Audiencia ante el Comité de Relaciones Exteriores
del Senado de los Estados Unidos
(Hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate)

Prensa Nacional e Internacional
Nota de prensa por María Gabriela Fabio
Reseñas de Alexandra Beech y Gustavo Coronel
Traducciones al español de los testimonios por Maritza Ramírez de Agena
25 de Junio de 2004


Nota de Prensa. El día jueves 24 de Junio de 2004, se llevó a cabo en Washington D.C. una Audiencia ante el Comité de Relaciones Exteriores del Senado Norteamericano sobre la situación de la democracia en Venezuela. Entre los senadores presentes estuvieron Norm Coleman, Christopher Dodd y Bill Nelson.

El Primer Panel de discusión estuvo compuesto por Roger Noriega, subsecretario de Estado para el Hemisferio Occidental, y por John Maisto, representante de Estados Unidos ante la Organización de los Estados Americanos.

El Segundo Panel estuvo compuesto por Jennifer McCoy, del Centro Carter; José Miguel Vivanco, de Human Rights Watch; Miguel Díaz, director para Sudamérica del Centro de Estudios Internacionales y Estratégicos; Roger Tissot y Mark Weisbrot.

Roger Noriega indicó que los venezolanos hoy afrontan un ambiente económico difícil. El continuo desasosiego social y político combinado con el mal manejo económico han afectado seriamente la economía del país. El nivel de vida ha caído bruscamente, con ingresos per cápita que cayeron en un 25% entre 1998 y 2003. Esto ha pasado a pesar de los altos precios internacionales de la exportación principal de Venezuela, el petróleo. La caída en el ingreso ha conducido a un aumento de la pobreza. La proporción de venezolanos que viven en pobreza crítica incrementó del 21% en 1998 al 33% en 2002, exacerbando la situación de los más vulnerables.

"Los Estados Unidos y la comunidad internacional están juntos apoyando las aspiraciones democráticas de los venezolanos", dijo Noriega

El embajador John Maisto declaró que la comunidad internacional debe permanecer vigilante para asegurar que las organizaciones de los ciudadanos democráticos en Venezuela puedan seguir ejerciendo libremente sus derechos constitucionales y puedan participar en el proceso electoral, en concordancia con el acuerdo político de Mayo de 2003.

El Senador Coleman, señaló a la audiencia sus tres principales preocupaciones en relación a la situación actual de Venezuela:
1) Su primera preocupación es en relación a la necesaria presencia de la OEA y el Centro de Carter en el proceso de Referendo en Venezuela para así dar credibilidad a los acontecimientos.
2) Su segunda preocupación es en relación a las máquinas de votación que el gobierno de Venezuela ha anunciado que empleará.
3) Y su tercera preocupación es en relación a los anuncios recientes sobre la reestructuración de la Corte Suprema de Venezuela.

El Senador Bill Nelson, indicó que según el Artículo 72 de la constitución venezolana, el referendo revocatorio está fijado para el 15 de agosto y hay mucha incertidumbre que lo rodea. De hecho, la única razón por la cual el Referendo Revocatorio está avanzando es por la presión intensa y el escrutinio ejercido por la comunidad internacional.

Hay varios posibles obstáculos en el camino. Uno es la posibilidad de una manipulación de los resultados debido a una tecnología sospechosa, dijo el Senador Nelson.

Jennifer McCoy, señaló que "si los resultados del referendo revocatorio son muy cercanos, ambas partes estarán tentadas a argumentar que el fraude o la manipulación afectaron los resultados. Por lo tanto, se necesita la mayor transparencia para aumentar la confianza de los venezolanos en los resultados".

Miguel Díaz, declaró que es importante poner sobre aviso a las autoridades electorales de que los ojos del mundo están sobre ellos y que ellos serán responsables ante la comunidad internacional de cualquier intento en alterar los resultados del proceso electoral. "El derecho a votar es un derecho humano y aquellos que violen este sacrosanto privilegio violan los derechos humanos. Lo que es importante no es que las elecciones tengan lugar, sino que se realicen en un ambiente transparente. Después de todo, en Cuba hay elecciones, pero todos sabemos que estas no hacen de Cuba una democracia".

A continuación, los testimonios del Senador Norm Coleman, del Senador Bill Nelson y de los diferentes panelistas durante la audiencia ante el Comité de Relaciones Exteriores del Senado Americano:

• Testimonios de los Senadores Norm Coleman and Bill Nelson / Statements by Senator Norm Coleman & Senator Bill Nelson (En Inglés / In English y/and En Español / In Spanish)

• Testimonios / Statements (En Inglés / In English)

• Alexandra Beech's observations on the hearing

• A U.S. Senate Hearing on Venezuela by Gustavo Coronel

• Reseñas de la Audiencia en la Prensa Nacional e Internacional:
» El Nuevo Herald: Noriega elogia logro de "solución electoral" en Venezuela
» El Universal: Senado de Estados Unidos analizó democracia en Venezuela

• Galería de Fotos - Grupo 11abril.com





• Testimonios de los Senadores Norm Coleman and Bill Nelson / Statements by Senator Norm Coleman & Senator Bill Nelson
Para poder leer los testimonios, usted deberá tener instalado en su computador el programa Adobe Reader. En caso de no tenerlo, puede bajar una copia gratuita usando el siguiente enlace: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

» En Inglés / In English
» En Español / In Spanish


• Testimonios / Statements (En Inglés)
Para poder leer los testimonios, usted deberá tener instalado en su computador el programa Adobe Reader. En caso de no tenerlo, puede bajar una copia gratuita usando el siguiente enlace: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html


Panel 1
» The Honorable Roger F. Noriega, Assistant Secretary, Western Hemisphere Affairs.

» The Honorable John F. Maisto, United States Permanent Representative to the Organization of American States.

Panel 2
» Dr. Jennifer McCoy, Director of the Americas Program Carter Center.

» Mr. Jose M. Vivanco, Executive Director Americas Division Human Rights Watch.

» Mr. Miguel Díaz, Director Americas Program (MERCOSUR/South America) - Center for Strategic and International Studies.

» Mr. Roger Tissot, Director of Markets and Countries Group Latin America PFC Energy.

» Dr. Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director Center for Economic and Policy Research.


• Alexandra Beech's observations on the hearing
The following are my personal observations on the hearing:
- The government-funded Venezuelan Information Office (VIO) arrived early at the US Senate hearing, like my friends and me. As visitors streamed into the section for public seating, they walked in carrying discreet white boxes filled with stapled sheets, which they handed out during the hearing. The first of the fifteen pages of their hand-out, titled “Venezuela’s Opposition: Setting the Stage for Violence?”, contains dated information, such as “[a] decision is forthcoming, and will be finalized on June 4, 2004...” The packet is a hodgepodge of articles from the National Catholic Reporter, as well as their own memos. It looks like what a college student would compile before writing a paper. There may be a good reason for this. Most of the VIO don’t look much older than college students, and most of them don’t look Venezuelan. They were being directed by an older blond woman and a man in a grey suit who was the first to arrive, even before they opened the door. Curious, I asked him if he was Mark Weisbrot. “I wish,” he joked. He was the only one with an overall nice demeanor. “There’s help for that,” I responded, and we both laughed. When the hearing coordinator noticed a VIO person handing out the packets, he ordered him to stop. I felt frustrated that my country is being represented in Washington by these kids, still walking around in back packs. I felt frustrated that Venezuelan Americans who were there because they love their country were denied entrance to the first panel because half the VIO office was there working. I also felt frustrated because the Venezuelan government violated the general democratic principles of a US Senate hearing, which is to allow both sides to be heard in peace. Even in the US, freedom of expression is a sham to them.

- Jeremy Bigwood, who revealed that the National Endowment for Democracy had provided funding for opposition groups, ambled in holding a camera. This time, he was wearing his photographer’s hat. Last year, when he interviewed me in Washington, he told me that he was writing an article for UPI. When he took my picture before the hearing, I walked over and introduced myself. He was taken off-guard, because in his hat as a photographer, Mr. Bigwood is a discreet man. This time, he said he was working “independently”. Then he walked over and sat on the floor right in front of the senators. During the hearing, I was bemused by the irony that the man responsible for their discussion on NED funding and the ensuing arrest warrants against Sumate was curled up inches away from their toes. After the hearing, Bigwood walked up and said that he remembered me, before saying goodbye. This morning, a relative Googled him. It turns out that on October 26, 2001, he was denied press credentials on Capitol Hill because the media outlet he represented was “too editorial”. When he represents himself, he is even more so. Today his photographs appeared in the government-funded vheadline site. So much for independence.

- Ambassador Bernardo Alvarez streamed in and walked around uncomfortably. It must feel uncomfortable to be in a room filled with employees or people from your own country who generally disagree with everything that you represent. It must be even more uncomfortable to know that a US Senate hearing is about to take place in which the government you represent will be asked to stop tampering with its own electoral and justice systems, and with guerrillas. He sat next to Jennifer McCoy, who seemed to enjoy his company. Even though he was formally thanked for his presence, Senator Coleman did not stick around to say hello afterwards.

- One panelist was annoyed that more senators weren’t there, given the strategic importance of Venezuela for the region. Those who were there, including Senator Coleman who called the hearing, Senator Nelson from Florida, and Senator Dodd from Connecticut, generally expressed concern about the untested electoral machines that the government planned to use for the referendum, the new Supreme Court packing law which could influence the outcome of the referendum, and the presence of international observers. Nelson spoke with his usual bravado, saying that the US should consider labeling Venezuela an unfriendly and hostile nation if it does not abide by democratic principles. A chill came over the room when he said he was “quite concerned about the future of our relations for President Chavez has made some outrageous statements such as praising Iraqi insurgents who attack American soldiers. He has also tried to use his oil supply relationship to leverage small nations in the Caribbean, in some cases to get them to oppose US policies. President Chavez has threatened to cut all oil exports to the United States.”

- During the second panel, Miguel Diaz from the Center for Strategic and International Studies was particularly succinct. Other panelists, such as Vivanco, wavered in their testimonies. Yes, the government’s action are dubious, Vivanco said, and yes, it has violated human rights, but the opposition attempted to overthrow Chavez in April 2002. On April 11, Chavez activated Plan Avila, which gave the military discretionary power to shoot unarmed civilians. Many generals rebelled against that, particularly when snipers started shooting an opposition march and nineteen people died. Why has the government never investigated the identity of the snipers? Which opposition leaders planned and executed the so-called “coup”? Where’s the evidence of the pre - April 11 planning that Mr. Weisbrot purports to have? Carmona’s failed reaction was an improvisation, not the culmination of master plan. Diaz described Chavez as “generally held in low esteem, boorish, and at best incompetent.” However, he said Chavez poses a threat, not only to Venezuelan democracy, but to regional stability as well. “What makes Chavez frightfully dangerous is that thanks to oil he has the financial wherewithal to support many of the anti-systemic forces that are festering throughout the region. Currently, the government has approximately US$24 billion in foreign exchange reserves available. Chavez has been sponsoring forces of questionable democratic credentials in Bolivia and Ecuador – all countries that are faltering in their commitment to democracy, where the balance could be tipped by this kind of intervention.”

- Senator Dodd, who has defended Chavez in the past, had to eat a little humble pie yesterday. There’s not a lot to defend now, when every institution in Venezuela has lost its autonomy. At the hearing, Dodd seemed obsessed with Roger Noriega, bullying him from the pulpit about statements that he made months ago about whether the opposition had gathered enough signatures. Even when Secretary Noriega clarified the issue, Dodd stuck to it. It seemed like a bad episode of Law and Order, where the cross examiner will not let go. “Move on, Senator Dodd”, is what a judge would have said. Even when Noriega left, Senator Dodd pursued the issue.

- Mark Weisbrot testified on behalf of the government. He said that he doesn’t receive funds from them, but he mingled a bit too much with the VIO to be completely independent. I don’t share back-packs with Enrique Mendoza or Cecilia Sosa. After his testimony, it seemed that the senators had heard enough of Weisbrot. Coleman, a Minnesotan not prone to impatience, stopped him from talking further, especially after Mr. Weisbrot wavered on whether it was OK that Maria Corina Machado and Alejandro Plaaz were being indicted for treason. Senators who have met Machado know that she is no Benedict Arnold. When Weisbrot approached Jennifer McCoy, he seemed to receive a cold shoulder, so he was left to the consolation of the VIO Bunch, who helped him carry his folders and “evidence” of plots.

- The hearing sent a clear message to Chavez that the US will not simply stand by if he ignores the country’s constitution. The senators agreed to continue supporting the efforts of the OAS and the Carter Center, which they praised extensively.

Alexandra Beech
ab@sixthrepublic.com


• A U.S. Senate Hearing on Venezuela by Gustavo Coronel - June 25, 2004
The Committee on Foreign Relations of the US Senate recently held an open hearing on Venezuela. I attended since the theme was of interest to me and I had never attended such an event. I found it very interesting and illustrative of the differences in approach to civic rights in the US and in Venezuela. I walked to the Dirksen Building, the place where the audience was going to be held, went through a metal detector placed at the door and I was in. No one asked me questions or looked at me with suspicion or airs of superiority. Last time I was at our Venezuelan Congress, now National Assembly, I had to climb the iron gates of the place in order to get in and out, since the Chávez followers had the place locked out and threw insults and eggs at the members of the opposition.

Although I arrived 30 minutes early, the large room was already full. The guard standing by the door asked me to wait in line, until he identified an open place for me. From my seat I could see a lady sitting in a corner, who seemed to be in intensive care, with something like an oxygen mask in her face. I felt sorry for her until I found out with relief that nothing was wrong with her. She was the translator. In a hearing of this type the witnesses face the congressmen, not the audience. The congressmen present included Senators Coleman, Nelson and Dodd while the witnesses or experts giving testimony included Roger Noriega, John F. Maisto, both high level officers of the US Government; Jennifer McCoy of the Carter Center; Jose Vivanco, of Human Rights Watch; Miguel Diaz, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank; Roger Tissot, an oil expert and Mark Weisbrot, of the center for Economic and Policy Research.

Among those in the audience I recognized Chávez's ambassadors Alvarez and Valero, accompanied by some members of their staff, an umkempt photographer whom I was told was Jeremy Bigwood the guy who "unearthed" the documents related to the National Endowment for Democracy's (NED) contributions to SUMATE, later used by Chávez to accuse SUMATE's coordinators of "treason;" the experienced journalist Everet Baumann; Pedro Maria Burelli; talented analyst on Venezuela Alexandra Beech and several others.

As I arrived, Senator Nelson was saying that "Venezuela could become a nation unfriendly to the US" on the basis of the aggressive attitudes of President Chávez and of his lax treatment of Latin American terrorists. Roger Noriega said that the US government policy towards Venezuela is based on total support for the efforts of the OAS and The Carter Center to find an electoral and peaceful solution to the problems of Venezuela. He emphasized that the government of the United States totally supported the "people" of Venezuela, in clear contrast to the government of Venezuela. Noriega described the extreme deterioration of the Venezuelan economy, the increase in poverty levels, the increase in corruption, the decline in oil production and the deterioration of PDVSA as a reliable oil supplier. He criticized the imprisonment of Henrique Capriles and the indictment of SUMATE leaders for "treason." He also mentioned the intervention of the judicial system by the government and admitted that military ties between the US and Venezuela had been severed. Noriega was very severe in his evaluation of the Chávez government and left no doubt as to where the current US government stands in this matter.

John Maisto, the US Ambassador to the OAS, remarked that there is an OAS resolution calling for a peaceful and electoral solution to the Venezuelan crisis but that the Venezuelan government had been less than cooperative in insuring such a process. He said that observers of the signature collection process had been harassed and that the OAS itself had been the object of vicious attacks by the Venezuelan Ambassador Valero, attacks that he had felt obliged to answer. When talking about the charges against NED, Maisto quoted a Latin American leader who was very critical of this organization. The leader was . . . Augusto Pinochet, a dictator. NED, Maisto suggested, was not liked by dictators.

Dr. Jennifer McCoy reviewed the process of signature collection in Venezuela and listed the complexities of the rules made up by the National Electoral Council (CNE). She said that some of the rules had been changed during the process and she left the impression in the room that these changes had influenced the results which led to one million signatures being invalidated and which forced a new signature collection process. She also said that international observers should be accepted by the government and that she had been told that both the OAS and The Carter Center would be invited (they had not been invited yet). What Dr. McCoy did not know at the moment was that the rules just imposed by the CNE for the observers are extremely rigid and will render their work point less than useless, unless they are modified. Senator Nelson asked Dr. McCoy if she knew that many of those people signing against Chávez had been harassed by the government and that numerous ID cards had been confiscated. McCoy replied that no confiscation had been detected and that harassment was very hard to document. In fact, I add, harassment was extreme during the process, led by those Paleolithic members of the Venezuelan armed forces loyal to Chávez.

Jose Vivanco started his testimony saying that Venezuela "was a democracy today" but that journalists had been increasingly attacked, largely those opposed to the government. He showed extreme concern about the projected law of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ), which would be passed to increase the number of members from 20 to 32 and to allow the National Assembly to dismiss members and to name new ones by simple majority. This he defined as a political take over of the Venezuela Judicial System. He also said that the passing of this law should be suspended by the Chávez government because, if passed, it could influence the results of the referendum and of all actions derived from it. In his definition of current Venezuela as a democracy, Vivanco was probably trying to sound conciliatory, for the sake of trying to impede the passing of the law that worries him (and us) so much. In truth Venezuela is not a democracy today. Checks and balances have disappeared, the president does not listen nor respects the opposition, and there exists constant and increasing abuse of power and total impunity against corruption, since the institutions have ceased to do their indispensable controlling tasks.

Roger Tissot mentioned that Venezuela would probably remain as the most important producer and exporter of the hemisphere but admitted to senator Dodd that much of the money that should be dedicated to maintenance and reinvestment by PDVSA was being diverted to social programs, which I add, have no clear objectives and lack accountability, two sure components of corruption.

The Chávez government champion designate was Mark Weisbrot, a US citizen who has embraced the Chávez revolution as his own. In doing so he has been systematically biased although his writings are adorned with an academic air that lends them credibility in some sectors. In the hearing he was not fortunate. He said: "Anyone who calls the Venezuelan government authoritarian is in need of a dictionary, or perhaps needs to see the place." Well, I have three dictionaries. All of them speak of the word as meaning: Favoring absolute obedience to authority. Now, Mark, is this not the accurate description of Mr. Chávez's government? Remember when he came back from a trip and found out that the clear majority of the members of the Constituent had rejected the name of Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela? Do you remember how he called them in, like a primary school bunch and gave them a big scolding and how they meekly ran back to Congress and approved the name? I have lived most of the Chávez nightmare in Venezuela, so do not tell me that I do not know the place. Would you say that Isaias Rodriguez, the Attorney General, or Mr. Mundarain, the Ombudsman or Mr. Russian, the Comptroller or Mr. Ameliach, the President of the National Assembly or Ivan Rincon, the president of the TSJ, or Jorge Rodriguez, the vice-president of the CNE are honorable and independent servers of the people, in preference to being blindly loyal to Chávez? If you do, you would be the laughing stock of Venezuelans. Would you say that a five hour compulsory national TV and radio is a democratic event? The fact that he allows freedom of expression is not a sign of tolerance on his part but a sign of impotence. He does not dare to eliminate that freedom because this would seal his doom. You mentioned the grants made by NED to SUMATE at the same time that one of your friends was distributing in the room a pamphlet by the Venezuela Information Office, a propaganda outlet entirely funded by the Venezuelan government, with the monies of Venezuelan taxpayers. At least SUMATE was working for the improvement of the electoral process with the $53,000 it received. But this government propaganda aims at keeping Chávez in power with our money. And what about Patton Boggs' contract for $1.2 million, just to say that Chávez is wonderful? I have to challenge your assertion that my old and civilized friend Jose Antonio Gil said what you quoted him as saying. I will let him know what you said in the US congress, that he wanted Chávez dead. At least you were decent enough to say that you did not approve of the SUMATE representatives being accused of treason. In what democracy can this harassment take place? I think your defense of the Chávez regime was very half-hearted because you could not bring yourself to lie openly before the US congress. I think this speaks well of you. I am glad that, as you claimed in your statement, you are not a mercenary because many of the other Chávez champions are hired guns.

The star of the hearing was Senator Christopher Dodd. He asked very pertinent questions which had Weisbrot looking very uncomfortable. He also said that PDVSA was using the oil money in government projects that had nothing to do with the required PDVSA investments. He suggested that the performance of the Venezuelan government in the fight against terrorism was poor. He said that Chávez was the chief culprit in the strain in US-Venezuelan relations. He said Chávez should not try to impede the referendum or manipulate it in any manner. He knew about the new fanatical tutor of Chavez, Hans Dieterich, and about his recent admissions that if Chávez goes this would be a major blow to the Colombian guerrillas and to all the forces of anarchy now loose in the hemisphere. Dietrich advised Chávez not to surrender power peacefully. Great democratic advice! Dodd made an unsolicited comment about Gustavo Cisneros. He said: "I have a great respect for Gustavo Cisneros." He condemned the attack on Rafael Marin. He left no doubt that, although he opposes the current US government, he is fully aligned with the anti-Chávez stance which clearly predominates in Washington.

The hearing left me the impression that Chávez is totally isolated, as far as US public opinion is concerned. His followers are losing heart after recent scandals of corruption in PDVSA and several other government agencies have been made public by dissident Assembly deputy Rondon. Even Lina Ron the fiery street agitator that leads Chávez's shock troops has recently accused the government party of great corruption. The ship of government is leaking in many different places and the rats are avidly jumping out.
Source: venezuelatoday.net

• Reseñas de la Audiencia en la Prensa Nacional e Internacional
» El Nuevo Herald: Noriega elogia logro de "solución electoral" en Venezuela
Junio 24, 2004
NESTOR IKEDA
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - El subsecretario de Estado Roger Noriega elogió el jueves a los venezolanos por haber superado "enormes obstáculos" y sacar adelante una "solución electoral" a la crisis política de su país.

La afirmación fue formulada en una audiencia ante un panel del Comité de Relaciones Exteriores del Senado y estuvo precedida por una abierta amenaza del senador demócrata Bill Nelson de declarar al gobierno de Caracas "inamistoso y hostil" si el presidente Hugo Chávez continuaba con su retórica contra Estados Unidos.

Noriega, a cargo de los asuntos del Hemisferio Occidental, dijo que el referéndum revocatorio del mandato de Chávez convocado para el 15 de agosto es "un testamento del deseo de parte de una mayoría de venezolanos para resolver sus diferencias pacíficamente".

La intervención de Noriega estuvo precedida por introducciones de los senadores Norm Coleman, presidente del subcomité para asuntos interamericanos, y de Nelson, quien en un lenguaje duro lanzó las amenazas al gobierno de Chávez.

Nelson, senador por la Florida, dijo que había "preocupación" por la comprobada cooperación en materia de inteligencia entre Chávez y el gobierno cubano del presidente Fidel Castro, así como por su disposición a acoger en territorio venezolano a miembros del grupo guerrillero Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC).

Indicó que a ello se unía el hecho de que Chávez ha elogiado la insurgencia iraquí contra los militares estadounidenses y amenazado con cortar el abastecimiento de petróleo a Estados Unidos, lo cual dijo que sería "lamentable" para un país que ha sido considerado como "un aliado tradicional nuestro".

"Si continúa el gobierno de Venezuela con esa posición, no nos quedará más que declarar al gobierno venezolano como inamistoso y hostil a los Estados Unidos", dijo.

Noriega, hablando con reporteros después de su intervención, dijo que Nelson "habló de muchas cosas... y está bien informado, pero yo quería en esta audiencia reafirmar nuestras relaciones cordiales, constructivas y beneficiosas con Venezuela".

Coleman admitió que las relaciones bilaterales "están en una situación difícil" y que "la desconfianza recíproca no se relaciona totalmente al manejo (por Estados Unidos) del intento de golpe del 2002".

"Pese a esos malos sentimientos, creo que debemos continuar el trabajo con los venezolanos allí donde sea posible la búsqueda de objetivos comunes", dijo Coleman. "Debemos cooperar en la lucha antidrogas y contra el terrorismo... e ir más allá de la retórica hostil que proviene de Caracas".

El senador Christopher Dodd, también demócrata, pidió al gobierno venezolano "respeto a las reglas electorales establecidas en la constitución" y garantizar que el proceso de votación sea "libre y justo".

"Si los venezolanos votan por la revocación de su presidencia, él no debe hacer esfuerzo alguno para impedir una nueva elección presidencial", dijo Dodd. "Si los venezolanos afirman su presidencia, no puede haber represalias contra sus opositores".

John Maisto, embajador estadounidense ante la Organización de los Estados Americanos, denunció el trato dado por miembros del gobierno de Chávez a instituciones no gubernamentales que trabajan por la promoción de la democracia y los ataques lanzados contra la propia presencia de funcionarios de la OEA en el país.

Pero dijo que las reglas del juego estaban dadas y que "las próximas semanas serán cruciales para el futuro de la democracia en Venezuela".

"La observación internacional... del proceso será indispensable para asegurarse una creíble, justa y transparente elección revocatoria", afirmó.

El Centro Carter, que con la OEA participó en una misión facilitadora del diálogo entre oposición y gobierno, informó que el proceso político para llegar al punto de la convocatoria del referéndum había tomado "más de lo esperado".

En adelante "se requiere de la mayor transparencia posible a fin de mejorar la confianza de los venezolanos en los resultados", dijo Jennifer McCoy, directora regional del Centro Carter.

Miguel Díaz, director para Sudamérica del Centro de Estudios Internacionales y Estratégicos (CSIS), declaró que "aun cuando el futuro de la democracia venezolana depende de los propios venezolanos, la comunidad internacional puede hacer una importante contribución".

José Miguel Vivanco, director para las Américas del grupo de derechos humanos Human Rights Watch, dijo que la principal preocupación de la comunidad internacional en Venezuela "debería ser la ayuda al país para fortalecer sus instituciones democráticas".

» El Universal: Senado de Estados Unidos analizó democracia en Venezuela
RUTA DEMOCRATICA / Senado de Estados Unidos analizó democracia en Venezuela.
La observación internacional es garantía de transparencia.
25 de Junio de 2004

Para el embajador ante la ONU, John Maisto, la observación internacional durante los comicios que se llevarán acabo el 15 de agosto "es indispensable para asegurar una creíble, justa y transparente elección revocatoria".
MARIA ELENA MATHEUS
ESPECIAL PARA EL UNIVERSAL

Washington. El gobierno del presidente Hugo Chávez no ha invitado oficialmente a la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA) para que envíe una misión de observadores a fin de garantizar la transparencia del proceso de referendo revocatorio, alertó el embajador John F. Maisto, representante de Estados Unidos ante el ente hemisférico, durante la audiencia que tuvo lugar ante el Comité de Relaciones Exteriores del Senado norteamericano sobre la situación de la democracia en Venezuela.

Por su parte, el subsecretario de Estado para el Hemisferio Occidental, Roger Noriega, advirtió que a pesar de que el bienestar de la democracia en Venezuela se basa en los venezolanos, la comunidad internacional puede hacer una importante contribución al fortalecimiento de la democracia en ese país.

El embajador de Venezuela en Washington, Bernardo Alvarez, presente en la audiencia, dijo a El Universal : "Claro que vamos a invitar a la OEA". Pero el embajador ante la OEA, Jorge Valero, fue más cauto y simplemente respondió: "Es probable que habrá una invitación".

Noriega declaró: "Algunos en el Gobierno de Venezuela han tratado de describir el próximo referendo como una confrontación entre EEUU-Venezuela. Nada está más lejos de la verdad. El referendo es una oportunidad _prevista en la Constitución venezolana_ para que los venezolanos elijan, a través del voto, el curso del futuro de su país".

Es importante avisar a las autoridades electorales de Venezuela que "los ojos de la comunidad internacional están enfocados en Venezuela y que rendirán cuenta a la comunidad internacional por cualquier intento de alterar el voto, no importa de parte de qué lado. El derecho a votar es un derecho humano y aquellos que violen este sacrosanto privilegio violan los derechos humanos", declaró.

Miguel Díaz, director del Programa para Suramérica del Centro para Estudios Internacionales Estratégicos (CSIS) dijo: "Lo importante no es que las elecciones tengan lugar, sino asegurar que el ambiente en que se realicen no sea de temor. Después de todo, Cuba también tiene elecciones, pero nosotros sabemos que no hacen de Cuba una democracia", indicó Díaz.

Garantizar transparencia
Por su parte, Jennifer McCoy, directora para las Américas del Centro Carter, dijo a El Universal que estaba preocupada por el reglamento para la observación internacional que prepara el CNE, "aunque nosotros no damos resultados".

McCoy dijo en la audiencia que si los resultados del referendo revocatorio son muy cercanos, ambas partes "estarán tentadas a argumentar que fraude o manipulación afectaron los resultados. Por lo tanto, se necesita la mayor transparencia para aumentar la confianza de los venezolanos en los resultados".

Para evitar este problema, McCoy hizo una serie de recomendaciones como auditar la lista de votantes (REP) y probar las máquinas de votación sensibles al tacto con votaciones simuladas.

Estima también que los observadores internacionales deben tener acceso a todo el proceso desde su inicio hasta su culminación.

Habló también de la importancia de la clara regulación de los medios para asegurar el mismo acceso por ambas partes y un clima de respeto y tolerancia.

Evitar desvíos
El senador Bill Nelson advirtió que "hay que evitar que el proceso sea desviado. No permitiremos la subversión de la democracia en Venezuela porque amenazaría al resto de la región".

Nelson se mostró preocupado porque Chávez ha elogiado la insurgencia iraquí contra los militares estadounidenses y amenazó con cortar el abastecimiento de petróleo en Estados Unidos, lo cual según dijo sería "lamentable para un país que ha sido considerado como aliado nuestro".

Nelson dijo que "si continúa con esa posición, no nos queda más que declararlo como inamistoso y hostil a EEUU", según AP.

Por su parte el senador Christopher J. Dodd, demócrata por Connecticut, declaró: "El referendo revocatorio constituye un desarrollo importante para un gobierno representativo en Venezuela, pero es sólo el primero de muchos pasos".

Advirtió que el presidente Chávez debe respetar las reglas constitucionales.

Denuncian conspiración
El presidente Chávez denunció al Gobierno de EEUU "de estar tramando de nuevo una conspiración para arremeter contra Venezuela, aprovechando la coyuntura del referendo presidencial".

Durante la juramentación de 10 mil patrullas electorales del Estado Carabobo, acto transmitido inicialmente en cadena de radio y televisión, el jefe de Estado instó al pueblo a "defender la soberanía nacional" de las supuestas acciones de EEUU.


Galería de Fotos
Hacer click aquí para ver galería de fotos completa.

De Izq. a derecha: Alexandra Beech, María G. Fabio, Jorge Combellas y Maritza Ramírez de Agena		Audiencia
Senadores Norm Coleman & Dodd		Senador Bill Nelson
John Maisto		Jennifer McCoy & Maritza Ramírez de Agena
José Vivanco & Maritza Ramírez de Agena		José Vivanco & Jorge Combellas
Miguel Díaz		Gustavo Coronel & María G. Fabio