The idea that María Corina Machado is “betraying” Venezuela stems from deep divisions within the opposition, with some accusing her exiled faction of extreme policies (like economic total boycott) that hurt citizens and alienate other opposition groups who prefer pragmatic engagement.
When Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado theatrically presented her Nobel Peace Prize medal to Donald Trump, it was dressed up as a grand symbol of gratitude. In reality, it was a carefully staged act of political submission – a discounted stunt that hollowed out the meaning of peace, reduced a global honour to a prop, and signalled once again how sections of Venezuela’s opposition have outsourced their politics to foreign power.
This was not an act of reconciliation, nor a gesture aimed at healing a wounded nation. It was spectacle politics – designed for cameras, applause lines, and Washington approval – at a time when Venezuela needs sober dialogue, national dignity, and an end to external strangulation. Critics argue that by dedicating her Nobel Peace Prize to a U.S. president and soliciting his support, Machado validates foreign interference in Venezuelan affairs. Opponents of this approach believe Venezuela’s future should be determined solely by its citizens, not external powers like the U.S., which has a history of intervention in Latin America.
The act is seen by some as an appeal to an American leader who has made controversial statements about controlling Venezuela’s oil resources and has sidelined Machado in favour of the current interim government led by Delcy Rodríguez. This is viewed by some as an undignified act of deference that undermines the struggle for true independence.
Political Pragmatism over Principle
Some analysts suggest the gesture was a strategic move to secure her position in the post-Maduro political landscape after Trump had expressed doubts about her popularity and leadership capabilities. This has led to accusations that she is more focused on personal power than national consensus. Machado’s alignment with specific U.S. political figures and their hardline policies, including sanctions and military threats, has been condemned by those who view such measures as a form of warfare that has harmed the Venezuelan people.
The Devaluation of Peace
The Nobel Peace Prize, whatever its controversies, is supposed to recognise moral courage and principled resistance to violence. To turn it into a token of fealty before a former U.S. president whose foreign policy record is soaked in sanctions, militarism, and unilateralism is to empty the prize of its ethical content.
Machado’s act matters not because of personal theatrics, but because of what it represents: a worldview in which Venezuela’s future is imagined not in Caracas, Maracaibo, or Barinas – but in Washington. It suggests that salvation will come not from Venezuelans negotiating with one another, but from the approval of foreign strongmen. That is not peace.
Even more troubling is the implication that external pressure, including economic warfare, is something to be celebrated rather than condemned. For over a decade, Venezuela has been subjected to suffocating sanctions that have frozen assets, blocked access to international finance, and crippled the country’s ability to import food, medicines, spare parts, and fuel. Independent studies and UN rapporteurs have repeatedly warned that these measures disproportionately punish ordinary people, not political elites.
Sanctions, Sovereignty, and the Fiction of “Humanitarian” Pressure
Let us be clear: Venezuela’s crisis is real. Inflation, shortages, migration, and governance failures have taken a devastating toll. But to isolate these problems from the deliberate economic siege imposed by the United States and its allies is intellectually dishonest.
Sanctions are not neutral policy tools; they are instruments of collective punishment. They shrink state capacity, destroy purchasing power, and force impossible trade-offs in public health and welfare. Machado’s politics has long been rooted in this logic. Rather than mobilising a national consensus for reform, accountability, and democratic renewal, she has consistently leaned on external pressure, even when that pressure deepens suffering. Handing over a peace medal to Trump is simply the most symbolic expression of that posture.
The Question of Maduro and International Law
Central to this drama is President Nicolás Maduro. Maduro is a polarising figure, criticised for authoritarian tendencies, economic mismanagement, and shrinking democratic space. These criticisms deserve debate – within Venezuela, by Venezuelans.What does not deserve legitimacy is the idea that a foreign power can decide his fate.
Calls for Maduro’s arrest, prosecution, or removal through external force or unilateral action violate the foundational principles of international law: sovereignty, non-intervention, and the right of peoples to self-determination. Any attempt, real or threatened, to seize a sitting head of state outside multilateral legal frameworks is not justice. It is coercion.
Those cheering such outcomes should remember a simple truth: if powerful states can arrest or remove leaders they dislike, no country in the Global South is safe. Today it is Venezuela; tomorrow it could be anyone who defies imperial preference.
The Bolivarian Revolution: Beyond Caricature
To understand why Machado’s stunt has provoked such anger, one must revisit what the Bolivarian Revolution actually represented.
Under Hugo Chávez, the Bolivarian project sought to overturn a deeply unequal social order that had excluded the poor from power despite Venezuela’s vast oil wealth. It expanded literacy, healthcare, and political participation, and insisted that oil revenues should serve social needs rather than foreign corporations and domestic elites.
The revolution made mistakes. It over-relied on oil, underestimated bureaucratic decay, and failed to diversify the economy adequately. These failures matter. But to reduce the Bolivarian experience to a cartoon of “dictatorship versus democracy” is to erase the millions who experienced dignity, voice, and social mobility for the first time.For them, the revolution was not an ideology imported from abroad; it was an assertion of national control over resources and destiny. That is precisely why it provoked such hostility from global power centres.
Opposition Without a Nation
Healthy democracies need opposition. Venezuela needs opposition too – critical, rooted, accountable. What it does not need is an opposition that defines itself primarily through foreign applause.
Machado’s politics has consistently lacked a social programme that speaks to the working poor, informal labourers, campesinos, and barrios. Instead, it has relied on elite networks, external endorsements, and the promise that “international pressure” will do the hard work of political change. The Nobel medal episode simply confirms this orientation.
By contrast, the Bolivarian camp – for all its fractures – still draws legitimacy from mass politics, from unions, communal councils, and popular memory. That base may be battered, but it is real. You cannot rebuild Venezuela by pretending it does not exist.
Peace Is Not a Photo Opportunity
Peace is slow, unglamorous, and deeply national. It requires dialogue between adversaries, institutional repair, and the rebuilding of trust. It cannot be handed over in a glittering ceremony to a foreign leader whose policies have intensified suffering. If Machado truly believed in peace, she would demand the lifting of sanctions, support inclusive negotiations, and insist that Venezuela’s conflicts be resolved without external coercion. Instead, she chose a headline.That choice will be remembered.
A Future Beyond Stunts
Venezuela’s path forward lies neither in romanticising power nor in demonising it. It lies in restoring economic sovereignty, rebuilding democratic institutions, and allowing all Venezuelans to decide their future without threats, blockades, or imported saviours.
The Bolivarian Revolution, despite its wounds, still stands for one unyielding principle: dignity cannot be outsourced. Machado’s medal stunt denies that truth. History will judge it not as an act of courage, but as a moment when peace was reduced to performance – and sovereignty was placed on the auction block.Venezuela deserves better than that.