"Chávez is there because of political mistakes"

He headed the Ministry of Defense when today's Venezuelan president rose up in arms on February 4, 1992. For Fernando Ochoa Antich there is no doubt: Hugo Chávez staged a coup d'état against a democratic government. To his mind, the putsch was not justified because the changes needed in the establishment were taking place.

"There was not need to stop the process. Its arrested development has meant the country's division. Twelve years (we have been) divided, broken up and clashing," the retired general admonished 20 years after the events.

Chávez claims that February 4 split the Venezuelan history. What do you reckon?

What has February 4 meant with all that stuff of the 21st Century socialism? Indefinite reelection, which gives Chávez the chance of being reelected to such an extent that defeating him will be very hard, because he has too much power and abuses of it. Furthermore, he put aside decentralization; also, a regime relying on oil has been set up. This does not mean splitting the history, but a setback.

Is it a coup d'état for you? Chávez terms it "a quixotic act."

It is not only a military takeover, but betrayal to a soldier's oath. Suppose that the government of (President Carlos Andrés) Pérez was making mistakes; let us admit that democracy needed a change. Well, such changes were occurring and there was not need to stop them. Their arrested development has led to the country's division. Twelve years (we have been) divided, fractioned and clashing." Certainly, he has won the election; he is a charismatic guy and takes advantage of power; otherwise, he would hardly win the election.

Chávez's sin is saying the truth. He not only betrayed on February 4 his soldier's oath, but he somewhat betrayed his subalterns, because the order for the uprising set the following requirements: Pérez's detention; the uprising of important units in Caracas and the aviation support. None of that happened and, anyhow, he ordered the takeover. He depicts is as a heroic deed, yet it is irresponsible. You should not lead your unit to combat aware that you are finished, as you are driving your subalterns to death.

Chávez's opening to politics has been attributed to his "for the time being"

This is not what catapulted Chávez but the political mistakes in 1998; otherwise, Chávez would have disappeared with no impact on the world, as it happened in the election for mayors and state governors in 1995, when he called for abstention and everyone would vote.

Did you authorize Chávez to make comments on the media?

This can be justified; however, again, it was a mistake. Looking at the coup in perspective, I could tell you about my mistakes and would try not to make them again. Telling the history is rather easy, yet doing it is very difficult.

Did you underestimate Chávez?

He made himself being underestimated. Chávez was a standard officer who could be identified because he liked to host entertainment.

In January 1992, General Manuel Heinz Azpúrua investigated what I call the night of tanks; he found that a plot was going on and submitted a report to President Pérez before his trip (to Switzerland). We were convened to Miraflores (presidential palace) and President Pérez was advised to take action. However, he did not agree and asked us to wait until his return.

Nevertheless, I summoned Chávez to my office, on January 28, and made him understand that we handled all that information and if rumors kept on going about his attitude, he would be removed. In this case, I make myself a criticism. I had enough clout with the president to convince him. However, both he and I were not fully convinced of a real plot, as there were plenty of quarrels inside the armed forces.

Do you think that because of such meekness, you are accused of being aware of the coup?

I am linked to it because of that captains' paper, denied by Chávez's himself. The army commander, Pedro Rangel Rojas, is somewhat accountable for the coup, because he failed to notify me of the denunciation of the captain responsible for the uprising at the Military Academy.

You speak of mistakes, wise moves, chance. What would weigh the most after 20 years?

Chávez is in office not because of a coup, but the people's vote. Consequently, the two conspiracies (February 4 and November 27) were suffocated. There were more wise moves. Sadly, afterwards, political mistakes made him stronger.

Is Ochoa Antich even-tempered with his performance 20 years after?

I must admit two delicate errors. In a meeting held on January, I should have insisted Pérez that we should capture the officers and I should not authorize Chávez's to speak on live broadcasting. I was at Miraflores presidential palace; Chávez had surrendered and the army inspector suggested me to let Chávez speak on TV for the rebels to surrender at all. I talked to the president and he authorized me, provided that he (Chávez) was recorded. When I passed on the order, they told me that there was no chance. Then, I ordered: do it without recording it. I was wrong.

Translated by Conchita Delgado