STATEMENT OF JORGE ZORREGUIETA6

His carreer:
1961-1964 President of the Ateneo Rural de Buenos Aires and secretary of the Comisión Coordinadora de Entidades Agropecuarias.
1966 Secretary and treasurer of the Confederaciones Rurales Argentinas.
1970 President of the Comisión de Enlace de Entidades Agropecuarias (CONINAGRO).
1972 In the Comisión Directiva of the Sociedad Rural Argentina.
March 1976-March 1979 Vice-undersecretary of Agriculture in the Argentinian government.
1978 Interventor of the Junta Nacional de Granos.
March 1979-March 1981 Secretary of Agriculture and Cattle-Breeding.

Present functions:
May 1985 President of the Centro Azucarero Argentino (Argentine Sugar Center)
1995 President of the Fundación Vasco Argentina Juan de Garay
President of the commission of the Area de Libre Comercio de las Americas.


Report of Prof. Dr. Michiel Baud:
By order of the Dutch Ministry of General Affairs Prof. Dr. Michiel Baud, professor at the University of Amsterdam and director of the Centre for Study and Documentation of Latin America (CEDLA) in Amsterdam, wrote the report "Military violence, civil responsibility. Argentinian and Dutch perspectives at the military regime in Argentina (1976-1983)". It was written to give information about the life in the Argentinian society in the period 1976-1983, the organisation and aims of the Argentinian military regime in this period, and the performance of political functions by Jorge Zorreguieta in the period 1976-1981. The report also gives information about the Dutch attitude towards the Argentinian regime in this period.

Summarized the conclusions are:
  • Zorreguieta's function as Undersecretary can be seen as politically very important, because it was a high leading function in the most important economical sector of the country. His direct boss was the Minister of Economic Affairs, José Alfredo Martínez de Hoz.
  • Zorreguieta has acted as a neoliberal technocrate who didn't want to know anything about political implications of his political functions. But for five years he was devoted actively in a high political function to a regime that was condemned at home and abroad for the elimination of democratical basic rights and the violation of human rights.
  • It is almost ruled out that Zorreguieta himself was personally involved in the period he was part in the government in the repression or the violation of human rights. However it is unconceivable that he didn't know anything about the practice of the repression and the situation of human rights.


    Report of Mr. Max van der Stoel, Minister of State:
    On January 12th, 2001, by order of Prime Minister Wim Kok, Mr. Max van der Stoel, Minister of State, was asked to talk with Jorge Zorreguieta in connection with the preparations for a possible wedding between his daughter Máxima and Willem-Alexander Prince of Orange. Mr van der Stoel spoke with Jorge Zorreguieta on February 15th and 16th in New York,and again in São Paulo on March 10th, 2001. On February 15th also Prof. Dr. Michiel Baud was present.

    During the meetings the report of Prof. Dr. Michiel Baud about the situation in Argentina in 1976-1983 and the role Jorge Zorreguieta played during those years, was discussed. Jorge Zorreguieta said he finds the description of the situation in the period 1976-1981 in the report excellent. About his own role in this period he wanted to explain somewhat better. There also has been spoken about the discussion in the Netherlands about the those period. Jorge Zorreguieta said to be well aware of that discussion. Extra attention has been laid at the possible negative influence from such a discussion about his past and the eventual presence at official events, to the future role and position of his daughter as a member of the Dutch Royal House.


    Statement of Jorge Zorreguieta:
    I find it necessary to make a statement about my participation in the military regime from April 1976 to March 1981 to explain my position to the Dutch people. Until now I have kept silent because I take the view that this matter concerns the private life of my daughter Máxima and because she and the Prince have asked me to. The continuing accusations that hit myself and my family and which I think are unfounded, make it necessary for me to declare the following:
    1. The situation in Argentina in March 1976 at the time of the government of Isabel Péron was one of economical, social and political chaos. The political parties, trade-unions, the business life and the public opinion agreed that the armed forces had to restore the peace in our country to create a stable and peaceful democracy.
    2. In a country as Argentina, where agriculture is very important for the economy, it was of vital importance to restore the sector after years of serious neglection by former governments. Because in the beginning of 1976 the country treathened to fall apart, I couldn't refuse to cooperate and accepted the function of Vice-undersecretary in April 1976, and in 1979 the one of Undersecretary of Agriculture. I have to point out that the Department of Agriculture, in contrast with other countries, was a technical department that fell under the Ministry of Economical Affairs and didn't have access to the meetings of the Cabinet Council.
    3. The position was offered to me in 1976 because I had held several executive functions in the agricultural sector in the 16 years before, among others the presidency of the coordinating commission of agricultural organisation (in which various vegetations and regions are presented) and the presidency of the central commission of agricultural cooperations and other general rural organisations.
    4. After 1969 subversive actions like terroristic attacks increased. They were mostly carried out on military bases, police offices and villages in the province of Tucumán by the groups Montoneros and the ERP (Revolutionary Popular Front). The campaign of the armed forces against those subversive groups had already started before 1976 by order of the then constitutional president Isabel Péron.
    5. Within the Department of Agriculture people didn't know about the character of the oppression. Because the army operated in independent units in the fight against the guerillas, which were also organised in independent cells, information about the actions were military secrets to which we didn't have access. During my various foreign travels - the UN-Grain Conference 1977-1979, official visits to the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium, Austria and Italy - I also didn't receive complains from anyone or comments about the violation of the human rights in Argentina. Functionaries, among them myself, and their families however received threats and had to deal with attacks. Those were a constant source of uncertainty and fear in our houses.
    6. After 1984 the excesses that took place during this period of oppression were made known. I absolutely reject them, because I find each case of abduction, murder of torture unacceptable. Until today I am still very much hurt that during the period of office of the government of which I was a part such violations of human rights have taken place.
    7. In the years that have passed since I have always taken part in the democratic life in my country, worked together with the parliament and with various levels of the executive power under the constitutional governments lead by the presidents Alfonsín, Menem and De la Rua. Never someone has reproached me that I have fullfilled a technical task in favour of the agriculture of our country in such a difficult time. I want to add that in 1983 I was appointed president of the UN-Sugar Conference 1983-1984, with the explicit support of the EEC. Further my countrymen who had served under the same government as me later became parlementarian, minister of officials under the democratic governments.
    8. I believe in democracy and human rights, principles I find very important, and with which I have raised my children.
    9. Summarized: I have acted in good faith and risked the lifes of my family to fullfill a specific task in the area of agriculture, that didn't have any connection with the oppression that took place in that time.
    10. Like for each father it would be very important for me to accompany my daughter at her wedding. Contacts with the Dutch government however have led my to the conclusion that controversions about my presence at the wedding could have a negative influence on the future role and position of my daughter as a member of the Royal House of the Netherlands.
    On the ground of this I am prepared not to be present at the wedding.