EU AND DOMESTIC OBSERVERS RELEASE FINAL ELECTION

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 CARACAS 000473 SIPDIS SIPDIS HQSOUTHCOM ALSO FOR POLAD DEPT PASS TO AID/OTI (RPORTER) E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/05/2017 TAGS: PGOV KDEM VE SUBJECT: EU AND DOMESTIC OBSERVERS RELEASE FINAL ELECTION REPORTS TO MINIMAL BRV RESPONSE REF: A. 06 CARACAS 03571 ¶B. 06 CARACAS 03598 CARACAS 00000473 001.2 OF 002 Classified By: ACTING POLITICAL COUNSELOR DANIEL LAWTON FOR 1.4 (D) -------------- Summary -------------- ¶1. (C) The recently released European Union (EU),Ojo Electoral, and Sumate final observation reports on the 2006 presidential election reinforced criticisms of the preliminary versions (Ref A). All criticized President Chavez for his illegal use of government resources in the campaign, BRV officials for proselytizing and intimidating voters, the media for its lack of balanced coverage, and the National Electoral Council for not effectively reining in any of these campaign abuses. The electoral NGO Sumate went further than the other two, declaring that the election was not free or fair and did not reflect the will of Venezuelan voters. Ojo called for further review of the electoral registry, which it warned may not be reliable for the 2008 state elections. BRV response has been minimal so far, in contrast to Chavez' harsh reaction to the EU and OAS observation reports on the 2005 legislative election. End Summary. -------------- EU Report Expands on Preliminary Assessment -------------- ¶2. (SBU) The final observation reports on the December 2006 presidential election recently released by the EU, Ojo Electoral, and Sumate review in detail initial criticisms of the electoral process. During a February 23 press conference to present the EU report, EU electoral observation mission leader Monica Frassoni emphasized three key criticisms: Chavez' illegal use of government resources in his campaign, the illegal participation of government officials, and lack of balanced media coverage. She also faulted the National Electoral Council (CNE) for its lax enforcement of campaign norms. The EU report reiterated confidence in the automated voting system (despite not having the personnel or time necessary to fully evaluate the system) and its finding that the fingerprint machines neither violated the principle of vote secrecy, nor assisted in combating voter fraud. ¶3. (U) The report also repeats some of the recommendations the EU made following the 2005 legislative elections, such as underscoring the need for better coordination between the offices that oversee the civil and electoral registries to improve the quality of the electoral registry, and drafting a definitive electoral law that harmonizes various existing electoral legislation and ad-hoc norms, some of which pre-date and conflict with the 1999 Constitution (Ref B). -------------- -------------- Ojo Electoral Agrees with EU, Highlights Voter Rolls -------------- -------------- ¶4. (U) The report released by CNE-accredited domestic electoral NGO Ojo Electoral March 1 largely coincides with that of the EU in terms of its criticisms of the CNE's performance. Ojo also praised voter turnout (75%),which was the highest since the 1988 presidential election. In addition, the non-partisan NGO mentioned its occasional role as a mediator between the CNE and opposition to successfully resolve disagreements over electoral conditions, a fact it had heretofore kept quiet. While acknowledging the electoral registry's validity for the presidential elections, Ojo repeated its 2005 call for greater review of the voter rolls, warning that the flaws that still exist could potentially skew state and local election results. -------------- Sumate Takes A Harder Line -------------- ¶5. (U) In contrast, Sumate's report, released the same day as that of the EU, said the December 2006 election was not free or fair, and its results did not reflect the true will of the electorate. While confirming that their voting data concurred with the CNE's official results, the electoral NGO said the BRV's intimidation of its employees, Chavez' violations of campaign norms, the lack of a reliable CARACAS 00000473 002.2 OF 002 electoral registry, and even possible vote padding from voting centers "designed to avoid a opposition witness presence," among other factors, distorted the vote. Sumate was also more blunt than the other two organizations in its characterization of the CNE as a biased arbiter. The NGO also impugned the legitimacy of the new CNE board saying that the process by which it was formed violated constitutional procedures. -------------- Comment -------------- ¶6. (C) All three final reports expanded the initial observations of the preliminary reports released the week following the December 3, 2006 election. BRV reaction to the reports has been minimal in stark contrast to Chavez' rant against the fairly balanced EU and OAS reports on the 2005 legislative elections. So far the CNE has only placed newspaper ads with POSITIVE excerpts from the EU report. With Chavez focused on his five motors of socialism, the BRV and opposition are looking forward, not back. In addition, two of the reports were released during the Carnival season when most Venezuelans are on vacation. BROWNFIELD