Posts Tagged ‘Honduras’

« Older Entries

Why is TV Channel 8 so important in Honduras?

Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

The situation in Honduras has not normalized. The new president, Porfirio Lobo, or “Pepe”, is continuing a policy of his elected predecessor Manuel Zelaya to ignore Supreme Court rulings. A couple of years ago the highest judicial authority in Honduras ruled that TV channel 8 was to be controlled by Mr Afiusa. However, president Zelaya refused to accept that verdict, wanting the frequency instead for a government channel. When Zelaya was deposed last year, for violating another Supreme Court ruling, interim president Micheletti started paying rent for channel 8 to Mr. Afiusa, and declared that the state channel started by Zelaya to propagate his plans for overthrowing the constitution was operated illegally, and should be shut down.

However, Pepe refuses to abide by the court decision, and sent the matter to Congress. Yesterday the Congress passed a motion declaring that channel 8 belongs to the state. A minority vehemently opposed the move, saying that it violates the Constitution and the separation of powers.

But why on earth is it so important for the government to have channel 8, as opposed to another channel, like 20 for instance, which it already has the right to?

About this one can only speculate. Is it a mere coincidence that their southern neighbor, the ALBA-country Nicaragua, earlier this year bought the private TV-channel 8? This temporarily forced off the air a debate program led by Carlos Fernando Chamorro (son of former president Violeta Chamorro), a strong critic of the present president and former revolutionary Daniel Ortega.

Or is it a mere coincidence that the state TV-network In Venezuela sends on channel 8 in all the country? Chavez’s Sunday TV show “Alo Presidente” is seen on Venezolana de Television (VTV) every Sunday, and so are the “news” broadcasts from TeleSur, the international satellite TV channel that staged “news” in Honduras last year.

Is it, furthermore, a mere coincidence that the vote in the parliament was accompanied by street violence targeting news media and the human rights ombudsman, and led by Zelaya’s local henchmen, people like Rasel Tomé, Rafael Alegría, and Juan Barahona? Tomé was intimately connected to the illegally run channel 8 during the Zelaya administration, and Alegría has been denounced as leading street violence with mobs paid by Chávez.

The eery feeling in Honduras under Lobo is of a “dejá vu all over again”. Lobo misunderstood the lesson from June 28 last year. Instead of learning that nobody is above the law not even the president, he understood that a president is an elected modern-day king. Why did he get it wrong? Simple. The international community reacted as if the president is a modern-day elected king, and that’s the lesson he learned.

The international community reacted all wrong, but not by chance. The news cycle was dominated by a Chávez channel, TeleSur. The UN General Assembly was controlled by a Sandinista revolutionary. The OAS was controlled by an Allende-friend. The deck of cards was stacked against the rule of law, and the majority of countries were sleep-walking, believing that someone else was in charge on the bridge, controlling the helm.

Let us hope and pray that there won’t be a next time, but above all, let’s work to avoid a repetition by spreading the news a bit better. Shall we?

Read more at La Gringa’s Blogicity – and check the comments too for more info.

Tags: , ,
Posted in English | No Comments »

Dick Emanuelsson i blåsväder – igen

Wednesday, September 1st, 2010

Dick Emanuelsson är en svensk journalist som skriver för den fd kommunistiska tidningen Norrskensflamman, nu bara Flamman, från Honduras huvudstad Tegucigalpa. Han skriver också mycket på nätet på spanska. De som läser både svenska och spanska kan notera att det han skriver på respektive språk inte alltid verkar stå i så bra samklang med vartannat.

Detta, jämte observationer jag gjort då jag nära följt hans arbete i Honduras efter att de rättsvårdande institutionerna förra året avsatte president Zelaya, gör att jag betraktar Emanuelsson mera som en politisk infiltratör än som journalist. Hans journalistställning är, enligt min uppfattning, en täckmantel, och ett inträdespass till rum dit han annars inte skulle kunna ta sig.

När det gäller Honduras har jag konstaterat hur Emanuelsson, i intervjuer av ledare för dem som kallar sig “motståndsrörelsen” (men som alltså är de som stödde Zelayas – av högsta domstolen förbjudna – försök till konstitutionell statskupp), lagt ord och policy i deras mun. Genom att följa händelserna i landet i realtid kunde jag konstatera att denna rörelses strategi och inställning verkade komma från Emanuelsson, förmedlad i intervjuer med rörelsens ledare i vilka Emanuelsson skickligt styrde konversationen till den punkt han ville få fram. Eftersom Emanuelssons texter på spanska har mycket stor spridning i den latinamerikanska vänstern, medan rörelsens ledare har små möjligheter att nå ut med sitt budskap direkt utan är beroende av media, så har Emanuelsson kunnat inympa sin ideologi på utvecklingen i Honduras, enligt min analys.

Och var är då Emanuelssons ideologi, vilken riktning har han drivit rörelsen i? Jo, i konfrontationens riktning. Han har pushat för att inte prata med företrädarna för staten eller medelklassen, utan att ta en stenhård konfrontativ attityd, vilket har inneburit våldsamma demonstrationer på gatorna istället för en fredlig och konstruktiv dialog.

Detta har inte gynnat någon i Honduras. Det har varit en katastrofal policy, även för vänstern själv.

Förra året inbjöd interimspresident Roberto Micheletti representanter för alla grupper i Honduras – inklusive de som kallar sig “motståndsrörelsen” – till en dialog för att lösa den politiska krisen, och börja ta itu med de underliggande frågor som hade utlöst den akuta krisen. Detta var ett gyllene tillfälle för vänstern.

Jag har själv i många år argumenterat för att reformer är nödvändiga i Honduras. För att en dialog mellan företagarna och arbetarna är nödvändig. För att en ny social ordning är nödvändig, kanske med förebild av den svenska Saltsjöbadsandan. Men intresset från de rikas sida har varit svalt.

Tills i fjol höstas. Då förlorade de pengar i floder, och de insåg att de hade allt att vinna på att gå med på kompromisser. Krisen medförde en möjlighet till en ny nationell anda, till att Honduras skulle kunna enas som ett folk, med större solidaritet inom landet än till de olika gruppernas egna intressen. Tiden var mogen. Jag var bland dem som föreslog och argumenterade för att Micheletti skulle bjuda in till en stor nationell dialog, därför att jag hörde genom mina kontakter att de som tidigare varit mot dialog nu var beredda att samtala.

Men vad hände? Vänstern vägrade. De hade en unik chans, och kastade bort den! Nu är det för sent. Loppet är kört. De ekonomisk förlusterna har redan tagits, och arbetarna har inte längre något att erbjuda företagarna i en kompromiss. De spelade bort sina kort.

Och var stod Emanuelsson i detta? Jo, helt klart sympatiserade han med de kompromisslösa. Med de som i Sverige skulle kunna karaktäriseras som gammelkommunister, för vilka ingen dialog är möjlig, ingen kompromiss är önskvärd, och för vilka kapitalismen är ett otyg som måste utplånas. Som vi vet är det inte där framtiden ligger.

Så enligt min uppfattning har Emanuelsson skadat Honduras, men såvitt jag är medveten om har han i huvudsak gjort det genom att agera lagligt, om än moraliskt tveksamt. Till exempel har han skrivit saker som jag uppfattar som krigshets mot Honduras (och vilket jag bloggade om här). Men alldeles oavsett sådana saker, så har han skadat landet genom att sprida gammelkommunistiska idéer från historiens sophög. Han är en skam för Sverige, men så länge han agerar demokratiskt och lagligt så har han rätt att fortsätta. Detta har också Micheletti-administrationen varit medvetna om. De kände mycket väl till vad han gjorde, och från vad jag hört var instruktionen att låta honom arbeta ostört, med mindre han begick något uppenbart brott. Han måste ju själv ha insett att han var under bevakning, det är ju självklart, och något annat skulle vara tjänstefel av säkerhetstjänsten.

Den senaste tiden har dock en incident kommit fram i samband med en demonstration i Honduras. En pressfotograf som jobbat för Micheletti blev tydligen olagligt visiterad av demonstrationsledningen, enligt en bloggartikel av Jorge Copelan, och Dick Emanuelsson var tydligen intimt förknippad med denna händelse, att döma av Copelans text. Kanske Emanuelsson gått över linjen, som det heter på engelska. Kanske kände han sig provocerad, men det är ingen ursäkt. Om han sticker ut hakan så mycket som han gjort så måste han tåla att pressfotografer fotograferar honom. Det är ju faktiskt deras jobb!

Låt mig också påpeka att i Copelans artikel om Dick Emanuelsson finns direkta felaktigheter i sak, samt en partiell redovisning av vissa andra fakta som är gjord i propagandasyfte. Till exempel, mordfrekvensen i Honduras utelämnas. Den är skyhög, faktiskt världens högsta. Att 10 journalister strukit med är inte så högt över vad som gäller för andra yrkesgrupper. Dessutom har en studie gjord av en opartisk observatör i USA visat att det inte finns något mönster för vilka journalister som mördats, annat än att möjligen samtliga rapporterat om organiserad brottslighet. De mördade är både sådana som sympatiserat med Zelaya, med Micheletti, och politiskt neutrala, utan klar tendens.

Om Emanuelsson har gjort något olagligt eller ej kan inte jag svara på, men om han bor i Honduras så måste han underställa sig honduransk lag och acceptera deras rättsvårdande myndigheter. Vill han inte det så föreslår jag att han åker hem till Sverige, och har han inte råd med det så föreslår jag UD att de hjälper honom; dels för hans skull, dels för Sveriges skull, men även för Honduras och Latinamerikas skull. Han har ju tidigare tvingats lämna Colombia efter att ha haft alltför nära kontakter med den i Sverige terroriststämplade FARC-gerillan, känd för kidnappningar, knarkhandel och sin kommunistiska ideologi. Vill han inte till Sverige kanske Kuba kan ta emot honom.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Svenska | 1 Comment »

An Economical Rescue Plan for Honduras

Tuesday, August 10th, 2010

Public hydroelectric projects can get the economy going in Honduras, create jobs, improve the national economy, and diffuse some of the social conflicts.

While many are still debating what to do with the split in Honduras, between the redshirts who want to write a new constitution from scratch, and the whiteshirts who insist on respecting the rule of law based on the existing constitution, Honduras is bleeding. Unemployment is around 30%; the economy hasn’t recovered since the double-crisis of world depression and severed diplomatic relations; crime is astronomical; and big infrastructure projects such as a hydropower project in the Patuca have seen their foreign investors pull out. The country is in crisis. What to do?

President Porfirio Lobo has spent much political capital on trying to re-establish diplomatic relations, so that foreign aid and credit can start flowing again. However, he has not managed to get the wheels turning, apparently not taking that matter so seriously. But it is imperative to deal with it.

I suggest that Honduras can lift itself by the bootstraps. This is how:

The state of Honduras should invest in infrastructure projects that lead to a long-term return on investment. There is an obvious candidate: Hydropower. Years ago I saw in a hydropower atlas that Honduras has the second highest unexploited hydropower potential per capita in the world, after Iceland. Yet, some 80% of the electricity is generated in thermic plants, using expensive imported fossil fuel in the form of diesel. Only 20% is hydropower, in a few plants owned by the state electrical utility company ENEE.

Since over 20 years the state has built no more hydropower plants, due to lack of foreign credit (which dried up when the neoconservatives took over the policy making). All new capacity has been privately funded, and thermal, since that gives a better short-term ROI. However, it is very detrimental to the national economy. Lately there has been interest from the private sector in developing hydropower, under concessions from the government. This has been met with resistance from people living in the affected areas, since they view their public land and water being given to private companies without them even being consulted.

There is a win-win way out of this, and that is to develop this renewable energy resource in a public utility instead of in a private company. By keeping it in ENEE, it will remain the property of the people, thus increasing the chances of social acceptance, and the possibility for the government to ensure an environmental-friendly implementation in harmony with local indigenous cultures.

The main reason to do this is to benefit the national economy. By carrying out the project by itself, the government can make sure that most of the money invested stays in the country, which means that it eventually comes back to the coffers of the state (in the form of taxes, decreased unemployment, and–importantly–in the form of increased GDP).

To fund the project or projects, the government should borrow money domestically, not internationally. I’ve heard that there is money in the banks, which is not lent out since there are no viable projects. Just like in the US or the EU, it is the state that has to kick-start the economy, using the principles of Keynes. By borrowing domestically they avoid creating a devaluation pressure, and once the investment starts paying off, the domestic currency (the Lempira) will gain in value, so the lenders will be paid back in a currency that was stronger than before. It’s a win-win.

Some might think that the private sector should have this chance to make money. My answer is, they do! Rather than pour the concrete they lend the money, and are payed back with interest, in a currency that is expected to be stronger than before. It seems to me that the capitalists have nothing to complain about on this plan. And as for the private engineering companies, many of them will surely get contract jobs, so they, too, should be content. The unemployed, finally, will discover that there will be more demand for them.

Once the plant is ready and operating, the hydropower will replace some of the need for thermal plants. The importation of diesel might, in theory, decrease, but in practice the overall consumption of electrical power might increase by a similar amount, due to the overall increase in GDP that these and related projects lead to.

In summary, I propose that Honduras should be able to lift itself by the bootstraps by developing hydropower within the public electric utility company ENEE, financed with domestic capital, built by domestic companies (with just some foreign assistance for key skills); and that this would lead to an increase in employment, in GDP, and a long term improvement in the state finances.

Note: These are my views and nothing else. In the interest of full disclosure I will say that I have worked as a consultant for ENEE in the past, and developed projects for environmental impact assessment of proposed hydropower projects.

Tags: , ,
Posted in English | 5 Comments »

Strengthening Democracy in Honduras

Friday, August 6th, 2010

The political map of Honduras will change for ever after last year’s political crisis, in which the vast majority of the Liberal party, supported by the main opposition party the Nacionalistas, and most of the small parties, denounced the Liberal president Manuel Zelaya after he had violated the Constitution and Supreme Court orders. For which the Supreme Court ordered his arrest by the military.

This has left the Liberal party, a party that has won 2 out of 3 elections the past 28 years, split. The left fraction around Manuel Zelaya and his ex foreign minister Patricia Rodas – who grew up in sandinista Nicaragua and clearly has her political ideology colored by that fact – has now decided to throw in their chips with the FNRP. They call themselves the “resistance” movement, in reference to a resistance against what they claim to be a “coup d’état” (i.e., the arrest and removal from office of Zelaya on June 28, 2009).

When the dust has settled, perhaps there will be three main parties instead of two in Honduras. That this is possible we see in the UK. The three might be a leftist party around FNRP (which will perhaps eventually drift to social democratic ideals rather than socialist ideals); the Liberal party based on liberal ideals; and the Nationalist party based on conservative ideals.

A problem now is that the FNRP is not accepting the legitimacy of the present government of Honduras, and thus not of the Republic of Honduras as such. From my Swedish background that is an absolutely outlandish position–and I mean that quite literally. A person who did not accept the law of the land was an outlaw, in the ancient jurisprudence of Scandinavia, and he had to seek refuge in the “outland” (i.e., abroad or in uninhabited land) since he was not protected by the law. Such a person could be killed without punishment. With the development of international law things have of course changed now, but that ancient principle is a foundation for the modern concept of nations, ever since the Peace of Westphalia: It is implicit that all citizens of a state must obey the laws of that state, or leave it.

In fact, the e-mail signature I use, “If you only knew, my son, with how little wisdom the world is run”, is a quote from a letter that Axel Oxenstierna wrote to his son when he sent him to negotiate the Peace of Westphalia on behalf of Sweden…

What FNRP is saying would be a crime in some countries, but in others it would not be a crime until they went from words to action. But regardless of the legality of it, what they are doing is, politically speaking, a very foolish and immature thing. And perhaps that is why the ruling party is allowing them to continue, because it benefits the Nationalists.

This is a pity, because Honduras really needs reform, and the FNRP has got some legitimate grievances. However, their leaders seem to lack political savvy, democratic experience, and wise advisers–or if they have, they don’t listen to them. Their whole strategy is based on them writing a new constitution, from scratch, even though it is unconstitutional according to the existing constitution, which they consider no longer to be valid. The problems with their position are, however, first that a large part of the population considers the existing constitution to be legitimate why the FNRP one automatically will be illegitimate (and according to the existing constitution all Hondurans must then restore the existing, which means the country will be split). Secondly, even if they manage to impose a new constitution, they will have done it at the price of undermining the rule of law, why it will be a Pyrrhus victory; what they really will have accoomplished, if they succeed in their enedeavor (which I find higly unlikely), is to establish the Law of the Jungle as the supreme principle in Honduras.

Thus, whether they succeed or fail in their strategy, they will fail to achieve their goals. What they need to do is to change strategy. And now I will give them some advice on what to do instead.

To achieve a functioning democracy, they must demonstrate that they are mature enough to take on the responsibility. They must participate in democratic meetings. They must demonstrate that they are ready to accept majority decisions, and implement them even if they initially voted against them.

When Micheletti was interim president he invited many of the present members of the FNRP to discussions, but they refused to attend such meetings. That was a childish reaction. It is true that meetings can be used for trickery, and they had reason to be weary, but it was unwise not to engage when the hand was streched out in search for a compromise. They had a position of power from which to negotiate, but they threw the opportunity away.

They no longer have a position of power from which to negotiate. Most countries have recognized the new government, and those that remain are getting increasingly isolated internationally, as Chávez is seen more and more as a dictator and terrorist-supporter by the week. They blew their best chance, and now they have to start with a new strategy.

That is why I advice them to start by demonstrating their committment to democracy, to the rule of law, to democratic meetings, and to following the rules. Only by doing that can they gain the confidence of their political opponents, a confidence that they need in order to negotiate reforms. They have to prove themselves as trustworthy partners in the business of managing the public good. They have to gain that respect.

The next step is to analyze the constitution and propose reforms that can increase democracy, prosperity, and transparency (thus decreasing corruption). All of this analysis has to be done, and debated publically, before the actual reforms to the constitution are proposed in Congress. This is necessary in order to gain legitimacy and public support.

As for possible reforms that may improve conditions in Honduras, I have previously proposed the introduction of parliamentarianism, thus reducing the president to a largely symbolic head of state. This can be done within the confines of the present constitution, as far as I can judge. The president cannot be reelected, but a prime minister could, meaning that in a parliamentarian system the FNRP could get that continuity that they apparently think is so important, while at the same time preventing caudillos from taking over, something that the right is rightly concerned about.

Furthermore, I would recommend the drafters of the constitutional reform to study the Swedish constitution and laws as regards the prohibition of politicians to deal with individual cases. This is a way to mitigate corruption. Note that the Swedish constitution no longer is based on the principle of power sharing, but on the sovereignty of the people. All power emanates from the people and is exercised through their elected representatives in parliament, city council, etc.

The Swedish-Finnish administrative system seems to me to be a unique design, based on ancient democratic principles. I have compared corporate law from Sweden, Denmark, France, and Florida, and while the Swedish system of governing a corporation matches the way all democratic bodies are ruled in Sweden, all the others follow a different system. The main difference is this:

In Sweden those elected cannot interfere in specifics. They hire someone to do the specifics, and all they can do if they don’t like his job is to fire him. Also, the elected persons can only take decisions in a group by voting in a formal meeting, that has to follow very specific rules (designed to prevent “palace coups”). Their main job is to set policy, and supervise that the implementation of the policy by the administration (meaning those who are employed, non-political persons) is as intended.

In the US they elect people for actual jobs. The problem with the US approach is that it leads to corruption. Instead of a corrupt permanent office holder, there is instead corrupt temporary office holders – unless the person is beyond corruption.

The Swedish form of representative democracy is designed to prevent corruption not through the threat of loosing the next election, but by design, while they are still in office. Also, it allows for persons to be hired based on competence, rather than elected based on fundraising ability. Since the state pays for university education, including in public administration, there are lots of people with a dedicated education for the task. While in the US, many officials have an education designed for the private enterprise, which is a different beast than public administration.

There is another key difference between USA and Sweden on the one hand, and Honduras on the other, that tends to be forgotten (although the UN takes it seriously and considers it perhaps the most important problem to deal with). And that is local sovereignty.

Swedish kommuner (communes) have local sovereignty, meaning they can levy taxes and decide how to use it. There are two levels of kommun, corresponding to departamento and municipalidad in Honduras. Both have an elected council, but no mayor (Sweden and Finland are the only countries in Europe that have no mayors as far as I know). Instead they are governed like a corporation in Sweden: The council hires an administrator (equivalent to a CEO), and he is in charge of operations. The council decides policy and supervises the administration, but does not decide individual cases. This latter is in stark contrast to the US, where the councilmen decide itty bitty details.

Honduras has very weak local sovereignty, and that may actually be a key thing that needs to change. Money is spent better locally, and corruption is fought better too. Furthermore, local democracy with budget responsibility will foster more responsible citizens, and activists who try to work for results rather than take to the streets and demand action like overgrown children.

Congressmen and -women of Honduras: Give the people local budget responsibility, and watch them start working for bettering the roads, instead of blocking the roads!

Tags: ,
Posted in English | 1 Comment »

Eva Golinger, Venezuela’s paid “girlfriend”

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

Edited 2010-07-13, originally posted 2010-07-12: During the defolding of the crisis in Honduras last year, someone posted a text written by Eva Golinger as a comment on this blog. I of course disapproved it, as it was stolen work, but I was impressed with the text nonetheless. So better late than never I googled her to see who this person might be.

I found out that she has been described both as a political prostitute and as a new Tokyo Rose.

It turns out she was born in the US of A, but with Venezuelan roots on her mother’s side, her Latin name thus being Eva Golinger Calderon. Wikipedia says she has a JD, a juris doctorate, from CUNY in 2003. However, a search for her dissertation thesis on scholar.google.com yields no hits.* She is frequently represented as an attorney, and has even given paid legal advise to Venezuela’s propaganda office in the US. Again, even this has been cast in doubt in early 2005, and it seems she had been disingenuous about her legal credentials. Apparently later in 2005 she was, however, registered as an attorney.

However, the shoddy quality of her legal analyses regarding Honduras strongly suggest to me that she has never been close to a doctor’s hat in any discipline. Unless it was made of tin foil, possibly.*

I am not talking about her political “analyses”, as in this piece, “Honduras: A Victory for Smart Power”. That text is opinion and guesswork, not fact and logic. The hilarious thing is that she congratulates president Obama, her “enemy”, for something he didn’t do. And she does not give the Hondurans credit for something that they actually did do, namely to take their destiny in their own hands.

No, when I talk about shoddy quality I mean this blog article, “Coup d’Etat Underway in Honduras”. In it Golinger clearly states that the Supreme Court of Honduras (CSJ) had ruled the poll that president Zelaya was planning illegal. Small wonder, as I don’t think there is a single country in which it is legal to hold a Constituting Constitutional Assembly, since that implies abandoning the existing State. However, this seems to completely escape the alleged juris doctor.

Her substandard fact-finding is also evidenced by this statement in the same sentence: “[Honduras] has a very limited constitution that allows minimal participation by the people”. She propably has never read their constitution. It is anything but limited in sheer size, being one of the longest in the world, and the republican form of government is rather similar to that in her native USA.

This leads me to question her academic competence. She looked (albeit superficially) at the facts, and drew the wrong conclusion from a legal point of view. She apparently lacks the intellectual tools for carrying out a legal analysis based on the law. Either that, or she choses not to deploy them.

Although no thesis showed up on scholar.google.com, there were several books written by Golinger. They all seem to deal with criticism of the US for its interventionist foreign policy, and defense of Bolivarian Venezuela for its policy. While some of the criticism – or even much – of the US may be justified, she seems to have developed a case of paranoia. To think that the US was behind the events in Honduras is clearly not a sign of sanity. Her twisted description of reality is tragic.

The many revoked visas suggest a certain degree of displeasure in Washington visavi Tegucigalpa, which totally seems to have escaped Golinger. Conversely, there was a proposal in Tegucigalpa of throwing out the US from their country since they did not trust the gringos any more, now that Obama seemed to side with Chavez. The real reason why Washington did not go further in pressuring Tegucigalpa was probably that Micheletti was squeezing back, in a place where Obama felt it. Not that they supported the legal action taken.

On the other hand, Golinger is unquestionably defending Chavez, even though evidence has come forth that he was behind the murders at the airport, and the staged media propaganda both there and in El Paraiso (1,2,3,4,5,6). But why shouldn’t she? After all, Chavez did use her as a mouthpiece for attacking the US, calling her “la novia de Venezuela”, ‘Venezuela’s girlfriend’, and she was and is a paid hand in Chavez’s propaganda machine. This year she got hired as editor for the English language edition Correo del Orinoco International, a leftist newspaper launched in 2009 and financially backed by the Venezuelan government.

To sum up, some on the Internet has Eva Golinger as a cross between a political prostitute and Tokyo Rose. I don’t know if that is true or not. But if it were true, it would be quite a defamation. Of Tokyo Rose.

* Update 2010-07-13: After Eva Golinger has pointed out that she is a registered “attorney” I started researching the US legal education system and realized that a US “JD” is something completely different than a Swedish “JD”. No wonder she has no research skills; a USAmerican Juris Doctor has never done any research. Golinger’s education is a basic 2-year law education. In my Alma Mater, the basic education at “Juridicum” is 4.5 years, and a Juris Doctor must study nominally 4 more years after that (but the real average is longer), a big part of which is taken up by original research (just like any other doctor, including yours truly). So, I was way too hard on her above. She probably just lacks the academic training to be able to make the analysis.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in English | 15 Comments »

Why Sweden took side for Zelaya?

Thursday, July 8th, 2010

Honduras president Manuel Zelaya was executing an autogolpe, a self-coup, and for that he was deposed by the Supreme Court and the Congress. Still Europe sided with Zelaya, not with the institutions charged with preserving democracy in Honduras. To understand why, let’s look at the European Union.

Recently the EU (UE in Spanish) has changed its “constitution”. The member states had to approve that change. Take Sweden as example. The organ within the parliament that has to evaluate the legality of proposed legislation is called “Lagrådet”. Their analysis can be found here, in Swedish.

In short, they conclude that the proposed legislation violates the Swedish constitution by enabling the parliament to pass laws that have the effect of neutralizing parts of the constitution, without following the procedure required for changing the constitution. This is tantamount to a self-coup, a coup d’état executed by the one in power at the time.

So why did they not stop it? Well, they gave an argument that this change had in effect already been made, why this was not new. The creeping changes of the constitution that had been made in 1994 and 2002 had, according to them, already foreseen that more would come. At what point does it become a coup d’état? That is the question. Some say that the decision to pass this law was in fact a coup d’état in Sweden. It would be interesting to have this tried before the Supreme Court, to see if they agree.

Of course, given that this very questionable creeping change had been made in Sweden, how could the Swedish government then with a straight face say that Zelaya was not allowed to do the same thing? In fact, Sweden supported civil organizations in Honduras, and may even have encouraged this creeping change, I don’t know. All I know is that the judicial system in Honduras acted correctly in stopping it at the doorstep.

Tags: , ,
Posted in English | Comments Off

Unos Pocos Con Valor

Tuesday, July 6th, 2010

Never before have I written about a movie, much less one that hasn’t yet come out, but this one seems so relevant for the topic of this blog that I cannot ignore it.

It is called “Unos Pocos Con Valor” (A Few Brave Ones), and is tentatively hitting cinemas in August. Here is the trailer, and the official site of Unos Pocos Con Valor with a previous trailer from when Zelaya was president (it seems some actors have been replaced). It may seem like just another police movie, but the issue is very serious.

Kidnapping scene from "Unos Pocos Con Valor"

Kidnapping scene from "Unos Pocos Con Valor"

Honduras has for a decade had a serious problem with kidnappings. I doubt there is anyone in the country who has not had a family member or acquaintance kidnapped, and for sure there is nobody in the higher levels of society who didn’t know someone who got murdered by kidnappers.

Add to this that the country lately has been invaded by Mexican drug cartels, causing the murder rate to rise to the highest in the world. And that the police force is the smallest in Latin America, relatively speaking.

If I tell you that the movie takes place in Honduras, and deals with the police fighting kidnappers, I’m sure you can understand the choice of title. I just hope it is shown outside the Latin community as well, and in other countries, because too many people around the world have been misled about the true nature of the human rights situation in Honduras. Those misleading them, those behind the propaganda, have a vested interest with the criminals running amok in Honduras, because they benefit from the security apparatus failing.

Tags: ,
Posted in English | Comments Off

Honduras: The Big Picture

Friday, July 2nd, 2010

The deposing of the president of Honduras on June 28, 2009, has been interpreted in different ways by different groups. In this article I would like to offer the bigger perspective, and show how each of the other discourses fit into the bigger picture.

The world stage 2010. USA and military allies in dark green, ALBA in red, former member Honduras in white, informal allies in orange, and Latin American democratic ALBA-friendly governments in pink. Blue stars mark some US military bases, and the flash is the current war in Afghanistan.

The world stage 2010. USA and military allies in dark green, ALBA in red, former member Honduras in white, informal allies in orange, and Latin American democratic ALBA-friendly governments in pink (click for full resolution). Blue stars mark some US military bases, and the flash is the current war in Afghanistan. Dark grey indicates isolated dictatorships, and light green are non-classified.

Background

Honduras is the second poorest country in Latin America, after Nicaragua, its southern neighbour. A large part of the GDP comes from low-cost manufacturing for the US market, with bananas no longer being number one. The majority of the population lives below the poverty line. The other year, the Swedish government classified Honduras as the second most unequal country in the world, after Guatemala, its western neighbour. The present democratic constitution is from 1981. In that year an election was held during the last military rule, and the democratically elected president took office in 1982. The constitution is the longest surviving one in Honduras history, and it contains strict formulations to make new coups impossible. Yet, in 2009 the president was deposed. Honduras says it was because he tried to do a coup d’état and ran afoul of those strict prohibitions, while the rest of the world says that his deposing in itself was a coup d’état.

The arguments

Zelaya’s original argument

President Zelaya, elected in 2005, wanted to help the poor people. They were being suppressed by the rich, and they had no democratic influence. The only way in which they could get influence was to write a new constitution, by holding a Constituting Constitutional Assembly (and thus throw out the old constitution).

Comment: this is exactly what Chávez and several other presidents in ALBA have done.

Counter-argument

Nobody has explained in which way the existing constitution is to blame for the poverty, nor has anyone proposed what the new constitution would look like, or why a constituting assembly is required. The existing constitution can be changed by the elected representatives in Congress, and the president can propose changes – but he never did! There is only one relevant article that cannot be changed: The prohibition for the president to be reelected. Thus, the purpose of Zelaya’s policy must have been to enable reelection. Why is this important? Read on!

An alternative point of view

The poverty is rather a result of corruption, crime, a dysfunctional legal system, human rights violations, resulting in a somewhat failed State. The way out is to strengthen the rule of law, and the respect for the law. To overthrow the constitution, a patently unconstitutional act, would be totally counter-productive. Instead, the deposing of Zelaya by the rule of law was a good thing, that strengthened people’s belief in the State. The fact that many of his corrupt accomplices are now being prosecuted is a step in the right direction, but the fact that the present president is trying to stop the courts from doing this job is very discouraging. There is unfortunately a misunderstanding in the international community; they are effectively working to undermine the rule of law in Honduras, by pressuring Lobo to pressure the courts not to follow the law as they see it, but rather as the international community sees it (though they are no experts on Honduran jurisprudence).

The accusation that the US was behind the “coup”

This is based on two things: First that the US has supported military coups in Latin America and elsewhere in the past, and second that the US has a military base in Honduras (they are allowed to operate from the Palmerola, aka Soto Cano, military airport). Those making the accusation claim that the US acted to preserve its military base.

However, this is ridiculous on the face of it. First, since it was no coup according to Honduras. Second, since USA denies any involvement. Third, since even those having been accused of being behind the “coup” claim that USA made it clear in advance that Obama would not recognize the interim president, no matter how legal the procedure to replace Zelaya was. This stance was formulated by Senator John Kerry, according to my source.

Although in Kerry’s defense, he might just have been under the impression that there was no legal way to depose Zelaya, but that they were talking about a coup, the reason being that Honduras does not have the institution of impeachment. Rather, the president can be prosecuted and dealt with by the courts just like any other person.

ALBA

The arguments of Zelaya sound plausible for many, but they are not his real motivation. During the election campaign he received some $50 million from a South American country. They were transferred via a bank in El Salvador. Once in office he sent them back, but the money was returned. The message was clear: We don’t want your money, we want you to follow our orders.

Your guess is as good as mine as to who the money came from.

Chávez has oil millions, he started the ALBA political block, and he is anti-USA. Someone also contributed money to the election campaign of Rafael Correa in Ecuador, who once elected threw out the US military base from that country, changed the constitution so he could be reelected, and joined ALBA. When Evo Morales was elected president in Bolivia he, too, changed the constitution and joined ALBA. Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua also joined ALBA, and plans to change the laws so he can be reelected. Chávez, of course, already has changed “his” constitution.

ALBA is an anti-USA alliance named after Simon Bolivar. It has been suggested to become a military alliance, and it belongs in the far left politically. Although Chávez calls it a socialist revolution, it is probably more accurate to call it communist. They are armed by Russia and have contracted to get nuclear technology from Iran.

The hidden agenda

International politics is about influence. One way to get that is to project power. As is evident from the above map, USA and Russia (following the tradition of the Soviet Union) use different methods. Look for instance at the Guantanamo base on Cuba. USA retained that after the war with Spain. It is thus irrelevant who is running Cuba at present. Just like the colonial powers of  centuries past had fortresses around the coasts of Africa and India, surrounded by other countries, USA has military bases in other countries surrounded by sometimes friendly, sometimes hostile nations.

Russia does not. Instead, they have “sold” top modern fighter jets to Venezuela, apparently intended to be operated by Russian pilots if they are ever needed.

As we see, the US strategy does not depend on the colour of the government in the country. It can be a democracy that shifts policy every 4 years, doesn’t matter. USA maintains control of its military resources.

Russia, on the other hand, is using a strategy that hinges on that the government remains faithful to Moscow. This does not work well in a country where the president cannot be reelected.

I think I need to say no more. It is pretty obvious why the Honduran constitution had to change, from Moscow’s perspective (and this explains why an alleged Russian agent was spreading anti-Honduran propaganda in the US press, doesn’t it?).

You know, I suspect that the real strategist behind this is Fidel Castro. The whole game plan seems so based on the Cold War strategy that he knew so well. And no wonder he wanted Barack Obama elected president; he must have figured out that he would not dare to stop him by using a military coup, so by just playing Obama into a corner where any attempt of stopping Zelaya would even appear to be a military coup, Chávez would win. However, he didn’t know the Hondurans, the proudest little nation in the world last year.

Honduras security

The attackers have far from given up. They try to get the head of the supreme court deposed so that they can alter the composition of the court. They also want Zelaya’s corruption charges counted as political crimes, so that they will be covered by the political amnesty extended to all in January 2010 (against the will of the vast majority of the Honduran people, but forced on them by the international community as a condition for recognition). With those two things in place, Zelaya could return and continue his work with overthrowing the form of government, whether he is working as an agent for Venezuela, Cuba, or Russia itself.

Honduras value lies in two fields: First, that they could get rid of a US base there. Second, that they could make the country a base for themselves instead.

It is clear that the presence of the US military base does not make Honduras safer; quite the opposite. It is the very reason why attacking the country’s democracy and sovereignty is so attractive for the communists.

In light of this, one might ask if it wouldn’t be in the interest of both Honduras and USA to discontinue the Palmerola base in Honduras, and instead equip and train the Honduran military to carry out the necessary drug traffic control. Or perhaps some other arrangement, as long as it does not involve a US base on Honduran soil, because that is a democratic weakness. A strong democracy in Honduras, that does not attract attacks from anti-democratic forces, also seems in the US interest.

Another key factor is to decrease the social tensions in Honduras. The elite has got the message. They have understood how their behaviour has undermined the safety of their country. The time for compromise and a new social contract is now. The poor have never had a better opportunity to negotiate, but they need to talk to their countrymen, and not listen to the foreign agitators and their Quislings.

Honduras is at a cross-roads. There is a good way to take, and a bad. But one thing they should not do. They should not listen to the international community. They should sit down in a closed room and make peace between themselves, and then stand united without any foreign influence. That is the meaning of free, independent, and sovereign.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in English | 1 Comment »

Är SIDA på regeringens sida?

Thursday, July 1st, 2010

Uppdatering 2010-07-02: Vid förnyad kontroll av Sidas online artikel, senast besökt 23 juni, konstaterades att en redigering och ett tillägg (i kursiv) gjorts den 28 juni. Det lyder nu:

“Sverige, liksom huvuddelen av EU:s medlemmar och de flesta andra länder i Latinamerika, erkände inte den nya regeringen eftersom man ansåg att Honduras först måste återgå till vad som kallas den konstitutionella ordningen, det vill säga att Zelaya först måste återinträda som president och få göra klart sin period innan en ny president kan tillträda.”
“I juni 2010 lever nu den avsatte presidenten Zelaya i exil. Sverige, liksom huvuddelen av EU:s medlemmar och andra givarländer, har erkänt Lobos regering som legitim och utvecklingssamarbetet har därmed återupptagits med Honduras.“

Uppdatering 2010-07-01 19:18 ET: Regeringen har nu beslutat att tillsätta en ny styrelse för Sida, rapporterar DN. Detta sedan generaldirektören, Anders Nordström, sparkades i maj. Sista meningen nedan verkar onekligen träffande. Jag har fått känslan av att Sida har bedrivit en politik långt till vänster om den hos regeringen, inte minst vad gäller Honduras. Vi får se om det blir någon ändring nu. Det skulle ju inte ha varit helt fel om organisationen hade använt några av sina kontakter i Honduras för att hjälpa till i den politiska krisen förra året.

Ursprunglig post 2010-06-23 14:24 ET: Idag besökte jag SIDAs website för att se vad de skriver om Honduras. Som bekant försökte president Manuel Zelaya genomföra en statskupp där förra året, och satte sig över alla de andra statsmakterna. Han beslöt starta en process för att kullkasta det demokratiska statsskicket, göra sig av med landets grundlag, och han struntade högönskligen och uttryckligen i de order som högsta domstolen gav honom. Zelaya hade stöd i denna statskupp av Venezuelas president Hugo Chavez, själv en gammal militärkuppmakare, men också av sekreteraren för Organisationen för Amerikanska Stater, Insulza (som flydde från Chile efter den blodiga militärkuppen mot Allende); och, visade det sig, även av ordföranden för FNs generalförsamling, den gamla sandinistarevolutionären D’Escoto.

Den ideologiska bakgrunden för Zelayas agerande kan man läsa om i denna artikel ifrån Nicaragua, publicerad i augusti 2007 (den är på engelska). Vid den tidpunkten hade vänsterflygeln i Honduras liberala parti, kallade patricierna efter den ideologiskt tongivande personen, utrikesministern Patricia Rodas, redan blivit totalt politiskt isolerade i landet. Det heter att Zelaya styr presidentpalatset som en hacienda (vilket bekräftats för mig av flera som jobbade där; vad det betyder i form av auktotritära metoder och våldsbruk kan man se om man tittar på en typisk mexikansk såpopera), men att han inte hade något som helst inflytande utanför själva presidentpalatset. Rodas är sandinistaromantiker. Hennes mamma är från Nicaragua, hon växte upp där under revolutionen. Hennes pappa höll på att vinna presidentvalet i Honduras 1963, och det var för att hindra honom från att bli president som den blodiga militärkuppen genomfördes i oktober det året. Det har fått Rodas att ha en nagel i sidan till de som stödde kuppen, bland dem fadern till liberala partiets starke man och fd president, Flores. Micheletti tillhör Flores-falangen av det liberala partiet, den liberala falangen så att säga, till skillnad från patriciernas vänsterflygel.

Efter det att artikeln skrevs blev utvecklingen så som författaren förutspådde: Den enda chansen för patricierna att kunna behålla något inflytande efter 2009 års val var att liera sig med Hugo Chavez i Venezuela, och hans sk Bolivarianska Revolution i Latinamerika. Chavez militärkupp misslyckades som bekant, men senare blev han demokratiskt vald till president. Efter det ändrade han grundlagen så att han kunde bli omvald. Venezuela är nu på väg att bli en socialistisk diktatur. Företag och jordbruk socialiseras hej vilt utan ersättning till de rättmätiga ägarna. Statens finanser är katastrofalt dåliga. Landet rustar militärt trots att det inte har någon reell fiende. De har inte heller några utbildade soldater till att sköta den toppmoderna ryska utrustningen, utan i händelse av väpnad konflikt är de helt beroende av att utländska soldar kommer in – kanske ryska, kanske kubanska, kanske iranska. Chavez har nära militära förbindelser med alla tre.

Liksom Chavez, och senare den av SIDA tydligen uppskattade presidenten i Bolivien, Evo Morales, och även president Correa i Ecuador, försökte Zelaya ändra grundlagen så att presidenten kunde bli omvald. Honduras grundlag hade emellertid ett mycket starkare förbud mot omval än dessa länders; att ens föreslå en förändring av det förbudet leder till att den som föreslår det omedelbart upphör i sitt förtroendeämbete. Även presidenten. (Boliviens nya grundlag röstades igenom utan riktig debatt mitt under en pågående eldstrid, och långt från huvudstaden.)

Zelaya försökte köra över kongressen och högsta domstolen genom att få alla att tro att han hade militären på sin sida. Den som håller i den laddade pistolen kan ju strunta i alla lagar och regler. Men den 24 juni 2009 sprack illusionen, då militären öppet sa att de inte kunde stödja presidentens plan för en olaglig folkomröstning den 28 juni. Zelaya avskedade då militärchefen, men högsta domstolen förklarade den 25 juni avskedandet olagligt. Militären hade ju bara följt lagen och domstolens order – till skillnad från presidenten. Den 25 begärde riksåklagaren presidenten häktad för hans för alla uppenbara domstolstrots, och den 26 utfärdade högsta domstolen häktningsordern till militären. Zelayas statskupp hade därmed stoppats av de demokratiska institutionerna. Den 28 juni i gryningen exekverade militären ordern, men tog av säkerhetsskäl presidenten ur landet istället för att sätta honom i något av de av lagen godkända häktena.

Riksåklagaren väckte senare talan mot militären för detta myndighetsmissbruk, men högsta domstolen ogillade talan eftersom de hade haft rikets säkerhet i åtanke. Honduras fortsatte att styras enligt grundlagen utan något som helst avbrott. Alla tjänstemän som inte hade varit delaktiga i kuppförsöket kvarstod, medan de som hade skuld blev åtalade. Som ny president utsågs den som grundlagen anvisade, i detta fall Roberto Micheletti. Han ledde landet på ett föredömligt sätt under 7 månader, trots att inget land i världen erkände hans regim. Chavez, Ortega och Castro skickade hejdukar och dollar till Honduras för att skapa oordning. De skapade “martyrer” och anklagade sedan landets lagliga regering för att bryta mot de mänskliga rättigheterna. Bortsett från dessa länder och deras allierade så fick dock dessa lögner inte det genomslag som de hade väntat. Honduras under president Micheletti fick hjältestatus bland många latinamerikaner, och han får fortsatt hedersbetygelser för sitt försvar av demokratin.

Det står alltså helt klart att den som försökte göra en kupp i Honduras var presidenten, Manuel Zelaya, och de som stoppade kuppen och försvarade grundlagen var de demokratiska institutionerna. Om Zelayas grundlagsbrott kan det inte råda någon tvekan. De som hävdar annorlunda måste kalla samtliga Honduras demokratiska institutioner “kuppmakare”. De måste säga att “högsta domstolen är kuppmakare”. De måste säga att “kongressen är kuppmakare”. Därmed måste de säga, indirekt, att “folket är kuppmakare”. Det finns de som gör allt detta, och bristen på sunt förnuft hos dem är så absurd att man häpnar.

Efter att den nyvalde Porfirio Lobo tillträtt som president har alla länder erkänt hans regim, utom några kommunistaffilierade länder i Latinamerika. På SIDAs webplats står det dock fortfarande, idag den 23 juni 2010, att Sverige inte erkänner Honduras utan kräver att “Zelaya först måste återinträda som president”. Det är ganska anmärkningsvärt, eftersom det är fullständigt grundlagsvidrigt för en president i Honduras att sitta mer än 4 år, och Zelayas period gick ut den 27 januari 2010. Dessutom står det i artikeln att den uppdaterades den 17 maj 2010, långt efter den 27 januari således.

Jag frågar mig därför om SIDA bara har missat att hålla koll på fakta, eller om de medvetet bedriver en annan politik än svenska regeringen.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Svenska | 1 Comment »

Propagandan tog skruv även i Sverige

Wednesday, June 30th, 2010

I onsdags morse publicerade Second Opinion en artikel jag skrivit om hur media misslyckats med att genomskåda propagandan* om Honduras (Redaktionerna föll för propagandan). Redan samma dag på eftermiddagen tog fallet en ny vändning som till och med gav mig ståpäls.

En av dem som mest ihärdigt spridit anti-honduransk propaganda i USA avslöjades som en rysk spion: Vicky Peláez (jfr DN).

Men vad har Ryssland med Honduras att göra, undrar kanske vän av logik. Så här är det. Propaganda är ineffektiv om det framgår vem avsändaren är. Det gäller att se till att budskapet ser ut att komma från en oberoende, tredje part, enligt branchens grand old man, Bernays (”Propaganda”, 1928). Därför är det bättre att en till synes respektabel journalist skriver det i en respektabel tidning som El Diario, än att Hugo Chávez harklar ur sig det i sitt TV-program “Hallå presidenten”.

Detta för oss från Honduras till Venezuela, men inte till Ryssland. Titta emellertid på denna karta från en tidigare bloggartikel:

Röda länder är medlemmar i den socialistiska Amerikanska Bolivarianska Alliansen, ALBA. Världspolitiskt är ALBA lierat med Brasilien, Ryssland och Iran. Honduras lämnade ALBA den 13 januari 2010.

Röda länder är medlemmar i den socialistiska Amerikanska Bolivarianska Alliansen, ALBA. Världspolitiskt är ALBA lierat med Brasilien, Ryssland och Iran. Honduras lämnade ALBA den 13 januari 2010.

Både Ryssland och Iran har avtal om samarbete med Venezuela inom det militära, och inom kärnkraft. Det handlar om köp av materiel, tekniköverföring, och experthjälp. Till exempel har Venezuela köpt toppmoderna ryska stridsflygplan som de saknar piloter till. Samtidigt har Ryssland åter sänt en flotta till Karibien. Man kan misstänka att planen är avsedda att flygas av ryska piloter.

Det kan också uttryckas så att Ryssland har stationerat stridsmaterial på Venezuelas område. Varför säger de inte bara det? Enkelt; de har ju kritiserat USA för att använda militärbaser i Colombia. Det skulle vara alltför skenheligt om Chávez öppet hade gjort likadant med Ryssland istället.

I praktiken är av allt att döma Venezuela, Ryssland, liksom Kuba och Iran alltså allierade mot USA. Detta förklarar bättre engagemanget mot Honduras demokrati. USA hade tills härom året 3 militärbaser i Latinamerika: Kuba, Honduras, och Ecuador.

Den i Ecuador stängdes efter att Chávez skyddsling Rafael Correa kastat ut dem (uppgifter förekommer att Chávez finansierade Correas valkampanj genom FARC, knarkgerillan i Colombia, ett land som ligger mellan Venezuela och Ecuador).

Basen på Kuba, Guantanamo, finns kvar, men Castro-regimen hävdar att den saknar laglig grund.

Basen i Honduras, känd som Palmerola även om den officiellt är omdöpt, ville Zelaya stänga (även hans valkampanj finansierades, till tonen av miljontals dollar enligt flera oberoende källor, från Sydamerika). Den är viktig för bekämpningen av kokainsmugglingen till USA. Ungefär hälften av kokainet går genom Honduras.

Ur ett strategiskt perspektiv skulle det hjälpa Ryssland om USA tvingades lämna Honduras. Det kan också handla om påtryckningar; Ryssland vill nog helst att USA lämnar flygbaserna i Centralasien. Kanske Putin tänker att det bästa sättet att få bort amerikanarna från hans närområde är att ge dem problem i deras närområde.

Ur svenskt perspektiv är det viktigt att notera att Brasilien är på samma sida som Venezuela, Ryssland och Iran i detta propagandakrig. Genom att brassarna säger sig vara spekulanter på JAS Gripen binder de fast svensk utrikespolitik på Rysslands sida mot Honduras.

De enda länder som hela tiden varit på Honduras sida, och då bara bakom lyckta dörrar, är Colombia, Panama, Israel och Taiwan. I tre av fallen är det enkelt att se varför: Principen är helt enkelt att min fiendes fiende är min vän. Syrien och Kina är allierade till Venezuela, och fientligt inställda till Israel respektive Taiwan. Colombia är ju Chávez älsklingsfiende som bekant. Panama är kanske det land som mest öppet försvarat Honduras, och sagt att det inte är en militärregim utan att militären betett sig föredömligt.

Som vi ser handlar det alltså om storpolitik, ett kallt krig bedrivet med propaganda. Lilla fattiga Honduras hamnade mitt i skottgluggen, men till deras heder gav sig inte president Micheletti trots att ett (på ytan) enat världssamfund pressade på. Slumpen gjorde honom till president, men hans agerande gjorde honom till landshjälte.

* Propagandan säger att det var en militärkupp i Honduras. Se förra artikeln för mer info.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Svenska | Comments Off

Ett år efter att Zelaya avsattes

Monday, June 28th, 2010

Allt väsentligt har redan skrivits på denna blogg, så jag nöjer mig med att sammanfatta läget med en bild:

Manuel Zelaya åkte inte i fängelse utan fick en gyllene fallskärm. Han lever nu i lyx utomlands.

Manuel Zelaya åkte inte i fängelse utan fick en gyllene fallskärm. Han lever nu i lyx utomlands.

Länkar:

Första artikeln på denna blogg. Den och de närmast följande visar hur sökandet efter sanningen tog sig ut den första veckan. Jag lyckades få tag på dokument till min blogg som de flesta inom media och andra granskare inte hade tillgång till. Se också högerkolumnen och de där länkade dokumenten.

Redaktionerna föll för propagandan – en debattartikel på Second Opinion som jag skrev för att försöka få till stånd en självkritisk analys i svenska media. BREAKING NEWS: En av de 11 i USA arresterade spionerna var en av dem som spred anti-honduransk propaganda, genom tidningen El Diario i New York. Det avslöjar att Ryssland och Venezuela samarbetar inte bara militärt och med kärnkraft, utan även inom propagandans område.

Bilder från Zelayas självvalda exil.

Spansk websajt Hondudiario från i fjor med nyheten att en konsultrapport beställd av FN drog slutsatsen att avsättandet av Zelaya var lagligt, och att det alltså inte var en kupp (FN har inte agerat på något sätt på den rapporten).

USAs kongressbiblioteks juridiska rapport som konkluderade att avsättandet var lagligt (USA har inte agerat på något sätt på den rapporten).

Human Rights Foundations rapport som kom fram till att Honduras högsta domstol hade laglig rätt och laga skäl att avsätta Zelaya.

Amerikanskhonduransk blogg, på engelska, med ett ganska typiskt perspektiv.

Blogg, på spanska, av en honduranskvenezolansk specialist på grundlag, Dr. Alvaro Albornoz, i vilken han poängterar betydelsen av att i Honduras separationen mellan statsmakterna fungerade som tänkt, vilket ger nytt hopp åt världens alla förtryckta folk.

Tags: ,
Posted in Svenska | Comments Off

First anniversary of Zelaya’s failed coup d’état

Monday, June 28th, 2010

Update 2010-06-28: Today is the anniversary of the deposing of Zelaya. La Gringa in La Ceiba, Honduras, has written a very good blog article summing up the situation. She is unfortunately correct in that the hope and optimism under Micheletti has largely vanished under Lobo. It started when he went to Dominican Republic and signed a deal to let Zelaya leave Honduras, before he even took office. At that point Micheletti withdrew from the limelight, and the people raged against Lobo without the previous president to channel their feelings. That is, however, how democracy works; alternation at power. What those who liked Micheletti can do is to channel their frustration and their desire for change into creating a better political platform, and candidates that support that platform, for the next election. Create a platform that is grassroots-based, that is about realpolitik, concrete actions, not ideals.

MelgoldenparachuteEN

Original post 2010-06-23: On June 24, 2009, the head of the joint chiefs of staff in Honduras, general Romeo Vasquez Velasquez, told his president, Manuel Zelaya Rosales, that the military was unable to carry out the order they had been given to distribute ballots for a referendum on June 28, since the Supreme Court of Justice had issued an injunction against anyone in Honduras participating in that endeavor.

With that statement, Zelaya’s coup d’état came off its tracks. Without the support of the military he could not win. If the military took orders from the Supreme Court, he would not be able to throw out the constitution of the republic as he had planned.

“Mel” Zelaya’s response was to fire general Vasquez, but immediately he did so, the other chiefs of staff handed him their resignations, starting with the head of the army, general Miguel Garcia Padgett. This is public knowledge, but what happened behind closed doors is not.

In the face of this setback, Zelaya understood that he was, to put it bluntly, screwed. He decided to throw in the towel and resign, according to my sources. However, there were powerful business interests who had vested economical interests in him continuing in power. What exactly those interests are I do not know, but given the extensive misappropriation of public funds that has been revealed after his departure from office (he didn’t even have a budget the last year!), one may guess that there were those who wanted certain things to stay hidden. Others might have lucrative oil contracts related to the deal with ALBA (Chavez’s band of countries, who get to buy oil on loan on favorable terms) – they must have understood that if Zelaya left office, the oil would stop flowing, and thus the loans that allegedly didn’t have to be paid back. You all know what that is called in plain English.

The reason Zelaya did not hand in the resignation letter on June 25 was allegedly that he was persuaded not to. He was persuaded to stay and fight, to take a mob to the military to retrieve the ballots, and to completely run roughshod over all the democratic institutions. Whoever persuaded him managed to convince him that if he was only bold enough, the tepid public servants would not dare to stop him.

But they did.

The key persons were anything but tepid. They may have appeared tepid, but when faced with real and imminent danger to the democratic form of government, they stepped up to the challenge and acted like veritable heroes.

Honduras thus managed to preserve its constitution. As we all know, the actual act of removing Zelaya from office was, unfortunately, erroneously interpreted by the whole world as a military coup. An enormous pressure was put on the constitutional interim president, Roberto Micheletti Bain, to effectively abandon Honduras’s sovereignty.

He did not.

Micheletti turned out to be the right person at the right place at the right time. He fiercely defended Honduras’s independence and sovereignty, and made Honduras into a symbol of pride in Latin America. This image, which I first saw on a site in Venezuela, illustrates that beautifully:

Tags: , , ,
Posted in English | 7 Comments »

Honduran Presidency for Dummies

Thursday, June 10th, 2010

On the occasion of president Porfirio “Pepe” Lobo’s statement yesterday that they are planning a coup d’état against him, I have decided that it may be useful to write a little manual for Honduran presidents. This is a temporary manual awaiting the report from the Truth Commission, due in January 2011, since that report should give instructions on how to avoid another epic fail: getting de-recognized by the whole world after the democratic institutions deposed the president. So hear goes.

Rule 1: You know that piece of paper they call the constitution? Read it! I know it is long, but it is actually important. The courts base their decisions on it, you know. And the prosecutor bases his prosecutions on it, too.

Rule 2: Don’t ever tell the courts, or the prosecutor, what they should or should not do. Whatever they do, just say “it is a separate branch of government and as president I cannot comment on their actions.” Don’t even ask them for information about ongoing cases. That violates the separation of powers.

Rule 3: If the court tells you to do something, do it. If they tell you not to do something, do not do it. It’s rather simple, actually.

Rule 4: If you are told that someone is planning a coup d’état against you, then shut up; do not say a word in public about it. Let the investigative arm of government investigate, and if they find foul play, let the prosecutor prosecute, and let the courts rule. But as president you should stay out of it, and not comment on it while things are ongoing. After the verdict has been passed and the sentence is firm, then you can comment, but not before.

Rule 5: If rule 4 does not apply since it is the prosecutor and courts that are planning a coup d’état against you, apply rule 4 and shut up. You see, there is one legal way to depose of you, and that is if the prosecutor prosecutes you and the court separates you from the office of the presidency. So if they are planning a coup d’état against you, it is no coup d’état. Suck it up, and repeat rule 1.

Rule 6: You can not get around the constitution by overthrowing the constitution. Holding a constituting constitutional assembly to write a new constitution from scratch is not a working strategy, since it violates the existing constitution. Only Congress can change the constitution, and nobody can overthrow it. In fact, if someone was to hold a constituting constitutional assembly and declare the old constitution no longer in force, then the last article of the existing constitution permits every institution and person in Honduras to use basically whatever force is necessary to assure that the existing constitution remains in force. That includes arresting the president. So if the president tries to overthrow the constitution, he is essentially an “outlaw” in the original sense of the word: Totally outside of, and unprotected by, the law.

Rule 7: You were elected to run the country and to improve conditions for the people of Honduras. If you stick to that mission, and refrain from violating the laws in the process, you have a good chance of finishing your term and be allowed to continue living in your country as a free man (or woman, as the case one day may be).

Rule 8: The most important thing for prosperity is investments. The most important thing for investors is risk reduction. Keep this in mind, and try to always act such that you instill confidence in your country among investors, foreign and domestic. This is the most important rule after rule 1.

Rule 9: Honduras can be among the 40 richest countries within 40 years, and if you don’t believe that, then you probably shouldn’t be president.

Tags: ,
Posted in English | 2 Comments »

Honduras’s President: They plan a coup against me

Wednesday, June 9th, 2010

Honduras’s newly elected president, Porfirio Lobo, claimed Wednesday that there are forces within Honduras that are planning a coup d’état against him. He named no one, but the local radio chain HRN said that three leaders in the president’s own party, the Nacionalistas, are behind it.

Last year then-president Manuel Zelaya from the liberal party was deposed and replaced by another liberal, after he had failed to heed orders from the Supreme Court to cease and desist in trying to overthrow the constitution of Honduras. President Lobo is seen by some as pursuing the same path as Zelaya. His own party is totally against that policy, much more so than the liberal party.

The Union Civica Democratica, UCD, says that these are very serious allegations, and express surprise because if someone is planning a coup d’état it is because they have control of the armed forces, which seems not to be the case.

Or could it simply be that Lobo has read my blog? And maybe got scared over my warnings that the next time a president is deposed it may be in a real military coup, and a bloody one at that? After all, given how much trouble Zelaya has caused, why would any real coupster ever want to leave a president alive again?

If this is the case, then Mr. Lobo, pay attention: You are getting paranoid. Stop looking for ghosts, and start taking care of the business of Honduras instead. There are many things to do. The investment climate must be improved, and that means making investors feel that Honduras is a safe and predictable country. You have to make them certain that democracy and the rule of law are for ever, and that nobody ever will succeed in making a coup, neither a self-coup nor a military coup.

Mr. Lobo, what you just did was perhaps the most stupid thing you possibly could have done in a hundred years.

Tags: , ,
Posted in English | 3 Comments »

The Anti-Semitic Rebels of Honduras

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010

Since the anti-coup on June 28 last year, when president Zelaya’s self-coup was stopped, I have been told that there is a strong element of anti-Arab (as well as anti-Jew) sentiment among the rebels who support Zelaya (the rebels call themselves “resistencia”). Since both Arabs and Jews are Semitic peoples, they are thus anti-Semitic. However, for lack of enough evidence I have refrained from writing about it. Until now. Except for Radio Globo’s director’s statement on air that it was a pity that Hitler did not succeed in exterminating all Jews, of course.

However, today I came across a collection of graffiti from Tegucigalpa, and in several photos you see the attacks on Arabs.

caption

"Fuego a los árabes", 'To the fire with the arabs', says this graffiti written by supporters of deposed president Manuel Zelaya (this post originally said "Fuera", 'out', taken from the site I found the picture on, but at closer look it actually says "Fuego", much worse...).

The Arabs they are referring to are Palestinians. During the Ottoman Empire, Christian businessmen from (mostly) Bethlehem came to Honduras to engage in trade. Since they held a Turkish (Ottoman) passport they were called Turks, which was until recently still used as an insult in Honduras (the reverse insult is “Indio”, ‘Indian’). It seems, however, that they have understood that the Palestinians are not Turks but Arabs – at least to language. Strictly speaking the Arabs are the Bedouins of the desert, while Palestinians have a quite different genetic background, with more European ancestry, and occasionally they even have blue eyes (though not blonde hair).

Arabes facistas asesinos, Arabs fascists murderers, proclaims this racist graffiti written by a Zelaya-supporter.

"Arabes facistas asesinos", 'Arabs fascists murderers', proclaims this racist graffiti written by a Zelaya-supporter.

Since these Palestinians came to Honduras they have – through hard work, using their skills as businessmen, and understanding the importance of a good education for their children – managed to become somewhat of an industrial upper class in Honduras. They have created the most successful business town in Central America: San Pedro Sula. There are also a few Jewish families, and in Honduras the Jews and Palestinians are like two branches of the same family.

I guess it is this success that breeds envy, just like the success of the Jews in Europe bred envy that politicians without a conscience exploited over there in the past century. This undercurrent of racism is potentially dangerous, and it has to be curbed by the leaders of any organization where it appears. When will Zelaya speak out against anti-Semitism? When will Chavez speak out against anti-Semitism?

Tags: , ,
Posted in English | 5 Comments »

« Older Entries