Honduras Coup: Soldiers kidnap VZ, Cuba, Nicaragua envoys

by **John Schröder** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:15 pm

http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/ ... ution.html

The Illegitimate Constitution

by Jorge Majfud

The dialectical dispute over the legality of the violent process of removal from office and expulsion from the country of the president of Honduras has not reached closure. Months ago we explained our point of view, according to which there was no violation of the constitution on the part of president Zelaya at the moment of calling for a non-binding poll on the question of a constituent assembly.

But at base this discussion is moot and rooted in a different problem: resistance by a social class and mentality that created the institutions of its own Banana Republic and seeks desperately to identify change of any kind with chaos, at the same time that it imposes repression on its people and on the communication media that oppose it.

The main argument of the authors of the coup in Honduras is rooted in the fact that the 1982 Constitution does not allow changes in its wording (articles 239 and 374) and establishes the removal from power of those who promote such changes. The Law of Citizen Participation of 2006, which promotes popular consultations, was never accused of being unconstitutional. On the contrary, popular participation is prescribed by the very same constitution (article 45). All of which reveals the scholastic spirit of its drafters, nuanced with a humanistic language.

No norm, no law can stand above a country’s constitution. Nonetheless, no modern constitution has been dictated by God, but by human beings for their own benefit. Which is to say, no constitution can stand above a natural law like a people’s freedom to change.

A constitution that establishes its own immutability is confusing its human and precarious origins with a divine origin; or it is attempting to establish the dictatorship of one generation over all generations to come. If this principle of immutability made any sense, we would have to suppose that before the constitution of Honduras could be modified Honduras must first disappear as a country. Otherwise, for a thousand years that country would have to be ruled by the same wording.

The orthodox religious have tried to avoid changes in the Koran and in the Bible by counting the number of words. When societies and their values change but a sacred text cannot be altered, the text is salvaged by interpreting it in favor of the new values. This is clearly demonstrated by the proliferation of sects, isms and new religions that arise from the same text. But in a sacred text the prohibition against change, even though impossible, is more easily justified, since no man can ammend God’s word.

These pretensions of eternity and perfection were not rare in the Iberoamerican constitutions which in the 19th century attempted to invent republics, instead of allowing the people to invent their own republics and constitutions to their own measure and according to the pulse of history. If in the United States the constitution of 1787 is still in force, it is due to its great flexibility and its many amendments. Otherwise, this country would have today three fifths of a man in the presidency, a quasi-human. “That ignorant little black man,” as the now former de facto Honduran foreign minister Enrique Ortez Colindres called him. As if that weren’t enough, article I of the famous constitution of the United States originally prohibited any change in constitutional status with reference to slaves.

The result of a constitution like that of Honduras is none other that its own death, preceded sooner or later by the spilling of blood. Those who claim to defend it will have to do so with force of arms and with the narrow logic of a collection of norms that violate one of the most basic and undeniable natural rights.

For centuries, the philosophers who imagined and articulated the utopias that today are called Democracy, State and Human Rights said so explicitly: no law exists above these natural rights. And if such a thing were attempted, disobedience is justified. Violence does not originate from disobedience but from he who violates a fundamental right. Politics is for everything else. Negotiation is the concession of the weak. A convenient concession, inevitable, but in the long term always insufficient.

A mature democracy implies a culture and an institutional system that prevent breaks from the rules of the game. But at the same time, and for that same reason, a democracy is defined by allowing and facilitating the inevitable changes that come with a new generation, with the greater historical consciousness of a society.

A constitution that impedes change is illegitimate in the face of the inalienable right to freedom (to change) and equality (to determine change). It is paper, it is a fraudulent contract that one generation imposes upon another in the name of a nation that no longer exists.

Translated by Bruce Campbell

by **John Schröder** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:34 pm

http://hondurasresists.blogspot.com/200 ... ently.html

Interview with Agustina Flores: "Bars did not shut me up, prison hasn't diminished my beliefs"

By Mario Casasus/El Clarin de Chile

Tegucigalpa: Professor Agustina Flores Lopez (1959) was freed October 12, after 21 days in high security women's prison in the Honduran capital. There are still 6 political prisoners there, still being held without bail by the de-facto government, charged with sedition, and terrorism as members of the peaceful civil resistance. They are being held in a legal process that's plagued with irregularities, and is taking place under the suspension of Civil Liberties (the decree of which is still active).

Professor Agustina welcomes us in front of the circle of press in the offices of the Comitttee for the Family of the Detained and Disappeared in Honduras (COFADEH). She made her first statements to teleSUR and this is the first interview she is doing with the international press. The College of Professors paid the fine (100,000 lempiras) and lawyers Kenia Oliva and Noelia Núñez were able to reverse part of the injustice. Agustina Flores comes from a combative family: her mother and brother were persecuted during the dirty war in the 1980's and today her sister Bertha Cáceres is the director of the Civil Council of Indigenous Popular Organizations in Honduras, (COPINH).

Agustina Flores boldly defied the defacto regime: "one of the conditions of my release is that I don't go to protests for the restitution of President Zelaya- it says that in the text of my conditional release- but the bars won't shut me up, and prison hasn't diminished even a tiny bit my beliefs. I think there are many ways I can keep working. This struggle begins right now, in the workplace, in the union, in my neighborhood, with housewives, until we win the Constitutional Assembly which brings us new hope."

MC- When did you first join the Resistance to the coup?

AF- On June 28th my mom told us: "You all have to go. I can't go with you because of my health, but you have grown up in the struggle, so eat up so that you don't get tired." We were working for the fourth ballot box, and the coup made us take to the streets to protest.

MC- How did you survive the 21 days in jail?

AF- It was tough but inside it was wonderful to know that so many people and organizations were in solidarity with the Resistance. Not one day passed when we didn't get visitors from compañeros, from the media, and it's thanks to them that I'm free, because so many people demanded my release. When I was arrested I was beaten very badly, and I remembered what we had lived through in the '80's, when my brother and my mother were constantly persecuted, and they also came after us. We had to move to La Esperanza in 1978. The dictatorship of Micheletti made me remember that repression of the dirty war, and I was afraid of being detained and then disappeared. My crime was to fight for my rights. That's what I said to the police "There's no problem here, tell me what crime I'm accused of, and read me my rights." That made them really angry, and that's when they started to hit me. I told them that I would denounce them to all of the Human Rights Organizations, even at the international level, and when they were threatened with this, they didn't disappear me or have me killed. They make a lot of things up. I was marching with the protesters as the Constitution of Honduras allows me to, they didn't deny that. I've never acted like a gangster, which is how they treated me in prison.

MC- Why did they free you on bail after 21 days?

AF- In the first hearing, when they were presenting the defendants, the judge sent me over to the General Directorate of Criminal Investigation (DGIC), where after 6 days I had an initial audience before another judge. She didn't accept my defense, nor my 32 years of service as a professor, nor my work in drug abuse prevention, nor my commitment to non-violence, or my workshops with the "Mara Salvatrucha", she was uninterested in all of the roles I've played, much less the recognition I've received, like Teacher of the Year. On the contrary, she used all of that against me. The judge said that because I was considered a leader she couldn't let me out on bail, because I could reorganize the groups from the Resistance and attack the witnesses for the prosecution, the same police that had beaten me.

MC- You were the only female political prisoner of the de facto regime?

AF- Yes, the same day they detained two other compañeras, they held them for 6 days but when they sentenced me to prison, they freed them on bail. When the judge read my sentence I felt like they were prosecuting someone else, like President Manuel Zelaya, because they never failed to mention him - at least 8 times. I felt like the punishment wasn't directly against me, but against the President, against the women in the movement, and against the teachers.

MC..- When the de facto government claims that "There are no political prisoners" and tries to fool international public opinion that here "nothing is going on"; How do you contradict them?

AF.- Of course, unfortunately in the prison we weren't allow to watch the news or read the papers, so now I'm not well informed about the compañeros who are still being held prisoner. I knew that there was a Spanish citizen, and another Colombian being held for not respecting the curfew. I'm sure that there are political prisoners, but I don't know the exact number or the details of each case. Thanks to the international pressure, the coup leaders are changing their act, but we need to free these compañeros, because they never committed any crime, except defending our democracy. We need them to overturn the Decree Suspending Individual Rights.

MC.- As a professor, what do you think about the de facto government's decree ending the school year early?

AF.- I just found out about this news yesterday. A cousin who's a teacher was telling me that they're going to end the school year on October 31st. Imagine the consequences if we have in 2010, all of these students who were automatically passed without finishing the whole year. The next year the teachers will have students who never finished the study plans. They won't allow the teachers to continue classes until November 30, it's a huge mistake.

MC.- Is it a way to demobilize the teachers?

AF.- It's a strategy of the coup leaders. You know that they're trying to keep the teachers quiet, to empty out the schools and to militarize the elections.

MC.- Going back to the personal, I know your family lives in Northern Honduras. Have you spoken to your mother yet?

AF.- My mom was really emotional, and after all of this had happened what hurt me the most was to see my mother and daughters because they couldn't hide it, I could see in their faces the traces of pain, of sadness and of anger... Today I was happy because I spoke to my family after coming out of the gates and I told them that it wasn't that bad of an experience, because of the 19 women who were with me in the (high security) wing, I learned to see and know them, and never discriminate against them for the crimes they committed, but to see them as human beings, smart, fighting the pain, the anguish, we cried in prison, and now we're so happy. They were sad to see me leave, and this helped me understand injustice.

MC.- Is the National Resistance Front Against the Coup going to rebuild?

AF.- One of the conditions of my release is that I don't go to protests for the restitution of President Zelaya- it says that in the text of my conditional release- but the bars won't shut me up, and prison hasn't diminished even a tiny bit my beliefs. I think there are many ways I can keep working. This struggle begins right now, in the workplace, in the union, in my neighborhood, with housewives, until we win the Constitutional Assembly which brings us new hope.

MC.- In closing, having been jailed by an illegitimate government, will you ask that your record be cleared when democracy is returned?

AF.- I will ask that my record be cleared, when I was in jail they took our signatures four times, and I demanded that my file be cleared. Until a policeman told me: "I think all of this is unjust, and you have to demand when Mel Zelaya returns that they clear your records, instead of just suspending the charges." I insist that we haven't committed any crimes, the only thing that we've done is to believe in the rights that the Constitution gives us: the right to free expression of ideas and to disobey illegitimate governments.

by **John Schröder** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:45 pm

http://themarknews.com/articles/568-a-c ... -is-a-coup

A Coup is a Coup is a Coup

Justifications for the removal of the Honduran president ignore one crucial fact: there’s no such thing as a constitutional coup.

Maxwell Cameron, Professor of political science and international trade, University of British Columbia
First published Oct 13, 2009

A lesson of the forcible removal of President Zelaya from Honduras is that coups can still occur in Latin America. Make no mistake: what happened was a coup. It doesn’t matter that the military acted on a court order – courts were complicit with the coup in Chile in 1973. It doesn’t matter that the architects and beneficiaries were civilians, as was the case in Ecuador in 2000, or that the coup itself was a relatively gentile affair by historical standards. It doesn’t matter that the president has occasionally behaved idiotically.

What does matter is that nothing the president did justifies his removal by force without due process. It matters that Zelaya was sent into exile rather than arrested and brought before a judge, and that the de facto regime has not proven in a court of law that the president broke the law. (What is more, he did not break the law: at no time did Zelaya propose to change the re-election rule, nor could he have done so before leaving office.) And it matters that the actions of Micheletti and his cronies violated the letter and the spirit of the law and were also inconsistent with basic principles inherent in all constitutions.

And please, let us not fall into the trap of calling this a constitutional coup. What is a constitutional coup anyway? The concept, which has no place in law or scholarship, is at best a trope to designate a Machiavellian ruse whereby a constitution is changed by what appear to be constitutional means when, in fact, it is emasculated to perpetuate incumbents in power. A coup is, by definition, a change in the constitutional order by non-constitutional means. And that is exactly what happened in Honduras.

You might say, “But the constitution has not been changed, it has been upheld.” Wrong! The Honduran constitution has been interrupted and altered. The current de facto regime holds power by virtue of non-electoral and non-constitutional means. And a new rule has been added to Honduran politics: don’t even think about constitutional change or you’ll be exiled or arrested.

The fact that the Micheletti gang can find articles of the constitution that support what they have done is irrelevant. Constitutional framers are no smarter than the rest of us, and they often write dumb things into constitutions. The Honduras constitution is full of absurd articles that shouldn’t be there, and is missing essential articles that should (most crucially, an impeachment clause). But it also contains principles inherent in all constitutions – principles that have been violated even as the coup-mongers point to formalities in the constitution that they feel justify their actions.

This brings us to the challenge we now face. The Western Hemisphere must become a coup-free zone. Now you might say, don’t we already have an Inter-American Democratic Charter that is supposed to make the coup a thing of the past? Well, in fact, one of the biggest problems with the Charter is that it does not define or specify what counts as an “unconstitutional interruption or alteration of the constitutional democratic order.” Yes, the Charter describes democracy, and does so rather comprehensively. But it does not define the obverse: the features of a non-democratic regime.

What is a coup? I suggest a method for discerning coups, based on the theory that “if it waddles like a duck, flaps like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.” Here are some of the quacks, flaps, and waddles that count as coups:

The coup in Honduras fulfills conditions 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8; and 5 is imminent. Let’s call a duck a duck.

What about Zelaya? Did he not also act in defiance of both the judiciary and election authorities and, therefore, violate conditions 2 and 6? I’m not persuaded. Zelaya did not purge or stack the Supreme Court or electoral authorities; he did not close Congress; he did not suspend the constitution. Moreover, to remove Zelaya because he insisted on a non-binding consultation is like hitting a child for hitting another child. Imagine what would happen if we were to generalize this practice. Evo Morales could dismiss every prefect who held a referendum on autonomy in Bolivia.

Honduras’ de facto leaders have opened a Pandora’s box inside of which quivers every impulse to repress, censor, abuse power, and violate human rights. There is a danger that the events in Honduras may be repeated elsewhere, either in the immediate neighbourhood or in the Andes. But if they spark a move to clarify the meaning of a coup, and this is incorporated into the Democratic Charter, we could very well find that the threat to democracy is also an opportunity to improve the way we support it.

This is a revised version of a talk presented at the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, Ottawa, October 7, 2009.

by **John Schröder** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:10 pm

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/13/hondur ... riega.html

Bad Reporting On Bad Policy
Roger Noriega, 10.13.09, 01:00 PM EDT
Setting the record straight on Honduras.

Ordinarily, if two major U.S. newspapers carried stories touting my prowess as a "lobbyist" manipulating the U.S. Congress into thwarting a wrong-headed foreign policy, I would simply post them to my firm's Web site as testimonials and move on. However, the dual articles regarding Honduras in The New York Times ("Lobbying Effort on Honduras Getting Results") and The Washington Post ("GOP Lawmakers Reach Out to Isolated Honduran Government") are so misleading that setting the record straight serves a greater purpose.

The premise of these two articles is that right-wing Latin-Americanists have conspired with members of Congress to back the June 28 ouster of left-leaning Honduran President Manuel Zelaya--and that Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., has been tricked into holding up administration nominations for two key regional posts, undermining President Obama's ability to formulate policy.

Consider the following facts which I made known to The Washington Post reporter, none of which made it into its story because each would have undermined the premise thereof:

I support the nomination of Arturo Valenzuela to be assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs. On May 22, within days of his nomination, I wrote, "Arturo Valenzuela's knowledge of the region and of the foreign policy bureaucracy is extraordinary. He will bring a cerebral, deliberative style to the process but also commands the respect of the career officers. ..." I explained this position to a staff member of Sen. DeMint in a conversation that occurred after the senator had already declared his hold on the Valenzuela nomination.

DeMint's concerns regarding Valenzuela can be traced back to an exchange that the senator had during a July 9 nomination hearing in which the nominee made statements that suggested a misapprehension of the facts on the ground. DeMint apparently had access to real-time information of what was transpiring in Honduras and why. The idea that he relied on any outsider to formulate his opinions is quite plainly inaccurate. DeMint has explained that he believes that the nomination of current Assistant Secretary Thomas Shannon to be ambassador to Brazil presents an opportunity to have a full debate on U.S. policy toward Latin America. (No U.S. senator has ever sought my opinion on the matter, but I believe Shannon is uniquely qualified for the Brazil post.)

The impression in the articles that lobbyists herded Republican lawmakers into a room to be programmed on Honduras also is untrue. Indeed, several senators and representatives organized their own meetings and reached out to invite members of a visiting delegation of Honduran citizens to make their case. That delegation, which received respectful hearings from dozens of members of Congress from both parties, wanted to explain the constitutional process that was carried out by the functioning civilian Congress and Supreme Court.

The members of Congress who are doing most of the work on this subject are trying to untangle the mess so that the U.S. will recognize the results of presidential elections in Honduras next month, so that we can restore our economic assistance to one of the region's poorest nations and renew drug cooperation with a country that sits astride the transit zone for cocaine bound for the U.S.

While I did not grant an interview to The New York Times, I told the reporter that I was never hired to lobby for the new government and that the private sector group for which I was working indirectly was "trying to explain what transpired in their country under their constitution." Nevertheless, the first two sentences of the Times' article state, "First, depose a president. Second, hire a lobbyist." I have since pointed out to the reporter that the people who deposed Zelaya never hired a lobbyist, and the people who hired lobbyists did not depose Zelaya.

Earnest members of Congress (mostly Republicans) disagree with the administration's policy of bullying Honduras into ignoring its own constitution to restore a dangerous autocrat to power. They don't need lobbyists to tell them what to think or do on the matter, but I am proud of my efforts to explain the facts. President Obama's nominees--two good men with whom I have worked--are being held accountable over substantive policy differences. At least one senator thinks the American people have a right to know about policies being carried out in their name.

Any of these facts would have made "right-wing" Republicans appear discerning, principled or forthright. It comes as no surprise, then, that these reporters would not let these particular facts get in the way of a good story.

Roger Noriega was a senior official in the administration of President George W. Bush from 2001-2005. He is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. His firm Vision Americas LLC helped organize the visit of Honduran delegation in July 2009.

http://www.borev.net/2009/10/roger_nori ... to_se.html

Roger Noriega Would Like To Set the Record Straight, By "Lying"

Fat, melty coup lobbyist Roger Noriega wants to set the record straight: he is NOT a coup lobbyist. Instead he is a man who happens to be on the payroll of some shadowy group of Honduran business elites who plot the coups and then publicly defend them as "a constitutional process that was carried out by the functioning civilian Congress and Supreme Court." Why can't the librul media STOP editorializing and START reporting the FACTS?

Anyway the point is that Roger Noriega is a coup lobbyist who thinks you are a fucking idiot.

by **John Schröder** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:24 pm

http://phoenixwoman.wordpress.com/2009/ ... iv-day-23/

Radio Globo: One of the negotiators with the coupistas, Licenciado Tomesa?, says that they have reached 90% agreement. This sounds to me like they are headed toward a false solution, in which the negotiators produce a solution that the Frente will reject. It will offer the world an opportunity to walk away from the crisis, while it festers on. Yikes.

AFP reports that Gregorio Maggio of the US Dept. of State met with representatives of Honduran civil society in the US embassy.
____________________________________________________________
Update2:
There’s a fascinating interview of Carlos H. Reyes on Hibueras. He was one of the few people to be disappeared, tortured, and then reappeared in the 1980s, thanks to public pressure. Sixty nine years old, he recently broke a wrist in a fall taken while trying to avoid the blows of soldiers. He says that the resistance has a 12-point agenda independent from Zelaya (which include agrarian reform, membership in the Bolivaran organization ALBA, and no privatization of state enterprises). He says that the regime is not afraid of Zelaya, that it is afraid of the Resistance. He says that in order to restore the constitutional order, either Zelaya must be reinstated or there must be a Constitutional Convention. He says that the 1982 constitution had two primary principles: to sell Honduras and to reduce the state to its minimum expression. There is a third, unpublished principle, that there will no longer be coups, that the military will have the role of upholding the state. The Free Trade Agreement of 2005 destroyed the old constitution. He ran for president merely to establish the legal principle that independent candidates could run for office. Carlos Flores and the police chief have both tried to get him to campaign, but he doesn’t want to. What matters is restoring institutionality. He says that Zelaya says he changed because in the presidency his hands were tied by private industry. He would propose a tax and they would say that it was impossible. He would want to amend a law and they would say that another law forbade it. They even told him he couldn’t sit in an empty seat because it belonged to former president Carlos Flores who hadn’t arrived. At some point, he came to understand why Carlos H. Reyes was in the streets throwing flower pots at the gringos. Privatization would have slashed state revenues. Port privatization would have reduced revenues from 33% of gross imports to 13%. He says that members of the oligarchy, specifically Fito Facussé wanted to join ALBA because it would reduce the price of petroleum through Petrocaribe.

It’s a fascinating account of a grizzled old soldier of Honduras’s struggle to enter the 19th century.

Professor Agustina Flores Lopez was released from prison after 21 days.
____________________________________________________________
Update: Spain has been charged with the EU with drawing up punitive measures against the members of the imaginary government. Juan Barahona was replaced, with his consent, by lawyer Rodil Rivera in the talks with the coupistas. He had refused to sign any agreement that renounced the desire to obtain a Constitutional Convention.

Radio Globo: the coup negotiators are trying to blow up the talks by refusing to accept an alternate negotiator to replace Juan Barahona. DemocracyNow asks Zelaya if he would accept being returned to office with reduced powers. Zelaya slips away from answering the question. How about Juan Barahona? Well, we replaced him because he was not willing to sign points that the presidency willing to compromise on and rather than end the talks, we replaced him. What will happen if there is no agreement by the 15th? Well, I’m a man of faith. It will take a miracle to get an agreement.

According to TeleSur, Zelaya has urged that the coupistas be turned over to the International Criminal Court. In fact, that would be the proper way to wind down this crisis: arrest everyone, including Zelaya, and let each side make the case against the other for all crimes separate from the actual removal from office. The coupistas say Zelaya is guilty of embezzling and narcotrafficking and Lord knows what else, Zelaya (and the rest of the world) says the coupistas are murderers, rapists, and thugs– fine, let both be tried by an impartial jury.

According to the pro-coup and ever-shifting La Tribuna, southern and national businessmen of the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Council have threatened to shut down operations if Zelaya is restored.

Talks between Zelaya’s and Micheletti’s negotiators begin again. Porfirio “Pepe” Lobo Sosa, the alpha wolf of the PN, is doing his Martin Luther King imitation: “WIthout social justice, peace is impossible. We will have a government of integration, a government for all [yattayatta]” He is promising a massive educational program, scholarships, bilingual education, a computer in every crockpot… and no clue as to how this will be paid for. Elvin Santos is saying that he was the first to say they could have a referendum on a Constitutional Convention, as long as the Constitutional Convention didn’t mess with things that shouldn’t be messed with. Speaking of the Constitutional Convention, he said, we can’t just invent the law at a whim, after a crisis that was brought on by the Congress inventing laws at their whim and continues with Executive Decrees that have the legal merit of the crayon scribbles of a four year old.

Radio Globo remains up on the Internet; small mercies.
________________________________________________________________________
Tret:

Roger Noriega has a piece in Forbes in which he argues that he’s really a warm fuzzy liberal who had, contrary what was claimed in the NY Times, nothing to do with the holds placed on nominees for key Latin American posts, and proves his warm fuzziness by saying that “Earnest members of Congress (mostly Republicans) disagree with the administration’s policy of bullying Honduras into ignoring its own constitution to restore a dangerous autocrat to power.” How anyone can write a sentence like that without breaking out into a fit of howling is beyond me; come to think of it, I can’t prove he didn’t. But of course the NY Times did not accuse Noriega of having holds placed. What it said was, “Two decades later, those former officials — including Otto Reich, Roger Noriega and Daniel W. Fisk — view Honduras as the principal battleground in a proxy fight with Cuba and Venezuela, which they characterize as threats to stability in the region in language similar to that once used to describe the designs of the Soviet Union.” Noriega’s characterization of the NYT’s reporting is so dishonest it almost makes me feel sorry for The Times. Almost.

And if you want more dishonesty, Doug Bandow of Cato says, Honduras will be holding an election next month. Washington is threatening not to recognize the result. Would the Obama administration prefer a full-blown military dictatorship take power? What the FFFFF do you call it when soldiers control the streets and shut down the media?

http://phoenixwoman.wordpress.com/2009/ ... iv-day-24/

Tiempo: Oscar Raul Matute says that a Constitutional Convention is legally impossible; only the Congress can amend the Constitution. A judge of the Unified Penal court declared the former head of CONATEL (telecomm commission) Rasel Tome “in rebellion” and ordered him arrested. Tome calls it political persecution and he has been among those in the Brazilian embassy.

by **John Schröder** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:29 pm

http://quotha.net/node/452

Day 105, October 10, 2009 from Oscar (my translation)

In order to understand the Honduran people's reaction to the June 28th coup d'etat and the resistance struggle that has followed, it's necessary to understand the origin of the popular struggle over the past 30 years. As such, with the understanding that the Honduran left is not a unified bloc of demands and identities, but–to the contrary–arises out of a complex process of experiences and learning that has taken place in the country for decades and has today reached its climax, we can make a space for comprehending the characteristics that have formed the strategy of struggle of the Resistance against the coup forces.

From the decade of the 1970s and coming out of the experience of the great strike of 1954 against the banana enclave of the North Coast, peaceful struggle has been the principal tool of popular organizations to have their demands heard and to achieve their aims.

For the Honduran left, war in Central America in the 1980s left a legacy of division, betrayal, and distrust among the traditional social actors, who in contrast to the other countries of the Central American region did not manage to achieve a mass movement capable of reversing the correlation between [military] force and the dominant oligarchy. Up to that time, vanguard organizations were associations of small farmers, workers and students, the principal targets of the National Security Doctrine. Although there were attempts to go forward with an armed revolutionary struggle, it is clear that the conditions necessary for it to grow effectively among popular sectors never materialized.

At the beginning of the 1990s COPINH appeared as an actor in the national political scene with an enormous pilgrimage to the capital city to demand improvements in [indigenous peoples'] standards of living. Similarly, new social actors arose adding to the demands relating to indigenous rights, focusing on gender rights, trade union rights, sexual and reproductive rights.

At the end of the decade and in the wake of the disasters left by Hurricane Mitch in November 1998, popular organizations conceded a grace period of two years to the Flores Facussé government "as support in solidarity with the sacrifice that will bring about national reconstruction." Said grace facilitated governability within the administration, although it resulted in losing once again the opportunity to renew the national plan, and instead the huge inequality that existed between the poorest and the richest grew. At the same time, the popular organizations lost the opportunity to force the ruling class to consult with the people in relation to the ose of the reconstruction resources post-Mitch.

It is precisely at the end of the Carlos Flores government that the problem of the youth gangs starts to be visible and with them the uselessness of the response to demands of the people in themes as important as security, but also shelter, health, education, unemployment and migration among others. The powerful took advantage of the situation to divert social attention away from the precarious conditions of the lives of the majority of the population, and simultaneously ignoring corruption within the governing class, created the social illusion that fighting against gangs in urban areas would eliminate all the problems of the country.

The strong fist [mano dura] or zero tolerance of Maduro's government appealed to the fear and social organizations fell in with the official line ignoring in large part the repressive practice of the police and paramilitary organizations. After all, it was said at the time even within social organizations, the deaths were only fringe youths and delinquents.

When Manuel Zelaya became president, although the gang members had disappeared from the press and their visibility had been considerably reduced, it was also true that the promise of peace and development had once again failed. The subhuman conditions in the slums, just like the corruption of the ruling class, the social violence, hunger, unemployment, health, all the demands that the state proved itself incapable of satisfying and to the contrary insisted on ignoring, as if by closing their eyes they could make the problem disappear.

The mass organization of the popular sectors has always been characterized by being a reaction to official actions. Though active and constantly growing, the different people's organizations remained strongly disaggregated throughout the decade of the 2000s; they never needed resources apart from peaceful struggle to confront repression because the oligarchic system was never in real danger.

When the coup d'etat happened and we were all surprised by a trauma that we believed to have been buried in the dark corners of the history of the continent, the resistance front made use of the resource that it had been using for the past 30 years: non-violent struggle, negotiation, appeals to the good judgment of a class that has never been interested in reaching consensus on their ideas and projects.

The resistance against the coup d'etat began marching, because marching and shouting was the way we have learned to confront the system. We never made use of strategies other than peaceful ones because we'd never needed them. Until the repression grew.

After the clandestine return of President Zelaya to the country, the scene of the resistance struggle changed considerably. The repression extended to the neighborhoods and districts of the city of Tegucigalpa, because the resistance spontaneously retreated to safer territory. Many of the people who currently make up the resistance are not organized outside the resistance itself, and this makes it difficult for the leadership to share an effective strategic line with all the sectors involved. The dictatorship recognizes this reality and to break the resistance it first imposes the prolonged curfew, then the stage of siege accompanied by the closure of the media, thus breaking up the resistance.

After the closure of the media, the fundamental channel for sharing strategies with the unorganized resistance is the march. This is why the army and the police strongly repress marches, preventing the development of an effective strategy and thus breaking the chain. Two days after the closure of Radio Globo, the majority of the resistance did not know what would be the next place to meet up and as a result the marches have been growing smaller. Twenty minutes after the resistance meets up, in each place where they decide to meet, the police immediately comes and forces them to disperse.

But the resistance has also learned a lot, quickly. One example was yesterday's march in which the resistance had been called upon to meet at Plaza Miraflores. When the police arrived at the place prepared to force the crowd to disperse, it had disappeared. Little by little and in small groups people dispersed, blending in with the passers-by. The riot police were left alone, in perfect formation, thinking about whether they should throw bombs [teargas canisters] at the mall for fun, or return to the barracks. A kilometer from the mall, the resistance had regrouped to protest in front of the Hotel Clarión where the dialogue is taking place.

The resistance arrived in small groups at the Hotel Clarión. Spread out n the adjacent blocks they waited for more people to arrive to join up in front of the lobby and shout slogans against the coup d'etat. It took twenty minutes for the riot police to get to the place and as soon as they got off the bus they lined up to attack the protesters. They used gas and the resistance once again spread out in the nieghboring streets. The police followed a small group of youths who retreated to Hospital Escuela where they blended in with the passers-by who, confused, asked who the Cobras [attack squadron] were following.

Parallel to this and while the police were putting out a [flaming] tire in front of Hospital Escuela, in front of the Hotel Clarión the resistance had regrouped to continue its protest. The repressive elements came running back to once again force out the resistance. They threw teargas and water from their armored car and just like in the two previous occasions the resistance spread out among the nearby streets. The police tried to follow them but only found innocent citizens who, confused, complained about the traffic provoked by the police officers. The game repeated itself two or three more times, until the rain started.

Above and beyond the amusing nature of the scene, we must stress the ability to learn quickly that the resistance has demonstrated in recent marches in which, despite the good intentions of the police to attack with all their customary viciousness, they have not managed to capture anyone.

From this game of cat and mouse, in which the police shows its lack of effective tactics against the street protest of small groups with a growing ability to disperse, the confidence of the resistance to challenge the riot police grows, as they invent new ways of engaging in the battle of the street.

And it's necessary to learn how to stand up to the repression of the system, because as the days go by, the hopes of arriving at a solution mediated by the OAS disappears and everything indicates that the regime will become more aggressive.

The famous presidential decree of the state of siege has not been repealed and is in legal limbo. [The repeal] cannot be carried out without being published and it won't be published because they have decided that the dialogue will not advance and the know they will need [the decree] again.

The popular Honduran organizations never needed to learn violent pro-revolutionary alternatives. Peaceful struggle, more than just an option, up until now has been the only option. But this does not mean they can't learn. As the regime continues cutting off options and the repression gets worse, the peace–the so longed-for peace that the dictatorship claims to seek–will disappear and this time, the liberatory cries from the blocks and alleyways will be substituted by a clamor that will make us ask ourselves how it was that we got to this point.

¡NO PASARÁN!

http://quotha.net/node/456

Day 108, October 12, 2009 from Oscar (my translation)

The Honduran resistance against the coup d'etat continues to be active, even if it has suffered a strong blow from the most recent actions of the regime. The executive decree declaring the state of siege issued at the end of September remains in place despite the media show put on by the dictatorship announcing, days before the arrival of the OAS commission and as a supposed show of goodwill toward dialogue, that they would repeal the controversial decree. Nonetheless this was never published in the official legal newsletter of the government, La Gaceta, and as soon as the commission of foreign ministers left, the dictatorship issued another decree further strengthening the previous gag order, authorizing and ordering CONATEL to permanently suspend the operating licenses of Radio Globo and Canal 36. And so, the marches are still prohibited (as long as they are over 20 people), each action of the Front is forcefully repressed by the police and the army who give no respite to protesters, our media is still shut down and Micheletti rejects Insulza's request that he improve Zelaya's living conditions inside the Brazilian embassy.

The coup media continues broadcasting news in which they falsify interviews with leaders of the resistance front who, according to the media's claims, inform the population that the actions of the resistance have ended, that they have split apart due to differences with Manuel Zelaya or that they have decided to participate in the elections as the only solution to the crisis.

The mainstream media exert an enormous effort to create a sense of defeat surrounding our struggle and in order to maintain this sense they have to keep the people uninformed. As a result it is unlikely that in the near future the radio frequencies of the resistance return to the air. We all know the power that Radio Globo has to raise our morale and, aware of this, communities are seeking to create alternatives to the disinformation. Loudspeakers transmitting the Radio Globo broadcast streaming from the internet, cell phone messages, or face to face communication have substituted the mass media. Radio Gualcho, at 1510 AM, has been converted into a relay signal for Globo as have many radio stations throughout the country. However, this remains insufficient and spread out; each act of resistance is disconnected from all the others around the country.

The neighborhoods have been converted into a sort of rear-guard for the mobilization of the resistance, having found in these communities a somewhat safer space that the police and military are afraid to enter. The rallies in El Pedregal, La Kennedy and El Hato have managed to gather a good number of protesters and, in contrast to the protests carried out on the commercial avenues, the police repression is less effective despite the armed presence of riot police.

The conversations between the [official] commissions continue without reaching an agreement on point 6 of the Plan San José: the return of Mel Zelaya to the presidency remains at the center of the controversy. Both sides have made clear that they have no plans to change their stance on the issue. "Mel Zelaya will not return to the presidency," Micheletti said to the representatives of the OAS, and insists that he was legally replaced and the most he will agree to accept is a third party, which, of course, his side would choose.

Juan Barahona, leader of the resistance, delivered a detailed report to the assembly yesterday, Sunday, in which he laid out the details of the conversations and made clear his lack of trust in the willingness of the regime to leave power. "They are trying to buy time," he said, "their plan is to make it to the elections at whatever cost and if the elections do not occur, to remain in power as long as they can."

The cost of the elections could be very high for the dictatorship. The resistance assures that they will not recognize them, and that they will do whatever it takes to prevent them from occurring. Foreseeing this, the National Congress has increased the penalties for electoral crimes. The Ministry of Education has announced the school year will end on October 15th, six weeks before the elections, with the intent of demobilizing the teachers' union after failing to crush them through persecution and the intense smear campaign against the teachers. The teachers, for their part, is ignoring the authority of the Ministry of Education, and has announced that they will continue holding classes until December 17th.

With the position of the teachers in resistance, refusing to suspend classes, the call of the resistance to not recognize the November elections and the desperate project of the dictatorship there is only one possible path: violence.

The government will need to militarize the elementary and high schools throughout the whole country to ensure the safety of the ballots. The resistance will confront that militarization with boycott actions, facing which, the dictatorship will only be able to respond with a continued state of siege. The state of siege, in turn, will mine the terrain of the electoral campaign, further complicating the panorama of the oligarchy's project that, as time goes on, only continues to shoot itself in the foot.

¡NO PASARÁN!

by **JackRiddler** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:30 pm

John Schröder wrote:http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/4877-the-illegitimate-constitution.html

The Illegitimate Constitution

by Jorge Majfud

The dialectical dispute over the legality of the violent process of removal from office and expulsion from the country of the president of Honduras has not reached closure. Months ago we explained our point of view, according to which there was no violation of the constitution on the part of president Zelaya at the moment of calling for a non-binding poll on the question of a constituent assembly.

But at base this discussion is moot and rooted in a different problem: resistance by a social class and mentality that created the institutions of its own Banana Republic and seeks desperately to identify change of any kind with chaos, at the same time that it imposes repression on its people and on the communication media that oppose it.

The main argument of the authors of the coup in Honduras is rooted in the fact that the 1982 Constitution does not allow changes in its wording (articles 239 and 374) and establishes the removal from power of those who promote such changes. The Law of Citizen Participation of 2006, which promotes popular consultations, was never accused of being unconstitutional. On the contrary, popular participation is prescribed by the very same constitution (article 45). All of which reveals the scholastic spirit of its drafters, nuanced with a humanistic language.

No norm, no law can stand above a country’s constitution. Nonetheless, no modern constitution has been dictated by God, but by human beings for their own benefit. Which is to say, no constitution can stand above a natural law like a people’s freedom to change.

A constitution that establishes its own immutability is confusing its human and precarious origins with a divine origin; or it is attempting to establish the dictatorship of one generation over all generations to come. If this principle of immutability made any sense, we would have to suppose that before the constitution of Honduras could be modified Honduras must first disappear as a country. Otherwise, for a thousand years that country would have to be ruled by the same wording.

((SNIP))

But in a sacred text the prohibition against change, even though impossible, is more easily justified, since no man can ammend God’s word.

These pretensions of eternity and perfection were not rare in the Iberoamerican constitutions which in the 19th century attempted to invent republics, instead of allowing the people to invent their own republics and constitutions to their own measure and according to the pulse of history. If in the United States the constitution of 1787 is still in force, it is due to its great flexibility and its many amendments. Otherwise, this country would have today three fifths of a man in the presidency, a quasi-human. “That ignorant little black man,” as the now former de facto Honduran foreign minister Enrique Ortez Colindres called him.

((SNIP))

A constitution that impedes change is illegitimate in the face of the inalienable right to freedom (to change) and equality (to determine change). It is paper, it is a fraudulent contract that one generation imposes upon another in the name of a nation that no longer exists.

Translated by Bruce Campbell

Thanks for finding this excellent piece. I roughly devised the same argument after learning that the Honduran constitution contains "eternal" clauses that allow no amendment, i.e. that in effect this is a return to divine-right declarations. You can and should do that with inalienable human rights, where a constitution refers to a higher and precedent authority ("the creator" who made us all equal, the foundational ideals of liberty, individual rights and rule of law). But declaring the unalterability of the governing procedures defined in the same constitution is a logical paradox. We agree on the decision never to allow ourselves to make a decision by agreement, ever again! It's a crazy hubris, or, as he says, the attempted dictatorship of a generation over all future ones. So crazy that I wondered if I was understanding it at all. I'm thankful for Prof. Majfud's erudite analysis.

Anyway, his initial point is even more important: this isn't about the constitutional issues at all, which are a cover for a seizure of power. The oligarchy refuses to yield to just popular demands.

by **John Schröder** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:36 pm

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/lat ... 10-13.html

Zelaya Forecasts Dim Prospects for Honduras Negotiations

Manuel Zelaya, who Hondurans elected president in 2005, has now been out of office for more than 100 days. Marcelo Ballve of New America Media spoke with him Monday night in the Brazilian Embassy there, where the deposed leader has taken refuge.

A military-backed coup toppled Zelaya on June 28 and flew him to a forced exile in Costa Rica the same day. Zelaya's opponents said it was necessary to remove him because he was trying to muster support for changing Constitutionally-backed presidential term limits. Zelaya denies this, arguing that a referendum he planned was intended only to gauge Hondurans' attitudes toward constitutional reform.

On Sept. 21, Zelaya was able to travel back into Honduras to rally his supporters, and sought refuge at the Brazilian Embassy, where he remains. Negotiations between Zelaya's representatives and the interim government, brokered by the Organization of American States, restarted in Honduras on Tuesday.

Following is a portion of Ballve's cell phone interview with Zelaya:

QUESTION: You have demanded that the international community and United States do more to push for your reinstatement. What more can they do, other than imposing sanctions and isolating the interim government, which they already have done?

MANUEL ZELAYA: The international community has done plenty. It has acted energetically like never before in its history. There are no precedents for this situation, we are trailblazing. We are all working together to teach the coup leaders a lesson, with the world as witness. Both the United Nations and the Organization of American States have condemned the coup, which is unprecedented. The United States could do more, but I am grateful for what it has done up to now.

QUESTION: In negotiations this week, it's possible that your negotiators will strike a deal with the side representing interim President Roberto Micheletti and return you to the presidency.

MANUEL ZELAYA: That's a very hypothetical scenario. There are a whole series of obstacles and pitfalls that need to be surmounted before that could happen.

QUESTION: What will you do if negotiations fail?

MANUEL ZELAYA: That's the more probable scenario. Not because I lack the will to come to an agreement, but because the de facto government doesn't desire it. Basically, my position will remain the same, I will insist with my efforts. I want to show the de facto government that staging a coup is not a game, it's a serious matter. Anyone who stages a coup has serious problems with their perception of reality. I want to send a message to the coup leaders, and the world as a whole, that this kind of thing just isn't acceptable.

QUESTION: Your critics say that before the coup toppled you from power, you planned to transform Honduran society much like President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has changed his country over the last decade.

MANUEL ZELAYA: To begin with, President Chavez has been used as a scapegoat to justify this coup. Invoking his name is not a valid justification for a coup, it's an irrational one. Secondly, in a 30-year political career, I have always defended democracy. I have participated in 12 elections. Reaching the presidency has been my life's work. I have never broken a law in my life. The coup organizers are simply an ambitious group of powerful people who want to hang on to their privileges and accumulate even more power.

QUESTION: Media accounts of your political trajectory say you began your presidential term as a conservative politician from a wealthy background who had a change of heart in office and became a populist.

MANUEL ZELAYA: That's not true. When in office, I didn't do anything I had not announced when on the campaign trail. I campaigned on direct, participatory democracy, a fair economy, dignified employment, anti-poverty programs, and global engagement. Everything I said I would do in my campaign I followed up during my presidency. The elite business interests became angry with me when I increased the minimum wage (in March 2009), and lowered interest rates. But I achieved more economic growth than Honduras had seen in a long time. Even in the middle of the financial crisis our economy was growing by 4.5 percent annually.

QUESTION: Your critics believe that if you are returned to power you may somehow try to remain as president, despite the elections scheduled for Nov. 29, and the end of your term in late January.

MANUEL ZELAYA: I think that's silly. It's silliness the size of Mount Everest. A person like me, a proven pacifist and democrat with thirty years experience, but who doesn't have the backing of the economic powers in Honduras, the big media, and the army, which is allied with the economic elite, how could I carry out a plan of that nature? I've never planned to remain in office for a single day longer than what is allotted by law, I wouldn't stay longer for all the money in the world, or if Pope Benedict XVI asked me to do it. I'm fighting against a government that usurped power. I've never usurped power. I'm only fighting for a right that is mine.

QUESTION: Costa Rican mediator Oscar Arias recently called the Honduran Constitution a "travesty." Do you consider the Constitution a travesty?

MANUEL ZELAYA: If you followed the events over the course of the three or four months that preceded the coup, you would know I was championing a popular referendum to find out what the people thought about the Constitution and its reform. I believed this to be necessary. I know the Constitution well. It has been continuously and flagrantly violated over the last 30 years. It fences politicians in to such a degree they see themselves obligated to skirt its provisions in order to advance their interests. However, only the Honduran people can request a reform to the Constitution. I can't do it. That's why I created the idea of the fourth urn (the referendum), which would have asked Hondurans what they thought about the idea of Constitutional reform.

QUESTION: Along with a few dozen of your supporters, you have been refuged in the Brazilian Embassy for exactly three weeks as of this evening. Please tell us about the conditions inside the embassy, and the mood and morale inside its walls?

MANUEL ZELAYA: Spiritually, we feel very strong, because of the solidarity and support we've had from the international community and the Honduran people. But we're living under military siege, with soldiers surrounding the embassy at all times.

QUESTION: In the 1950s radical Peruvian political leader Victor Haya de la Torre was refuged in the Colombian Embassy in his own country for five years. Would you be willing to persist for that long to advance your cause?

MANUEL ZELAYA: On the one hand it's a good question, but it's also captious. It contains a masochistic component. I am not a masochist. I came here to resolve a problem, and that's what I intend to do.

QUESTION: What else can you tell us about American involvement in the events that took place in Honduras?

MANUEL ZELAYA: There are U.S. politicians who pretend to be champions of democracy but in reality have an antidemocratic vocation. The American voters should watch their politicians, because some are hypocrites, they express themselves in one manner to their voters, but send a different message to the rest of the world by supporting a coup. Several members of the U.S. Congress have visited the de facto government in Honduras, and some former officials ... have made statements supporting the coup. That's worrisome.

Editor's Note: Reporting from Honduras is a partnership between the NewsHour and New America Media. More interviews and coverage to come.

by **John Schröder** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:45 pm

http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/20 ... a-and.html

The Frente Nacional de Resistencia and the Guaymuras dialogue

In a press release posted on Vos el Soberano, the Frente de Resistencia today has rejected the attempt to portray the replacement of Juan Barahona as a breakdown of popular support for President Zelaya as he continues to work on reaching an agreement that would allow some degree of normalcy to resume in Honduras before the November elections are irretrievably tarnished. This communique recalls comments made by Oscar in his latest post on Adrienne Pine's blog, where he says

The coup media continues broadcasting news in which they falsify interviews with leaders of the resistance front who, according to the media's claims, inform the population that the actions of the resistance have ended, that they have split apart due to differences with Manuel Zelaya.

The propaganda effort is to portray the insistence by the national Resistance on its agenda, which will continue, as a weakening of support for the restoration of the constitutional President.

So, here in translation is the actual position of the Resistance on the replacement of Juan Barahona and the difficult negotiation underway in Honduras:

golpistas

by **John Schröder** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:03 pm

http://hondurasemb.org/2009/10/13/a-let ... -congress/

A letter from the Honduran Congress to the US Congress

Congreso Nacional República de Honduras C.A.

Tegucigalpa, Honduras
October 12, 2009

Dear Congressman & Senators:

We the undersigned members of the National Congress of Honduras send you a cordial and attentive greeting. Our country, Honduras, faces its biggest challenge since the return to democracy in the 1980s when, on June 28, 2009, a group of civilians and members of the armed forces used military force to illegally depose the democratically elected president, Manuel Zelaya, who was violently and arbitrarily detained and exiled, consummating the coup d’etat that has subjugated and repressed our entire society. In its efforts to consolidate their power, the coup plotters have unleashed an expensive lobbying campaign that aims to persuade US public opinion that no coup against democracy took place in Honduras and that all their actions were carried out in conformity with the law.

This argument now has little force as it has collapsed under its own weight. But despite the weakness of the original argument, a study by the U.S. Library of Congress backs the thesis put forth by the coup plotters. However, the aforementioned study is contradictory and suffers from a series of errors and biases that disqualify it as a correct and objective analysis of what has happened in our country. The study recognizes that no procedure for impeachment exists in the Honduran Constitution and asserts that Congress “implicitly interpreted” the Constitution when it automatically transformed its authority to “disapprove of the conduct of the executive”—a censure measure of sorts with no legal consequences—into a procedure for impeachment. This assertion is erroneous.

There is ample precedent within the Supreme Court of Justice establishing that: “The ultimate and definitive interpreter of the Constitution of the Republic is the Supreme Court through its Constitutional chamber. ” Article 72 of the Law of Constitutional Justice stipulates the express and exclusive authority of the Constitutional Chamber to interpret the Constitution and this is manifest in each and every ruling issued by said tribunal. To take one example, the first ruling concerning the matter of who is responsible for interpreting the Constitution, handed down bythe Constitutional Chamber on May 7, 2003, categorically established that, in accordance with the principle of the separation of powers, the National Congress lacks the authority to interpret the Constitution.

Although Congress attempted to ignore this ruling of the Supreme Court—refusing to authorize its publication and approving other laws that contravene it—it is still in effect in so far as its judicial implications are concerned. Since the Supreme Court issued this ruling, the National Congress had not attempted to interpret the Constitution again. It’ is important to emphasize that four years after this historic ruling of May 7, 2003, the current de facto president, Roberto Micheletti, asked the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional a constitutional amendment that prohibited him from running for president, arguing that Congress had overstepped its powers. While it is perfectly clear that the National Congress lacks the authority to legitimately interpret the Constitution, the Library of Congress study also erroneously asserts that interpretations of our Constitution can be implicit. Under none of the twelve constitutions Honduras has adopted since its independence from Spain has an implicit interpretation of the Constitution, or of any law adopted to implement the Constitution, ever taken place. Interpretations have customarily been explicit, stating clearly what law has been interpreted and explaining the legal implications of the interpretation. It is worth clarifying that in decree 161-2009, in which the legislative branch deposes president Zelaya, there is no explicit mention on the part of Congress whereby the authority to “disapprove of the conduct of the executive” is interpreted as an impeachment procedure. We regret that in the course of its research for this analysis, the Library of Congress only interviewed the lawyer Guillermo Perez Arias, who in Honduras is not considered an academic authority on the subject of constitutional law, and neglected to consult other experts on the subject. By choosing to only interview Perez Arias, who has also publicly stated his support for the coup, the Library of Congress has severely undermined the balance and objectivity that form the basic normative criteria of any academic and journalistic inquiry. In light of the above, we the undersigned, all members of the National Congress, ask you to support any initiative that would allow the return to the democratic and constitutional order of our country by means of the reinstatement of the legitimate president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya Rosales, in accordance with the San Jose Accord, which we consider the best alternative to resolve Honduras’ current political crisis.

ELVIA VALLE
CAROLINA HAYLOCK
MARIA MARGARITA ZELAYA
GLADYS DEL CID NIETO
JAVIER HALL
MARIO SEGURA
ELEAZAR JUAREZ
JOSE RODRIGO TROCHEZ
MANUEL DE JESUS VELASQUEZ
JOSE DE LA PAZ HERRERA
ERICK RODRIGUEZ
ELIAS GUEVARA
VICTOR CUBAS

by **John Schröder** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:24 pm

http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=14967

Honduras Coup Leaders Mock Dialogue

HAVANA TIMES, Oct. 13 - The de facto government in Honduras is imposing its own agenda, ratcheting up repression and seeking to delay any resolution of the crisis. The rel-UITA website brings us the following report on Monday with photos by Giorgio Trucchi.

Tegucigalpa, Honduras - Despite national and international reports of satisfactory progress in talks between the delegations of Roberto Micheletti and President Manuel Zelaya, it is perceived by many in the resistance movement that the de facto government has no intention of searching for a resolution to the over three-month Honduran stalemate.

At this time it is difficult to understand the game that the de facto government is playing. On one hand they could be using the talks merely to stage a grand media extravaganza to legitimize the upcoming November 29 elections-again risking confrontation with the international community, but which now seems divided.

On the other hand these may be a way to find the excuse needed for Roberto Micheletti to remain in power longer, putting President Manuel Zelaya in a corner and bogging down the resistance through pressure and repression, which has increased considerably over these last few days and has made a mockery of the recent OAS recommendations.

According to the OAS secretary-general’s Honduras adviser, John Biehl, “Any elections taking place without President Manuel Zelaya would probably have to be highly militarized, with a high degree of violence, which would mean that the subsequent government would be ignored by the great majority of countries and the isolation of Honduras would continue.”

Nevertheless, over the 106 days since the coup d’état, there have not been serious and effective measures taken by the international community to reverse this attack on democracy in that country and across the Latin America.

Instead, the de facto government has succeeded in becoming recognized as a force to be dealt with; it has monopolized the dialogue agenda by requiring all types of conditions; and it has succeeded in turning the participation of the OAS into a simple parade of foreign ministers without any type coercive capacity.

In the final document presented by the OAS delegation, it was established that to truly advance dialogue required “the reestablishment and permanency of all constitutional guarantees, the restitution of all media whose operations was interrupted, and the resolution of the situation in the Brazilian embassy, where President Zelaya’s living and working conditions must be guaranteed in accordance with his high position.”

The National Front Against the Coup d’état seconded these demands and conditioned the advance of dialogue on the cessation of any type of repression.

Nonetheless, what has occurred over the last 72 hours has been just the opposite.

Reprehensible Intimidation

There has been no repeal of the de facto government’s Executive Order-which was never made official by its being appropriately published-and therefore civil liberties remain suspended. That measure has allowed new and constant threats and repression against the resistance, considerably weakening its capacity for mobilization.

On October 9 the police brutally repressed a demonstration organized by the National Front Against the Coup by using tear gas and high-pressure water hoses mixed with strong chemical irritants. The crowd was assailed for more than one hour but finally dispersed, despite their firm will and capacity to regroup every time they were stormed.

A day later the police threatened to break up a peaceful cultural activity in the Hato de En medio community of Tegucigalpa by forcing people to remain on the sidewalk.

The de facto government formally published a new ordinance in the Gaceta Oficial on October 10, which granted legal authority to the National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL) “to revoke or to cancel permits or licenses of operators of the press, radio or television that broadcast messages that encourage national hatred, affect protected legal rights or inspire a situation of social anarchy against the democratic State or operate against social peace and human rights.”

That measure signified the definitive closing of Radio Globo and Channel 36, and also created the legal instrument to close all local and independent media sympathetic to the resistance.

During the nights of October 9, 10 and 11, the Brazilian embassy was the object of a strategy of true psychological attrition. De facto president Micheletti rejected the appeals of the OAS and the resistance to demilitarize the area and provide better treatment to the people locked inside.

Instead, military presence has increased along the surrounding streets, and heavy contingents have been stationed only a few yards from the embassy’s main gate. Likewise, restrictions have increased on the admission of food, clothing and personal care products into the embassy, which is now continually lit with two enormous floodlights.

A crane with a platform has been positioned, on which are posted heavily armed military personnel who can observe the goings-on within the embassy and a stairway partially behind it. In addition, trucks loaded with debris and soil have been seen from an adjacent building, which could mean the beginning of the excavation of a tunnel.

It is difficult-if not impossible-to nurture dialogue under these conditions. It is indispensable that the international community immediately intervenes and not legitimize something with each passing day resembles more of a sneer at the entire world and a dangerous example for Latin American democracies.

The Resistance’s October 15 Deadline

Both the resistance and Zelaya himself have set October 15 as the “fecha fatal”(deadline) for him to be reinstated as president. So far progress has been negligible, since the side points of San Jose Agreement on which there is consensus (the creation of a national reconciliation government, no amnesty for political crimes, a stepping up of the elections and the role of the armed forces during the electoral process) do not make sense without fundamental agreement on the reinstatement of Zelaya and the forming of a constituent assembly.

In this sense, the National Front Against the Coup d’état has already made it clear that it will sign the accords referring to each specific point only when a proviso is added that states that these will be valid when a comprehensive agreement is reached that includes the two previously mentioned basic points.

Under these conditions, the failure of this pantomime is quite probable, just as the worsening of the national crisis and continued repression are foreseeable.

by **John Schröder** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:24 pm

http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/20 ... art-2.html

Honduran Congressional Opinion, Part 2

There have been persistent claims that the decisions taken June 28, to illegally remove from office the constitutionally elected President, Jose Manuel Zelaya, and replace him with the head of Congress, were unanimous decisions of the Honduran Congress.

From the very first day, these claims have been falsified by statements by Honduran Congressional diputados, starting with the open letter by Edmundo Orellana in which he withdraw from participation in the post-coup Congress.

While the apologists for the coup are quick to claim "unanimity", and assert a respect for the elected government (clearly not real, given their eagerness to remove the highest elected official without any due process), they have been silent about the repeated protests by Congress members of the coup and its aftermath.

Now, anti-coup members of the Honduran Congress have taken communication directly to the US Congress, sending a letter to their counterparts. The particular spur to this letter was the deeply flawed "analysis" by the US Law Library of Congress.

As readers will remember, that remarkable document, alone of all legal analyses in the world, concluded the coup was constitutional. It did so without citing any of the abundant legal analyses in English or Spanish; and without consulting any of the Spanish, US, or Honduran law professors who have commented extensively on the coup. The sole Honduran whose input was cited is a known supporter of the coup.

Now this group of Honduran congress members, who should be treated as particularly knowledgable about procedure and about the actions of Congress on June 28, have told their counterparts that the Library of Congress report

is contradictory and suffers from a series of errors and biases that disqualify it as a correct and objective analysis of what has happened in our country.

They go into detail about the errors and problems, identifying the same flaws previously discussed here. But their explanation is worth examination on its own, because, as we might expect, they provide slightly different perspectives on the issues raised.

For example, everyone has commented on the absurdity of saying that the section of the Constitution that allows approval or disapproval of the administrative actions of a President somehow extends to removing him or her from office. But these Congress members qualify this power as a

censure measure of sorts with no legal consequences

That is, it is a formal mechanism to disapprove of actions. For high government officials, there is no immunity, so trial before the Supreme Court is the means to pursue serious accusations with legal consequences. Removal from office can only be the result of a legal trial ending in a guilty verdict following due process.

The Congress members state that the law library report

erroneously asserts that interpretations of our Constitution can be implicit

noting that no constitution of Honduras has ever allowed implicit interpretation.

Most extraordinary, these members of the Honduran Congress reject the US law library's claim that they themselves could reinterpret this constitutional provision in this way. Read this paragraph carefully and remember-- they are rejecting a power they themselves would benefit from:

There is ample precedent within the Supreme Court of Justice establishing that: “The ultimate and definitive interpreter of the Constitution of the Republic is the Supreme Court through its Constitutional chamber. ” Article 72 of the Law of Constitutional Justice stipulates the express and exclusive authority of the Constitutional Chamber to interpret the Constitution and this is manifest in each and every ruling issued by said tribunal. To take one example, the first ruling concerning the matter of who is responsible for interpreting the Constitution, handed down by the Constitutional Chamber on May 7, 2003, categorically established that, in accordance with the principle of the separation of powers, the National Congress lacks the authority to interpret the Constitution.

In explaining why they take that Supreme Court decision as binding on them now, even though a previous Congress, engaged in a confrontation with the court, refused to publish it and went ahead to ratify a proposed amendment that asserts this power, these Honduran Congress members add an example of recent legal action based on rejecting the Congressional claim of a power to interpret the Constitution.

And guess who was the plaintiff asking the Supreme Court to set aside the Congress's actions, based on their using a non-existent power to interpret the founding charter?

four years after this historic ruling of May 7, 2003, the current de facto president, Roberto Micheletti, asked the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional a constitutional amendment that prohibited him from running for president, arguing that Congress had overstepped its powers

Finally, the Congress raises the thorny issue of the Law Library's reliance on one Honduran for "confirmation" of the idea that Congress implicitly interpreted disapproval as meaning removal from office:

We regret that in the course of its research for this analysis, the Library of Congress only interviewed the lawyer Guillermo Perez Arias, who in Honduras is not considered an academic authority on the subject of constitutional law, and neglected to consult other experts on the subject. By choosing to only interview Perez Arias, who has also publicly stated his support for the coup, the Library of Congress has severely undermined the balance and objectivity that form the basic normative criteria of any academic and journalistic inquiry.

There you have it. No doubt pro-coup members of the Honduran Congress might be found to endorse the "findings" of the law library report. But there is no unanimity about this in the body whose actions on June 28 supposedly made legal the military coup that began with an illegally early raid on the private residence of the president, and his equally illegal expatriation from the country.

It is time to stop trying to justify the unjustifiable, and remedy what should have been set right months ago.

by **John Schröder** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:04 pm

http://americasmexico.blogspot.com/2009 ... layas.html

Honduran Accords Hung Up on Zelaya's Reinstatement

Talks between representatives of the coup regime and the constitutional government of President Manuel Zelaya reached consensus on eight of nine points yesterday. But the missing point is the same one that that has has held up any agreement to end the stand-off since Day One of the coup d'état over three months ago.

Coup leaders once again balked at the reinstatement of Zelaya in the presidency, which the resistance and many neighboring nations have demanded be "unconditional." According to declarations from the leader of the de facto regime, Roberto Micheletti, the current reason for refusing reinstatement hinges on whether it will be the Congress or the Supreme Court that decides. The original proposal was for Congress to revoke its destitution decree, but Micheletti stated that restitution is a legal matter, "It would definitely be the Supreme Court that would have to make this decision."

Neither body has much credibility within the resistance movement. Moves that range from Zelaya's destitution—and subsequent kidnapping—to falsifying a resignation letter with a forged signature and implicitly supporting violent repression have eroded trust in the institutions within the polarized society. The many legal arguments posed to delay an agreement to reinstate Zelaya have caused skepticism and the belief that the coup is merely making time before the upcoming Nov. 29 elections. All nations, with the exception of Panama, have stated they will not accept the results of elections carried out by an illegal coup regime.

Today's talks will concentrate on the sole point of the president's reinstatement. It will be a make-it-or-break-it session, since Zelaya has placed a deadline of Oct. 15 or his restitution.

OAS Secretary General Jose Insulza said he was optimistic yesterday that "a Honduran solution to the Honduran crisis" is imminent. He enunciated the points of agreement, based on review of the San Jose Accords as follows:

The point on the Constitutional Assembly, a central demand of the organizations in the National Front against the Coup, led to the resignation of resistance leader, Juan Barahona, from the Zelaya negotiating team. Barahona said he would not be part of an agreement that set aside this crucial demand.

Although Zelaya negotiator Victor Meza stated that there was agreement on restitution, Micheletti stated publicly that in fact he would not agree to the terms presently on the table. An official declaration from the Presidential Palace yesterday stated, "There is no final accord on this point. Press reports indicating the contrary are false. We ask the national and international press to be cautious in their reports on the negotiation since they have a responsibility not to hinder the dialogue."

Some leaders of the Front against the Coup were pessimistic. EFE cited farm leader Filadelfo Martinez saying that the movement will not be content with only restoring Zelaya to the presidency and wants "a national accord that includes the possibility of reforming not only the Constitution, but also the legal framework that gives campesinos access to the land and children access to quality education" to reduce the extreme social inequality that exists in the country.

A Wednesday public declaration from the Front reveals the deep class divisions that have been exposed in the conflict and the determination of grassroots organizations to fight for the Constitutional Assembly. "We once again declare our commitment to installing a National Constitutional Assembly, democratic and inclusive, that has as its principal objective to create a new foundation for Honduras to overcome the oppression and exploitation of the popular sectors by an elite minority that unjustly concentrates wealth created by the workers."

Today's negotiations will be difficult, to say the least. And while a peaceful return to the rule of law is the immediate goal, it will not resolve the deeper problems that have divided society and mobilized thousands of Hondurans. This stage is critical, but many challenges remain even if the two sides manage to reach agreement.

by **American Dream** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:47 am

Striking Graphic Novel Tells Story of Honduras Coup and Unrest
By Dan Archer and Nikil Saval, AlterNet
Posted on October 17, 2009

http://www.alternet.org/story/143325/

Click the image below to begin the slideshow.

by **American Dream** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 5:49 pm

http://www.narconews.com/Issue61/article3893.html

Coup Government Blames United States for Honduran Economic Woes but Continues to Pay US Lobbying Firms
Claudia Rosett Fails to Detect Obama Conspiracy to Keep Nobel Peace Prize Out of Micheletti’s Hands

By Belén Fernández
Special to The Narco News Bulletin
October 17, 2009

Asked in a recent meeting in the press room at the presidential palace in Tegucigalpa about the accuracy of the New York Times claim that the coup government has spent at least $400,000 USD thus far on a “high-profile lobbying campaign” in the US, coup president Roberto Micheletti is reported in La Tribuna as responding that “the calculations have already been made and we know perfectly well how much is being charged,” before confirming that the estimated sum sounds fairly accurate. Not explained is whether Micheletti believes that the fact that he knows how much he is paying justifies the undertaking, or why there has been incessant golpista complaining about Honduran President Mel Zelaya’s past allocation of funds for domestic projects.

According to Micheletti, the hiring of Washington firms like the Cormac Group and Chlopak, Leonard, Schechter & Associates is completely consistent with “what the law says we can do” and is not so much a campaign as a presentation of information his government thinks the US should know. As for domestic projects currently being pursued in Honduras, these include a promise made by Micheletti to improve press room conditions at the presidential palace and a Forbes.com article by Claudia Rosett reproduced on page 10 of the October 10 edition of La Tribuna along with the specification “Paid political advertisement” in the top right corner.

Distraction from the specification is provided by stylistic inconsistencies in the layout out of the article, such as that its English title “Win Over Washington One Nuke at a Time” has merely been halfway translated as “Una victoria sobre Washington Nuke At A Time.” Readers casually scanning the paper might thus misinterpret the victory over Washington and the sizable photograph of Zelaya and Micheletti shaking hands on a couch to mean that Micheletti’s 400,000-dollar lobbying campaign has produced a Honduran solution to the Honduran problem.

A closer read reveals that former Wall Street Journal writer Rosett has composed the article as a memo to Micheletti from the “Hope and Change Global Consulting Service in Washington, D.C.” – the fictitious nature of which hopefully indicates that it has not factored into Micheletti’s PR budget. The memo begins by commiserating with the coup president’s plight as global pariah following the legal and constitutional removal of Zelaya and informing him that “[r]ight now, your cachet at the White House ranks somewhere below that of the Dalai Lama and the International Olympic Committee.” Instead of suggesting that concern for human rights or athletics might bolster Micheletti’s standing, however, Rosett advises him to abandon his quest for democracy and to consider three contemporary models for assuring acceptance in Washington.

The first model Rosett has concocted is translated as the “Método Mullah Mad,” in which “Mullah Mad” turns out to be not some lesser-known figure in Afghanistan but rather a result of the failure to fully translate “The Mad Mullah Method” – i.e. the Iranian policy of seducing the Obama administration via mushroom cloud preparations. Other Iranian diplomatic tactics cited by Rosett include “funding, training and equipping a number of terrorist groups,” which is apparently more effective than simply providing already-trained terrorist groups from Colombia with security jobs in Honduras – a post-coup arrangement confirmed by the United Nations and the president of the Honduran Congressional Security Commission.

Rosett’s other two models are drawn from North Korea and Venezuela. The latter seems to offer the most seamless transition for the Micheletti regime given Rosett’s focus on Venezuelan media closures, although the regime may have to learn to enact said closures based on media failure to renew broadcasting licenses. None of the three models advocates high-profile lobbying campaigns in the US, suggesting further US indifference to truly democratic methods.

After concluding that Micheletti simply doesn’t have “that messianic, radical zing” that the US finds so attractive – notwithstanding the fact that he was reported in El Heraldo in September as declaring that any invasion by the international community to remove him from power would result in the realization that God was on the side of Honduras – Rosett offers five paragraphs of suggestions for the coup president based on lessons from her three-model scheme. Suggestions include inviting the founder of Pakistan’s nuclear program to Honduras to experience the nightlife –although Rosett forgets to remind Micheletti not to schedule any curfews during his visit – and postponing the November elections, “preferably in rolling six-month increments.” La Tribuna somehow neglects to highlight the latter suggestion in bold.

Rosett is identified at the end of the article as “journalist-in-residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies,” with a visit to the organization’s website producing the unsurprising information that the FDD’s listed programs have names like “Center for Terrorism Research,” “Future of Terrorism Project,” and “Coalition Against Terrorist Media.” The site designer might have done well, however, to at least refrain from including the definition of terrorism as “the deliberate use of violence against civilians to achieve political objectives,” so as to render more difficult its application to Honduran events like the shooting of anti-coup teachers in the head.

The FDD claims to attach great importance to investigative journalism, despite the fact that historical preoccupations with the word “terrorism” have not generally been accompanied by a prioritization of investigation over fear-mongering, and that the practice of investigative journalism has not generally been accompanied by the label “Paid political advertisement.” As for payments allegedly received by current members of the FDD’s Board of Advisors with previous stints on the US Defense Department’s Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, Rosett fails to suggest the “Richard Perle Model” to Micheletti, according to which Perle would advocate a Honduran invasion of Iraq in accordance with his own financial interests.

A different Honduran model is offered by the New York Times, which proposes the simpler sequence: “First, depose a president. Second, hire a lobbyist.” Regarding the financial interests of the benefactors of the latter half of the sequence, the paper does not explain whether 400,000-dollar payments to US lobbying firms figure into the coup government’s reported claim that Honduras has lost $400 million due to international sanctions. As for other institutions recently contracted as a supposed guard against further loss of Honduran material assets, Micheletti denies in the October 10 edition of La Tribuna the existence of Colombian paramilitaries employed in the country’s private security sector.

It begins to appear that Claudia Rosett is following a self-prescribed “Colombian Paramilitary Model” if we consider that the paramilitary raison d’être is to act on behalf of government designs without implicating the government its

Honduras Coup: Soldiers kidnap VZ, Cuba, Nicaragua envoys

Who is online