Honduras Coup: Soldiers kidnap VZ, Cuba, Nicaragua envoys

[John Schröder]

http://phoenixwoman.wordpress.com/2009/ ... ome-myths/

Honduras Coup, Act V, Day Eight: Taking Down Some Myths

Posted by Phoenix Woman on October 27, 2009

Gwynne Dyer’s abomination of an article reminds me that it’s time to do another mass debunking of pro-coup nonsense.

Myth #1: The coup itself was bloodless — it’s Zelaya’s attempt to return to power that’s causing all the violence and chaos in the country. No, no, no, no, no, and no. And no again. Talk about blaming the victim here! It’s been documented by the Interamerican Center for Human Rights (IACHR), Amnesty International, and other witnesses and researchers that thousands have been jailed without cause, hundreds wounded, and at least a dozen people that we know of who were murdered by the pro-coup forces. The real death toll is probably into the hundreds if not thousands, but it’s difficult to get more information as the media most likely to report these deaths has been under constant attack (and even been completely shut down at times) by the golpistas. Meanwhile, there’s not a single death that can be proved to have been committed by any member of the resistance.

Myth #2: Zelaya had to be removed because he was breaking the law or about to do so. Again, no.

Firstly, the golpista-controlled Honduran Supreme Court has yet to actually rule on any of the charges handed down on June 26 — a tacit admission that the charges are legally bogus and unsustainable.

Secondly, the only ones here who have actually been shown to be breaking the law and flouting the Honduran constitution are the coup plotters. For example: The Honduran Congress does not have the authority to remove a president from power, much less for “promoting” one of their own members to the presidency.

Thirdly, was there ever due process for Zelaya? Nope — he was simply kidnapped, held against his will, and then booted out of his own country. All of this being quite illegal, by the way.

Cassel in American Society for International Law 13(9) 2009 explains how the Honduran Constitution and international law apply to the removal of Zelaya, Krsticevic and Mendez in a recent Forbes article. This article rather neatly debunks the Law Library report that coup apologists have been waving around. Orellana is also worth one’s study; it was written by a Honduran constitutional law professor and former Zelaya cabinet member. He disagreed with Zelaya’s approach to the Constitutional Convention, and resigned as a result — yet as he explains his artice, there was nothing illegal at all in Zelaya’s actions, and the Honduran constitution is indeed in need of a makeover, so much so that several other politicians besides Zelaya agreed on the need for a constitutional convention to do just that. Finally, he shows that the Honduran courts overstepped their bounds by barring Zelaya from conducting a perfectly legal non-binding referendum. Speaking of which:

Myth #3: Zelaya was trying to extend his term, and that’s the only reason why he tried to hold a legally-binding referendum. Sorry, not even close. In fact, Zelaya was trying to conduct a non-binding poll. This poll was concerned with whether the Honduran Congress should be asked to place on the November ballot a binding referendum on whether a Constitutional Convention should be held. This Convention would not have been held until after Zelaya had left office — so there’s no way he could have got a second consecutive term out of the deal. Oh, and by the way, the Convention would have dealt with a whole host of issues, and not just the question of whether a sitting president should be allowed to run for re-election.

So why did the coup plotters seek President Zelaya’s ouster? Well, for starters, they were angry with him for raising the country’s minimum wage from starvation level to not-quite-starvation level — still not enough to make a real living, but enough to make two-income families’ lives a bit easier. Zelaya also put an end to various sleazy dealings in the oil industry. And for you Enron mavens, he stopped a whole slew of privatizations of utilities that would have ripped off the majority for the benefit of a greedy handful of hyperrich.

Myth #4: Zelaya’s not that popular and the people want him gone. Reality: Two recent polls, one by COIMER&OP and one by Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner show Zelaya to be very popular and the coup leaders, including fake “president” Micheletti, to be very unpopular.

[John Schröder]

http://www.borev.net/2009/11/the_annota ... nny_j.html

The Annotated Works Of Lanny J. Davis, Volume 001

Longtime BoRev reader "Jakob" thought it might be "fun" to read this hilarious pack of lies that oozing Clintonite pustule Lanny Davis published in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, during a fact checker's strike, perhaps? and then point out each time he just makes shit up or otherwise says something stupid. Behold Jakob's idea of a good a time, after the jump!

The Way Forward in Honduras
The U.S. should recognize the coming election, whether Manuel Zelaya does or not.
LANNY J. DAVIS

For months Honduras has faced a political crisis. In June, its president, Manuel Zelaya, attempted to subvert the country's constitution [Would be interesting to see what Mr. Davis had in mind here, the proposed opinion poll was allowed for under the Citizen Participation Act that was enacted in 2005] and was removed from office [Might it be useful to tell the readers how we was removed? As in kidnapped and exiled by the Honduran military]. He has since pushed to return to power [Did the constitutional president push to return to his rightful place? What a power-hungry dictator!], called the current president--Robert Micheletti--illegitimate [Is this criticism? Not a single country in the World sees Micheletti as legitimate], and has cast a shadow over presidential elections to be held at the end of this month [The gross violations of human rights, as documented by groups both in Honduras and internationally are casting shadows over elections. That and the dictatorship running the country].

On Oct. 30, it appeared the crisis might come to a close when representatives of Mr. Zelaya signed an agreement with representatives of Mr. Micheletti to create a reconciliation government to oversee the country until the next president is seated (among other provisions)[Among other provisions?? You know, like that little provision about Congress voting on Zelaya's return to the presidency. It is hard to imagine the agreement called for a "reconciliation government" headed by the coup president without even the congressional vote on Zelaya's return having taken place. Point five of the agreement refers to returning the executive power back to its position prior to June 28th, was Micheletti the president then?]. But in recent days, that agreement--known as the Tegucigalpa/San Jose Accord--fell apart [What do you know, something true].

It's more accurate to say Mr. Zelaya moved to destroy the accord [This is ridiculous even for a paid lobbyist]. It called for him to propose members of the reconciliation government by Nov. 5, and it also gave Honduras's Congress the right to vote whether to reinstate him as president. But Mr. Zelaya refused to make his appointments, even while Mr. Micheletti proposed his appointments on time [Zelaya refused to make appointments because Congress was delaying the vote on his return to power, a clear prerequisite to naming a reconciliation government. Congress was meant to vote on the issue prior to the November 5 naming of a reconciliation government. Rather, Micheletti moved to install a government with himself at the head, unilaterally. It is important to note that not even the Liberal or National parties submitted candidates to the reconciliation government]. On Friday, Mr. Zelaya declared the accord null and void before Congress could vote on whether to restore him to power [He declared it null and void BECAUSE Congress did not, and did not even plan on, voting on his restoration before the naming of a reconciliation government and perhaps not even before elections on November 29]. Interestingly, he had insisted on adding the congressional vote to the agreement, so his decision to blow up the process before the vote is an indication that even he realizes he would lose a vote in a Congress controlled by his liberal party [This is absurd, if Congress, as they have stated, did not plan on ruling on Zelaya's reinstatement before elections the accord would be null and void].

If there is to be a resolution to this crisis, it will likely only come if the Obama administration (which helped both sides hammer out the accord), leaders in the U.S. Congress, and the Organization of American States (OAS) make sure that Mr. Zelaya does not get away with breaking his word [Who has broken their word? First, the Obama administration, who for months qualified their support for elections on Zelaya's return, only to change positions and say they would except the results no matter what. Secondly, the coup government, who clearly subverted the accord to push back the congressional vote and unilaterally install a reconciliation government. Not Zelaya, who signed an accord with a virtual gun to his head, and maintains his rightful and constitutional claim to the presidency].

One vital part of the accord calls for international monitors to go to Honduras to prepare for the presidential elections, which are scheduled for Nov. 29 [Interesting that Mr. Davis considers this a vital point of the accord but not congress voting on Zelaya's return]. Under the accord the monitors will work with the Honduran Supreme Electoral Tribunal, a four-member body [Actually a three member body, but hey, who's counting?] appointed by Honduras's Congress when Mr. Zelaya was in power, and which is independent of the executive branch [and which is now in control of the military, you know, the military that overthrew the president and killed innocent civilians, yeah, that military]. The White House and the U.S. Congress need to call for this step to be taken immediately [Apparently Mr. Davis believes that signing the accord is all that it takes to recognize elections, no matter if the accord is actually carried out. Further, nothing has been done to curb the violations of human rights and freedom of expression that is the biggest barrier to recognizing and participating in elections. Forget Zelaya for a minute, there is no way the legal election period, most of which occurred under a state of siege, has allowed free and fair elections to take place in less than 3 weeks].

Mr. Zelaya's modus operandi is clear. In 2005, he got elected president while vowing to uphold the constitution. He then violated the country's constitution by pushing for a vote that would have allowed him to extend his time in office [I wonder how Mr. Davis might prove this? The proposed opinion poll did not mention term limits, Zelaya clearly stated he did not want to stay in office, in other words Mr. Davis is peddling a lie for money]. Honduras's Constitution specifically states that a president who does that is to be automatically removed, which is why the country's Supreme Court and Congress supported his removal [If that is why the Supreme Court and Congress removed him they did a great job hiding it in the 86 pages that were released by the Supreme Court justifying his ouster. The document never once mentioned term limits or article 239 of the Constitution, which is what Mr. Davis is referring to. And I wonder if the fake "resignation letter" that was presented to Congress had anything to do with term limits?]. Mr. Zelaya's response was to turn to OAS Secretary General José Miguel Insulza and the OAS to support him in ignoring his constitutional and legal commitments--and they did so [Yes and no, Zelaya and the international community did turn to the OAS, and the OAS did support him. Not to ignore Zelaya's constitutional commitments, but to uphold the Inter-American Democratic Charter which had clearly been violated by the usurpation of democratic institutions by the coup leaders. A little international body called the United Nations also supported Zelaya, oh and the EU, Rio Group, UNASUR and Non-Aligned Movement].

Mr. Zelaya's agenda is to reinstall himself to power before the presidential elections [How silly of the Constitutional President to be restored to power before an election takes place. This is also the "agenda" of the entire international community, except of course the United States]. If he succeeds, he might be able to disrupt those elections and create a constitutional crisis by ensuring that no one is credibly elected president [The constitutional crisis began on June 28, when the CONSITUTIONAL president was illegally OVERTHROWN. The constitutional crisis would continue if the coup was allowed to stand and elections took place under a repressive coup government who's only goal is to consolidate their power and crush the popular movement that has courageously taken to the streets for over 130 days]. If that occurs, he would likely declare himself president ad infinitum--just what he was trying to do when he was ousted in June [Mr. Davis must have been paid a little extra for that statement; "ad infinitum", really?].

The bottom line is that a deal is a deal [and a lobbyist is a lobbyist]. The U.S. government needs to insist on the implementation of the accord and endorse the results of the Nov. 29 presidential elections as verified by international monitors [The implementation of the accord, which calls for a congressional vote on Zelaya's return and a reconciliation government with representatives from all sectors of society. Not a unilaterally installed government with coup president Micheletti continuing to lead]. Once that happens, Mr. Zelaya will be irrelevant, a footnote as a president who thought he was above the constitution [I think the majority of Hondurans, who continue to support their elected president, and who have been fighting in the streets for his return, might not just up and forget everything. Come November 29 it will just be like "that whole coup thing, so last month."].

And then, on Jan. 27, a new president will be sworn into office in Honduras. That will restore to normalcy the proud little constitutional republic that has always been a loyal and reliable ["proud little...", "loyal and reliable", are you talking about your dog? Or a sovereign nation?] friend of the United States [For instance a training ground and launching pad for the U.S. war against Nicaragua, or the loyal client state for U.S. multinationals like United Fruit].

Mr. Davis, an attorney at the Washington D.C. office of McDermott, Will & Emery, is a former special counsel to President Bill Clinton and represents [is paid to spread lies by] the Honduran Latin American Business Council.

[John Schröder]

http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/20 ... embly.html

Honduras needs a Constitutional Assembly: Edmundo Orellana

On September 26, the normally pro-coup newspaper La Tribuna of Honduras published a profile of Edmundo Orellana, who readers of this blog know had resigned his post as Secretary of Defense in the Zelaya cabinet shortly before the coup, then, from his restored position as a member of Congress, immediately denounced the coup and has since been the author of extremely important legal commentary on the claims of the de facto regime.

In the interview that forms the bulk of the published profile, which is far too long to translate and present here in full, Orellana argues that the situation in Honduras dramatically illustrates the need for constitutional reform, and reiterates his previously expressed view that only a Constitutional Assembly can address the damage done by the coup. In fact, in the interview he notes that

My speech in the electoral campaign [for Congress] always was that we needed a Constituyente to change the Constitution, because now it doesn't respond to the political and economic reality that the country is experiencing. My thesis is that in a new millennium with a Constitution that was badly copied from that of 1957 and that of 1965, it doesn't answer to the questions that the globalized world poses. Thus it is necessary to revise the Constitution, I have always maintained this as candidate for deputy and columnist of La Tribuna.

He was then asked why it should be changed-- beyond his basic statement that the Constitution, based on those of earlier decades, simply doesn't work in the 21st century. His reply-- as a distinguished law scholar and member of multiple Honduran administrations, one we should give special weight-- is that the Constitution makes it impossible to respond to unforeseen circumstances of the future:

It is the Constitution that has bound the country with the set-in-stone articles. It makes the entire Constitution petrified: you cannot change the system of politics and government. Not even to accommodate what is the actual territory of Honduras, which was changed by Hurricane Mitch, when it diverted the course of the river that is the dividing line with Nicaragua. Our territory is in the hands of other countries and we have not fought it because of the Constitution.

When asked about specific reforms, Orellana did begin with the office of the presidency-- but not with term limits:

There is an article that is the most reformed [in the Constitution]: it refers to who cannot be candidates for the Presidency. From there have been removed designates, they inserted the vice presidents, that the president of Congress and of the Supreme Court cannot be candidates. They modified it to be able to insert the Attorney General, the adjutant Attorney General to the General Commission on Human Rights, the Attorney of the Environment and all the new organizations after 1982...


Today they call for the necessity that the conduct of a president is reviewed, but according to the set-in-stone article 374, it is established that one of the set-in-stone matters is the presidential term, so that you should not reduce the presidential term.

The interviewer follows up the implication: the coup of June 28 violated Article 374?

Exactly. If you reduce it it is admitting that you have violated a set-in-stone article, then it is equitable that we revise our Constitution and we can adjust it to our reality.


I am not in agreement with re-election, because in this country the people get excited in power and could use it to assure themselves triumph in the re-election.


Perhaps there should pass four terms until they can launch themselves again, if they are still alive and not repeat the history of Somoza who put in puppets.

Orellana is here arguing that while he doesn't want to encourage monopolization of the presidential office, he thinks there should be some mechanism for a former president to return to campaign for the office again. He is illustrating why there needs to be a debate about the constitution and the form of government: debate about proposals like his would help define a form of democratic government that might work better for Honduras.

After some fascinating exchanges about his experience the week before the coup, and a clear rejection of the claims of the flawed report of the Law Library of the Library of Congress, the interviewer turns to the question, what legal outcome is there to the crisis?

As a lawyer I would say that the only thing that fits is that they restore the situation to that before June 28.

Orellana points out that support for a Constitutional assembly is not limited to the government of Zelaya, citing not only his own campaign history, but that of Pepe Lobo, candidate for President from the National Party, because

this is giving some hope. This is capturing the call of society.

Orellana was not optimistic about elections even in September, saying that if the hatred between people persisted

these elections have no future. How could you offer elections, when the police and the Armed Forces are in the streets repressing some and guarding others? How could we accept that there was an environment propitious for the elections if you have curfews, that aren't even advertised?

So what can Hondurans hope for? in a word: Constituyente:

here the problems that the Coup d'Etat has made emerge are so deep and profound. Today the poor hate the rich. The people that are out in the streets, demanding the restitution of Mel, because they see the injustice that was committed, that what they are doing now is inhumane and also that they are exposing us before the world that is coming to see a barbarity. Here the people are thinking of a Constitutional Assembly and no one can avoid that, because it is the only thing that can staunch the wounds.

[John Schröder]

http://www.narconews.com/Issue62/article3935.html

US Rep. Jan Schakowsky’s Three-Day Fact-Finding Mission in Honduras Confirms Widespread Human Rights Abuses

An Inventory of Reports from Major National and International Human Rights Organizations from Honduras Under Coup d’Etat

By Tamar Sharabi
Special to The Narco News Bulletin

November 13, 2009

TEGUCIGALPA, HONDURAS, NOVEMBER 13, 2009: Despite the US State Department’s stance for a ‘Honduran Solution,’ some Republican US Senators and House members have openly intervened and strongly supported the de facto government, not recognized by any nation in the world. US Rep. Jan. Schakowsky (D-Illinois), is the first congressperson to visit Honduras since the June 28 coup that did not come in prefabricated support of the de facto regime. She was invited by Bertha Oliva, Coordinator of COFADEH, a human rights organization that has been documenting abuses for the past 27 years. COFADEH has documented more than 3,000 illegal detentions since the coup and over 21 murders in a report published Oct. 22. During her recent mission in Washington, Oliva invited Schakowsky to witness firsthand the Honduran reality of police brutality that is not making the headlines.

Schakowsky’s three day visit from November 10-12 included meetings with family members of victims that have died directly from violence from the coup, media outlets such as Channel 36 and Radio Globo that have been attacked for honestly reporting on the resistance movement, and also a visit to the Brazilian Embassy where ousted President Zelaya and approximately 40 others have taken refuge for the last 53 days. The Chicago Congresswoman commented on her opportunity to hear a recording of some of the sounds bombarded into the Embassy and see the blinding lights set up outside, in addition to the crane set up for the military to spy into the Embassy.

Citing a “serious deterioration of human rights since the coup,” Schakowsky reflected on the executive decree PCM-M-016-2009 (declaring a state of siege) published on Sep. 27 which was set in place to supposedly defend national security and public order but that “seems to be defined as anything that is said against the coup.” This is the same decree that, after even some of the coup plotters publicly criticized it, was promised to be lifted immediately but took until October 19t (when the UN Human Rights Commission began a visit) before it was officially printed in the official ‘Gazette’ to end the decree. Under that decree, any police commissioner present at a resistance demonstration could declare the gathering “illegal” and use violent means to disperse the peaceful crowds.

When asked about whether free and fair elections are possible under such conditions and expressing concern about other media outlets that have been under attack such as Radio Progresso and Radio Tocoa, Schakowsky did not explicitly express her opinion on whether the November 29 elections should take place or not. The question pointed to statements made by Police Commissioner Danilo Orellana, who had appeared on Channel 6 and called for government actions against all media outlets that are calling on the public not to vote. Instead, Schakowsky evaded the question and stated:

“In a democratic country the principal of freedom of the press is really sacred, and as for the timing of the elections, congress should really move forward in an expedited fashion to restore the president and democratic order.”

US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly, during the November 12 daily press briefing in Washington, confused matters even more during this exchange with a reporter:

QUESTION: Yeah, I knew that. But still, you know, we’re coming on three weeks now. Is it a legitimate election if the current government has been supplanted by an interim military-backed government?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, it’s in everybody’s interest that these elections are seen as free, fair, transparent, and enjoy international recognition.

QUESTION: So that just wipes the slate clean over the past five months?

MR. KELLY: Well, they need to be recognized as free, fair, transparent. There are also – we also need to address this question of national unity and reconciliation. There’s been a fracture in the Honduran body politic, and we need to repair that. And that’s what this accord does. And that’s – again, I’ll just say it again, that’s what we’re focused on is the – this accord.

Why did the ‘historic’ accord claimed by the State Department fail?

The San Jose-Tegucigalpa Accord, signed on October 30, included a deadline of completing by Nov 5 the “Formation and installation of the National Unity and Reconciliation Government.” According to the de facto regime of Roberto Micheletti, its part of the deal had thus been fulfilled. Minutes after midnight on Nov 6 Micheletti held a press conference aired on National TV announcing the new de facto – de facto government (ironically coined the “unity government”) without any representation from Honduran President Manuel Zelaya.

The accords fell short of guaranteeing Zelaya be reinstated for two main reasons. Firstly, there was no linkage between having Congress vote on the reinstatement of President Zelaya with the formation of the ‘unity’ government. This left the door open for Micheletti’s representatives to form the ‘unity’ government without considering who would manage the cabinet because it was obvious to them Micheletti would stay in power. Secondly, there was no deadline as to when Congress had to vote on the reinstatement of Zelaya. Thus Honduras is in the situation where the international community is once again demanding the return to democratic order and the original coup d’état plotters get to claim its actions are merely a “succession of power” for the second time.

The international community and the Honduras resistance movement, however, have not taken the bait. Now, US State Department spokesmen speak in support for the developments of the flawed accord to maintain its position for a “Honduran Solution.” Unsurprisingly, Senator Jim DeMint, (R-South Carolina) announced in a November 5 press release that he had secured a commitment from the Obama administration to recognize the elections of Nov 29 regardless of whether Zelaya is reinstated and regardless of whether the the Honduran Congress votes on the President’s return before or after the elections. In return, DeMint lifted his block on the nominations of Arturo Valenzuela to be Assistant Secretary of Western Hemisphere Affairs (Shannon’s previous job) and Thomas Shannon to be U.S. Ambassador to Brazil. According to DeMint’s press release:

“I am happy to report the Obama Administration has finally reversed its misguided Honduran policy and will fully recognize the November 29th elections… I take our administration at their word that they will now side with the Honduran people and end their focus on the disgraced Zelaya.”

As to the human rights abuses that Representative Schakowsky had the opportunity to witness along with dozens of delegations that have visited Honduras in the last four months, the State Department looks the other way. From that same November 12 State Department press briefing:

QUESTION: A follow-up on Honduras. What does the U.S. think about the human rights situation there right now? There have been mass arrests, curfews, an emergency decree, and a ban on protests and media closures for three weeks during the presidential campaign. Does that undermine the electoral process, in the view of the U.S.?

MR. KELLY: Regarding the – well, first of all, our real priority here is to see this accord implemented step by step. We’ve only gotten through step one, and we need step two and step three to be implemented.

Regarding the – these reports, I’m actually not aware of these reports of any actions to – you say ban rallies and – no, I’m not just aware of those reports. I think that we would need to have more details about it for us to really comment on it.

For Mr. Kelly’s convenience, here are links to ample documentation from respected Human Rights reports, both from local and international organizations:

COFADEH (Committee of Family Members of the Detained and Disappeared in Honduras)

Global Exchange

CPTRT (Center for Prevention,Treatment and Rehabilitation for Victims of Torture and their Families)

Human Rights Watch

Amnesty International

The United Nations and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (part of the Organization of the American States) have not yet published their respective reports.

[John Schröder]

http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/2201/46/

Honduran Resistance Calls for Deepening of Democracy

Written by Matt Schwartz
Tuesday, 10 November 2009

"I call myself a veteran Defender of Human Rights- it sounds better than old- and as I sit down to write this I feel ill at ease, perhaps because I have the idea that over the long process of the last few decades, we had achieved some small and relative advances in the area of Human Rights. Perhaps its because I always look towards the past in order to spy into the future and, of course, to check on the present…" –Bertha Oliva de Nativi

The history of Bertha Oliva de Nativi is the history of Honduras. If the storyline of the past one hundred years of this continent has been ‘so few with so much, and so many with so little’, then Bertha has been the fearless protagonist racing to rewrite the chapters that will hence come. In 1982 Berta’s husband, Professor Tomas Nativi disappeared. One of hundreds of Hondurans and tens of thousands of Central Americans to lose their lives to state sanctioned violence, Tomas and all of those who have disappeared remain the most terrifying and silencing bootprint of the military regimes of the 1980’s. The stories are all too common: "they came to our door in the middle of the night" or "he just never came home ever again." Their families must find ways to grieve, to cope, and to say goodbye to their loved ones without the benefit of closure or resolution. Some, however, began to demand answers. Shortly after Tomas' disappearance Bertha and twelve other families also in search of their missing loved ones founded what would become the most well respected human rights organizations in the country, the Committee of Relatives of the Disappeared in Honduras (COFADEH). Throughout the military repression of the last century, the banana strike of 1954 and the cold war proxy wars, Honduras has born infinite other protagonists as well, many of whom history will never remember their names or their faces. However, their collective effort to forge a better quality of life for themselves and their communities lives on in the heroes of today’s social movements. We can lend our ears to the testimonies of a handful of the tireless warriors that work day in and day out to lead their country towards a more just and peaceful place. Dina Mesa. Rutilia Calderon. Carmen Alvarado. Luis Mendez. Raul. Juliana. Edgardo. Anonymous, 51 years old. Anonymous, 28 years old. Anonymous, 23 years old. Among countless others, they work as journalists, doctors, educators, trade unionists, community organizers, mothers, fathers, grandparents. Here they trace for us the context of the current state of affairs in Honduras and speak to the most pressing issues at hand.

We the People of Central America

The history of repression in Central America has flown for centuries like a river into the sea of the impoverished masses. If we follow this flow upstream we see that it runs directly through the handful of local elite families to the source - the economic and military might of the United States. Luis Mendez, an organizer with the National Front of Resistance against the Coup D’etat, puts the June 28 military takeover of Honduras in historical context:

"We the people of Central America have tread through sad and painful processes. In Nicaragua, just as in Guatemala, and of course in El Salvador. Honduras, meanwhile, has been a strategic platform for the United States to install military bases, originally to support the counter-revolution in Nicaragua. This threw our country on it’s side. We have the most powerful people in the country lacerating the economy and abusing the people. In the context of all of the violence that we witnessed in Central America in the 80’s, the people of Honduras accepted it, paralyzed and silent. We tolerated the military and political powers, but the coup d’etat means that we have reached our limit of tolerance, a limit to the abuse that we have been subjected to for decades. We say enough is enough."

As the third poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, limited access to land, healthcare, education and basic nutrition have created an incredible gap between the few who hold economic and political power and everybody else. Two-thirds of the country live under-employed in the fragile informal economy, highly vulnerable to the current recession. These conditions are prime for the infectious growth of gangs, crime, violence and discrimination against minorities. The 'cure' for Honduran poverty has taken the form of World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank loans, mega mining, dam and tourism development projects, and a heavy reliance on the U.S. to buy it’s principal exports of textiles, minerals, coffee and bananas. Unfortunately, these trends which date back to the first days of the original Banana Republic and the United Fruit Company's early monopoly of the region continue to hammer the country into imperial submission. This begs the question - what can be done?

Constitutional Reform

"We wanted the constituyente so that the poor would finally have a voice with which to speak. In the past we were left on the fringe, not allowed to enter into society because if we ever tried they would break our nose with the door." -Juliana. Grandmother, Protestor. 80 years old.

"What does the 'consituyente' mean for the Honduran people? The country needs to recast itself. It needs to revise the constitution because it does not correspond to the needs of the Honduran citizenry. If elections continue with all of the blood and fire of this country, without the president who was forcibly removed, then these elections are illegal." -Dina Mesa, investigative journalist and recipient of Amnesty International's 'Special Award for Human Rights Journalists Under Threat' (www.defensoresenlinea.org)

On June 28, the citizens of Honduras were slated for a non-binding vote to begin the process of Constitutional Reform. The 'Constituyente' (a Constituent Assembly) would allow for the creation of a body to rewrite the Honduran set of rules for government, written originally in 1982, after decades of military dictatorships. According to the United States Department of State's human rights report for 1992, "although basic human rights are protected in the 1982 constitution, in practice the government has been unable to assure that many violations are fully investigated, or that most of the perpetrators, either military or civilian, are brought to justice."

"The constitution should be an expression of a pact between the different social sectors of a country. The Constitution, since it’s inception in 1982, has simply been a formality that is only invoked when a certain group or person is at risk. From 1982 until now, it has never been invoked for the common good, for the good of the excluded sectors of this country," explains Dr. Rutilia Calderon, epidemiologist, professor and veteran on the edge of social change for the last 35 years. "If we are therefore to give the Constitutional Reform process the characteristics of a social pact that will permit an inclusive society, real access to conditions of equality, in the eyes of the law and the justice system, then the Constituyente makes sense. But if it is only to become once again a measure for the powerful groups of the country to continue protecting their interests, under the delusion that the demands of the people will be attended to through elected representatives, then it will not be for the better. The construction of a reform process is not to produce a formal document that is called 'The Constitution,' it is to create new forms of relating between different sectors of society- to close the gap of inequality and to attain a just distribution of the wealth that this country has."

Culture of Fear

The 'Constituyente' referendum was interrupted by and became the commonly accepted motive of the kidnapping of the country’s currently elected President Manuel Zelaya, known as "Mel," on the very day it was scheduled for, over four months ago. In the interest of the most economically powerful families of the country, President of the National Congress Roberto Micheletti seized power. Thus faded hopes of constitutional reform began a stream of dictatorial repression. The atmosphere of human rights has been tenuous at best and deadly at worst.

"You don't walk around alone. We walk in groups of three or four. I used to participate a couple times a week in the protests but I was let go from my job so now I am here everyday. You have to understand, the economy is terrible since the coup d'etat. Look, you see them (soldiers) over there taking photos. They take your photo and then they compare it to those in the Electoral Registry. They can find your identification number, and then for the love of god- your age, your address... do you know how many of us have disappeared? Yesterday another was found dead in San Pedro Sula." -Anonymous Protestor, 51 years old.

"Right now we have a National Congress that depends directly on the Executive branch. We have a Supreme Court that responds directly to the interests of the Executive branch. We have a Commision of Human Rights and a Public Ministry that respond directly to the Executive Branch. Now, for example, the Public Ministry denounces certain individuals who participate in peaceful demonstrations and accuses them of sedition. They become political prisoners. They are using our own judicial system to plant seeds of terror." –Dina Mesa, journalist.

"The spinal column of the repression is based in the criminalization of protest, the control, censorship and closure of dissenting media outlets, and the illegal suspension of constitutional rights," states COFADEH's report "Statistics and Faces of the Repression - Violations of Human Rights in the Context of the Coup D'etat," presented at a Press Conference in the capital city, Tegucigalpa, on Oct. 22. The statement references the closing of television station Channel 36 and radio station Radio Globo. COFADEH, the leading human rights organization in Honduras, reports that in relation to the political violence ensuing after the date of the Coup, June 28, until Oct. 10, they have registered 21 assassinations, 685 injuries to person, 3,033 illegal detentions and 108 death threats on official record.

The Resistance: Diversity and Democracy

"My name is -anonymous-. I come here today to represent the Barrio de Kennedy...." "My name is -anonymous-. I was sent here by the people of the Valley of Amarateca...." "My name is -anonymous-. I come from Cerro Grande...."

Democracy begins at the ground level and is best carried out in circles. That’s exactly how the National Front of Resistance Against the Coup D’etat gathered this past Saturday morning in order to discuss the upcoming elections. Over 100 representatives from each of the neighborhoods surrounding the capital city sat in five separate discussion circles, each huddled around a giant white sheet of paper on the ground. An elected scribe perched over this drawing board in each of the circles, as each person took turns speaking to the demands and to the ideas of their home communities. Throughout the discussions a common thread prevailed that highlighted the necessity to abstain from the elections - to search out a deeper sense of democracy for this country. How to accomplish this was naturally up for hot debate and over the span of several hours each of the circles labored to work out the diversity of ideas in order to present them to the rest of groups. It proved to be an exemplary demonstration of democracy in action, putting the power to make decisions in the hands of the common citizens, sitting in circles, at the ground level.

With Mel or Without Mel

"Why do I say the Resistance transcends Mel?," asks Carmen Alvarado, social justice veteran and organizer with 'Visitacion Padilla: Women for Peace' (www.laschonas.com). "Because we believe in democracy as a way of life. Democracy is a continual process in which many different people converge to share a diversity of ideas and ideals, a process that embraces tolerance and plurality, and that is open to change. Democracy should be a system that guarantees the rights of men and women, indigenous peoples, whites and blacks, homosexuals and lesbians, rich and poor, and in this manner we can construct a democratic perspective of life that transcends what the political parties are capable of thinking. Will the simple act of voting will take care of our lives? No. This is not a movement of Mel sympathizers, like the media outlets would have you believe. This is a social movement."

Dr. Rutilia Calderon further examines the situation of her country, "In a simplified analysis of the crisis of this country, there is a conflict between ousted President Zelaya and de facto President Micheletti, but in fact the crisis is far beyond individuals. Perhaps Zelaya, through his discourse of hope, came to represent for the excluded portions of society seeking any type of social opportunity, a chance that things could change. In this sense, the poor of this country, the people who live on less than a dollar a day began to organize, began to recuperate a sense of grassroots organization that was lost during the repression of the ‘80’s."

Luis Mendez elaborates, "The strengthening of real democracy in this country has to do with the clear consciousness of the Honduran people that with Mel or without Mel in the presidency the struggle will continue forward. Farmers, laborers, young and old, a diversity of groups are working together. With Mel or without Mel, we need to clean up the politics, the administrative, justice and legislative systems, as well as reconstruct the media and the cultural and social aspects that have been invaded by the most powerful sectors and subsequently manipulated, abused, controlled."

Where do we go from here? The Resistance has marked 130 straight days of their continued presence in the streets. Months of stalled negotiations were superficially resolved last week with the less-than-punctual intervention of the U.S. State Department. The Guaymuras Accords signed between de facto president Micheletti and ousted president Zelaya will allow the Honduran Congress to decide whether Zelaya will be reinstated, although the amount of legitamite power he would assume is completely unclear. Constitutional Reform was officially wiped from the board and as the three short months left of Zelaya's term dwindle, many are worried that after the elections at the end of November, the world will forget about the injustice of the Coup. Others suggest that if elections are not internationally recognized it will give Michelletti an excuse to continue his military reign indefinitly. Anonymous protestor, age 28, echoes the commentary heard all around this week's demonstrations, "This agreement is a stalling tactic. The State Department is trying to eat up time by deceiving with false promises, right alongside the perpetrators of the Coup. If not this week, then next week…"

COFADEH warns the world, "With documented proof in our hands we are affirming to the world that the country we live in is in a state of NATIONAL EMERGENCY. " There are, however, rays of hope to be found. In the context of the repression from the 1980's, the situation here rings Deja Vu, but there are key differences between the two eras. Access to technology has given many organizations and independent bloggers the chance to have their voices heard. With high speed communication and cell phones present at every demonstration, disappearances and cases of violence are known about immediately. Moreover, the presence of international witnesses and journalists since the very beginning of the Coup has helped to increase accountability of human rights violators. COFADEH's human rights report speaks to their ability to increase accountability, "Although the military dictatorship that we live under today has similar features to the situation that we suffered under in the 1980's, one major difference is that the repressors of that age hid their faces and their names. On the contrary, the repressors of today have faces, they have names, they have uniforms."

The Resistance itself, largely characterized in the media as pro-Chavez Communists and demonized as extremists, does not go without critique from it's own members. Carmen Avarado warns, "We are a heterogenous group. It is still up to us to internally discuss and debate the situation, decide where we go from here. The weakness of the Resistance is that it lacks a clear political vision, there is no common point, and this is why it has largely manifested in little more than street protests."

"The leaders of the Resistance," explains Dr. Rutilia Calderon, "who largely come from union backgrounds, have an enormous responsibility with the majority who do not pertain to unions or a particular patronage, but simply spontaneously began toorganize themselves, of their own accord. We can hope that these leaders steer the country beyond the Zelaya-Micheletti polemic. There are many doubts about their real commitments and we are going to have to be very attentive in the next several months to see if the loudest voices of the Resistance give in to personal interests, or truly assume leadership of this surging grassroots movement."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWmqnGN7p2E

[John Schröder]

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

Grandmother of the Resistance: "Only the people can save the people"

We are here with the famous grandmother of the resistance. Tell us your name and a little about the struggle of the Honduran people.

My name is Dionicia Diaz, grandmother number one. The struggle of the Honduran people is for a constitutional assembly. They carried out a coup d'etat against our president because he was consulting the people, which isn't prohibited here or in China, but it was a consultation of the people to see if the people wanted to have a fourth ballot box in the coming elections. That fourth ballot box would be to see if we wanted a constitutional assembly. Only the constitutional assembly is above our current constitution. They would see if more of us said yes than no, because they were asking both the people who would say yes and those who would say no, it was a popular consultation. But unfortunately they didn't let him consult us because Sunday the 28th of June when they were going to consult us they carried out a coup d'etat, without any justification whatsoever.

The only reason they carried out a coup d'etat is cause that fascist who is there in the president's house is envious because nobody wanted him and nobody voted for him to go to the presidential house because he was a candidate but nobody voted for him the majority of us know him, that he isn't apt to be a president of a republic. Because a president has to be the father of all the Hondurans, but this fascist can't be. He came to power by force and divided the people. For him the only people who exist are the oligarchy, the ten families with money. Look where we poor people are – in the streets. They say we are thieves, or that there's just four of us, but look [points to crowd of people in the protest that day] … it's not that he's mistaken, he knows it, he is shaking because I don't think there's even a million people on his side and there's seven million of us. Ever since that day I've been in the resistance because they carried out a coup d'etat against the people, not the president.

Why do you say they carried out a coup d'etat against the people, not the president?

Because it was because of the consultation of the people that the president was going to carry out to obtain a constitutional assembly, to have a fourth ballot box the day of the elections to change the constitution that doesn't serve us at all because it has ancient articles in there that just favor them, not us, and President Manuel Zelaya since he came to the presidency went to the side of the people. The First Lady when from town to town seeing what the people needed. They didn't rob like all the ones before them. Excuse me but they were all thieves, they all pillaged the coffers of the people and now it is them who are saying that Mel Zelaya violated the Constitution. The people who violated the constitution are the coup-makers. The people who divided the people are the coup-makers. Mel Zelaya won his elections and is the President of the Republic. He's not up for a vote, they are in elections, they owe the President of the Republic seven months, and they have to pay them.

And you have been in the resistance every day?

Since June 28th, the first day of the coup d'etat.

And you haven't been afraid of the repression?

I'm not afraid because we don't owe anything to anybody and we aren't doing any harm this is a peaceful resistance. Nobody is carrying anything here. They say we carry rocks, look through this backpack, we don't have rocks we don't have anything, I just have my megaphone if that is a crime, and they were putting in a decree to make megaphones prohibited. They want to shut our mouths with a decree. They don't want anybody to talk, what we have here is a dictatorship. The people have a dictatorship and can't breath. We don't know what to do, we ask the republics who are friendly, the OAS, the UN, to do something for God's sake, to send parachutes down on the presidential house because this is unbearable. They are killing the people and nobody is paying.

And who are the resistance, who are the people in the streets?

The resistance is made up of those of us who have waken up and who know that we don't want to be under the boot of those who have exploited us our whole lives. I'm telling you, when the coup d'etat happened I was in my bed, sick, I could barely get up, but I had gotten up to vote close by at a school where there were boxes to go put your vote in. I was just going to go there, but when they told me that they had carried out a coup against the President, my illness left me. And since that day I've been well here in the resistance. Incredible but I was cured. And I continue forward, I continue here in the rsistance.

And tell me some of the moments that have made an impression on you in this resistance?

Well like I tell you, here they have killed brothers and sisters, they have violated sisters, they have thrown teargas bombs that have killed people who got poisoned, and here, according to this coup-maker, nothing is happening. In Honduras everything is fine, there's no problem. And as I say we have a dictatorship that is doing us so much damage you can't imagine. We need to get out of this, we need international support.

And what do you think about the elections coming up?

They have them already rigged! The ballot boxes are full already! Some of them will win, whoever is most convenient for them. What they don't know is that Micheletti would just as well not have the elections recognized internationally because then he wouldn't have any successor to give power to and he can stay in power his four years, that's where his sick mind takes him, he's a psychopath, this man will kill us if he stays there, we need to get him out. As they say, only the people can save the people. If we don't find another way out, the people, who they hope have gotten tired from them oppressing us, from them beating us, from them gassing us, the people will get tired. That's what he said! That after the elections in two years the people will have forgotten. In two years the people will have taken him out of there, who knows how, but the people are at the point of exploding.

And what level of support does the resistance have amongst the Honduran population?

The Honduran population is united. We help each other out. There's no lack of unity here. They say that people have left us, no way, we are sick of being oppressed, they don't want us to talk, they don't want us to march but the people continue in the resistance and he can't shut us up, he can't hold us back. One thing is people are in their towns, waiting to see if somebody resolves this, but the other is that if it doesn't get resolved we will resolve it. That is the truth.

And tell me a bit about the history of this strugle?

I was just in the strike of 1954, because the coups that happened before aren't like this one. You know why? Because before in four days nobody remembered the coup d'etat. Because the people have always been kept busy going to vote, giving their vote, then going to sleep and the problem is over. You voted for the red or for the blue and the problem was over. Now the people aren't with any candidates, we aren't in elections, we are in resistance to achieve a constitutional assembly, to change the current constitution that doesn't help us in any way. They have violated it tons of times to do what they want to do and they don't take the people into account. The only one who took us into account was our president.

The constitution is very old, very violated, these old articles have done too much damage to us and we should change it, they've changed many constitutions here. This one they don't want to change because it has ancient articles that they put there so that it would never be changed. They think the people will never wake up, that they will always be beneath their booths and never say anything. We won't have a way to breath. Look how the military has us surrounded. Before when the indigenous or the teachers came to protest at the congress, when we had our president, there in the presidential house, they would sleep there underneath the congress, where they wouldn't get burnt by the sun or get wet and they would pass the night there. Now look [pointing at line of military arround the congress] You don't think this is a dictatorship? Please! They say that Mel Zelaya violated the Constitution. And what worse violation than taking out the president of the republic and putting in an unjust coup-maker there? How could you come to my house and take me out if it's mine and I'm there? That's how it happened to the president of the republic in that moment, it still is, they have him kidnapped. The resistance wants a constitutional assembly to change the current constitution, we're not kidnapping or killing or robbing anybody.

What is your message for the other peoples of the world?

I realize that amongst all the peoples there is resistance in favor of Honduras and I thank very much all the peoples who support our resistance, who are in resistance yourselves. And if you can help us in anyway, please do it, because this is an unbearable dictatorship that we can't tolerate. We will not continue tolerating it. We're at the breaking point of exploding, at the breaking point of violence. If I look patient here, behind be there are those who won't bear it any more. They don't want to because every day they are sending more and more soldiers, more and more decrees to shut our mouths, trying to make us mutes, this is unbearable.

[John Schröder]

http://www.borev.net/2009/11/whole_enti ... ver_2.html

Whole Entire World PLUS "Over 240 Academics and Experts'" MINUS "Obama Administration" Think This Coup Dictatorship Thing Is Bad, b/c of All The Oppression

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/11/12-7

Honduran Elections: Over 240 Academics and Experts on Latin America Call on Obama to Denounce Human Rights Abuses by Honduran Dictatorship

Free and Fair Elections Are Possible Only After the Coup is Reversed, They Say

CLAREMONT, Calif. - November 12 - Over 240 academics and experts on Latin America sent a letter to President Obama yesterday urging him to denounce the ongoing human rights violations perpetrated by the coup regime in Honduras ahead of the planned November 29 elections. They also urged him to demand the immediate restitution of President Manuel Zelaya and to support a full three months of electoral campaigning after the coup has been overturned and "debating, organizing, and all other aspects of election campaigns can be conducted in an atmosphere that is free from fear; in which all views and parties are free to make their voices heard - not just those that are allowed under an illegal military occupation." This would mean that this month's elections - which Latin America and the European Union have said they will not recognize - would need to be rescheduled.

"With only days left before the scheduled November 29 elections, the U.S. government must make a choice," the letter states. "It can either side with democracy, along with every government in Latin America, or it can side with the coup regime, and further isolate the United States in the hemisphere."

Last Thursday, the Rio Group, which includes all of Latin America and most of the Caribbean, issued a statement declaring that they would consider the November 29 elections to be illegitimate if Zelaya is not first reinstated.

The current letter continues: "Moreover, the U.S. cannot afford to maintain its deafening silence regarding the innumerable and grave human rights abuses committed by the coup government in Honduras - a silence that has become a conspicuous international embarrassment."

Numerous press reports have described human rights abuses and violations of civil liberties during the three-month period in which electoral campaigning is allowed under Honduran law, including illegal mass arrests, beatings, torture, and shootings by state security forces, attacks on the freedoms of assembly, speech, and of the press. This repression has been widely documented and denounced by Honduran and international human rights organizations, including the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International.

Despite this, the Obama administration has yet to condemn the human rights violations, or to threaten sanctions or other strong action to force the coup regime to stop them.

Last week, Bertha Oliva, the head of Honduras' most well-known and respected human rights organization, the Committee for Families of the Disappeared and Detained in Honduras (COFADEH), also called on the Obama administration to denounce the "grave human rights violations" in Honduras, and declared that "It's too late to have elections on November 29."

The full text of the letter follows:

_______________________________________

November 11, 2009

President Barack Obama The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500

Cc.: Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State Thomas Shannon, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Dan Restrepo, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director of Western Hemisphere Affairs, National Security Council

Dear President Barack Obama,

We are writing to urge you to stand with democracy and human rights in Honduras. With only days left before the scheduled November 29 elections the U.S. government must make a choice: it can either side with democracy, along with every government in Latin America, or it can side with the coup regime, and remain isolated. Moreover, the U.S. cannot afford to maintain its deafening silence regarding the innumerable and grave human rights abuses committed by the coup government in Honduras - a silence that has become a conspicuous international embarrassment. The U.S. must forcefully denounce these abuses, and match its words with action as well. It must make the coup regime understand that the United States government will no longer tolerate the violence and repression that the Micheletti government has practiced against the Honduran people since seizing power on June 28, 2009.

Honduras now stands at the edge of a dangerous precipice. The coup regime remains determined - in the absence of significant pressure from the U.S. government - to move forward with the elections, in the hopes that the international community will eventually recognize the results. In so doing, they hope to legitimize their illegal and unconstitutional government.

Free and fair elections on November 29 are already impossible, as more than two-thirds of the campaign period allowed under Honduran law has already passed, under conditions in which freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press have all been under attack throughout the country. This repression has been widely documented and denounced by Honduran and international human rights organizations, including the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International.

The Rio Group of 23 nations, which includes nearly all of Latin America and much of the Caribbean, had forcefully declared that it will not recognize the November 29th elections if President Zelaya is not first re-instated. Thus the United States is at odds with the rest of the Hemisphere in its stated willingness to recognize these illegitimate elections.

Free and fair elections can only be carried out in a climate in which debating, organizing, and all other aspects of election campaigns can be conducted in an atmosphere that is free from fear; in which all views and parties are free to make their voices heard - not just those that are allowed under an illegal military occupation. We therefore call on the U.S. government to support an electoral process in Honduras that allows for a full three months - as mandated under Honduran law - for electoral campaigning, to take place after the restoration of President Manuel Zelaya. Only in this way can the electoral process achieve legitimacy in both the eyes of the Honduran people and the international community.

In the months that have transpired since the April Summit of the Americas, we are saddened to see that your promise of treating Latin American nations as equals is evaporating. You declared at that time, "I just want to make absolutely clear that I am absolutely opposed and condemn any efforts at violent overthrows of democratically elected governments, wherever it happens in the hemisphere." In remarks that were recorded, cited, and broadcast all over the world, you asserted: "The test for all of us is not simply words, but also deeds." Since then, your government has failed to match these words with deeds regarding the coup d'état in Honduras. As a result, the United States is once again isolating itself in the Americas. The U.S. must also match its rhetorical commitment to democracy with concrete deeds, and support the immediate restoration of Manuel Zelaya to the presidency of Honduras and full guarantees of a free and fair election.

Sincerely,

Thomas A. Abercrombie New York University

Leisy Abrego, University of California, Irvine

Alexis Aguilar, Salisbury University

Jordi Aladro, University of California, Santa Cruz

Ece Algan, California State University, San Bernardino

Paul Almeida, Texas A&M University

Mark Anderson, University of California, Santa Cruz

Tim Anderson, University of Sydney (Australia)

Tom Angotti, Hunter College/City University of New York

Craig Auchter, Butler University

William Avilés, University of Nebraska at Kearney

César J. Ayala, University of California, Los Angeles

Nikhil Aziz, Executive Director, Grassroots International

Beth Baker-Cristales, California State University, Los Angeles

Teo Ballvé, North American Congress on Latin America

Rosemary A. Barbera, Monmouth University

Francisco J. Barbosa, University of Colorado, Boulder

John Beverley, University of Pittsburgh

Michelle Bigenho, Hampshire College

Maylei Blackwell, University of California, Los Angeles

Andy Bliss, University of California, Berkeley

Aaron Bobrow-Strain, Whitman College

Blasé Bonpane, Office of the Americas

Jules Boykoff, Pacific University

Rachel Brahinsky, University of California, Berkeley

Rosalind Bresnahan, Latin American Perspectives

Laura Briggs, University of Arizona

Sandy Brown, University of California, Berkeley

Joe Bryan, University of Colorado, Boulder

Alicia del Campo, California State University Long Beach

Frankie Cardamone, Prescott College

Barry Carr, University of California, Berkeley

Jennifer Casolo, University of California, Berkeley

Julie A. Charlip, Whitman College

Ronald Chilcote, University of California, Riverside

Aviva Chomsky, Salem State College

George Ciccariello-Maher, University of California, Berkeley

Christopher Clement, Pomona College

Nathan Clough, The University of Minnesota

Fernando Coronil, City University of New York, Graduate Center

Dominic Corva, Sarah Lawrence College

Raymond B. Craib, Cornell University

Altha Cravey, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Julie Cupples, University of Canterbury

Antonia Darder, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign

Juanita Darling, San Francisco State University

Pablo Delano, Trinity College

Guillermo Delgado-P., University of California, Santa Cruz

Jennifer Devine, University of California, Berkeley

Mônica Dias Martins, State University of Ceara, Brasil

Paul Dosh, Macalester College

Alex Dupuy, Wesleyan University

Jordana Dym, Skidmore College

Marc Edelman, Hunter College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York

Steve Ellner, University of Oriente (Venezuela)

Ben Ehrenreich, Journalist and Author

Laura Enriquez, University of California, Berkeley

Arturo Escobar, University of North Carolina

Alicia Estrada, California State University, Northridge

Nicole Fabricant, University of South Florida

Mario Fenyo, Bowie State University

Sujatha Fernandes, Queens College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York

Raul Fernández, University of California, Irvine

Ada Ferrer, New York University

John Finn, Arizona State University

Allan Fisher, City College of San Francisco

Bill Fletcher, Jr., BlackCommentator.com

Cindy Forster, Scripps College

Jonathan Fox, University of California, Santa Cruz

Dana Frank, University of California, Santa Cruz

John D. French, Duke University

Gavin Fridell, Trent University, Ontario, Canada

Victoria Furio, Conference Interpreter & Translator

Alberto J. Garcia, California State University, Northridge California

Kim Geron, California State University East Bay

Asher Ghertner, University of California, Berkeley

Shannon Gleeson, University of California, Santa Cruz

Michel Gobat, University of Iowa

Marcial Godoy-Anativia, New York University

Walter L. Goldfrank, University of California, Santa Cruz

Armando González Caban, Latin American Perspectives

Gilbert Gonzalez, University of California, Irvine

Evelyn Gonzalez-Mills, Montgomery College

Jeffrey L. Gould, Indiana University

Daniel Graham, University of California, Berkeley

Laura R. Graham, University of Iowa

Greg Grandin, New York University

Richard Grossman, Northeastern Illinois University

Peter Hallward, Middlesex University (U.K.)

Nora Hamilton, University of Southern California

Zoe Hammer, Prescott College

John L. Hammond, City University of New York

Tom Hayden, Author

Mark Healey, University of California, Berkeley

Daniel Hellinger, Webster University

Adam Henne, University of Wyoming

Luis A. Hernández, School District of Philadelphia

Eric Hershberg, Simon Fraser University

Doug Hertzler, Eastern Mennonite University, Washington Community Scholars' Center

Derrick Hindery, University of Oregon

Raul Hinojosa, University of California, Los Angeles

Katherine Hite, Vassar College

Jen Hofer, poet, translator, interpreter

Aaron Hogue, Salisbury University

Katherine Hoyt, Nicaragua Network

Forrest Hylton, Universidad de los Andes (Bogotá)

Dale L. Johnson, PhD

David Johnson, Xavier University

Susanne Jonas, University of California, Santa Cruz

James Jordan, Campaign for Labor Rights

Gilbert Joseph, Yale University

Nadine Jubb, York University

Karen Kampwirth, Knox College

David Kane, Maryknoll Office of Global Concerns

Chuck Kaufman, Alliance for Global Justice

Robin D. G. Kelly, University of Southern California

Norma Klahn, University of California, Santa Cruz

Sara Koopman, University of British Columbia

Glen David Kuecker, DePauw University

David Kunzle, University of California, Los Angeles

Victoria Langland, University of California, Davis

John Lear, University of Puget Sound

George Leddy, Los Angeles Valley College

Winnie Lem, Trent University

Sidney Lemelle, Pomona College

Deborah Levenson, Boston College

David Lloyd, University of Southern California

Rick Lopez, Amherst College

Tehama Lopez, Duke University

Agnes Lugo-Ortiz, University of Chicago

Sharon Luk, University of Southern California

Sheryl Lutjens, California State University, San Marcos

Milton Ricardo Machuca, Pitzer College

Kathleen A. Mahoney-Norris, Air Command and Staff College

Maya Manzi, Clark University

Greta Marchesi, University of California, Berkeley

Peter E. Marchetti, Researcher, AVANCSO, Guatemala

Lourdes Martinez-Echazabel, University of California, Santa Cruz

Kathleen McAfee, San Francisco State University

Kendra McSweeney, The Ohio State University

Breny Mendoza, California State University, Northridge

Frederick B. Mills, Bowie State University

Laura-Anne Minkoff-Zern, University of California, Berkeley

Ellen Moodie, University of Illinois

Stephanie Moore, Salisbury University

Dorinda Moreno, Hitec Aztec Communications/FM Global

Lena Mortensen, University of Toronto Scarborough

Robert Naiman, Just Foreign Policy

Guillermo Narvaez, University of California-Irvine

Joseph Nevins, Vassar College

Enrique Ochoa, California State University, Los Angeles

Gilda L. Ochoa, Pomona College

Elizabeth Oglesby, University of Arizona

Almerindo E. Ojeda, University of California at Davis

Andrew Orta, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Paul Ortiz, University of Florida

Mark Overmyer-Velázquez, University of Connecticut

Tanalis Padilla, Dartmouth College

Yajaira M. Padilla, The University of Kansas

Pramod Parajuli, Prescott College

Sirena Pellarolo, California State University, Northridge

Anthony Pereira, Tulane University

Héctor Perla, University of California, Santa Cruz

Brandt Peterson, Michigan State University

Adrienne Pine, American University

Martín Plot, California Institute of the Arts

Aaron Pollack, Instituto de Investigaciones Dr. José María Luis Mora

Deborah Poole, Johns Hopkins University

Suyapa Portillo, Pomona College

Margaret Power, Illinois Institute of Technology

Vijay Prashad, Trinity College

Mary Louise Pratt, New York University

Marina Prieto-Carrron, University of Portsmouth

Sean Purdy, Universidade de São Paulo

Kathryn S. Quick, University of California, Irvine

Marie Phillips Rayanne, Prescott College

Marcus Rediker, University of Pittsburgh

Daniel Reichman, University of Rochester

Gerardo Renique, City College of the City University of New York

Kenneth Roberts, Cornell University

William I. Robinson, University of California, Santa Barbara

Dylan Rodríguez, University of California, Riverside

Victor M. Rodriguez, California State University, Long Beach

Cristina Rojas, Carleton University

Sarah T. Romano, University of California, Santa Cruz

Renato Rosaldo, New York University

Karin Alejandra Rosemblatt, University of Maryland

Jan Rus, Latin American Perspectives

Ricardo Daniel Sánchez Cárdenas, Northwestern University

Rosaura Sanchez, University of California, San Diego

Mario Santana, The University of Chicago

Felicity Schaeffer-Grabiel, University of California, Santa Cruz

Ellen Sharp, University of California, Los Angeles

Freya Schiwy, University of California, Riverside

Aaron Schneider, Tulane University

Tammi J. Schneider, Claremont Graduate University

T.M. Scruggs, Professor Emeritus, University of Iowa

Adam Shapiro, Prescott College

Ellen Sharp, University of California, Los Angeles

Kirsten Silva Gruesz, University of California, Santa Cruz

Victor Silverman, Pomona College

Richard Simpson, Stanford University

Julie Skurski, City University of New York, Graduate Center

Darryl A. Smith, Pomona College

John Soluri, Carnegie Mellon University

Dale Sorenson, Director, Interfaith Task Force of the Americas

Rose Spalding, DePaul University

Susan Spronk, University of Ottawa

Richard Stahler-Sholk, Eastern Michigan University

Lynn Stephen, University of Oregon

William S. Stewart, California State University, Chico

Steve Striffler, University of New Orleans

Estelle Tarica, University of California, Berkeley

Diana Taylor, New York University

Miguel Tinker Salas, Pomona College

Sinclair Thomson, New York University

Steven Topik, University of California, Irvine

Mayo C. Toruno, California State University, San Bernardino

David J. Vázquez, University of Oregon

Jocelyn S. Viterna, Harvard University

Steven S. Volk, Oberlin College

Hendrik Voss, School of the Americas Watch

Christine J. Wade, Washington College

Diana B. Waters, Goddard College

Penny Waterstone, University of Arizona

Jamie Way, Venezuela Solidarity Campaign

Jeffery R. Webber, University of Regina, Canada

Barbara Weinstein, New York University

Mark Weisbrot, Center for Economic and Policy Research

Kimberly Welch, University of Redland

Allen Wells, Bowdoin College

Marion Werner, University of Minnesota

Eliza Willis, Grinnell College

Tamar Diana Wilson, Independent Scholar

Sonja Wolf, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM)

Justin Wolfe, Tulane University

John Womack, Harvard University

Megan Ybarra, University of California, Berkeley

Susy Zepeda, University of California, Santa Cruz

Chris Zepeda-Millan, Cornell University

Marc Zimmerman, University of Houston

* Institutions listed only for identification

[John Schröder]

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/818/42079

Honduras: ‘The elections are fraudulent’

Stuart Munckton
14 November 2009

“On November 29, we are not going to have time to vote”, Juan Barahona, a leader of the National Resistance Front Against the Coup on Honduras (FNRG) told the media in front of the Honduran Congress on November 12, Rightsaction.org said that day.

Barahona spoke on the 137th day of continued popular resistance to the June 28 military coup that overthrew the government of elected President Manuel Zelaya. Barahona was explaining the FNRG’s decision to continue with its call for a boycott of the November 29 general elections organised by the coup regime.

The FNRG, which has led the mass resistance, unites a wide range of social movements, trade unions and anti-coup political groups.

After daily mass protests and strikes since the coup severely affected the Central American nation’s economy, the coup regime led by dictator Roberto Micheletti finally signed an accord on October 30 intended to pave the way for Zelaya’s reinstatement.

Honduran business elites, who had backed the coup, are desperate for a resolution to the conflict. A November Center for Economic and Policy Research report indicated the severity of the crisis: “Jesus Canahuati, vice president of the nation’s chapter of the Business Council of Latin America, estimates that the curfew imposed by the de facto regime [to combat the mass resistance] cost the economy [US]$50 million per day …

“As recently as June, Consensus Economic had forecasted 0.7 percent growth for 2009; by late September this was lowered to negative 2.6 percent.”

However, despite its need to end the economic isolation imposed by other governments and international institutions, the coup regime remains terrified of the consequences of restoring Zelaya on the back of a powerful mass movement of the poor majority.

When the coup regime failed to meet the November 5 deadline to form a government of “national unity” headed by Zelaya, the FNRG and Zelaya declared the deal dead.

Rightsaction.org said: “Honduran people’s pro-democracy, anti-coup movement continues to take to the streets, this time in front of the National Congress to keep up the energy, discuss strategy and reconfirm their commitment to boycott the elections.”

On November 8, independent presidential candidate and well-respected resistance figure, Carlos H. Reyes, said he would pull out of the elections, Rightsaction.org said.

Zelaya and the FNRG have called on governments and international institutions, none of which have recognised Michelleti’s regime as legitimate, not to recognise the results of the November 29 elections and to continue pushing for Zelaya’s return.

However, on November 4, the US government’s chief negotiator in the conflict said Washington would recognise the vote, a November 12 Inter-Press Service article said. Unlike other governments in the region, the US has not broken all ties with the regime. US military ties and most economic aid remain intact.

Despite Washington’s formal condemnation of the coup, the FNRG has accused it of helping to organise Zelaya’s overthrow and of propping up Micheletti’s regime.

The FNRG has raised the fact that all Honduran military officers are trained by the US. It has also pointed out that when Zelaya was kidnapped by the military on June 28, the plane that exiled him to Costa Rica left from a US military base inside Honduras.

IPS said on November 5 that, in stark contrast to Washington’s stance, foreign ministers from the 24 Latin American and Caribbean nations that make up the Rio Group declared at a meeting in Jamaica they would not recognise the November 29 poll. They again called for Zelaya’s reinstatement.

Speaking outside Congress on November 12, Rightsaction.org said Bertha Caceres, a leader of Civic Counsel of Indigenous and Popular Organizations of Honduras (COPINH) and the FNRG, declared: “We remain firmly convinced that the struggle of the Honduran people is for the re-foundation of our country. We are going to construct a just and more humane country where they listen and where the people make the decisions …

“We have learned the last names of our enemies … It’s the oligarchy, they are our enemies, the transnationals, the gringos, that put in systems of domination, not just in Honduras, but the entire region.”

In a speech to a November 1 public meeting posted at Hondorusresists.blogspot.com, Caceres explained how Zelaya had upset the Honduran oligarchy and multinational corporate interests: “Zelaya said he won’t give out any mining concessions. So these men started condemning him.

“He rejected the acceptance speech the day that he took power sent to him by Carlos Flores Facusse [one of the richest businessmen in Honduras], already written. President Zelaya throws it aside.

“Carlos Flores Facusse is one of the men who decides the destiny of this country.”

She explained how Zelaya’s policy of regulating the oil and gas industry caused “Texaco, Esso and Shell [to] lose more than $200 million” in one year.

As well as increasing the minimum wage by 60%, Caceres said Zelaya also introduced an education bill that improved wages and conditions for teachers despite International Monetary Fund opposition.

Zelaya also advanced the rights of women against the opposition of the Catholic Church by abolishing a ban on the contraceptive pill — which the coup regime has since reinstated.

Zelaya had called for the closure of the US Palmerola military base. His government also joined the anti-imperialist political and trade bloc initiated by Cuba and Venezuela, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas.

Caceres told the crowd: “Brothers and sisters we should never forget the names of the coup-makers, whether they are transnational corporations, businessmen, or congressmen who serve the corrupt hackneyed political class the Honduran people are tired of.”

On November 8, the general assembly of the FRNG, which meets weekly with large ongoing participation, celebrated the decision to boycott the elections, Rightsaction.org said.

“There is growing anticipation and tension, and speculation as to what will happen on election day. Strategies are being discussed and meetings are being organized in communities and neighbourhoods across the country.

“The coordinating body of the resistance movement is encouraging people to mobilize, boycott and protest on the election day. Community education and organizing continues …”

From: International News, Green Left Weekly issue #818 18 November 2009.“

[John Schröder]

http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/20 ... t-guy.html

"You don't punish the next guy"...

so says Shelley A. McConnell, described as "an assistant professor of government at St. Lawrence University and a former analyst at the Carter Center" in an article in the New York Times.

I beg to differ.

The "next guy" referred to here is the projected winner of the November 29 presidential election, who, if current polling holds, will almost certainly be Porfirio Lobo Sosa, of the National party. If he were without culpability in the current crisis, it might make sense to portray him as an innocent victim who should not be held responsible for what the architects of the coup wrought, or the intransigence of Roberto Micheletti that has blocked all attempted solutions.

But Pepe Lobo is more than the prospective presidential winner: he is a participant in the vote on June 28 through which the Honduran Congress unconstitutionally removed President Zelaya from office, and without legal basis, elevated Roberto Micheletti, then head of Congress, to the role of head of a de facto authoritarian regime born out of a military intervention.

More: Pepe Lobo is the one person who might be able to swing Congress into action even now to vote on the restoral of President Zelaya, and if reports by many media sources are to be credited, had made some sort of agreement with US diplomats to do just that as part of gaining President Zelaya's signature on the Tegucigalpa Accord.

Arguments that Lobo cannot risk alienating his voter base by supporting a vote on Zelaya are extremely unconvincing. He has a solid lead in an election where his main opposition provides the perfect illustration for the word "feckless": Elvin Santos, caught between the President he once served as Vice President, and the rival for the nomination who he managed to surpass only due to legal chicanery that almost defies description. (See this post for details). Who, since realizing the coup wasn't increasing his popularity, has tried to have it both ways: stating that he wasn't for the coup, exactly, although he isn't against the outcome, more or less...

If Pepe Lobo had called on the party he leads to convene an extraordinary congressional session a week ago, no matter what the outcome of the vote, we would not be in the situation we now are. Yes, the Frente de Resistencia would still have called for an election boycott, based on what in my opinion are accurate assessments that the election to come is a farce (if not an actual fraud in the making).

How on earth can anyone in the world pretend that the Honduran Armed Forces, guilty of kidnapping the President, complicit in violent repression of free speech, and so far from their apolitical mandate that the silence of their Chief is seen as a political statement, could possibly guarantee freedom of participation to the very people who have been beaten, tear-gassed, and in some cases, raped? Remember that the victims of this violence include the independent candidate for the presidency who only recently withdrew from the race: what kind of atmosphere exists, and doesn't the differential discouragement of dissenting voices guarantee that the outcome of the November election will be biased towards those who enjoy the status quo?

But if Congress had voted, even to reject the restitution of the constitutionally elected President, the terms of the Tegucigalpa Accord-- that ever-so-flawed illegitimate offspring of the San Jose Accord-- would at least not have been made an object of ridicule. And the clarity of such a decision would at least have potentially opened a path for the Verification Commission to oversee the formation of a unity government from which we might hope Micheletti also would have been persuaded to step aside.

So who should we not be punishing-- who is the "next guy" who has no guilt here? what about all those Honduran voters-- the 40% plus who do not think that the elections will solve anything? those who find themselves with no candidate to vote for, and no assurance that if the candidate they elect acts in ways the entrenched power elite doesn't care for, the Armed Forces won't again be called out by their real masters to clear the way for a more acceptable dictator? Can we not concede that the Honduran people are the "next guys" who shouldn't be punished by having the world accept that Honduras is not a State in the Rule of Law?

So again: I beg to differ.

And I cannot help but suspect that, like most of us in academia, Professor McConnell's remarks were rather more extensive than what is reported by the Times, and that she also would like a little more contextualization about what such a statement might mean.

After all, this is the same person quoted October 29 as saying

There is a great deal at stake for the inter-American system in how the crisis in Honduras is resolved...If ousted President Zelaya is not restored to office despite a region-wide condemnation of the coup, it will call into question the utility of the Inter-American Democratic Charter and indeed the concept of collective protection of democracy through the Organization of American States.

That is an opinion I can agree with. Those are the stakes that are going to require more than a sigh and acceptance of the status quo come January 28, 2010.

[John Schröder]

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2009/noviem ... duras.html

Honduras: dictatorship recruiting right-wing extremists as “observers”

IN order to cover up the invalidity of the upcoming November 29 elections, the usurping regime of Roberto Micheletti is heavily recruiting—via an association of pro-coup businesspeople — “observers” from right-wing extremist organizations.

“Between 300 and 500 observers have now been confirmed,” was the headline on the daily La Prensa, owned by the local magnate, Jorge “Pepsi” Canahuati, while the author of an article inside the paper claimed, with pro-coup fervor, that “about 600″ of these “international observers from Northern, South and Central America” will be present at the elections.

Finding such observers when all international agencies devoted to this activity have refused to cooperate has been entrusted by the military/business junta in Tegucigalpa to one of its most active partners, Amilcar Bulnes, president of the Honduran Council of Private Enterprise (COHEP).

Bulnes told the daily La Prensa — owned by his friend Canahuati — that the election process “is central to providing a better investment climate,” which should be based on “social stability.” This opinion is shared by the hierarchies of the army, police and death squads run by Billy Joya.

“They will come from the United States, Europe, Chile, Argentina, Colombia and Central America,” Bulnes specified, revealing that two of them are among the most “eminent” representatives of the continent’s extreme right-wing forces: the former presidents of Guatemala, Alvaro Arzú, and of El Salvador, Alfredo Cristiani.

It has already been announced that the coup regime’s elections will feature representatives — also described as “observers” — from the neo-Nazi group UnoAmérica; the Latin American and Caribbean Network for Liberty, an appendage of the Liberty Foundation financed by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED); and the Foundation for Social Analysis and Studies, run by the former Spanish prime minister, José María Aznar.

The organization UnoAmérica, tied to the CIA and financed by the NED, was involved earlier this year in a plot to assassinate President Evo Morales of the Plurinational State of Bolivia.

Translated by Granma International

[John Schröder]

http://mexfiles.net/2009/11/11/diplomacy-of-deceit/

Diplomacy of deceit

Laura Carlsen, in today’s Americas: MexicoBlog writes on the Honduras “agreement”:

What will surely go down in the books as one of the worst diplomatic agreements ever, was hammered out by the State Department team—[Thomas] Shannon, joined by Obama advisor Dan Restrepo and the man who has now been sent in to try to clean up the mess, Craig Kelly. It was signed by the two parties on Oct. 29.

I thought from the beginning that by forcing the legitimate government of Honduras to “negotiate” with the gangsters who seized the presidency was dishonest from the start — but given that the United States was going to impose its will on Honduras (as it always has); that a Wilsonian-style Democratic Party administration is in power (interested in domestic reforms, multi-laterialist in foreign policy, but with the assumption of imposing U.S. values and solutions on the rest of the planet); AND that the present Secretary of State (like Wilson’s William Jennings Bryan) was selected as a sop to a defeated inter-party rival, despite having little or no real foreign policy experience (and despised by Latin American policy-makers) — a “negotiation” of some kind was inevitable.

While the coup has had the benefit of uniting Hondurans who are in favor of change into a coherent movement, at worst, a successful negotiated settlement would create a “coalition government ” (of reformers and gangsters) which might delay change, but would avoid an abrupt, violent reaction.

And, one is tempted to give the Obama Administration the benefit of the doubt, given that Thomas Shannon was a Bush administration holdover.

Shannon, however, may have had no intention of acting as an honest broker (as if one honesty brokers with crooks):

Tom Shannon met with Republican Senator Jim DeMint on Oct. 20 and DeMint urged him to recognize the Honduran elections without the reinstatement of Zelaya. DeMint offered to release his holds on Shannon’s nomination to the ambassadorship of Brazil and the nomination of Arturo Valenzuela to fill Shannon’s shoes as Asst. Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs.

DeMint, who traveled to Honduras to meet with the coup regime last month, had blocked these two key State Department nominations ostensibly in protest of the administration’s policies to reinstate Zelaya.

White reports that there is every indication that Shannon had already formulated this critical change in policy to abandon the demand for reinstatement when he flew down to Tegucigalpa on Oct. 28, and that coup leader Roberto Micheletti knew this. That left only President Zelaya and the rest of the world in the dark as to the real goal of the negotiations.

No… that left people like Elisabeth Malkin – a good Latin American reporter unfortunately employed by the same newspaper that believed the Bush Administration’s claims that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction” — in the dark:

Under fire from allies in Latin America and on Capitol Hill, the Obama administration moved Tuesday to try to salvage the American-brokered agreement that had been billed as paving the way for a peaceful end to the coup in Honduras. Instead, the accord seems to have provided the country’s de facto government with a way to stay in power until a presidential election scheduled for the end of this month.

Whether it was Shannon, Jim DeMint or Hillary Clinton, the effect is the same. The United States has signaled to Latin America that United States policy remains as it always has been — to treat any reformist, no matter how mild or ineffectual (like Mel Zelaya) or change in the status quo, even when the impact on the Untied States is simply higher wages for Honduran workers (which might have raised the cost of underwear at your local Wal-mart by a penny or so) as something to be thwarted at all cost. Including damaging the honor of the nation, and the reputation of its president.

[John Schröder]

http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/20 ... ement.html

Vapid US Policy Statement

The Voice of America website, under a byline "The following is an editorial reflecting the views of the US government", has just published one of the oddest texts I think I have ever read.

Here for the record is a professional deconstruction of this text, from my perspective as an avowed post-structuralist:

Efforts to return deposed President Manuel Zelaya to office and end the crippling political crisis in Honduras have hit another roadblock.

This form of statement, leaving out any agent (actor), is typical of rhetoric that attempts to avoid responsibility. Efforts have hit a roadblock: not because the US State Department made pronouncements that encouraged parties to misbehave, just because roadblocks are there...

The United States is disappointed that both parties haven't been able to reach agreement on the creation of a government of national unity under the Tegucigalpa-San Jose accord, and it urges leaders there to stay focused on it. While the U.S. and other hemispheric nations worked hard to bring the parties together, the stalemate is a Honduran problem that must have a Honduran solution.

"The stalemate is a Honduran problem". Well, not exactly. The stalemate is a problem exacerbated by the aforementioned US State Department pronouncements. But what is most interesting here is that the "disappointment" of the US is the topic of this paragraph. Not the consequences for the Honduran people. And who precisely are the "leaders" urged to stay focused on "it"-- and is that "it" the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord, or the "government of national unity"?

Under the terms of the agreement, signed late last month, President Zelaya and Honduras's de facto regime agreed to let Congress decide on the president's return. A presidential election set for November 29 will determine who succeeds President Zelaya and a government of national unity will operate until the new president takes office, among other provisions.

More or less accurate. But notice the very revealing slide: "A presidential election set for November 29 will determine who succeeds President Zelaya": or, to put it another way: President Zelaya is still and will be the legally elected president, presumably no matter what the Congress decides about his "return".

Both sides need to return to the table and fulfill their commitment to forming a government of national unity, and all parties should avoid provocative statements and actions that could upset the process.

Ah, how much the US State Department wishes other people would "avoid provocative statements"; like, perhaps, publicly stating that the US would recognize the election no matter whether the legally elected President was allowed to return to his constitutional position or not?

Before voting on the president's return, congressional leaders have asked for input from the Supreme Court, attorney general and human rights ombudsman. This is consistent with the accord and was agreed to by both parties during the negotiation of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord.

Well, no. The Accord did say that the Congress would vote after previously receiving a report from the Supreme Court. But there is nothing in it (go, read it for yourself!) about asking the attorney general to pronounce (and remember, Edmundo Orellana's legal opinion is that this would be against the law); and no one actually asked Ramon Custodio to provide a report; he just got enthusiastic. What the Accord-- and remember, I think it is a lousy piece of writing-- called for was for the Supreme Court to provide Congress a report (on what has never been clear to anyone: they cannot simply issue a verdict on charges against him, and without some constitutional issue in front of them, they cannot judge whether it would be legal or illegal for congress to revoke its own decreto of June 28). Period.

Isn't revisionist history fun?

The United States’ commitment is to the accord and its implementation and to the restoration of democratic constitutional order in Honduras. It provides a pathway to free and fair elections, the outcome of which will be widely accepted both within Honduras and abroad.

"It" is ambiguous (again). What provides a "pathway to free and fair elections"? One presumes the intended reference is "the accord", but it could as easily be "the United States commitment" or even, unlikely as it may seem, "democratic constitutional order".

In any event, this entire paragraph is a fantasy. The outcome of these purported "free and fair elections", which will not be observed by any official third-party outsiders, are already being repudiated by every member of the OAS from Latin America; by UNASUR; by the Central American and Caribbean nations; and there is a debate pending in the EU but Spain has already said there cannot be any legitimacy in the elections scheduled for just 16 days from now.

And as for "widely accepted within Honduras": well, yes. But that is not something to be happy about; the wide acceptance of elections that fail to live up to the standards of democracy is a symptom of the corrosion of Honduran popular belief in democracy itself.

The United States will respect any decision by the Honduran Congress, and is working to create an environment in which Hondurans themselves can address and resolve the issues that precipitated the crisis. With this behind them, the nation may move forward to address the many other challenges facing it.

Ah me: "the nation may move forward"-- precisely how? how does a country so polarized "move forward" when the one thing that is now certain is that any outcome-- "any decision by the Honduran Congress"-- will be accepted by the hemispheric power that has been most influential on the modern politics of Honduras? Does that "any decision" include, say, an assertion that Roberto Micheletti was inserted into power legally because the Congress says so?

And finally: "the issues that precipitated the crisis". No longer even able to clearly label a coup d'etat what it is, and giving in at the end to what has always been lurking below the surface: this whole incident would not have happened if there were not prior "precipitating" events.

No wonder the President of Paraguay is nervous. God help us when this is the best the US State Department can come up with.

[John Schröder]

http://hondurasoye.wordpress.com/2009/1 ... ates-1111/

Honduran National Resistance Updates 11/11

2009 November 11
by magbana

>A Comment:

Many people write or disseminate information about the coup This includes people in the mainstream media, independent media and bloggers. Now that negotiations are dead in the water, I’m beginning to see more and more articles and blog posts that raise one or all of the following: what went wrong? who made it go wrong? why did it go wrong? could it have worked?

These are questions posed by people who think the US played a somewhat honest, if imperialist, role in this travesty. The US planned the coup with the Michelettis and continued to collaborate with the coup regime throughout the past four months. There never was an intention on the part of the US to reinstate President Zelaya – for god’s sake, they took him out. Micheletti, all bluster? Outwardly, yes. But, he was playing a prescribed role devoted solely to eating up the clock. Everytime Micheletti insulted Jose Miguel Insulza (which was often) an OAS meeting would be postponed for a week or two. Yet, Insulza met with Micheletti privately on at least one occasion after Micheletti called him something equivalent to a corrupt, incompetent boob. If this stuff was real and not acting, neither would want to be in the company of the other ever again.

And then, there is Hillary and the State Department stream-of consciousness apparatus. On one of President Zelaya’s trips to Washington he was supposed to meet with Hillary. Initially, she seemed to stall by handing him over to her staff. Imagine, the top diplomat of the United States keeps a head of state waiting around to get an appointment and requires him to meet her subordinates first. The only way that Hillary could insult President Zelaya so brazenly is if she knew she would never be dealing with him as head of state. While Hillary seemed equally dismissive with Micheletti and even perturbed, don’t kid yourself. Any displeasure that Hillary expressed about Micheletti’s behavior was feigned. His bluster and intractability were key to eating up the clock.

And, then there is Oscar Arias, the moonlighting mediator president, to whose country President Zelaya was dropped like a sack of potatoes. With a sea of lefty presidents in Central America, Costa Rica was the only choice. Plus, Arias is the US’ go-to guy when they want someone to deal with “delicate” negotiations (ask the Nicaraguans about Arias’ Nobel Peace Prize efforts in negotiating the agreement to end the war and you will hear the word “snake”). But, the primary reason to dump Zelaya in Costa Rica (after a stop at US’ Soto Cano airbase) is so that Arias could arrange for intelligence services to bug his room and monitor all of his communications.

And, on and on it goes. So, you see, nothing went wrong — that is for the US and the Michelettis. It was all according to plan. A plan that will deeply affect the heroic people of Honduras for years to come.

I leave you with two excerpts from Barry Grey’s article published on July 2, 2009

“US Seeks Deal between Honduran Coup Leaders and Deposed President”

“There is ample evidence that the Obama administration was deeply involved in plans by Zelaya’s opponents within the Honduran ruling elite—sections of business, the military, the political establishment and the Church—to destabilize or topple his government. The New York Times on Tuesday cited an unnamed US official as saying that US Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Thomas Shannon and US Ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens spoke to “military officials and opposition leaders” in the days before the coup. He said, “There was talk of how they might remove the president from office, how he could be arrested, on whose authority they could do that.”

“It appears that the Obama administration was seeking to effect a de facto coup, but without a direct use of the military and under the cover of constitutional legality. That would, it hoped, reverse Washington’s declining influence in Latin America and pave the way for an offensive against Chávez and his left nationalist allies in Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador and other countries aligned with Venezuela in the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas.”

[John Schröder]

http://hondurasoye.wordpress.com/2009/1 ... o-be-read/

Please No More Shock About Honduras, The Imperial Tea Leaves Were There to Be Read

2009 November 12
by magbana

I guess many people got Obamaized after the election. One organization after another, one blogger after another, one reporter (mainstream and independent) after another are going through a period of disbelief at what has taken place in Honduras over the last two weeks. In my November 11 Honduran National Resistance update, I take on this collective disbelief by explaining the early warning signals that should have tipped everyone off that this has been a US-driven coup all along in which the US never intended to restore President Zelaya and did intend to push for the November 29 election to be held.

I won’t repeat what I wrote in yesterday’s update, but a few more things are worth mentioning. The biggest reason to believe that the US was behind the coup is that there is no way that the Honduran military, with the millions it receives from the US annually, is going to embark on a coup involving massive deployment of troops and the kidnapping of a head of state without explicit approval of the US. Pure and simple, if the US did not want President Zelaya out, he would be at the presidential palace today and not a guest of the Brazilian embassy.

I guess there is an assumption that there is a difference between Democratic and Republican administrations and there may be in areas such as social and economic programs. But, when it comes to foreign affairs and Defense Department spending there is someone else in the driver’s seat and the car is definitely not parked at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Through my work on Cuba issues, I watched as many allowed their hopes to be raised that an Obama presidency would bring substantial change in the US-Cuba relationship. But in one disappointing decision after another regarding Cuba, Obama might as well have had Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen sitting on one shoulder and the Diaz-Balarts on the other.

But, even if I was unfamiliar with the situation in Honduras, I would know immediately that it was a US-backed coup because of one thing: the coup in Haiti.

Six weeks after the February 29, 2004 coup d’etat in which the democratically-elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, was kidnapped, I was in Port-au-Prince as part of a delegation to determine the US’ role in the coup and kidnapping of Aristide. It is in Haiti that the US perfected the template for the coup in Honduras with certain variations here and there. I remember talking with people here in the States after I returned from Haiti and it was only when I told them certain things did they begin to comprehend that the US was the force behind it all. They were shocked at first because they could not believe that the US would be capable of such things.

Here are some of the things I told them:

-Eighteen months before the coup, the US armed and financed 200 Haitian “rebels,” who they housed in the Dominican Republic courtesy of its military, to commit cross border attacks to de-stabilize Haiti as a prelude to the coup. Many supporters of Aristide were murdered in the process.

-It was the US’ Deputy Ambassador in Haiti, Luis Moreno, who kidnapped President Aristide. He arrived at Aristide’s home in the wee hours of the morning on February 29 with the muscle of approximately 30 Special Forces personnel. Moreno told Aristide that he was going to take him to give a press conference to settle the population down. Aristide’s suspicions were confirmed when the entourage took a turn toward the airport. The Aristides were put on the plane accompanied by the Special Forces personnel who promptly changed into civilian clothes. Moreno would not tell the Aristides where they were being taken and they did not find out until their feet hit the tarmac in the Central African Republic. Shortly after the plane (painted totally white with NO national insignia) carrying the Aristides took off , Moreno was on his way to tell the press that the president had fled the country and signed a resignation letter before doing so. Of course this was not true — sound familiar?

-General Colin Powell contacted former congressman Ron Dellums a day before Aristide was kidnapped and asked if he would call Aristide and tell him the following: “Guy Philippe (leader of the “rebels”) is right outside of Port-au-Prince, he is coming to kill you, and the US will not be able to protect you.” The reality was that Philippe was not near the capital, but the US was trying to use this false threat to scare Aristide into leaving.

-During our delegation’s visit, we were able to get an interview with the leader of the “rebels,” Guy Philippe, a long-time CIA asset trained in Ecuador. Generally, Philippe was guarded during the interview but there was one amazing thing he let slip out. In the wee hours of the morning of February 29, US Deputy Ambassador, Luis Moreno, called Guy Philippe and told him not to advance any further toward Port-au-Prince, because “we (the US) have got it covered from here.” So the US’ Deputy Ambassador had not only Philippe’s personal cell phone number, but you could make a case that Moreno was in “command “of the “rebels’ — for a few minutes at least.

Thereafter, Haiti’s murderous coup regime was immediately recognized and legitimized by 4,000 UN “Peacekeepers” whose mandate was to support the “Government of Haiti.” The people of Haiti started marching four days after the coup and haven’t stopped since in their effort to secure the return of President Aristide. And in the past five years, the UN Peacekeepers and Haitian National Police have committed numerous massacres in the poorest neighborhoods where Aristide enjoys his greatest support.

This is all to say that if you think up the lousiest, underhanded, illegal, heinous acts imaginable, you can bet that the US government has done all of them and will do them again. Both Republicans and Democrats are equally capable of unleashing the monster – imperialism.

If interested in more information on Haiti, please click here.

[John Schröder]

http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/20 ... obama.html

President Zelaya to President Obama: Walk the Talk

Office of the President of the Republic

From the Desk of the President

Tegucigalpa, 14 November, 2009

His Excellency

Barack Obama

President of the United States

Washington D.C.

Dear President Obama:

When we met for the first time the 8th of July with the Secretary of State Cinton after the Coup d'Etat there was made clear to me and to the world the position of the Obama administration of condemning the Coup d'Etat, not recognizing its authorities and demanding the return to the state of law with the restitution to the office of President elected by the people. The official position of your government and its representatives that sponsored and signed the resolutions of the UN, OAS. In which the third point demanded my immediate and secure restitution.

Beginning the 28th of June of 2009 my kidnapping by the military and expatriation to Costa Rica. The Congress of the Republic issued an illegal decree where it ordered "To separate the citizen José Manuel Zelaya Rosales from the office of Constitutional President of the Republic" without constitutional abilities to do so, and without due process without any legal ruling being cited.

From the first meeting with Secretary Hillary Clinton mediation by the president of Costa Rica Oscar Arias was proposed to me, despite the fact that I consider that it is counterproductive to engage in dialogue with persons that have a gun in their hands, I accepted considering the auspices of the US and the international community.

In a communiqué dated the 4th of September of the present year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed the following: "The positive conclusion of the process initiated by Arias will be the suitable basis to proceed with a legitimate election".

It is known by everyone that the de facto regime, without the visit to Honduras of the Subsecretary of State for the Western Hemisphere, Thomas Shannon, Daniel Restrepo and Craig Kelly, would not have signed the Accord. Everyone knows why they broke the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord. The same president Oscar Arias for the sake of the truth declared that "Micheletti never had the will to collaborate and that on the contrary he was mocking the international community and only sought to extend the time to never turn over the power that he has".

Ex-president Ricardo Lagos, prominent member of the international Verification Commission in his declarations confirms this, by stating "Sr. Micheletti broke it", "Micheletti did things that he should not have done such as to say I will form a government of unity without Zelaya" which made this negotiated accord fail.

The same day that the Verification Commission of the accord was installed in Tegucigalpa, they were caught unaware by declarations of functionaries of the State Department where they modified their position and interpreted the accord unilaterally with the following declarations: "the elections will be recognized by the US with or without restitution"; the de facto regime celebrated this change and used these declarations for their objectives, and immediately ended by default and violation of the Accord. For the before expounded we declare in the following manner:

That the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord remains worthless and without effect for the unilateral default of the de facto government. This was conceived to be implemented in an integrated and simultaneous form; since it cannot be treated as twelve separate accords, it was one single accord with twelve points which had one sole goal, to restore the democratic order and social peace, and with this the coup d'etat would be reverted, which implies the certain return of the President of the Republic elected legitimately by popular vote. And with that, to bring about a climate of national reconciliation and a constitutional electoral process to follow, fair, with guarantees of equal participation and free for all the citizens of Honduras. That the upcoming elections should be developed in a framework of legality and international backing, especially by the OAS and UN and there would be the political conditions and conditions of minimum civil rights to guarantee a result that holds to liberty and transparency.

In this, I want to note that the new position of the functionaries of the Government of the US skirts the initial objective of the San Jose dialogue, relegating an accord with the legitimately recognized Government to a second place, and trying to move this accord toward a new electoral process without concern for the conditions in which it would be carried out. Among others, with public resources that are being authorized by public functionaries not legally recognized and attributed to a Budget document that has not been authorized by the legitimately recognized President.

In these conditions, this process, and therefore its results, will be subject to challenge and non-recognition; which will put in grave risk the future stability of relations between Honduras and the rest of the nations that might recognize its results.

As the Secretary General of the OAS José Miguel Insulza has pointed out, there does not exist a political environment for elections, as has been observed and pointed out by the North American Congress member [Jan Schakowsky] in her visit to Honduras, observing a veritable environment of violation of human rights in Honduras.

This past November 6, we communicated our refusal to continue with a false dialogue, and therefore on the expiration of the due date the text constitutes a dead letter that loses its validity, because an accord is fulfilled in time and form, the violation of this by the de facto regime is for us the condition that determines that the accord stopped existing. Undoubtedly precious time was lost in this unsuccessful attempt.

The presidential election is now scheduled for the last week of November. In this case, as Constitutional President of Honduras, and as citizen who represents and was elected by the democratic vote of the people of Honduras, I see myself obligated to state that under these conditions we cannot back it and we will proceed to challenge it legally in the name of thousands of Hondurans and hundreds of candidates that feel that this contest is unequal and does not present the conditions of free participation.

In Honduras due to the repression that the Honduran people today is subjected to, where there is no respect even for the highest authority of the President of the Republic, where they have not considered that in three years I achieved the best economic indicators and the greatest reduction of poverty in the 28 years of democratic life, where I was removed by force of arms, never was submitted to a trial nor to due process and today have 24 accusations and orders for arrest for drug trafficking, corruption, and terrorism, among others, and where the major part of the Ministers of my cabinet are the object of political persecution and are to be found fleeing the regime in different parts of the Americas.

3500 people detained in 100 days, more than 600 people wounded and beaten in hospitals, more than 100 assassinations and an unknown number of people subjected to tortures committed against citizens that dared to oppose and demonstrate for their ideas, for liberty, and for justice, in peaceful demonstrations, all that converts the elections of November into an anti-democratic exercise by an illegitimate state, due to the uncertainty and military intimidation, for large sectors of the people.

To carry out elections, in which the President elected by the people of Honduras, who is recognized by your Government and the international community, is prisoner, surrounded by military in the diplomatic mission of Brazil, and a de facto president, who imposes the military, surrounded by the powerful in the palace of government, would be a historic shame for Honduras and an infamy for the democratic peoples of the Americas.

This electoral process is illegal because it covers up the military coup d'etat, and the de facto state that Honduras lives with does not furnish guarantees of equality and liberty of citizen participation, for all the Hondurans, it is an antidemocratic electoral maneuver repudiated by large sectors of the people to cloak the material and intellectual authors of the Coup d'Etat.

The elections are a process, not just a day when you go to vote, they are a debate, they are the exposition of ideas, they are equality of opportunities.

In my status as President elected by the Honduran people, I reaffirm my decision that from this date on, whatever will happen, I WILL NOT ACCEPT any accord of returning to the presidency, to cloak the coup d'etat, that we know has a direct impact through military repression on the human rights of the inhabitants of our country.

Mr. President, in the Summit of Countries of the American Continent celebrated in Trinidad and Tobago at the beginning of this year, where I was present, you said

"That we should stop accusing the US for what it did in the past in the continent and that we should look toward the future". The future that today shows us the alteration of your position in the case of Honduras and thus favors abusive intervention by military groups in the civic life of our State (historical cause of the backwardness and stagnation of our countries in the 20th century). It is nothing more than the sunset of liberty and a deprecation of human dignity, it is a new war against the process of social and democratic reform that are so necessary in Honduras.

President Obama, each time that a legitimate elected Government is overturned in the Americas violence and terrorism win a battle and Democracy suffers a defeat.

We still refuse to believe that this military coup d'etat executed in Honduras, is now the new state terrorism of the 21st century. And that it will be the future for Latin America that you spoke to us about in Trinidad and Tobago.

We are firmly resolved to battle for our democracy without hiding the truth and when a people decide to peacefully fight for its ideas, there is no weapon, no army nor maneuver that is capable of stopping it.

In the expectation of your prompt response, I repeat my highest regards.

JOSE MANUEL ZELAYA ROSALES

President of Honduras


For the Spanish original, see the posting by Adrienne Pine.