Honduras president Micheletti today accused Insulza, president of the Organization for American States (OAS), for being an accomplice in Zelaya’s failed coup d’état in Honduras June 28 last year.
The interview is published in the Tegucigalpa newspaper El Heraldo. When Zelaya, then president of Honduras, was preparing to hold a referendum that had been declared illegal by the Supreme Court, Insulza nonetheless sent official election observers, in open spite of the democratic institutions of Honduras. As then president of the Congress, Micheletti tried to talk some sense into Insulza, questioning how OAS (known as OEA in Spanish) could support an unconstitutional act by the president of Honduras, but the Chilean was unreasonable.
“I hold [Insulza] responsible for what happened in the country,” said Micheletti.
On the follow-up question “Was Insulza an accomplice to Zelaya?”, he replied, “He was an accomplice, he became an accomplice, and he remains an accomplice.” On an earlier question he had responded that “[Zelaya] was trying to do a coup d’état” (estaba tratando de dar un golpe de Estado).
The irony is that the purpose of OAS is to defend democracy, and here they were supporting a coup d’état.
Take a deep breath and think about it.
The interviewer continued, “How would the country be today if the intervention on June 28 had not taken place?”
“We would have had a dictator, a bunch of people taking away people’s rights and properties,” replied Micheletti. From a European perspective it might seem that this statement would need support, but from a Latin American perspective, all the support required can be found in the actual developments of the other countries where the same chain of events has taken place: Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador. Just the other day there was news from Chávez that he is expropriating a large chain of supermarkets because he doesn’t like their prices. All the tracks go in one direction.
“Are you convinced of this, Mr President?” continued the reporter.
“-Without a moment of doubt I respond: I am totally convinced, totally convinced.”
He recounts earlier in the interview how on 5 different occasions a number of people, including U.S. ambassador Llorens, tried to convince Zelaya not to go ahead with the illegal referendum, but to no avail. Micheletti interprets this to mean that Zelaya had made a promise, a commitment [to Chávez], that he couldn’t break no matter how illegal it was.
In that connection Llorens said that the U.S. would not recognize Honduras if they deposed Zelaya. This swayed some members of congress, whom Micheletti refers to as “cowards” rather than by name.
However, Zelaya’s acts grew increasingly criminal in the following days, and the decisions were taken at haste. What happened was not planned, it was an emergency decision to save democracy, he recounts.
After taking office Micheletti started calling people to set up a government. Although he warned them that their government would not be recognized by the world, not a single person turned down his request. As he puts it, he found himself surrounded by people who were prepared for a fight against wind and tide, “contra viento y marea”.
PS. Is it too far-fetched to suspect that Obama has withdrawn U.S. visas from leading personalities in Honduras just to prevent them from coming here and giving interviews, thus revealing what actually happened?