Yesterday we carried a Reuters report about Venezuela’s new ‘spying’ law. It was issued by decree last Wednesday, and its main provisions concern the reorganization of the intelligence services. However, it contains clauses which have caused an outcry from both the opposition and human rights bodies.
The National Intelligence and Counter-intelligence Law, among other things, requires any Venezuelan national or foreign individual, as well as any corporation or non-governmental organization, including social networks and grassroots and community organizations, to “co-operate” with the intelligence agencies when requested to do so. The penalties for refusing range from two to four years for ordinary citizens, and four to six years for public servants.
There are other aspects of the new legislation too which have given rise to expressions of concern, including the granting of powers to the security forces to collect evidence through methods such as wiretapping without first obtaining a court order. Furthermore, in a court case evidence can be withheld from defence lawyers if it is deemed in the interests of national security that this be done. Furthermore, it is specifically stated that judges and prosecutors are required to co-operate with the security agencies.
Criticisms of the law have come from across the spectrum. Legal experts and others have complained that it encroaches on a defendant’s right to due process; “Any suspect’s right to defence can be violated, and that’s unacceptable,” said Carlos Correa, from the Venezuelan human rights group Provea. Others have voiced unease about the legislation’s implication for the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. “Here you have the president legislating by decree that the country’s judges must serve as spies for the government,” the Americas Director for Human Rights Watch José Miguel Vivanco was quoted by the BBC as saying.
The opposition maintains that the objective of the National Intelligence law is to spy on citizens, and according to one constitutional lawyer, it could be used to “silence and intimidate the opposition.” El Universal published a report quoting a former legal advisor to the National Borders Council who said that the provisions placed critical journalists, among others, in jeopardy. The relevant clauses could, she said, be employed against anyone who had access to strategic information. Spokespersons for various NGOs have voiced the fear that neighbourhood spying groups could evolve along the lines of the Cuban Committees for the Defence of the Revolution, which are intended as a vehicle for neighbours to spy on one another and report anything suspicious to the government. This is a primary concern because community-based organizations have been specified in the law.
In defence of the new decree President Chávez has said that it falls into “a framework of great respect for human rights,” and that it was necessary in order to thwart US spies. This line was echoed by Interior Minister Ramón Rodríguez Chacín who was quoted as saying that it was required in order to stop “interference from the United States.” In his weekly television broadcast on Sunday, the head of state expanded on this theme, telling viewers that the law would assist in thwarting military coups such as that in 2002, which he has always accused the US of masterminding. It might be noted, however, that several commentators have adverted to the similarity between the article allowing the secret police to use wiretapping at their own discretion and the US Patriot Act, which the Venezuelan President had earlier called a “dictatorial law which they imposed on the people of the United States.”
Reorganizing the notoriously inefficient intelligence services is one thing, but infringing on human rights in quite such an uncamouflaged way is another, so what has motivated the inclusion of the problematic provisions in the new law at the present time? President Chávez, while still popular, does not enjoy the favourable ratings he once did, and his candidates are facing local government elections in November. Following his defeat in the referendum last December, the coming poll is considered the best opportunity the opposition has ever had to inflict damage on the President’s party. Considering that there are already allegations about the disqualifying of opposition candidates, the fear is not unfounded that the law could be used for narrow political ends.
However, there may be something which is bothering Miraflores even more than the outcome of the election, and that is the army. When President Chávez told Venezuelans on Sunday about preventing military coups, he may have been expressing one of his deepest fears. While he framed it in terms of thwarting US spies, he probably knows he has more to fear from his own Venezuelan officers than from foreign agents. A bone of contention with some sections of the military has been the new slogan “Homeland, Socialism or Death, We Will Win,” which members of the armed forces are obliged to use when acknowledging each other. Now one serving officer has filed an action in the Supreme Court of Justice claiming this slogan is in violation of the constitution as well as of army regulations.
According to El Universal, the officer concerned is a general who was the head of the military’s finance department, and he is one of almost one thousand officers in a kind of limbo waiting for a new appointment.
Venezuela is a long way still from becoming Cuba; however, over a period of time various measures have been introduced which have caused human rights organizations and others to express concern about the democratic intentions of the government. This latest decree will do nothing to assuage those concerns.
