NotiSur-VENEZUELA COUP SPECIAL-04/19/02 Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit [Reminder: This is a private reading copy for your personal use only. It may not be redistributed under the terms of our subscription with LADB. Thanks -- NY Transfer] ------------------------------------------------------------ L A T I N A M E R I C A D A T A B A S E NotiSur - South American Political & Economic Affairs ISSN 1060-4189 Volume 12, Number 14 April 19, 2002 ------------------------------------------------------------ Copyright 2002, Latin America Data Base (LADB), Latin American Institute, University of New Mexico Director: Rebecca Reynolds Bannister Editor: Patricia Hynds Staff writers: Carlos Navarro, Robert Sandels LADB ARCHIVES: Back issues are referenced to provide historical background relevant to the articles in this newsletter. These can be accessed with a subscription to the LADB searchable on-line archives at http://ladb.unm.edu/ by clicking on Search Archive. For subscription information, e-mail info@ladb.unm.edu or call 1-800-472-0888. In This Issue: VENEZUELA: OPPOSITION FAILS TO OVERTHROW PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ * Carmona's democratic image is quickly tarnished * Chavez returns to Miraflores * Almost universal international condemnation of coup * Trying times ahead for Venezuela VENEZUELA: FAILED COUP IN VENEZUELA EXPOSES U.S. GOVERNMENT DOUBLE STANDARD & VENEZUELAN MEDIA BIAS * Damage to US image * Role of the press questioned ____________________________________________________________ ********************* VENEZUELA ********************* VENEZUELA: OPPOSITION FAILS TO OVERTHROW PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ The Venezuelan opposition, with the support of dissident military officers, attempted to overthrow President Hugo Chavez on April 11, but coup leaders seriously misjudged the degree of support Chavez had both within the military and in civilian society. Outrage at the undemocratic actions of the "interim government" forced a reversal of the coup, with Chavez returning to power April 13. Chavez now faces the difficult task of uniting an extremely polarized society. On the third day of a national strike, the opposition, which refers to itself as "civil society," held a huge anti-Chavez demonstration. The action was purportedly in support of fired oil company (Petroleos de Venezuela, PDVSA) executives who opposed the Chavez-appointed company president and members of the board of directors (see NotiSur, 2002-04-12). The protest was led by Pedro Carmona Estanga of the business organization Fedecamaras and Carlos Ortega, president of the Accion Democratica (AD)-controlled Confederacion de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV). The widely publicized march was supposed to go to PDVSA headquarters. Midway, however, march leaders changed course, heading to the Miraflores presidential palace, where several thousand Chavez supporters were assembled. That decision appears key to subsequent events and challenges claims that what happened was a spontaneous uprising. Violence erupted as the two groups faced off in front of Miraflores and at least 14 people were killed. Some eyewitnesses saw at least three groups firing--the city police, Chavez supporters, and unidentified snipers. The opposition immediately claimed Chavez supporters had fired on unarmed opposition demonstrators, and local TV stations repeatedly broadcast edited footage showing men shooting from a rooftop (see other article in this issue). Who started the shooting is still unclear, but the dead including both opponents and Chavistas, including the vice president's driver. Among the groups suspected of responsibility are members of Chavez's Bolivarian Circles, the Bandera Roja--an extremist group wanting to set the stage for the coup, the National Guard acting on Chavez's orders, and police under the command of the opposition mayor of Caracas Alfredo Pena. Whoever gave the orders to shoot, the deaths provided the dissident military with the justification to enter the presidential palace and demand that Chavez step down. The military claimed that Chavez had resigned, although they produced no evidence, and they named Pedro Carmona to head an interim government. Carmona's democratic image is quickly tarnished Carmona promised that the new government would adhere to the principles of "freedom, pluralism, and democracy, ensuring respect for the state of law." He said, "We can achieve the governability required to improve Venezuela's image. The strongman era has ended." But the strongman era had not ended. Seriously misjudging both his internal support and world reaction to the coup, within 24 hours Carmona abolished the 1999 Constitution, fired the justices of the Tribunal Supremo de Justicia (TSJ), the Fiscal General, the Contralor General, the Defensor del Pueblo, and members of the Consejo Nacional Electoral (CNE). He abolished the Asamblea Nacional, cut off oil shipments to Cuba, and said he would call elections "within a year." Carmona named a Cabinet that excluded all sectors of society except the far right, even cutting out the CTV, his partner in opposing Chavez. Meanwhile, security forces were going after Chavez's Cabinet and other members of his government. Chavez's Interior Minister Ramon Rodriguez Chacin was attacked by a mob as security forces hustled him away in handcuffs. The swearing-in ceremony of the new government was scheduled for the afternoon of April 13, but growing numbers of protesters in the streets demanding Chavez's return prompted Carmona's backers to postpone the ceremony. The same generals who had gone on the air early Friday to announce that Chavez had resigned came on again to criticize the government they had installed to replace him. "We demand respect for the Constitution," said Gen. Efrain Vasquez, head of the army, as other generals stood at his side. "Our action [Friday] was not a coup....We believe there should be corrections in the transition to a new government." To the demands of the military who were beginning to question his leadership, Carmona said Chavez would be allowed to leave the country and the Asamblea Nacional would be reinstated. But by then, it was too late. In the absence of any evidence that Chavez had resigned, several key military units refused to support the coup. With his support dwindling, Carmona decided to resign. He first tried to turn over power to the Asamblea Nacional that he had dissolved, but Chavez's Vice President Diosdado Cabello said he was assuming power under provisions of the Constitution, and he would return power to Chavez when he returned. Chavez returns to Miraflores In the early morning hours of April 14, military loyal to Chavez brought him back from the Caribbean island of La Orchila, where he had been taken. In a nationally broadcast message later that morning, Chavez called for national reconciliation and said he was convening a Federal Council of Government in which all branches of power as well as opposition governors and mayors would take part. This seemed a response to one of the strongest criticisms against Chavez--that he refuses to consult with those who disagree with his vision for the country. "I also have to reflect on many things," Chavez said. "I bring back lessons that I'll never forget after so much thinking and anxiety. I come willing to make corrections where I have to make corrections." In his strongest conciliatory gesture, Chavez said that the members of the PDVSA board of directors opposed by company executives had resigned. "It was a [internal company] conflict, but it was used," Chavez said, adding that he would restructure the company so that "this industry cannot be used this way again." The president also said no reprisals would be taken against the PDVSA managers who participated in the protests. Vice President Cabello said at least 120 people orchestrated the conspiracy against Chavez, including 80 members of the military. Many were briefly jailed and released; it is unclear how many are still being detained. On Monday, April 15, Carmona was released from jail and placed under house arrest. Carmona and other coup leaders will be charged with conspiracy to wage a military rebellion, Cabello said. "This was not a spontaneous rebellion or a popular rebellion," Cabello said. "This was a civilian-military rebellion, and those involved must take responsibility. They will be put on trial with all their rights, but they will be put on trial." Cabello also said the incidents of April 11 would be investigated. "Who pushed an enormous mass of Venezuelans to come to Miraflores where they knew 20,000 people were there waiting for whoever was coming?" Cabello asked. "They are, morally at least, responsible for a great number of deaths." Almost universal international condemnation of coup Whatever private opinion Latin American leaders may have of Chavez, they closed ranks to support constitutional rule. Meeting in Costa Rica, the 19-member Grupo de Rio quickly condemned the coup and said it could not recognize the provisional government. They invoked the Organization of American States (OAS) Inter-American Democratic Charter, signed in Lima in September at the urging of the US, which was crafted to strengthen democracy in the hemisphere. The OAS called an emergency meeting in response to the coup. Only after Chavez was back in control did the US support the OAS statement, and then only after pushing to soften the language to "altering the constitutional order" from "interrupting the constitutional process." The difference is significant. If the term "interrupting" had been used, it would have meant immediately invoking Article 21 of the Democratic Charter, which suspends the country in question. In contrast, the term "altering" calls for applying Article 20, which triggered a trip by the OAS secretary general to analyze the situation. Several presidents said they would not recognize the new government. Nicaragua, Argentina, Paraguay, and Panama branded the Carmona government illegitimate. Chilean President Ricardo Lagos called for swift presidential elections and a return to democracy. Mexican President Vicente Fox said his country would not recognize Carmona's government until presidential elections were held, but he did not break off diplomatic relations. Of Latin American leaders, only Francisco Flores of El Salvador recognized the Carmona government. Chavez has been a maverick among Latin American leaders, most of whom have, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, embraced the US neoliberal, free-trade hemispheric vision. Chavez is one of the few leaders who has spoken out against the abuses of globalization and against the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). He also criticized Plan Colombia and refused to allow US military flights over Venezuelan territory. He strongly backed Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) quotas to keep the price of oil from dropping. He has a strong friendship with Cuban President Fidel Castro and has visited Iraq and Libya. These actions raised the ire of the US (see other article in this issue). Gustavo de Greiff, a constitutional law expert at the Colegio de Mexico, said Chavez' ouster was "a coup that followed a model we have seen very often in this region." "If this uprising in Caracas had been tolerated, it wouldn't be long before this could have blown up in the face of other democracies," Oscar Raul Cardoso wrote in the Argentine daily Clarin. "The majority of Latin American governments pulled out the stops and condemned the coup, refusing to recognize those who carried it out." Trying times ahead for Venezuela By April 14, people of various political stripes said Carmona's actions sealed his fate almost as soon as he took office. His efforts to destroy with the stroke of a pen all vestiges of the Chavez "peaceful revolution" reinforced the suspicion that what had occurred was not a popular revolt but a coup by the business elite. "We overestimated the extent of popular resentment toward Chavez, and we also misjudged the true situation within the military," said Anibal Romero, an anti-Chavez political science professor at the Universidad Simon Bolivar. "The government is facing the challenge of governing a country that is split in half," said Education Minister Aristobulo Izturiz. "That has to be the main focus of our first Cabinet meeting with President Chavez." "The lesson from all these developments should be, for all of us, respect for political pluralism in this country, and for tolerance," said the minister, who added that in the crisis "there were Talibans [extremists] on both sides." National Guard commander Gen. Belisario Landis said the rupture within the military must be addressed. "We must repair it in the best way possible," he said. In addition, "a thorough investigation, with citizen participation, must be carried out to determine those responsible, on either side, for the events that occurred Thursday through Saturday," Carlos Correa of the human rights group Programa Venezolano de Educacion-Accion en Derechos Humanos (PROVEA) told Inter Press Service. Besides those killed on Thursday night, at least 25 were killed and scores injured on Saturday in the crackdown on the demonstrations in support of Chavez. Whatever happens, the significance of the response by Venezuelans who refused to accept a business-backed military coup cannot be overstated. Nor can the danger that those who planned it, both inside Venezuela and abroad, will try again. Journalist Bill Vann wrote that a failed uprising preceded the September 1973 military coup that overthrew the elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile. That attempt, like the move against Chavez, he said, showed the government's vulnerability. It also provided a dress rehearsal and allowed those plotting the coup to see which military units could be relied upon and which could not. [Sources: Prensa Libre (Guatemala), La Jornada (Mexico), 04/11/02; Reuters, 04/12-14/02; El Universal (Venezuela), 04/14/02; Radio Union (Venezuela), Tal Cual (Venezuela), The Wall Street Journal, 04/15/02; Spanish news service EFE, 04/11-13/02, 04/15/02, 04/16/02; Inter Press Service, 04/12-16/02; Notimex, 04/12/02, 04/14/02, 04/16/02; San Francisco Chronicle, 04/13/02, 04/15/02, 04/16/02; Clarin (Argentina), 04/15/02, 04/16/02; El Nuevo Herald (Miami), 04/16/02; Associated Press, 04/13-17/02; The Miami Herald, The Washington Post, 04/15-17/02] VENEZUELA: FAILED COUP IN VENEZUELA EXPOSES U.S. GOVERNMENT DOUBLE STANDARD & VENEZUELAN MEDIA BIAS While the dizzying events of April 11-14 in Venezuela were seen as a plus for democracy in Latin America, they were also an indictment of the US and the media. The US reaction to the failed coup against President Hugo Chavez brought criticism from around the world of the US's ambivalent commitment to democracy. And critics questioned the role of the Venezuela press in the coup and decried biased coverage in both the Venezuelan and US press. With Chavez back in power, the US must now try to rebuild some kind of relationship with him and repair the damage to its credibility as a champion of democracy, especially among Latin American nations. The reaction of US officials to the news that Chavez had been removed in a distinctly undemocratic fashion was undisguised relief. On April 12, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer discarded usual cautious diplomatic language to say that what had happened in Venezuela was a "change in government" and that Chavez got what he deserved. Writing on events in Venezuela, New York Times correspondent Tim Weiner asked, "When is a coup not a coup? When the United States says so, it seems--especially if the fallen leader is no friend to American interests." Weiner named several reasons US President George W. Bush might have wanted Chavez out, most notably the politics of oil. The US, Weiner wrote, has long "supported authoritarian regimes...in defense of its economic and political interests." On April 14, a White House statement said of Chavez's return, "The Chavez administration has an opportunity to respond to this message [from the people] by correcting its course and governing in a fully democratic manner." "We do hope that Chavez...takes advantage of this opportunity to right his own ship, which has been moving, frankly, in the wrong direction for quite a long time," said Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser, on Meet the Press April 14. She said Chavez "needs to respect constitutional processes." "Hers was an especially regrettable tutelary presentation," said retired US ambassador Robert White of the Center for International Policy. Rice's admonition to Chavez seemed incredible given the silence by any administration official for Carmona's abolishing the Constitution. At a daily briefing, State Department spokesman Philip Reeker was asked why the administration did not condemn the coup given US insistence on democratic rule around the world. Reeker said Washington believed reports that Chavez had resigned. He said Washington believes firmly in democratic rule and sees no discrepancy between that position and its earlier acceptance of Chavez's ouster. "I don't think it's undermined anybody's credibility," he said. Asked whether the administration now recognizes Chavez as Venezuela's legitimate president, one administration official replied, "He was democratically elected," then added, "Legitimacy is something that is conferred not just by a majority of the voters, however." The BBC said that Chavez's comeback has left Washington "looking rather stupid." Damage to US image The administration's stance has severely hurt Bush's credibility in Latin America, which could have fallout in his desire to craft the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The first time elected governance was interrupted under Bush's watch, his administration punted, said Washington Post Latin American correspondent Karen D. Young. "The US handled it badly, as is its wont," said a former Mexican official. US policy, he said, is "multilateralism a la carte and democracy a la carte." Arturo Valenzuela, the Latin America national security aide in the Clinton administration, said, "Unfortunately, the Bush administration did not seem to understand what was at stake in Venezuela." He said the Bush administration had trampled more than a decade of treaties and agreements for the collective defense of democracy. "I think it's a very negative development for the principle of constitutional government in Latin America," he said. "I think it's going to come back and haunt all of us." On April 16, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CN) blasted the Bush administration for failing to oppose the coup. "To stand silent while the illegal ouster of a government is occurring is deeply troubling and will have profound implications for hemispheric democracy," Dodd told the Senate foreign relations subcommittee, which he chairs. "I know Secretary [of State Colin] Powell is extremely preoccupied with events in the Middle East, but I would hope that in the future there would be more adult supervision of the policy formulation as it related to our own hemisphere." Dodd's remarks referred to Otto Reich, the Cuban-born assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs. Bush used a recess appointment to appoint Reich over Dodd's strong objections. Some analysts see the dominance on Bush's foreign policy team of anti-Castro hard-liners as one cause of the inept handling of the Venezuela crisis. Emerging reports of contacts between administration officials and Carmona and other coup leaders brought fresh questioning of the administration. Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said the chief of the Venezuelan military high command, Gen. Lucas Romero Rincon, had met recently with Rogelio Pardo-Maurer, deputy assistant defense secretary for western hemisphere affairs. She said Pardo-Maurer "made it very, very clear that the US intent was to support democracy, human rights, that we in no way would support any coups or unconstitutional activity." Pardo-Maurer served for three years as the chief of staff to the representative of the Nicaraguan contras during the 1980s. But administration officials gave conflicting accounts of what the US told Chavez's opponents would be acceptable ways of ousting him. A Defense Department official said the administration's message was ambiguous. "We were not discouraging people," he said. "We were sending informal, subtle signals that we don't like this guy. We didn't say, `No, don't you dare,' and we weren't advocates saying, `Here's some arms; we'll help you overthrow this guy.' We were not doing that." Citing an unidentified State Department official, The New York Times reported that Reich phoned Carmona on April 12 to warn him that dissolving the Asamblea Nacional would be "a stupid thing to do" and would provoke an outcry. Administration officials said the call showed that they had sought to uphold democratic processes in Venezuela, but the disclosure instead raised questions about whether Reich was orchestrating Carmona's actions. While the exact role of the US in the coup is unclear, and will probably remain so, the failure of the US to support constitutional law has convinced many Latin Americans that this is another instance of US support, if not instigation, of a coup against a perceived enemy. Graffiti on a Caracas wall expressed the sentiment of many Venezuelans. "Yankees, game over. You lost," it said. Role of the press questioned Chavez has had confrontations with the local press since assuming office. He has accused the media of abandoning its role of reporting the news to openly join the political opposition. He often attacked the news media--criticizing individuals by name--though he jailed none. He broadcast lengthy speeches that many saw as an abuse of his office. But, the Venezuelan media by any account is almost unanimously hostile to Chavez and has been since he took office. The local media convinced international media organizations and human rights groups that Chavez was harassing reporters and violating freedom of press. In March, the Sociedad Interamericana de Prensa (SIP) said that in Venezuela there was a "deliberate state policy to restrict the exercise of freedom of expression and the right to information." "The vacuum left with the traditional political parties' loss of power since the early 1990s was gradually filled by the media," said Eleazar Diaz Rangel, director of the daily Ultimas Noticias. He admitted that the editorial polices of some Venezuela media outlets "were very biased and had a very charged anti-government position." The confrontation between the president and the media reached its climax on April 8 and 9 when the government counteracted the media's massive coverage of the opposition strike by frequently interrupting regular radio and TV broadcasting with government bulletins. In turn, the stations deliberately caused interference with the signal and split the screen in half, with strike information on the second half. Angry that no coverage was given to pro-government activities, the president suspended all local TV broadcasts for several hours. "In a democratic society, this shouldn't happen," said Diaz Rangel. But he said the total blackout by radio and TV stations of news about the unraveling coup and the return of Chavez on April 13 was even worse. Instead, local stations broadcast soap operas and old movies. "Where are the television stations now?" said Alexi Martinez, a 40-year-old accountant, who joined in the pro-Chavez march. "They are nowhere." Venezuelans turned to international TV broadcasts on cable and satellite stations to find out what was happening in their country on Saturday, and "security reasons" kept most newspapers from putting out their Sunday editions. "I didn't feel there was a media conspiracy. But on Saturday I began to think there might be when the Carmona government was collapsing and Chavez's supporters were taking to the streets en masse, and you didn't see any of that on TV," Jose Suarez, a graduate student in social communications, told Inter Press Service. Jesse Chacon, president of Venezuela's telecommunications agency, said TV stations' conduct last week would be investigated. He condemned stations that failed to cover protests against Chavez's ouster and said they falsely depicted a calm to help the new regime. The Federacion Latinoamericana de Periodistas (Felap) issued a statement April 15 criticizing the Venezuelan press for not covering the popular reaction to the coup. "It is...regrettable that the principal Venezuela media blacked out the popular reaction that, from the first moment, was evident in the streets and near the Miraflores palace in support of the legal regime," said Felap. Felap also said that the local press gave extensive coverage to the attacks and criticism by SIP, "when despite the differences [between the government and the media] and the controversies, no media have been closed and no journalist has been persecuted or detained." In his press conference April 15, Chavez apologized to the media for verbally attacking them in the past. He also urged his supporters "not to bother" reporters and photojournalists who, he said, "are not responsible for the news policies of the media outlets they work for." Globovision director Alberto Ravell apologized for failing to broadcast the pro-Chavez protests Saturday, and he accepted Chavez's apology for earlier broadcast insults against Ravell and his father. "Two trains clashed here and those two trains left a little broken glass," he said. "The opposition has to clean up its glass, the government has to clean up its glass, and we, the communications media, have to pick up our glass." Communications analysts say the political crisis in Venezuela has raised the need to debate the media's responsibility to inform the public, above and beyond their own interests. Recent developments should "make us think about the kind of journalism we have been practicing, and what kind we want to practice," said Marcelino Bisbal, former director of the specialized journal Comunicacion. Not only journalists and editors, but the government as well, must reflect on that, said Bisbal, former head of the School of Social Communication at the Universidad Central. The response to the coup by US media has also come under criticism. In an April 16 column in the San Diego Union Tribune, Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, wrote, "One of the most shameful occurrences during the last few days was the support of America's leading newspapers for the Venezuelan coup. The New York Times and The Washington Post both resoundingly endorsed the military coup in their Saturday editorials. The editorial boards of these newspapers ought to engage in some serious soul-searching as to how they could so easily abandon the most fundamental principles of democracy. [Sources: Los Angeles Times, 04/13/02, 04/14/02; Workingforchange.com, 04/12/02, 04/15/02; BBC News (London), The Guardian (London), La Opinion (Los Angeles), Narconews.com, 04/15/02; Inter Press Service, 04/12-16/02; The Independent (London), The Irish Times, 04/15/02, 04/16/02; The Union Tribune (San Diego), The Toronto Star, Village Voice, 04/16/02; Associated Press, Vheadline.com, 04/13-17/02; Reuters, 04/12-17/02; The New York Times, 04/14/02, 04/15/02, 04/17/02; OneWorld.net, 04/17/02] ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org e-mail: nyt@blythe.org ================================================================= pvtsa-04.18.02-20:13:36-20368