Debunking myths about Venezuela and pro-Maduro propaganda

In recent weeks, the U.S. military has deployed around 10,000 troops in the Caribbean, off the coast of Venezuela, and the United States has already destroyed at least eight vessels carrying narcotics in international waters, leaving more than thirty suspected narco-terrorists dead.

If press reports are to be believed and even President Trump's own words, it would appear to be a matter of days (or even hours) before U.S. forces receive the order to go beyond attacking small boats and strike cartel targets inside Venezuela.

Meanwhile, at the same time as U.S. ships advance into the Caribbean at full speed, there has been an avalanche of misleading claims, half-truths, and outright lies circulating in the U.S. media about Venezuela.

So, let's debunk them one by one:

Myth No. 1: "U.S. sanctions caused Venezuela's collapse."

That myth comes straight out of Maduro's propaganda manual and, like almost everything else that comes out of his mouth, is completely false.

It may sound logical at first: The United States imposes oil sanctions on an oil-rich country, and that country's economy collapses.

However, the data and timelines do not align.

The United States imposed its most severe sectoral sanctions against the Venezuelan oil industry in mid-2019, banning the purchase of oil from state-owned PDVSA.

By then, Venezuela was already deeply mired in its economic collapse. Just between 2014 and 2018:

Then there is the migration crisis, the largest in the history of the Americas.

Since 2015, at least 8 million Venezuelans have fled their country due to the catastrophic humanitarian crisis.

While it is true that many of those who have fled did so after the sanctions, the crisis exploded before the U.S. Treasury took action against Maduro and his entourage.

According to the International Organization for Migration, the number of Venezuelan migrants in the Americas went from nearly 700,000 at the end of 2015 to more than 2.6 million in September 2018.

Thus, although many people migrated after the sanctions,it would be deeply misleading - or simply idiotic- to say that the sanctions caused the crisis. Migrants were fleeing Venezuela long before that.

The narrative that the United States caused the Venezuelan collapse appeals to a genuine sensitivity of the American public: fear of the unintended consequences of foreign policy mistakes.

And that is precisely what makes it so dangerous: it uses the compassion and good intentions of the American people to defend a bloody dictatorship.

Myth No. 2: "Venezuela is the next Libya."

That comparison -repeated both by Hillary Clinton and by some sectors of the right wing- sounds sophisticated, but collapses when analyzing the facts.

Venezuela is not a mosaic of tribes or sects at war for centuries. It is a unified nation with a common language, faith and culture - and has been for more than two hundred years.

When Venezuelans were fighting for their independence (and that of half of South America), Libya was still part of the Ottoman Empire and would not gain its independence from Italy until 140 years later.

In fact, Venezuela has existed as a unified state longer than many modern European nations, such as Italy or Germany.

And here's what many forget: Venezuela knows democracy.

From the late 1950s until the 1990s, it was one of the most stable and successful democracies in Latin America, with regular elections and peaceful transitions of power.

So when critics say that "democracy won't work there," they confuse Venezuela with Iraq or Afghanistan, countries that never had democratic traditions.

Beyond the false equivalences and Chavista propaganda, the truth is that Venezuela shares the values, faith and political language of the West. Comparing it with Iraq is as short-sighted as the neoconservative dreams of establishing a European democracy on the banks of the Euphrates.

Myth No. 3: "Venezuela enjoys stability".

This is probably the biggest whitewashing and propaganda operation that isolationists and leftists have wanted to sell about Venezuela in recent days.

According to journalist Glenn Greenwald - known for his isolationist stances and his praise of leftist Latin American governments - both Cuba and Venezuela have had "stability" for decades simply because they have not changed regimes.

Such a statement is as simplistic as it is disrespectful.

Both Cuba and Venezuela have suffered the consequences of socialist tyrannies that seized power and spread misery: hunger, lack of basic services, ruthless repression, and, most serious for the United States, the creation of a criminal network dedicated to drug trafficking and illicit activities that threaten regional stability.

For decades, Washington allowed Cuba to operate freely in the hemisphere. But the Venezuelan case is even worse: under Chavez and, especially, Maduro, the country became a hotspot for transnational organized crime, collaborating with Hezbollah, Colombian guerrillas, and regional cartels.

Far from having "stability," Venezuela has experienced famine, a mass exodus that deeply affected its neighbors and the United States, an unprecedented health crisis, rampant criminality, and entire areas out of state control -such as the Arco Minero del Orinoco, in the state of Bolívar—where mafias destroy ecosystems to plunder minerals under Maduro’s watchful and complicit eye.

So, what stability are they talking about? The reality is exactly the opposite: Maduro is an agent of instability, chaos, and crime.

By deposing him, a transition could begin that, most likely, will allow the return of millions of Venezuelans eager to rebuild their country and reunite with their families.

Myth No. 4: "There is no real alternative to Maduro."

Also false.

Unlike Iraq, the fall of the Maduro regime would not leave the country without legitimate leadership.

There is a Venezuelan leader—a Nobel Peace Prize winner —and an elected president with the necessary legitimacy to take the reins of the country and lead it through the inevitable but necessary transition.

Last year, under the leadership of María Corina Machado (disqualified from running), the Venezuelan people voted overwhelmingly for seasoned diplomat Edmundo González Urrutia in an election that Maduro blatantly stole.

If the regime collapses, Gonzalez will have the legal authority and Machado the political power to start the long process towards stability and democracy.

Of course, the challenges are many: the presence of foreign criminal groups, the economic devastation caused by 25 years of Chavista socialism and the inevitable turbulence on the road back to freedom.

But any serious analysis of Venezuela's future must be based on grounded in Venezuelan reality — not in vague, pseudo-intellectual comparisons detached from.