially demanded that the vote be invalidated and new elections be held. My comment: This is incorrect. Capriles asked for a recount and he was offered a partial exercise that did not include the voter lists that are an integral part of the process. Without these lists the exercise was a mockery. Then, only then, Capriles introduced a fomal legal recourse against the elections. AULA Blog: Every major country of the hemisphere has recognized Maduro as President – except the United States. (Canada wavered at first but seems to have moved on.) Washington has invested millions of dollars in “democracy promotion” programs over the years and has provided Capriles and the opposition enduring political support in their efforts to beat Chávez at the polls and later to beat Maduro as his hand-picked successor. My comment: Presidents who have benefited from Chavez’s past prodigality have been the ones recognizing Maduro, while privately twisting Maduro’s arm to go ahead with a proper recount and obtaining from him such a promise during UNASUR’s recent meeting. In fact, they now feel deceived by Maduro since he has broken his promise and are now reconsidering their invertebrate attitude. Peru is asking for another meeting of UNASUR in this regard. Legislatures in Uruguay, Peru, Paraguay, Chile and other countries are rejecting Maduro. The international mood is turning rapidly against Maduro, as evidence of fraud are mounting.  In this respect, the U.S. has been correct in holding a recognition of Maduro as legitimate president. Your assertion that Washington has spent “millions of dollars” to help Capriles to defeat Chavez and Maduro is frankly audacious and totally absent of proof.   AULA blog: Yet, like Mexico’s Andres Manuel López Obrador in 2006, he [Capriles]  may be squandering an opportunity to present himself to the Venezuelan electorate as the responsible grownup in the room. My comment: As opposed to Lopez Obrador, Capriles has collected impressive evidence of fraud that is presenting o the Supreme tribunal of Justice and, eventually, to international organizations, since the tribunal is in the hands of the regime and does not offer any chance of being impartial.