THE
CURRENT SITUATION IN VENEZUELA
Report
presented by the Permanent Mission of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for
consideration by the Permanent Council of the OAS
Washington,
D.C., Tuesday, May 28, 2002
I. Background
On
April 11, 2002, Venezuela suffered a coup d’état, which entailed an abrupt
interruption of the democratic and constitutional order.
The
international community condemned these acts. The Hemisphere appeared to have
regressed to fateful episodes of the past, characterized by the crushing of
fundamental freedoms and disregard for human rights. During the forty-eight
(48) hours the de facto government remained in power, those who took part in
the coup demonstrated their repressive and aggressive attitude toward the
people.
The
Heads of State of the member countries of the Rio Group, gathered in San José
de Costa Rica on April 12, 2002, contested the rupture of the constitutional
order and urged a return to the normalcy of democratic institutions. They also requested that a special meeting of
the OAS Permanent Council be convened under Article 20 of the Inter-American
Democratic Charter. This political
forum met on April 13 in Washington, D.C. and adopted resolution CP/RES. 811
(1315/02) entitled “The Situation in Venezuela,” in which it, too, condemned the
alteration of the constitutional order and convened a special session of the
General Assembly.
The
twenty-ninth special session of the General Assembly was held in Washington, D.C.,
on April 18, 2002. It made a truly
historic decision. The ministers of foreign affairs and the heads of delegation
adopted resolution AG/RES. 1 (XXIX-E02) “Support for Democracy in Venezuela,”
in which they expressed their “satisfaction at the restoration of the
constitutional order and the democratically elected government of President
Hugo Chávez Frías in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.” They expressed “the
determination of the member states to continue applying, without distinction,
and in strict accordance with the letter and spirit of the Inter-American
Democratic Charter, the mechanisms provided for therein for the preservation
and defense of representative democracy, reiterating their rejection of the use
of violence to replace any democratic government in the Hemisphere.” They supported “the initiative of the Government
of Venezuela to convoke immediately a national, all-inclusive dialogue” and
urged “all sectors of Venezuelan society to participate and devote their best
and most determined efforts to bringing about the full exercise of democracy in
Venezuela.”
Furthermore,
the ministers of foreign affairs instructed the Permanent Council of the
Organization to present “an overall report on the situation in Venezuela to the
General Assembly at its next regular session.” Pursuant to this mandate,
today’s meeting will approve the Report.
Against
this backdrop, our delegation presents the views of the Government of Venezuela
regarding the tragic and lamentable events that occurred and the policies
currently being pursued to achieve complete institutional normalcy in our
country.
II. Restoring
the Constitutional Order
As the
international community is aware, a rousing popular movement, in alliance with
Venezuelan Armed Forces loyal to the fundamental values of the Constitution of
the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, managed to reestablish the constitutional
order and reinstate President Hugo Chávez Frías as Chief Executive. This was a
unique, unprecedented event in the political history of our Continent.
Democratically elected governments have been swept from office by coups d’état,
which have not, however, triggered immediate social and political movements
with enough strength to restore them to power.
Not so in Venezuela. Most segments of the Armed Forces and key command
structures proved to be profoundly democratic.
President
Hugo Chávez’ first words, upon resuming office as Head of State, in the early
hours of Sunday, April 14, 2002, were intended to foster peace and
reconciliation. He called for rationality in politics and the reunification of
the country. He promised to continue implementing the political program he
heads (aimed at achieving a more just, equitable, libertarian country), within
a democratic and peaceful framework. He called upon all political and social
sectors, without exception, to pause for reflection in the quest for
alternatives that abide by the Constitution. He said that he was returning to
fulfill the high functions entrusted to him by the sovereign people, with no
desire to retaliate or seek revenge. He reaffirmed his government’s readiness
to respect human rights unreservedly. He expressed his willingness to convoke a
far-reaching national dialogue aimed at overcoming the principal problems
besetting the country.
Sad
to say, the Venezuelan government inherited a country fraught with injustice.
The abundant revenue from oil exports was not used by those in power in recent
years to develop the country in a comprehensive fashion; streamline the State;
correct age-old injustices; and reduce marginalization. On the contrary,
social, economic, and territorial inequalities worsened. Poverty increased to
unprecedented levels.
III. Attacks
on Democracy in Venezuela
The
National Constitution promulgated in 1999 calls for a participatory democracy
in which citizens have a leading and responsible role. These are principles
that allow representative democracy to work, inasmuch as they generate
mechanisms of communication and dialogue that ensure that all citizens, and
especially those who are traditionally excluded, are heard by those who direct
the affairs of state.
Political
participation has been boosted in Venezuela, as never before. There are
frequent demonstrations of grassroots support for President Chavez, especially
by those Frantz Fanon once referred to as “The Wretched of the Earth.” Political
opponents repeatedly take to the streets to voice their opinions. All these are
unmistakable manifestations of the political pluralism that is the hallmark of
a democratic society, such as Venezuela’s at this time.
The
broad spectrum of debate taking place in Venezuela reflects the necessary and
complex process of introducing changes of a progressive nature that the country
requires at every level. A truly
historic challenge. The vast majority
of people in our society seek a deeper and more perfect democracy, by combining
ongoing respect for the rule of law with statutes that guarantee economic,
social, and territorial equity. For the
Government of Venezuela, Democracy and Justice are two sides of the same coin.
There
are, nonetheless, some who oppose these changes. Many of them, because they are confused. A minority, which clung
to the perks and privileges of power and lived lewdly off the immense wealth
generated by Venezuela’s oil-based economy, has unfortunately managed to sow
the seeds of its antidemocratic ideology. This minority stubbornly opposes any option involving balance and
justice in the distribution of wealth. In its recklessness, this minority has no qualms about resorting
to racism to discredit grassroots sectors and their leaders. Lamentably, racism has expanded its ranks in
Venezuela. The ideology underlying it,
which used to be confined to tiny niches, has seeped into certain social
strata. This is a worrisome development
in a society historically shaped by an egalitarian and tolerant culture.
The
Government considers opposition legitimate. As absolutely necessary to enhance
democracy. Never before in the history
of our country did the opposition enjoy such leeway to voice its views. Its criticisms are often excessive. Even so, its spokesmen are treated with
respect and consideration by the Government. For those who took part in the coup of April 11, human rights and
due process have been respected. They
are even invited to the National Parliament, in which a majority supports
President Chávez, to express their opinions, which are broadly and
instantaneously published by all the media. That is how tolerant the Venezuelan government is. Its conduct is unparalleled in the history of
Latin America and the Caribbean. Murder,
torture, imprisonment, and persecution used, often enough, to be the fate meted
out to dissident politicians and those who rose up against the authorities.
The
civilian leader of the abortive coup publishes his columns in the national
press. He was put under house arrest, with his family beside him. From there he managed to get to the residence
of the ambassador of Colombia, which granted him asylum. President Chávez has ordered a safe conduct
pass for him, to enable him to leave the country.
Again
and again, President Chávez has proclaimed the need for national consensus.
Opposition demonstrators repeatedly take to the streets. Supporters of the
President are equally entitled to air their views. A state of emergency, which the National Constitution provides
for, has never been decreed, despite the difficult times the country has been
through.
Now,
when political tensions have reached a high point, dialogue is the only way to
find solutions to conflicts of interest.
Plots
to destabilize the democratic order are still being woven. The truth of the matter is: they began the
moment President Chavez won the elections. Despite their trouncing, antidemocratic circles persist in
provoking unseemly clashes and refuse to take part in the dialogue proposed by
the head of state. They spend huge
amounts of money on campaigns in Venezuela and abroad to discredit the
Government. Their obsession is to
overthrow President Chávez, by hook or by crook, even if in the process they
ruin the country. No stone is left unturned in their attempt to achieve their
mindless objectives. They refrain from
competing in the democratic arena and to abide by the Constitution.
The
competent authorities are investigating events during the coup and its
perpetrators, discretely and magnanimously. They are trying to establish, strictly within the law, the
responsibility incurred by the protagonists of the coup.
IV. Lamentable
consequences
The
sequel to the call for an indefinite general strike was the march by the
opposition convoked for April 11, which was to go from Parque del Este to
Chuao, the headquarters of the PDVSA in Caracas. The emotions, excitement, and
good faith of the crowd were manipulated by certain leaders who pressed it to
continue to the Palacio de Miraflores, thereby contravening the rules that
require prior authorization for any street demonstration.
Several
Government spokesmen–and the President of the Republic himself–warned the
leaders of the demonstration to exercise greater prudence, reflection, and
rationality to avoid a highly undesirable clash between conflicting groups in
the vicinity of the Palacio de Miraflores. These calls were ignored and the result was an atmosphere of
confusion and conflict. That was when tragedy struck and blood was shed.
April
11, 12, and 13 were the fateful days. People were killed and private property
was severely damaged. Venezuelan homes were suddenly fraught with anxiety and
unease.
A few
civilian and military players, who had been plotting a coup and their antidemocratic
strategy for some time, manipulated and abused the inalienable right of any
sector in society to dissent from official policies. This is what happened on
April 11. That day previously programmed military mechanisms to overthrow the
legitimately elected President were activated. And for a few hours they
achieved that objective. The lamentable deaths that occurred in the confusion
and violence were exploited by opposition circles to cast blame on the
President. A number of military
officers were undoubtedly misled. Under cover of chaos and with the news
manipulated by the media, those taking part in the coup detained the President
and held him incommunicado. They named
a de facto ruler, who, during his swearing-in on the afternoon of April 12,
announced the dissolution of all powers of State and annulled the Constitution
backed by 80 percent of the population in the first referendum in the country’s
history. By decree, he derogated 48 laws addressing social and economic issues. He dismissed all governors, mayors, and
parish councils elected by universal and direct suffrage. And he even
eliminated the country’s name, sullying the honor of our illustrious founder,
the Liberator Simón Bolívar. The de facto government unleashed a ferocious
persecution against parliamentarians and other leaders who support President
Chávez.
According
to Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, freedom of expression
and information is not unlimited. It must be exercised with responsibility and
in such a way as not to impair national security, or the dignity and honor of
individuals. Some media celebrated the overthrow of the Constitutional
President, but failed to report that millions of Venezuelans took to the
streets on April 12, 13, and 14, 2002 in the country’s principal cities, to
demand his return and the reestablishment of the constitutional order.
Despite that, the Government of Venezuela has refrained
from retaliating or imposing any restrictions on those media. On then contrary,
President Chávez has urged all those who support him to respect the media and
journalists, thereby furnishing irrefutable proof of political tolerance. The truth of the matter is that criticism
has never been exercised in the media with as much freedom as it is today. There have, undoubtedly, been manifestations
of intolerance against various media by government supporters. The President and other leading authorities
have objected to these undesirable forms of behavior and requested that they
should not happen again.
V. The
Historic Return of the President
On
Saturday, April 13, masses of people began to assemble in the early hours of
the morning at Fort Tiuna, the country’s principal military facility. Thousands
of demonstrators demanded the release of President Hugo Chávez Frías. Similar
protests proliferated in numerous cities in the interior, and a crowd
congregated around Miraflores Palace to demand the return of President Hugo
Chávez.
That
afternoon, the de facto government–besieged by an enormous crowd–was
losing control of the Government Palace. The supporters of the coup fled, and
the people recovered the country’s main symbol of power. In the dawn of Sunday,
April 14, President Chávez was restored to his high post. An exceedingly
democratic civilian-military movement restored the constitutional order in an
unusually peaceful act that is unparalleled in the modern history of our
Hemisphere.
That
very same afternoon, some Cabinet members of the constitutional government
returned to Miraflores Palace. The news that the President had not resigned
became known and was circulated at the bold, valiant initiative of a soldier
serving at one of the locations where the Head of State had been detained. Democratic
soldiers from Caracas, Maracay, and throughout the country demanded a return to
the constitutional order. At the same time, some international news channels
transmitted these historic events. Indeed, it was the strong democratic
conviction of Venezuelan society and the attachment of most military sectors to
the rule of law that led to the great victory for Venezuelan democracy,
providing the world with a lesson in civic maturity.
Actions by the Venezuelan State to
Stabilize Democratic Institutions
The
government institutions of the Venezuelan State are now taking a series of
steps to enhance democratic stability and seek the reconciliation of all
Venezuelans, in the framework of the respective areas of responsibility and
authority entrusted to them in the Constitution. They are striving to establish
by consensus the foundation for democratic governance, inspired by liberty and
justice.
Executive Branch
The head of state’s
willingness to promote dialogue was not just a pledge. Through a decree issued on April 28, 2002 he
established the Commission for Dialogue, which he personally chairs. He appointed the new Executive Vice President
of the Republic, Dr. José Vicente Rangel, former Minister of Defense and former
Minister of Foreign Affairs, to coordinate the Commission. The Executive Vice President has a proven
democratic track record and has been a staunch defender of human rights in his
public life. The Commission was formed
with broad participation by different sectors of national society, by a
plurality represented intuitu personae. The first meeting was held on May 16, 2002. The Commission is discussing the most
important topics weighing on the current national situation.
By
consensus, Commission members have prepared a decalogue of pressing social
issues, such as the need to overcome the widespread poverty that exists in the
country. Regarding political/institutional issues, there is discussion of the
length of the constitutional term; reform of the Constitution; the role of the Círculos
Bolivarianos; the role of the populace; and the make-up of the National
Electoral Council. Special emphasis is
given to consideration of the regrettable acts of violence that occurred on the
day of the coup and in subsequent days. The Commission recommends forwarding a plan to considerably reduce
the use of firearms, to keep them out of the hands of the civilian population,
since use of firearms is an exclusive privilege of the armed forces, State
security forces, and duly authorized individuals.
President
Chávez has publicly admitted, in a self-critique that is unprecedented in the
history of Venezuela, that his government had made mistakes in the democracy
building process.
He
has reiterated his explicit appeal for dialogue and for the reconciliation of
all Venezuelans.
In this
regard, a series of initiatives were taken to promote intensive national
dialogue, without exclusion, with strict adherence to the Bolivarian
Constitution.
Immediate initiatives have been
implemented for this national dialogue, which was supported by the ministers of
foreign affairs at the twenty-ninth special session of the General Assembly,
held on April 18, 2002. [KFC1]
The
purpose of the Dialogue Roundtables (Mesas de Diálogo) is to reinforce
the involvement of Venezuelan society in fundamental actions of the State. Their recommendations will serve as a
reference for the policies carried out by all branches of the government. Decisions in the Roundtables are reached by
consensus.
The
decalogue has been distributed for consideration and implementation in five
committees on political, social, economic, land, and international balance. Dialogue will also be fostered in the
regions, with support from universities, state governments, and mayor’s
offices.
The
agenda for the dialogue contains issues that are essential for achieving a
broad political agreement:
-
Respecting the Constitution and the laws of the
Republic;
-
Condemning coups as a means of achieving societal
change;
-
Rejecting violence and intolerance in all their
manifestations;
-
Supporting the independence of the branches of
government, pursuant to the Constitution;
-
Ensuring a flawless investigation into the violence
that took place on April 11, 12, 13, and 14;
-
Examining the role of the mass media;
-
Establishing criteria for transparency and balance, to
move forward with the dialogue;
-
Recommending a sweeping fight against corruption and
impunity;
-
Democratizing the dialogue to include all levels and
all regions of the country;
-
Regulating and controlling possession of firearms, in
accordance with the law; and
-
Guaranteeing transparency and equity in the allocation
of government resources.
Mediation
Commissions were also established comprising different sectors, for
rapprochement with the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV), the
Federation of Chambers of Industry and Commerce (FEDECAMARAS), the media, and
the Church.
National Assembly
A
special parliamentary committee is investigating the events that transpired
during the unconstitutional breakdown. It is composed of members of parliament
of all political affiliations and chaired by an opposition member. Intensive
questioning of both government supporters and detractors is being carried out
in this context.
Following
vigorous parliamentary debate, it was unanimously decided to establish a Truth
Commission, composed of members of civil society. The national Truth Commission
Act will be passed to govern its operations and make its final decisions more
transparent. This is an absolutely novel experiment in the Hemisphere; the
truth commissions created to date, at least officially, were intended to shed
light on events and human rights violations corresponding to past periods in
each country, never to present or developing situations, as will be the case in
Venezuela. This is true, for example, of the National Commission on Disappeared
Persons (CONADEP) created in Argentina through Decree-Law 187/83 of December
15, 1983 or the National Truth and Reconciliation Commission (CNVR) established
in Chile through Supreme Decree No. 355 of April 24, 1990. Both
commissions were established specifically to investigate and clarify brutal
human rights violations that occurred in past periods or political regimes.
The
National Assembly’s public questioning of the main protagonists, both in the
government and in the opposition, is the best demonstration that democratic
rule of law is in effect in Venezuela. Senior political and military officials
have been questioned. Even President Hugo Chávez is scheduled to appear; he has
shown his openness to dialogue and willingness to work with the special
committee, even though, according to current constitutional principles in the
country, as Head of State he could refuse to appear or limit his cooperation to
providing a written response to the questionnaire sent to him. This is singular
in the political history of Venezuela.
Ombudsman
The
Ombudsman promotes actions to protect human rights and fosters a climate of
tolerance, a culture of peace, and democratic awareness. In the immediate term,
the Ombudsman is seeking reconciliation, with a view to reactivating the
capabilities of the Nation.
Office of the Attorney General of the
Republic
To achieve
its objectives, this Office is strengthening the team of prosecutors appointed
in the areas of criminology and forensic medicine, to more swiftly investigate
the identity of the perpetrators of the events that caused fatalities and
injuries on those fateful days in April.
Moreover,
the Office is investigating the possible criminal liability of officials in
some mayor’s offices in metropolitan Caracas that may have acted unlawfully on
those days. It is also looking into the actions of certain officials who
participated in searches without a warrant and arbitrary detentions. It is
designing protection mechanisms for relatives of the victims and witnesses, to
facilitate the investigative process.
It is putting into
practice a plan of action coordinated by the Office for the Protection of
Fundamental Rights and the Ordinary Crimes Office. That plan is executed by
four working groups, composed of prosecutors and coordinators who are
investigating the deaths, injuries, and looting. They are assisted by the
Office of Technical and Scientific Advising and Investigations of the Public
Prosecutor’s Office, and a case monitoring system is being installed in that
connection.
The
Office is complying with the precautionary measures adopted by the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by appointing various prosecutors to
establish the veracity of the facts denounced and determine responsibility, as
appropriate.
OAS Support for Venezuela
The
Government of Venezuela recognizes the solidarity demonstrated by the OAS at a
crucial time in the democratic life of the country. It greatly appreciates
General Assembly resolution AG/RES. 1 (XXIX-E/2) of April 18, 2002, in which the
Assembly agrees:
To provide the support and help of
the OAS as required by the Government of Venezuela for the consolidation of the
democratic process.[KFC2]
As
indicated throughout this report, Venezuela is moving forward in pursuit of
national consensus, although each sector continues to defend its political
cause and projects. The dialogue process is in full development, even though
obstacles persist. Preliminary agreements have already been reached. Other
equally substantive agreements will emerge in the coming days. The main support
that the Government of Venezuela is requesting from the OAS is basically
political support. In this regard, the aforementioned resolution is already
evidence of support for the government and for democracy in our country.
The
government hopes to strengthen consensus further, through the dialogue and
reconciliation process. It would be inclined to request specific support from
the highest hemispheric organization, if necessary, to improve and enhance the
democratic institutional framework in Venezuela.
