Tag Archives: Kerry

Axel Oxenstierna was right

In 1648, if I’m not mistaken, Swedish chancellor Axel Oxenstierna wrote to his son, who he was sending to negotiate the Peace of Westphalia after the Thirty Years War, “If you only knew, my son, with how little wisdom the world is run.”

Today that statement appears more true than ever.

Why? Because I’ve been exchanging some polite emails today with the person who handles Honduras in the U.S. Senate’s foreign relations committee. Instead of me telling you, let me just post it, in chronological order. [UPDATE 2010-09-27: The staffer asked that his words be removed, which I have now done. Just for the record, I did explain upfront when contacting the committee that I was doing research for a book, and I never implied that I intended for our exchange to be off the record.]

From: Ulf Erlingsson
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 11:46 AM
To: [withheld] (Foreign Relations)
Subject: Update on Honduras

First, thank you for taking the time to clarify the position of the committee. After our conversation I confronted the person who said that Kerry had stopped the planned arrest on June 25 and asked where he had got that information. He said he couldn’t remember, but it was for sure not from Llorens, “Llorens would never say anything”. He went on to say that he doesn’t think I will get any information from anyone until – pay attention – the truth commission has presented its report.

Incidentally, I proposed that truth commission to interim president Micheletti, and he put it in the proposal in San Jose. My intention was that the truth about why and how Zelaya was deposed should come out, but based on what this source said, it seems not likely to happen. That would be a shame.

What bothers me is WHY people would not talk until the commission is gone. I don’t believe it is because they are hiding a coup. Based on what I have heard in informal talks, it is rather because they are afraid that the truth commission is biased against them. And that the US is also biased against them, and will interfere with the sovereignty of Honduras, negatively affecting its democracy and the rule of law. I don’t know if this is true or not, I’m just telling you what impression I get, and it is disturbing to me.

I realize that you have come to a different conclusion, but let me tell you how I see it. When I grew up my neighbours had fled Germany, and I always wondered why the Germans had not stopped Hitler when he made himself a dictator. What happened in Honduras was that Zelaya in fact made himself a dictator. If the Congress and/or the Supreme Court had NOT deposed him, he would have been a dictator. A dictator is a dictator not because he says so, but because he oversteps his authority and THE OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT ALLOW HIM to do that. What Honduras democratic institutions did was NOT to allow him. They acted in defense of the constitution. If they overstepped the Constitution in some technical sense [it] is not a cause for reinstating Zelaya, Zelaya was already finished. If there was reason to depose also Micheletti, then the only one who could have taken the presidency was the next person in the succession line, the Supreme Court justice Rivera. And Micheletti made it clear that he was prepared to step down and let Rivera take over.

I have the impression that this view is shared by those who now will not talk about it… And I think you can understand why. If they feel they have done what they had to do for their country, but are being punished by the international community and the US for it, and not getting a fair deal, why talk?

Personally I believe that a judicial process would have been preferable, since it would avoid the political bias altogether. Unfortunately, as far as I know, the new president has effectively stopped all chances of judicial solutions. Incidentally, to me it signals that he has got something to hide himself – and it is for sure not being a part of any “coup” AGAINST Zelaya. As you surely know, he supported Zelaya’s ambition to overthrow the constitution, and many believe he still does.

My advise to you is to listen without prejudice to those involved, including not at least the attorney general and the supreme court. But how can you, when they have no visa to go to the US? There are many who suspect that the main reason to withdraw the visas wasn’t to punish them, but to avoid that they travel to the US and told the truth.


Ulf Erlingsson, PhD

From: [withheld] (Foreign Relations)
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 12:25 PM
To: Ulf Erlingsson
Subject: Re: Update on Honduras

[removed on the author’s request]

I later decided to try to focus on finding some common ground, to be constructive, and wrote the following:

From: Ulf Erlingsson
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 4:21 PM
To: [withheld] (Foreign Relations)
Subject: Re: Update on Honduras

If I may give you a piece of advice in all sincerity, I believe that it would be more constructive for a positive development of law and order, democracy, and prosperity, both in Honduras and here, if we all focused more on the things we agree on, and draw the dividing line to those that do not agree on the need for rule of law and democracy. Look at the simple diagram I made. Your view is in the red field, mine is in the white. Until recently I believed that those were the only two, but now I have got it pointed out to me by the author of the book “The Good Coup” that there is a substantial group of people who actually believe it was a coup to depose Zelaya, but who support that (the blue field). These are the golpistas; both the white and the red are democrats.

I think you will find it more fruitful to cooperate with the democrats. The difference in view just reflects a difference in legal analysis, while the two agree on the importance of following the law (well, except those who want to overthrow the Constitution, of course).

There will be people who disobey the law, but the main thing is to rally for the idea of following the law, and to acknowledge the arguments of the opponents as well. If we cannot do that, then we end up in a political situation dominated by loud-mouthed extremists, not unlike the situation today in, eh, the USA…


From: [withheld] (Foreign Relations)
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 16:27 PM
To: Ulf Erlingsson
Subject: Re: Update on Honduras

[removed on the author’s request]

I appreciate that he took the time to respond, but frankly, it might have been advisable to read the email he was responding to first, to avoid beating down open doors. As for the claims that he made in the first response, there is that little problem that in all the cases that I have tried to investigate, I have never found evidence to support it. It is not very professional to write the way he does, especially for someone employed by an actual government. Let alone in a superpower.

To Honduras I say, don’t try to become like USA. Put your ambition level much higher than that!

Immature on democracy in the US Senate

In a report by the ranking Republican, Senator Lugar, to the U.S. Senate committee on foreign relations, Multilateralism in the Americas: Let’s start by fixing the OAS, the Organization for American States is criticized for its failure in relation to the coups in Venezuela 2002 and Honduras 2009, as the report puts it. The OAS reacted when the military intervened, but not when the president violated the constitution. On page 10 it says: “In both Venezuela and Honduras, executive defiance of other government institutions provoked the breakdown of democratic rule.”

That sentence is very disturbing. It reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the concept of separation of powers.

The Honduran Congress has shown a much higher degree of understanding of democracy than those staff writers in the U.S. Senate.

The Hondurans, unlike the Americans, understood that executive defiance of other government institutions constituted a breakdown of democratic rule – it didn’t provoke it, it was it.

I find it troubling that staff in the Congress of the United States of America have so little understanding for democracy. Then again, it does explain why they did not impeach president Bush XLIII, although there was prima facie evidence that he, just like Chávez and Zelaya, also violated his country’s constitution.

My recommendation would be to look at their own House first, so to say. How would the U.S. democratic institutions react if something similar were to happen here? If Obama would try to overthrow the Constitution, would you just sit idly by, Senator Lugar? Not that I think there is any risk, but it may be in order to contemplate the situation. The U.S. is a very young country and lacks domestic experience from these things. It is worth keeping this saying in mind: “You have to learn from other people’s mistakes, because you don’t live long enough to make them all yourself.”

Sweden has had some showdowns between the executive and the popularly elected parliament in its history. It should be perfectly clear that since no branch of government is above the other, a president who defies the other branches of government, beyond a certain point which reasonably would be the use of force against them, has lost any legitimacy and can be deposed as allowed for by the Constitution. This is precisely what Honduras did.

Once you can respond to how the U.S. would handle a crisis such as the one Honduras was faced with, then, Senator Lugar, you have the standing to make recommendations to the OAS, or to criticize Honduras.

Möte med “resistencian”

Igår mötte jag för första gången personer som höll på den så kallade resistencian i Honduras. Hade diskussion i enrum med två av dem. Den ene höll med om att Mel Zelaya inte var någon sympatisk person, minst sagt (hustrumisshandel, otrohet, mm). En del av de “fakta” hon grundade sin åsikt på var felaktiga, till exempel att häktningsordern skulle vara en efterkonstruktion. Hon vacklade i sin syn, men just då kom mannen in och vi kunde aldrig fortsätta diskussionen. Smög till henne adressen till denna blogg, så kanske dyker någon kommentar upp här?

Den andre var mera bestämd i sin inställning, men han medgav att jag hade en poäng när jag sa att endast högsta domstolen kan ha sista ordet i hur lagen skall tolkas, och de har inte sagt att det var en statskupp. Samtidigt höll jag med honom att det var olagligt att avlägsna Zelaya ur landet, och, la jag till, det var mycket dumt gjort att göra häktningsordern hemlig. Alla, även jag, som inte kände till häktningsorderns existens, trodde ju att det var en militärkupp. Endast ett fåtal, inklusive hustrun, visste att militären bara agerade på domstolens order.

Härom dagen fick jag höra av en källa nära arméchefen att USA-militärerna på Palmerolabasen hade gett sitt godkännande till planen att arrestera Zelaya. Idag fick jag information från en välinsatt källa att den ursprungliga planen var att arrestera honom den 26:e, men att senator John Kerry, ordförande för senatens utrikesutskott, hade stoppat det. Budet hade gått till USAs ambassadör i Honduras, Hugo Llorens, varvid planen avblåstes. När den senare genomfördes natten mellan den 27 och 28 juni så informerades inte USA, för att förhindra ytterligare inblandning. Den verkliga problemmakaren enligt denna källa är vare sig Barack Obama eller Hillary Clinton, utan John Kerry.

Nu bär det av hemåt igen. Mitt intryck av Honduras är att det är i stort sett lugnt, och det skulle förvåna mig mycket om “resistencian” skulle lyckas sabotera mer än en promille av vallokalerna, eller påverka valdeltagandet med mer än någon enstaka procent.

PS. Här är en analys av de olika grupperna i “resistencian”, på engelska.