TWENTY-NINTH
SPECIAL SESSION OEA/Ser.P
April 18, 2002 AG/doc.9
(XXIX-E/02)
Washington, D.C. 18
April 2002
Original: Spanish
REPORT OF THE
SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE
ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES,
CESAR GAVIRIA,
PURSUANT TO
RESOLUTION CP/RES. 811(1315/02)
Situation in
Venezuela
REPORT OF THE
SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE
ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES,
CESAR GAVIRIA,
PURSUANT TO
RESOLUTION CP/RES. 811(1315/02)
Situation in
Venezuela
Washington D.C.
April 18, 2002
As Secretary General
of the OAS, it is incumbent upon me to present to this special session of the
General Assembly the report mandated by the Permanent Council in resolution
CP/RES. 811 (1315/02), pursuant to Article 20 of the Inter-American Democratic
Charter. This resolution directed me to
carry out a fact-finding mission and undertake the necessary initiatives,
including good offices, to promote as quickly as possible the normalization of
the democratic institutional framework.
Once the
presidents of the Rio Group had concluded their meeting in Costa Rica last
Friday, April 12, I was informed of their decisions both by President Miguel
Angel Rodríguez and by Foreign Minister Roberto Rojas. I was able to exchange views with them
throughout the day, along with the Chair of the Permanent Council, Ambassador
Margarita Escobar, and I closely followed their deliberations. At the end of the meeting, we undertook
consultations with a view to following up on the Group of Rio’s request that a
meeting of the Permanent Council be held as soon as possible. The presidents also asked me to ascertain
the political reality in Venezuela by the means I deemed most appropriate.
It
should be noted that the Rio Group considered President Chávez’ resignation a fait accompli, along with the removal of
the vice president and the cabinet.
Consequently, no request was made for his return to power as part of the
necessary actions to defend constitutional order.
In
informal and closed meetings the previous Friday evening and Saturday, under
the able leadership of Ambassador Margarita Escobar, the Council examined the
situation in Venezuela, condemned the alteration of constitutional order and
the deplorable acts of violence, and expressed solidarity with the people of
that country. On Saturday morning, the
self-styled president of the transitional government called to report that
there had been an alteration of constitutional order and to make other
statements contained in a message that was distributed to the delegations. He also said that they wished to be
represented at the meeting by an official in the Venezuelan mission, and that
they would subsequently send his credentials.
All of this was brought to the attention of the missions. I told him that the following day I would be
traveling to Caracas pursuant to the mandate that the Permanent Council.
As
authorized by the Permanent Council, the Secretary General was accompanied by
Ambassador Margarita Escobar, Chair of the Permanent Council, and Ambassador
Lisa Shoman, Representative of Belize and spokesperson for CARICOM. Some of the ambassadors of the Rio Group
were not able to travel with me because the mission had to leave on such short
notice. The ambassadors accompanying me
were of great service and gave me very valuable advice, but I should make clear
that everything I said during the mission--in private meetings, to the mass
media, and in this report--is my sole responsibility.
You will surely
understand the difficulty in presenting a report on the full range of incidents
that took place. Nonetheless, I have
endeavored to make a succinct presentation on the events leading up to April 11
to 13, which should in no way be interpreted as a justification of the
alteration of constitutional order. It
is merely a brief review of the context in which the tragic events of April 11.
Given the very difficult situation
experienced by democratic institutions in Venezuela, I also thought it
advisable to look at aspects of the country’s institutional order in relation
to the Democratic Charter.
I should begin by
stating that, until it is proven otherwise, the organizers of the demonstration
convened by the political opposition and many social organizations on the days
prior to, and on, April 11 were different from those who usurped power,
detained President Chávez, and endeavored to establish what they referred to as
a provisional government. This
government’s rule was broadly and widely rejected not only because of its
origins, but also owing to its decisions, which resulted in the closing down of
institutions established by popular vote, the intervention of the Judiciary and
the so-called “moral power” organizations, and in practice the derogation of
the Constitution and many actions taken in accordance with it.
What we can say
is that the government, which was in the process of just being established,
without any democratic legitimacy, was the result of decisions taken by the
military. In a letter made available to
the members of the Permanent Council, the person heading the self-styled
provisional government specifically recognized the constitutional breach.
Fortunately for
the democratic institutions in Venezuela, this alteration of constitutional
order was reversed by the reaction of a considerable number of officers of the
Armed Forces and by a vigorous reaction by citizens, both defenders and
opponents of the Government of President Chávez.
As part of the
charge entrusted to me, I met with a broad spectrum of representatives for the
country’s leading institutions, such as President Hugo Chávez and his foreign
minister; the leadership of the National Assembly; the Attorney General, the
comptroller general, the ombudsman, the president of the Supreme Court. I also met with the Cardinal and with
representatives of the Bishops’ Conference, civil society groups,
representatives of some daily newspapers, television and radio networks, the
Confederation of Workers, members of opposition parties in the National
Assembly, and other figures who came with documents expressing their opinions on
the incidents and giving their interpretation of the reality in Venezuela.
Distinguished foreign
ministers: After my talks with the
various sectors, I would like to make the following points.
The President of
the Republic, in all of his speeches, has spoken of reflection, of
rectification, of amendment. He gave
assurances “that there will be no desire for reprisals, for persecution, for
abuse”; that what happened serves as a “major lesson”; “that the situation
calls for deep reflection”; that it is necessary to act with “patience and good
sense”; that it is necessary “to correct what needs to be corrected”; that
“dialogue must be reestablished.”
He spoke also of
“unity while respecting differences” and noted that his first step would be to
convene the Federal Council of Government as the epicenter of dialogue with all
sectors, so as to reach the greatest possible degree of consensus in the
economic, social, and political areas.
He also stated that the president-designate of Petroleos de Venezuela
(PDVSA) and the junta he appointed had resigned, which would put an end to the
issue that gave rise to the recent protests.
Although a good
number of representatives of organizations outside the government have accepted
the call of the President for dialogue, even after the fateful events of April
11 and 12, there is excessive polarization, not only among the natural
political actors, such as the government, the political parties, and opposition
groups, but among almost all labor, business, and civil society groups,
representatives of some other branches of government, and the media. This excessive polarization has shades of
intolerance that stand in the way of democratic dialogue and the quest for
agreements that would provide a degree of understanding so as to maintain
social harmony. There seems to be a
widespread conviction that renewed confrontation between friends and opponents
of the government is inevitable and could lead to increased social protest.
I also want to
note the development of a dangerous practice of debate within the armed
forces. Many leaders of public affairs
constantly listen for what the various armed forces have to say about political
developments, and even about the orders of the Commander in Chief ,
Constitutional President of the Republic. Some cite an article of the
Constitution as grounds for such debate.
Opposition groups
and other leaders of society distance themselves from constitutional standards
in different ways. In particular, they
express concern about the separation and independence of the branches of
government and the lack of checks and balances in the specific case of
Venezuela, since they believe that the leading figures were chosen by political
majorities within the Assembly. The
opposition representatives in the Assembly have called attention to a recent
ruling by the Supreme Court of Justice which concludes that the presidential
term begins in January, 2002.
Since the events
mentioned earlier, there have been increased reports of human rights
violations, acts of intimidation, and significant acts of vandalism and
looting, and increasing numbers of persons dead or injured. This happened before, during and after the
recent crisis. We referred these cases
to the IACHR and, in some cases, to the Commission’s Rapporteur for Freedom of
Expression as well.
This Mission has
received numerous complaints alleging that the Bolivarian Circles are
responsible for these actions. The
Bolivarian Circles are groups of citizens or grassroots organizations who
support the President’s political platform.
Many sectors consider them responsible for the human rights violations,
acts of intimidation, and looting.
Representatives
of television network owners and a group of journalists believe that the
Bolivarian Circles represent the greatest threat to freedom of the press and of
expression. Several of these cases have
already been submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and to
the Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression.
It would be advisable for the government to work on these issues and to
dispel many of the serious doubts that have arisen.
Television
network representatives complain of the abrupt interruption of their private
television channel signals, which they consider a violation of the Organic
Telecommunications Act. This produced a
systematic interruption of programming, with long statements by the President
and other executive officials in the days leading up to April 11. They also demand that, in keeping with the
IACHR recommendation, the Government issue “a categorical denunciation of the
acts of aggression to which media personnel have been subjected.”
On the other
hand, authorities representing the branches of government pointed to a lack of
objectivity in some media outlets’ reporting on the events that led to the
restoration of constitutional order.
Some media organizations have noted such concerns or complaints about
the events and have provided explanations.
It is not my place to judge whether those explanations are satisfactory
or whether the objections raised are valid.
Representatives
of opposition parties in the National Assembly consider their minority rights
to have been violated. They called
attention to the use of mechanisms of
the enabling law. This is an old
provision in Venezuelan constitutions that bestows on the Executive extensive
legislative powers. The government of
President Chavez made wide use of these powers, and illustrated the great
resistance generated by the approval of norms without parliamentary debate and
without public discussion in the Assembly.
The Venezuelan
Confederation of Workers (CTV) (Central de Trabajadores de Venezuela) demanded
that the Executive accept the CTV leaders chosen in the election called at the
initiative of the national government itself. This confederation and its
leaders are recognized by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and this
demand can also be viewed in light of Article 10 of the Democratic
Charter. The CTV leaders also call for
the convocation of tripartite dialogue.
For those
reasons, at meetings with various sectors, I took the liberty of proposing
actions I believe should be taken immediately to prevent further expressions of
discontent that could bring about other tragic events like those of April 11
and 12. In any case, it is important to
reiterate some of the preambular and
operative paragraphs of the Permanent Council resolution, especially as they
regard repudiation of any breach of the constitutional order and condemnation
of the violent events in which a number of people lost their lives.
The OAS, its
member countries, the international community, and other organizations such as
the Catholic Church, via the Conferencia Episcopal, could assist in
fostering dialogue to ensure that these incidents are not repeated.
I would like to
highlight, as well, some measures that must be taken to defuse some of the more
serious conflicts, to regain governability, to achieve political stability, and
to foster economic recovery.
It is fundamental
that all sectors of society, at least all those I have referred to, seek
mechanisms or agreements which ensure that respect for the Constitution is the
foundation and framework of action for everyone in Venezuelan public life.
It is imperative
that an agreement be reached so that Article 350 of the Constitution is not
interpreted as everyone’s right to rebellion.
Such an interpretation might well lead to worse violence than that which
has already occurred. Everyone must do
their part to reach that understanding.
It
is essential that the government, opposition, social actors, human rights
organizations and the media commit to rejecting any participation in political
debate on the part of the military, and to supporting military regulations
which penalize this behavior. It is
also essential that we abandon the interpretation held by some that that
article of the constitution can serve as the basis for actions of any officials
of the armed forces. I would like to
reiterate that if we do not move in this direction, we could see new acts of
insubordination against the civilian authorities. This General Assembly should be categorical
in pointing out the obligation of constitutional subordination of all state
institutions to the legally constituted civilian authority, as enshrined in
Art. 4 of the Democratic Charter.
It
is an absolute necessity to resort only to peaceful measures. The state, and let there be no doubt about
this, must retain a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. The accusations that certain sectors are jeopardizing
the legitimate use of force must be investigated. In all cases, any use of force must occur under authorization and
within the normative framework to which the military adheres.
It is very
important for Venezuela’s democracy that the investigations into the tragic
events surrounding the demonstrations of April 11 are conducted in such a way
that their conclusions are accepted by all and that those responsible meet
head-on the full weight of the law. What
I say should not be interpreted as undermining the legitimately constituted
authorities. With a good dose of
political will, this can be achieved.
In any case, we must learn from this experience because demonstrations
with hundreds of thousands of people brings enormous risks.
We have been
informed that the Assembly is considering setting up a commission of 25 members
would be in charge of investigating the facts.
There are differences with respect to the name of such a commission, the
manner of its establishment and its composition.
The government
and opposition should do everything within their reach to guarantee the
separation of powers and effective checks and balances. Beyond the importance
of establishing the supremacy of the Constitution, it is essential to
re-establish complete confidence in the rule of law and ensure that all the
pillars of society are to heed it. That
is spelled out in Art. 4 of the Democratic Charter.
Whatever
agreement is reached among the different sectors of Venezuelan society should,
as the Democratic Charter indicates, fully respect freedom of expression and
therefore of the press. It should be clear that any complaint or deficiency on
this should be resolved in accordance with the Declaration of Chapultepec. This
Secretariat publicly expressed its confidence that the government of President
Chávez would resolve in a satisfactory manner concerns about security and
intimidation alleged by representatives of the media with whom I met.
On the issue of
television, it is important to come to an agreement on a code of conduct which,
beyond the issue of laws, ensures compatibility between public interest
television transmissions and the media's normal programming.
The international
community should provide support to Venezuela to ensure that political parties
and other political groups or movements once again become the principle actors
in Venezuelan politics. The current
vacuum, which other social sectors have sought to fill, has clearly
demonstrated its limitations. Here we
could look to actions under Art. 5 of the Democratic Charter.
AG01879E01.DOC
This Mission would like to acknowledge the hospitality and support
received from the government of President Chavez. I hope that, by presenting this report for your consideration, I
have fulfilled the mandate of the Permanent Council. The OAS is at the disposal of the government and people of
Venezuela, so that from the tragic experience we might glean lessons to ensure
that these events are never repeated.
Thank You.