 |
|
|
|
||
|
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
Version |
|
July
24, 2002, 8:45 a.m. By Thor Halvorssen |
|
resident Jimmy
Carter returned recently from Venezuela after a failed attempt at "mediating"
between President Hugo Chavez and the loose coalition of more than 30
groups that oppose his rule. Although reconciliation was unlikely, the
timing of Mr. Carter's very public visit may have prevented an outbreak
of violence on July 11, the three-month anniversary of the Caracas Massacre.
On April 11, more than one million people spilled into the Venezuelan capital to protest the government of Hugo Chavez. It was an unprecedented occurrence in Venezuela's history, both because of the size of this spontaneous event, and the ruthless, brutal, and intentionally malignant attack that followed. At least 50 innocent civilians were gunned down by the Círculos Bolivarianos a militia controlled by President Chavez (the Chavez government has yet to release the final tally and the names of the victims).
As they neared the presidential palace, singing the national anthem and dancing in the streets, the peaceful marchers were greeted with tear gas. Stunned and disoriented, those at the front of the crowd were sitting ducks for snipers placed atop government buildings (including the vice president's office). The Circulos Bolivarianos were waiting on a bridge, armed with government-issued semiautomatic weapons. Censored television footage of the massacre shows elected government officials shooting repeatedly and randomly into the crowd. A pregnant woman was killed; hundreds began to panic as bullets found their way into the bodies of men, women, and even children. They were viciously murdered for the simple reason that they opposed Chavez.
Chavez had ordered his militia (whose leadership was recruited from prisons) to act when his generals refused to fire upon innocent civilians. Appalled with the massacre, high-ranking military officers (including the military commander-in-chief) appeared on television announcing that they had asked for, and received, the president's resignation. They, too, resigned. The power vacuum was filled by a right-wing elitist civilian group that immediately (and foolishly) trampled the constitution. The next day, disillusioned and betrayed, the military allowed Chavez to take back control in a confusion that included the participation of the Cuban ambassador and CNN.
Dictators and tyrants from across the world sent in their congratulations: Iraq, Libya, Cuba, Iran, and China expressed celebration with the return of Chavez. It is not surprising that it was at the embassies of these countries that the henchmen of Chavez's "peaceful revolution" sought political asylum during the crisis.
Back in power, Chavez permitted his lawless militia to loot the city. "They opposed Chavez, now they have to pay" said a man to a television interviewer as he carried a microwave oven out of a looted electronics store. Hundreds of family-owned businesses were destroyed in one day of pillage. There had been no looting the day Chavez was out of power — only celebrating.
Chavez swept into power three years ago after a spectacular electoral rise. Chavez played the justified indignation of the poor and disenfranchised, manipulating it to increase his personal power. He pitted the masses against the middle class, dismissed the entire legislative and judicial branch, rewrote the constitution (that he has trampled numerous times), and has presided over the most dishonest and corrupt administration in the country's history.
In creating a "new" Venezuela (complete with a name change for the country) Chavez destroyed the old one. He has methodically recreated every focus of potential opposition in order to become its master. Every government agency, from the ministry of education to the government-run oil company, serves the revolution. Outside observers are quick to demand that civil society, using democratic means, bring about a change. They fail to consider that civil society has been suffocated by competing government-funded special-interest groups. Chavez has removed potential opposition from the business sector by presiding over a government that has witnessed more bankruptcies in the private sector than all previous governments combined. Small businesses have suffered the most. Civil society is lifeless in Venezuela because Chavez made it so.
After three years of preaching hatred, the government continues in a state of permanent class war. The revolutionary project has no timeline and the abstract enemy changes depending on the current needs of the government. In the long run, Chavez is not interested in improving the conditions of the population nor in unifying the country. His rule depends precisely on a society divided against itself with limited political and economic freedom. Tens of thousands have emigrated. Millions are unemployed. Like Fidel Castro, Chavez needs an underclass in squalor in order to maintain his rule. His terrorist acts on April 11 are not just means at his disposal, they demonstrate his true goals. A comparison can be made to Chavez's allies in the Middle East: A tyrannical mindset. The root cause of the fanatical militancy that gunned down children on April 11 is totalitarianism; it would not spring from a government and culture that champions democracy and peace. Chavez was democratically elected but became a dictator. The Caracas Massacre reminds us, in the most horrible way, that Chavez means it when he publicly declares, as he did last week, that he will rule until 2021. Now that the opposition is diluted and in total disarray, he will slowly begin to consolidate his power. Chavez speaks of reconciliation but his government has begun twisting the events of April 11 to criminally charge all remaining dissidents.
Already Venezuela's secret service, the DISIP, has accumulated thousands of files on every military officer, classifying them into those who support the "revolution" and those who remain loyal to the constitution. Those who disobeyed the order to shoot civilians will be removed. By the end of next month, ranks will be rearranged, promotions awarded, and troops reorganized to prevent a further threat to his rule. It is inconceivable that a restoration of democracy and constitutional order can occur without the participation of the Venezuelan military. With a proud tradition of having restored democracy four times (the last time when Chavez himself led a bloody revolt against the democracy in 1992), it is the only element that can stop Chavez. If the military corps is swallowed up by the revolution all hope is lost for democracy.
Meanwhile, in the United States, partisan interests seek to turn Venezuela into a political quagmire for the Bush administration by alleging a U.S. State Department role in the temporary ouster of Chavez. As if voicing concern about a democratically elected tyrant who finances and supports terrorist groups in Latin America (including the FARC and ELN) and orders the murder of innocent civilians is a terrible thing. It would be sensible if the Bush administration were to aid the scattered and weakened opposition groups in Caracas. The U.S. Congress should consider hearings, not about a false State Department conspiracy but instead about the threat Chavez poses to safety in the hemisphere. The truth about Chavez has yet to be told. There are numerous willing witnesses. They could start with the Caracas Massacre and expose these intolerable human-rights abuses to the sunlight of public opinion.
Regrettably, April 11 will soon fade from memory. No one will honor those dead. No one will account for them. The slaughtered innocents of April 11 will be neatly carved out of history because they are an inconvenient reminder that Venezuela is not free and that difficult choices will have to be made in order to restore democracy.
— Thor Halvorssen was ambassador-at-large for the Republic of Venezuela and served as executive director of the Pan-American Committee of the International Society for Human Rights based in Frankfurt, Germany.