Any professional who has been in the position of extending a technical recommendation has had the experience of seeing the consequences of these recommendations not being taken into account or followed by the decision makers. And depending on the importance of the project where these recommendations are extended, the consequences of not following them may or may not be catastrophic. In other words, the more sensitive the technical recommendation not followed, the more responsible for the consequences are the decision makers.
And it is not that decision makers should always follow the technical recommendation. But generally when they are not knowledgeable about the specific issues involved in the decision, the recommendation should always be to follow technical expertise, especially when the success of the management relies on the knowledge that an organization possesses, or comes from the knowledge of contracted third parties.
This generally happens when it comes to politicians who reach sensitive positions where their decisions affect the lives of people in a significant way. In Venezuela we have been guinea pigs of Presidents of the Republic, Ministers of all kinds, Presidents of Institutes and you stop counting, who, ignorant of any matter, when assuming positions where they have to make decisions based on technical studies, end up doing what their interests dictate, whether political or economic, squandering the nation's resources. And in most cases this has been due to political corruption.
I wanted to make this brief introduction for those unfamiliar with these consulting issues where technical decisions are involved, since I found it extremely strange that a high political official of the European Union such as Josep Borrell, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, would give the green light to an Electoral Observation Mission in Venezuela, without following the criteria of his own Electoral Observation Manual, which until today was what publicly existed (see The post-truth of electoral observation, in https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/p/the-post-truth-of-electoral-observation.html).
Of course, there must be technical criteria that the general public does not have to know about and that are managed by the decision maker. However, this was no longer the case until we became aware of the technical report of the EU Exploratory Mission to Venezuela, carried out from July 8 to 23, 2021 (download the Report of the EU Exploratory Mission to Venezuela -original in English and translated courtesy of us - in https://tinyurl.com/ywa7a4uh) which we obtained from true friends of Venezuela in Europe, and which confirms the suspicions that Borrell made the decision in the interests of his political supporters in Venezuela - the regime's socialists - and not in favor of Venezuelan democracy. Let's see.
Although you will surely read with interest the report of the Exploratory Mission, it contains details of a technical-electoral, legal, logistical and security nature of the possible Electoral Observation Mission to be sent to the country, but mainly details of a political nature, which I will highlight because, although the document is intrinsically a technical report, it is also a full color and high resolution photograph of what is currently happening in Venezuela. And anyone who reads it will be horrified that any decent politician in the world -and there are still some- has made the decision made by Josep Borrell to approve this Electoral Observation Mission with no other interest than to legitimize the regime of Nicolás Maduro Moros in Venezuela.
I begin by highlighting here that the Exploratory Mission warns that “For the government, elections may represent a possible way to gain international recognition following non-recognition of the 2018 presidential and 2020 National Assembly elections” (Point 1.2, Background). And I would correct, it is not only the "non-recognition" but that both are ILLEGITIMATE, the first for being illegitimately called and for which Maduro's presidency is illegitimate, and the second is for having been rejected in a binding Popular Consultation by a majority of the Venezuelan people.
But the following paragraph is definitely damning and describes the problem from a legal point of view:
“…However, the main deficiency of the legal framework is the prevalent disrespect for the rule of law. Administrative procedures often prevail over constitutional political guarantees consequently affecting the rights and fundamental freedoms of citizens. The electoral dispute process suffers from a lack of public trust in the responsible institutions. The legitimacy of the Supreme Court of Justice is deeply mistrusted as it has been involved in controversies regarding the respect for the rule of law and partiality of its rulings. The Court is seen as an instrument to “legitimise” the actions of the ruling party and state institutions, especially when these do not align with constitutional principles. Interlocutors reported that the government’s guise of opening political space is in fact an attempt to garner the sympathy of the international community, and to perhaps avoid the International Criminal Court’s further investigation of Venezuelan authorities for crimes against humanity”(highlighted our)
The Exploratory Mission did not leave aside our distrust in relation to the permanent frauds of the CNE:
“Although stakeholders raised few doubts about the technical capacity of the CNE to organise elections, there are real concerns that the upcoming polls will suffer from the same irregularities as in previous processes, including the controversial role of polling centre coordinators and security personnel, last-minute changes to polling locations, blocked access for opposition party agents, intimidation of voters, and abuse of assisted voting” (highlighted our)
¿And the Human Rights? : “The human rights situation in Venezuela remains critical, with a shrinking democratic space, a persisting high number of extrajudicial killings, torture, enforced disappearances and arbitrary detentions. During the course of the ExM, several high level political and civil society leaders and even some of their family members were arrested. Detainees have been held up to several months without any charges filed”. And further on: “The current situation is characterised by serious violations of fundamental human rights, political persecution, and a lack of political space, and these are having a direct impact on the level of inclusiveness, competitiveness and participation in the electoral process”.
The Exploratory Mission also expressed its concern that the results will be hidden by the regime: “Given the state’s full monopoly of the media, in an environment of heavy state and self- censorship, it is expected that critical statements made by the EU EOM will not be broadcast by national media. The EU EOM would have to rely on international media and social networks. It is foreseeable that any statement would be manipulated to give a favourable interpretation of and lend legitimacy to the electoral process”.
Only considering the above aspects, any decision-maker would have something to object to the sending of a Mission before the minimum conditions exist to issue a fair judgment after any electoral process. And the European Union, as a serious organization and considering the caliber of the participating countries, had already foreseen this. Hence, the Exploratory Mission did not fail to make a direct pronouncement:
“The decision to deploy an EU EOM, based on the provisions of the communication on EU Election Assistance and Observation [COM(2000)191] and the Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation, may be internationally interpreted as the EU considering that the minimum conditions exist in Venezuela for the conduct of democratic elections. This may be contrary to the political line of the EU (and like-minded countries)” (Point 1.3, ExM Conclusions on usefulness, feasibility and advisability of an EU EOM).
But what does the Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation say on this point? Although it is highlighted as a footnote in the report, it is of shattering importance: “Point 11: “An organization should not send an international election observation mission to a country under conditions that make it likely that its presence will be interpreted as giving legitimacy to a clearly undemocratic electoral process". Expanding a little more on this detail that Josep Borrell "forgot", I transcribe what the Declaration of Principles actually says:
“11. A decision by any organization to organize an international election observation mission or to explore the possibility of organizing an observation mission does not imply that the organization necessarily deems the election process in the country holding the elections to be credible. An organization should not send an international election observation mission to a country under conditions that make it likely that its presence will be interpreted as giving legitimacy to a clearly undemocratic electoral process, and international election observation missions in any such circumstance should make public statements to ensure that their presence does not imply such legitimacy” (Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation, October 27, 2005, Annex 1, EU Election Observation Handbook, p. 188, https://tinyurl.com/5rkhw4ty) (highlighted our).
Has Borrell been seen to have bothered to indicate what is clearly established as his obligation by EU regulations in that Declaration of Principles? And yet his spokesman Peter Stano had the audacity to declare that "It is not true that the high representative has ignored the experts", explaining that "the exploratory mission made a report in the summer but that at the end of September and beginning of October the situation in Venezuela was "very fluid", with "many events" that contributed to the EU's decision to finally send an electoral observation mission". Impossible to be more brazen (see in Spanish UE retiraría su misión electoral en Venezuela, in https://curadas.com/2021/10/14/se-caldean-los-animos-ue-retiraria-su-mision-electoral-en-venezuela/).
What kind of stupidity is that? Do they really think that the Venezuelan tragedy depends on the seasons? Clearly this spokesman has not read the Exploratory Mission report or is ignoring it outright just like his boss Borrell. From that statement they hinted that "they would be willing to "withdraw" their observation mission". I believe that at this point the most serious thing the EU could do would not only be to withdraw the decided Electoral Observation Mission, but to investigate Josep Borrell for political corruption and suspend him from his post. It is the least they could do out of respect for the Venezuelan people and as a serious Institution of the International Community.
Caracas, October 16, 2021
Blog: https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
Instagram: @laguana01
Telegram: https://t.me/TICsDDHH
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario