April 8, 2004

Back now...

After a very nice, break. I avoided talking Venezuela and even - gasp - read a novel (R.K. Narayan's The Vendor of Sweets - heartily recommended to fellow Hinduphiles.)


I did have one interesting Venezuela-centered conversation, though. Went something like:


Him: Think about it, Quico, under normal circumstances we would NEVER have agreed to something as outlandish as a recall referendum in the constitution. It's absurd Bracketing the craziness of the Chavez era, NO ONE could have convinced us that a provision like that, which violates the secrecy of one's political stance - a cornerstone of democratic systems - made any sense.


Me: But we need a recall so bad now...


Him: a-we don't need it, b-we can't force the government to hold it, c-the government won't hold it. Anything else is wishful thinking. The opposition simply has no mechanism that allows it to force the government to do something it doesn't want to on a topic as sensitive as this. So, we just have to get used to the idea of Chavez until 2007. People who say the country can't bear it any longer really should've learned their lesson by now. Of course the country can bear it that long...and longer if that's what it takes...ask any Cuban...


Me: But just think, it's the poor who'll suffer the most from the collapsing living standards...


Him: Sure it's the poor who'll suffer the most, but then it's the poor who voted for the guy. And they're also the ones who voted for the 6 year presidential term. It's very much the bed they made, and now they have to lie in it. By 2006 the same people who voted for Chavez will be begging for new leadership. Chavez will be lucky to get a million votes by then.


Me: Hmmm...

April 6, 2004

A note from my intellectual tradition...

From Why Orwell Matters, by Christopher Hitchens:


"There isn't much room for doubt about the real source of anti-Orwell resentment. In the view of many on the official Left, he committed the ultimate sin of 'giving ammunition to the enemy'. Not only did he do this in the 30s, when the cause of anti-fascism supposedly necessitated a closing of ranks, but he repeated the offence in the opening years of the Cold War and thus - 'objectively', as people used to say - became an ally of the forces of conservatism.


Unlike innumerable contemporaries, whose defections from Communism were later to furnish spectacular confessions and memoirs, Orwell never went through a phase of Russophilia or Stalin-worship or fellow-travelling. He wrote in mid 1940 that he had learned to trust his gut on certain questions:


'Since 1934 I have known war between England and Germany was coming, and since 1936 I have known it with complete certainty. I could feel it in my belly, and the chatter of the pacifists on the one hand, and the Popular Front people who pretended to fear that Britain was preparing for war against Russia on the other, never deceived me. Similarly such horrors as the Russian purges never surprised me, because I always felt that - not exactly that, but something like that - was implicit in Bolshevik rule.'


Are we to believe that Orwell (who confided the above to his private diary) was able on internal literary evidence to decide that Soviet Communism was monstrous? The claim is partly justified by an incisive review he wrote in June 1938, discussing Eugene Lyons's journalistic memoir, Assignment in Utopia:


"To get the full sense of our ignorance as to what is really happening in the USSR, it would be worth trying to translate the most sensational Russian event of the past two years, the Trotskyist trials, into English terms. Make the necessary adjustments, let Left be Right and Right be Left, and you get something like this:


"'Mr. Winston Churchill [i.e. Trotsky], now in exile in Portugal, is plotting to overthrow the British Empire and establish Communism in England. By the use of unlimited Russian money he has succeeded in building up a huge Churchillite organisation which includes members of Parliament, factory managers, Roman Catholic bishops and practically the whole of the Primrose League. Almost every day some dastardly act of sabotage is laid bare - sometimes a plot to blow up the House of Lords, sometimes and outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the Royal racing-stables. Eighty per cent of the Beefeaters at the Tower are discovered to be agents of the Communist International. A high level official at the Post Office admits brazenly to having embezzled postal orders to the tune of 5,000,000 pounds, and also to having committed lese majeste by drawing moustaches on postage stamps. Lord Nuffield ["the English Henry Ford"], after a 7-hour interrogation by Mr. Norman Birkett [who would become a lawyer at Nuremberg 7 years later], confesses that ever since 1920 he has been fomenting strikes in his own factories. Casual half-inch paras in every issue of the newspapers announce that fifty more Churchillite sheep-stealers have been shot in Westmoreland. And meanwhile the Churchillites never cease from proclaiming that it is they who are the real defenders of Capitalism and that it is the government that is no more than a set of Bolsheviks in disguise.'


"Anyone who has followed the Russian trials know that this is scarcely a parody. From our point of view, the whole thing is not merely incredible as a genuine conspiracy, it is next door to incredible as a frame-up. It is simply a dark mystery, of which the only seizable fact - sinister enough in its way - is that Communists over here regard it as a good advertisement for Communism."


Hitchens notes:


Orwell shows he could make a large and intelligent inference from limited information. It was not only committed communists who took the fantastic confessions of the Moscow defendants at face value. Eminent jurists and lawyers, veteran reporters and parliamentarians, ministers of religion, all found that the sheer volume of evidence was impressive and convincing. Writing for the small audience of the New English Weekly, Orwell backed his instinct about the hideous language of the process, as well as its hysterical irrationality and prounounced it a gigantic fraud.

April 5, 2004

Point - Counterpoint

Bernardo Alvarez, Venezuela's ambassador to the US replies to the Washington Post, saying,


"Contrary to what the editorial implied, at no time has any group controlled by the government been accused by international organizations of impeding citizens' participation in the electoral process."


I say:



Billboard seen outside a PDVSA refinery in Paraguana just before the signature gathering process: "Your vote is secret, your signature isn't."

April 3, 2004

Gringo escualido pollsters speak

GQR is the gold standard of polling in Venezuela, and their last results are encouraging. However, it is a bit disquieting to think these are the people who got Al Gore most of the votes in the last election, but couldn't get him into office!


New GQR Poll Shows Effort to Block Referendum Produces Decline in Chavez’s Stan


According to a new national survey, the widespread public perception that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is blocking a recall vote on his presidency has helped produce a dramatic decline in his level of support.


A strong majority (59 percent) of Venezuelan voters believes that Chavez is trying to prevent the recall referendum from taking place, even though nearly two-thirds (64 percent) favor holding a referendum. Two-thirds (67 percent) of the electorate also believes the president will do anything to hold on to power, and the same share disapproves of Chavez’s performance on human rights.




The sense that Chavez is trying to defy the popular will on the referendum has helped lift support for revoking his mandate by 10 points since November to 62 percent, according to the survey by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, a polling firm based in Washington, D.C.


The survey, which involved face-to-face interviews with 1,000 adults, was conducted from March 12 to 22 for RCTV, a Venezuelan television and radio network.  




The survey indicates that Chavez’s standing among his lower-class base has eroded, as a strong majority (58 percent) of the poorest half of the country’s voters now favor revoking his mandate.


The Venezuelan Constitution allows for a recall vote after the mid-point of elected officials’ terms.  Venezuela’s electoral council has ruled that only 1.8 million of the 3.4 million signatures collected by the opposition in support of the referendum are valid.  2.4 valid million signatures are required.


The electoral council’s stance has done serious damage to its credibility, the survey shows.  Only 40 percent of voters approve of the council’s performance, a 23-point decline since November, and 64 percent believe that the council’s decision on the signatures was driven by political, rather than technical, grounds.


The Venezuelan public is genuinely fearful that if the referendum does not take place, the country will face intensified unrest.  About two-thirds (64 percent) of voters believe that if the referendum is not held, there will be greater political instability and violence.  In focus groups held this month by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, numerous participants expressed concern about a potential civil war.




Although most Venezuelan voters remain hopeful that the referendum will be held, they are also looking to the international community to actively support the referendum process.  About three-quarters of the electorate supports the role that the OAS and Carter Center have played as observers and mediators thus far, and a comparable share of opposition supporters say they would support OAS diplomatic or economic sanctions in the event the referendum does not take place.


You know who you are...

I am reposting this as a reminder to those of you who volunteered to please turn in those substantiation forms. Notice that I've changed the wording to differentiate lies from abuses of state power, willful deception, human rights violations and salvaguardia (corruption) cases. I think the list makes much more sense this way.


100 Instances of Deception as State Policy in Chavez's Venezuela.

One of the most difficult points to put across to foreign readers, especially those who may be inclined to sympathize with a leftwing regime in a poor country, is the consistently, systematically, unabashedly deceptive nature of the Chavez regime. It's not that regime leaders lie now and then about this or that, or that they bend the rules beyond breaking point now or then, it's that foul-play is their default mode, standard operating procedure, on most issues most of the time. This list contains just 100 particularly public and blatant lies, deceptions, dirty tricks and abuses of power - but comes very far from exhausting the possibilities. In a proper democracy, any one of these lies would have set off a major scandal, and any two or three of them together might set off a constitutional crisis. In Venezuela, they're so common, they barely make the headlines anymore.


[This is a collaborative effort. Items marked "TAKEN" have already found volunteers to substantiate them. You can join in! Please download this Foul Play Substantiation Form and get started.]

    Since 1998, the Hugo Chavez and his cronies have:

  1. TAKEN: M. Madrigal. Broken the law on campaign funding in 1998: President Chavez took $1.5 million in illegal campaign contributions from Spain's Banco Bilbao Viscaya and lied about it. The contributions were only discovered due to a judicial investigation by judge Baltazar Garzon in Spain. No investigation was carried out in Venezuela before, during, or after the Spanish inquiry.

  2. TAKEN: Lin. Deceived about Bolivar's teachings: President Chavez has consistently portrayed Bolivar - Venezuela's 19th century national - as a proto-Marxist. Scholars agree that Bolivar was no such thing - he was a 19th century style liberal.

  3. TAKEN: BN. Subverted the constitution in ramming through the June 1999 referendum: President Chavez claimed to have the legal authority to convene a referendum on whether to call a constituent assembly to write a new constitution. The legal framework in force at the time contained no such provision.

  4. TAKEN: Lin. Lied and broke anti-corruption laws about the missing payments to FIEM: The government has lied systematically over a period of years over the funding of the Macroeconomic Stabilization Fund - FIEM - designed to even out oil revenues between high oil price years and low oil price years. In 2001, payments worth $2 billion dollars earmarked for the fund simply disappeared. Delito de salvaguarda is the expression in Spanish.

  5. Covered corruption in Plan Bolivar: The regime has consistently dismissed allegations of corruption at the military social-cooperation plan, despite bank security camera photos that show soldiers depositing Plan Bolivar checks into personal accounts. Such evidence incriminates, among many others, General Jorge Garcia Carneiro, who instead of being charged and tried was promoted to "three-sun General" (equivalent to 5-stars in the US) and appointed Defense Minister.

  6. Lied about the effectiveness and sustainability of the exchange rate bands: The regime said repeatedly the 1996-2002 exchange bands would stamp out inflation. Every independent economist in town knew it would merely store it up for later, and said so. The regime accused its critics of being unpatriotic. In 2002, the exchange bands collapsed and inflation shot up to the highest mark in Latin America today, precisely as critics had said.

  7. Lied about the reasons behind capital flight: Ministers have questioned the patriotism of those shielding their savings in dollars instead of accepting the economic rationality that drove them (correctly) to do so. In 1998, a dollar was worth 500 bolivars. By the end of 2003, it was closer to 3000.

  8. TAKEN: Cesar. Deceived the country on official perks: President Chavez initially made a major populist show, selling off PDVSA's corporate jet fleet in its entirety. Soon, though, he turned around and bought an $85 million luxury Airbus A319 for presidential use, among many other examples.

  9. TAKEN: Juantxo. Lied and broke the constitution and anti-corruption laws in the Oil-to-Cuba affair: President Chavez approved an oil supply deal for Fidel Castro's regime on concessionary terms. Despite the advantageous terms, the Cubans have fallen behind on their payments, but the government has refused to cut off supplies, as it would do to any other customer who didn't pay up. Another salvaguarda violation. The government also denied it needed congressional approval for the treaty, which contravenes the Venezuelan constitution.

  10. Lied about the sustainability of the domestic debt: The government presented its strategy to borrow money only in local currency as a coup for economic nationalism. Critics who called the strategy unsustainable were derided or ignored. This year, drowning in red ink, the government unveiled a plan to switch its bolivar debts for dollar-denominated bonds - without ever accepting responsibility for the original, catastrophically costly policy. Failed to investigate bond operations in the Finance Ministry seen as openly fraudulent by independent analysts in a massive violation of anti-corruption laws.

  11. TAKEN: Andrés. Lied about the Orinoco-Apure Axis: Chavez pledged repeatedly to revitalize the south of the country and move millions of northern urban dwellers to the savannahs. The messianic plan was highly impracticable and was never implemented.

  12. Lied about the CTV election results: The president refused to accept the results of the CNE-supervised elections in 2000 that left CTV in the hands of the opposition.

  13. SUBSTANTIATED: Miguel. Lied about Montesinos: Insisting that the ex-Fujimori Spy Chief was not in Venezuela in 2001 only for him to be eventually found in Caracas in very strange circumstances,

  14. SUBSTANTIATED: Miguel. Lied about Ballestas: Denying they had helped this Colombian guerrilla airliner hijacker only to have him turn up in Venezuela as well, and under odd circumstances.

  15. TAKEN: Tuti. Lied about Decree 1011: Denying the extreme discretionary authority granted to Itinerant school inspectors by the infamous education ministry decree that launched the civilian opposition movement.

  16. Lied about the 49 decree-laws: The government claimed to have carried out consultations that never occurred before redrawing the entire juridical map of Venezuela singlehandedly with a package of 49 decrees handed down unilaterally on November 13th, 2001.

  17. Lied about the size of the opposition: Government spokesmen systematically dismiss the opposition as "four cats" even when hundreds of thousands took to the streets.

  18. Broke human rights standards and the constitution by ordering the implementation of Plan Avila: On April 11, 2002, ordered the use of military style weaponry to face down a street protest, in clear violation of the 1999 constitution and the Treaty of Rome. A very serious human rights violation.

  19. Lied about and obstructed the investigation into the violence on April 11th, 2002: Pinning 100% of the blame on the opposition despite overwhelming, repeatedly confirmed evidence that government activists handed out arms to civilian supporters on the day and many of those civilians used the guns. Failed to investigate the deaths of 9 people on Avenida Baralt south of Puente Llaguno.

  20. Lied about Lucas Rincon's request for a presidential resignation "la cual acepto:" At around 1:00 am on April 12th, the highest ranking member of the armed forces went on every TV channel and radio station in the country to announce to the nation that President Chavez had resigned. The government would later claim, incongruously, that the opposition simply made up the story of a resignation.

  21. Lied about the US role on April 12th: The government fabricated ties between the CIA and the short-lived Carmona regime. They ignored evidence that US Ambassador Charles Shapiro leaned on Carmona to recompose the national assembly late on the 12th.

  22. Lied about the numbers on the street on April 13th: Talking to foreign reporters, President Chavez once claimed that SEVEN MILLION of his supporters took to the streets demanding his return to power on April 13th, when eye-witnesses (including yours truly) saw only a few thousand protesters outside Fuerte Tiuna that day, and a BBC documentary reported seeing no more than three or four blocks full of Chavez supporters outside Miraflores on his return.

  23. Lied about governing inclusevely on April 14th: Promised to "rectify" and listen to all points of view, but quickly reverted to authoritarian mode.

  24. Manipulated official poverty statistics for political purposes: Redefining "poverty" in official INE statistics to exclude any measure of income, thereby giving the false impression of a dramatic fall in poverty,

  25. TAKEN: Tuti. Lied about Fe y Alegria: Attacking the Jesuit school charity that has educated hundreds of thousands of poor Venezuelans as an elitist anachronism.

  26. TAKEN: Tuti. Lied about educating 20,000 University students at the Helicoide: As part of an illusory bolivarian university, lied in saying the DISIP headquarters could imaginably accomodate that many students.

  27. Abused his power and broke the constitution by using military facilities and equipment for political purposes: Denying the well known use of military barracks to house, overnight, chavista supporters bussed in from the interior to attend pro-government rallies, among a number of other abuses. A clear violation of existing anti-corruption laws.

  28. Abused his access to state funds to pay supporters to turn up at pro-government rallies: Continues to deny stories of "viaticos" for marchers from the provinces despite mountains of corroboration. Another salvaguarda violation.

  29. Deceived the country on the housing crisis: Continues to tout the 30-40,000 houses per year it is building as the solution to the housing crisis despite the demographic need for new housing standing at over 100,000 new units per year.

  30. Abused his power and access to state resources to arm and train civilian militias: Denies the existence of paramilitary training camps for civilian supporters despite evidence to the contrary.

  31. Lied and obstructed the investigation into paramilitary-style police death squads: The government continues to do nothing about the proliferation of police death squads in the country and still accepts "shootout with the police" as a normal cause for death on police reports. This despite growing evidence that this tag is used by death squads after murdering "undesirables." Another human rights violation.

  32. Lied about helping street children: Pledged to put the needs of homeless children at the top of the agenda and proceeded to ignore them for five years. "I will give up my name if within one year there are still street children in Venezuela," said Chavez way back in 1999.

  33. Lied about prison conditions: The government cynically takes credit about the fall in prison crowding, despite the fact that this fall was due to the adoption of COPP, the new criminal procedure law, approved in 1998 by the previous administration. Also, the government continues to dismiss serious human rights abuses pointed out by independent NGOs like the Observatorio de Prisiones. A human rights violation.

  34. Broke the constitution by refusing to distribute the situado constitutional to the states equitably: Denied partisanship in handing out the constitutionally mandated financial transfers to state governments, despite evident bias that has caused major financial distress in most opposition-led states and led to late payments to state government employed teachers, nurses, etc. A violation of anti-corruption laws.

  35. Lied about the viability of urban farming: Sold "urban hydroponic farming" as a viable solution to urban hunger.

  36. Lied about plots to kill the president: Presented crudely fabricated "evidence" of a series of plots to kill Chavez, including an incongruous plot to shoot down a flying airplane using an anti-tank rocket.

  37. SUBSTANTIATED: meLied about the Autopista Regional del Centro shootings: Failed to take action against people shooting on opposition protesters traveling to a march in Caracas on October 10th, 2002, despite having a National Guard Post less than a kilometer down the road. Failed to prosecute the perpetrators.

  38. SUBSTANTIATED: me Lied about the Charallave shootings: Failed to punish the culprits of the shooting into an opposition march that left one dead and 21 injured in Charallave on January 21, 2003. No one was convicted despite the existence of video evidence of the crime.

  39. Obstructed fair and effective police investigations into these and other crimes. Took reprisals against CICPC investigators who showed excessive zeal in investigating the misdeeds of Chavez-sympathizers, redeploying offending investigators to hardship posts in the hinterlands of Apure and Amazonas. Systematically worked to ensure the impunity of the guilty.

  40. Lied about the Paro Nacional: Blamed the opposition for the strike despite, by Chavez's own admission, having worked consciously through a so-called Plan Colina to push the opposition into a paro.

  41. Lied about what happened in the old PDVSA: Claiming inefficiencies not borne out by the facts and based on systematic misrepresentation of the evidence.

  42. Lied about what happens in the new PDVSA: Glossing over the fragmentation, technical discombobulation and rising per-barrel costs at the corporation.

  43. Lied about its oil production figures: Consistently claiming more exports than it was shipping.

  44. TAKEN: EricaLied about the impartiality of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission (IAHRC): Accusing the IAHRC of siding with the opposition for doing its job. Smeared IAHRC's rapporteur Santiago Canton.

  45. Lied about the sources of pollution in Lake Maracaibo: Blaming it all on the old-PDVSA instead of doing something to improve Maracaibo's ecocidal sewage system.

  46. Slandered Intesa: Claiming PDVSA's IT subsidiary had CIA ties but offering no evidence.

  47. Lied about Intevep: Idiotically denying PDVSA's R&D department added to the corporation's profitability.

  48. TAKEN: Lin.Lied about Citgo: Misrepresenting PDVSA's US subsidiary's role in distributing Venezuelan oil abroad.

  49. Lied about selling Ruhr Oel/Alpha Group: Working to sell PDVSA's German subsidiary in secret, without parliamentary debate, to a Russian company with well-known roots in organized crime.

  50. Lied about the Plataforma Deltana Gas Fields: Claiming they would raise $1 billion dollars by tendering its offshore Natural Gas fields, only raising some $30 million, then calling the entire exercise a smashing revolutionary success.

  51. Lied about Yucal-Placer Gas Field: Attempting to auction off 11 exploration blocks for land-based natural gas, but attracting bids for only six and seeing only one - Yucal Placer - briefly go into production only to be shut down by PPT-led labor disruptions, and then calling the entire exercise a smashing revolutionary success.

  52. Lied and broke the hydrocarbons law about the Free Market Petroleum deal: Attempting to sell oil in contravention of the Hydrocarbons' Law to a shady, unheard of US oil company with rumored ties to the Russian mafia and documented ties to right wing US politician Jack Kemp.

  53. Lied about the Las Cristinas gold mine: Promising local people dozens of jobs that never materialized after illegally expropriating one Canadian mining company to favor another Canadian mining company in the complex saga of Venezuela's largest gold mine, in Bolivar State.

  54. TAKEN: Tuti Lied about school-enrollment figures: Claiming a million new students enrolled when the Education Ministry's own figures show just shy of 300,000 entrants per year - somewhat, but not much, above the rate of growth of the school-age population.

  55. SUBSTANTIATED: MeLied about enrolling in 500,000 additional students in the Universidad Bolivariana in one year through "Mision Sucre": Incongruously pledging to raise overall university enrollment by about 75% in a single year, despite having no staff, classroom space, organizational ability or capacity to implement the program.

  56. Lied about imitating Vicente Emparan: Chavez pledged to emulate Venezuela's Colonial-era governor recognized by stepping down from power when asked to do so by the people. Instead, he has hung to power through arbitrary and illegal means.

  57. Repeatedly made impossible promises on jobs: About once a year, the president promises, with great fanfare, to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs within months through a new "employment plan." No such jobs have ever materialized. The experience of past employment plans never seems to figure into the design of new ones.

  58. TAKEN: Cesar. Contradicted himself about the future of "El Camastron:" Pledging his old 70s Boeing 737 (known as "El Camastron") to a variety of noble causes from a people's tourism company to a Caribbean integration airline.

  59. Lied about La Casona: Pledging to turn the presidential residence into an abandoned children's home but never delivering.

  60. TAKEN: Tuti Lied about Miraflores: Pledging to turn the presidential palace into a new university but, again, doing nothing.

  61. SUBSTANTIATED: Miguel Lied about La Carlota: Promising to turn the East Side Caracas military air base into an urban park designed by Fruto Vivas, never doing it.

  62. SUBSTANTIATED: Miguel Lied about La Guzmania: Pledging to turn over the presidential retreat into a project for disadvantage children, but - you guessed it - doing nothing.

  63. Lied to the judges of the recent Romulo Gallegos Literary Prize at the Celarg: When Fernando Vallejo won last year, several of the judges, including Spanish novelist Enrique Vila-Mata, made public statements complaining about not being paid the amount of money they were supposed to receive. The chavistas delayed and reduced the payments to the judges for this prize.

  64. Abused its power over public resources to turn VTV, the state TV broadcaster, into a propaganda arm: Its motto is "The Channel of All Venezuelans" but the content is 100% chavista and highly propagandistic. The situation is made alarming because cadets, soldiers and even officers are banned from watching any other media. Another salvaguarda violation.

  65. Lied about who drinks the expensive whiskey in Venezuela: This is a fun one. The government constantly slammed the opposition for kicking back with expensive whiskey in fancy restaurants despite the unprecedented hike in sales of 18-year-old, super-expensive Johnny Walker Blue Label in Venezuela, mostly - according to distributors - for consumption by Chavez's military cronies. Considering the salary of an active duty general, salvaguarda violations are likely.

  66. Lied to the OAS, the Carter Center, the US, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Portugal, and Spain: In igning an agreement pledging to find a legal, constitutional and electoral solution to the crisis, then working singlemindedly to block that agreement.

  67. Lied about the firmazo: Claiming a massive fraud without offering any coherent proof.

  68. Lied about the reafirmazo: Again claiming a massive fraud without offering any coherent proof.

  69. Slandered Sumate: Accusing them of orchestrating a massive fraud without offering any coherent proof.

  70. Lied about the integrity of Cesar Gaviria: Chavez questioned the honor of the head of OAS, Cesar Gaviria - one of the best respected diplomats in the hemisphere - because "he's been spending a lot of time with opposition activists."

  71. Lied about the reconstruction of Vargas State: Pledging a huge reconstruction effort in this region devastated by mudslides in 1999, a pledge that is now years behind schedule.

  72. Lied about the links with FARC/ELN: Continually denying links that have been documented by any number of journalists.

  73. Broke the constitution in asking for a billion dollars in Central Bank Reserves to spend: Which is specifically and explicitly prohibited by the constitution. Arguably also a salvaguarda violation.

  74. TAKEN: David. Lied about the role of Cubans in the country: Failing to acknowledge that nearly all of the 10,000 Cubans sent to Venezuela over the last few years are communist party members and mocking the concerns of those who see an indoctrination plan behind the mass influx.

  75. Slandered the Episcopal Conference: The president accused Venezuela's catholic bishops of having "devils under their vestments", outraging the catholic majority in the country. Faced with church protests over his escalating authoritarianism, he said the bishops only reject his government for selfish reasons.

  76. Obstructed investigations of corruption at Fondur, FUS, MEM and others: Failing to investigate numerous and well-documented allegations of corruption at the Urban Development Fund, the Unified Social Fund and the Ministry of Energy and Mines (among others.) Dozens of salvaguarda violations come under this item.

  77. TAKEN: Tuti Lied about the number of Bolivarian schools it built: Claiming to have "created" over 3,000 Bolivarian schools when the vast majority are not newly built, but are simply existing schools turned "bolivarian by decree."

  78. Lied about the sexual orientation of opposition leaders: Exploiting Venezuelans' homophobia to slur heterosexual opposition leaders who I won't name for obvious reasons. Also attacked the one openly gay National Assembly opposition member for his sexual orientation.

  79. Obstructed investigations into the killings of Jovany Sosa and thousands of others killed by police death squads: Sticking by highly dubious police versions of events despite mountains of evidence pointing to a different story and failing to investigate credibly.

  80. Lied about Venezuela's involvement in the coup against Sanchez de Lozada in Bolivia: Despite harshly accusing the US for meddling in Venezuelan events, turned right around and financed the Bolivian uprising that overthrew president Sanchez de Lozada.

  81. Violated a Supreme Tribunal order to return the weapons it took from the Caracas Metropolitan Police: Failed to comply with a clear, final decision from the tribunal. Systematically accused the opposition-led PM of starting incidents of urban violence in Caracas without ever offering specific evidence.

  82. Armed and protected left-wing urban guerrillas like the Tupamaros and the Carapaicas: Signed an agreement with the opposition, the OAS and the Carter Center pledging to disarm the civilian population, but made no attempt to implement it with regards to the most dangerous urban guerrilla groups in the country. With the Tupa and Carapaica death tolls mounting, this must be seen as a human rights violation.

  83. Used race as a wedge issue to divide the country: Slurred its opponents as racist and sought to mobilize its supporters around racial categories despite the celebrated fluidity of race relations in Venezuela.

  84. Lied about the impact of the "missions": Invented numbers about the effectiveness of its Cuban-led literacy drive. Violated anti-corruption laws in implementing them.

  85. Lied about the reliability of professional journalists: Mocked the reliability of reports written by professional journalists working for the private media reporting as eye-witnesses from the scene. Assured them that they had not seen what they had just seen. Specific examples of this brand of lie could fill up a book.

  86. Lied about Carrasquero's impartiality: Congratulated CNE-head Francisco Carrasquero's decisions as admirable even as CNE openly violated article 72 of the constitution.

  87. Lied about the planillas planas: Called signature-gathering forms with similar handwriting a "material error" of the administration, even though the bulk of both government and opposition witnesses at the reafirmazo had been left under the impression assisted signing was perfectly ok.

  88. Broke the constitution and the law by taking reprisals against those who signed the recall referendum petition: Threatened public employees with dismissal unless they retract their signatures. Called the act of signing the petition "a terrorist act."

  89. Subverted the constitution by appointing a sycophant Prosecutor General: Appointed an "independent, non-partisan prosecutor general" who was just stepping down as Vicepresident of the Republic and is unquestionably, openly, notoriously a hard-core chavista partisan. Lied systematically, in fact routinely, about the Fiscal's willingness to conduct investigations that may prove awkward for the government. Subverted citizens' equal access to the legal system. A massive violation of basic constitutional rights.

  90. Subverted the constitution by appointing a sycophant Human Rights Ombudsman: Continued to praise by a Human Rights Ombudsman who has never, once, produced a serious investigation a single accusation of human rights abuses by the government. Politicized the Ombudsman's office until it became an arm of the executive.

  91. Subverted the constitution by appointing a sycophant as Comptroller General: Stood-by a Comptroller General who has never, ever uncovered a single serious case of government corruption despite literally hundreds of well-documented cases. Rendered anti-corruption moot, and insured impunity for corrupt cronies.

  92. Subverted the constitution by purging the courts of non-chavista judges: Continued to pretend the courts are independent even as independent judges were fired summarily by the head of the chavista head of the Supreme Tribunal for making decisions the government doesn't like. Lied about the reasons for their dismissals.

  93. SUBSTANTIATED: me. Lied about Robert Mugabe's record: On February 26th, 2004, he singled out Zimbabwe's notorious dictator for praise, calling Mugabe a "freedom fighter" and presenting him with the most symbolically charged gift possible in Venezuela, a replica of Bolivar's sword.

  94. SUBSTANTIATED: me. Lied about being committed to human rights: On March 14, 2004, Chavez loudly protested that there have been no human rights abuses in Venezuela, even as Human Rights Watch says there is no doubt there have been abuses.

  95. Slandered Pompeyo Marquez: Called the now venerable leftwing leader Pompeyo Marquez a "tonto util" (useful fool) and charged him for standing by the killers of Alberto Lovera, both shameful slurs against one of the most universally respected progressive leaders of the last 50 years.

  96. SUBSTANTIATED: me. Lied about Emiliano Chavez's existence: On March 7th, 2004, speaking to the assembled diplomatic corps, Chavez swore the signature under the name of "Emiliano Chavez" was fake because no such person existed. According to the Associated Press, Emiliano Chavez stepped forward the following day and showed his cedula to reporters, which coincided with the ID number President Chavez had announced.

  97. Subverted the constitutions by placing three cronies on the Supreme Tribunal's Constitutional Chamber: Subverted the bedrock constitutional principle of the separation of powers.

  98. Lied about Chavez's ultimate political goals: Continued to proclaim themselves democratic even as they clearly moved towards autocracy.

  99. Attacked the integrity and intentions of all who question the supremo: Slurring them as escualidos, fascists, carmoniacos, oligarchs, reactionaries, puntofijistas, "stupidists", and a long list of accepting them as the legitimate representatives of the political views of millions and millions of Venezuelans. As a rule, never engage with the substance of criticisms.

  100. Subverted the democratic kernel of the constitution by keeping voters away from the ballot box illegally: After launching a political movement based on a radical, people-power ideology, they illegally thwarted the people's sovereign right to convoke a recall referendum by collecting the signatures of 20% of the voters as stated clearly in article 72 of the Constitution.


It's often difficult for foreign observers to understand the depth of our anger towards what is happening in our country, and the way the Chavez government has led our society. A large part of this is due to the sense of impotence and anger we feel as we see our government lie to us and violate our laws, more or less openly, in front of everyone's eyes, and continues to get away with it due to an atmosphere of total lawlessness. With all key institutions seeded with numerous sycophants, it's not just the president we worry about, it's an entire regime that seems to have taken non-sense and deception as its standard procedure.


Like his idols Fidel Castro and Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez seems to have realized that once you have enough power, truth-telling becomes superfluous, unnecessary, and just plain unhelpful. So please, as you read the news, remember a simple rule of thumb born out by five years' experience: if the Chavez government said it, it's a good bet it's not true.

April 2, 2004

Venezuela denounces lack of US Opprobium

I love the headline on this Xinhua Story. Too funny.


Venezuela demands "more forceful" answer from US

CARACAS, April 1 (Xinhua) -- Venezuela hopes the United States will give a "more forceful" answer to Venezuela's allegation that Washington was conspiring against its democracy and interfering with its internal affairs, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jesus Perez said Thursday.


"The US government has disrespected and underestimated our accusations. It has to take into account the seriousness of the issues presented. A responsible government must answer with proof," Perez told reporters.


Venezuela's permanent representative to the Organization of American States (OAS), Jorge Valero, alleged in a speech authorized by President Hugo Chavez at the OAS Permanent Council that Washington "backed" the thwarted coup d'etat in April 2002 against Chavez and urged "an end of foreign intervention."


More...


I'll admit that, while I'm no fan of Bush, I think simply ignoring the propagandistic temper tantrums coming from the Chavez regime has been a smart move. This may be the one policy area where lack of curiosity and disinterest lead to more or less the right policy. More forceful engagement would only be playing into the Chavez-Castro victimization trap.

How I became an antichavista...

Believe it or not, I was not always against Chavez. In 1999 I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a government backed by 80% of the people.


This changed in early 2000, when I was given one of my first VenEconomy assignment, looking into the finances of FIEM - the Investment Fund for Macroeconomic Stabilization. Before you fall into an of irretrievable boredom-induced coma, hear me out. FIEM may seem like a recondite topic at first, but many of the economic problems Venezuela has had since the late 70s might never have happened if a mechanism like FIEM had been in place all along.


Between 1978 and 1998, per capita GDP fell by about 25%. The problem was not income - as an oil producer, Venezuela had plenty of money. In fact, given the avalanche of Petrodollars, the dismal underperformance of the Venezuelan economy was something of a puzzle to economists. How could a country as resource rich as Venezuela see such a disastrous decline in living standards?


Several hypothesis were floated, but by the late 90s, something like a consensus had emerged among academic economists. The problem, they proposed, was not so much the amount of income but its regularity. The oil market, they noted, is notoriously unstable - huge price oil booms associated with conflict in the middle east in 1973, 1979, and 1991 had been followed by prolonged price slumps. This volatile, cyclical nature of the oil market makes oil income not just variable but unpredictable in some fundamental sense.


This volatility was exacerbated by lousy government economic management. In good times, governments would spend all the income and more in wild sprees of populism. When the oil market went south, credit markets would clam up, leaving the government without the income and without the access to credit. This would force massive cutbacks in public spending, which would wreak havoc with the wider economy. These procyclical policies made the entire cycle even more disruptive to the economy than the oil market swings themselves.




Enter FIEM. The idea behind the fund was simple enough for a squirrel to understand: the idea was simply to take the "extra" revenue generated in high oil-price years and save it in the fund. Then, when oil prices dipped back down, the money that has been saved up could be used to make up some of the shortfall. The threshold set was a five year moving average of previous oil prices. When prices rose above the 5-year average, the excedent had to be saved up. When it dropped below that average, the gap could be made up from past savings.


It was a simple, elegant, well-thought out solution to a very difficult problem. The FIEM law was finally approved in 1998, months before Chavez was elected. Oil prices were so low then, that no money was accumulated at first.


As soon as oil prices went up, though, the new Chavez government found out there was some pesky law preventing them from spending all the money. This did not go down well, and Chavez immediately went about using his crushing majority in the Constituent Assembly to re-write it. This he did unilaterally, replacing the simple, straightforward floating average rule with a new, far more complicated rule that seemed to have nothing to do with the goal of smoothing out fiscal income.


Now, I found this troubling but not alarming. After all, I thought, at least they went through the motions of changing the law, even if the new law is fairly stupid.


But the moment I started to realize something was very odd indeed inside the government is when I started going through PDVSA's fiscal contribution numbers, comparing them to the rules, and realized right away that the government had started to violate its own FIEM Law reforms the second it approved them!


I looked all over for someone inside government to explain it to me, to help me work out the seeming contradiction, but I never did. The issue was far from the headlines at that point, not really making much news. So long as it flew below the radar screen, the government knew it could get away easily with violating such technical laws, even if they had written those laws themselves.


I wrote a series of articles about this for VenEconomy but never got a comprehensible response. Slowly at first, but later on like a ton of bricks, I realized what dyed in the wool antichavistas had been telling me all along: that it's not this or that law that the government is willing to break. It's the principle of submitting to laws as such that they can't stomach. If Hugo Chavez wanted to spend the extra oil income that started coming in in 2000, he was damn well going to. No random piece of sealed paper was going to stop him from doing that!

April 1, 2004

Comparative politics

Until this morning, Beverley Hughes was the Minister for Immigration in Tony Blair's government. Today, amid a scandal, Hughes was forced to resign as junior minister - equivalent to undersecretary in the US or a vice-ministro criollo.


Since the relative probity of British and Venezuelan institutions has become a somewhat ludicrous topic in my comments forum, I thought I should write something about Beverley Hughes


Hughes came down after a scandal over fake visa-applications from Romania and Bulgaria that were being waived by Hughes' department without the legal checks. Oh, you think, she got caught bending the rules, so she had to resign! Not quite.


Beverley Hughes had not been informed that her department was waving these checks. The decision was made by a mid-ranking official: Hughes heard about it when everyone else did, by reading it in the newspaper.


The reason Hughes is resigning is that, two nights ago, she gave an interview to a BBC program where she claimed she had never heard of the problems in Bulgaria and Romania until they came out in the press.


The following day, an internal document check revealed that Hughes had in fact received a report about the problems one year earlier, and had replied in writing. Though, in her resignation statement, she insisted that she had not intended to deceive the British public, Hughes was forced to accept that her statement on TV had not been truthful. Under such circumstances, she felt she had no choice but to "take responsibility" and resign her ministerial post.


I read this story with stupor, with a sense of bafflement and longing. Maybe I'm crazy for thinking that one day Venezuelans will demand this level of probity from our elected leaders. But who knows?

Strange experience

I had a chat yesterday with Sandra La Fuente, the woman who co-wrote El Acertijo de Abril, the book on the events of April 11-14th. I asked her to fact check The April Crisis Revisited - I'll include her corrections this weekend. As she went through the description of the shootings on April 11th (her specialist area) she suddenly got peeved:

"No, no, no, the shooting started a good few minutes before the cadena."

I knew that couldn't be so.

"But that's impossible," I said, "I was on Avenida Baralt just before the Cadena, and I didn't see any wounded."


"You don't understand," she replied, "at the start, with all the sounds of firecrackers and rubber pellets, people weren't immediately aware that live bullets were being fired. There wasn't mass panic right away - many people who were shot thought at first they'd been hit by pellets, or by a rock. I have a dozen witnesses who say it is so."

I was stunned.


"But, but, but...but that means Megan and I were in the line of fire and didn't even realize it."


"You wouldn't be the only ones..."


Man...I can't believe it took me 2 years to figure this out...

March 31, 2004

Eight disconnected thoughts about Venezuela


  1. The amazing thing about the unquestioned "The US did it" consensus on the April coup is that it is always assumed or hinted at, never specifically described. CIA involvement is an article of faith.

  2. Today's Seijas poll in TalCual spells trouble for the opposition. Only 48% of Caracas area respondents say they would vote to recall Chavez, vs. 40% who would vote to keep him. Plainly not good enough for the coordinadora. 56% see Chavez's performance in government as neutral or good. (Though, on the upside, in a hypothetical presidential election 50% say they would vote for an opposition candidate, only 36% for Chavez.) If these numbers hold, then the ultimate of ironies is at play: the opposition is fighting like hell to get to a referendum they will lose, while the government goes all out to block a referendum it stands to win.

  3. The central lie in the marketing of the revolution is the claim that the revolution is for the poor and against the rich. Nothing could be further from the truth. The revolution is for those willing to take orders from Chavez without question, and against everyone else.

  4. The question of whether the poor are for chavez depends on your definition of poor. If you take income as the marker of poverty, then 90% of Venezuelans are poor, including any number who had an unprecedented tertiary education and can't get proper jobs now. From a social point of view, these people are middle-class. Due to the opportunities they had under the old regime, they affiliate with the values people acquire through education. Venezuela has a whole cohort of children of campesinos and children of factory workers who had the chance to go to university and improve their lives. They are middle class by culture, poor by economic status, and antichavista by democratic conviction. That impoverished middle class remains the last best hope of a country that's already lived through too much.

  5. The only fundamental ideological commitment the government has is to nonsense. Nonsense is non-negotiable. Systematic nonsense, carefully crafted, radically divorced from reality nonsense applied as part of a broader strategy of mayhem and confusion. The absurd is systematically presented as self-evident. Systematic deception is spread with a kind of malicious pleasure. The breakdown of civilizational standards this forces is the point of the exercise. A Supreme Tribunal can rule that temporary documents, although temporary, are final, and nobody bats an eyelash. It's the principles of aristotelian logic that are under siege here.

  6. Asking a philochavista first world leftie to picture himself in a situation of total impunity, absolute breakdown in the rule of law, political sequestering of all institutions and a revolutionary rhetoric used to justify and celebrate the violation of the rights of a large portion of the population is like asking a fish to imagine what it would be to live on dry land. The questions they ask are exactly like the questions the fish would ask - how does one swim there? is it very deep? They can't seem to quite picture it, because they can't imagine such a thing happening to them. The tendency therefore is to exoticise the nonsense inflicted on Venezuelans. They would have a massive, simultaneous coniption/constitutional crisis if their own governments tried to get away with 1% of the shit Chavez gets away with, but can't see those who march in Caracas as anything more than bored oligarchs.

  7. Hugo Chavez is the single biggest calamity ever to befall the cause of social justice in Venezuela. Not only has his mismanagement and maximalism deeply impoverished millions, but his discourse has discredited left-wing messages to such an extent that, in future, all progressive arguments will be vaguely discredited by an association with the Chavez era. The divisions Chavez has exacerbated will haunt the country long after he's gone.

  8. One day, if I'm lucky enough to have grandchildren, I will gather them around and bore them stiff with stories about this time. When they ask me what I did about it, I said "well, they had these things called blogs back then..."

Best Wacky Chavez Story

I'll never forget it. It was a normal weekday in early 2003 when the familiar music comes on the TV...esta es una transmisión conjunta de la red de radio y...Cadena.


The image then takes us to a dark tunnel while the announcer explains that President Chavez has travelled to the Valles del Tuy to personally oversee the completion of the final tunnel in the new railway being built out there. Sigh, propaganda ploy.


But in the Chavez era, nothing is so simple or predictable. President Chavez isn't there for some wussy ribbon cutting. Instead, he jumps right into the giant earth digger doing the work, and after exchanging some words with the operator, he starts working the machine, drilling through the mountain personally. Charming.


Now, I assumed they'd worked out the photo op so Chavez would work the machine for the last minute or two. Or five. Well, either they worked it out wrong or Chavez is a damn lousy tunnel maker: it took at least forty minutes for him to drill through to the other side. For forty minutes, on every single TV channel and every radio station, all you could see was Chavez on top of a big machine drilling a hole.


The announcer tried to keep some semblance of a discourse on the air throughout this process, "Here, from Valles del Tuy, the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela participates actively in the construction of the new republic. The final tunnel in the highway completes a long term project to...zzzz..." but after 25 minutes, even he had run entirely out of banalities.


So for the next half hour or so, if you turned on a television in Venezuela - any channel - what you would see was the president of the republic operating heavy machinery over the loudest noise you can imagine. I presume no one in Channel 8 quite dared to cut away from a cadena without presidential approval. They just kept that camera on him.


Now, if the TV images were pathetic, the situation on the radio verged on the alarming. Listeners who tuned in at just that time - especially car drivers - heard an inexplicable, loud whining noise of machinery on every radio station that just went on and on...with no explanation, they were left to run with their imaginations.


Some people just panicked. I got a weak kneed call from a colleague, "chamo, all the radio stations are down, this is really weird...is there a coup underway?!"


Too funny...

March 30, 2004

The mural Andrés saw


Guardians of the Fatherland: Trained Bodyguards

March 29, 2004

Interactive experiment on the April Crisis

This post is an invitation: please use the comments forum to write-in about your personal memories of April 11th-14th. Foreign readers: tell us what you remember of media coverage of the coup. Venezuelans, tell us what you rememer most vividly about that weekend. Use Spanish if it's easier. I'll choose some to post to the main page.

March 27, 2004

The April Crisis Revisited

You've heard about the coup, you've even seen the movie, but do you realize that The Revolution will not be Televised left out two thirds of the story? Learn the full story of the coup that brought down and then brought back Venezuela's Hugo Chavez in April, 2002.


This is not a simple story. This is not a short story. But it?s the most important story in Venezuelan politics today. The weird events that gripped Venezuela from April 11th to April 14th, 2002 will keep historians busy for many decades to come. In the space of a four day weekend the country cycled through three presidents. Venezuelans watched appalled as an elected official emptied his gun into what they thought was an opposition march. They saw tanks rolling on the streets of Caracas for ill-understood reasons, they saw armed forces' top-ranking general announce the resignation of the president, then they saw a right wing clique usurp total control of the state while their private TV and radio stations first shut down by the government and then engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the news that the attempt to suspend the constitution was crumbling. It's a lot to cover in a single essay, so do bear with me.


For much of the information here I have to thank Sandra La Fuente and Alfredo Meza, whose excellent new book El Acertijo de Abril (The April Riddle) is an oasis of fair reporting in a sea of political propagandizing. The two have worked hard to produce a book of confirmed facts, not spin or supposition. Encouragingly, the book temporarily sold out in Caracas. A new, longer, improved second edition will appear in an expanded second edition next month. I also checked the congressional testimony given by Generals Rosendo and Vasquez Velasco in the weeks following the coup, and several newspaper archives.


An atypical coup

Though that psychodelic four-day whirlwind of events is commonly described as a "short lived coup," or an "failed coup attempt," it's clear that the word "coup" is only shorthand for what actually happened. While I accept that, at its heart, this convoluted story was an attempt to implant an unconstitutional government, a much more subtle understanding of the dynamics at play is needed to grasp those roller-coaster days. By any reasonable standard, that long weekend witnessed a series of events that fall completely outside the territory of the traditional Latin American coup d??tat. Caracas is not Santiago, La Paz or Tegucigalpa.


My point of view is avowedly partisan, but this is not an attempt at political propaganda: God knows we have enough of that. There is plenty of blame to go around on all directions in this story, and both sides have a hard time confronting the mistakes they made.


How did the April crisis come about?

The first thing to note is that a very large number of Caraque?os decided to gather together and march to demand the president?s resignation on April 11th. The crowd, variously estimated at 500,000-800,000, came out on just 12 hours notice. In a city of about two million registered voters, these are significant numbers. It was the single largest gathering of Venezuelans for political purposes since 1958: by any standard, a massive mobilization.



April 11th March: Unprecedented


Why did several hundred thousand Caracas citizens decided to march to demand the resignation of a president they had democratically elected twice, by huge majorities, in the preceding 3 years. Did these people all lose their minds? Were they hyper-pampered oligarchs angered by the loss of their privileges? Had they simply been duped by a duplicitous opposition-owned media into a kind of mass hysteria? Or were they rational, thinking citizens of a free republic alarmed by the increasingly evident authoritarian tendencies in their elected leaders?


Without going into a long detour on just how it is that the political crisis caused by the appointment of seven leftist academics and bureaucrats to the board of the state oil company, PDVSA, caused a crisis capable of escalating so explosively, I?ll say April 11th was the culmination of five months of increasingly vicious political fighting between the government and the opposition. The opposition accused the government of seeking to impose dictatorial control on every part of society, while the government saw the opposition as ressentful wreckers. By the start of April, the sense of imminent crisis was palpable in the air. Venezuelans found themselves riveted to the unfolding political drama.


Throughout the crisis, President Chavez gave free rein to his trademark hyper-confrontational style. The perception at the time in the opposition camp was that the government was consciously seeking to provoke a crisis. This perception has recently been confirmed by the president himself during his yearly address to the National Assembly. With uncommon candor, Chavez accepted that he had worked out a plan - Plan Colina - to escalate the PDVSA conflict, and appointed a task force to focus on this goal. "Sometimes it is necessary to provoke a crisis," he said. It worked.


Chavez?s beligerence only escalated through early 2002, coming to a climax with his theatrical firing of seven top PDVSA officials who had resisted his moves to appoint the new board. The private media responded in kind, showering the population with antichavez propaganda around the clock. By April 9th, when the opposition called a General Work-Stoppage to protest Chavez's PDVSA stance, basic civility had completely broken down - with each side vowing to crush the other. The airwaves came to be dominated with propaganda - and Chavez used his power to "chain" the national broadcast media (i.e. to force them to all broadcast government propaganda live, all at the same time) to an unprecedented extent.


That the opposition media gave up any notion of journalistic balance in attacking the government can't really be denied, even if many of the attacks broadcast were both accurate and legitimate. I would argue, however, that Chavez was his own worst enemy in the media war, systematically seeking to piss off various constituencies, including all media critics, the unions, the catholic church, and any other institution he could not control. The climate of confrontation and intolerance reached incredible levels.


To gauge the confrontational extreme the government had reached, mull on this for a while: the proximate cause of the crisis, in April, was the appointment of that new PDVSA board. On April 10th, sensing the mood of national emergency, the newly appointed board members tendered their resignation to Chavez. Had this gesture been made public, it might ? might ? have been enough to defuse the whole crisis. But Chavez - in accord with his policy of the-worse-it-gets-the-better-it-gets - chose to keep their resignations secret. Within 24 hours, he had hundreds of thousands of protesters on the streets of Caracas.


The March

The opposition protesters brought together on April 11th did not know they were about to set off on an insurrectional adventure to the presidential palace. As advertised, the march would last just a few kilometers, from Parque del Este Metro station to the PDVSA building in Chuao ? both in the East side of Caracas, both 7 miles east of Miraflores Palace, which sits in the downtown area to the west of the city.


Satellite Photo of Caracas

1-March Starting point - Parque del Este.

2-Advertised end point - PDVSA Chuao.

3-Real end point - Miraflores Palace.


In fact, opposition leaders had planned a risky bait and switch on their own supporters. The night before the march, they had agreed that once they reached Chuao they would call on their followers to march west, the entire way to the presidential palace. The decision to re-route the march would be presented as a spontaneous, spur of the moment thing, and given the extremely emotionally charged atmosphere of those days, there was no doubt that the marchers would follow their leaders west.


One of the most interesting revelations, for me, in Sandra La Fuente and Alfredo Meza?s new book is that the government was fully aware that this was the opposition?s plan by the evening of April 10th. An agent from the Asamblea Popular Revolucionaria (the people who bring us Aporrea.org) "Directorate of Social Intelligence" managed to learn of the planned detour and transmitted the news back to headquarters.


The government evidently had to protect itself from what was, without exaggeration, an insurrectional march. From a public order point of view, the problem was not difficult: Chavez continued to command the Guardia Nacional ? a military-style internal security force along the lines of the Gendarmes in France, the Guardia Civil in Spain ? which is trained and equiped to deal with public order problems.


With 12 hours advanced notice, it would have been easy for the Guardia Nacional to block the march route to Miraflores. Simply by blocking off the end of Avenida Bol?var, the Guardia could have kept the marchers a safe distance apart. The march would have turned into another of many political rallies. There would have been speeches, slogans, and eventually the marchers would have packed it in and gone home. Simple.


This is not how Chavez reacted. Instead, he came up with a two-pronged plan to defend the palace.


First, his political machine - and, again, the Asamblea Popular Revolucionaria - gathered perhaps 3000 supporters to surround Miraflores for a counter-demonstration to face down the opposition marchers. La Fuente and Meza confirm that guns were handed out by pro-Chavez politicians to the crowd once the shooting started. "Some took them, some did not."


At least a handful of those supporters were caught on video shooting south, apparently in the direction of the opposition march. Though it is not clear ? because no serious investigation was ever carried out ? whether those shooters are responsible for the deaths down below, it?s plainly evident that much of the chavista self-defense strategy relied on deploying armed civilian supporters around the palace. So much so that the Presidential Guard Regiment had set up a field hospital to prepare to treat casualties in the parking lot of its Palacio Blanco headquarters, just across the road from Miraflores.


Plan Avila

The second prong of the government?s reaction is the one that really got Chavez in trouble that evening.


At 10:30 am, according to recordings of military radio frequencies made by opposition supporters, Chavez personally ordered the activation of Plan Avila. Now, those two words will mean little to foreign readers, but they will send chills down the spine of any Venezuelan.


Plan Avila is an army-run contingency plan designed to deal with serious disturbances in Caracas.


As far as I know, the plan had only ever been activated once before, during the massive looting that broke out on February 27th and 28th, 1989. The police and the Guardia Nacional had clearly been overrun by the riots, and the decision to deploy the army with orders to shoot looters on sight resulted in a terrible blood-bath.


At least 277 people were killed by the army during Plan Avila '89, giving rise to the first wave of home-grown human rights NGOs in Venezuela. Cofavic, the Victims and Family Members Committee set up to help the relatives of the victims, spent years pushing for an international human rights investigation headed by OAS?s Inter-American Human Rights Commission. Eventually, the commission found against Venezuela, ordering the government to pay restitutions to the families of the victims. The court also ordered Venezuela to disclose the operational details of the plan ? which had been protected by military secrecy laws ? and to bring Plan Avila into line with international human rights law.


The Chavez government, which was already in power when these decisions were handed down, has failed to implement either of the Interamerican Commission's decisions.


[For the sake of brevity, I?ll spare the reader an angry tirade about the rank hypocrisy revealed by the government?s failure to implement the IHRC decisions, given that Chavez spent 10 years using the 1989 massacre as a political hobby horse, a demonstration of the old regime?s callous disregard for the welfare of the people.]


For evident reasons, then, an order to activate Plan Avila set off alarm bells in the military establishment. The Venezuelan army has no riot gear, no non-lethal weapons at its disposal, no training in crowd control: just semi-automatic rifles packing live ammo. Moreover, the Venezuelan constitution categorically bans the use of firearms to control civilian protests.


If Plan Avila had been controversial in 1989, when it was deployed to control violent looting by armed groups of people, its application against a huge political march made up largely of unarmed civilians threatened a Tiananmen Square style political massacre.


By one of those quirks of fate, April 11th, 2002 was also the day when the International Criminal Court Treaty came into force worldwide. Fresh from the arrest of Pinochet in London, the officers were only too aware that human rights abuses have no statute of limitation.


To their unending credit, the two key military officers at the top of the Plan Avila chain of command simply refused to follow the president's orders. This is the key decision that set off the chain of events of the weekend.


Rosendo and Vasquez Velasco


Who were those two officers, and why did they act the way they did? Was their disobedience part of an insurrectional plot? Were they U.S. stooges? Or did they act on principle?



Left to right: Vasquez Velasco, Rosendo and Garcia Carneiro


The first of the two was Mayor General Manuel Rosendo, head of CUFAN, the Armed Forces Unified Command. A personal friend of Chavez and one-time baseball teammate, Rosendo was largely seen as a Chavista hardliner until that afternoon. Widely derided in opposition circles for his unseemly and openly political public statements during the Independence Day celebrations one year earlier, Rosendo was seen as a member of the chavista inner circle.


Indeed, on April 7th Rosendo had participated in a contingency planning meeting with Chavez, his cabinets, and members of his party, where he heard their plans to mobilize armed civilians to protect the presidential palace in case of major trouble. Rosendo pleaded with the president not to allow such paramilitary tactics into Venezuelan politics, sensing the potential for bloodletting. Chavez dismissed his concerns.


On the tenth, just a day before the crisis, Rosendo sent a long, emotionally charged letter to Chavez basically begging him to establish a dialogue with the opposition leaders to defuse the crisis. Rosendo was clearly not aware of Plan Colina, otherwise, he would have known that Chavez's policy of relentless escalation had been decided long before.


His position matters because, legally speaking, it is the head of CUFAN who has the duty to give the order to activate contingency plans like Plan Avila.


The second was Mayor General Efrain Vasquez Velasco, the overall commander of the Venezuelan army. Seen as a moderate until that point, Vasquez Velasco was in good terms with the government. Neither Rosendo nor Vasquez Velasco could, in any serious way, be seen as coup-plotters: intensely spied on by chavista intelligence officers, they had evidently been seen as trustworthy enough to keep in key military command posts.


It later emerged that Vasquez Velasco had met, once, with one of the people later revealed to have been deeply enmeshed in an anti-government conspiracy ? former Foreign Minister Enrique Tejera Paris ? all accounts of the meeting agree that the second Tejera Paris obliquely floated the possibility of a coup Vasquez Velasco simply got up and left the room. Certainly, looked at closely, Vasquez Velasco's decisions that weekend were not those of a man angling for power himself.


These were the people whose decisions precipitated Chavez?s fall: two very high ranking army officers trusted by Chavez, who were given an order they simply could not implement in good conscience. Having marched that day, having stood on Avenida Baralt with thousands of other people just minutes before the shooting started, I can?t help but be personally grateful to both of them, and to admire the cojones it took for them to just send the commander-in-chief to hell.


This is not, however, to say that there was no military conspiracy afoot that day. As shown on the private TV stations on April 12th (and in The Revolution will not be Televised) there surely was a conspiracy ? several conspiracies, in fact ? led by lower ranking army, guardia nacional and navy officers who were horrified by Chavez's palpably increasing authoritarianism. The thing to note, however, is that the key decision to disobey Chavez was not made by the conspirators ? they were made by members of the chavista inner circle. The conspirators swung into action only later that night, once Vasquez Velasco and Rosendo had forced Chavez into a corner. But lets not get ahead of ourselves here?


My April 11th

I spent most of April 11th running around Caracas with a camera crew - consisting of my friend Megan with her Cannon XL1, and our jolly oversized Scottish translator/bodyguard Hamish. We were working on a freelance project when the shit hit the fan - alas, we were not inside the palace.



April 11th March: Chuao


At 11:00 am, we were in Chuao when the march leaders ?spontaneously? announced the change of route. Me, I had to be at my newsroom by 11:30 to write VenEconomy?s daily 2 minute radio spot for RCR, which would be broadcast an hour later. I took a taxi back to the office, and in a feverish hurry wrote a spot warning that the country would need to give itself a new government and that this new government needed to be as broad based as possible, including even moderate chavistas (miquilenistas), in order to have any credibility or staying power.


I include that tidbit not just for the gloating rights. I want to make clear that even that early in the afternoon, before any of the killings and the military about-faces and the rest of it, it was clear that the popular mobilization against Chavez was too widespread to simply go away. It was also clear (to me, anyway) that the next government needed to take the high road if it was to have any credibility and staying power at all. It didn?t, and the rest is history.


Radio-spot duly written, I caught another taxi and went right downtown to meet the crew at Avenida Bol?var, where I figured the marchers would arrive at 2:00 pm or so ? 3 hours for a 7 mile march seemed about right to me. We sat down to eat some roasted chicken at a tasca with one eye on the TV sets, but before we?d quite finished, we saw the first few marchers beginning to pour into the avenue. It must have been about 1:30 p.m. or so.


We started to walk along with the marchers, trying to get some nice shots of what we could all sense would be a historic day. Marching down the street, I kept reassuring Megan: ?it?s ok, they had 3 hours to prepare?evidently we?ll run into a Guardia Nacional roadblock at the end of the Avenida.?


The end of the avenida came, no road block.



Downtown Detail:

1-Miraflores Palace

2-Calvario Stairs

3-Llaguno Bridge

4-Avenida Baralt: Main shooting alley

5-Avenida Bolivar: Main march approach.


?Don?t worry ? the government can?t be this stupid ? obviously there?ll be a road-block on the next block.? But no?we kept on walking the remaining 6 or 7 blocks to Miraflores, and ? to my consternation ? realized there would be no Guardia barricade at all ? just a bunch of heavily armed chavistas waiting for us on the other side.


Finally, just one lousy block south from the palace, a very thin line of Metropolitan Police officers (i.e. people commanded by the opposition mayor of Caracas) stood trying to keep the opposition crowd at bay. They had no riot gear, no gas masks, nothing. The most radical of the opposition marchers simply walked right past them, through a no-man?s land just one block deep, to the other side, where a similarly thin line of Guardias Nacionales stood keeping trying in turn to keep the pro-Chavez demonstrators away from the opposition, relying mostly on tear gas.

The next hour is a blur of street skirmishes, tear gas, and any number of explosions that sounded like fireworks but could well have been gunshots. I, for one, can?t tell the difference. The thin line of Guardias had enough tear gas on hand to keep the two sides more or less apart, but opposition hot-heads kept charging them. The atmosphere was impossibly tense, and soon, it became clear to me that this would not end without significant violence.



April 11th March: One block south of Miraflores


By 3:30 we retreated from the Calvario stairs towards Avenida Baralt. Jumpy as hell, I kept trying to persuade Megan to just get the hell out of there ? whatever footage we might get out of the melee didn?t seem worth the ration of lead I could feel we were likely to get. After getting some shots on Avenida Baralt - with the chavistas on Llaguno Bridge clearly visible - a man walked up to us. As he did, Megan swung the camera to film him. He put his hand over the lense and said, "no, you can't film me. I just came to tell you that you should get out of here. You'll be picked off in particular because of the camera. Get out, now."


So we did. We didn't get a single recognizable shot of the guy, so I have no way to know who he was. An infiltrated DISIP suddenly gripped with a spasm of conscience? A guardian angel? I have no idea. I do know that five photographers and cameramen were wounded that day, and one of them, Jorge Tortoza, was killed. For all I know, that guy saved Megan's life.


We started walking, in the mass of confusion, first south and then back towards the east side. At that time - 4:00 or so - a huge opposition crowd was still walking west on Avenida Mexico, towards the palace. The streets were filled with people, rumors and confusion. For a while, the marchers chanted, simply, "?Ejercito cag?n! ?Ejercito cag?n!" - the Army is chickenshit, as a way to urge the officers to join the protests in defiance of Chavez.


About 5 minutes after leaving Avenida Baralt, I turned on my pocket radio to scan for news. To my astonishment, what I heard was Chavez?s voice, on yet another cadena nacional ? a live nation-wide broadcast that all TV channels and radio stations are forced to carry simultaneously. The first news blackout of the weekend was on.


I didn't know it at the time, but the cadena started only minutes after the start of the shootout that left 20 dead and over 100 injured ? most of them on Avenida Baralt, the street I?d been standing on five minutes earlier. Because there were so many loud bangs in the air, people did not initially realize that shooting had started. Many of the first to be woulded figured they had been hit with a rock or a bottle: only gradually did it become clear live shooting had started.


Today, it's certain that there were deaths on both sides. Because no proper investigation has ever been held, it is not possible to know exactly who started shooting, why and when exactly. What's clear is that, the the cadena, the government had taken a decisive step to block reporting of the shooting taking place just feet from the palace.


Since I had a radio instead of a TV, I did not see what millions of Venezuelans saw. Enraged at Chavez's decision to give a rambling speech in the middle of a national emergency ? the TV stations decided to split their screens down the middle. On one side you saw the president speaking, while on the other side you saw live video images of the shooting spree taking place just meters from where he was.


For more than two long hours during perhaps the worst episode of political violence in Venezuela since the 60s, Chavez continued to speak while people died outside. He never stopped to try to do something to stop the shooting. Every few minutes, an army officer would enter the frame and slip the president a bit of paper containing a casualty tally, which Chavez would read, and then continue talking in his most natural voice. He never stopped to do something to stop the violence raging just outside his door.


Not all the shooting that day happened on Avenida Baralt ? people died on several other locations in the general vicinity, again on both sides. Minutes after the start of the shooting on Avenida Baralt, one man was killed standing directly behind Miraflores, in the Chavista march on Avenida Urdaneta - well away from line-of-sight from the Hotel Eden and the opposition march. The shots, according to police investigations, came from the Bolero building.


One of the most puzzling subplots here concerns the arrests made by the police at the Hotel Ausonia on the 11th, where several foreigners were arrested with guns, jailed until April 16th, and then released unconditionally by a court under the restored Chavez government. They immediately vanished. Who were they? The government has hinted they were opposition sharpshooters, but forensic tests did not show they had fired weapons recently. They were never questioned or arrested after the 16th, and may have been simple criminals who chose the wrong hotel at the wrong time. But who can be sure?


Chavez?s speech continued through 5:30 pm. Towards the end, he announced he was shutting down the country?s main TV stations as a response to their conspiratorial actions against him. This, again, seemed like a blunt ploy to cover up the coverage of the afternoon?s violence. Little did he know that by the time that decision was taken, the horse was already out of the stable: the private TV channels had already split their screens and broadcast live images of the massacre, so everyone in the country more or less knew what was happening.


The next few hours were a time of utter confusion. In Caracas, the terrestrial TV towers were taken over by the Guardia Nacional and the private TV stations shut down. However, the private broadcasters remained on the air in the rest of the country, and via satellite. I didn?t have a satellite dish at home, so like a lot of other people in town I made my way to the house of my nearest Satellite Dish owning relative: my sister Ana, in my case. There, we sat astonished watching the news coverage of the violence. It was the first time in our lives we had seen people killed in large numbers for political reasons. The sense of crisis grew minute by minute.


By 10:00 pm, Chavez's former number-2 man, Luis Miquilena, went on television to openly denounce the government's power play. Given his large following in congress and the supreme tribunal - since he had been given primary responsibility for selecting pro-Chavez officers to those posts - Miquilena's desertion opened the door, in the eyes of many, to the possibility of a constitutional solution to the crisis. Within hours of his "cadena", Chavez's congressional majority had vanished.


Then, the coup de grace came. A Venevision camera crew managed, through an outstanding bit of bravado, to get actual images of some government supporters shooting down into Avenida Baralt from Llaguno Bridge (this "bridge" is really an overpass that crosses over Avenida Baralt.) The images were the only direct evidence of people shooting available that night. In the atmosphere of sheer confusion, it was not immediately evident that anyone was shooting in the other direction. The private TV stations repeated the footage again, and again and again, giving the impression that the opposition march had been ambushed by government supporters.


Images of Llaguno Gunmen shooting south towards Avenida Baralt captured by Venevision. The man in the white jacket is Richard Pe?alver.


One of the gunmen was identified as Richard Penalver, a pro-Chavez municipal council member in the district where I lived - in fact, an elected official. The footage showed him emptying his gun with glee towards the south of the bridge, the area where the opposition march had spent much of the afternoon. At the time, the footage seemed incredibly damning, and whatever support Chavez still enjoyed within the armed forces quickly crumbled.


Now, viewers of The Revolution will not be Televised know that, as far as the Chavistas were concerned the footage of Puente Llaguno was a blatant manipulation, since amateur video taken from a different angle and made public later showed no protesters on the southern part of Avenida Baralt while the chavistas fired.


The argument, presented as definitive on the film, is hardly enlightening. The film suggests, but does not quite say, that the opposition march had not yet reached Avenida Baralt at that point. It entirely glosses over the question of who shot the civilian marchers who were killed or wounded on the southern part of the avenue. Though witness statements suggest the Llaguno Gunmen only got their guns after the shooting had started, and were filmed shooting well into the gun battle, while the opposition marchers who died appear to have fallen in the first few minutes of the shootout, one must regard their official excuse - that it's okay because they were shooting at the opposition-led police - as borderline nonsensical.


Then there was the confusing episode of the tank column filmed going from Fuerte Tiuna through the highway towards Miraflores Palace. If you saw The Revolution will not be Televised you'll recognize the scene, but you may be surprised to find out that contrary to the spin put on it by the film, the tank movements were not part of the coup, in fact, they were ordered by Chavez. The Ayala Tank Battalion was among the last to stay loyal to Chavez that evening, and they answered his call to surround the palace with military armor.


But by the time the tanks reached Miraflores the vast bulk of the army was against Chavez, and there were reportedly even threats to bomb the palace from the air, Santiago style. Of course, if you're facing an F16 strike, a tank on the street is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle, so the tanks really played no role. On advice from Havana, and owing no doubt also to his own psychological disposition, Chavez rejected the offer of martyrdom and gave himself up, showing up at Fuerte Tiuna wearing, illegally, his military field uniform.


An evening in Fuerte Tiuna

At midday and through the afternoon, Rosendo and Vasquez Velasco had decided to go to Miraflores and tender their resignations to Chavez, explaining why they could not implement his orders in accordance to international human rights law - nothing more. But as the evening wore on, more and more active duty military officers came forward to withdraw their support for the government and demand Chavez?s resignation. The small conspiratorial cliques that had formed between military friends privately terrified of Chavez's rhetoric all burst into the open at once.


A reporter friend of mine actually went to Fuerte Tiuna that night to witness the toppling of a government as it happened. There was so much confusion at the fort that he was simply allowed to slip in and mingle with the assembling generals. The story he tells is one of sheer confusion, with a bewildering array of generals milling around trying to decide what to do, while opposition civilians hung around different cubicles drafting God only knows what on the PCs they could find. Chief among them: opposition "leading light" Allan Brewer Carias, together of course with Pedro Carmona.


By the middle of the evening, the private TV broadcasters were back on the air in Caracas, and the state-run TV channel had been abandoned by its chavista managers, who feared retribution. (Amusingly, if you tuned in to Channel 8 that evening, you were faced with 30 year old nature documentaries of little ducklings...the last tape hastily thrown on the air as the managers ran.) As it became clearer and clearer that the government was in the process of falling, the Chavez regime started to "melt away." Any number of pro-Chavez officials and political activists went into hiding.


A confused set of negotiations ensued between Chavez and a now openly rebellious army. Faxes were exchanged, Chavez was initially offered safe passage to Cuba only to later see that offer reversed. By 3 a.m., Chavez had decided to give himself up, and go to the army?s main installation in Caracas, Fuerte Tiuna, to be told his fate.


The negotiations at Fuerte Tiuna on night from April 11th to the 12th were complex, chaotic and confusing. By most accounts, Chavez agreed in principle to resign if he was guaranteed safe passage for himself and his entire family to Cuba. But splits between the rebellious officers were evident: one group, the pragmatists, wanted to just send him off into exile and start afresh. A second group, the maximalists, argued that Chavez should be tried in Venezuela for the afternoon?s deaths and that, in any case, he could become a deeply destabilizing figure if allowed to flee to Cuba.


By any standard, the military chain of command had gone to all hell, and the evening became a kind of civic-military free for all. Though nominally still in charge, Vasquez Velasco had lost control of the coup.


At around 2:40 a.m. on what was already April 12th, much of the nation was still glued to the TV coverage of the crisis. Suddenly, one last cadena: General Lucas Rincon, the highest ranking member of the armed forces and a chavista loyal enough to have earned a third sun (equivalent to five stars in the US) despite never having fought a war, comes on the screen. He's flanked by what remains of the pro-Chavez high command of the Armed Forces.


Rincon read a prepared statement. Using an oddly circumloquoitous formlation in the passive tense that left it unclear exactly who had done the asking, Rincon announced that President Chavez had been asked to resign, a request "which he accepted." ("La cual acept?..." was the soon infamous formulation.) Rincon proceeded to tender his resignation together with that of the other pro-Chavez generals, leaving the change-of-president an apparently done-deal. Celebrations rang out through the east of Caracas. According to his later congressional testimony, Rincon then went to sleep.


Lucas Rincón: "La cual, acectó."


(Bafflingly, Rincon remains a member of Chavez's inner circle even today, after having announced the collapse of the regime to the entire country. He's now Interior Minister, a powerful post. I've never seen a convincing explanation as to how on earth that can be, but this fact has fed more than a few conspiracy theories.)


By dawn, the best organized of the conspiratorial cliques, somehow managed to wrest control of the situation. Financed by a shadowy arms dealer, by the name of Isaac Perez Recao, the group included Brewer Carias but also Daniel Romero (the far-right wing "solicitor-general-for-a-day" who drafted Carmona's executive decree), Carmona, the top brass of the navy, and in particular Fedecamaras, the employer's federation. Due largely to their long standing contacts with the late Cardinal Ignacio Velazco - then the influential head of the Catholic Church in Venezuela - they persuaded Vasquez Velasco to accept Pedro Carmona - the head of Fedecamaras - as an interim president. Vasquez Velasco, eager to put the country back in civilian hands as soon as possible, accepted.


In the weeks following those events, this takeover by the rightwing conspirators came to be known as the ?coup-within-a-coup?, and to my mind this remains the best way to describe what actually took place. The decision, taken late at night after a roller-coaster of a day, proved disastrous.


April 12th: The Carmonada


The day after the coup most people woke up to hear that Pedro Carmona would be the new president and he would make a statement later on his course of action. Carmona had been one of the most prominent leaders in the anti-Chavez movement, so his appointment seemed almost natural to many. That morning, nobody asked the obvious question in public: who had chosen Carmona? and by what authority?



Pedro Carmona flanked by Vice-admiral Carlos Molina Tamayo and Army Colonel Gustavo Diaz Vivas, Carmona's personal guard (edec?n)


That same morning, the White House Press Secretary made a shocking pronouncement that has been used again and again to paint the Bush administration as co-conspirators of Perez Recao, Carmona and company.


As reported by CNN:


"Chavez supporters, on orders, fired on unarmed, peaceful demonstrators," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said, referring to Thursday's violence that killed 12 people and wounded dozens more. "Venezuelan military and police refused to fire ... and refused to support the government's role in human rights violations."


Two things to notice. First off, Fleischer's statement does leave out half the story. It wasn't only chavistas firing, but at that point in time, there was no way to find out who else had been firing in the mayhem. Nor could Fleischer be sure that the Chavistas were firing on those they appeared to be firing on. The second part of the statement is perfectly factually correct, though, and of course always conveniently left out of Bushwhacking accounts of the coup.


The second thing to notice is that Fleischer's main blunder was to speak prematurely. The White House statement was made several hours before Carmona's provisional government decree had been made public. The statement did not explicitly recognize the new government, largely because the new government had not yet been established.


Though it was retroactively read as a statement of support for Carmona's plans, the fact is that the White House couldn't have known Carmona's plans. The decree setting out the Carmona government hadn't even been finished at that point. Ari jumped the gun. By speaking out of turn, he wrote a kind of blank check of US support for whatever Carmona might choose to do - a trust Carmona clearly didn't deserve.


Verbena en Miraflores

Back in Miraflores, the scene remained chaotic. On the one hand, dozens of job-hunting opposition politicians had turned up for a chance at the spoils. At the same time intense efforts were taking place behind the scenes to get Carmona to reconsider.


While chavista propagandists has associated the coupsters with far right wing figures associated to hyper-conservative catholic groups like Opus Dei, the truth is somewhat slipperier. Gustavo Linares Benzo, a well-known lawyer and one time Opuso, certainly was in Miraflores on the morning and afternoon of the 12th. But he wasn't in the conspiratorial clique, he was lobbying against Carmona's plans. Instead, he proposed a plan to ask the National Assembly to convene and, with Miquilenista votes, certify the "permanent absence" of the president from his post, paving the way to a constitutional transition. Linares Benzo's proposals garnered some support from the assembled, but Carmona doesn't seem to have seriously considered it.


Other political figures showed their mettle that day. Cecilia Sosa, the head of the adeca encopetada faction and former Chief Magistrate of the old pre-Chavez Supreme Court, is often seen as a bit of a right-wing extremist. That day, however, she had the law firmly in mind. Sosa faced Carmona down personally just minutes before he read out his decree, explaining to him bluntly that there was no imaginable legal basis for handing him the presidency. "That has already been decided, Dr. Sosa, that has already been decided," is the only response she got from him.



Cecilia Sosa


The decree eventually drafted and read by our solicitor-general-for-24-hours, Daniel Romero, dripped with excesses. At one pen-stroke, on authority granted to them by God only knows who, the decree shut down all the federal institutions, the Supreme Tribunal, the National Assembly, all of them. It suspended 49 Chavez-imposed laws and even changed the official name of the country back to the pre-Chavez "Republica de Venezuela." In return, the decree pledged elections that Carmona would not participate in within one year. In the interim there would be a kind of legal void, with no elected institutions operating at the national level and nearly limitless power put in the hands of the interim president and an appointed "consultative board."


The antichavistas assembled in Miraflores that day cheered the decree wildly, intoxicated with the sense of victory. But the roster of signators who sought to legitimize the decree was worrying. Most signators were hard-right, business-class types. When the announcer called for "the representative of the Workers' Federation to come forward," no one turned up...and for good reason. Alfredo Ramos, the only CTV member in the room, later explained that he refuses, on principle, to sign any document he hasn't read carefully beforehand.


Trouble

As Carmona signed his decree, Carlos Ortega, the head of the Venezuelan Workers' Federation, was 300 kilometers west in his home state of Falc?n. Though Ortega and Carmona had acted as a team in leading the protest movement until April 11th, Carmona had distanced himself in the final 48 hours. By leaving, Ortega wanted to make it perfectly clear that he had no part in putting together the transitional government. This breakdown in the CTV-Fedecamaras alliance, at the most sensitive moment, may have been enough to doom the coup. So long as the anti-Chavez unions could claim to speak for both employers and workers, it could plausibly claim to represent the whole nation. With labor out of the equation, the movement was reduced to a right-wing power play.


Nor was the situation much better in the barracks. When General Vasquez Velasco agreed to make Carmona president, he had naturally expected to earn the Defense Ministry in return. Instead, Carmona stunned the military by naming a navy man as defense minister. Vice-admiral Hector Ram?rez Perez was close to Carmona, Molina Tamayo and Perez Recao, but it was doubtful whether a navy officer could really establish control of the army at such a delicate time.


Perhaps because he was a navy man, Ram?rez P?rez neglected some of the most basic elements of effective coupsterism. Inexplicably, he made no effort to ensure loyal anti-Chavez troops took control of the presidential palace. The pro-Chavez Presidential Guard of Honor regiment was left in place and in military control of Miraflores even as Carmona and his people moved in.


Moreover, the new regime had not shown itself overly concerned with calming the calls for revenge coming from some in the opposition side. The entire leadership of the Chavista government went underground, and a kind of witch-hunt broke down to find them, along with the shooters seen in the previous night's endlessly repeated video.


At some point, a rumor started making the rounds that Chavez's vicepresident, Diosdado Cabello, had sought asylum at the Cuban embassy in Chuao. An angry mob was soon on the scene demanding his scalp. The rumor was not true, but the crowd was belligerent, so Ambassador German Sanchez Otero called the opposition mayor of the area, Henrique Capriles, to come and save his skin. This Capriles did, as best he could, in a highly emotionally charged atmosphere. At the time, Sanchez Otero thanked him. Today, Capriles is a wanted man for "leading the riots" outside the Cuban embassy that day.


Similarly, the Primero Justicia mayor of Chacao, Leopoldo Lopez had tried to protect then Chavez interior minister Ramon Rodriguez Chacin, who was arrested at an east side apartment. An angry mob had gathered to witness the event: many tried to get punches in to Rodriguez Chacin as he was escorted into police vehicles. The footage was shown repeatedly on opposition news stations that day.


Other chavistas, like self-described Human Rights activist Tarek William Saab, were also arrested that day. In a show of democratic fortitude, a selected few anti-Chavez activists spent the day pleading with the Carmona authorities to release them. Teodoro Petkoff, Milagros Socorro and Ruth Capriles in particular need to be singled out for praise. It would have been far easier and more comfortable for them to look the other way that day. In fact, faced with recent political jailings, chavistas like Tarek himself have shown just how much easier it is to look the other way than to denounce injustices your own side perpetrates.


By the evening of April 12th, the coup was just starting to unravel. General Vasquez Velasco, stunned by the sweeping illegality of Carmona's regime, started to say out loud that in refusing Chavez's order the day before, he had intended to protect the constitution, not to establish a de facto regime. CTV continued to stay well away from Miraflores and rumors started to circulate more and more insistently that Chavez had not, in fact, resigned, and that no signed resignation letter existed.


By that evening, the US embassy was fully aware of what a blunder Fleischer's statement had been that morning. US Ambassador Charles Shapiro reportedly called Carmona to urge him to think again, particularly on the very sensitive matter of dissolving the elected popular assembly. This is another key detail that's normally suppressed from standard the-US-did-it versions of the story.


Pedro Carmona rejected Shapiro, saying he could not be seen to backtrack on his first major decision. The following day, Carmona would offer to reverse this position, convening the National Assembly after all. By then, it was too late.


Carmona's biggest problem, though, was that he failed to obtain the one thing he needed to give his rule any semblance of legitimacy: a signed resignation letter. As the hours passed, and especially in pro-Chavez circles, rumors grew that Chavez had refused to sign a resignation letter and had therefore been kidnapped. It was the international media that carried this story first, in particular CNN, which even had an interview from someone claiming to be Marisabel, Chavez's wife, denying her husband had resigned.


Had the Carmona clique worked to gain a broader base of support, had it not alienated so many potential allies so quickly, it might well have weathered this "bump in the road." But by the time Carmona realized he had to give way, it was already too late.


April 13th: The Incredible Collapsing Coup


I woke up on the morning of April 13th to a puzzling anomaly. My clock radio woke me up to a nice spot about the history of the Arepa. Since I was looking for news, I fiddled with the dial a bit - This Week in Baseball, dubbed, was on one station, a catholic mass on another, and so on. I turned on the TV and found I had a choice between animaniacs, a Major League Baseball game on channel 10, or canned 24 hour old news on Globo. Hmmm. "That's it then," I thought, "just 48 hours old and the coup's already stopped making headlines..." Politics, I reflected, would be commendably boring under Carmona. At last.


Soon, the phone rang. It was my colleague Juana. "Chamo, I don't like the way this is going down. The witch-hunt is still going on and suddenly there are no news...who knows what's happening behind the scenes?! No chamo, I don't like it at all..." Juana's call was my first intimation that the coup was in trouble. I started flipping through the radio dial more aggressively. Absolutely no news on any station. "What the hell?" I thought. I had no way to know then that the infamous April 13th news blackout was on.


By late on the 12th, insiders could tell what the rest of the country could not: the de facto regime was in trouble. Word that Chavez had not, in fact, signed a resignation letter was spreading fast. Meanwhile, Carmona's parallel pissing-off of the Labor unions and much of the Army hierarchy was making it increasingly difficult for him to control the situation. Only the media, it seemed, remained solidly in the Carmonista camp.


It appears that on the afternoon of the 12th, Carmona had gathered together the nation's media barons and asked them, somewhat diplomatically, to help ensure his government's stability. The owners understood this clearly enough, and complied. Soon, all reporting of the collapsing coup was banned on the private media. During one of the most historically important dates in Venezuela's contemporary history, the TV channels and radio stations simply white-washed the story - with the single, heroic exception of Radio Fe y Alegria, the only station in Caracas to have broken the cartel that day.


Media owners would later claim that conditions were simply not safe enough to send their reporters out that day. As an excuse, it's not a very good one. Reporters are, by nature, aggressively curious people. Many were dying for permission to go out and report on the events of the day. Their bosses told them in no uncertain terms they could not.


Surely, the streets were dangerous that day, but it was hardly Beirut. There was rioting and looting in much of the city, especially in the far west, Petare and Chapellin. There were reports of Metropolitan Police excesses in trying to quell these disturbances, and I've heard stories of up to 50 looters shot dead, though - to repeat my mantra once again, it's impossible to be sure because no serious investigation has ever been held. The absence of news about the latest crises gave the situation a strange, other-worldly feel. To see your city burn is one thing. To see it burn and to see the media refuse to talk about it is quite another. The rumor mill went into unprecedented overdrive.


Me? I was lucky that day. Since I was working as a freelancer, there was no boss around to forbid me from going out and reporting. So I did. I'd heard rumors that Chavistas were congregating outside Fuerte Tiuna to demand the president's return. At about 11:30 am, Megan and I headed out with a video camera to see if we could talk to them. We somehow managed to find a taxi driver crazy enough to take us there, and we headed out.


First, we drove through downtown. The city was mostly deserted. Very few cars, almost no pedestrians, and little groups of 5-15 chavistas on most corners holding pro-Chavez signs. Our cab driver radioed her colleagues to find out the situation in 23 de Enero, and quickly refused to take us there. "Too much shooting," she said. She agreed, however, to take us to Fuerte Tiuna.


As we crossed the tunnels on the way to the Fort, we got an up-close look at some of the west-side shantytowns. We saw the same thing we'd seen downtown. Small groups of people, in clumps of 5 or 10 or 15 at most, had come together on some corners to wave Venezuelan flags and hand made signs demanding Chavez's return to power. Some cars honked at them in support.


Arriving at Fuerte Tiuna's main entrance was a bizarre experience. A set of three armored personnel carriers blocked the entrance, and a line of military police was deployed just in front of them. Behind the soldiers, there was a small but exceedingly emotional pro-Chavez crowd covering the highway overpass into Fuerte Tiuna. The crowd did not quite fill the overpass - to my untrained eye it looked to be about 1000 people or so.


They were, however, about as angry as I've ever seen anyone be angry. They were enraged at the blackout, and grateful for the chance to explain what was happening to a camera. "We've been coming since yesterday. Yesterday the Metropolitan Police came in to disperse us shooting. They left a whole bunch of people dead. But we're back now because Chavez is our president and we know he's being held hostage and we demand him back!" said one woman, tears rolling down her face.


We spent about an hour on that overpass, getting footage and talking to people. The atmosphere was tense and emotional - the soldiers really looked like they had no clue what they were doing there - but everyone was real nice to us. At about 1:30 we took a taxi back home. On the way, I scanned the radio for news again. Nothing.


Meltdown

By this time, the coup was crumbling fast. On the one hand, General Vasquez Velasco had decided to strike back against the Carmona faction. In mid-afternoon he went on the air to read the following communiqu?:


"On April 11th, the Army issued an institutional statement with relation to the casualties generated that day due to the unwillingness to dialogue on the part of the President of the Republic and his government. Civil society, rich and poor together, marched peacefully and were repressed by the forces of order and attacked by sharpshooters around Miraflores Palace.


The army was ordered to place tanks on the streets, without the consent of the Commander of the Army (i.e. Vasquez Velasco himself.) This could not be tolerated, because it would have caused thousands of deaths. Our statement on April 11th was institutional and geared against the actions of the government. It was loyal to constitutional norms and consistent with democratic institution. It was not a military coup perpetrated by the army.


As Commander of the Army, together with the high command and many other officers, we send a message of calm to the people of Venezuela and we inform them that the army is working hard to correct errors and omissions made in this transition. We therefore make the following demands:


1. Establish a transition based on the 1999 constitution, the applicable laws, and respect for human rights.


2. Eliminate the Transitional Government decree of April 12th, 2002.


3. Reconvene the National Assembly.


4. Seek consensus with all the social forces in the nation to constitute a transition government that is representative and marked by pluralism.


We issue a call to peace and calm, and for every government action to be carried out with maximum respect for human rights.


...


We demand the construction of a society without exclusion, where any protest or disquiet can be manifested peacefully, without weapons, and with the full exercise of liberty within the rule of law.


...


We guarantee the security and the respectful treatment of Lieutenant Colonel Hugo Chavez and his family. We urge the authorities to comply with Lieutenant Colonel Chavez request to leave the country immediately and we demand live TV images of Lieutenant Colonel Chavez be broadcast immediately.


We the members of the armed Forces guarantee the security of all the people of Venezuela.


Mayor General Efra?n Vasquez Velasco

Commander of the Venezuelan Army


Some fascist he is, huh?


Several things are noteworthy about the statement. First of all, it makes a mockery of those who would equate April 11th, 2002 with September 11th, 1973 in Santiago. One struggles to picture General Pinochet signing a declaration like this one. More clearly than any other document from that weekend, the statement makes it clear that, whatever April 11th-14th was, it was not a traditional Latin American coup d'etat.


The other thing to notice was that, in some ways, the statement is the public start of the counter-coup. In many ways, General Vasquez Velasco made both the key decision in toppling Chavez and the key decision in reinstating him.


Hearing the statement, Carmona finally realized his decree was untenable. He went on National Television late in the afternoon to pledge to reverse course and, in particular, convene the National Assembly. By that point, it was way too late.The plan to bring Chavez back was already well underway.


The counter-coup

Sensing that the coup was faltering, two key pro-Chavez army officers stepped forward, General Jorge Garcia Carneiro and General Raul Baduel. Together, they put together an "Operation Restore Dignity" - to return Chavez to Miraflores. No one dared to fight them on this.


Garcia Carneiro was, at the time, head of the army division based in Fuerte Tiuna. He never acquiesced to the coup, though some claim he chickened out badly at one point. Story has it that on the 13th, Garcia Carneiro managed to get out of Fuerte Tiuna in a light tank which he drove through the west-side slums urging people to rise up and restore Chavez. Garcia Carneiro has since been given his "third sun" and, despite a mediocre military record, he's now Defense Minister.


The second and far more influential player was Baduel, the head of the Paratroop Regiment based in Maracay, about 150 kilometers west of Caracas. Baduel, who has since been promoted to Vasquez Velasco's old job as overall Commander of the Army, is an old friend of Chavez. In April 2002, he commanded the regiment Chavez once belonged to. Journalists who have made it into his office are always amazed by the smell of incense and the eastern religious paraphernalia he keeps around. Baduel makes no attempt to hide it: he's a proud, practicing Daoist.



General Raul Baduel


Baduel had been close to Chavez for many years. He participated in the infamous 1982 Sam?n de G?ere conspiratorial oath, pledging to work together for a revolution. The general soon made it clear he would not cooperate with Carmona's de facto regime. This is significant because the 43rd Paratrooper Brigade is by far the best equipped and best trained fighting force in the Venezuelan army. By most accounts, the paratroopers are really the only well equipped and properly trained fighting force in the army. Baduel set about coordinating the operation to first locate and then bring back Chavez to Miraflores.


Baduel's move changed the military equation decisively. The rest of the army quickly understood that, to make the coup stand, they would have to shoot it out with the Paratrooper Brigade, something nobody wanted to do. As Carmona had already alienated most of his natural base of support by then, the rest of the army was loathe to fight and die for him. Baduel's decision to back Chavez basically essentially closed the deal.


Carmona never really had a chance to react. By the time he realized that the Presidential Honor Guard, the Caracas Army Division and the Paras were all working to bring back Chavez, his support was too narrow to stage any kind of fight back. In the afternoon, a pro-Chavez crowd began to assemble outside Miraflores. Soon enough, Carmona caught on that the Honor Guard would not act to disperse them. In a frightful hurry, he and his people abandoned Miraflores, leaving behind stacks of agendas and documents that the chavistas deeply enjoyed reading over the following weeks.


As the coup collapsed more and more visibly, more and more chavistas felt emboldened to come out onto the streets. By 10:00 p.m. a decent crowd had gathered in front of Miraflores Palace - about four blocks' worth of Avenida Urdaneta, according to eye-witnesses. Certainly, it's quite impressive to turn out 30 or 40,000 people with no official organization and in dangerous circumstances like this. The hardest of Caracas' hardcore chavistas sure did turn out: they were not about to miss the momentous occassion of Chavez's phoenix like return to power.


But even when the chavistas get it right, they have to go and ruin it with crazy exaggerations. Instead of embracing the 40,000 outside Miraflores that night, Chavez went on to claim that as many as 8 million people had come out on the streets that day. In official chavista lore, it was this massive people-power outburst of solidarity that brought Chavez back to power. Alarmingly, I've seen more than one foreign correspondent buy this line.


The 8 million figure is not even believable as a send up. Not only is the estimate at least two orders of magnitude too large, but it gets the causality backwards: Chavez did not return because the crowds came out, the crowds came out because they could sense Chavez returning. The key decisions - both to remove Chavez and to reinstate them - were taken behind closed doors by high-ranking military men.


At about 8:00 pm, the situation turned nastier. Incensed at the absence of news coverage that day, pro-Chavez civilian groups - the famous Circulos Bol?varianos - activated a plan to stick it to the private channels. Riding around in swarms of motorcycles, they started touring the studios of the main TV channels, throwing stones through the windows and shooting into the buildings sporadically. The media switched, within minutes, from showing shlocky American made-for-TV movies to covering what was happening directly outside their doors. For over two hours, they cowered in terror, using the airwaves to ask for someone, anyone to come and protect them. But with Carmona having already lost control of the situation, the military chain of command had collapsed all over again. There seemed to be no one around with the authority or the desire to order the National Guard to step in and stop the violence.


By 10:00 pm or so, word got around that although the Venezuelan channels had no real news, Colombia's Radio Caracol and CNN en Espa?ol had coverage of the crisis. Since Caracol comes through the satellite dish system in Caracas, once again the city was split between the dish-owners, who had access to information, and everyone else. By 11:00, Radio Caracol had made it clear that the coup had comprehensibly unravelled and Chavez was on his way back to Miraflores. The Venezuelan stations only announced as much after midnight. In an interview I'll never forget, a terrified Pedro Penzini Fleury interviewed hardcore pro-Chavez National Assemblymember Cilia Flores on UnionRadio, and I swear at one point he half-apologized to her for having overthrown her government. Surreal.


By 3:00 a.m. the following Morning, Chavez had returned to Miraflores to an ecstatic reception from his followers. Even the most recalcitrant anti-chavista journalists I know who were at Miraflores for the event own up that it was a moving, exciting experience. "That day," one of them told me, "it doesn't matter how escualido you thought you were, when you saw the faces on the people outside Miraflores as Chavez got out of that helicopter, you could not help but be a chavista."


A chastised Chavez gave an early morning speech, thanking his supporters and pledging to change, to really change after this experience. He promised to govern inclusively, to bring critics on board. The good intentions did not last long, but the promises fanned speculation that certain conditions had been imposed on Chavez before he had returned to office, including chiefly a change in tone. In addition, the president has never again been seen illegally wearing his military uniform.


Taking stock

This is as much as I know about what happened that weekend. Clearly, many questions remain unaswered mostly because - have I mentioned this yet? - no proper investigation has ever been held.


It's worth dwelling on this a bit longer, because more than anything that happened on April 11th-15th, it's the government's subsequent unwillingness to investigate that seems most damning to me. Certainly, they were urged to investigate credibly from the very first day after Chavez's return. On April 15th, Teodoro Petkoff wrote this in his Simon Boccanegra column:


"The killings on April 11th around Miraflores Palace must not remain a mystery. Those responsible must be taken before the courts. But to find them, an investigation has to be headed by a sort of 'truth commission,' an absolutely impartial body trusted by all. In this war of accusations and counter-accusations, it's the government that stands to gain the most from a Truth Commission because suspicion today falls most strongly on some of its backers. The Prosecutors' Office must, of course, carry out its duties, but just like in some Central American countries and Argentina and Chile, the official institutions should act in parallel with a Truth Commission in order to clear up any doubt about what happened. No investigation carried out only by official institution, regardless of the evidence they put forward, will be credible. National reconciliation can only be achieved through justice, not revenge. The basis for justice is truth."


Two days later, he added:


"Everyone understands that only an impartial investigation will be credible to everyone. Turning this page, not allowing this despicable episode to turn into a tumor that attacks the entire future political life of this deeply divided country, will only be possible establishing the truth and prosecuting those responsible for what happened."


And on April 18th, he wrote:


"What we had feared has started to happen. The sad events of April 11th have already been turned into projectiles tossed back and forth between the various political parties, who accuse each other of responsibility for the deaths. Instead of waiting for the result of an investigation from a Truth Commission, in Parliament each side went straight for "its" videos and "its" photos to sustain "its" truth. This road is totally barren and, from the start, demonstrates an unwillingness to get to the truth. Each side seems to want to keep the affair in a cloud of uncertainty, seeking to keep the events confusing enough to use as a political argument in future debates. This would be a calamity for the country."


It was only one week after this statement that prosecutors finally moved in to "secure" the crime scene. By then, most of the evidence was gone.


Writing just a week after the massacre, Teo showed his uncanny prescience. Today, almost two years later, the country has seen neither a Truth Commission nor an impartial investigation. Just as Teo predicted, the deaths have turned into an inscrutable mystery, poisoning an already tense political atmosphere. Physical evidence of the crimes on Avenida Baralt was allowed to decay for two weeks before Fiscalia experts showed up to secure it. By then, much of the evidence - bullet cases, broken windows, etc. - had been cleared away.


Meanwhile, the Puente Llaguno gunmen have been repeatedly feted by the president as "heroes of the revolution." The only people being actively investigated for murder for the events of April 11th are the Metropolitan Policemen who tried to keep the sides apart on Avenida Baralt.


Just as Teodoro predicted just a week after the events, the deaths from April 11th have become a political molotov cocktail, a weapon used by each side to blame the other. In the hands of openly chavista prosecutors like Danilo Anderson, the investigation into the affair is a mockery, a slap in the face for those who were killed and wounded that day. Barely bothering to hide his partiality, Anderson first motioned to move the Llaguno Gunmen trial to Aragua State - a hotbed of judicial chavismo - and, not surprisingly, did not manage to convict any of them of anything. While Richard Pe?alver walks the streets as a revolutionary hero and vows to the press to continue to defend the revolution "with my hands, or whatever I may have in my hands", Henrique Capriles dodges an arrest warrant for trying to stop a riot outside the Cuban embassy the following day.


By now, it's doubtful whether the crimes of April 2002 can ever be solved. Barring a spectacular revelation by an insider, it's hard to imagine how even the best investigator could get to the bottom of this. It's what the government wanted.


As new cases of political violence are registered in Caracas, the government remains committed to its April Crisis game-plan when facing opposition accusations of violence: first, appoint a politically motivated prosecutor (preferably Anderson), second, wait, third, carry out a flawed investigation, fourth, convict no one. The result has been systematic impunity for anyone who acts in the name of the revolution.


The other purpose of this essay was to clear up what we know about the role of the US in this mess. From my point of view, US influence was decidedly marginal. The political forces tearing Venezuela's society (and its military) apart were clearly strong enough to account for what took place. The assertions of US involvement in the coup that I've seen are mostly matters of speculation or dogma, and they're never based on a specific hypothesis about what the US did, when, and how. Chavista allegations that US Navy ships operated inside Venezuelan territorial waters hardly clear matters up: if it's so, what was their role? What were they doing? What, specifically, did the CIA do to aid the coupsters? (or the coupsters-within-a-coup?) What are the mechanics of US involvement?


I've never read a plausible answer to those questions. This is not to say the US was not involved, merely that I've never seen a good reason to think the gringoes were involved. Those who want to argue that the US was a key player in the story have a duty to explain to us precisely what it is the US did, when, where and how, and how those actions fit in with the rest of the story as we understand it on the basis of the available evidence. Otherwise, the "Bush-did-it" hypothesis comes to sound every bit as shallow and contrived as the "megafraude" claim - a propaganda slogan based on faith devoid of documentary underpinnings.


To my mind, the bulk of the evidence suggests that the decision to remove Chavez was made by the Venezuelan Army under quite unprecedented circumstances, and the decision to bring Chavez back was also made by the Venezuelan Army under quite unprecedented circumstances. Others are entitled to interpret events differently, but they must do so on the basis of evidence rather than assertions.


Two years after the April Crisis, Venezuelans have not solved any of the problems that brought it forth. The country is still prey to the parallel maximalism of a chronically dishonest government and an opportunistic opposition. If it was the absolute refusal to get along that prompted the April Crisis, one is forced to conclude another crisis is inevitable.