VZCZCXRO6728
PP RUEHAG
DE RUEHCV #1996/01 1812230
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 302230Z JUN 06
FM AMEMBASSY CARACAS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5334
INFO RUEHBO/AMEMBASSY BOGOTA PRIORITY 6722
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA PRIORITY 5599
RUEHLP/AMEMBASSY LA PAZ PRIORITY 2149
RUEHPE/AMEMBASSY LIMA PRIORITY 0394
RUEHMU/AMEMBASSY MANAGUA PRIORITY 1322
RUEHME/AMEMBASSY MEXICO PRIORITY 3864
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PRIORITY 0777
RUEHQT/AMEMBASSY QUITO PRIORITY 2231
RUEHTC/AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE PRIORITY 1026
RUEHROV/AMEMBASSY VATICAN PRIORITY
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 0335
RUMIAAA/HQ USSOUTHCOM MIAMI FL PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEHUB/USINT HAVANA PRIORITY 0829
RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 CARACAS 001996 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
NSC FOR DFISK AND DTOMLINSON 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/03/2031 
TAGS: PGOV PHUM ELAB KDEM SCUL VE
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR FOLLOW-UP WITH BRV ON EMBASSY SECURITY 
COORDINATION 
 
REF: CARACAS 1690 
 
CARACAS 00001996  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
Classified By: Mark Wells, Acting Political Counselor, 
for Reason 1.4(b). 
 
THIS IS AN ACTION REQUEST -- SEE PARA 5. 
 
------- 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶1. (C) Post has attempted to engage locally the Venezuelan 
Foreign Ministry and National Guard to improve host 
government response time to demonstrations at the Embassy. 
This action was prompted by a meager demonstration on June 6 
of a few dozen people who were able to hamper Embassy 
activities for several hours while Venezuelan security forces 
delayed in responding.  The MFA responded rapidly and 
effectively to our approach, but we have still not seen any 
response from the National Guard.  Post believes it would be 
beneficial for Department to express our interest in 
improving security coordination directly to the Venezuelan 
Embassy in Washington.  We do not see the need for an 
aggressive approach at this time -- points are provided for 
Department's consideration.  End summary. 
 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
Background:  The Little Demonstration That Could 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
 
¶2. (C) As reported in ref, a small group of peaceful 
demonstrators blocked the Embassy parking lot on the morning 
of June 6.  Unlike many demonstrations that clearly enjoy BRV 
endorsement (and often funding), this band from Barinas State 
appeared to be self-initiated, which meant that the National 
Guard (GN) probably did not have advance warning.  The group 
lacked any real plan for the demonstration, but refused to 
clear the parking lot entrance unless the Embassy called the 
media to cover the event.  Of course, we did not accede to 
their demands, resulting in a stalemate.  Despite their scant 
numbers, the protesters were able to keep traffic closed to 
vehicles entering and leaving the Embassy. 
 
¶3. (C) The Venezuelan National Guard (GN), which has 
responsibility for guarding the Embassy, did not respond 
quickly and did not initially augment the standard security 
complement of two GN soldiers.  Calls by RSO to the GN went 
unanswered.  Only after the Charge forcefully requested 
support did a 10-man riot squad appear, three hours into the 
protest.  The Charge also called the MFA, which rapidly 
dispatched the U.S. desk officer to the Embassy to speak 
directly with the protestors.  With sufficient force, the GN 
convinced the demonstrators to open the parking lot, and the 
demonstration quickly dwindled.  All told, the tiny 
demonstration kept normal Embassy traffic in and out of the 
main gate at a standstill for nearly five hours. 
 
---------------------------- 
Follow-Up Actions By Embassy 
---------------------------- 
 
¶4. (C) Having received no response to calls to the GN, RSO 
sent a letter to Col. Luis Arrayago, the officer in charge of 
the unit assigned to guard the Embassy, outlining our 
concerns and requesting a meeting.  (Note:  We recall that it 
took two months for the DISIP to respond to a similar request 
to discuss the April 7 incident in El Coche when the 
Ambassador's motorcade was aggressively pursued by motorized 
protesters.)  Separately, on June 22 Poloffs met with MFA 
officials Yaneth Arocha, office director for Vice Minister 
Maria Pilar Hernandez, and U.S. Desk Officer Robinson Zapata. 
 Arocha said the MFA had made a significant effort to ensure 
Embassy security, especially in light of the recent string of 
demonstrations both against the Ambassador and the Embassy. 
 
CARACAS 00001996  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
Poloff passed her a copy of the RSO letter to the GN and 
suggested she prompt them to respond.  To date, we have 
received no response. 
 
---------------------------------------- 
Suggested Approach To Venezuelan Embassy 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶5. (C) ACTION REQUEST:  In light of the BRV's slow response, 
Post believes it would be helpful for the Department to 
express concerns about security coordination to the 
Venezuelan Ambassador.  Ambassador Alvarez is no doubt 
pleased with the support provided by U.S. agencies in 
ensuring the security of Venezuelan diplomatic facilities in 
the United States, and may get the message that we believe in 
reciprocating bad Bolivarian behavior.  We are not suggesting 
a tough message, simply a notification that this problem 
should be improved soonest and implying that Alvarez might 
take an interest in helping ensure appropriate BRV -- and 
especially GN -- follow-up.  Possible points to make are: 
 
-- We are concerned about the inadequate response of the 
National Guard units assigned to the U.S. Embassy during a 
small demonstration on June 6, 2006.  Although the 
demonstration was small, it was able to restrict Embassy 
functions for nearly five hours by blocking the main entrance. 
 
-- The National Guard did not increase the number of security 
personnel until nearly three hours into the demonstration, 
and only after a specific request by the U.S. Charge' 
d'Affaires.  We appreciate, however, that the Ministry of 
Foreign Relations dispatched an officer to help negotiate a 
solution between the National Guard and the demonstrators. 
 
-- The United States believes in the freedom of expression, 
including the right to peaceful protest.  We will gladly 
facilitate persons who wish to protest peacefully at our 
embassies. 
 
-- We are concerned, however, that a small demonstration was 
permitted to close our Embassy for unreasonable lengths of 
time.  This, in our opinion, runs counter to obligations 
under the Vienna Convention to safeguard diplomatic 
facilities.  Our governments have a shared interest in 
facilitating security for embassies and diplomatic personnel. 
 
-- Our Embassy in Caracas has contacted both the National 
Guard officer responsible for embassy security and the 
Ministry of Foreign Relations in an effort to improve 
response time and coordination in the event of similar 
demonstrations in the future.  To date, we have not received 
a response from the National Guard. 
 
-- We urge your government, namely the National Guard, to 
work with our personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Caracas to 
establish the necessary liaisons to ensure better 
coordination in the future. 
 
 
BROWNFIELD