Venezuelans Suspect U.S. Role In Coup

by Andres Canizalez

The Chavez administration's foreign policy spokespersons declined to comment on statements by lawmaker Roger Rondon, who accused top U.S. officials in Caracas of backing the Apr. 12 coup that put businessman Pedro Carmona in the presidency for 48 hours.

Rondon is part of the faction of the Movement towards Socialism (MAS) that supports Chavez, whose own party is the Fifth Republic Movement (MVR).

Foreign Minister Luis Alfonso Davila declined to speak about the role that Washington may have played in Venezuela's institutional crisis, in which the top military command took Chavez into custody and replaced him with Carmona.

In a local radio interview today, Carmona categorically denied that the United States had issued instructions or support to remove Chavez from power.

The business executive is under house arrest while he awaits trial for his actions during his brief time as head of Venezuela, a period in which he dissolved parliament, the supreme court, and other public bodies.

In spite of the denials, yet to be explained is the fact that the U.S. ambassador in Caracas, Charles Shapiro, paid a visit to de facto president Carmona.

The MVR does not stand by Rondon's statements, which "he made of his own volition," said legislative deputy Tarek William Saab, vice-chair of the parliament's foreign policy committee and head of the governing party's international policy division.

Saab told IPS that the MVR and Chavez agree in "acting with prudence in the analysis of the events surrounding the coup," and that the U.S. government and Congress are engaged in their own investigations to determine whether Washington played a role in the Venezuelan crisis.

The matter is being handled through diplomatic channels, he said, acknowledging that bilateral relations have endured difficult moments since Chavez took office in February 1999.

Chavez's efforts to strengthen the Organization of Petroleum-Exporting Countries (OPEC), his ties with Libya and Iraq as part of his "oil diplomacy," and his friendship with Cuba's President Fidel Castro have tested relations with Washington.

His predecessors took care to avoid clashes with the United States in their endeavors to promote integration of the region and of the developing world.

Chavez, in contrast, has said that his diplomatic action "is sovereign and seeks a multipolar world."

Today, foreign minister Davila said only that he is awaiting "the clarification of the position" of the U.S. authorities with respect to the crisis here earlier this month.

"It is up to them, in virtue of the events, of the circumstances surrounding this, to make an evaluation, which we are very anxious to follow up on," said Davila, who made a trip to Washington last week for political and diplomatic meetings.

In the U.S. capital, the minister took part in a special assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS), which examined the Venezuelan case.

He also met with Otto Reich, the U.S. Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs, and with John Maisto, head of Inter-American Affairs for the National Security Council, which depends directly on the Bush administration.

On Apr. 26, a delegation of U.S. lawmakers will arrive in Venezuela to meet with the authorities and with leaders of the political opposition as part of the investigations ordered by Congress.

The director of the school of international studies at the Central University of Venezuela (UCV), Franklin Gonzalez, said in an interview with IPS that the U.S. actions in the crisis "are cause for many doubts," and that this was evident from the moment Chavez was temporarily removed from power.

"The first statement issued by the U.S. State Department -- instead of condemning the coup -- said Chavez had brought it upon himself," said the expert.

The Bush government cannot have a double standard when it comes to such matters because "there are no good coups or bad coups," said Gonzalez. He believes the United States should clarify its role, even if it was only that it had prior knowledge of the coup.

Washington should explain the alleged presence of U.S. military officials at the Tiuna Fort at the time that Chavez was overthrown, as a U.S.-based newspaper reported and was backed by deputy Rondon.

"The idea of the coup was being contrived in Washington from the moment that it considered Chavez's victory was harmful to its interests," said Rondon.

Chavez, known for what he calls his "Bolivarian social revolution" (named for Latin American liberator Simon Bolivar), told a foreign press conference in March that his government is not socialist and that "at no time" would it endanger the investments or properties of U.S. companies.

In fact, the president held a series of meetings with the executives of major U.S. corporations operating in Venezuela, particularly those in the oil industry.

Venezuela is the third-leading supplier of oil to the United States.

In an interview with an international television network on Apr. 20, Chavez said he hoped that the rumors of U.S. support for the coup that ousted him were false.

"I hope that all the information that is coming out is false. I don't want to take a stance on this. We will move forward with evaluations and conversations," said the president.

Washington, meanwhile, has admitted that some officials had made contact with the leaders of the opposition prior to the coup, some of whom were later involved in the failed de facto government.

Bush told Chavez, after the latter returned to power, that he should "learn his lesson" and respect the Constitution and democratic rules -- a warning that Washington did not issue to the provisional government of Carmona.

The U.S. embassy in Caracas issued a communique yesterday rejecting Rondon's statements, calling them "ridiculous and entirely unfounded."

According to the embassy, such "irresponsible" statements serve only to complicate efforts to clearly understand the events of Apr. 12-13.