<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail-container gmail-content-width3">
<div class="gmail-header gmail-reader-header gmail-reader-show-element">
<font size="1"><a href="https://fair.org/home/wola-medias-left-source-for-pro-coup-propaganda-in-venezuela/">https://fair.org/home/wola-medias-left-source-for-pro-coup-propaganda-in-venezuela/</a>
</font><h1 class="gmail-reader-title">WOLA: Media’s ‘Left’ Source for Pro-Coup Propaganda in Venezuela</h1></div>
<hr>
<div class="gmail-content">
<div class="gmail-moz-reader-content gmail-line-height4 gmail-reader-show-element"><div id="gmail-readability-page-1" class="gmail-page"><div><p>By Lucas Koerner – Jun 4, 2020</p><p><img src="https://i2.wp.com/fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/David-Smilde.png?resize=350%2C350&ssl=1" alt="David Smilde" width="350" height="350"></p><p>The mass media, as Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman <a href="https://books.google.cl/books?id=Kv_-bvCqgrEC&sitesec=reviews">documented</a> decades
ago, are structurally dependent on pre-ordained “experts,” who play a
decisive role in filtering the information reaching the public.</p><p>When
it comes to Venezuela, one DC-based think tank has become the Western
media’s go-to source for confirming the US elite’s regime change
groupthink (<b>FAIR.org</b>, <a href="https://fair.org/home/corporate-media-cover-for-us-mob-threats-against-venezuela/">4/30/19</a>): the <a href="https://www.wola.org/">Washington Office on Latin America</a> (WOLA).</p><p>Styling
itself the “leading source for independent analysis and commentary on
Latin America,” WOLA is regularly cited in corporate media reporting on
Venezuela across the media spectrum. Founded in 1974 and originally part
of the progressive Central American solidarity movement, WOLA moved to
the right in the 1990s, until by 2002 it was calling (<a href="https://www.wola.org/sites/default/files/downloadable/WOLA%20General/past/CrossCurrents1211.pdf">12/02</a>)
for a “negotiated and peaceful settlement” to the “political impasse”
in Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez had been reelected with 60% of the vote
two years earlier. But WOLA’s “progressive” reputation—based on its
decades-old critiques of Reagan administration Central America
policy—still allows it to position itself as the gatekeeper of
legitimate “opposition” to US Latin America policy.</p><p>WOLA’s in-house Venezuela “experts”—Tulane University sociologist <a href="https://www.wola.org/people/david-smilde/">David Smilde</a> and former Open Society Latin Americanist <a href="https://www.wola.org/people/geoff-ramsey/">Geoff Ramsey</a>—excel
at disseminating polite, proceduralist criticisms of US policy while
validating the imperial assumptions that justify Washington’s
aggression. They demarcate the leftmost extreme of acceptable opinion on
Venezuela, effectively boxing out any genuinely dissenting views.</p><h3><b>Constructively Criticizing the Godfather</b></h3><p>The
Trump administration on March 31 unveiled a “democratic transition”
plan to replace Venezuela’s Maduro government with a five-person junta
composed of opposition and ruling party loyalists, in defiance of the
country’s constitution.</p><p>The corporate media dutifully touted the
reasonableness of the Mafia-like “offer,” unanimously ignoring
Washington’s threat to ramp up deadly economic sanctions until Maduro
cried uncle (<b>FAIR.org</b>, <a href="https://fair.org/home/corporate-media-cover-for-us-mob-threats-against-venezuela/">4/15/20</a>).</p><p>Apparently
concerned that its blackmail was too subtle, the Trump administration
announced the next day, April 1, an “anti-drug” operation in the
Caribbean targeting Venezuela, which was widely <a href="https://apnews.com/d4c51884ba3ac6a4311b6f548434f958">reported</a> as one of the largest military deployments in the region since the US’s 1989 <a href="https://fair.org/extra/how-television-sold-the-panama-invasion/">invasion of Panama</a>.</p><p>The “transition” plan and military escalation came just days after the US Department of Justice on March 26 <a href="https://miami.cbslocal.com/2020/03/26/sources-venezuela-to-be-designated-state-sponsor-of-terrorism-us-to-charge-maduro/">unsealed</a> “narco-terrorism”
indictments against Maduro and other top Caracas officials, including a
$15 million bounty on the Venezuelan leader’s head.</p><p>Like clockwork, WOLA stepped in to rationalize US policy, even while quibbling with some of its “contradictory” elements.</p><p><img src="https://i0.wp.com/fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/WaPo-Venezuela-Plan.png?resize=350%2C337&ssl=1" alt="WaPo: Despite contradictions, State Department’s Venezuela plan is a step in the right direction" width="350" height="337"></p><p>Smilde and Abraham Lowenthal of the Woodrow Wilson Center, writing in the<b> Washington Post</b> (<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/trumps-venezuela-policy-is-moving-right-direction-despite-some-contradictions/">4/14/20</a>), applauded the Trump administration’s gunpoint “proposal” as a “step in the right direction.”</p><p>The
authors notably refused to call for rescinding the indictments—which
they acknowledged were part of a politicized pressure campaign—or
easing <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/venezuela-sanctions-emergency/">illegal</a> US
sanctions in a bid to secure Chavista buy-in for the plan. Instead,
they urged Washington, represented by war criminal Elliott Abrams (<b>CounterSpin</b>, <a href="https://fair.org/home/the-violence-elliott-abrams-supported-is-unspeakable/">3/1/19</a>),
to offer “guarantees for indicted officials” against extradition, as if
Maduro would resign his elected post with a $15 million price on his
head and a US fleet on his doorstep.</p><p>Ramsey had likewise taken to the <b>Post </b>editorial page (<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/27/by-indicting-maduro-trump-is-kneecapping-transition-venezuela/">3/27/20</a>)
a few weeks earlier to gently criticize the “narco-terrorism” charges
as feckless and politically motivated, but he conceded their core
premise that Venezuela is essentially a narco-state:</p><blockquote><p>There’s no question that organized criminal elements, including drug-trafficking organizations and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/07/05/venezuelas-implosion-is-becoming-colombias-security-nightmare/?tid=lk_inline_manual_5&itid=lk_inline_manual_5">Colombian guerrilla groups</a>,
have penetrated state institutions in Venezuela. The allegations are
not surprising given the clear corruption and authoritarianism of the
Maduro regime, and they are serious.</p></blockquote><p><img src="https://i0.wp.com/fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/WaPo-Maduro-Indictment.png?resize=350%2C336&ssl=1" alt="WaPo: By indicting Maduro, Trump is kneecapping a transition in Venezuela" width="350" height="336"></p><p>Ramsey presented no evidence to support these significant claims, merely linking to another <b>Post </b>op-ed (<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/07/05/venezuelas-implosion-is-becoming-colombias-security-nightmare/">7/5/19</a>) by Venezuelan emigre blogger <a href="https://fair.org/home/financial-times-reporter-quotcant-possibly-be-neutralquot/">Francisco Toro</a>,
whose main source regarding Colombian guerrilla activity in Venezuela
is none other than the Colombian government, which was caught <a href="https://colombiareports.com/duque-misinformed-un-over-eln-in-venezuela-report/">lying</a> on that very subject last year.</p><p>Ramsey
levels such accusations against Venezuela without saying a word about
his own government’s well-documented role in abetting <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-230696/">drug money laundering</a>, and waging <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/time-for-a-us-apology-to-el-salvador/">imperial dirty wars</a> in league with <a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/06/18/the-history-channel-is-finally-telling-the-stunning-secret-story-of-the-war-on-drugs/">narcotics traffickers</a>, among any number of other examples of systemic US lawlessness.</p><p>Compared to gangster states like the US, the Maduro “regime”—which was reelected in 2018 by a <a href="https://www.mintpressnews.com/when-is-a-democracy-not-a-democracy-when-its-venezuela-and-the-us-is-pushing-regime-change/254321/">greater percentage</a> of the electorate than Trump in <a href="https://transition.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2016/federalelections2016.pdf">2016</a> or Obama in <a href="https://transition.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/federalelections2012.pdf">2012</a>—is
infinitely less “corrupt” and “authoritarian.” Western liberals and
leftists’ refusal to acknowledge this reflects imperial indoctrination
and arrogance (<b>FAIR.org</b>, <a href="https://fair.org/home/left-media-and-venezuela-an-exchange/">2/12/20</a>).</p><p>Indeed, for Ramsey, Washington’s sin is not its <a href="https://www.mintpressnews.com/global-left-danger-dirty-war-venezuela/255501/">sixth coup attempt</a> in
20 years against an elected government, but its “baseless optimism”:
its belief “that if they just saber-rattle hard enough, the Maduro
regime will collapse under its own weight.”</p><p>Revealingly, his op-ed contained no mention of US sanctions, estimated to have <a href="https://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/venezuela-sanctions-2019-04.pdf">killed tens of thousands</a>—sanctions that WOLA initially embraced, then very inadequately critiqued, and often, as here, helped the media ignore entirely.</p><h3><b>Sycophants for Sanctions</b></h3><p><img src="https://i1.wp.com/fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Geoff-Ramsey.jpg?resize=350%2C350&ssl=1" alt="Geoff Ramsey" width="350" height="350"></p><p>WOLA
has long been given a prominent media platform to make the liberal case
for US sanctions as a legitimate means of forcing the Maduro government
to “negotiate.”</p><p>Both Smilde and Ramsey were cheerleaders for the
Trump administration’s August 26, 2017, financial sanctions, which
effectively cut Venezuela off from global credit markets, denying the
country desperately needed loans to finance its economic recovery.
Crucially, the move blocked Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA’s
US-based subsidiary, Citgo, from repatriating profits, which were
averaging $1 billion per year. For reference, Venezuela’s medical
imports totaled $2 billion in 2013.</p><p>Smilde told the <b>Associated Press</b> (<a href="https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/us-imposes-tough-economic-sanctions-on-venezuela/2053776/">8/25/17</a>)
that he backed the sweeping unilateral measures, which the outlet
disingenuously mischaracterized as “limited sanctions targeting future
indebtedness.”</p><p>The Tulane University professor’s most vocal
concern was that even more severe economic sanctions “would bolster his
[Maduro’s] discourse that Venezuela is the target of an economic war.”</p><p>At the time, Smilde and Ramsey released a <a href="https://venezuelablog.org/reactions-new-us-economic-sanctions-venezuela/">statement</a> on behalf of WOLA praising the “virtues” of the financial embargo, which they claimed</p><blockquote><p>complicate[s]
the Maduro government’s finances in such a way that…will not have an
immediate impact on the population (although in the longer term, they
likely would).</p></blockquote><p>In fact, even anti-Maduro economist
Francisco Rodríguez, considered one of the world’s foremost experts on
Venezuela’s economy, immediately raised fears that the coercive measures
“risk worsening the country’s already deep economic crisis” (<b>Financial Times</b>, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/f6e95cbc-970d-11e7-b83c-9588e51488a0">9/12/17</a>).</p><p><img src="https://i1.wp.com/fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/NYT-Venezuela-Attack.png?resize=350%2C434&ssl=1" alt="NYT: Should the United States Attack Venezuela?" width="350" height="434"></p><p>Several months later, Smilde (<b>New York Times</b>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/14/opinion/united-states-venezuela-attack.html">1/14/18</a>) doubled down, urging Washington and its allies to “continue to pressure Mr. Maduro by deepening the current sanctions regime.”</p><p>Despite
warning against “widening economic sanctions to an oil embargo,” he
praised the existing financial sanctions, which he credited with
“bringing the Maduro government to the negotiation table.”</p><p>The WOLA fellow’s defense of sanctions came just 48 hours after Rodríguez published another article (<b>Foreign Policy</b>, <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/12/why-more-sanctions-wont-help-venezuela/">1/12/18</a>)
revealing that Venezuelan imports had declined by a further 24 percent
in the two months following the August measures, “deepening the scarcity
of basic goods.”</p><p>Smilde’s indifference to Venezuelans’ suffering
under the sanctions he championed was only matched by his contempt for
their political will, refusing to acknowledge that over 55 percent of
the population unsurprisingly opposed the noose around their economy’s
neck, even according to pro-opposition pollster<a href="https://www.venepress.com/article/Segun_Datanalisis_mas_venezolanos_apoyan_el_dialogo_y_rechazan_las_sanciones_de_EEUU1513117549166"> Datanálisis</a>.</p><p>Even
more cynically, Smilde sought to frame his endorsement of the financial
blockade as dovish opposition to US military intervention: “A military
strike against Venezuela would be folly,” he warned, taking the standard
liberal stance that casts Western aggression as a “blunder” at
worst—never a brutal crime.</p><h3><b>Art of the Cover-Up</b></h3><p>But
as the deadly toll of US sanctions became increasingly difficult to
justify, WOLA eagerly assisted the corporate media in concealing their
existence.</p><p><img src="https://i2.wp.com/fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/NYT-Venezuelan-Refugees.png?resize=350%2C462&ssl=1" alt="NYT: Venezuelan Refugees Are Miserable. Let’s Help Them Out." style="margin-right: 0px;" width="342" height="451"></p><p>Writing on the one-year anniversary of the sanctions, Ramsey and WOLA Andes director Gimena Sánchez-Garzoli penned an op-ed (<b>New York Times</b>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/29/opinion/venezuela-refugees.html?searchResultPosition=8">8/29/18</a>) accusing Maduro of having “brought his country to its knees.”</p><p>Under
the ironic headline “Venezuelan Refugees Are Miserable. Let’s Help Them
Out,” the authors related harrowing stories of Venezuelan migrants in
Colombia, with one key omission: They failed to dedicate even one line
to the US financial embargo that exacerbated Venezuela’s economic crisis
and fueled the “exodus” they decried.</p><p>This elision was especially glaring, given that not just Rodríguez (<b>Foreign Policy</b>, <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/12/why-more-sanctions-wont-help-venezuela/">1/12/18</a>) but a growing <a href="https://afgj.org/endsanctions">number</a> of
internationally renowned intellectuals and human rights activists,
including then–UN independent expert Alfred-Maurice de Zayas (<b>Real News</b>, <a href="https://therealnews.com/stories/un-rapporteur-us-sanctions-cause-death-in-venezuela">3/14/18</a>), were sounding the alarm bells about the sanctions’ lethal impact.</p><p>Ramsey and Sánchez-Garzoli proceeded to blame the collapse of Colombia’s peace process on Caracas (which incidentally helped <a href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/12167">negotiate the accords</a>), absolving Bogotá and Washington of their almost exclusive responsibility for the failure:</p><blockquote><p>As the exodus grows, it also threatens to undermine Colombia’s peace process.</p><p>Colombia
has promised to improve badly needed services to marginalized
communities as part of an accord with FARC rebels, and the arrival of
Venezuelan refugees has complicated the situation.</p></blockquote><p>The
authors made no mention of the Colombian state’s systematic violation
of the peace accords, including the assassination of at least 75 social
leaders from January through August 2018. Sánchez-Garzoli was doubtless
aware of this fact, having published a WOLA <a href="https://www.wola.org/2018/08/colombian-activists-killed/">statement</a> on the very topic eight days prior.</p><p>Instead of denouncing the Colombian narco-state’s reign of terror, WOLA sympathetically urged Colombian President Iván Duque (<b>FAIR.org</b>, <a href="https://fair.org/home/nbc-news-whitewashes-colombias-right-wing-president/">7/2/19</a>)—the protegé of ultra-right <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/08/alvaro-uribe-accused-paramilitary-ties">paramilitary-linked </a>former
President Álvaro Uribe—to “lead a regional protection and assistance
effort for fleeing Venezuelans.” An informed reader would have to
conclude that Ramsey and Sánchez-Garzoli’s purpose was to whitewash the
US and its ally (<b>Extra!</b>, <a href="https://fair.org/extra/new-york-times-changes-take-on-colombian-death-squads/">4/01</a><b>; FAIR.org</b>, <a href="https://fair.org/home/fair-study-human-rights-coverage-serving-washingtons-needs-2/">2/1/09</a><b>; Colombia Reports</b>, <a href="https://colombiareports.com/genocide-the-new-normal-in-duques-colombia/">12/29/19</a>) as they menaced Venezuela.</p><p>Days before Maduro’s inauguration for his second term, Smilde and Lowenthal (<b>The Hill</b>, <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/international/423625-venezuela-needs-politics-and-diplomacy-not-military-intervention">1/6/19</a>)
called for “the internal mobilization of a unified opposition, in
tandem with international pressure” to force the Venezuelan president to
enter “negotiations.” Here “international pressure” was a not-so-subtle
euphemism for sanctions, which they steered clear of mentioning, let
alone denouncing.</p><p>Smilde was certainly cognizant of the data
pointing to a plausible causal link between the US financial blockade
and Venezuela’s collapsing oil production, as WOLA published an article
by Francisco Rodríguez (<a href="https://venezuelablog.org/crude-realities-understanding-venezuelas-economic-collapse/">9/20/18</a>)
making such a case months before. Yet he and his colleague remained
silent on that, preferring to encourage the right-wing opposition to
unify and mobilize against the Venezuelan government—incidentally, just
as the opposition had in the violent US-backed coup attempts of <a href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6922">2002</a>, <a href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/7527">2002/03</a>, <a href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/8830">2013</a>, <a href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/10580">2014</a> and <a href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/13081">2017</a>.</p><p>To
this end, Smilde and Lowenthal compared the difficulty of transition
from Chavista governance with the challenges faced by movements that
resisted various dictatorships: Pinochet’s Chile, apartheid South Africa
and Communist Poland. In reality, Chavismo’s opponents face less
formidable challenges than <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/146884/america-stuck-two-parties">third-party candidates</a> in the US.</p><h3><b>Faux Opposition to Mass Murder </b></h3><p>WOLA’s
defense of sanctions continued after the previously unknown head of
Venezuela’s opposition-controlled parliament, Juan Guaidó, proclaimed
himself “interim president” of the country on January 23, 2019, with
Washington’s blessing.</p><p><img src="https://i0.wp.com/fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/CNBC-Venezuela.png?resize=350%2C294&ssl=1" alt="CNBC: No solution to Venezuela crisis without some kind of settlement, says pro" width="350" height="294"></p><p>Speaking to <b>CNBC</b> (<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/01/24/venezuela-crisis-settlement-pro.html?&qsearchterm=washington%20office%20on%20latin%20america">1/24/19</a>), Ramsey argued against a US oil embargo, on the grounds that the existing sanctions afforded necessary “pressure” on Maduro:</p><blockquote><p>There
already are a series of important sanctions against Venezuela. The US
has leveled strong financial sanctions that restrict the government’s
ability to get access to new debt…. I don’t think there’s any shortage
of pressure. What we need is engagement.</p></blockquote><p>In addition
to continuing to back the sanctions, WOLA refused to call out Guaidó’s
self-swearing in as a coup attempt, even though it <a href="https://twitter.com/frrodriguezc/status/1088145584760995841?s=21">triggered</a> a
de facto trade embargo, given that the US and its allies no longer
recognized the Maduro government’s right to invoice Venezuelan oil
exports.</p><p>Rather, Smilde told <b>Democracy Now! </b>(<a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2019/2/5/whats_next_for_venezuela_as_us">2/5/19</a>)
that “it’s a plausible interpretation that if there’s…not a legitimate
president, it will be the National Assembly president that steps in as
interim president.” He did raise concern about the US recognition of
Guaidó creating “a real difficulty in Venezuela in terms of the lack of
funds coming in,” but at no point did he condemn it as a coup.</p><p>WOLA released a <a href="https://www.wola.org/2019/01/u-s-oil-sanctions-risk-deepening-human-suffering-venezuela-weaken-mobilization-democracy/">statement</a> criticizing
the oil embargo that the Trump administration formalized on January 28,
though it stopped short of calling for the illegal measure to be
unconditionally rescinded.</p><p>Despite acknowledging that “sanctions
have punished and weakened populations” in Zimbabwe, Syria and North
Korea, the think tank merely suggested that the new measures should be
lifted “if there is no way for the human cost of these oil sanctions to
be avoided.” WOLA made no mention of the previous financial sanctions
exacerbating “the severe hardships and suffering” that they decried.</p><p>However, as sanctions predictably caused drastic <a href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/14500">fuel shortages</a> across Venezuela and Washington moved to <a href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/14527">tighten</a> the
deadly siege, WOLA still refused to demand that they be lifted. The
fact that prominent economists Jeffrey Sachs and Mark Weisbrot published
a study (CEPR, <a href="https://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/venezuela-sanctions-2019-04.pdf">4/19</a>)
finding the August 2017 financial sanctions responsible for an
estimated 40,000 deaths over the following year was apparently of
negligible concern to them.</p><p><img src="https://i0.wp.com/fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/NYT-Venezuela-Transition.png?resize=350%2C451&ssl=1" alt="NYT: Negotiating Venezuela’s Transition" width="350" height="451"></p><p>Meanwhile,
Smilde and Lowenthal were quite busy penning op-eds urging “strong
international support” for Norway-mediated talks between the Venezuelan
government and opposition (<b>New York Times</b>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/11/opinion/guaido-venezuela-norway.html">6/11/19</a>; <b>The Hill</b>, <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/international/450875-venezuela-negotiations-deserve-strong-international-support">7/3/19</a>).</p><p>“Strong
international support” evidently meant continuing devastating
sanctions, because in neither piece did the authors call for sanctions
relief.</p><p>The <b>Times </b>article—published five days after the Treasury Department <a href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/14527">banned</a> the
export of diluents to Venezuela, which are vital for gasoline and
diesel production—did not even contain the word “sanctions.”</p><p>In the absence of any credible domestic opposition to its coup policy, the Trump administration doubled down in <a href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/13330">August</a>,
expanding the existing embargo to an Iran-style ban on dealings with
the Venezuelan state, enforceable via secondary sanctions on third party
actors.</p><p>WOLA teamed up with several Latin American partner organizations to issue yet another deferential statement (<a href="https://www.wola.org/2019/08/human-rights-organizations-new-u-s-sanctions-risk-aggravating-human-suffering-in-venezuela-with-no-solution-in-sight/">8/6/19</a>)
expressing “deep concern about the potential for these broad economic
sanctions to aggravate Venezuela’s humanitarian emergency.”</p><p>As it
had in January, WOLA politely recommended that perhaps the Trump
administration should lift its illegal blockade “if there is no way to
avoid the human cost of these measures and provide humanitarian
assistance with the urgency and breadth that is required.”</p><p>In comments to corporate media, Ramsey criticized the escalation as an electoral ploy “built on Cold War rhetoric” (<b>New York Times</b>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/06/world/americas/venezuela-sanctions-bolton-maduro.html">8/6/19</a>), but he once again parroted US propaganda that sanctions were motivated by an interest in democracy (<b>Bloomberg</b>, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-09/as-maduro-and-guaido-trade-threats-their-underlings-seek-a-deal">8/9/19</a>):</p><blockquote><p>If
there are clear, verifiable signals that new presidential elections
would be free and fair, the US government could be interested in ways to
loosen the impact of economic sanctions without lifting them entirely.</p></blockquote><p>The
August 2017 financial sanctions, which Ramsey helped justify and then
conceal, were levied 16 months before the deadline for Venezuelan
presidential elections. Like the US embargo on Sandinista Nicaragua in
the <a href="https://todaynicaragua.com/on-this-day-reagan-announces-nicaragua-trade-embargo/">1980s</a>,
the sanctions had absolutely nothing to do with whether Maduro won
“free and fair” elections, which he had in 2013 and did again in 2018 (<b>FAIR.org</b>, <a href="https://fair.org/home/media-delegitimize-venezuelan-elections-amid-complete-unanimity-of-outlook/">5/23/18</a>).</p><p>Rather,
the US blockade is a naked expression of imperial might, which WOLA and
other Western propaganda amplifiers hide behind empty rhetoric about
“democracy” and “human rights.”</p><p><a href="https://fair.org/home/wola-medias-left-source-for-pro-coup-propaganda-in-venezuela/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Source URL: FAIR</a></p><div id="gmail-mab-2166610584"><div><div><div><div><h5> <span> Lucas Koerner </span></h5><div><p>Lucas
Koerner is a journalist and political analyst based in Caracas,
Venezuela. He currently serves on the editorial board of
Venezuelanalysis.</p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
</div>