Connect with us

AMERICA

Coup d’état plan in Venezuela orchestrated with the US support

Published

on

Atilio Boron is an Argentine sociologist, political scientist, professor and writer. PhD in Political Science from Harvard University, who closely follows the political and geopolitical realities of Latin America and the world. On July 29, one day after the presidential elections were held in Venezuela, I met with Boron, in the lobby of the Gran Meliá hotel in Caracas, where part of the more than 1,000 international and national observers were staying. The electoral observers were invited by different institutions of the Venezuelan State to participate in the democratic event of the year in the Caribbean country.

By the time I conducted the interview, on Monday afternoon, a good part of the streets of the Venezuelan capital were filled with demonstrators, most of them protesting peacefully, demonstrating their disapproval of the result of the electoral elections on the 28th of July, when the majority of Venezuelans who exercised their right to vote elected the current president Nicolás Maduro for a new term (2025-2031). 

However, in parallel, a group of masked people moving in blocks of several dozen motorcycles began to violently take control of the city. Literally, Caracas began to burn and other cities in the country joined the protests, which had stopped being democratic and peaceful and turned into a civic Coup d’état with mercenaries paid by the Venezuelan and international extremist right.

In this context of growing tension and uncertainty, we interviewed the Argentine intellectual, who was also in Caracas as an international observer of the Venezuela election process. Days later I met again with Atilio Boron to complete the interview that was initially truncated. These are some of his impressions about what is happening in Venezuela today, a country under siege and at war, according to our interviewee.

Please, could you give us a balance of what happened in Venezuela the day after the re-election of Nicolás Maduro?

The balance I can give you is that the Carter Center, a renowned American institute, has been in Venezuela for more than two weeks, carrying out an evaluation of the Venezuelan electoral system. The Carter Center has said that the Venezuelan electoral process has the necessary conditions of reliability, transparency and honesty, and that they have not detected anything that has caught their attention, that is, they have not found any flaw in the system that, as of there, allows the popular will to be distorted or twisted. This is what this expert institute in electoral processes has declared about the presidential elections in Venezuela.

On the other hand, we have seen how, in front of more than 1,000 national and international observers – and after a demonstration of unquestionable force of the majority will of the Venezuelan population that achieved the re-election of President Nicolás Maduro with more than 6 million votes – violent and undemocratic sectors of the Venezuelan opposition are plotting an attempted coup d’état, something they have been announcing for some time.

The most fascist and retrograde expression of the Venezuelan opposition, led by María Corina Machado and company, has not only instigated, provoked, promoted, but has financed violent groups that live outside the law to generate chaos on the streets. They take advantage of the other part of the population that – after years of US blockade and suffocation – has suffered and endured needs of all kinds. This part of the population, whose electoral choice was not Nicolás Maduro, is exercising its legal and legitimate right to protest, and for the most part it is doing so peacefully.

However, the leaders of the opposition that came in second place in this electoral race, that is, that is called to be the majority opposition force to the Chavista government, launched a coup plan to ignore the Venezuelan electoral authority, the National Electoral Council (CNE), and to ignore the popular will. Are these the political actors who claim to be the democratic opposition to the government? It is nonsense to think that they really want the best for the Venezuelan people. They have always played at destabilization and unconstitutionally overthrowing the Chavista governments, once again they have demonstrated it, their plan is different. 

In conclusion, an international operation was mounted to ignore the victory of Nicolás Maduro. I have been in the profession for almost half a century and I would dare to say that I have never seen such a coordinated and systematic effort by the right and the international extreme right, supported by the hegemonic media in Latin America and the world. But no one has been able to prove fraud, because there has been no fraud. The Venezuelan opposition obtained a non-negligible proportion of votes, 5 million votes is an important number, but it is located in the historical statistics of votes, both those obtained by Chavismo and by the opposition, represented by 9 presidential candidates who faced each other Nicolás Maduro, although the most prominent opposition figure was Edmundo González, of the Venezuelan extreme right.

Do you consider that what we are seeing in the streets is spontaneous?

Not at all, it is absolutely planned, as I said it is a coup plan, orchestrated and with US support, as is usually the custom and as history has painfully demonstrated in Latin America and other regions of the world. Edmundo González, the buffoon candidate, and María Corina Machado had claimed fraud long before the presidential elections were held in Venezuela. They prepared the ground to make an indisputable fact questionable: the strength of democracy in Venezuela and the anti-fraud protection of the Venezuelan electoral system. 

As I said, the Carter Center, which we cannot say is a Chavista institute, has also said that the Venezuelan electoral process is one of the most complete and secure in the world. There is no way for the results to be manipulated in favor of one candidate or another, since it has countless security locks. Well, but the opposition continued to support that idea, the idea of ​​fraud, to reach this moment with arguments – most of them unfounded – that could light up the streets and give the image they were looking for, Venezuela in flames rejecting Nicolás Maduro. The objective is to erase from the mind the legacy of Chávez, of the Bolivarian Revolution and hand the country over to imperial and corporate interests.

Do you think Western sanctions have had an impact on these socio-economic problems?

I say that the opposition has spread mostly unfounded arguments, because in Venezuela there are real economic and social problems, low salaries, lack of certain goods and services in an important part of Venezuelan society. In this regard, I believe that President Nicolás Maduro was wrong when he said that this was a fight between good and evil. I believe that the Venezuelan president should have called, or summoned, spoken to that sector that negatively affects him in Venezuelan society, but it is a democratic sector and has suffered the effects of the United States economic sanctions. If this sector does not feel included, or feels attacked by the current government, it may take an attitude of not wanting to dialogue and this can have many consequences such as, for example, the increase in Venezuelan migration to other countries and regions of the world, as has already happened. 

However, I want to reaffirm that what María Corina Machado, Juan Guaidó, Leopoldo López and other Venezuelan opposition figures have done, calling for military intervention and increasing economic sanctions against their own country, in the United States or in any other country of the world, the world would have very serious criminal consequences.   

Regarding Venezuelan immigration, it is known that an uncertain number of several million Venezuelans had to migrate to many parts of the world. How have the country’s socio economic problems affected support for Maduro?  

I think migration in Venezuela is a drama. Whether there are three, four or five, no matter how many millions have emigrated, is a drama because people do not want to leave their countries. There are other places where there may be less attachment, but Venezuelans have an enormous attachment to their country and their way of life and, therefore, all those people who are abroad are suffering just as their families are.

Let’s imagine that outside of Venezuela there is the minimum number, 3 million Venezuelans, there are 3 million families with people abroad and that obviously must have affected the electoral result, especially if they have not known how to transfer or communicate that the well-being they are experiencing Venezuela is going to continue. And I believe that one of the opposition’s desires has been precisely to try to stop this economic well-being that had already brought back 150,000 people in the Return to the Homeland Mission, a public policy that was responsible for the return of emigrants. 

In a short horizon, 150,000 people have returned to Venezuela, a significant number, and it is given in the moment of economic recovery that the country was experiencing. I assume that, if this growth continues, some speak of figures of 7% of the GDP, I believe that the probability that more Venezuelans will return is very high and there also the Maduro Government will have to show that those who expelled that enormous number of Venezuelans were the US government with their sanctions and that those who returned them, the Venezuelans, to the country have been the Bolivarian government, because if they are not able to make that understood as well, I believe that this vote can become a rebound effect.

Do you think that if the opposition came to power, it would expel the Chavistas from the State, in line with Western and pro-Western demands?

I believe that the arrival of the opposition to power would be a catastrophe, because the Venezuelan opposition does not defend liberal principles, they do not respect those who do not think like them, they have a patrimonial conception of Power and State, they believe that Power belongs only to them and I think that they would govern as owners of a farm. 

And that is what also makes many leaders say that the opposition cannot win unless it assumes its democratic principles, because it is going to set everyone on fire. That is why even people like Javier Milei have said be careful, be careful because what María Corina Machado implies is crazy, not only for Venezuela, but it is crazy for the entire region.

If it turns out that the opposition won the elections, well, everyone would have to accept it. But of course, since it is not the case that on top of that a person who promises revenge, fire and ashes, on top of that, does not want to recognize the winning result of Nicolás Maduro, these are all elements outside the slightest logic of common sense.

Is Maduro still a popular leader for the Venezuelan people?

Nicolás Maduro is in communion with those 6 million people who voted for him last Sunday, July 28. There is credibility, there is a people absolutely in communion, even those who may have voted for Nicolás Maduro without agreeing with the policy. I think that when they voted for him, they trusted that he was better than the opposition and, therefore, they gave him a vote of confidence.

If this is added to the people who have already recovered levels of proximity, trust, and sympathy, such as those that Commander Chávez had at some point, I believe that it is also a positive element so that in the coming years a new direction that really makes this claim of a new Venezuela very anchored in the 21st century true.

AMERICA

Biden plans to write off Ukraine’s $4.6bn debt ahead of Trump

Published

on

President Joe Biden’s administration has officially notified Congress of its intention to forgive Ukraine’s $4.65 billion debt, a move tied to ongoing efforts to support the country amid its conflict with Russia.

This debt represents half of the $9 billion provided to Kyiv as part of the $61 billion aid package approved by Washington in April. Unlike other forms of assistance, this funding was issued as conditionally repayable loans, with provisions allowing the United States President to cancel up to 50% of the debt if deemed necessary.

In a statement, the U.S. State Department explained that the debt cancellation is intended to “help Ukraine win” and serves the national interests of the U.S., the EU, G7+, and NATO.”

According to Bloomberg, President Biden is determined to maximize aid to Ukraine before President-elect Donald Trump assumes office. However, the decision to write off the debt has drawn sharp criticism from Republicans.

Republican Senator Rand Paul argued that the Biden administration’s decision places undue financial burden on the American public. He pledged to demand a vote in the Senate to challenge the proposal.

Despite this, Bloomberg notes that any effort to overturn the debt cancellation would require approval from both houses of Congress, a scenario that appears unlikely given the Democratic majority in the Senate. Furthermore, President Biden holds veto power, making reversal of the decision even more challenging.

Earlier, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced plans to exhaust all remaining aid approved by Congress before President Trump’s inauguration on January 20.

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan emphasized that one of the administration’s key goals is to position Ukraine as strongly as possible—both militarily and at the negotiating table.

Pentagon officials reported that $9.3 billion in military aid is currently in the pipeline. Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh confirmed plans for weekly arms deliveries to Kyiv, with the aim of expediting aid distribution before the presidential transition.

On November 20, the Pentagon unveiled an additional $275 million military aid package for Ukraine, further underscoring the administration’s commitment to strengthening Ukraine’s defense capabilities.

Continue Reading

AMERICA

Donald Trump taps Howard Lutnick to lead Commerce Department

Published

on

Donald Trump has announced his intention to nominate Wall Street investor and campaign donor Howard Lutnick as the new head of the U.S. Department of Commerce, placing the billionaire at the forefront of implementing the sweeping tariffs promised during his presidential campaign.

Lutnick, who co-chaired Trump’s transition team, had previously been considered for the role of Treasury Secretary. He is also the CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, a prominent investment firm.

In a statement on Tuesday, Trump declared that Lutnick would be “directly responsible” for leading the Commerce Department and overseeing the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR).

The USTR, established in 1974 to manage negotiations with U.S. trading partners, traditionally reports directly to the president. If confirmed by the Senate, the 63-year-old Lutnick will play a pivotal role in aiding U.S. businesses and executing Trump’s proposed tariffs on international trade partners.

Trump has outlined plans for a 60% tariff on imports from China and a global tariff of up to 20%, signaling a major shift in U.S. trade policy.

Lutnick, despite lacking prior government experience, has been a steadfast advocate for Trump’s economic agenda. During a New York campaign rally, Lutnick remarked, “When was America great? At the turn of the century, our economy was floundering! That was 125 years ago. We had no income tax and all we had were tariffs.”

While Lutnick has emerged as a major donor to Trump, he has also supported establishment Democrats and Republicans in the past, including Chuck Schumer and Jeb Bush. He contributed to both Hillary Clinton’s 2008 and 2016 campaigns, hosting a fundraiser for her in 2015. Lutnick maintains a personal friendship with the Clintons, noting their attendance at a Cantor Fitzgerald fundraiser in September 2022.

Lutnick has also maintained a long-standing relationship with Trump, even appearing on The Celebrity Apprentice in 2008. He disclosed to the Financial Times in October that he has donated over $10 million to Trump’s 2024 campaign and another $500,000 to the transition team, totaling approximately $75 million.

Treasury Secretary selection process still uncertain

The position of Treasury Secretary, one of the most significant roles in Trump’s administration, remains undecided. Lutnick’s name has been floated for the role, though he faces competition from hedge fund manager Scott Bessent, private equity billionaire Marc Rowan, and former Federal Reserve governor Kevin Warsh.

Marc Rowan, the CEO of Apollo Global Management, has emerged as a leading contender and is expected to meet with Trump to present his case. Rowan’s supporters cite his extensive expertise in financial markets, though competition remains fierce.

Forecasting site Polymarket currently lists Warsh as the favorite for Treasury Secretary, followed by Bessent, Rowan, and William Hagerty. If unsuccessful in his bid for Treasury Secretary, Bessent is reportedly vying for the chairmanship of the National Economic Council.

Trump names Mehmet Oz to run Medicare and Medicaid

Trump also announced on Tuesday his nomination of Dr. Mehmet Oz to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Describing Oz as “one of the most talented physicians” capable of “making America healthy again,” Trump expressed confidence in Oz’s ability to reduce waste and fraud within the nation’s largest government agency.

Dr. Oz, a former heart surgeon and Columbia University professor, rose to prominence as Oprah Winfrey’s health expert before hosting his own popular talk show. However, his career has been controversial, with critics accusing him of promoting scientifically dubious theories and unproven treatments.

Oz’s political experience includes a 2022 Senate race in Pennsylvania, where he was endorsed by Trump but ultimately lost to Democrat John Fetterman.

Continue Reading

AMERICA

U.S. may start its plan to separate Google from Chrome

Published

on

The Department of Justice (DOJ) may move forward with plans to force the sale of Google’s Chrome web browser as part of its ongoing antitrust case against Alphabet (Google).

According to sources familiar with the case, the department intends to ask the judge—who ruled in August that Google illegally monopolized the search market—to address concerns related to artificial intelligence (AI) and the Android smartphone operating system. This information was reported by Bloomberg.

Antitrust officials, along with participating state attorneys, are expected to recommend that federal Judge Amit Mehta impose data licensing requirements on Google. These officials have indicated that Chrome, the world’s most widely used browser, is a critical gateway for many users accessing Google Search. For this reason, they are urging the judge to mandate the sale of Chrome.

Officials stated that a Chrome sale could be considered later if other settlement measures fail to foster a more competitive market. Currently, Google Chrome commands a dominant 61% share of the U.S. browser market, according to StatCounter, a web traffic analysis service.

Over the past three months, state attorneys interviewed numerous companies to prepare their recommendations. Officials noted that some recommendations are still under review, and details may evolve before submission.

While a proposal to force Google to sell its Android platform was considered, officials have since stepped back from this more aggressive option.

If Judge Mehta adopts these recommendations, the ruling could significantly reshape the online search market and influence the emerging artificial intelligence industry.

The case, originally filed during the Trump administration and continued under President Joe Biden, represents one of the most aggressive efforts to regulate a major tech company in decades. The last comparable attempt was Washington’s unsuccessful bid to break up Microsoft in the early 2000s.

Chrome plays a crucial role in Google’s advertising business by providing user data that enhances ad targeting, a primary revenue source. Additionally, Google has been leveraging Chrome to promote Gemini, its new AI bot. Gemini has the potential to evolve from a simple answer bot to a comprehensive assistant, supporting users across the web.

Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Mandeep Singh estimates that Chrome could be worth $15–20 billion if sold, considering its more than 3 billion monthly active users. However, Bob O’Donnell of TECHnalysis Research notes that Chrome’s value depends on its integration with other services, stating: “It’s not directly monetizable. It acts as a gateway to other things. Monetization would depend on how buyers link Chrome to their services.”

Google has strongly opposed the DOJ’s recommendations. Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, criticized the move as government overreach, arguing: “This agenda goes far beyond the legal issues in this case and will harm consumers, developers, and American technological leadership at a critical time.”

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt echoed this sentiment in an interview with CNBC. He emphasized the value of Chrome in enhancing the Google ecosystem, stating: “Singling out these companies won’t fundamentally solve the broader issues.”

In a blog post, Google warned that under new ownership, Chrome might no longer remain free or receive the same level of investment, potentially leading to a shift in its business model.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey