Category Archives: Guaymuras Accord

The San Jose – Guaymuras talks and agreement.

The Truth Commission in Honduras

The political crisis in Honduras last year ended in an agreement, the Guaymuras Accord, in which it was stipulated in point 6 that a Truth Commission be formed to investigate what really led up to the crisis, so that the risk of repetition can be minimized. The commission is working since this Spring, and the report is due in early 2011.

The text gives these instructions, in my translation: “With the purpose of clarifying the events occurred before and after June 28, 2009, a Truth Commission will also be created that will identify the acts that led to the present situation, and present to the Honduran people elements to avoid that these acts are repeated in the future.” The Spanish original reads, “Con el fin de esclarecer los hechos ocurridos antes y después del 28 de junio de 2009, se creará también una Comisión de la Verdad que identifique los actos que condujeron a la situación actual, y proporcione al pueblo de Honduras elementos para evitar que estos hechos se repitan en el futuro.

On the website of the Truth Commission, a scheme of inquiry is described.

A work plan for the truth commission could rather look something like what I will describe here. It is based on the scientific method, in which one erects an hypothesis and then tries to prove it wrong.

  1. Erect the hypothesis that the institutions (the courts, the congress, etc.) acted correctly in relation to the deposing of Zelaya, and try to disprove this hypothesis. Note that it would be scientifically wrong to erect the hypothesis that they acted incorrectly, since that hypothesis is virtually impossible to disprove. The burden of proof has to be on the one that claims that they acted wrong, not on the one that claims they acted correctly. Therefore, the null hypothesis must be that they acted correctly.
  2. Establish a paper trail for what happened, gather documents and other evidence and try to verify their veracity.
  3. Evaluate the actions (by Zelaya and others) and the reactions (by the judicial branch) step by step, in chronological order, based on the Honduran Constitution, the Honduran law, and Honduran jurisprudence.
  4. Repeat this procedure for each institution, i.e., the legislative, the prosecutor, the military, the police, and so on.
  5. For every case where someone acted outside the law, verify if the case was dealt with appropriately by the judicial.

If no proof of wrongdoing can be found with this approach, then the hypothesis is retained, and the institutions are found to have acted within the law. If some wrongdoing is found, then one must follow up and see how that wrongdoing was dealt with (point 5). If it was dealt with appropriately, then, too, the institutionality of Honduras shall be deemed to have passed the hypothesis-testing.

Jumping the gun, what it will come down to is the expatriation of Zelaya. We already know that those responsible were prosecuted. The question is rather if Zelaya was held harmless;in other words, if his legal rights were respected the same in the light of his illegal expatriation, as they would have been had he instead been thrown in jail as the arrest warrant ordered. This is of course somewhat of an hypothetical, since he has not returned to Honduras to face justice. The only way to find out if there is justice or not is, really, for him to return and defend himself in court.

If the commission does its work appropriately, we will have authoritative answers to these questions:

  1. Does the Supreme Court have the authority of arrest the president (based on Honduran jurisprudence, of course)?
  2. Did the Supreme Court, on June 26 when the arrest warrant was issued, have due cause for issuing the arrest warrant?
  3. Does the Supreme Court have the authority to relieve the president from office, temporarily or permanently?
  4. Does the Congress have the authority to relieve the president from office, temporarily or permanently?
  5. Who issued the order to expatriate Mel Zelaya?
  6. Has the one(s) who issued the order to expatriate Mel Zelaya been prosecuted according to the laws?
  7. Has Zelaya’s legal rights been safeguarded, before and after he was illegally expatriated?

The more important question may not be if the commission will do its job correctly, but if media will report its conclusions correctly.

The Risks and how to Mitigate them

It seems clear beyond reasonable doubt that there is a concerted attack against Honduras carried out by certain groups, the face of which is Hugo Chavez. The tools of the attack are not military, the goal is not a military victory. Rather, the tools are manipulation of the media story by means of false news and control of the media news cycle, and the goal is to make Honduras ungovernable, so that the smuggling of cocaine to the north can be carried out cheap and safely – relatively speaking. Only the cocaine economy can explain the vast investment that is being made in this attack on Honduras institutions of government. We are talking about tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars “invested” in destroying Honduras. This is a cold war precisely as Adolf Hitler intended when he coined the term.

Understanding their goal we can predict their strategy. There is no doubt in my mind that they will write their story-lines and edit their news coverage in advance of the release of the report from the truth commission. Once the report is out they will quickly scan it for a quote that they can use to “support” their story, and then quickly go out with their version of what the commission actually said. By being quick, they hope that the other media, like AP, AFP, EFE, and Reuters, will run with their version instead of taking the time to actually read the report.

Judging from how those news agencies have acted in the past, I’d predict that the strategy is going to work.

The only ones that can prevent this willful distortion of the commissions report is the commission itself. If they desire for the truth to be known, they have to manage the news themselves.

The most important counter-measure is to remove the possibility for the enemy of Honduras to act. The opportunity for the enemy is in the moment when the report is released. The mitigation must therefore be to not release the report all at once at the end. A range of methods can be used, and some have already started.

Social media: The commission is already using social media to communicate with people, thus gradually diffusing information about the process and gaining confidence.

Radio: They could cooperate with radio shows to discuss subjects on air, taking questions and even discussing with people who call in. This, too, will gradually diffuse their findings and undermine the chances for the enemy to spin the story when the final report comes.

Leaks: By leaking findings in advance, the enemy is denied the chance to spin, or lie, about these facts later.

Galleys: Provide copies of the report to select news outlets about a week in advance of the official release date so that they have time to read it and write their own, accurate, stories.

What is essential here is to understand that some media are not news outlets, but propaganda organizations. They must be treated accordingly. While they pretend to be news outlets and claim to be protected by the rules of journalistic freedom, they really are the enemy in disguise. It is a tricky business to on the one hand not violate their rights, and on the other hand not allow them to play the game they want. It’s like a game of chess, but it’s not a game, what is at stake is human lives. Millions of human lives.

The “Moment of Truth” for Pepe

The time has come for Pepe Lobo to form a Truth Commission in Honduras, as stipulated in point 6 of the Guaymuras dialogue (Spanish original, Swedish summary). This is the original text:

Con el fin de esclarecer los hechos ocurridos antes y después del 28 de junio de 2009, se creará también una Comisión de la Verdad que identifique los actos que condujeron a la situación actual, y proporcione al pueblo de Honduras elementos para evitar que estos hechos se repitan en el futuro.

Esta Comisión de Diálogo recomienda que el próximo Gobierno, en el marco de un consenso nacional, constituya dicha Comisión de la Verdad en el primer semestre del año 2010.

The agreement does not stipulate how the commission should be created, just what its purpose is and when it shall be created (the first half of 2010). The purpose is to “identify the acts that led to the present situation, and to propose to the people of Honduras elements to avoid that these deeds will be repeated in the future.”

From what has transpired so far, it seems clear, though, that OAS was actively involved in the events that led up to the violation of the constitution by the executive; and so was the U.S. of A. It thus seems rather self-evident that those two have a vested interest in getting a seat in the Truth Commission in order to prevent it from getting to the truth. The OAS and the U.S. therefore ought to be excluded even from consideration. The same goes for all allies of Venezuela, and even Costa Rica, since Oscar Arias obviously must have been an accomplice in the mediatic pyjamas charade.

In spite of this, the new president Pepe Lobo seems to be contemplating granting OAS a role in the commission. If he wants to make sure it fails, that would be a good strategy. If he, on the other hand, really wants to promote democracy and the defense of the republic, he is shooting himself in the foot.

To me, having followed this closely for 7 months, there seems to be some pretty obvious conclusions to draw from this. However, any conclusion I may have drawn is only tentative, as I have not been able to interview anyone in any official way, only off the record and on condition of anonymity. That is why I proposed the Truth Commission in the context of the San José talks, where it was subsequently introduced by the Micheletti side.

Let me repeat that: The Truth Commission was proposed by the side representing the democratic institutions of Honduras.

It is therefore with apprehension I see this spectacle unfold, by which the OAS – surely supported by the U.S. – apparently tries to bury the whole enterprise, truth and all.

The Truth Commission as I envisioned it should be composed of Hondurans, and if there were to be any foreigners involved, it would have to be people that did not in any way, shape, or form take part in what happened before or during June 28.

If Pepe Lobo undermines this effort, then I would urge the truly democratic forces of Honduras to set up a non-governmental, independent truth commission, that can closely follow and constructively criticize the official one. This week is the “moment of truth” for Pepe Lobo.

Obama okayed leftist coup d’état for “peace”

It is easy to understand why the Obama administration was trying to isolate Honduras, by closing diplomatic relations, not letting them explain themselves in the UN, and revoking visas for everyone who knew what had transpired last june 28. It is easy to understand when you learn that the Obama administration had given a green light to Chávez-supported Zelaya to commit a coup d’état in Honduras.

Consider that it is not just decision-makers and influential persons in the private sector who have got their visas revoked lately. Also civil servants have now got their visas revoked, according to media reports from the country. These may have worked for the government for years, and their “crime” is not to have resigned, not to have given up their income. That is reason enough for the Obama administration to punish them by revoking their visas, so they can no longer visit friends and family in the U.S. It doesn’t make any sense – unless the true purpose of the revocation is, precisely, to prevent them from visiting friends and family.

It will not in any way, shape, or form alter Honduras’ foreign policy. So why do it? Why antagonize people both in the U.S. and in Honduras?

The simple truth is probably that the U.S. is ashamed of what it did in Honduras. Obama doesn’t want anybody from Honduras who knows what he did to visit the U.S., without first incriminating themselves, by forcing them to admit that they were at fault. Even though they weren’t. It’s like a Dan Rather-case all over again.

Maybe you ask, what stops them from talking to American visitors to their country? Simple, the travel warnings, the un-necessary travel warnings that keep most Americans away for no good reason – except to hide Obama’s shame.

I have written extensively about the events on this blog, but to sum up: The elected president, Manuel Zelaya, was carrying out a coup d’état that would have been completed June 28 last year. He did this with the support of Venezuela’s de facto dictator and former military coupster Hugo Chávez, and with Insulza from the Organization for American States, OAS. All of these approved of the blatant violation of the Constitution of the Republic of Honduras, and of ignoring the separation of powers. Obama through his ambassador Llorens also knew, and tried to convince Zelaya not to carry out the coup d’état. However, he made a fundamental diplomatic error, a blunder of the same proportions as Chamberlain with his “peace for our time.”

Obama refused to back up his words with force.

In fact, he went even further – he vowed that if the democratic institutions tried to stop the coup d’état, he would side with the would-be dictator Zelaya, and denounce the democratic institutions as coupsters. Exactly what happened.

Word in Honduras (from someone whose visa has been revoked) is that it was senator Kerry who set this policy. Obama has no foreign policy experience. Why he didn’t consult Hillary Clinton is beyond me, she seems to have a lot more balls than either Obama or Kerry. Regardless of who advised him, Obama is responsible.

So here we are, the Republic of Honduras as the champion of the rule of law and the defense of constitutional democracy, while the U.S. is so ashamed they are hurting innocent persons just to avoid having the facts get out.

What will happen next? The truth always gets out in the end. There are numerous court cases that in one way or another hinge on the legality of what happened June 28, 2009. When courts start making their decisions, the lies will crumble. That is why the U.S. is in such a hurry to get this case off the agenda, into the history books, where the truth can’t hurt them any more.

In case you wonder what the justification was for the U.S. to revoke the visas, such as for the cabinet members in this last round, it is another lie: That Honduras has not adhered to the Tegucigalpa/San José Accord that was signed as a result of the Guaymuras dialog.

Here is my challenge to Obama: You have a person in the verification commission that is overseeing the implementation of the agreement, Solis. Show me the minutes from that commission’s meetings, show me the complaints that it was not being implemented, and show me the decisions of the commission. Until you do that, your words are empty and lack credibility. There is a process established, and if you yourself do not adhere to it, you have nobody to blame but yourself. Show me the minutes or shut up.

The verification commission of the Guaymuras agreement. From left Corrales, Lagos, Rico (from OAS), Solis, and Reina.
The verification commission of the Guaymuras agreement. From left Arturo Corrales (representive for the government of Honduras), ex president Ricardo Lagos from Chile, Victor Rico (representing OAS which coordinates the commission), labor secretary Hilda Solis from USA, and Jorge Arturo Reina (representive for the deposed president Manuel Zelaya).

Footnote: Given that the verification commission is coordinated by OAS, an organization that supported Zelaya’s coup d’état, I have no illusions that it will be forthcoming with protocols that reveal that the agreement was broken by Zelaya, not Honduras.

Update 21:20 ET: The president elect, Porfirio Lobo, has today signed an agreement in the Dominican Republic that includes creating a unity government, letting Manuel Zelaya leave Honduras as a free man on January 27th immediately after he takes office, and working for amnesty for all. I suppose there are some who are genuinely afraid of what might be revealed in a court hearing. Hondurans have not forgotten that Lobo was for the plan for changing the constitution. It has been suggested that the inauguration gift from the Honduran people should be a pajamas, so that he never forgets who he works for. [See negative reaction in Guatemala]

The outgoing president, through the Minister of Indstria y Comercio, Benjamin Bogran, said, “la posición del Presidente Micheletti, es respetar las decisiones que tomé don Porfirio Lobo como nuevo Presidente, y el pueblo lo eligió como su presidente, por lo que confiamos que sus decisiones tomadas serán las mejores, pero las leyes también se respetan. Esperamos que sea lo mejor para Honduras.

In translation, “The position of president Micheletti is to respect the decisions taken by Mr Porfirio Lobo as the new president, given that the people elected him as their president, why we have faith that his decisions will be the best, but that the laws also will be respected. We expect that this will be the best for Honduras.”

Addition 21:40: Swedish news agency TT, together with AFP, continues to peddle the lie that the regular presidential election in November, held every 4 years since 1981, was an extra election. See, e.g., SvD, DN. It goes to show how far the propaganda has gone, that it is virtually impossible to get mainstream press to stop spreading a lie once some goon has managed to get it planted. AFP has clearly demonstrated a total lack of journalistic integrity when reporting about Honduras. It is noteworthy that these Swedish newspapers do not correct their text even when they are repeatedly being told that they are wrong.

Honduras’ Congress: 111-14 against reinstating Zelaya

Here is the resolution from the Congress of Honduras, and the reaction from president Roberto Micheletti, whose appointment has now been confirmed. There was first a “debate”, in which mainly supporters of the reinstatement made their points, notably Cesar Ham. After that the voting followed, but a few persons in, they started making statements about their reason for voting as they did, and those statements also grew very long. However, it was interesting to hear the various points of views about Zelaya. A number of persons told about how they had supported Zelaya, but had abandoned him due to his plans for remaining in power. They denounced how the presidency changed, how a small group tried to hold on to power, how others had good intentions but were betrayed, and that in effect a coup was planned. It was truly an historical session, and I hope it is recorded and put online so that all Hondurans can listen to it and learn from it. – Below are comments written while watching the debate unfolding.

At this very moment (15:00 Honduran time) the Congress in Honduras is debating the reinstatement of Zelaya, according to the Guaymuras agreement signed several weeks ago. A motion has been introduced to ratify the decision to depose Zelaya in June, and to replace him with Roberto Micheletti. The motion had a great number of sponsors, but I could not count if it was over 50% of the members (there are 128 members).

Congress member Cesar Ham, who is pro-Zelaya, leader of the leftist party UD who got a low single-digit percentage of votes in the election last Sunday, has been talking for a while now, saying that Honduras is a dictatorship. But when he said that a large number of people had been killed (I missed the exact number) he got booed. He says that he wants an “assemblea constituyente”, i.e., a constituting constitutional assembly, in other words, to throw out the constitution of the Republic of Honduras. Just as a comparison, if a U.S.  congressperson had said that, they would have violated their oath of office.

The head of the PINU group in congress is now speaking. He started by pointing out that international media should take notice that Honduras is a democracy, and that everyone is allowed to speak their point of view (with obvious reference to Cesar Ham’s discourse).

A lawyer is talking now. Apparently not a good one, because he cannot see the difference between prosecuting and condemning a citizen criminally, and removing an elected official from office based on prima facie evidence for violations of the constitution. He must not understand the distinction between immediately dismissing a police from his work based on e.g. a video of him beating an innocent person, and that police later being prosecuted for that crime. Manuel Zelaya has not been convicted (yet), he has only been removed from office in order to prevent further crimes against the form of government, based on Zelaya’s publicly stated intentions.

After 4 hours the voting is still on-going, since many of the congressmen are making long statements about the reasons for their vote. Several are very passionate, and that on both sides of the issue; both those who consider that Zelaya was planning a coup d’état (and they are numerous), and those who consider that it was a coup to depose him. I haven’t counted, but the initial tendency was clearly for accepting the motion to approve the decision taken in June to replace Zelaya with Micheletti.

At 21:35 they finished voting, the result being 111 for the motion, 14 against. This means that Congress decided NOT to reinstate Zelaya.

Media: SvD, DN (apparently published before the final vote count was finished).

Victory for Honduras and Democracy

Marking the end of an over 4 month long political crisis, during which the international community has refused to recognize the interim president appointed by the Honduran congress, replacing the one deposed for crimes against the form of government, the democratic institutions of the country have now won.

After failed negotiation attempts by the Costarrican president Oscar Arias, who put as a condition in the so-called San José Accord that Zelaya be re-instated, the talks moved to Honduran soil when the exiled president returned to Tegucigalpa and took refuge in the Brazilian embassy on September 21. This “Guaymuras Dialog” rapidly revealed a rift on the Zelaya side, in that the so-called resistance movement that has backed up Zelaya on the streets, with acts that too often turned violent, refused to give up the demand that the constitution of the country be overthrown.  Only after they were removed from the talks could progress be made.

The democratic institutions of Honduras, represented by the interim president in the talks, have had two non-negotiable demands:

  1. That the constitution lives on and the unchangeable paragraphs are kept as such
  2. That the general elections be held according to the constitution

Since also the other side has claimed to be concerned about the constitution – except for the resistance movement that is – there was a common ground on which to negotiate a peaceful settlement.

The settlement says that both parties, the deposed president and the interim president, defer back to the democratic institutions to settle the matter. The real victor here is thus the National Congress of Honduras, the people’s democratic representatives. In other words, the winner is the people of Honduras and the democracy as such.

The little country that could

In many states throughout history a strong man has tried to consolidate power in his hand, at the expense of the parliament. Honduras is one of those rare but inspiring cases in which the democratic institutions held their own, and stopped the wannabe dictator.

This is the first major setback for Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and his pseudo-democratic “Bolivarian Revolution”. After Venezuela similar power grabs have been carried out in Ecuador, Bolivia, and right now a constitutional coup attempt is under way in Nicaragua.

The victory of Honduras’ democratic institutions in defending the constitutional democracy apparently scared the living daylight out of Chávez, who is now spewing sulfur over Obama in his speeches – partly for the bases in Colombia, partly for his role in getting the Guaymuras Accord finalized.

The final concession was from Micheletti, who agreed that Congress, not the Supreme Court, should have the final word on whether Zelaya should be reinstated or not. From what I gather the lure brought by undersecretary Thomas Shannon was a carrot, not a stick, because as soon as the ink was dry on the paper the U.S. promised to immediately start normalizing the relations.

Thus, the U.S. is normalizing the relations based not on the reinstatement of Zelaya, but on the parties acknowledging that the ultimate decision rests with the Congress. This is the important take-away for Latin American democracy. The president is not supreme; he is just serving the people, and he has to follow the constitution and respect the other branches of government.

A new page just opened in the development of democracy in Latin America, and it was turned by Honduras, a most unlikely champion for democracy given its history of military coups.

Honduras - the little country that could

Background: President Manuel Zelaya issued a decree on holding a poll regarding a constitutional matter on  June 25th, 2009, in direct violation of a Supreme Court cease and desist order, which led to an arrest order being issued for him by the Supreme Court, executed by the military on June 28th, after which the National Congress appointed Roberto Micheletti as interim president to serve until January 27th, 2010.

Media: DN, SvD.

Guaymuras-överenskommelsen i sin helhet

För några minuter sedan kom den formella texten till Guaymuras-överenskommelsen mig tillhanda. Det finns också en sammanfattning (bägge på spanska förstås). Jag skall sammanfatta det viktigaste här:

  1. Samlingsregering. Tillträder senast den 5 november, med representanter för olika segment av det politiska och civila samhället.
  2. Konstituerande grundlagsförsamling. Ingenting får göras åt det hållet, vare sig direkt eller indirekt, explicit eller implicit, i gärning eller ord.
  3. Valet. Alla skall samarbeta för att hålla ett fredligt val med högt valdeltagande.
  4. Militär och polis. Militären skall stå till valmyndighetens förfogande månaden före valet enligt grundlagen.
  5. Verkställande makten. Detta avtal skall tillställas nationalkongressen senast 30 oktober (idag), och de ombeds fatta det avgörande beslutet om att återinsätta Zelaya, efter att ha inhämtat synpunkter från de övriga instanser de anser lämpligt, till exempel högsta domstolen.
  6. Verifieringskommission och sanningskommission. En verifieringskommission skall tillsättas senast den 2 november med uppgift att avgöra tvistemål om tolkningen av detta avtal, och tillse dess efterlevnad. En sanningskommission skall tillsättas det första halvåret 2010 för att utreda händelseförloppet som ledde till den konstitutionella krisen, och lämna rekommendationer om åtgärder för att undvika ett upprepande.
  7. Utrikesrelationer. Parterna ber respektfullt omvärlden att omedelbart häva alla sanktioner och liknande som har vidtagits mot Honduras.
  8. Tvister. Tolkningstvister tillställes verifieringskommissionen.
  9. Tidsplan. 30 okt undertecknande, överlämnande till kongressen. Den 2 nov tillsätts verifieringskommissionen. Senast 5 nov tillträder samlingsregeringen. Den 27 januari 2010 överlämnas makten till vinnaren av valet den 29 november. Första halvåret 2010 tillsätts sanningskommissionen.
  10. Slutdeklaration.
  11. Tack.
  12. Ikraftträdande. Mellan parterna träder avtalet i kraft vid sitt undertecknande. Formellt träder det i kraft vid en officiell akt den 2 november.

Undertecknat av representanter för den avsatte presidenten Zelaya, och interimspresidenten Micheletti.

Media: DN, SvD.

Status 2010-01-10: 1. En samlingsregering bildades men Zelaya bojkottade den. 2. Den så kallade resistencian fortsätter att verka för en konstituerande grundlagsförsamling och revolution. 3. Zelaya och “resistencian” motarbetade det ordinarie valet 2009. 4. Militär och polis ställdes under valnämndens befäl. 5. Kongressen tog upp frågan och beslutade ratificera sitt tidigare beslut. 6. En verifieringskommission tillsattes, medan tillsättandet av sanningskommissionen är aktuellt först efter presidentskiftet den 27 januari 2010. 7. Zelaya har inte fullgjort sitt åtagande och omvärlden har, med få undantag, heller inte respekterat överenskommelsen. 8. Zelaya har ensidigt förklarat avtalet brutet utan att tillställa verifieringskommissionen tolkningstvisten. 9. Hittills har tidsplanen hållts av regeringssidan. Det kan vara värt att notera att det framgår att överlämnandet av presidentposten skall ske den 27 januari, varför USAs krav i förra veckan att Micheletti avgår i förtid strider inte bara mot Honduras grundlag utan också mot denna överenskommelse som de själva pressade igenom.

Avtal undertecknat i Honduras: Krisen över!

Uppdatering 13:15 ET: Jag har nu pratat med presstalesmannen för president Micheletti för att få klarhet på vissa punkter. Zelaya hade ännu inte undertecknat överenskommelsen för en kvart sedan, de väntade just på att förhandlarna skulle komma ut från ett möte.

Micheletti-regeringen är mycket nöjd med att överenskommelsen är klar, fastän det var de som gjorde den avgörande eftergiften igår kväll. La Gringa skrev på sin Blogicito att det förekom starka påtryckningar från USAs vice utrikesminister Shannon mot Micheletti. Detta tillbakavisas dock bestämt av den senares presstalesman. Tvärtom skulle Shannon ha varit mycket artig, och till och med ambassadör Hugo Llorens skulle ha använt den diplomatiska titeln som tillkommer en statschef då han tilltalade Micheletti. Detta fäste den senare stort avseende vid, och det kan ha fått honom att våga ta steget att överlåta åt kongressen att besluta om Zelayas eventuella återinsättande.

Ursprunglig text 11:38 ET: I natt undertecknade delegationerna för Micheletti och Zelaya en överenskommelse i den så kallade Guaymuras-dialogen. Avtalet innehåller följande punkter, vilka lästes upp av fd ordföranden i högsta domstolen, Vilma Morales:

  1. Tillsättandet av en samlingsregering.
  2. Ingen politisk amnesti skall ges, men åtal skall skjutas upp tills vidare.
  3. Ingen konstituerande grundlagsförsamling får hållas, och de paragrafer som är oföränderliga skall så förbli.
  4. Fullt stöd för den pågående valprocessen och maktskiftet därefter.
  5. Kommandot över militären överförs till valmyndigheten.
  6. En kommission tillsätts vars uppgift det är att verifiera efterlevnaden av detta avtal.
  7. En sanningskommission skapas för att utreda händelseförloppet före, under och efter händelserna den 28 juni 2009.
  8. Avtalsparterna är eniga om att be det internationella samfundet att normalisera relationerna med Honduras.
  9. Parterna är eniga om att stödja ett förslag som leder till en omröstning i nationalkongressen, baserat på ett dessförinnan utfärdat utlåtande från högsta domstolen, om att återinsätta den exekutiva statsmakten från före den 28 juni i sin helhet.

Den sista punkten är alltså den om Zelayas återinsättande. Avtalen innebär således att högsta domstolen först ger sin syn på saken, varefter kongressen röstar om Zelaya och hela hans regering skall återinsättas eller ej.

Rent formellt så kan naturligtvis ingen i denna dialog tala om för högsta domstolen eller kongressen vad de skall göra, så detta är bara rådgivande för de statsmakterna. Med tanke på att bägge var med på att avsätta Zelaya så är det inte mycket som talar för att han kommer att återinsättas, i all synnerhet inte som hans mandatperiod ändå sjunger på absolut sista versen. Enligt grundlagen skulle han redan ha fått ge upp en av rollerna, nämligen den som ÖB (vilket återspeglas i punkt 5, en redundant punkt eftersom det är givet av grundlagen).

Avtalet kommer att leda till att omvärlden normaliserar förbindelserna med Honduras, för det finns nu absolut ingenting kvar som motiverar en tuff inställning. Skulle något land hålla inne erkännandet så betyder det bara att det landet ställer sig helt utanför normala demokratiska principer.

Medan Zelayas delegat Carlos Eduardo Reina sa att “Zelayas återinsättande är omedelbart förestående” så sa Michelettis förhandlare Aruro Corrales att de hade gått med på Zelayasidans krav att kongressen och inte domstolen skulle avgöra frågan för att få ett slut på krisen.

Därmed är krisen över, under förutsättning att Zelayas anhängare inte bryter med honom och fortsätter den revolutionära kampen på egen hand.

En faktor som kan ha fått Micheletti att backa är de tre mord på kort tid som drabbat hans familj och närstående, och som påstås vara politiska. Vanligtvis välunderrättade källor, som det brukar heta, försäkrar dock eder rapportör att demokratianhängare kan fortsätta sova lugnt, och folket kan fortsätta lita på sina valda representanter.

Media: DN, SvD. Den senare tidningen lär dock få anledning äta upp sin rubrik inom kort.


Det finns mycket fina turistmål i Honduras, inklusive korallrevsdykning på Bay Islands (Roatán, Útila), mayastaden Copán, och ekoturism i världens näst största orörda regnskog i östra Honduras. Men turismen har dalat katastrofalt till följd av USAs och andra länders resevarningar. Själv tror jag mer på vänner i landet som säger att det inte finns någon anledning att hålla sig borta, så härom dagen köpte jag en biljett dit till mycket fördelaktigt pris. Jag skall försöka hålla bloggen uppdaterad då jag är i Honduras, så om du tittar in då och då får du se hur det lyckas.

Dokument från president Roberto Micheletti

Här finns en kopia av president Michelettis tal, och ett uttalande från förhandlingsdelegationen, på spanska.

The proposals from Micheletti and Zelaya

The following document just arrived from the negotiations in Honduras. First the proposal from Micheletti, then the proposal from Zelaya. As you can see, the first one leaves it entirely up to the Supreme Court to decide on a possible reinstatement of Zelaya, while the second proposes that the Congress takes a specific resolution reinstating him.



Para lograr la reconciliación nacional y fortalecer la democracia, reconocemos la legitimidad de los poderes constituidos al 28 de junio de 2009: el Poder Legislativo, Poder Judicial y el Tribunal Supremo Electoral, por haber sido conformados según los Artículos 202, 205, numerales 9 y 11 de la Constitución de la República. En cuanto a la pretensión del ciudadano José Manuel Zelaya Rosales de retornar a la Presidencia de la República, condicionamos nuestro acuerdo al criterio institucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, como ente encargado constitucionalmente de la aplicación de la ley.

Lo anterior implica que la opinión del Poder Judicial, tendrá carácter vinculante y por consiguiente de obligatorio cumplimiento para las partes intervinientes en este Dialogo. Para este propósito respetuosamente formulamos atenta solicitud al Poder Judicial y al efecto se le cursa los términos del presente acuerdo.



Respetuosamente solicitamos al Congreso Nacional que, previo dictamen de  las instancias pertinentes, si lo estima necesario, emita la decisión correspondiente a ese punto, que textualmente dice:

“Para lograr la reconciliación y fortalecer la democracia, solicitamos al Congreso Nacional que, a efectos de recuperar la integración y legitima conformación de los poderes constituidos al 28 de junio de 2009, en lo procedente retrotraiga la situación del Poder Ejecutivo y el Poder Legislativo por haber sido conformados según los artículos 202 y 236 de la Constitución de la República de Honduras. Lo anterior implica el retorno de José Manuel Zelaya Rosales a la Presidencia de la República hasta la conclusión del actual periodo gubernamental, el 27 de enero de 2010”.

This is exactly what could be deduced days ago about the positions. What should be striking for the world is that the current regime is prepared to let the legitimate court of law decide the case, but the ex president is not. Countries that continue to support Zelaya after this have lost all moral authority as regards the rule of law, and thus democracy.

Swedish media: DN, SvD

Honduran blog with excellent information not found abroad: La Gringa’s Blogicito

Ingen överenskommelse kl 17 idag

Honduras president Roberto Micheletti bekräftade enligt La Prensa att idag på sena eftermiddagen lokal tid fanns det ännu ingen överenskommelse på den sista punkten i förhandlingarna, den så kallade Dialogo Guaymuras. Den punkt som äterstår sedan igår gäller Zelayas återinsättande.

Det som skiljer de båda parternas ståndpunkter åt är vilken institution som skall fatta det formella beslutet, nationalkongressen eller Högsta Domstolen. Zelaya vill att kongressen skall fatta avgörandet om hans återinsättning, men Micheletti hävdar att det är en juridisk fråga och alltså inom domstolens kompetensområde.

I en pressrelease från presidentämbetet meddelades att förhandlingarna kommer att fortsätta imorgon torsdag. Det är den dag, den 15 oktober, som Zelaya satt som deadline.

Texten som de i övrigt har kommit överens om har nu tillställts de bägge huvudmännen, Zelaya och Micheletti, men dess innehåll hålls fortfarande hemligt för utomstående.

De politiska striderna läggs nu åt sidan tills imorgon. Förhandlingarna avbröts för att klockan 18 lokal tid kunna följa fotbollsmatchen mellan Honduras och El Salvador. Om Honduras vinner, och USA tar poäng på Costa Rica, så går Honduras till VM för första gången på många herrans år.

Svenskan skriver att de nått en överenskommelse, enligt Zelayas förhandlare Victor Meza. Enligt La Prensa talade dock inte Meza om vad punkt 6 innehöll, för att inte förekomma Micheletti. Vad den senare sa, som jag återgav ovan, frågan om vem som skall fatta beslutet, förefaller vara den återstående punkten. Genom att kombinera uppgifter från de olika källorna kan man gissa att överenskommelsen säger att Zelaya skall återinsättas på villkor att det kompetenta organet godkänner det, men att man ännu inte enats om vilket som är det kompetenta organet.

Uppdatering 19:48: Just som ovanstående publicerats ändrade Svenskan sin artikel. Nedan visas den ursprungliga och den nya.

Svenskans ursprungliga text.
Svenskans ursprungliga text.
Svenskans nya text.
Svenskans nya text.

Dialogo Guaymuras: Fortfarande bristande klarsyn

Igår inleddes dialogen i Honduras självt om dess framtid. De höga herrarna som hade rest dit från utlandet för att, som president Micheletti sa, vara “hedersvittnen” till processen, sa ungefär:

“Det här är en honduransk angelägenhet och vi accepterar vilken lösning som helst som Honduras enas om, så länge ni skriver på Oscar Arias plan, för annars…!”

Medan OAS ordförande Insulza och flera andra sålunda talade med kluven tunga, talade Micheletti desto mer klartext då han för n:te gången i ordningen enträget bad dem att lyssna på Honduras, och ta hänsyn till vad som hänt före den 28 juni. Han sa till dem att “vi är inte rädda för USA, för Brasilien, för Mexiko, men vi är livrädda för Mel Zelaya.”

Idag höll de ånyo en presskonferens, och delegaten från Costa Rica läste upp ett uttalande av vilket jag missade början. Det framgick dock att de ännu inte har klart för sig att Zelaya är efterlyst för allvarliga brott. De verkar tro att det går att hitta en politisk lösning och att man kan strunta i brotten. Men en demokrati med oberoende statsmakter fungerar inte så. Är alla dessa Amerikanska stater verkligen så korrupta att de inte förstår att presidenten inte kan ge order till Högsta Domstolen eller kongressen? I så fall finns det ännu större anledning att gratulera Honduras.