Would Jeffrey Sachs and Joseph E. Stiglitz Feel the Same about Donald Trump and Maria Corina Machado?

            Would Jeffrey Sachs and Joseph E. Stiglitz Feel the Same about Donald Trump and Maria Corina Machado?

For those who have been hiding from the world, Maria Corina Machado has been named the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize 2025.

There are two questions in the heading. Would the two gentlemen, Sachs and Stiglitz, have and assess Mr. Trump and Ms. Machado individually applying the same set of parameters? Would the two, instead, apply a distinct and different set of parameters to each and come to their conclusions? I believe the second would be more valid as Ms. Machado has a master’s degree in finance, after all! Need I say anything about Mr. Trump? I thought not.

Jeffery Sachs feels unadulterated bitterness about Donald J. Trump. He has his reasons that I do not disagree with. I have not heard anything from Stiglitz about Trump in the latter’s second term. Would they both feel the same about the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize Ms. Maria Corina Machado?

The above attempted comparison demands some background. 

Jeffrey Sachs is now a voice in the wilderness for his advocacy of left-liberal policy tuned towards the oppressed, the disenfranchised, the native populations and other people considered as beyond the pale (though I do not think he has said anything about the upcoming state elections in Bihar), and is also a strong player in the environmental movement. 

He argued if not exactly in favour of Evo Morales, the first president of and from the community of the natives of Bolivia, but for the necessity of giving his government a chance to survive, though he was part of the group advocating Washington Consensus, IMF Conditionalities and such. This was quite a few years earlier. 

Coming to the present times, Professor Sachs has turned seriously towards the left and away from fleet-footed global capital. He was also vigorously opposed to Donald J. Trump’s effort to overthrow the leftist leader of Venezuela, Mr. Nicola Maduro, during his first term as the POTUS. Trump is in the second innings of this game during his current term, his second. He is trying to push Mr. Maduro out of power−it is happening on the high seas even as I am typing this out.

Now, coming to the other name mentioned in the heading, Ms. Machado. She has been named winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace, for her position against Maduro, who is now an authoritarian, they say. This is the playbook of neoliberals. 

Should a populist leader come to power, neoliberals, beholden to global capital, banks and finance, say and do everything to make that leader an authoritarian merely to have some control over his government and nation. On this platform, with the backing of the monied, theneoliberals oppose all his policies under the cloak of liberalization, let unrestricted capital transfers, allow no imports of essentials (medical supplies included), try to establish permanent Intellectual Property Rights not necessarily created by their intellect (think of Basmati Rice), creating conditions of desperation for common people. It is then people pour out on to the streets to protest against inflation hitting the roof, way beyond 100%. 

This is shown as people’s dissatisfaction against the policies of the government. Neoliberals created the compulsive conditions for Maduro and his government to become authoritarian merely to do the job of governing, and then turn around and accuse him of becoming one! This, I am convinced, is how Ms. Machado is being felicitated. 

It is under this situation, Sachs and his partner in crime, Joseph E. Stiglitz who won the ersatz Nobel Prize (for economics), should be playing the role of two oxen yoked together to pull the cart of global economy leftward and layout the truth behind the prize for Ms. Machado.For that, I am sure Stiglitz would soon come out with his arguments why he is or not thrilled. Then, I would guess that Sachs must be doing the same.

One must understand that Ms. Machado was against Hugo Chavez, a hugely popular leader of Venezuela who came on when the wealth of its commons was auctioned off to global capital, and Maduro is his handpicked successor. I am not saying that Ms. Machado is the handmaiden of the reactionary far-right, but perhaps she is being played by them. 

Again getting to Trump (he lives rent-free in the minds of many), I find that he is not enamoured of the Nobel going to Machado. Why not? Please read further.

Both Trump and Machado are united in their vision for Venezuela. But the goals have been reckoned only partially. 

Ms. Machado would want to be the leader of the country, having taken tentative steps and failing. So, I should not be faulted for saying that Trump should have welcomed the awardgoing to Machado. More so as Ms. Machado dedicated a part of the award (?) to Trump. But, Trump is grumbling very loudly that he should have been the one to receive the award. Why? Because Obama has one!

Now, both Stiglitz and Sachs are sitting under Damocles Sword. The Nobel Peace Prize committee has chosen someone who is a rebel, against Chavez’s chosen follower, some two decades ago, though, Nicolas Maduro. Machado is considered a liberal conservative politician−what could this mean? A doctor diagnosing Machado gave a prescription for mental dysentery-cum-constipation! Any which way Stiglitz and/or Sachs sway, they have to swallow both pills. No choice. But, the sword will definitely fall on them and pierce their hearts.

Raghuram Ekambaram